Political Roundtable Pulsar of Annihilation part IV

[dobrojim]

I really hope the GOP continues to campaign against
recreational (as opposed to purely procreational) sex.
That's a winning issue right there.

[hands11]

And how is the birth control thing still getting covered incorrectly in the news. Twenty states already mandate that it has to be covered. And worse then what obama is saying like six of them even insist the churches themselves (not edu n hospitals) do as well. One of them is Georgia.

I even saw video of republicans in the past promoting the idea.

This group is really a pathetic mess.

[dobrojim]

except it turns out many of those states have exemptions

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/vp ... 4#46336124

[Severn Hoos]

Thank you, jim. (although the link didn't work for me...)

This really is a pretty simple issue. It's not like the CEO of Home Depot can request an exemption because he's personally opposed to contraception. The state-wide exemptions (including states like California, Maryland, and yes - Massachusetts) only apply to religious organizations who have issues of conscience.

And it's not like those organizations are asking to ban contraceptives - they are still available, the employees can still purchase them on their own. The question is, should a private organization be required to subsidize something that is antithetical to their entire mission? Will Catholic hospitals be forced to perform abortions? Where does it end?

To me, there's a huge amount of ignorance (mostly willful) on the issue of Rights in America. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government cannot stop you from doing _____ (speech, press, religion, etc.). It does not guarantee that the government will subsidize said rights in any way, shape, or form. Might as well claim that the government is violating my 2nd Amendment rights since it won't actually buy a gun for me.

In this sense, forcing a religious organization to subsidize (or even perform) activities that are counter to its core beliefs is, in fact, a violation of the 1st amendment, restricting the "free exercise thereof" as it relates to Religion.

There are counterarguments to balance an absolutist interpretation of the 1st Amendment - from shouting "Fire" in a crowded moviehouse to libel to national security. in this case, the counterargument is nowhere near that level of significance, and so deference should be paid to the free exercise of religion by the religious organizations.

That, and the fact that we were told explicitly this would not be part of the Bill back in 2010, and that it was a diktat from HHS rather than at least being part of a Congressional vote, and the whole thing just stinks, IMO. They should have had the guts to put it in the bill back then - but of course, if they had, they'd have lost the fig leaf of support from institutions like Notre Dame, as well as pro-life (mostly Catholic) Democrats. Profiles in Courage, indeed....

[fishercob]

Part of me thinks that if religious organizations want a seat at the table in political discussions/negotiations , they should pay taxes.

[hands11]

It is one thing to mandate a church do these things. It is totally different to say, if you are a hospital ( a regular business ) that you are exempt. They should be no more exempt then any other business. Their employees are not there to practice a religion. They are there to work. Just like Home Depo.

Churches get special tax exemptions and protections.

They can not have it both ways.

When they run a hospital, it is a business and it should fall under the same runs as other similar businesses.

As for equal treatment. As my condoms covered by my health plan. Why would men be decriminalized against. The health of my wang is at stake here.

[fugop]

Thank you, jim. (although the link didn't work for me...)

This really is a pretty simple issue. It's not like the CEO of Home Depot can request an exemption because he's personally opposed to contraception. The state-wide exemptions (including states like California, Maryland, and yes - Massachusetts) only apply to religious organizations who have issues of conscience.

And it's not like those organizations are asking to ban contraceptives - they are still available, the employees can still purchase them on their own. The question is, should a private organization be required to subsidize something that is antithetical to their entire mission? Will Catholic hospitals be forced to perform abortions? Where does it end?

To me, there's a huge amount of ignorance (mostly willful) on the issue of Rights in America. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government cannot stop you from doing _____ (speech, press, religion, etc.). It does not guarantee that the government will subsidize said rights in any way, shape, or form. Might as well claim that the government is violating my 2nd Amendment rights since it won't actually buy a gun for me.

In this sense, forcing a religious organization to subsidize (or even perform) activities that are counter to its core beliefs is, in fact, a violation of the 1st amendment, restricting the "free exercise thereof" as it relates to Religion.

There are counterarguments to balance an absolutist interpretation of the 1st Amendment - from shouting "Fire" in a crowded moviehouse to libel to national security. in this case, the counterargument is nowhere near that level of significance, and so deference should be paid to the free exercise of religion by the religious organizations.

That, and the fact that we were told explicitly this would not be part of the Bill back in 2010, and that it was a diktat from HHS rather than at least being part of a Congressional vote, and the whole thing just stinks, IMO. They should have had the guts to put it in the bill back then - but of course, if they had, they'd have lost the fig leaf of support from institutions like Notre Dame, as well as pro-life (mostly Catholic) Democrats. Profiles in Courage, indeed....

This is the dumbest political fight I've ever seen. Knaves and fools.

The minimum coverage provisions in the health care law are effectively a tax. It is not a violation of the first amendment to use taxes to on activities with which religious entities disagree. Taxes paid by religious entities support wars, the death penalty, the deportation of immigrants, etc. By the standard on display in this debate, Quakers are the most tyrannized minority in the world.

As a guy who was taught sex ed by a priest who is now a convicted child molester, the Catholic Church should really just stay the hell out of any public debate over sex. It's incredibly short sighted, and certain to be counter-productive in the long run.

The Church's issue is with contraception, one of the single most life-enhancing medical breakthroughs in the last century. They might win this fight, but they'll continue to hemorrhage congregants, and discredit themselves as moral arbiters.

Doctrinally, the Church also happen to be a mess in this area. The foundation of their hostility to contraception is the same as their hostility to masturbation -- a "mortal sin" by doctrine, again reinforced to me by someone who would later molest children.

[hands11]

Wall Street ( JP Morgan/The Banks ) are finally starting to be held responsible for what they did to the housing market and foreclosing on people that they don't even know where the deed are because of how they sliced and diced them so they could trade them and make ba ba billions gambling on our economy.

This is not another voluntary program and unlike other settlements and it doesn't exclude future charges. This is just the being but at least it is a beginning because until the housing market is cleaned up, there will always be that head wind pushing against a recovery. Individual people finances and credit are deeply connected to housing.

Now I would rather there have been regulation in place to avoid this from happening to begin with but given they were not, something needs to be done for individuals ( I am not one of them ). They helped the banks already. Once this mess is cleaned up, they need to make sure it doesn't happen again. Banking needs an overhaul. We had the S&L problem in the past and now this. They can not continue to be allowed to do whatever they want to make a buck and then F the economy and get bailed out. These mega banks are simply to big and to connected to the economy to have so much centralized under one roof. Capitalism is good for many things but not without rules and regulations. The drive to make the next buck by any means possible is just to great. We can have capitalism and have rules and regulations. That is in large part how you avoid fake bubble of fake wealth.

I'm actually starting to believe for the first time that people may actually go to jail over this.

There is lots to fix with this economy. We need to keep working on energy independence, rebuilding infrastructure and bringing back manufacturing, but housing is a very important leg of the economy. Thank God Obama did what he did the save GM or else things would be terribly worse.

Given everything the man had handed to him when he got in office and how much the Republicans have fought against him at every turn to do anything good, I think he has done an amazing job. I thought the same thing when Clinton was in office.

[hands11]

I was driving last night and caught the close and key note speaker for CPAC.

None other then Sarah Palin. Wow. She makes my head explode listening to her.

"We are Red, White and Blue Americans, and we are through with you" was one of her lines she tried to deliver. I really was very pathetic to listen to. The only thing more pathetic was to hear a group of core R applauding her as she read down he list of one liners that she awkwardly forced together. It was about as sad as listening to Mitt attempt to do the same thing. There was nothing inspiring about her speech. It was just a laundry list of rederic zinger lies.

And to make things worse, I caught Norquist talking earlier. I didnt know who I was listening to at first. All I know is what I was hearing was wacked lies. Then I realized who it was after about 3 minutes.

I know it upsets some when I post about this stuff but it really is concerning that we have a major party who is able to get the attention of such a large group of people by talking to them like they are 10 years old. The rhymes. The boogie man. The fear mongering. The alternate universe. Then the patriotic chants to tie it all together. Like somehow they are the only ones who care about this country. And they honestly believe that.

It saddens me that they are lead by the nose so easily. This country need to pull in somewhat the same direction or it isn't going to repair what got broken. We really can't afford to fight the head winds of the ill informed so it pisses me off to hear these people continue to spread the lies. Can we all at least agree that we all actually want the country to succeed ? Can we at least agree on basic facts about how we got here ? Things like tax cuts don't pay for themselves ? Things like TARP was under Bush and that Obama doesn't hate this country ? I mean if people can't agree on some basic facts, then we really have a huge problem on our hands. These are the lies that were getting applause at CPAC which is a core group for the R. I know most R they believe this way would never listen to someone who doesnt wear the same colors they wear so it is up to the knowledgeable Rs to get through to these people. Hey, I do what I can when I talk to waked Ds.

At least there Paul is out there talking about some real issues based in reality like the size of the military and our role in the world instead of the R core that wants to bomb everyone so we can play the world bully. I mean come on. When is the last time to bully won the day. Ultimately the bully get taken down. I would rather us be the Genital Giant.

I remember one lesson I learned when I was younger working construction with some pretty tough dudes from the country and inner city. As tough as those dudes were they said, all the real bad asses are either in jail or dead. Even a tough guy needs to know when to disarm a situation by toning it down. If not, bad things happen.

[dobrojim]

The Daily Show has been killing it the last 2 nights

Liz Trotta. Amazing.

[BanndNDC]

Wall Street ( JP Morgan/The Banks ) are finally starting to be held responsible for what they did to the housing market and foreclosing on people that they don't even know where the deed are because of how they sliced and diced them so they could trade them and make ba ba billions gambling on our economy.

Unlikely. It's a small settlement compared to the damage and gives a very broad waiver of liability. They get a free pass on massive and widespread intentional fraud (robosigning and the chain of title stuff) for less than $2k a house. it is also looking increasingly likely that most of the modifications will come out of institutional investor pockets (pension funds) and not the banks.

This is not another voluntary program and unlike other settlements and it doesn't exclude future charges. This is just the being but at least it is a beginning because until the housing market is cleaned up, there will always be that head wind pushing against a recovery. Individual people finances and credit are deeply connected to housing.

it pretty much does rule out future charges. oh and here's the best part. there's not even a text of the potential settlement. the administration and AGs have agreed to something before it is even in writing.

Now I would rather there have been regulation in place to avoid this from happening to begin with but given they were not,{/quote]
regulations were in place for much of the behavior already. robosigning is illegal. requirements regarding recording titles have been around for hundreds of years. scamming investors (creating investments designed to fail, selling them (while certifying due dilligence) and betting on them failing is illegal.

Banking needs an overhaul. We had the S&L problem in the past and now this. They can not continue to be allowed to do whatever they want to make a buck and then F the economy and get bailed out.

best way to do that would be to actually enforce the rules on the book and not settle to have it go away.

I'm actually starting to believe for the first time that people may actually go to jail over this.

pipe dream. it's just more of the usual whitewash and rhetoric.

[hands11]

http://wonkette.com/463639/virginia-man ... ious-women


Take the Republican supermajority in the Virginia House of Delegates, for example, which just passed a bill requiring any lady wanting an abortion to first have a doctor determine the gestational age of her fetus and listen to its heartbeat. Okay, whatever, a little jelly on the belly, and then, wheeeeeeee, off to the Abortionplex? Um, NOT QUITE!

Virginia is actually talking about the kind of ultrasound that involves a dildo-type sonic boom-generator penetrating the vagina, in a sort of, well, completely non-optional fashion. The Virginian-Pilot explains:

The ultrasound requirement may evoke images of the abdominal sonograms standard in most pregnancies, fuzzy black and white pictures conjured by a wand passed across a woman’s stomach.

But those ultrasounds are ordinarily done fairly late in pregnancy. In the beginning, particularly the first weeks, an abdominal ultrasound may not be sensitive enough to detect anything.

That’s why doctors in many cases use a transvaginal ultrasound. In plainspeak, they insert a condom-covered probe into a woman’s vagina to obtain an image.

In order to satisfy the goals of the legislation – which includes a requirement that a doctor determine the gestational age of the pregnancy- a transvaginal ultrasound may be the only reliable course.

Not that valid medical reasons for transvaginal ultrasounds don’t exist. It’s just that, for supporters of this new bill, getting a chance to enforce clinical rape is now medical reason enough, thanks for asking!

If only there were some completely unqualified scrum of idiots to shed a little light on this topic…. OH LOOK:

The conservative Family Foundation hailed the ultrasound measure as an “update” to the state’s existing informed consent laws “with the most advanced medical technology available.”

Did you know, though, that this wonderful process of obtaining “informed consent” for an abortion actually involves not being able to refuse a Magic Wanding of one’s swimsuit area? It’s true! House Republicans voted down an amendment that would have allowed women to opt out of “unwanted vaginal penetration.”

Unwanted Vaginal Penetration. What a marvelous turn of phrase to enter America’s lexicon, in 2012

---

Isn't unwanted vaginal penetration. Where have I heard that phrase before ?

[hands11]

BanndNDC

Why do you say it rules out future charges. I watched Bo Bieden give an interview and he is the one leading a lot of this. He clearly stated that it does not eliminate future charges and that they are pushing on with more of them.

Unless you have some insider details on this, I think I will take what Bo said at face value.

[BanndNDC]

BanndNDC

Why do you say it rules out future charges. I watched Bo Bieden give an interview and he is the one leading a lot of this. He clearly stated that it does not eliminate future charges and that they are pushing on with more of them.

Unless you have some insider details on this, I think I will take what Bo said at face value.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/ ... broad.html

From the Executive Summary of the mortgage settlement:
"The proposed Release contains a broad release of the banks’ conduct related to mortgage loan servicing, foreclosure preparation, and mortgage loan origination services. Claims based on these areas of past conduct by the banks cannot be brought by state attorneys general or banking regulators.

The Release applies only to the named bank parties. It does not extend to third parties who may have provided default or foreclosure services for the banks. Notably, claims against MERSCORP, Inc. or Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) are not released."

[hands11]

Thanks.

I will do some more reading up on this.

[montestewart]

The Daily Show has been killing it the last 2 nights

Liz Trotta. Amazing.

Sometimes it's hard to tell just how much well-compensated lapdogs like Trotta truly believe the disorganized nonsense that comes out of their mouths. That lady was dribbling a vaguely connected stream of consciousness with a few gratuitous trite wing bullet point cliches thrown in.

Shoulder-to-shoulder with men, sweating under the electric heat of journalistic endeavor, what should the growing numbers of women in the Fox newsroom be thinking? Of course more and more of them will get raped, and Fox shouldn't do a thing about it. Which shouldn't be a problem.

I rarely watch the Daily Show. Glad I caught that. Hilarious. And I guess a few people actually believe that.

[BarnabyJones]

So members of Congress can engage in insider trading, but us ordinary Americans can't?

Something very wrong with that picture....

[hands11]

The Daily Show has been killing it the last 2 nights

Liz Trotta. Amazing.

Sometimes it's hard to tell just how much well-compensated lapdogs like Trotta truly believe the disorganized nonsense that comes out of their mouths. That lady was dribbling a vaguely connected stream of consciousness with a few gratuitous trite wing bullet point cliches thrown in.

Shoulder-to-shoulder with men, sweating under the electric heat of journalistic endeavor, what should the growing numbers of women in the Fox newsroom be thinking? Of course more and more of them will get raped, and Fox shouldn't do a thing about it. Which shouldn't be a problem.

I rarely watch the Daily Show. Glad I caught that. Hilarious. And I guess a few people actually believe that.

http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/02/15/liz ... -military/

Now that was an interesting interview.

[hands11]

So members of Congress can engage in insider trading, but us ordinary Americans can't?

Something very wrong with that picture....

Yes there is. Honorable people in power don't legislate themselves to exempt themselves into an advantage, they do the opposite. Kind of like our founder did. You lean toward legislating accountability.

On a different note, I think it is really exciting that see the R field narrowing. Glad my predictions are coming true and Rick and Paul are still in it. I hope this remains this way so I can see the debate in public with more eyes watching. The only thing that would make this better is if Mitt wasn't there since he is a fake and a total politic hack liar. But even he serves a purpose by representing the 1%. Then you would have a clean honest debate.

Obama - moderate progressive who believes in investing in the middle class and gov/private balance. There isn't one solution that fits all. Some private is good. Some public is good. Some regulation is needed. Some isn't. Strong on military but willing to cut the budget because it is now needed. Fair taxes that are progressive and at least at Clinton/Reagan levels. Investment. etc.

Rick - A true social conservative who believes in the Ryan plan. Believe in small government regarding markets but big government when it comes to issues of sex and morality. The most social conservative candidate to make it this far ever. You would think the R party would be all behind this guy if they are truly as socially conservative as they say they are. This guy is to the right of Reagan who they loved.

Paul - A true Libertarian and a isolationist. Pull back all the troops. Get government out of everything except protecting our boarders. Legalize drugs and prostitution. Get ride of the Fed.

All three are genuine and well thought out on their positions. I would love see them debate their positions publicly. Just the 3 of them. Then we will really know what America wants to follow as a plan.

[Severn Hoos]

This is the dumbest political fight I've ever seen. Knaves and fools.

The minimum coverage provisions in the health care law are effectively a tax. It is not a violation of the first amendment to use taxes to on activities with which religious entities disagree. Taxes paid by religious entities support wars, the death penalty, the deportation of immigrants, etc. By the standard on display in this debate, Quakers are the most tyrannized minority in the world.

Huh? You lost me there - looks like you put several issues in the Cuisinart and pressed "Puree"

First, it is true that individuals pay taxes that support all kinds of things that they not only disagree with but are fundamentally opposed to their conscience. Quakers paying taxes to the government who operates the largest military in the world would certainly be a prime example. There is no "conscientious objector" status when it comes to individuals and taxes. But then, the issue here is not whether Catholic individuals have a right not to pay taxes to a government that supports/performs actions they disagree with.

The issue is whether "religious entities" do, in fact, pay taxes to support wars, death penalty, etc. As far as I can tell, the American Freiends Service Committe, the Friends General Conference, and other similar entities are 501(c)(3) organizations, thus tax exempt. The entity does not pay taxes to support the things they disagree with, even if the individual members do - just like the individual members of Catholic charities will pay taxes, but the organization does not.

But even with that said, something being "effectively a tax" and being an actual tax are still two different things. I understand the terminology from an economic standpoint, but from a moral standpoint, paying directly for something means that you are endorsing and supporting it. The parallel would be if AFSC had to pay a portion of their donations to buy military equipment for the soldiers in Iraq, a war that is fundamentally opposed ot their conscience and purpose for existing.

Actually - since the mandate requires that the hospitals pay for some other private entity to provide the service that violates their conscience, it would be more like AFSC paying Blackwater to do the dirty work that even our own military won't do. How do you think that would sit with the Quakers?

Look, I'm not trying to argue the issue of contraception, and I get all the controversy within the Catholic Church. It's just that this seems so simple. Most of the states who have similar mandates have an exception clause. And during the crafting of the bill, religious groups (especially Catholics) were assured that they would have religious freedom in the form of an exception. And to make matters worse - this wasn't even part of a bill that was voted on by the representatives of the people, it was a bureaucratic mandate from HHS.

A simple conscience exemption would have sufficed, yet even that was asking too much, apparently.