When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Jason]

Why do I have to pay for someone else's abortion or birth control? I have no moral or legal obligation to do so. If you can't afford birth control, here's a tip. DON'T f***. And if you get pregnant from CONSENSUAL SEX and can't afford an abortion, live with the consequences or take out a loan to pay for it.

This isn't the United States of False Entitlement.

You have the right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Your right ends where another's begins. But a government mandate that tells me I have to pay taxes to provide for birth control and abortions for "underprivileged women" (let's be real, many of these 'underprivileged women" are the Sandra Fluke types in universities)...no. Never. This is another reason why I will defend the right to bear arms - to keep people who THINK they have a right to my life and my liberty from unlawfully depriving ME of it...by any means necessary.

So, a 13, 14, 15 year old is supposed to go buy condoms? REALLY? Do I need to even open up THIS discussion? Just how much ignorance and selfishness are you willing to openly display?

So, I'm assuming you must also take issue with your tax $$$ going into building churches? Huge, expensive rooms especially set aside for deity worship and why?? ....... Because it's a right to worship!

How about this: if you fall and crack your head open, please do not call 911 because someone else is paying for that 911 operator and someone else is paying for that ambulance. And please stop using streetlights, or crosswalks, or electricity: or the internet and please take your guns and go live in the woods and let's see how many rights the animals give you at night. We live in a sovereign nation, where people go and die en masse for freedoms and rights that you seem to have a lot of anger about.

Do you REALLY care if a cent of your tax dollars goes toward sex education of safe sex options for teens and women (and men)? Really? Do you take the same issue with that money going toward carpet bombs that kill men, women, and children in far off places? Somehow I think you're just fine with that.

I would hope parents teach their 13-15 year old kids personal responsibility. If that means buying condoms, so be it. And you're damned right I take issue with taxes being used for building churches. You're talking to an atheist. You'd think with all the money the church takes in daily that they'd never need outside assistance, but God must have a really butterfingered accountant up there in heaven.

I already pay taxes to support the upkeep of roads, crosswalks, streetlights, and 911 operators. I pay electric bills. I pay for the internet. The roads, crosswalks, streetlights, and emergency services would be better if privatized and provided as needed.

I have no issue with sex education or safe sex options for people. But it's not my responsibility to deal with their issues or assist in paying for them. It's my responsibility to deal with my issues and those of my children, if I ever have them. And I don't like having my tax dollars spent on sex education or safe sex options. And I especially don't like having my tax dollars spent on warmongering.

I would have hoped you actually have read my previous political postings here, as I've spoken out constantly against war.

[Jason]

Here's a hypothetical situation RealBeachBoy:

Let's forget all these "whores" and shoulda-known-better 13 year old girls who got knocked up by a wise and considerate 25 year old neighbor: how about...... now please TRY and imagine...... that you, a smart and personally responsible man........ meets a member of the opposite sex and...... has sex....... Wonderful! Now, ...... a few weeks later, it seems like it's starting to burn when you take a leak..... Hmmmmmm, did you use a condom or were you too embarrassed to ask if she had one? Or did you assume that any woman willing to have sex out of wedlock is a whore and just must have been handed her own file of condoms from ..... wait... our of YOUR pocket??? So, it's her responsibility to have them and if she doesn't?.... Well, of course you'll demand that she keeps the baby, right? But first things first: it burns when you pee, and who knows what else you might have contracted.... Soooooo, do you have health insurance? If so, you try and get an appointment, but it's Friday and they can't even see you until next week and it's REALLY starting to burn and you're freaking out, so......... Ah, there's a Planned Parenthood clinic nearby! What??? You can just show up and they'll test you up and down and advise you on how to prevent such a panic in the future! Yup, it will be a nice experience! Oh, and they'll also give you a little something to take care of that burning piss problem.... Oh, but wait..... WTF?? A infinitesimal portion of your tax $$$ went to..... what..... THIS?

Surely you'd refuse treatment (and the free condoms that you might now be wise enough to keep around) and walk out that door a proud "personally responsible" Conservative!

Good riddance....

You assume that I just walk up to random women and bareback it with them. Every time I've ever ended up at a party I've kept condoms on me. I also refrain from drinking at parties.

See, I was TAUGHT personal responsibility. I didn't learn it in school. I learned it from my parents. My heart cries out for those who weren't taught the same...but it's not my responsibility. I am not going to be penalized to provide for those who did not prepare. Planned Parenthood should be funded by donations, not by taxes.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Yeah, well it would be great if humanity would practice personal responsibility by and large, but we don't have great volumes of history books that would demonstrate even a slight grasp on the concept. Unfortunately too many parents are incapacitated by religion, addiction, plain ole stupidity, as well as too many hours at that damn corporate job worshiping spread sheets and stock portfolios to pay any attention to their kids. So, should the kids be punished for this? GWB had a rich daddy to take care of however many arrests DUIs and unwanted pregnancies as the young buck could ever hope to stumble into. Not all kids are as fortunate. There SHOULD be some public apparatus in place to deal with the cracks that open up in the street sucking down the vulnerable. And I'd sure as hell rather my taxes money go toward this than far off wars and the military industrial nightmare....

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Here's a hypothetical situation RealBeachBoy:

Let's forget all these "whores" and shoulda-known-better 13 year old girls who got knocked up by a wise and considerate 25 year old neighbor: how about...... now please TRY and imagine...... that you, a smart and personally responsible man........ meets a member of the opposite sex and...... has sex....... Wonderful! Now, ...... a few weeks later, it seems like it's starting to burn when you take a leak..... Hmmmmmm, did you use a condom or were you too embarrassed to ask if she had one? Or did you assume that any woman willing to have sex out of wedlock is a whore and just must have been handed her own file of condoms from ..... wait... our of YOUR pocket??? So, it's her responsibility to have them and if she doesn't?.... Well, of course you'll demand that she keeps the baby, right? But first things first: it burns when you pee, and who knows what else you might have contracted.... Soooooo, do you have health insurance? If so, you try and get an appointment, but it's Friday and they can't even see you until next week and it's REALLY starting to burn and you're freaking out, so......... Ah, there's a Planned Parenthood clinic nearby! What??? You can just show up and they'll test you up and down and advise you on how to prevent such a panic in the future! Yup, it will be a nice experience! Oh, and they'll also give you a little something to take care of that burning piss problem.... Oh, but wait..... WTF?? A infinitesimal portion of your tax $$$ went to..... what..... THIS?

Surely you'd refuse treatment (and the free condoms that you might now be wise enough to keep around) and walk out that door a proud "personally responsible" Conservative!

Good riddance....

You assume that I just walk up to random women and bareback it with them. Every time I've ever ended up at a party I've kept condoms on me. I also refrain from drinking at parties.

See, I was TAUGHT personal responsibility. I didn't learn it in school. I learned it from my parents. My heart cries out for those who weren't taught the same...but it's not my responsibility. I am not going to be penalized to provide for those who did not prepare. Planned Parenthood should be funded by donations, not by taxes.

and yeah, well condoms break....... What then?

I also practice personal responsibly and sh*t never happens, right? ...... Well, only until it does....

[Jason]

Here's a hypothetical situation RealBeachBoy:

Let's forget all these "whores" and shoulda-known-better 13 year old girls who got knocked up by a wise and considerate 25 year old neighbor: how about...... now please TRY and imagine...... that you, a smart and personally responsible man........ meets a member of the opposite sex and...... has sex....... Wonderful! Now, ...... a few weeks later, it seems like it's starting to burn when you take a leak..... Hmmmmmm, did you use a condom or were you too embarrassed to ask if she had one? Or did you assume that any woman willing to have sex out of wedlock is a whore and just must have been handed her own file of condoms from ..... wait... our of YOUR pocket??? So, it's her responsibility to have them and if she doesn't?.... Well, of course you'll demand that she keeps the baby, right? But first things first: it burns when you pee, and who knows what else you might have contracted.... Soooooo, do you have health insurance? If so, you try and get an appointment, but it's Friday and they can't even see you until next week and it's REALLY starting to burn and you're freaking out, so......... Ah, there's a Planned Parenthood clinic nearby! What??? You can just show up and they'll test you up and down and advise you on how to prevent such a panic in the future! Yup, it will be a nice experience! Oh, and they'll also give you a little something to take care of that burning piss problem.... Oh, but wait..... WTF?? A infinitesimal portion of your tax $$$ went to..... what..... THIS?

Surely you'd refuse treatment (and the free condoms that you might now be wise enough to keep around) and walk out that door a proud "personally responsible" Conservative!

Good riddance....

You assume that I just walk up to random women and bareback it with them. Every time I've ever ended up at a party I've kept condoms on me. I also refrain from drinking at parties.

See, I was TAUGHT personal responsibility. I didn't learn it in school. I learned it from my parents. My heart cries out for those who weren't taught the same...but it's not my responsibility. I am not going to be penalized to provide for those who did not prepare. Planned Parenthood should be funded by donations, not by taxes.

and yeah, well condoms break....... What then?

I practice personal responsibly and sh*t never happens, right? ...... Well, only until it does....

I never said sh*t never happens. Normally I'd refrain from sexual encounters with random women at a party. And if it's the slightest bit fishy, I won't do it. I have to look out for myself.

I agree that there SHOULD be safety nets for those who slip through the cracks. But there are charities for that. Churches have helped out.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Ha! Yeah, and NO man or women has ever contracted anything nasty while in the supposedly safe confines of a committed relationship. Of course not. NEVER!

[Jason]

Did I say that? Of course not.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

No, but it's this "it's not my responsibility" thing that indicates things......

Ya see, it IS your responsibility as it is mine and everyone else s!

How about this: YOU were taught responsibility, and I"m sure you'll teach your kids the same. Good!!! That just makes you smart and forward thinking. But what about the first young lady your son decides to mess around with? Or his first serious girlfriend? Or his wife? What if their folks weren't as astute as you? Wouldn't you want her/them to have the full and complete access to birth control and condoms EVEN if she's from a home full of ignorant layabouts?? Wouldn't you breath a sigh of relief if you found out your son lost his virginity to a young lady who had a condom with her when the first one your son brought either broke, or was expired or he was just too nervous to remember when he headed out that night?

Here's another thing: going to buy condoms or birth control from, say, the corner drug store can be embarrassing and humiliating depending where you're from. If a young woman in some backward  bible thumping little puritan town is seen by the local pastor buying condoms at the general store..... think about the nightmare she might be in for when her drunk/closeted religious freak of a father finds out.... Just think....

But if there were a planned parenthood clinic a short bus ride away, perhaps: she would be a lot more comfortable going there and would have access to advice/counseling that would be obviously lacking at home....

Once again: I have NO problem contributing tax-wise for such programs.... I mean, street lights are great n all, but we need living people to use them.... right?

[Jason]

I already answered your questions earlier in the thread. Rewording them will not change my responses.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Chomsky is a classic capitalist and many of his hardcore followers don't get it.

 

Nor does Chomsky himself, apparently.

He'll never admit it but the proof is in the pudding.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222

Peter Schweizer is a well known liar about precisely this issue - fabricating information about "liberals" (of which Chomsky is not one) to illustrate their hypocrisy. He was outed as a complete fraud once someone bothered to check the validity of his statements. His very similar comments made about Gore at the same time and RFK Jr. later were investigated and proven false. I have no reason to believe he is being honest about the same claims he is making about Chomsky. After all, he gives no real evidence and then suggests we should trust his e-mail correspondence.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Why do I have to pay for someone else's abortion or birth control?

Do you really believe this is a significant issue?

I have no moral or legal obligation to do so. If you can't afford birth control, here's a tip. DON'T f***.

In other words, government gets to decide who gets to f*** and who doesn't - f***ing is a privilege for people who can afford to take care of themselves.

You have the right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

And you only have those rights (among many others that you take for granted because you don't mention them) because other people fought for them. If not for people fighting for their rights, you have nothing and you have no more rights than what people had under Feudalism. Being born with the privilege of having rights that other people fought for for you comes with a certain obligation to recognize that other people happen to be still fighting for what they consider to be crucial rights.

By the same token, your general daily life couldn't exist without a history of massive public funding to make that life possible. This discussion for example wouldn't be happening because there would be no internet. In fact, the chances that most people would have the kind of time and opportunity to have these conversations most likely wouldn't exist since leisure time in general in the United States is a consequence of the economic boom that came as a result of publicly subsidized industrial development and New Deal policies, which is no small part led to a much more vibrant and well educated middle class, in fact practically created the middle class as a significant class position in the United States. The history of public subsidies in the United States in the 20th Century meant that American citizens were born into a life that granted them possibilites that other countries with a less regulated system quite simply didn't have. It's frankly outlandish that people born with this privilege speak out against taxation because they happen to believe their own social position to be "natural."

Your right ends where another's begins. But a government mandate that tells me I have to pay taxes to provide for birth control and abortions for "underprivileged women" (let's be real, many of these 'underprivileged women" are the Sandra Fluke types in universities)

Evidence?

...no. Never. This is another reason why I will defend the right to bear arms - to keep people who THINK they have a right to my life and my liberty from unlawfully depriving ME of it...by any means necessary.

Since taxation deprives you of neither, I would consider this a moot point.

[Moon Dawg]

Paul Ryan is a liberal, just like Romney. Chomsky is a classic capitalist and many of his hardcore followers don't get it.

  At the heart of it all - he must have one after all - Romney is neither liberal nor conservative. Is he a Republican? Sure, but ideology really isn't one of his true priorities, thus his obvious insincerity when pandering to whatever base in whatever election. (1994, 2002, 2008, 2012)

  Ryan a liberal? Not in the modern or classical sense of the term IMO. 

[Dunderhead]

I agree with the vast majority of posts made by The Real Beach Boy.

It's all one big guilt trip, we aren't allowed to cut any money for any program that benefits anyone because doing so would be "cruel". That's your own personal moral judgement, and I hate when democrats try and prop it up as if it represented an absolutely justified position.
If I want to cut social security or government funded sex education, then I am evil because people would suffer. But why is that my problem? I'm not afraid to admit it, and I think more people need to have the courage to just stand up and say that they don't care if people "slip through the cracks". People slip through the cracks all the time, they slip through the cracks with trillions of dollars of entitlement spending just as easily as they do without it. In economics and social science it's very difficult to empirically or scientifically justify these programs, social security doesn't just make our society unquestionable better off, it may save the lives of some people, but it has negative outcomes in the aggregate, and it helps those people at the expense of those who do not receive social security while distorting the economy and causing price inflation in the sectors where beneficiaries  usually spend their incomes (health care).

There's this idea that the 99% pays their taxes, and that if the 1% did so as well everything would be bought and paid for easily. We, as a society, are very incredulous that Mitt Romney pays ONLY 15% in taxes. But taxation is out of control for everyone, nobody should be paying that much. Think about the effective tax rate, payroll taxes, fica, medicare, federal income tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, not to mention administrative fees, estate taxes, capital gain taxes etc etc etc. Americans are absolutely taxed out the ass at every level of government. Why do families need two incomes today when 50 years ago they needed only 1? Maybe it's due to the simple fact that the effective tax rate eats up 50% of the nation's wealth. Could it be that simple? Is it really so insane to think that as the government raises taxes, debases the currency, and borrows more money, that the financial security of individuals' decreases in proportion to that?

Think about some low income family, living pay check to pay check, struggling to make end's meet on a day by day basis. Those families have so few options that they take on credit card debt and turn to payday loan sharks in order to make it through the month, and end up locked in a vicious circle of high interest debt payments. So few people seem to consider how social security affects families like that, imagine what 15% represents to a household budget like that. That's gas in the car, that's back to school supplies, that's a trip to the grocery store. It's not a negligible amount, it's not a small contribution for the sake of roads and highways. Children go without, families are bankrupted by overwhelming interest payments because of that 15%. At the end of the day, how can you justify taking money from a family like that to provide welfare for strangers whom they've never met? What right does the government have to make that decision on the household's behalf? It's not fair, and it's a devastating burden for millions of Americans. But social security is untouchable, it's not an issue, it's existence is totally taken for granted and people are conditioned to just see that money as having never existed in the first place.

The worst part about it is then we turn around and give those families food stamps. Doesn't that strike anyone else as just being, well, completely insane? We're creating the poverty which these welfare programs are supposed to alleviate in the first place! We just take from some people and give to others, and then when the people who gave have given so much that they can't survive anymore, we take from someone else to replace the money we took in the first place. It's just a neverending cycle, a house of cards, a patchwork of programs all designed to repair problems caused by other programs that were themselves designed to repair problems caused by other programs and on and on and on. It doesn't work, it will never work, no matter how much you tax, no matter how much you spend, all you'll ever be doing is arbitrarily juggling tax dollars around different special interest groups in a futile effort to achieve some perfect outcome. If you want regular middle class hard working people to be better off, you need to stop buying into this bullshit logic of it being cruel to not want to pay taxes. Taxes are killing this country, even with the Buffet rule it won't make a difference, a few months of debt will be financed at best and nothing more.


The debate can no longer be about whether or not the rich pay enough in taxes. Everyone rich and poor pays too much in taxes, period. Spending and taxation are completely out of control, debt is verging towards unstoppable exponential growth, and even with a 3 trillion dollar a year budget, none of it is doing anything to get us out of this depression. Our whole public spending paradigm just doesn't work anymore. Our current predicament is not anyone's fault but our own.

[Jason]

Why do I have to pay for someone else's abortion or birth control?

Do you really believe this is a significant issue?

Considering that everyone who has said the same is called a "sexist", a "racist", a "bigot", a "homophobe" or whatever the liberal code word is...I'd say it is because you're telling falsely entitled people they are falsely entitled. They don't like it.

I have no moral or legal obligation to do so. If you can't afford birth control, here's a tip. DON'T f***.

In other words, government gets to decide who gets to f*** and who doesn't - f***ing is a privilege for people who can afford to take care of themselves.

No, people decide for themselves and take their own necessary precautions. That includes birth control and abortions.

You have the right to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

And you only have those rights (among many others that you take for granted because you don't mention them) because other people fought for them. If not for people fighting for their rights, you have nothing and you have no more rights than what people had under Feudalism. Being born with the privilege of having rights that other people fought for for you comes with a certain obligation to recognize that other people happen to be still fighting for what they consider to be crucial rights.

By the same token, your general daily life couldn't exist without a history of massive public funding to make that life possible. This discussion for example wouldn't be happening because there would be no internet. In fact, the chances that most people would have the kind of time and opportunity to have these conversations most likely wouldn't exist since leisure time in general in the United States is a consequence of the economic boom that came as a result of publicly subsidized industrial development and New Deal policies, which is no small part led to a much more vibrant and well educated middle class, in fact practically created the middle class as a significant class position in the United States. The history of public subsidies in the United States in the 20th Century meant that American citizens were born into a life that granted them possibilites that other countries with a less regulated system quite simply didn't have. It's frankly outlandish that people born with this privilege speak out against taxation because they happen to believe their own social position to be "natural."

My rights are inalienable. Those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My rights end where yours begin. I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care. All of what you described could have just as easily been provided voluntarily by the private sector...who knows, maybe the internet would have been around in the public's hands long before the 1990s.

Your right ends where another's begins. But a government mandate that tells me I have to pay taxes to provide for birth control and abortions for "underprivileged women" (let's be real, many of these 'underprivileged women" are the Sandra Fluke types in universities)

Evidence?

I generally do not see people who aren't college-age females demanding their "human right" to birth control.

...no. Never. This is another reason why I will defend the right to bear arms - to keep people who THINK they have a right to my life and my liberty from unlawfully depriving ME of it...by any means necessary.

Since taxation deprives you of neither, I would consider this a moot point.

But it DOES deprive me of my liberty - the liberty to keep 100% of the money I worked hard to EARN.

[guitarfool2002]

Everyone, consider taking a few steps back from all this and consider how this entire discussion/debate on contraception and abortion has been a result of the US federal government getting involved in issues it had no business getting involved with.

All this serves to do is distract from what is usually a much larger and much more important issue, depending on the election cycle. The abortion issue and all related issues has remained a major distraction which continues to bog down candidates who otherwise appear to be qualified and capable people, and in this case BOTH sides are at fault - and equally as annoying.

I'm actually sick of hearing about it, and it is a bigger part of my disillusionment with many Republican candidates who continue to press this issue for whatever reasons they have to want to sink their own campaigns, although the callous way a good number of Democrats think abortion is the #1 issue on the minds of the "average woman" gets obnoxious in the same way being over-pious on the "social issues" gets annoying on the other side.

At this point, this week, this day...I'd say there are more pressing things guiding American women and their opinions than the abortion issue - things such as the rising cost of living with both gas and everyday grocery prices rising every week, not to mention that little problem of unemployment and underemployment.

But hey, let's listen to the pundits and the media instead and make the abortion debate the hot topic every election!

I'd honestly think the general public would have said "Enough already!", though I think they have and no one cares to listen.

Please have a look at this: I'm not one for blindly trusting poll results or relying on them too heavily, but this recent Gallup poll showed the major concern in the 2012 elections as of a few weeks ago was...wait for it...*The Economy*. The biggest non-economic concern was...drum roll, please...*Dissatisfaction with government*, followed by *healthcare*.

The abortion/abortion rights issue polled so low it didn't chart as a percentage point. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

Economy 2012, period.

[Dunderhead]

I think the problem is our whole idea of what morality even means anymore. The whole existence of Hitler has made it really difficult to even talk about what distinguishes good from evil anymore. Are our political leaders "evil"? Yes, absolutely, they are corrupt, delusional people. Ethics is not just about the law, but as Kant emphasized, the very concept of Law. Ethical, good people obey the unbreakable moral law of reason. Our politicians are not literally Hitler, they all believe that they are helping people and that their actions are justified.

The problem is that all of our leaders are compromised, and because Ethics are a study totally outside the realm of normal education today, we can only hold our leaders up and see how closely they resemble Hitler's model. "Hmmm, suspended habeas corpus? Well that's not that bad, he wasn't responsible for the Holocaust so I guess I'll give him a pass". These people are very strange, small, and insecure. They make "the hard decisions", and say things like "it had to be done", "there was no other option". They compromise the moral law, and "make sacrifices" on behalf of the country, they are unethical and very dangerous.

In America everyone thinks there is something very wrong with Hollywood culture, we all see the problem, the madness that fame secures for posterity. But are we really so blind as to not see Washington as having the exact same effect? Obama and Romney both, are narcissistic, and repressed, Machiavellian schemers and histrionic reality television celebrities. Michelle Bachman is really just case-in-point, a dullard with delusions of grandeur who projects an idealized fantasy of a personality which has slowly replaced her own soul.

These people are not like George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson, or even Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman, President Obama. These people, have each lived through their own personal Breaking Bad, they have done and said things in private that would horrify every American. They have ruined everyone and everything around them and climbed over bloodied heaps to the highest offices in our nation, and none of them probably feel the slightest bit of regret or have the self awareness to admit to themselves all that they've done. This is one of the seeds that we've all helped to cultivate, a germ that's flowered in the nightmare that is contemporary America. All of us normal, average voters, are taken along for the ride and each of us casts a ballot of our own personal Walter White each election. A man we know to be evil, but are desperate to excuse, because the pain of life, and the tragedy lived out by millions each and every day compel us to hope.
We are the meek, the good people who are taken advantage of by the immoral. Until the democrats pressure Obama, and the republicans pressure Romney it will just stay the same. Until we stop excusing unethical behavior in all its' degrees, we're doomed as a nation and as a culture.

[hypehat]

I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care.

This is where we differ - I don't see it that way at all. Moreover, I'm happy to pay the pittance it costs to put easily accessible condoms in schools because the alternative is a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant, or no teenagers having sex because condoms and the pill are expensive (that's your beloved private sector for you). And lets face it, if I wasn't able to have sex when I was that age, it wouldn't have been much of a life at all. To not have to worry about forking out £6 for condoms when I could get them free from my school, if anything happened my girl could get the pill for free down the chemist was rather.... liberating.  I mean, there's a theoretical 'liberty' which you can feel pissed off about paying for someone's medical bills which could feel rather hollow if you suddenly got cancer and couldn't afford the bills.

The thing is, do you seriously not care if someone couldn't afford treatment for something that wasn't their fault? Like, picking one example out of nowhere, did Levon Helm having to throw concerts and parties to fund his treatment for throat cancer not strike you as a little skew-whiff?

I think we've argued about taxation before, TRBB. The way I see it, everyone has an obligation to pay taxes to provide a certain standard of life in a country. Your philosophy seems to boil down to 'I don't care about others and they shouldn't care about me'.  But then I'm a leftist hippie backpedalling communist, so we'll probably never agree 

[GreatUrduPoet]

I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care.

This is where we differ - I don't see it that way at all. Moreover, I'm happy to pay the pittance it costs to put easily accessible condoms in schools because the alternative is a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant, or no teenagers having sex because condoms and the pill are expensive (that's your beloved private sector for you). And lets face it, if I wasn't able to have sex when I was that age, it wouldn't have been much of a life at all. To not have to worry about forking out £6 for condoms when I could get them free from my school, if anything happened my girl could get the pill for free down the chemist was rather.... liberating.   I mean, there's a theoretical 'liberty' which you can feel pissed off about paying for someone's medical bills which could feel rather hollow if you suddenly got cancer and couldn't afford the bills.

The thing is, do you seriously not care if someone couldn't afford treatment for something that wasn't their fault? Like, picking one example out of nowhere, did Levon Helm having to throw concerts and parties to fund his treatment for throat cancer not strike you as a little skew-whiff?

I think we've argued about taxation before, TRBB. The way I see it, everyone has an obligation to pay taxes to provide a certain standard of life in a country. Your philosophy seems to boil down to 'I don't care about others and they shouldn't care about me'.  But then I'm a leftist hippie backpedalling communist, so we'll probably never agree  

I find abortion personally repugnant, but I am 100% willing to let some of my tax dollars support abortions and contraceptives for those people who believe that they are entitled to free healthcare and reproductive control at the expense of society/the taxpayers. At least that way I am reassured that we are 'thinning the herd' of these non-productive leeches in the long run...since hopefully our present day 'takers' will not be reproducing quite as much. The ultimate goal here being to decrease the size of the next generation of spoiled, non-productive gimmie-gimmies who would further siphon off future tax revenues that could be used for far nobler purposes. I would consider this expense a wise investment in our ultimate success as a sovereign nation.

[guitarfool2002]

Shouldn't this issue be decided on a state-by-state level and taken directly to the voters to make the choices at the polls rather than having the federal government make any kind of ruling, mandate, or overreaching law covering these social issues? I can't help but think more and more as I get older that the real answers will be found when centralized government is weakened and its power lessened except in certain issues and concerns, and localized (state-by-state) government becomes the power which is directly responsible to and for the voters of those given states. Politics and political power, especially in certain social issues, becomes more accountable to the public when it becomes closer to that same public.

Feel free to keep lobbing the talking points back and forth about an issue which shouldn't even be in the federal government's hands, that's exactly the kind of distraction certain elements of the political machine would want.

Keep in mind the economy, and also the events which unfolded yesterday at the US embassy in both Egypt and Libya. The late breaking news this morning is that the US envoy to Libya and three US diplomats, apart from the American worker killed yesterday, were killed in the mob violence and protests surrounding a movie which the mobs found offensive to Islam.

I'll say again, not to undermine anyone's viewpoints, but there are serious issues with the economy and with diplomats being killed by angry, religion-fueled mobs over the content of a film, and yet the burning issue is who is supposed to pay for a pack of rubbers.

[hypehat]

I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care.

This is where we differ - I don't see it that way at all. Moreover, I'm happy to pay the pittance it costs to put easily accessible condoms in schools because the alternative is a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant, or no teenagers having sex because condoms and the pill are expensive (that's your beloved private sector for you). And lets face it, if I wasn't able to have sex when I was that age, it wouldn't have been much of a life at all. To not have to worry about forking out £6 for condoms when I could get them free from my school, if anything happened my girl could get the pill for free down the chemist was rather.... liberating.   I mean, there's a theoretical 'liberty' which you can feel pissed off about paying for someone's medical bills which could feel rather hollow if you suddenly got cancer and couldn't afford the bills.

The thing is, do you seriously not care if someone couldn't afford treatment for something that wasn't their fault? Like, picking one example out of nowhere, did Levon Helm having to throw concerts and parties to fund his treatment for throat cancer not strike you as a little skew-whiff?

I think we've argued about taxation before, TRBB. The way I see it, everyone has an obligation to pay taxes to provide a certain standard of life in a country. Your philosophy seems to boil down to 'I don't care about others and they shouldn't care about me'.  But then I'm a leftist hippie backpedalling communist, so we'll probably never agree  

I find abortion personally repugnant, but I am 100% willing to let some of my tax dollars support abortions and contraceptives for those people who believe that they are entitled to free healthcare and reproductive control at the expense of society/the taxpayers. At least that way I am reassured that we are 'thinning the herd' of these non-productive leeches in the long run...since hopefully our present day 'takers' will not be reproducing quite as much. The ultimate goal here being to decrease the size of the next generation of spoiled, non-productive gimmie-gimmies who would further siphon off future tax revenues that could be used for far nobler purposes. I would consider this expense a wise investment in our ultimate success as a sovereign nation.

I wasn't talking to you.

[hypehat]

Shouldn't this issue be decided on a state-by-state level and taken directly to the voters to make the choices at the polls rather than having the federal government make any kind of ruling, mandate, or overreaching law covering these social issues? I can't help but think more and more as I get older that the real answers will be found when centralized government is weakened and its power lessened except in certain issues and concerns, and localized (state-by-state) government becomes the power which is directly responsible to and for the voters of those given states. Politics and political power, especially in certain social issues, becomes more accountable to the public when it becomes closer to that same public.

Feel free to keep lobbing the talking points back and forth about an issue which shouldn't even be in the federal government's hands, that's exactly the kind of distraction certain elements of the political machine would want.

Keep in mind the economy, and also the events which unfolded yesterday at the US embassy in both Egypt and Libya. The late breaking news this morning is that the US envoy to Libya and three US diplomats, apart from the American worker killed yesterday, were killed in the mob violence and protests surrounding a movie which the mobs found offensive to Islam.

I'll say again, not to undermine anyone's viewpoints, but there are serious issues with the economy and with diplomats being killed by angry, religion-fueled mobs over the content of a film, and yet the burning issue is who is supposed to pay for a pack of rubbers.

Well yeah. I did say that, but it kinda got lost in a wider point about taxation etc. The US Ambassador thing is insane.

I was kinda hoping to get some thought and chat about the day-to-day of the election really, seeing as it's close and it's a ideological minefield and MITT FUCKING ROMNEY, y'all. Are we all shut-off ideologues, or aren't you the least bit worried about what would happen if Mitt does it? Or, to appease TRBB, what if Barack does it? 

[guitarfool2002]

Shouldn't this issue be decided on a state-by-state level and taken directly to the voters to make the choices at the polls rather than having the federal government make any kind of ruling, mandate, or overreaching law covering these social issues? I can't help but think more and more as I get older that the real answers will be found when centralized government is weakened and its power lessened except in certain issues and concerns, and localized (state-by-state) government becomes the power which is directly responsible to and for the voters of those given states. Politics and political power, especially in certain social issues, becomes more accountable to the public when it becomes closer to that same public.

Feel free to keep lobbing the talking points back and forth about an issue which shouldn't even be in the federal government's hands, that's exactly the kind of distraction certain elements of the political machine would want.

Keep in mind the economy, and also the events which unfolded yesterday at the US embassy in both Egypt and Libya. The late breaking news this morning is that the US envoy to Libya and three US diplomats, apart from the American worker killed yesterday, were killed in the mob violence and protests surrounding a movie which the mobs found offensive to Islam.

I'll say again, not to undermine anyone's viewpoints, but there are serious issues with the economy and with diplomats being killed by angry, religion-fueled mobs over the content of a film, and yet the burning issue is who is supposed to pay for a pack of rubbers.

Well yeah. I did say that, but it kinda got lost in a wider point about taxation etc. The US Ambassador thing is insane.

I was kinda hoping to get some thought and chat about the day-to-day of the election really, seeing as it's close and it's a ideological minefield and MITT f***ING ROMNEY, y'all. Are we all shut-off ideologues, or aren't you the least bit worried about what would happen if Mitt does it? Or, to appease TRBB, what if Barack does it? 

I'm giving this post a thumbs up, because the intent was right on the money and what happened as a result could be, in the language of too many of our US politicians, "a teachable moment".

I'm just asking those reading and participating here to consider the way the focus and therefore the energy and anger shifted from the bigger issues to one about birth control and abortion. That topic is a hot-button, but ultimately a very minor concern in context of the bigger picture.

The divert and distract tactic is one that plays out all the time in political debates, and it is not only a tactic but it is also a technique which can be taught and which is in fact taught at various seminars, etc. It's in the same category as sales seminars where coaches are brought in to demonstrate new sales methods for various industries and salesmen of all kinds - there are ways to influence conversations and through using certain methods and techniques, these methods are taught. Politics is no different than selling cars or insurance policies, after all - it's about trying to sell ideas and politicians rather than goods or services.

When a touchy topic is brought up, or a point is made which one side or the other knows is an Achilles Heel of sorts for their side, try to notice that side's spokesperson attempts to micro-manage the debate from a larger issue to a much smaller point-within-a-point, and the result is all of the passion and energy shifts from where that side was vulnerable (the bigger picture) to a much smaller issue within that big picture which ultimately becomes the focus and which ultimately means little or nothing to the original topic.

Consider that this technique is taught, it is coached and practiced, and it gets put into play regularly by those political pros who are paid very well to do it in public. It happened in this very thread and we're not even highly paid political hacks! I'm just saying, look for it and know it when you see it. Then put the conversation back on track so the original points aren't lost.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Why do I have to pay for someone else's abortion or birth control?

Do you really believe this is a significant issue?

Considering that everyone who has said the same is called a "sexist", a "racist", a "bigot", a "homophobe" or whatever the liberal code word is...I'd say it is because you're telling falsely entitled people they are falsely entitled. They don't like it.

I'm not really sure what you mean by this. All I can say is this issue seems like a giant distraction to me.

No, people decide for themselves and take their own necessary precautions. That includes birth control and abortions.

You're forgetting the fact that problems with birth control typically occur more regularly is less educated and poorer communities. I think this is ultimately an easy thing to say when you're part of a more educated class - that it is all simply people "deciding for themselves." Ultimately though when people are not adequately given the tools to make informed decisions (like a good education often does) then the consequences of that are usually obvious. The kind of system you're describing is making people pay doubly because they have come up on the down side in a system that functions to be always already tipped against them.

My rights are inalienable. Those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But those were not always inalienable rights, they only became that over time because they were fought for. Those are concepts that came about as a result of the Enlightenment era. Before that time, it was unheard of to talk about those ideas in terms of being rights that can't be taken away or given.

My rights end where yours begin. I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care.

By the same token, the British Empire believed that their subjects had no right to tell them that they had the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." What makes those rights more legitimate? Because revolutionaries wrote down that they came from a Creator? Because, after all, that was the justification given then.

All of what you described could have just as easily been provided voluntarily by the private sector...who knows, maybe the internet would have been around in the public's hands long before the 1990s.

History tells us otherwise because societies that are run entirely "by the private sector" are disasters. There's a reason why first world countries don't allow totally free market systems because they know that those systems don't work. If you look at the major economic booms of the 20th century, they were largely created as a result of public investment. On the flip side, countries that were forced to adhere to free market principles saw enormous amounts of poverty. The reason why the public ends up subsidizing concentrated wealth in the United States is because the periods that are less regulated typically usher in an age of crisis and it is understood that the only thing that can possibly re-generate the economy is public welfare. Your point about the internet is flat out false. The private sector didn't want to touch the internet until it had passed the crucial risk period. Bill Gates, for example, was publicly shunning the validity of the internet until a year before it was privatized. It was only when he realized that it could be profitable that he decided to take it over. And this is generally how the economy works in the United States. It is understood in the private industry that the public should subsidize the risk and, therefore, provide a cushy welfare net for corporations who don't have to worry about making bad investments. Once the product has sufficiently passed the test that it can actually turn a profit, it is then placed into private hands. This is true of the major advancements of both the 19th and 20th century: the railroads, the automotive industry, aviation, weapons, computers, satellites, etc. What this tells us, then, is that private industry understands quite clearly something that these free market enthusiasts deny - that they simply cannot function without crucial public welfare. And they can't and we know they can't because we see what happens when they don't: it's a disaster.

I generally do not see people who aren't college-age females demanding their "human right" to birth control.

Fortunately, people who are in college have easier access to get their voice heard. You're not going to see people of a lower class making these arguments because they are completely disenfranchised and marginalized and have no significant voice.

But it DOES deprive me of my liberty - the liberty to keep 100% of the money I worked hard to EARN.

Yes, well, people justified slavery on the same grounds. Do you believe you would have EARNED the same money had you been born in sub-Saharan Africa?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm actually sick of hearing about it, and it is a bigger part of my disillusionment with many Republican candidates who continue to press this issue for whatever reasons they have to want to sink their own campaigns, although the callous way a good number of Democrats think abortion is the #1 issue on the minds of the "average woman" gets obnoxious in the same way being over-pious on the "social issues" gets annoying on the other side.

At this point, this week, this day...I'd say there are more pressing things guiding American women and their opinions than the abortion issue - things such as the rising cost of living with both gas and everyday grocery prices rising every week, not to mention that little problem of unemployment and underemployment.

 

[GreatUrduPoet]

I have no right to tell you to pay for my condoms or my health care.

This is where we differ - I don't see it that way at all. Moreover, I'm happy to pay the pittance it costs to put easily accessible condoms in schools because the alternative is a bunch of teenagers getting pregnant, or no teenagers having sex because condoms and the pill are expensive (that's your beloved private sector for you). And lets face it, if I wasn't able to have sex when I was that age, it wouldn't have been much of a life at all. To not have to worry about forking out £6 for condoms when I could get them free from my school, if anything happened my girl could get the pill for free down the chemist was rather.... liberating.   I mean, there's a theoretical 'liberty' which you can feel pissed off about paying for someone's medical bills which could feel rather hollow if you suddenly got cancer and couldn't afford the bills.

The thing is, do you seriously not care if someone couldn't afford treatment for something that wasn't their fault? Like, picking one example out of nowhere, did Levon Helm having to throw concerts and parties to fund his treatment for throat cancer not strike you as a little skew-whiff?

I think we've argued about taxation before, TRBB. The way I see it, everyone has an obligation to pay taxes to provide a certain standard of life in a country. Your philosophy seems to boil down to 'I don't care about others and they shouldn't care about me'.  But then I'm a leftist hippie backpedalling communist, so we'll probably never agree  

I find abortion personally repugnant, but I am 100% willing to let some of my tax dollars support abortions and contraceptives for those people who believe that they are entitled to free healthcare and reproductive control at the expense of society/the taxpayers. At least that way I am reassured that we are 'thinning the herd' of these non-productive leeches in the long run...since hopefully our present day 'takers' will not be reproducing quite as much. The ultimate goal here being to decrease the size of the next generation of spoiled, non-productive gimmie-gimmies who would further siphon off future tax revenues that could be used for far nobler purposes. I would consider this expense a wise investment in our ultimate success as a sovereign nation.

I wasn't talking to you.

If this isn't an open forum, use private messaging comrade.