Yeah, people who choose to use accurate language are the worst. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Printable View
Yeah, people who choose to use accurate language are the worst. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
That's like how the Democratic party claims to want to institute communism in the USA, but actually encourages its members to rape puppies and kill children, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I know it's going to be difficult, but if you could try to stem the tide of mind-bogglingly ridiculous crap you post, that'd be just swell.
[EDIT: Oops, old browser tab. Point and request still stand, though.]
The first bill has been struck down (there are two similar proposals in VA). Hopefully the outrage will cause the second bill to be killed as well. This is what happens when you have people with no medical expertise proposing ludicrous bills with no research into the process (doctors already perform trans-vaginal ultrasounds on pregnant women to confirm pregnancy, but respect a woman's right to refuse it).
And politicians trying to legislate their set of religious beliefs onto women and physicians. It's seems they're trying to reverse reproductive rights recognized in previous decades, using all sorts of whacky proposals. Defining embryos as people and Plan B as abortifacients? Sounds like congress could use some science classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgrrl
I didn't realize that Congress = Virginia or Mississippi legislature. Learn something new every day.
How many more replies are you going to direct toward me, without actually addressing the topic? Does this mean you have no opinion of your own, but baiting and trolling is your way of making appearances? :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Congressional activism (both state and federal levels) has increased dramatically since Republicans swept 2010. While most of them ran on platforms of JOBS, the economy, shrinking gummint and cutting taxes....some of their first proposals were aimed at issues like redefining rape, DOMA, DADT, de-funding Planned Parenthood, and conflating birth control with abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inth...endofyear.html
Hang on that link doesn't have anything to do with congress either :(
Congressional can mean house or senate, state or federal.
No, Congressional means Congress. :bored:
Get with the program, Loki. This is GGT. Words mean whatever the hell she wants them to mean.
:rolleyes: It was capitalized at beginning of the sentence, but congress [lower case] in general refers to legislators. "Delegates in the Virginia House of Representatives and Senate" was too wordy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You're still picking a nit instead of commenting on the topic. Does that mean you support these proposals bycongressState House Representatives and State Senators, in over 30 states? :donkey:
minx: it's our legislators (law makers) at both state and federal levels, mostly Republicans, who've gone wild in proposing laws surrounding sexuality/sex. DOMA, DADT, redefining rape, de-funding Planned Parenthood--as well as striking birth control coverage from the Affordable Care Act--are at the federal level; restrictions to legal abortions, de-funding local PP clinics, and abstinence-only sex-ed are at several state levels.
Apparently I'm not the only woman who's been appalled at this retro 1950 type of shenanigans:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...50.html?ref=tw
That Albo guy (Republican Delegate to the Virginia State House of Representatives) comes off as a real jerk. I saw a longer version of his "speech" to the house, and he actually turned on a boom box with romantic music to set it up as a longer "joke". Laughter ensued from his fellow law makers. ha ha ha :down:
No, it does not; certainly not in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I disagree. Interchanging 'congress' with 'legislators' is a common US colloquialism. It would take an act of congress to...xyz is something every American understands. Nobody expects that maxim to go any further, or say It would take an act by the State House of Representatives and Senators to...xyz. Don't be ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Either post your opinion on the topic or stop trolling. :donkey:
Either stop disfiguring the English language or stop posting.
Good for you. Pity that "what words mean" isn't actually a matter of personal opinion, but rather a matter of basic literacy. So disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the meaning of the words or make you right, it really just makes you illiterate, at least as far as it accomplishes anything at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Frick and Frack, the tag team trolls with nothing to say about the topic. :bored:
Tomorrow is voting on the Blunt amendment (attached to a transportation bill):
Romney Sets Off Furor on Contraception Bill
By MICHAEL BARBARO and ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: February 29, 2012
Perhaps the question was poorly worded. Or perhaps it was a slip of a tired tongue.
Multimedia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com//images...-thumbWide.jpgVideo
YouTube: Romney on the Blunt Amendment
Either way, Mitt Romney created a new tempest when he told an Ohio news station that he was opposed to a Senate amendment, favored by conservatives and under debate in Congress on Wednesday, that would allow employers and insurers to limit coverage of contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections.
“I’m not for the bill,” Mr. Romney said, but then added, “the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”
Mr. Romney seemed to be further distancing himself from the hard-edged social conservatism of his chief Republican rival, Rick Santorum, who has argued that contraception is damaging to society.
But in an apparent misunderstanding, Mr. Romney instead roused the momentary ire of many social conservatives, who already doubt his commitment to their cause.
Mr. Romney and his aides quickly corrected his remarks, saying he strongly supports the Senate amendment, and had not properly understood the question. (The slip followed a series of off-key comments about his wife’s Cadillacs and friends who own Nascar teams.)
The episode began when Mr. Romney was asked about his view of the sweeping amendment, sponsored by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, that would permit employers and insurers to refuse to offer health coverage that violated their beliefs.
The bill has been championed by leading social conservatives, who describe President Obama’s effort to require religiously affiliated institutions, like hospitals or universities, to offer contraceptive coverage as an assault on religious liberty.
Mr. Obama’s supporters call it a vital step for women’s health and say that Mr. Blunt’s amendment is a dangerous intrusion between doctors and their patients.
Despite the initial confusion over the Blunt amendment, Mr. Romney’s original response offered a clear alternative to Mr. Santorum’s often-stated views on contraception.
Mr. Santorum, a conservative Roman Catholic who says he does not personally believe in using contraception, has repeatedly said that the wide availability of birth control has had negative moral and social impacts on the country.
In an interview in October, he promised, “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.”
Mr. Romney has sought to portray himself in recent days as a more measured candidate than Mr. Santorum, declaring that he would not “light my hair on fire” to court conservatives.
His interview on ONN, an Ohio television station, set off a scramble among his staff members to quell an online storm. Mr. Romney immediately called in to a conservative Boston radio show and said, “Of course, I support the Blunt amendment.”
Referring to the ONN reporter who had interviewed him, Mr. Romney said, “I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical Christian group, expressed surprise that Mr. Romney, in his television interview, had not immediately jumped on what Mr. Perkins described as the “red-hot issue” related to contraception — the threat to religious freedom posed by the Obama mandate.
“When he talked about the issue as being a matter of contraception between husband and wife — that’s not what the issue today is about,” Mr. Perkins said. “Either he’s so focused on going after Santorum, or he’s been asleep for the last month.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us...l?ref=politics
Amendment defeated, or at least tabled. Why is this happening in 2012---where Christian groups and the FRC consider contraception a threat to religious freedom and a "red-hot issue"? There's already a religious exemption from the mandate, but they added "moral objection" too. Making it so vague and broad that employers could feasibly exclude coverage to homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators...or any person who offends their "morals", religious or not. There's a large group who considers vaccinations unneeded (or conspiratorial), and could deny employees that coverage. Some believe organ donations are immoral, Christian Scientists don't believe in blood transfusions, etc.
IMO the real debate should be about health insurance as healthcare, and connecting that insurance to employment/employers. Do we really want employers or the Insurance Industry to be in charge of our medical choices? Do we really want religious groups getting between patients and doctors? Do we really want a bunch of legislators practicing medicine without a license?
There's got to be a better way. How about offering Medicare for all, or a public option?
Do we really want the government in charge of our medical choices? I'd like to see how much you'd whine if we had government healthcare and the Republicans came to power and banned public provision of contraception and abortion.
Ah, the old "whining" thing. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'd expect our laws (government) to protect the rights I was born with. That includes medical care and self-control of my gonads. That includes my freeedom to be a sexual being, while choosing whether or not I want to procreate.
We already have pro-life religious-based interference in contraceptive and abortion legislation. The Hyde Amendment wasn't enough for their agenda, so attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood (on federal and state levels) became their way to subvert Title X, Griswold v Conn, and Roe v Wade.
The Vatican and Roman Catholic bishops, Southern Baptist Coalition, Family Research Council...or whoever else wants to use our laws and gov't to advance their religious agenda, while ignoring my individual rights, have bitten off more than they can chew. Our First Amendment is meant to protect freedom FROM religion as much as protecting freedom OF religion.
And don't kid yourself into thinking this is a women's rights issue alone. Men should pay attention, since they're the other half of this equation. Do you want your employer or insurance company to decide if your vasectomy is covered? How about hormonal treatment for male menopause or prostate maladies, or Viagra/Cialis for penile erectile dysfunction?
Do you want laws mandating you undergo a trans-urethral ultrasound before making any of these decisions with your doctor? Do you think physicians appreciate this kind of meddling into medicine?
GGT how often do we have to say it, Loki and sadly CC as well are just forum trolls not remotely interested in discussion, and solely dedicated to being "right/correct" in whatever situation they're in. They use red herrings, nitpick useless points that have no affect on the larger part of the discussion.
I agree that your statement was understandable, and I agree if CC and Loki are US citizens then they ought be familiar if they have any sort of political discussion with others in real life that loose terminiology often used, but stil understood which is the main point. Anything else is being nitpicky or petty fogging.
Uh huh...Loki just pointed out that the more power you give to the Federal Government will wind up in the very same hands you despise later on...
This is what small government types like Enoch and me keep trying to point out while most others keep putting their fingers in their ears.
And how's that working out for you? For all the complaining you do about the evil j00s and Republikans and the like, you're exhibiting an astonishing amount of cognitive dissonance, even for you. You expect the government to protect your [natural] rights, and spend thousands of posts whining about the government violating them.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Awesome. Like Veldan said, the more power you give the government, the more power the evil j00 Republikans will have when they're in power.
And fuck you too. But also, thanks for reminding me why I had you on ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
I thought it was because his picture is under the "verbal diarrhea" entry in the dictionary?
There's a difference between a government interfering with our rights, and protecting our rights. That has nothing to do with the SIZE of a government, but their legal scope and ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Much of that is written into our Constitution, and SCOTUS powers. It's political because POTUS nominates SCOTUS positions (with a lifetime tenure), as approved by elected legislators. We're a nation of laws, and even a "small" government can create over-reaching laws that aren't based on individual freeedom or liberty.
We're also a republic and union of states, where "small government" proponents can try to override equal civil rights by invoking crazy shit like religious doctrine, or putting civil rights up for a ballot initiative. Civil rights aren't some 'thing' to be put up for a majority vote. Slavery and women voting would never have passed using that old white male property owner ideology metric. Rights aren't decided by a majority vote, but on the premise that All People Are Equal.
You weren't born with a right to medical care or insurance, and the government has no control over what you do with your gonads.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Veldan has it right. The second you allow, or expect the government to fund and regulate these things is the second you give up your rights to not be subject to the diktats of tyrants. There's an old quote from a man who is currently generating enough centrifugal energy, (given a connection to a proper stator) to power the east coast that still rings true: "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."
If you want the government to protect your rights, don't involve them in your personal health choices. If you invite them in, you lose the right to complain when there is mission creep, or the current regime's ideology does not match your own.
Somehow removing public funding from a private organization is about the least offensive interference by the government that I can imagine. I struggle with how you see this as a significant infringement on your rights. I must have missed the right to Planned Parenthood in my civics courses.Quote:
We already have pro-life religious-based interference in contraceptive and abortion legislation. The Hyde Amendment wasn't enough for their agenda, so attempts to de-fund Planned Parenthood (on federal and state levels) became their way to subvert Title X, Griswold v Conn, and Roe v Wade.
I can have more than one reason. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The right to force her opinions on others and the right to get a cut of everyone else's money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Understandable that you missed those in your civics courses. They generally gloss over the reality of the world in favor of all the attention paid to the constitution and the founding fathers and everything else our modern form of government shits all over.
I was born a woman, with specific medical needs that shouldn't be denied by church, state, employer or insurer. These medical needs have been proven by medical science, and supported by social science. These needs evolve and expand with time and scientific discoveries, often from tax payer funded NIH and CDC research.
Recognition of medical needs and new science comes from an educated public, often educated in public schools and public arenas. That's the definition of Public Health working with the public, and meeting public health needs.
Paying taxes that fund government medical R & D doesn't mean I've invited them into my uterus, any more than funding NASA mean's I've invited satellite surveillance into my home. Mission creep and regime ideology is a strange way to describe or categorize "rights". It's even stranger to see a libertarian like you say we can lose the right to complain when our rights are challenged or removed. :bulb:Quote:
If you want the government to protect your rights, don't involve them in your personal health choices. If you invite them in, you lose the right to complain when there is mission creep, or the current regime's ideology does not match your own.
Stop trying to wound me. You know as I do that you intentionally make hateful remarks, and there are times when you have every intention of making your point and not listening to the response. You could easily respectfully disagree with someone, say GG, and not be rude, or nitpick literally the most inane and miniscule part of their post. Maybe you can charge me with being over sensitve, but it's easy to see that that is not constuctive dialogue.Quote:
And fuck you too. But also, thanks for reminding me why I had you on ignore.
:up: No reason the forum should imitate our dysfunctional legislators or presidential candidates, by stooping to such lows.
Okay. Great. None of that has to do with rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I'm sure this seems like a brilliant point, but I'm a little slow. Explain to me exactly what this has to do with anything? Healthcare is not an abstract case, it's the specific case.Quote:
Recognition of medical needs and new science comes from an educated public, often educated in public schools and public arenas. That's the definition of Public Health working with the public, and meeting public health needs.
Paying taxes that fund government medical R & D doesn't mean I've invited them into my uterus, any more than funding NASA mean's I've invited satellite surveillance into my home.
Could be because healthcare isn't a right. You have a right to self-determination, not healthcare.Quote:
Mission creep and regime ideology is a strange way to describe or categorize "rights".
I'm arguing that you shouldn't give the rights up in the first place. You're arguing that we should give them up, but rely on the government to define exactly what that means. I absolutely think it's ridiculous to willingly hand over your rights to a intrinsically fluid organization, and then complain about it being fluid.Quote:
It's even stranger to see a libertarian like you say we can lose the right to complain when our rights are challenged or removed. :bulb:
Is all that why Minx also objected?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
My main point is can we address the heart of the issue and not whether she said state legislators or congress. It's not a healthy way to discuss the topic, and that's all I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Hello justification of police brutality and child abuse and being beaten up on your way home from the pub :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Minx actually understood what she meant and was of the opinion that the whole tangent was an embarrassing display of the sort of irrelevant nonsense that plagues discussions between dummies. I just wanted to offer her a chance to say "sorry, my mistake" in the vain hope that she'd take it and Loki would go on to just drop it. But you know how it is here: you give a finger and they'll try to take the arm, so no-one ever does. My opinion on the vocabulary tangent isn't far from LD's.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It has to do with equal treatment. We have anti-discrimination laws for a reason, and it's not to 'expand the powers of the government' but to protect our right to equality. That's the basic idea behind "All Men Are Created Equal". Part of 21st century self-determination includes access to healthcare, and that shouldn't be denied based on age/gender/sexual orientation/ethnicity/race or religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Whether or not we see healthcare as a civil right is a whole other discussion. By modern day default, the providers of healthcare aren't just physicians, but include payers --- employers and insurers, private and public sector subsidies, and tax payers. When those things get co-mingled, it's hard to untangle the necklace....but IMO that means explaining to church leaders and pro-life conservatives that hormonal treatment isn't always used as birth control. It's a slippery slope for Catholic universities or hospitals to claim a religious exemption to insurance covering birth control for women, unless they're going to ask for a doctor's note when it's used for endometriosis or ovarian cancer, or other reasons. That's none of their business.
Do we still have a legal right to privacy in our doctor-patient relationships, or is that something only meant for attorney-client privilege?
:bulb:
My bad, sorry. Since you brought it up, I'll be sure to type LEGISLATORS instead of congress from now on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Yes, the onerous burden to use the correct word in the proper context. :rolleyes:
Burden much relieved by your roll of eyes, no doubt.
I know it is thing of cliche to "white knight" around the Internet, let alone within this cess-pool of hatred and misery, but is it truly so much to ask no warrantless sniping occur? Or is it just that this low-effort bullying has been found to produce most pleasure for least effort?
Really?
Look, if she's going to keep drawing attention to it, sure, I'm going to keep throwing little digs out. Alternately, she could stop acting like she's right, and we all need to read her "mind" wrt what the hell she means with any given word, because she can't even be bothered to use the words to mean the same thing the rest of the world means with them. Or, better yet, she could start using the English language properly, but obviously, that ship sailed a while back, and she wasn't on it.
If the failings are well known, as they are in community of less than 50 people, what purpose served by mocking each instance? By coincidence, at this moment in time I am listening to Leonard Cohen saying everybody knows, if we all do, pointing out is petty. Is my point. If you prefer being petty, more power to you.