[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 33°F  
Freeze Warning
Saturday, Nov. 1, 2014
Post reply Read replies (410) More threads Create thread

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Monday called on Republicans to "stop being the stupid party"
Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 1:59 PM:

"We've got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything," Jindal told POLITICO in a 45-minute telephone interview. "We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys."

"It is no secret we had a number of Republicans damage our brand this year with offensive, bizarre comments -- enough of that,"

"We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters"

"Simply being the anti-Obama party didn't work. You can't beat something with nothing. The reality is we have to be a party of solutions and not just bumper-sticker slogans but real detailed policy solutions."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/111...



Replies

Bobby Jindal wasn't in office during Hurricane Katrina.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:16 PM

Rick,

It is merely an interesting story and one that I happen to agree with. Sorry if it offends you.

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:16 PM

"Simply being the anti-Obama party didn't work. You can't beat something with nothing."

That's not actually true. Mr. Obama won being being the Anti-Bush. He even received a peace prize for it, sans accomplishments.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:17 PM

And I'm not sure I understand your Katrina reference.

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:17 PM

But Obama is not Bush.

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:18 PM

"The reality is we have to be a party of solutions and not just bumper-sticker slogans but real detailed policy solutions."

We actually have solutions. Unfortunately, we are doing a very poor job of getting the word out about the, if even Mr. Jindal is not aware of them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:18 PM

For the past four years I've heard conservatives complain about Obama. They have repeatedly called him the worst President we've ever had. I'm just saying that grand generalizations like that accomplish nothing. 'NObama" has no meaning. I believe they would be better suited offering alternatives rather than bumper sticker slogans.

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:25 PM

But if you just like bumper stickers, here's one for you. "You know your political party is in trouble when someone asks if the 'rape' guy won and you have to ask, which one?"

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:31 PM

Or, if your recently elected Representative is headed for jail, as Mr. Jesse Jackson Jr. appears to be...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:41 PM

Curious that they kept Mr. Jackson's problems quiet until after the election.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:42 PM

But, then again, the Missouri Democrats elected a dead guy a few years ago...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:43 PM

But, then again, the Missouri Democrats elected a dead guy a few years ago...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:43 PM

He was better than the alternative.

______________________

No offense taken ...

-- Posted by .Rick. on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM

Thanks Rick

______________________

Shapley, I understand that your first instinct is to defend your party. But I'm really not trying to attack it or you. I've always considered myself to be an independent. I've never voted straight party lines because there are ideas and people on both sides of the political divide that I like and respect. But I've never liked or respected the "NObama" crowd because they really didn't/don't offer anything other than smug assurances that nothing could possibly be worse than him. After all, NObama!

You are obviously of a different tenor than me though. You perpetually cheerlead for the right and dismiss the left. That's fine; I wont try and challenge your paradigm. If you want to dismiss what Jindal is saying because he isn't following the Republican mandate and spouting the, everything's fine, politics as usual BS then that is your prerogative. But if everything was REALLY fine, then I think we would likely have a Republican getting ready to move into the White House.

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 3:50 PM

"You perpetually cheerlead for the right and dismiss the left."

Not true. I perpetually point out the instances in which 'the left' has exhibited the same behaviour they condemn on the part of 'the right'. I also try to perpetually point out misinformation leveled against my party and its positions.

TO laugh at the misstatements of a couple of candidates for office (who did not win) while ignoring the misstatements of Mr. Biden, or the lawbreaking of Mr. Jackson Jr., while claiming to be 'independent' strikes me as being a bit duplicitous.

I haven't 'dismissed' what Mr. Jindal is saying, except to challenge the idea that one can win an election without standing for something.

In 2006, the Democrats won majorities in both houses by being against the war and against Mr. Bush's deficits (which were a fraction of the deficits they racked up afterwards). They did not lay out a plan for what they would accomplish. This lack of direction led the Canadian Press to report "Democrats Win, Maybe Now They'll Tell Us What They Plan To Do."

I noted the failure of my party to articulate clearly that we have plans. That one of our own Governors is not aware of them is a party failure, not a dismissal of what he says.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:04 PM

"But if everything was REALLY fine, then I think we would likely have a Republican getting ready to move into the White House."

I've never said everything is just fine. But, if the solution is to become like the Democrats, then why have two parties.

I've said repeatedly, even during the campaign, that Mr. Romney ran a bad campaign, and that Mr. Romney would not have been my first nor my second choice for the candidate.

I beleive the party has the right approach, generally, to the issues of the day, but we lack a clear spokesman to articulate those approaches. That does not put me at odds with Mr. Jindal. His condemnation appears to largely center on the quality of our spokesmen, as did mine.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:08 PM

Dades:

Democrat Angela Michael, for US House, IL-15, ran a graphic anti-abortion TV ad called: "Obama and McCaskill's War on Women."

Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana called out Obama's elimination of oil and gas subsidies "that offset is not going to fly, and he should know that. Maybe it's just for his election, which I hope isn't the case".

West Virginia Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said "Since the day I became governor, I fought the Obama administration's war on coal"

Democrat Ed Rendell joined Harold Ford and Cory Booker (all democrats) as critics within Barack Obama's own party of his electoral strategy of demonizing private equity

Former VA Governor Douglas Wilder, a Democrat - the first black politician elected governor in the United States - was sharply critical of Vice President Joe Biden's controversial "chains" comment. He also said "Maybe voters won't notice that this administration has lost hope and resists change."

Democrat Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick ended up defending Mitt Romney applauded Boston-based Bain Capital, implicitly criticizing the Obama campaign's attacks on Romney's record at the private equity firm.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat who represents a California Central Valley district burdened by high unemployment and home foreclosures, said: "The Obama administration has failed miserably in trying to solve the problem."

Democratic Senate candidate Scott Howell said the president has to stand up to his commitment that he made earlier to get us out of Afghanistan by the end of his presidency. He's let us down on that"

So several elected democrats have said Obama:

Failed on the economy

Executed a war on women

Pulled back on oil permits simply for the election

Has lost hope and change

Failed to meet his election promises on Afghanistan

Is waging a "war on coal"

Shouldn't attack private equity firms

What are we to make of all of this?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:30 PM

"He even received a peace prize for it, sans accomplishments."

Step one was simply the repudiation of the President Bush "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" attitude. Many nations in the world were not "with the terrorists" but also had reservations about the US approach to the world.

Furthermore...

"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.

Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:46 PM

"You perpetually cheerlead for the right and dismiss the left."

Not true. I perpetually point out the instances in which 'the left' has exhibited the same behaviour they condemn on the part of 'the right'. I also try to perpetually point out misinformation leveled against my party and its positions.

TO laugh at the misstatements of a couple of candidates for office (who did not win) while ignoring the misstatements of Mr. Biden, or the lawbreaking of Mr. Jackson Jr., while claiming to be 'independent' strikes me as being a bit duplicitous.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:04 PM

Not true, eh? Hmmmm. Well I certainly can't argue with that logic.

____________________

So several elected democrats have said Obama:

Failed on the economy

Executed a war on women

Pulled back on oil permits simply for the election

Has lost hope and change

Failed to meet his election promises on Afghanistan

Is waging a "war on coal"

Shouldn't attack private equity firms

What are we to make of all of this?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:30 PM

What are we to make of all this? That the Republicans are in a much sorrier state than anyone realized since they couldn't even field a candidate that could defeat a Democrat who, as you say: failed on the economy, executed a war on women, pulled back on oil permits simply for the election...

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:51 PM

"What are we to make of all this?"

"...couldn't even field a candidate that could defeat a Democrat who, as you say: failed on the economy, executed a war on women, pulled back on oil permits simply for the election..."

To apply Occam's Razor, the simplest solution is that all of those "failure" claims are wrong

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:59 PM

-- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:51 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:59 PM

And the only thing missing in these posts is - why did Romney fail? You say it's because republicans said so and then gave some quotes from republicans to bolster your point - as if either of you believe anything a republican says unless it's a swipe at another republican.

So I gave you democrat quotes that take pretty big swipes at Obama. They have as much credibility as your republican comments. Maybe Obama could have won 45 out of 50 states like Reagan did if he hadn't failed as democrats pointed out.

Obama won because of the huge entitlement programs we have - and those entitlements would include union auto worker bailouts, failed billions in giveaways to green energy, on and on.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 5:48 PM

Common

You have your Obamacare so why do you continue to spin everything Obama?

...................................................................

"We need to stop being simplistic, we need to trust the intelligence of the American people and we need to stop insulting the intelligence of the voters"

So on the day after the election "Brotha" Harry said we need to raise the ceiling to $20Trillion. That's what most were afraid of. I couldn't give a rats patoui about anything else until the debt and economy was taken care of.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 5:55 PM

I learn something every day, never knew Shapley was a cheerleader and a tenor. Sounds like a good trait for popularity with the girls, eh?

So far what I have heard about Bobby Jindal I like. I even said on these threads he would be a good choice in 2008.

Common said: "..His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population. .."

I don't "share" the values of Sharia law. I don't "share" the idea of bringing down capitolism via regulation based on some dreamed up concept of man made global warming. I don't "share" the idea that a United Nations world order is in the interest of humanity.

And lastly, Jessie Jackson is typical of the democrat leadership values Common spins to be superior to the conservative yearning of most people with an iota of self respect and satisfaction concerning individual freedom and self reliance.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 6:49 PM

Dug you are so right Obama won the election because of all of the increased entitlements he gave people during his first four years. People vote for a person that always provides a dollar to their back pocket happens every time. Many of those people that voted for Obama this time could care less about the huge debt the country has or about budgets, foreign affairs. Many of them all they care about is "what can you give me today" and Obama responded and he got re-elected but not by a landslide by far he received only 51% of the vote compared to Romney 49%.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 5:52 AM

"I don't "share" the values of Sharia law. I don't "share" the idea of bringing down capitolism via regulation based on some dreamed up concept of man made global warming. I don't "share" the idea that a United Nations world order is in the interest of humanity."

Why would anyone expect you to? Those issues have nothing at all to do with what the Norwegian Nobel Committee was talking about.

They were referring to the "values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," such as liberty, economic freedom, democracy, human rights, freedom of religion, rights to vote, freedom of speech, etc.

Which of those values and rights do you disagree with?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 6:45 AM

Which of those values and rights do you disagree with? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 6:45 AM

I disagree with the fact that the "prestigious" Nobel committee applied any of those values to a man who has been president a month. They knew nothing about him and gave him this award.

Human rights? Can you say "drone kills"?

Economic freedom? Can you say "Obamacare and higher taxes"?

Liberty? Can you say "non-judicial random phone and email taps"?

Freedom of religion? Can you say "forced payment of contraception imposed on the Catholic church?"

Need more?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 7:18 AM

Obama won because of the huge entitlement programs we have - and those entitlements would include union auto worker bailouts, failed billions in giveaways to green energy, on and on.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 5:48 PM

Dug you are so right Obama won the election because of all of the increased entitlements he gave people during his first four years.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 5:52 AM

Well, it looks like you guys have certainly cracked it. It wasn't your party's failure to promote a cohesive narrative as to why Obama shouldn't be reelected. It wasn't your feckless candidate. It wasn't your party's tendency to disparage rape victims or 47% of the country. It was that darned Obama buying the election by actually helping the poor and unemployed rather than lamenting the burdens of the wealthy.

-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 8:33 AM

It wasn't your party's tendency to disparage rape victims-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 8:33 AM

I don't believe that Akin was running for president was he? I could also list the top 10 stupid things that democrat senators said this past election - starting with Claire McCaskill. Why didn't that affect Obama?

How do you "help the poor and unemployed" while you are running 1 Trillion dollar deficits every year? Do you believe that is untenable?

I think the issues are too complex for the entitled to understand. I think sappy slogans like "tax the rich" or "occupy wall street" or "evil corporations" or "pay fair share" are what got Obama elected. I guess Romney could have promised 198 weeks of unemployment benefits, picked an african american vice president and went on all the talk shows giving high-fives and being "cool" like us. That would have gotten him elected I guess.

The truth hurts - and most people don't want to hear it. Just keep those checks coming.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 8:49 AM

Keeping the unemployed unemployed and the poor poor does not help them.

What he did was to promise them more of other peoples' money.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 8:49 AM

It seems odd that nearly everyone associated with the oversight of the Benghazi situtation has been reassigned or resigned.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:37 AM

It seems odd that nearly everyone associated with the oversight of the Benghazi situtation has been reassigned or resigned.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:37 AM

I feel it is hopeless that we will ever get to the truth in many matters of the Obama administration. The MSM has failed to do it's job for 4 years and they only get weaker and more compliant. Obama will continue to lie and will continue to get away with it - and Holder, and Clinton, and ...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:59 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/petr...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:08 AM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/111...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:11 AM

The truth hurts - and most people don't want to hear it. Just keep those checks coming.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 8:49 AM

Certainly the truth can hurt Dug. Sometimes it can hurt so much that people will go to great lengths to make excuses, justifications or rationalizations for their beliefs so they can avoid the truth. Considering you have spent the past 4 years of your life posting defamatory comments about Obama I can't see how you wouldn't be personally vested in his failure. As such, I don't know that I would trust you to recognize truth (painful or otherwise) that didn't bolster your pre-existing political view.

______________________

What he did was to promise them more of other peoples' money.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 8:49 AM

Would you prefer that money go towards invading yet another third world country?

_______________________

I do not believe Obama to be an honest person .

For instance , he had to of known about the Petreaus incident

-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:04 AM

By all accounts, the Whitehouse was informed after the election. How does this make him dishonest?

_______________________

I know the current conservative conspiracy is to try to paint the Patraeus affair as some sort of cover-up for Benghazi. But do you really think anyone will believe that? Or is this supposed conspiracy merely pointed at people like Dug who likely wont question it and will use it to bolster their pre-existing bias?

-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:32 AM

"Would you prefer that money go towards invading yet another third world country?"

I would prefer that money be kept in the pockets of those that earned it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:36 AM

"But do you really think anyone will believe that?"

No. But does that necessarily make it untrue.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:36 AM

merely pointed at people like Dug who likely wont question it and will use it to bolster their pre-existing bias? -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:32 AM

I do have a pre-existing bias - and you do to. You just won't be honest about it.

My pre-exiting bias is based on 4 years of "mistruths" from Obama. How many times do people have to post facts before people like you open up your biased minds? Do you disagree with the deficit numbers? Do you disagree with the unemployment numbers? Do you believe that Guantanamo is closed? Do you think the debt is improved? Do you believe that Eric Holder knew *nothing* about a major gun running operation into a *foreign* country by his own staff?

How gullible are you? These facts are what I based my so-called "bias" on. Your bias is to ignore them dades. And that's your choice - have at it. Your only answers are like Obama's - "Yes, I believe those things Dug but it's all Bush's fault".

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:40 AM

And before you place the race card - like so many liberals here - I'll give you another perfect example of a failure-in-the-making.

France elected a far-left liberal to the presidency. Sound familiar? He's a "white guy" named Hollande and has proposed major tax increases and more spending to solve France's problems. People are revolting over there and many are already planning to leave the country for a more business-friendly environment.

He's Obama II - and a likely failure. He's now trying to recapture the love he got on election day after his dismal attempt at failed policies.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:46 AM

I don't think that Republicans will ever understand why they couldn't beat Obama. They are an angry party, with nothing to offer except more of the same. The party needs to separate itself from the Democrat Party to be a viable party.

The Republican Party had one candidate that had answers on foreign and domestic policies. He was dissed by other Republicans without economic and foreign policy training.

Republicans chose to go with a Democrat and their constituents chose the same path.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:07 AM

Nancy Pelosi is throwing her hat in the ring again for the chance to lead the House Democrats.

And yet they claim the Republicans are out of touch.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:12 AM

If the leadership of the GOP would start telling the truth it would be helpful, but they dance around the real hard issues.

BTW, the Communist Party was very happy about Obama's re-election. Their spokesman said, "It's the dawn of a new era".

-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:21 AM

Ron Paul, the only Republican that could have beaten Obama, on Bloomberg http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/ar...

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:27 AM

I agree with Jindal and have been saying it for sometime.

He is right. The ultra right and the Bush years hurt the republican brand. Many people on this board do not want to believe it.

Right now the Republican party is alienating the middle of the road voter. The party blind do not want to believe that, instead simply insulting the voters.

Take the tea party movement. Wasn't the tea party supposed to be about less government? Then why the heck is Todd Aiken hung up on abortion? Not really the cause of the Tea party movement, the platform on which he ran. Same story in Indiana.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:57 AM

Ron Paul, the only Republican that could have beaten Obama, on Bloomberg http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/ar...

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:27 AM

Not sure he would have won, but I would have voted for him.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:57 AM

I agree with Mr. Jindal, actually. The Republicans would have probably won the presidency if they would have/could have explained how they intended to accomplish their promised rewards.

Unlike Mr. Hunter, I worry about Missouri Republicans who seem very "out of touch". Peter Kinder, seriously??? Talk about a do nothing, money spending career politician.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:02 PM

The party needs to separate itself from the Democrat Party to be a viable party. -- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:07 AM

The ultra right and the Bush years hurt the republican brand. Many people on this board do not want to believe it. -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:57 AM

Let's see, on one hand they are too liberal - like those democrats.

On the other hand they are too conservative, tea partiers.

This is all too funny!

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:10 PM

Let's see, on one hand they are too liberal - like those democrats.

On the other hand they are too conservative, tea partiers.

This is all too funny!

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:10 PM

Exactly. And Why is this too funny? Were you laughing at the latest election results?

You have two extremes.

The republican party needs to do a better job reaching out to the middle.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:16 PM

"Unlike Mr. Hunter, I worry about Missouri Republicans who seem very "out of touch". Peter Kinder, seriously??? Talk about a do nothing, money spending career politician."

I don't live in Missouri, so I don't concern myself much with Missouri Republicans. Though I'm not sure I've ever said I don't worry about them.

As I see it, the people voted to leave things the same - the House is relatively unchanged, the Senate is relatively unchanged, and the presidency is unchanged. Yet, the Democrats seem to see this as a great accomplishment.

I've never said I think the Republicans should not change, I just don't think they need to listen to the Democrats when they tell them how they need to change. The people are hardly overwhelmingly accepting the Democrat ideology. Mr. Obama won over a weak candidate that, while I think he was the lesser of two evils, he could not convince the majority of the electorate he was even that good.

Mr. Obama's campaign trashed his character, blaming him for everything from one woman's cancer death to the meningitis outbreak. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they are congratulating themselves instead for being so brilliant. And this, they suppose, is a great victory.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:18 PM

Then why the heck is Todd Aiken hung up on abortion? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:57 AM

This sounds irrational. Do you seriously believe that what Todd Akin said equated to getting rid of abortion? That he was going to prohibit all abortions? Do you believe he can do that? Seriously?

I'll tell you why Mitt Romney lost - people don't focus on the future. They focus on "me, me, me" and "where's mine" and to hell with the debt and the future of this country.

If you voted for Obama you either a) don't care about the financial future of this country or b) you think he's really experienced to fix the problem. Neither a or b is a good answer. We have a higher debt to GDP ratio than Spain and they are making massive cuts to social programs.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:18 PM

I've never said I think the Republicans should not change, I just don't think they need to listen to the Democrats when they tell them how they need to change.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:18 PM

I agree. As evident by the two posts above. You can talk about Ron Paul all you want - how did he do in the last election?

I wasn't laughing or crying about the election. I figured he'd lose. I'm in a great position to survive what many entitled won't - the coming few years. I will gladly pay $4,000 more taxes on January 1's "fiscal cliff" to see the entitled get their 1/2 Trillion cut. The layoffs will be massive and the entitled will be lost. I've spent $4,000 on a vacation and it wouldn't be as much fun as this.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:22 PM

Then why the heck is Todd Aiken hung up on abortion? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:57 AM

This sounds irrational. Do you seriously believe that what Todd Akin said equated to getting rid of abortion? That he was going to prohibit all abortions? Do you believe he can do that? Seriously?

I'll tell you why Mitt Romney lost - people don't focus on the future. They focus on "me, me, me" and "where's mine" and to hell with the debt and the future of this country.

If you voted for Obama you either a) don't care about the financial future of this country or b) you think he's really experienced to fix the problem. Neither a or b is a good answer. We have a higher debt to GDP ratio than Spain and they are making massive cuts to social programs.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:18 P

Dug,

Actually, I am serious about less debt and federal spending. I voted for Gary Johnson. I leaned towards Romney, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the bush years for the republicans to get my vote.

And you are kind of proving my point. You say the people who voted for Obama don't care about the financial future of this country? Why is you say that? What would have been different from Romney that we haven't seen in the past?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:26 PM

Mr. Obama's campaign trashed his character, blaming him for everything from one woman's cancer death to the meningitis outbreak. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they are congratulating themselves instead for being so brilliant. And this, they suppose, is a great victory.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:18 P

And again, we have people making excuses.

What about the republican's negative campaigns?

If Romney won, would you have said the Romney campaign should have felt sorry for themselves?

When looking at this election, you have to take a devils advocate role.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:30 PM

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:22 PM

Good points.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:31 PM

What would have been different from Romney that we haven't seen in the past? -- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:26 PM

Repeal of Obamacare.

Reform of entitlements.

Opening up more energy opportunities on federal land.

Keeping tax rates at current levels.

And his highly successful experience in government and industry as Gov of Mass and head of Bain and the Utah Winter Olympics.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:32 PM

"Then why the heck is Todd Aiken hung up on abortion?"

Im not aware that Mr. Akin was 'hung up on abortion'. He was asked about it, and he answered with a poor answer. The Democrats were 'hung up' on the word 'legitimate', which they miscontrued to mean something other then the context would suggest.

They even accused him of tagging some rape 'illegitimate', though he said no such thing. Non-legitimate is not necessarily the same as illegitimate.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:33 PM

I guess to put it another way... in my opinion Ronald Reagan would have gotten his head handed to him in the last election. America has changed and Reagan would have been branded an angry white nutjob rich corporate-loving etc.

Hell, Hillary Clinton would have gotten her head handed to her as well if she would have run against Obama. Way to many people don't care about solving problems. They just want their checks.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:37 PM

"I'll tell you why Mitt Romney lost..."

Mr. Romney lost because he ran a p*** poor campaign, pure and simple. He allowed the Obama camp to frame his positions. He failed to answer the negativity and the outright lies about his position. He failed to adequately tie Mr. Obama to the failures of his administration, allowing them to perpetuate the belief that it was Mr. Bush's fault. He also failed to distance himself from Mr. Bush (though he was never even in Mr. Bush's administration).

I think Mr. Bush gets a bad rap, but it is what it is and the Republicans either have to make people understand that it is Democrat policies that largely led the collapse of the economy (a difficult task, to be sure, given that such a belief has been allowed to become 'common knowledge'), or they have to distance themselves therefrom. The latter is the easier, though less honest, option.

Mr. Romney did good in the first debate. But he thought he could just ride that surge into office. He didn't even try to hold Mr. Obama accountable in the third debate, he was as lackluster there as Mr. Obama was in the first one.

Then came the hurricane, and he disappeared from the news. You don't win elections hiding out on page twelve.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:41 PM

"Then why the heck is Todd Aiken hung up on abortion?"

Im not aware that Mr. Akin was 'hung up on abortion'. He was asked about it, and he answered with a poor answer. The Democrats were 'hung up' on the word 'legitimate', which they miscontrued to mean something other then the context would suggest.

They even accused him of tagging some rape 'illegitimate', though he said no such thing. Non-legitimate is not necessarily the same as illegitimate.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:33 P

That is one way to see it...Its just that the states of Indiana and Missouri saw it differently.

And it wasn't just one question. His follow up explanation doomed him.

And you say the 'democrats' were hung up on it? So all the undecided voters and women suddenly became democrat?

And yes, Aikin is hung up on abortion.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:41 PM

The Republican Party, outside of Ron Paul, simply don't understand the economic and foreign problems that should make up the issues.

Northeast Keynesian liberals were offered up as an alternative to a northeast Keynesian liberal. The defense and welfare state has been good for their well-being. Keynesian has fed them well, no need to change course. The future would not have been changed by the offering by Republicans.

If Republicans continue down this path, then why have a Republican Party?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:41 PM

If Republicans continue down this path, then why have a Republican Party? -- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:41 PM

Because 52 million people voted for them? :-) :-) :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:45 PM

"And you say the 'democrats' were hung up on it? So all the undecided voters and women suddenly became democrat?"

The Democrats had Sandra Fluke speak at their convention - the spokeswoman for 'free' contraception and abortifacients. Yes, they are 'hung up' on abortion.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:48 PM

"I'll tell you why Mitt Romney lost..."

Mr. Romney lost because he ran a p*** poor campaign, pure and simple. He allowed the Obama camp to frame his positions. He failed to answer the negativity and the outright lies about his position. He failed to adequately tie Mr. Obama to the failures of his administration, allowing them to perpetuate the belief that it was Mr. Bush's fault. He also failed to distance himself from Mr. Bush (though he was never even in Mr. Bush's administration).

I think Mr. Bush gets a bad rap, but it is what it is and the Republicans either have to make people understand that it is Democrat policies that largely led the collapse of the economy (a difficult task, to be sure, given that such a belief has been allowed to become 'common knowledge'), or they have to distance themselves therefrom. The latter is the easier, though less honest, option.

Mr. Romney did good in the first debate. But he thought he could just ride that surge into office. He didn't even try to hold Mr. Obama accountable in the third debate, he was as lackluster there as Mr. Obama was in the first one.

Then came the hurricane, and he disappeared from the news. You don't win elections hiding out on page twelve.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:41 PM

Some good points, but I dissagree with the first paragraph. So one side is liars, and the other side is always telling the truth? So I don't think that is the issue.

You have to look at the seats the republican's lost and the last 2 presidential election and wonder why.

Now Romney did win the popular vote, so it shows they are not that far off.

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:48 PM

From historian Clyde Wilson http://lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson37.1...

Dug, I really don't care one way or the other who won the election. It mattered little since both candidates were the same. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:51 PM

"And you say the 'democrats' were hung up on it? So all the undecided voters and women suddenly became democrat?"

The Democrats had Sandra Fluke speak at their convention - the spokeswoman for 'free' contraception and abortifacients. Yes, they are 'hung up' on abortion.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:48 PM

Having a speaker at a convention is 'hung up on it'?

But introducing abortion into unrelated legislation is not being 'hung up' on abortion?

-- Posted by Rational.Thought on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:54 PM

"Hell, Hillary Clinton would have gotten her head handed to her as well if she would have run against Obama." -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 12:37 PM

Look for Hillary to get the nomination next time.

-- Posted by dchannes on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 1:02 PM

Rational.Thought, Romney did not win the popular vote.

The voter count as of Friday at noon after the election.

Obama 61,173,739 50.5%

Romney 58,167,260 48.0%

Registered Non-voters won by a wide margin, estimated to be 90 million votes. All candidates, including third party, got 57.5% of the total possible vote.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 1:13 PM

"But introducing abortion into unrelated legislation is not being 'hung up' on abortion?"

The entire fabrication of a 'war on women' is based upon the premise that Republican opposition to the killing of children is somehow contrary to women's interests. The Democrats view 'women's issues' as being centered around the preventing of and/or the killing of children.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 1:55 PM

I would suggest you know very little about a Democrats view, especially if you believe the last sentence you wrote!

I am a Democrat, and I have no intention of killing a baby or a deer! I do believe in protecting the death of the mother if it is between her or an embryo.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:12 PM

"I do believe in protecting the death of the mother if it is between her or an embryo."

That is a personal view, not the Democrat Party's platform. The Democrat Party holds to the ideas that:

1) A woman's 'right' to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy is everyone's responsibility, and society must provide her with contraceptives, while

2) a woman's right to kill her child is her own business, and society has no right to regulate it, but ought to pay for it, (apparently as an extension of No. 1 above, which is that abortion is just a form of ex post facto birth control).

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:19 PM

You just won't be honest about it...

Your bias is to ignore them dades...

Your only answers are like Obama's - "Yes, I believe those things Dug but it's all Bush's fault".

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:40 AM

And before you place the race card...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:46 A

Wow Dug! You really got me pegged! You know every argument I'm going to make before I even make it! I don't even have to post anything, I can just let you argue my side for me, that way you can have all your excuses ready!

You see Dug; this is what I've been trying to tell you. It's not Obama or the Democrats that you dislike. It's the cartoon version of them that exists in your head.

You go on to say that you believe that not even Reagan or Clinton could beat Obama. It's like you think he's superman. But he's not. And he didn't beat Romney in the election because he's unbeatable. He won because Romney wasn't a very good candidate.

Maybe it's time for you to stop putting so much faith in the line of BS that your party is feeding you and, as clichéd as it sounds, start thinking for yourself. Or at least be open minded enough to listen to differing opinions within your own party.

___________________________

Since Patraeus was assigned to interrogate the CIA in Benghazi in late October, it was clearly before the election .

To not let the public know until right after the elction clearly makes Obama dis-honest .

-- Posted by .Rick. on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 11:01 AM

I'm not sure I follow Rick.

____________________________

Shapley said, "the presidency is unchanged. Yet, the Democrats seem to see this as a great accomplishment."

You and your cohorts have been crowing about how the winds of "change" were coming since the last election. What did you expect?

Shapley said, "I've never said I think the Republicans should not change, I just don't think they need to listen to the Democrats when they tell them how they need to change."

They need to start listening to somebody. The article I posted above gave the opinion of one of your very own. If you want to dismiss it because I posted it or some others agreed with it then that is your business. Feel free to be contrary for the sake of being contrarian.

Shapley said, "Mr. Obama's campaign trashed his character, blaming him for everything from one woman's cancer death to the meningitis outbreak. They should be ashamed of themselves."

As I've said before. You have spent the last four years lambasting Obama. Last week everyone was blaming him for Benghazi. This week he is to blame for creating the Petreaus sex scandal to cover up Benghazi. If that's not a smear campaign, then why would you be ashamed of Obama running a dirty campaign?

-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:53 PM

It's not Obama or the Democrats that you dislike. It's the cartoon version of them that exists in your head.-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:53 PM

Now your a psychiatrist? Or a circus palm reader?

I have my thoughts on how Obama won and you have yours. I know what you're going to say because you say it over and over. It's not that hard to predict and sure enough you didn't disappoint.

You pull news stories and attribute to everyone that posts here. I never said Obama ditched Petraeus to cover up Benghazi. You complain about us lambasting Obama. How many times do I have to post *facts* that you deny? I'll post the same ones from above to save the time - facts that you skirt around and go to your same talking points. Here they are dades - ignore them again:

"How many times do people have to post facts before people like you open up your biased minds? Do you disagree with the deficit numbers? Do you disagree with the unemployment numbers? Do you believe that Guantanamo is closed? Do you think the debt is improved? Do you believe that Eric Holder knew *nothing* about a major gun running operation into a *foreign* country by his own staff?"

There you go. That is why I have lambasted Obama. Facts. Now the hard part for you. Dispute one of them - any one. Good luck. You turn a blind eye. I could have posted 50 more facts that are reason enough to lambast your man.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM

The Republicans lost to the "worst president in history" (their description).

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:33 PM

"If you want to dismiss it because I posted it or some others agreed with it then that is your business."

As I've already said, I have not dismissed it. I have taken exception to parts of it. I would think that would be tolerable.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:37 PM

"As I've said before. You have spent the last four years lambasting Obama."

Prove that statement. I have spent the last six years lambasting the Democrat Congress, with a special emphasis on Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid.

I have not lambasted Mr. Obama, other than to oppose his policies and his constant whining about what he 'inhertited' without noting that he 'inhertited' largely from his own party's Congress.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:39 PM

"Last week everyone was blaming him for Benghazi."

I've not blamed him for Benghazi. I've blamed him for the lies his administration spread about the causes of the events at Benghazi.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:41 PM

"How many times do people have to post facts before people like you open up your biased minds? Do you disagree with the deficit numbers? Do you disagree with the unemployment numbers? Do you believe that Guantanamo is closed? Do you think the debt is improved? Do you believe that Eric Holder knew *nothing* about a major gun running operation into a *foreign* country by his own staff?"

There you go. That is why I have lambasted Obama. Facts. Now the hard part for you. Dispute one of them - any one. Good luck. You turn a blind eye. I could have posted 50 more facts that are reason enough to lambast your man.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:03 PM

Why don't you try posting some facts Dug? I skipped over your grab bag of complaints because I thought surely you must be drunk if these are your "facts". But if you want to address them then away we go...

Your facts from above:

Do you disagree with the deficit numbers?

-- Ummm. How is this a fact? Are you asking if I think the numbers are accurate? Are you asking do I think the numbers are good? Are you asking if I agree with the comment they made about my hair? What did they say about my hair?

Do you disagree with the unemployment numbers?

-- Again, that is not a fact Dug. That is a question. And I don't know what you are asking.

Do you believe that Guantanamo is closed?

-- No. I do not believe that Guantanamo is closed. But let me ask you something. Can he close it? Does he have the numbers in congress? How big of a fight will it be to get it closed and will it be worth it?

Again, these are your facts?

Do you think the debt is improved?

-- No. I do not think the debt has improved. But again, you are asking a question not stating a fact.

Do you believe that Eric Holder knew *nothing* about a major gun running operation into a *foreign* country by his own staff?"

-- I honestly don't know.

I assume with your questions you are trying to draw attention to the large deficit and unemployment numbers and let me say that they are what they are. I think that the President is like a barge on the Mississippi River. He can make waves but he doesn't change the flow of the river.

-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:43 PM

"This week he is to blame for creating the Petreaus sex scandal to cover up Benghazi."

I've not blamed him for that. I've merely noted that it everyone in authority over Benghazi has resigned or been reassigned. That statement does not point the finger of blame at anyone.

However, the buck is supposed to stop at the Oval Office. If there is a problem, the President should own up to it and not keep letting underlings take the flack.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:44 PM

"If that's not a smear campaign, then why would you be ashamed of Obama running a dirty campaign?"

I'm not ashamed of Mr. Obama running a dirty campaign. I had not part in it. I said he should be ashamed for running a dirty campaign.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:45 PM

As I've already said, I have not dismissed it. I have taken exception to parts of it. I would think that would be tolerable.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:37 PM

Sorry, you were so loud with the exception you took that I totally missed the parts you found tolerable.

-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:45 PM

"You and your cohorts have been crowing about how the winds of "change" were coming since the last election. What did you expect?"

Where did I crow about the winds of change blowing. Methinks you have me confused with someone else. I don't do political predictions.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:46 PM

I said he should be ashamed for running a dirty campaign.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:45 PM

And I'm just saying that I'm surprised that you think this is what would shame him if half the stuff that gets reported by the conservative media and reposted here were true.

-- Posted by DADES on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:48 PM

"That is a personal view, not the Democrat Party's platform. The Democrat Party holds to the ideas that:

1) A woman's 'right' to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy is everyone's responsibility, and society must provide her with contraceptives, while

2) a woman's right to kill her child is her own business, and society has no right to regulate it, but ought to pay for it, (apparently as an extension of No. 1 above, which is that abortion is just a form of ex post facto birth control)."

Where in the world did that fabrication come from? I can't even imagine who would hold that kind of position.

The Democratic Party's position is clear.

------------------------------

"The Democratic Party believes that women have a right to control their reproductive choices."

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose

"Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way."

------------------

No taxpayer funding of anything. The only recent change is birth control being part of the basic health plan and each individual pays for their own and has their own choice whether to use it or not.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 3:48 PM

"Sorry, you were so loud with the exception you took that I totally missed the parts you found tolerable."

Loud? Really? Are you saying I SHOUTED?

I merely pointed out that one can win an election by running against instead of for things, as Mr. Obama did in 2008 and the Democrat legislators did in 2006.

I then disputed his claim that we had no solutions, stating that we have solutions, but we apparently weren't loud enough in expressing them.

Everything since has been in answer to queries on those points.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:02 PM

"No taxpayer funding of anything. The only recent change is birth control being part of the basic health plan and each individual pays for their own and has their own choice whether to use it or not."

"But if a woman's employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company -- not the hospital, not the charity -- will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge without co-pays, without hassle."

- Barack Obama (Feb. 10, 2012) -

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:06 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/13/politics/h...

"The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that would amend the health care law to bar federal funding for health plans that provide abortion services.

"The vote was 251 in favor and 170 against.

"The bill, the Protect Life Act, was sponsored by Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and gathered overwhelming Republican support. Only two Republicans voted against it, along with all but 15 Democrats."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:12 PM

"...the insurance company..."

Not the taxpayer.

It is clear to almost everybody that the insurance company will include any expense in the cost of the basic plan, but I do not see where the government is paying for anything

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:12 PM

"No taxpayer funding of anything."

I didn't say taxpayer funding.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:14 PM

"It is clear to almost everybody that the insurance company will include any expense in the cost of the basic plan, but I do not see where the government is paying for anything."

I didn't say government was. I said 'society'.

Since the cost of providing the contraceptives will be provided 'free of charge', according to Mr. Obama, that means the cost will not be passed to those who use the service, but will be spread into the premiums of all (including those institutions morally opposed to providing it). Ergo, society will foot the bill.

The government is not society. The people are.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 4:26 PM

The Democrat Party holds to the ideas that:

1) A woman's 'right' to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy is everyone's responsibility, and society must provide her with contraceptives, while

2) a woman's right to kill her child is her own business, and society has no right to regulate it, but ought to pay for it, (apparently as an extension of No. 1 above, which is that abortion is just a form of ex post facto birth control).

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:19 PM

You are simply delusional, but I will entertain your stance if you can PROVE it!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:11 PM

You can be cute, but you can't deny the facts. You dismissed them as not a reason to "lambast" the president and then began a defense of him.

If Barack Obama can't be lambasted over record debts, record deficits, record unemployment, near-record gas prices, a devaluing dollar and a carefully crafted strategy of class warfare and division then you've been drinking too much kool-aid. He is a serious failure.

And now back to the topic. Get a good, detailed election map and educate yourself. Barack Obama won exactly 50.6% of the popular vote - not a "mandate". If you look at a map *for the most part* he won big cities that have high crime, high welfare and high government dependency. White people, black people, women, men all voted heavily for Obama outside of urban areas. You can spin this any way you want but the entitled lined up for the man that promises the most payout to them - welfare, unemployed, union bail outs, you name it.

Romney would have lost a lot worse if he had "moved" to Obama's position of promising more spending and taxing. The country has tipped further to the left and the slide will continue until we hit the Spain/Greece austerity.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

Obama is pretty much doing what his handlers wanted him to do. His policies are pretty much the same as the policies of the president before him.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 10:40 PM

Sorry have wheels, did you ask a question. Your opinion is different than mine. If the embryo,fetus,baby can not live outside of the womb, it is a null and void point. The mother's life must be paramount.

I do not believe abortion should be a political issue. I agree with Rick, it is not my business nor my choice. Personally, I would not choose it and do not condone it. But you are not the judge either. I believe God is in charge, and it is between the mother and him. If she chooses wrong, she will have to answer to him. Whose to say?

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 5:45 AM

"You are simply delusional, but I will entertain your stance if you can PROVE it!"

I did, with the links I provided above.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 6:32 AM

The Democrat Party holds to the ideas that:

1) A woman's 'right' to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy is everyone's responsibility, and society must provide her with contraceptives, while

2) a woman's right to kill her child is her own business, and society has no right to regulate it, but ought to pay for it, (apparently as an extension of No. 1 above, which is that abortion is just a form of ex post facto birth control).

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:19 PM

NO, you did not. Show me where the Democratic party has said they believe these things. Verbatim!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 6:46 AM

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 6:46 AM

Do you believe that religious institutions (churches, schools, hospitals) should be forced to pay for insurance coverage of contraception and abortion against their beliefs?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 8:09 AM

"NO, you did not. Show me where the Democratic party has said they believe these things. Verbatim!"

I didn't include quotation marks in my post, indicating that I did not quote them 'verbatim'.

That is the reality of the position, whether you want to admit that or not. The Democrats want, according to CSM's post, "The Democratic Party believes that women have a right to control their reproductive choices." Since it is, as they say, about 'reproductive choices', i.e., the freedom not to get pregnant during sex, rather than being about health factors or contraceptives for medical conditions, they support the idea that women should be able to have sex without fear of getting pregnant.

Since they support the idea that society, via insurance and government-funded 'sexual and reproductive health centers' such as Planned Parenthood, the support the idea that society is responsible for the cost of granting them that freedom.

Since abortifacient drugs, such as the drug Ella, are a part of the HHS mandate regarding insurance companies' (i.e. societies') respronsibility to provide such things 'free of charge', they include abortion in the societal mandate. Yet, at the same time, they claim it is an individual choice.

In other words, their policy is 'shut up and write the checque'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 8:20 AM

"...women have a right to control their reproductive choices."

If you prefer to misconstrue that to mean "sex without fear" that's you privilege. In truth it simply means "keep the government out of peoples bedrooms" and allow insurance companies to provide the services people want.

All this party line gobbledygook about "free birth control" and "government funded" abortions is just bizarre and meaningless.

Birth control is part of the basic policy that individuals pay for themselves, or is part of their total compensation package.

Abortions are not government funded.

Planned Parenthood prevents abortions by education, health services and counseling.

Taking Plan B pills is not an abortion.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 8:52 AM

"keep the government out of peoples bedrooms", but leave the checquebook.

Consenting adults have the right to do what they want to do in the privacy of their bedroom, but they don't have the right to demand that I subsidize or license it.

If they want 'reproductive choice', let them finance it themselves, or refrain from sexual activity until they can afford the contraceptives or the consequences.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:03 AM

"All this party line gobbledygook about "free birth control" and "government funded" abortions is just bizarre and meaningless."

Tell that to the President. He's the one who said it would be 'free of charge'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:04 AM

"Birth control is part of the basic policy that individuals pay for themselves, or is part of their total compensation package."

Or it is provided by Planned Parenthood.

And, of course, the Young Democrats of America disagree with you. Perhaps you'd better educate them, as well:

http://www.yda.org/thanks-obama-for-free...

______________

Then, of course, there is this:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/un-says-...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:10 AM

"Planned Parenthood prevents abortions by education, health services and counseling."

And it provides them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:12 AM

The president's erroneous quotes are not the policy. It's not free. -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:09 AM

OMG! That's two strikes Spaniard. You called for Obama's impeachment a couple of months ago and now you said he made a mistake. You're going to lose your account at the Huffington Post if you're not careful!

The misleading nonsense is coming from you and CSM.

From the liberal NY Times - more "nonsense"?:

"The 2010 health care law says insurers must cover "preventive health services" and cannot charge for them and the new rule was issued to spell out the details of this mandate. It requires coverage of the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Among the drugs and devices that must be covered are emergency contraceptives including pills known as ella and Plan B (abortion pills). The rule also requires coverage of sterilization procedures for women without co-payments or deductibles (contraception).

The administration rejected a request from the Roman Catholic Church for a broad exemption for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities, although it said it would give such church-affiliated organizations one additional year -- until Aug. 1, 2013 -- to comply with the requirement. "

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:17 AM

"The president's erroneous quotes are not the policy. It's not free."

It appears to be what many who voted for him believe. Ergo, it's the perception, if not the reality.

But, it doesn't change my original statemment - they want society to pay for it.

Commonsensematters suggests that it is paid for by the insured through their premiums. But, if the added cost of providing it were simply going to be rolled into the enrollees premium, there would be no advantage to including it. Instead, it is rolled into everyone's premiums, reducing the cost to the user by haveing the rest of that component of society that is enrolled with their insurer's coverage foot the bulk of the bill. They can, in essence, receive $1,000 worth of contraception for a premium increase of, say, $10, with the rest of society picking up the tab for the other $990. Thus, my statement is accurate.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:17 AM

People who object to paying for abortions and unnecessary wars are forced into paying for them even if it goes against their conscience. Where does the problem lie?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:18 AM

"And it provides them."

When women so choose after making up their own minds.

Unplanned parenthood causes abortions, Planned Parenthood does not.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:20 AM

You can have an abortion or buy contraception Spaniard. The catholic church has never stopped anyone from such - ever in my knowledge.

You want them to pay for your abortion and contraception and apparently don't know the difference between the right to buy potato chips and forcing someone to buy them for you.

50.6% of Americans voted for Obama. Enough to get him in, but no mandate to force Catholic institutions to pay for your abortion or contraception.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:22 AM

"People who object to paying for abortions and unnecessary wars are forced into paying for them even if it goes against their conscience. Where does the problem lie?"

Fighting wars is a constitutional role of government. Providing insurance, and killing and preventing babies is not.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:24 AM

"But, if the added cost of providing it were simply going to be rolled into the enrollees premium, there would be no advantage to including it."

Of course there is, if an individual must pay extra for a given service, they would be more reluctant to use it, resulting in more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, then more abortions.

Why would you want that?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:24 AM

"Unplanned parenthood causes abortions,"

Use your common sense. If they have an abortion, it is not 'parenthood'.

"Planned Parenthood does not." It provides them. It performs them. It counsels on them. It advocates for them. It lobbies the government to preserve unfettered access to them.

If that isn't 'causing' them, it comes pretty darned close.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:27 AM

Planned Parenthood does not. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:20 AM

but Planned Parenthood DOES perform abortions.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:28 AM

"Of course there is, if an individual must pay extra for a given service, they would be more reluctant to use it, resulting in more unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, then more abortions.

"Why would you want that?"

I take it this is your back-hand way of saying I am right. Thus, rather than admit it, you try to validate the position you earlier said was not the Democrat's position. Hmmmm.

No, I dont' want more pregnancies and more abortions. I want more personnal responsibility.

Subsidizing bad behaviour does not promote personnal responsibility. Forcing people to subsidize that which they find to be immoral does not promote personnal responsibility.

When Roe Vs. Wade was first legalized the annual number of abortions per capita began to rise markedly, reaching a peak of 29.3 in 1981. When we began to place curbs on them. The number has been falling since, until leveling off at about 19.5 around the year 2005.

Prior to the Hyde Amendment, federal funding for aboritions was permitted. In response to they Hyde Amendment, several states, such as Washington State, New York, and Maryland, began funding them with state monies.

Thirteen states fund abortions through their Medicaid monies due to court orders to do so.

When the Democrat-controlled Senate passed the Affordable Care Act, it stripped the Hyde Amendment language from the bill, even though it had been retained in the House version. As an agreement to permit passage without the language, Mr. Obama agreed to sign an Executive Order enforcing the language. Thus, the current bill does not prohibit federal funding of abortions.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:44 AM

Planned Parenthood In-Clinic Abortion Proceedures.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-...

What they don't provide is breast exams. They provide referrals for those services.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:47 AM

SH, So you believe that people should be forced into paying for things that goes against their conscience? Voluntarism is ruled out for unnecessary wars?

In other words, you support forced taxation. Is this the Catholic position? They believe that people should be forced to pay for killing other people when it goes against their conscience?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:58 AM

Since Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices gave us Roe vs. Wade and took the decision out of the hands of state government, why would Catholics vote Republican?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:03 AM

Again, the difference between having a right to buy potato chips and forcing someone to pay for them is no different than this argument.

I didn't vote Republican to stop abortions. I voted to stop us from paying for them. The issue here is forced payment for abortion and contraception imposed on religious institutions - not taxpayers.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:18 AM

"SH, So you believe that people should be forced into paying for things that goes against their conscience? Voluntarism is ruled out for unnecessary wars?"

I've already addressed the constitutional requirement for fighting wars. You are free to pay your taxes under protest, as many did during the Vietnam War.

"In other words, you support forced taxation."

The Constitution authorizes taxation, and it authorizes the Congress to declare wars. It says nothing about a moral requirement or litmus test for the waging thereof.

"Is this the Catholic position?"

I believe 'Render unto Caesar' is the Catholic position on taxation. I do not believe he provided any indication that such a dicate was not to be followed when Caesar waged unjust wars, as was the wont of Caesars in those days.

In the case of birth control and abortifacients, we are not talking the matter of 'rendering unto Caesar, but being forced to purchase an immoral product by the heavy hand of government.

Also, it is believed that democracy permits us to use the means at our disposal to influence our elected leaders away from immoral decisions. An option not available to the common many under Caesar's imperial leadership.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:24 AM

"Since Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices gave us Roe vs. Wade and took the decision out of the hands of state government, why would Catholics vote Republican?"

Because Republicans are the party that is currently speaking out against abortion. The Democrats are for it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:27 AM

"Since Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices gave us Roe vs. Wade"

Since Democrats favoured segregation and opposed the reconstruction of the South. Why would black people vote Democratic?

Is that question any less sensible than your own?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:29 AM

SH, 'Render unto Caesar' You didn't add "What is Caesar's". Caesar owns our productive labor? Is this the position of the Catholic Church? Slavery?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:35 AM

Since Democrats favoured segregation and opposed the reconstruction of the South. Why would black people vote Democratic?

Is that question any less sensible than your own?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:29 AM

No, except for reconstruction. I don't understand why blacks or whites even vote.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:38 AM

"The Democrats are for it."

Actually they are not "for it" they are for a woman's freedom of choice, and against heavy-handed, "big-brother government" prohibitions on it.

- - - - - - - - -

"Since Democrats favoured segregation and opposed the reconstruction of the South. Why would black people vote Democratic?"

You continue to ignore the fact that as the democratic party moved toward support of civil rights, those former Southern democrats moved to the republican party.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:46 AM

those former Southern democrats moved to the republican party. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:46 AM

And as the south became more republican, there is no longer slavery or government run segregation. Funny that.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:51 AM

"Caesar owns our productive labor?"

No more than he owned the people of Judea's in his own day. They traded in the coinage issued by Caesar, and thus owed to him that percentage of it he demanded. By that token, we trade in the dollars issued against the Federal Treasury, and owe to it that percentage they demand.

The Church tells us to pay our lawful due, but it does not tell us we cannot petition for fairness and morality on the part of the government in deciding what percentage is lawfully due.

It also calls upon governments to act with morality, fairness, and prudence in its business. If the government fails to fulfil that obligation to its people, then it does not prohibit the people from rising up in protest nor in rebellion, if warranted.

"Is this the position of the Catholic Church?"

Unless I have merely not gotten the word from the Cardinals, I am not the Pope. Thus, I do not speak for the whole of the Church. I speak for Shapley Hunter and no one else. I can post the Catholic position where I know of it, or post Catholic official statements where I know of them, but I cannot speak with the Church's authortity.

"Slavery?"

Do you count yourself to be a slave?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:54 AM

"You continue to ignore the fact that as the democratic party moved toward support of civil rights, those former Southern democrats moved to the republican party."

Your claim of that is immaterial to the context of the post.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:56 AM

"No more than he owned the people of Judea's in his own day. They traded in the coinage issued by Caesar, and thus owed to him that percentage of it he demanded. By that token, we trade in the dollars issued against the Federal Treasury, and owe to it that percentage they demand."-Shapley Hunter

You do realize that it is illegal to issue your own currency. A man, I forgot his name, issued gold coins recently, and is facing prison time. His act was called treasonous by some elected officials.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 11:12 AM

"You do realize that it is illegal to issue your own currency. A man, I forgot his name, issued gold coins recently, and is facing prison time. His act was called treasonous by some elected officials."

And? It was also illegal for the Judeans.

It is not illegal for you to trade in the currency of, say Mexico or the European Union, or to accept coins of other minting. However, when you pay your taxes, the government expects you to pay them in U.S. dollars.

The banks are, in essence producing their own currency with the issuance of credit cards. They keep track of the transaction is U.S. Dollars, though, keeping it legal.

When you write a checque, you are issuing your own currency. Again, it is generally measured agains the U.S. Dollar. You can also issue I.O.U.s (a form of currency) in other units, such as cows or bicycles or shotgun shells. The value of the transaction, however, will still be taxed in U.S. Dollars.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 11:42 AM

FDR claimed that if you raise wheat for your own consumption that you were engaging in interstate commerce.

Raising your own pot to smoke, is it engaging in interstate commerce?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 12:17 PM

"Regulating interstate commerce is.

"If a religious org wants to run a hospital or a restaurant or a daycare or paint-ball course, they are choosing to engage in the us economy."

Unless they build that hospital, restaurant, daycare, or paint-ball course on the State line, they are engaging in intrastate commerce, not interstate commerce.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 12:21 PM

...but you can't deny the facts.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

Why is it that I can't but you can? That doesn't seem fair.

If you want to string together a group of random, nonsensical questions and call them "facts" then go right ahead. I won't try and keep you from it.

__________________________

You dismissed them as not a reason to "lambast" the president and then began a defense of him.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

No, I dismiss them as questions Dug. You did not state any facts. You keep using the word "facts" but I'm not sure you understand what it actually means.

Even if I were to extrapolate the questions you keep touting as "facts" into statements, it still results in an opinion and not fact. Again, I think you need to look up what the word means before we can continue...and while you're at it, you might want to look up the word 'opinion' as well.

__________________________

...then you've been drinking too much kool-aid. He is a serious failure.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

Ahhhh, the ole "you've been drinking the Kool-Aid" gambit. I didn't realize we were going to go there. But since you did, I've now got a six year old on retainer who has advised me to counter with the "I'm rubber and your glue" defense.

__________________________

And now back to the topic. Get a good, detailed election map and educate yourself.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

You educate yourself first...don't worry, I'll wait...

__________________________

Barack Obama won exactly 50.6% of the popular vote - not a "mandate".

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

I don't see where I or anyone else on this thread is arguing that Obama's victory is a "mandate." Who is arguing it is a mandate and how is this "back on topic"? Again, I think you are confusing me with the cartoon version of me you have in your head and your trying to counter the arguments you wish I made instead of the ones I actually make.

__________________________

If you look at a map *for the most part* he won big cities that have high crime, high welfare and high government dependency. White people, black people, women, men all voted heavily for Obama outside of urban areas.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

Inside urban areas as well!

__________________________

You can spin this any way you want but the entitled lined up for the man that promises the most payout to them - welfare, unemployed, union bail outs, you name it.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

Now, did they line up to vote for the man who promised them payouts or against the man who dismissed them as a lost cause? Did they vote Obama because welfare is wonderful! Or because Romney top concern was tax breaks for those who will never know the shame and indignity of welfare.

__________________________

Romney would have lost a lot worse if he had "moved" to Obama's position of promising more spending and taxing. The country has tipped further to the left and the slide will continue until we hit the Spain/Greece austerity.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 9:39 PM

You've already said that in your world, Obama was invincible so it stands to reason that you think a better planned and executed campaign by Romney would have been meaningless.

Wow Dug, arguing with you is really exhausting. I mean, admittedly I do spend a lot of time defending Obama, but it's because your accusations are ludicrous and they make a mockery of legitimate criticism.

-- Posted by DADES on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 1:14 PM

Wow Dades, arguing with you is not really exhausting. I mean, admittedly I do spend a lot of time lambasting Obama, but it's because your defense of him is ludicrous and makes a mockery of legitimate criticism.

Now - back to the facts. Anyway you want to process them is fine with me. Select the statement on the left or the question on the right.

Obama set a record for high unemployment - or - Did Obama set a record for high unemployment?

Obama set a record for debt and deficits - or Did Obama set a record for debt and deficits?

Obama has left Guantanamo open - or Did Obama close Guantanamo?

The basis of your entire rant is that you call these facts "bias" and not a reason to lambast Obama. Again, you're drinking the kool-aid if a president with as dismal a record as his can't be criticized or "lambasted" for his own record. Do you still want to blame Bush or do you believe the US is doing just great with these facts?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 1:23 PM

-- Posted by .Rick. on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 1:22 PM

The liberals are in post-election denial. They want to make everyone believe that Obama won a huge mandate - he said so himself yesterday - while he got 50.6% of the vote. And the map does show that the highest crime, welfare and liberal areas (cities, towns, etc.) voted for Obama. Rural, small-town and independent people voted for Romney.

The more people dependent on government will grow and liberals will continue to rule the rest that are left to pick up the tab. As I said earlier Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton would have lost as bad. Today's democrats are a "ME FIRST / WHERE'S MINE" crowd and it shows in their posts here.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 1:27 PM

I am from a rural area, and I voted for President Obama.

I believe (as most Liberals) that the Government is needed to oversee business and make sure companies do the right thing, (Min. wage etc.)enforce laws which protect the people.

Conservatives tend to believe the government should oversee and regulate morality (marriage, drugs, abortion). I like to think that is the Church's job, and government should not interfere. Those of you without a Church insert your own personal integrity code here.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 2:05 PM

Hey Dug, looks like you went out and found some new "facts" to ask. These are different than the "facts" you asked me earlier. Are you just going to keep coming up with new "facts" to ask me until something sticks?

I have to admit that even I am starting to get confused. Because I'm just so darned used to asking questions and stating facts, that I'm not sure if I should respond to the "facts" you asked with "questions" or answers or "answers" or "facts" or with actual facts as defined by every dictionary but yours. Hmmmm, it's a real head scratcher.

__________________________

I can not speak for the entire Nation , but I saw a break down of the state of Missouri .

The only areas Obama won in the entire state were Kansas City and St.Louis . This tells me the major cities in the state of Missouri were the only areas who backed Obama ....interesting...

-- Posted by .Rick. on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 1:22 PM

I don't think it was so much that these area's backed Obama as is was that there tends to be more minorities in these areas and Democrats tend to do better with convincing minorities to vote. Throw in an uninspiring Republican candidate like Romney and many Republicans may stay home on Election Day thus allowing motivated Democrats to win the county.

-- Posted by DADES on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 2:58 PM

"Conservatives tend to believe the government should oversee and regulate morality (marriage, drugs, abortion)"

No, we don't.

Abortion had been against the law for decades, if not centuries, by the states. Those laws were challenged in court, and tossed out in a bad decision. Since that time, conservatives have sought to either restore the authority to prohibit it to the states, or to regulate it at the federal level.

While some conservatives, and some liberals, favour drug laws, many conservatives oppose them. To me, they are anathema to conservative principles. Laws regulating possession are problematic from a civil liberties standpoint, and laws the mandate urine tests to determine their presence doubly so.

While I favour keeping drug-impaired drivers off the roads and away from dangerous equipment, that should be handled much as liquour laws are handled. The zero-tolerance and asset-forfeiture laws, as well as the mandatory-self-incrimination laws need to be tossed out.

Since marriage licenses are issued by the states, it is a states' issue to grant them. However, since the liberals have sought to redefine marriage, the conservatives have merely sought to retain the time-honoured definition. It has nothing to do with regulation of morality, since sexual behaviour does not require marriage to occur. Rather, it seeks to block public recognition of what should be a private matter.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 3:13 PM

Abortion was taken out of the hands of the states by the Supreme Court. The Republican appointed majority ruled in favor of Roe vs. Wade.

Congressman Ron Paul stated that the issue should be handled by the states as all violent crime should be, such as murder. He considered abortion to be murder. As a doctor, he delivered over 4000 babies without problem.

Evangelicals claimed that Paul was soft on abortions, and supported his opponent in the 2008 election.

I evaluate the issue as: Republican appointed Supreme Court Justices approved abortion at the federal level denying state laws. Abortions became a national issue that evangelicals and Republicans were unwilling to rid themselves of. During that 40 years, millions of babies were killed. They define embryos as babies, so that would be murder on an enormous scale. I have no knowledge of science so I couldn't tell you if an unborn person is an embryo or baby. But I can tell you that the issue should be left to the states or consider the issue dead.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM

"What happens in a bedroom is nobody's business but the people in the bedroom ."

Exactly. But, when you ask the state to license it, you are making it the the public's business.

The state issues license as a sanction of activities of which it approves. Ergo, requesting license is asking the state to sanction the private business that occurs in the bedroom. That's not their business, as you note.

Babies can be produced from heterosexual sex, and the state has an interest in legitimizing those children. Children cannot be produced from homosexual sex, thus the state has no benefit in sanctioning the activity.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 3:47 PM

"But I can tell you that the issue should be left to the states or consider the issue dead."

The Democrats have rejected returning the issue to the states. Ergo, both sides 'hang on to the issue'. The Democrats have made it as much a plank of their platform as the Republicans. The word '******' was prominent in the last election, paraded around like a badge of honour by the Democrats, as in 'keep your laws off my ******'.

To claim that Republicans are the ones making it an issue is a stretch. The Republican position has been reactive, not proactive, in that arena.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 3:51 PM

The Republicans bring it up at nearly every election. These are the people who have used it for political gain even though they created the problem. Political gain at the death of "babies". The Republicans could have revisited Roe vs. Wade many times but they did not.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 3:57 PM

In 1992 with 8 justices appointed by Republicans, Roe vs. Wade was revisited. The case was Planned Parenthood vs. Cacy (Casy). The Court upheld Roe vs. Wade in their decision.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 4:11 PM

"Making it the publics business to leave them alone . Not to make it the public's business as to what they do in their bedroom . No graphics needed."

By asking the state for sanction, they are making it the state's (i.e., the public's business). You don't need a license to be left alone.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 4:23 PM

"The Republicans bring it up at nearly every election. These are the people who have used it for political gain even though they created the problem."

They did not 'create the problem'. The law was challenged. The challenge made it all the way to the court.

Justices are non-Partisan. There are not Republican justices and Democrat Justices.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 4:25 PM

"State's sanction requires a full , detailed account of activities in their bedroom ? Couldn't people just lie if this were so or say "none" ?"

Who's asking for details? We either license it or we don't. We license opposite-sex couples, primarily because they can produce legitimate offspring. Not so with same-sex couples.

We don't ask opposite-sex couples whether they intend to have sex, or how. Nor do we ask same-sex couples. We simply refuse to recognize their partnerships as a 'marriage'.

I don't see why that is so difficult.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 4:48 PM

"I look at state sanction as a legal contract incase of divorce , death , taxes , or such..."

Those can be granted without redefining 'marriage'. Illionis grants the same benefits to 'civil unions'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 4:49 PM

"I am from a rural area, and I voted for President Obama."

And we thank you for your vote for Romney.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 7:18 PM

"Obama has left Guantanamo open - or Did Obama close Guantanamo?"

No, President Obama did not close the Guantanamo US Naval base. Why should he have done that?

Yes, he did take all of the necessary action to close Guantanamo prison for terrorist detainees, until Congress specifically denied any and all funding needed to do that.

Any time now, you may see a news flash in the Onion Newspaper...

Congress takes blame for keeping Guantanamo prison open. Absolves President of all responsibility and culpability in the prison remaining open. Congress admits they were afraid to transfer terrorists to US facility in spite of assurances that there would be no adverse ramifications. Congressman Skunk tells Dug to lay off President.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 7:30 PM

"Yes, he did take all of the necessary action to close Guantanamo prison for terrorist detainees, until Congress specifically denied any and all funding needed to do that."

Obama owned Congress and Nancy Pelosi. Why didn't he do it?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 9:55 PM

Hmmmm, it's a real head scratcher. -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 2:58 PM

The head scratcher is your continual spinning and then posting that above. Again, you get personal and don't even address any issues put to you. You've got nothin'.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 11:04 PM

"ACLU Calls on President to Keep Promise and Close Gitmo"

"A once reliable friend of the Obama administration is becoming its frequent foe. On Wednesday, the day after President Obama was reelected, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) leaned on the president to keep one of the first promises he made after being elected in 2008.

"In its letter, the ACLU encouraged President Obama to shutter the infamous detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The request was couched in congratulatory tones praising the president for his Election Night victory.

"We congratulate President Obama on his re-election. This is his opportunity to reaffirm our constitutional principles and the fundamental American values of due process, respect for the rule of law and individual freedom. It is a time to once again be a nation where we can be both safe and free," wrote Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

"President Obama issued an executive order in 2009 calling for the closing of the detention facility within one year. In January, the prison "celebrated" 10 years of operation.

"In his letter, issued as a press release, Romero reminded President Obama of his obligation to "respect the rule of law and individual freedom." He wrote, "We urge President Obama to end warrantless surveillance, extra-judicial killings by drones, indefinite detention and other un-American practices that have become official government policy."

"President Obama has (in)famously compiled a kill list comprised of those individuals he suspects of threatening the security of the homeland. At least three of those killed by drone on the president's order have been American citizens. One of those three was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a teenager who was killed by a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone. This summary execution was carried out without charge, without trial, and without due process."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/pol...

________

As Commander-in-Chief of the military, Mr. Obama has the authority to close the military prison. Congress cannot block that. However, they can and they have refused to fund the transfer of the prisoners and other cost-related measures associated with the closing. It would be up to the Pentagon to find the revenue the Congress has cut off.

Perhaps the ACLU could ante up a few million?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 6:48 AM

"Slavery?"

As I see it, for whatever portion of our salary is dedicated to else, we are slave for that portion of our workday. Most of it is voluntary slavery.

If you pay 30% of your salary in taxes, then you are a slave to the government for 30% of your day. If you tithe, then you are slave to your Church for 10% of your workday. If you pay 20% of your salary towards your mortgage, then you are a slave to the mortgage lender for 20% of your day. If you spend 10% of your salary on food, then you are a slave to the grocer for 10% of your day, and so on and so forth.

But it is, as I said generally voluntary. Voluntary slavery is commmon in the history of the World.

Of those mentioned, however, only one has the power and authority to imprison you if you fail to fulfil your duties of servitude.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 6:56 AM

"Voluntary slavery..."

People throughout history have volunteered to make themselves the property of an owner????

Saying that everyone is a "slave" seems like a one-dimensional semantic exercise to make a simple concept complicated.

Considering me a "slave" to a mortgage lender is misleading to say the least. The lender provided me funds to purchase my property, I made a voluntary commitment to repay over time. If I change my mind, I can sell my property, repay the lender, or I could walk away and forfeit the property. The lender does not "own" me, any more than I "own" the farrier that shoes our horses.

The same is true of the grocer, the church and even the government.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 7:49 AM

"People throughout history have volunteered to make themselves the property of an owner????"

Yes. If you've studied your History, you'll know this to be true. Greek farmers, for instance, would borrow monies, using themselves and their families for collateral. If the crops failed or did not produce enough to cover their debts, they became indentured to the debter.

The early United States had a period in which many citizens were indentured servants - working off their debts as slaves to their debtors.

It exists today in many countries - even in the United States. Illegal immigrants are particular susceptible to it, being forced to work to pay off the debts to the smugglers that brough them here.

"Considering me a "slave" to a mortgage lender is misleading to say the least. The lender provided me funds to purchase my property, I made a voluntary commitment to repay over time."

I acknowledged that it was voluntary. However, you do owe the fruits of your labour to the lender, and thus are indentured to him for a periiod of your day.

To call it simplistic is to ignore the lore of America in song and poetry, where we refer to work as 'slaving away for (the Man, Uncle Sam, the company boss, etc.,). We have long acknowledged that we 'owe our soul to the company store', etc. with regards to our indebtedness.

Yes, you can settle your indentured state by paying out your due, as was the case with indentured servants throughout history. It has nearly always been possible to buy your freedom, or have it bought for you.

" The same is true of the grocer, the church and even the government."

No, it's not true of the government. You cannot walk away from your debt to government without their permission. They can, and will, imprison you for failing to fulfil your tax obligation.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 8:05 AM

To be sure, Uncle Sam generally takes his portion of your toil 'off the top' to ensure that you do not walk away from your obligation.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 8:06 AM

"You cannot walk away from your debt to government without their permission."

That's correct, just like you can't walk away from your mortgage without forfeiting your property.

Paying taxes is a Constitutional condition of citizenship. If you really don't want to pay taxes, move, or become a beggar and live off the generosity of others.

Indenture is defined as a contractual agreement separate from slavery.

I don't really know where this salvery question came from or where it might be going.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 9:25 AM

"That's correct, just like you can't walk away from your mortgage without forfeiting your property."

It's not your property until you have fulfilled your obligation, though we often regard it as such.

I would also point out that you can't walk away from student loan debt. Bankruptcy filings do not absolve one of that burden. In a sense, this is logical, since one puts up no collateral against that debt other than future earnings, the lender has no means of regaining his loan, in whole or in part, if bankruptcy permits the shedding of that obligation. The lender cannot repossess one's education and sell it to recoup his loss.

Ergo, a student who borrows monies for school indentures himself to the lender for an unspecified period.

"Indenture is defined as a contractual agreement separate from slavery."

When you contract for a debt, you agree to provide a share of your livelihood to your creditor. This is a form of slavery, under the defintion provided by the free online dictionary: "Slavery:... 2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work"

The only difference between an indentured servant and a slave was that an indentured servant had a specific time of obligated service, whereas a slave is typically owned for life, or until the onwer chooses to free him.

"I don't really know where this salvery question came from or where it might be going."

-- Posted by BCStoned on Thu, Nov 15, 2012, at 10:35 AM

That's where it came from. Where it goes is anyone's guess. I provided my thoughts, is all.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 10:02 AM

Where does the idea that "Americans Owe Their Government" come from http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/how-fd...

Democrats and neoconservative Republicans have kept this idea alive, rejecting the idea of freedom.

The welfare/warfare state is considered a product of both political parties today, but at one time it was just the product of liberal Democrats. Republicans at the time rejected the idea, but now are just as much to blame for the welfare/warfare state as Democrats.

Love it of leave it is embedded in this new liberalism/fascism. With freedom gone, production was sure to follow, and has.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 11:14 AM

When I questioned the Vietnam War and Johnson's Great Society, his warfare/welfare state, I was told to love it or leave it.

It was not easy being a libertarian Republican in a statist world. Strength comes from not kissing the feet of miscreants, but standing for what you believe in.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 11:46 AM

With the advent of the income tax, the idea that we could steal from the rich came into being. Originally enacted during the Civil War, and a couple of times after, it was finally tossed out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

The 16th Amendment remedied that, and now the Income Tax is a permanent fixture it seems. We've been stealing from the rich ever since.

FDR then produced the idea of using the taxes for income redistrubution. Under his auspices, the idea of using taxation to gather money, and then paying a stipend to the taxpayers after a certain age came into being. In essence, the government began to run an annuity scheme. The people were now writing themselves checques from the Treasury, by voting for politicians that would continue to write them.

LBJ expanded that concept into the true Robin Hood ideology we see today: taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We began to write checques even to those who had not contributed to the scheme. So, we then had an even bigger contingent of voters who would likely vote to keep the checques coming.

Since that time, few have dared to reduce those benefits, for fear of losing the votes of those who receive them. as their numbers grow, so the indebtedness of the politicians to those votes grows. Every programme expansion buys votes, and every vote further entrenches the programmes.

It's not a question of who created it, it's a question of who will stand to oppose it. President Bush, on the one hand, expanded the entitlement state with Medicare Part D. On the other hand, he tried unsuccessfully to shift Social Security away from its current Ponzi Scheme design towards a privatized system more in keeping with the idea of individual responsibility and constitutional governance.

Mr. Romney had no such bold initiative, but Mr. Ryan does. Whether or not those initiatives will survive to see a vote on the floor will have to be seen. Whether or not America's fiscal strenght wills survive will, I think, depend much on those, or similar, ideas being enacted.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 12:01 PM

"Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." -- Groucho Marx

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 12:46 PM

"People throughout history have volunteered to make themselves the property of an owner????"

I is still happening. People give up their freedoms for a more simplistic existence were government will make their life easier and give them a little spending money to boot. Kind of like moving back in with Mommy.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 9:52 PM

Get a free education and pay for it with service to the government. Did I just dream that up or is that something I've heard about?

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 11:54 PM

"Siding with state regulation over the rights of individuals. Ironic.

It's not a matter of states rights or individual rights, it's a matter of the state licensing of a contractual arrangement. It's not an 'individual right' because an individual does not marry, it requires two consenting persons.

Consenting persons are generally free to join together in whatever manner they choose, but when they ask the state to sanction it, they state has a responsibility to establish parameters under which they will grant that sanction. The mere desire of two people to have their union recognized as something it is not does not constitute a 'right'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 6:57 AM

Of course, you know this, but society has learned they can garner support for anything if they convince the people it is a 'right'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 6:58 AM

Restricting the right to marriage by gender is just plain discrimination. -- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 8:32 AM

And restricting polygamists and child-marriages is just plain discrimination as well. If your only support of "gay marriage" is that it should be legalized just because gay people believe it should then so should polygamist and child-marriage. It's discrimination and based on your logic should be stopped?

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 10:43 AM

"Restricting the right to marriage by gender is just plain discrimination."

How can it be discrimination if all individuals, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are precluded from marrying a member of the same sex? To me, that is treating all people equally.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 10:56 AM

"So, if the govt wants to interfere and deny such a right, they must have a legit and compelling interest in doing so. Protecting the definition of a word in the dictionary isn't good enough."

If the government wants to grant license, it needs to define the paramteres under which it grants it. Without definitions, those parameters are meaningless.

"Restricting the right to marriage by gender is just plain discrimination."

And tossing aside the meaning to satisfy the selfish interests of some to have make their private matters publicly sanctioned is stupid.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 9:01 AM

"No matter, same-sex marriage is coming. The tide has turned. "

Not all change is progress.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 9:02 AM

"Again , what happens in a couple's bedroom is nobody's concern but the couple's ."

Marriages aren't performed in their bedrooms. Nor does one need a license for what happens there.

It is not the actions that are challenged, it is the desire to have the state sanction them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 9:05 AM

You really can't see the difference between polygamy, child marriage, and same sex marriage between consenting adults? -- Posted by Spaniard on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 8:51 AM

Answer the question yourself if you can. What is the difference between gay marriage and polygamy between consenting adults? Be specific if you can. Do you support polygamy? Why not?

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 12:10 PM

"Who's desire ?"

The people asking the state to license same-sex couples for permission to legally marry.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 18, 2012, at 5:46 PM

Wheels Paula Broadwell is too good looking for Clinton to mess with her. He prefers the Lee sisters. Ug Lee and Home Lee.

-- Posted by Mowrangler on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 8:34 AM

I actually find it curious that Republicans are tagged as the 'big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts,...' when it was Mr. Obama who cited the need to save General Motors and Chrysler from bankruptcy (unsuccessfully, I might add). The Republicans were calling for them to go through the bankruptcy process without the government leaning on legitimate creditors to surrender their claims upon the companies.

Clearly, Mr. Obama and the Democrats have been all those things of which Mr. Jindall fears the Republicans bear the taint.

Methinks the problem is not in changing the programme so much as it is changing the perception. We've permitted the Democrats to define the perception of the party through their deceitful messages, colouring us with the very sins they, themselves, bear.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 10:00 AM

changing the perception. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 10:00 AM

I'm still sticking to my story on the election loss. Obama won 50.6% of the votes and a huge majority of it was in big-city/urban areas that have an entitlement mentality along with high crime, murder welfare and unemployment. He won because of his government entitlement largess and a compliant media which feeds a lot of the "perception".

Despite the fact that the US is in it's worst state in decades he is painted as successful - for what? Spending $50 billion to save a few union jobs?

I believe Jindal is pimping for a 2016 run along with other republicans. I believe it is on this thread where we have some posting Romney was too close to the democrats and others posting he was too far to the right. I think he could have campaigned and debated better but this media bias is very, very strong.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 10:09 AM

Shapley Hunter you lie about what the Democratic party believes and says on this very thread, and then hypocritically state that the Democrats are the ones being deceitful.

No one with a liberal leaning needs to say anything at all for the stuffing of feet in mouths going on around here.

Not all liberals are female Rick.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 12:09 PM

"Shapley Hunter you lie about what the Democratic party believes and says on this very thread, and then hypocritically state that the Democrats are the ones being deceitful."

I didn't lie at all. I clearly pointed out how I drew the conclusions I drew, and you have not been able to refute them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 12:13 PM

I most certainly do refute them, and I am a democrat. So, you have lied.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 1:12 PM

"I most certainly do refute them, and I am a democrat. So, you have lied."

Unless you are the entire party, which I do not believe, then it's not just about you.

What I said was this:

"The Democrat Party holds to the ideas that..."

Since you count yourself as a 'democrat' (note the small 'd'), you're apparently not representative of the party as a whole.

Unless, of course, you think all Democrats think as you think, which I doubt.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 1:50 PM

Ergo, I have not lied.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 1:51 PM

.Rick,

He/she's talking to me. I posted a comment a while back about what the Democrat Party says on the issue of abortion/contraceptives. Apparently, Reasoning believe him/herself to be the Democratic Party, and thus claims I lied because they do not believe the things for which I say the party stands.

But, yes, 'lie' is a pretty strong word, but I've come to expect personal attacks from this particular poster, who hides behind their anonymity.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 2:30 PM

.Rick,

Not a problem. It's a public forum, so anyone is free to read it and comment upon it.

Many Democrats, I think, are uncomfortable with their party's position on the issues, so they try to couch them in artificial language. When the reality of what they support is expressed in blunt language, they become defensive. We're supposed to call unborn babies 'fetuses', so as not the offend the sensibilities of those who don't want to admit they're killing babies.

We're supposed to refer to 'women's health issues' instead of 'promiscuity' or 'wanton sexuality, and to refer 'access to birth control' rather than 'having other people pay for their contraceptives'. We should not, therefore, even suggest that the Democrats support having society pay for contraceptives in order to permit women to be promiscuous at societal expense, because that reality offends them.

The same is true of abortion. I pointed out that they want society to pay for them. Commonsensematters calls that a lie because the federal government doesn't pay for them, as if 'society' and 'federal government' are synonymous, and the only way society pays for things is through federal taxes. Thus, when I point out that many states picked up the tab for abortions after federal funds were stopped, most of those due to court order, my comment has been met with silence.

I've certainly not seen the Democrat Party standing up to demand an end to this state-funding of abortion, but I have seen them call for a resumption of federal funding thereof.

It is also true that the Democrats, through their passage of Obamacare, have imposed upon us the HHS mandate which requires society, via government-mandated insurance, to pay for both contraceptives and abortifacients. Again, the Democratic Party is not clamouring to end the mandate or to revise it, ergo, my statements are valid.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 2:45 PM

"...which requires society, via government-mandated insurance, to pay for both contraceptives and abortifacients."

Another huge semantic stretch...

If I pay for my own health insurance and within the basic policy is coverage for birth control prescriptions for my wife, neither society nor the government are paying for anything.

This is also how the vast majority of Americans get their health coverage. No taxes, no societal gifts, just paying their own way.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 3:59 PM

I perpetually point out the instances in which 'the left' has exhibited the same behaviour they condemn on the part of 'the right'. I also try to perpetually point out misinformation leveled against my party and its positions.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 13, 2012, at 4:04 PM

It seems rather hypocritical to make that claim and then to post the following misinformation...

____________________

Many Democrats, I think, are uncomfortable with their party's position on the issues, so they try to couch them in artificial language. When the reality of what they support is expressed in blunt language, they become defensive.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 2:45 PM

That statement isn't just indicative of Democrats, it is indicative of just about all politicians and people who follow politics. Yourself included.

If only Democrats are, "uncomfortable with their party's position on the issues, so they try to couch them in artificial language" then why do the wealthy suddenly become "job creators" on the tongues of Republicans when the subject of tax breaks come up? Why is Fox News, 'fair and balanced' instead of 'biased and one-sided'?

I'm not saying that Democrats aren't guilty of the same. I'm merely pointing out an instance in which, 'the right' are exhibiting the same behavior you condemn on the part of 'the left.' and pointing out a little misinformation being leveled by you against your opponent.

You're starting to strain credulity.

-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 4:31 PM

We use the term 'job creators' because they create jobs. I think that should be self-evident.

That's not say 'job creators' is synonymous with 'wealthy', but the idea that investment creates jobs, and the fact that most wealthy invest their wealth, justifies the moniker. To be sure, there are those who create jobs without benefit of wealth, but they are not harmed by tax breaks.

Speaking of tax breaks, the idea of calling permitting people to keep more of their own wealth 'welfare' is another example of mislabeling by 'the left'. I would also point to the ill-defined 'fair share' they are supposed to be paying. I would suggest that paying their legally-obligated amount of taxes is paying their 'fair share'. To suggest otherwise without defining 'fair share' is disingenuous, in my humble opinion.

Fox News 'fair and balanced' is their slogan, not unlike the New York Times 'all the news that's fit to print' and CBS 'the News Leader'. Neither side of the news has a fair claim to be more 'biased and one-sided' than the other. To be sure, Fox News came into being because the bais of the 'mainstream news' left a distaste in many viewers' mouths. Not unlike, I suppose, the distaste Fox News now leaves in those leaning the other direction.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 4:58 PM

"If I pay for my own health insurance and within the basic policy is coverage for birth control prescriptions for my wife, neither society nor the government are paying for anything."

Wrong again, as I have pointed out numerous times. Unless your premium goes up by the increased amount of your payouts for birth control prescriptions, then society is underwriting those prescriptions, via the others holding policies underwritten by your insurance company. The cost of the prescriptions are passed on to all policy holders, not just those using the prescription drugs. Ergo, society is paying for your wife's drugs, not just you.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 5:01 PM

By turning insurance into a welfare system, the Demoratic Party has tapped into societies' pockets to provide those things they want society to provide, sans taxes.

It is not the purpose of insurance to pay for the routine, but rather as a hedge against contingencies.

If your premiums were going to increase by the amount of your prescriptions, plus the adminstrative costs to the insurance company, you would be better served by not having them pay them. Obviously, the Democrats seek to spread the costs of those prescriptions over a broad base, which constitutes having society pay for them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 5:04 PM

This is their first mistake...asking permission from someone who works for them...

-- Posted by .Rick. on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 8:52 AM

That would be true Rick.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 5:16 PM

We use the term 'job creators' because they create jobs. I think that should be self-evident.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 4:58 PM

What's self-evident is your inability to objectively evaluate your party's propaganda. Both party's use euphemisms to either champion or villainize policies depending on who proposed them. But you seem to believe only the other guys do that. Keep preaching to the choir Shapley. That is obviously your target audience.

Here is a link to a bit Stephen Colbert did on Republican euphemisms a while back.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10...

And here is what George Carlin had to say on the subject. (caution: George Carlin)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8PhoyDIR...

-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 6:44 PM

Actually Shapley Hunter, I have nothing against you personally, especially seeing as I do not know you. I only can evaluate what I see posted on here, and that is what I have done.

"The Democrat Party holds to the ideas that:

1) A woman's 'right' to enjoy sex without risking pregnancy is everyone's responsibility, and society must provide her with contraceptives, while

2) a woman's right to kill her child is her own business, and society has no right to regulate it, but ought to pay for it, (apparently as an extension of No. 1 above, which is that abortion is just a form of ex post facto birth control)."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:19 PM

1. False

2. False, and it isn't your business. Remember you aren't a democrat, so you couldn't speak for the party, and you couldn't provide proof. Because of course, there is none.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 7:49 PM

-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 6:44 PM

There is a distinct difference between what the *party* says and what an individual says. Your party does have specific and strong positions on abortion. When democrats are confronted with that they start in with word vomit and try and explain it away. It's YOUR parties position - be proud and own it, don't run from it.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Nov 19, 2012, at 7:53 PM

"1. False"

You are wrong. That is exactly what the HHS mandate proclaims, whether you want to believe that or not.

"2. False, and it isn't your business. Remember you aren't a democrat, so you couldn't speak for the party, and you couldn't provide proof. Because of course, there is none."

Ah! So no one is allowed to commnet on the Democratic Party position except democrats, and we are to take them at the words rather than judge them by their actions.

I did provide proof. I showed showed clearly where the Democrat Party has favoured no restrictions on abortions, and has favoured government funding thereof. That you don't like the language does not make it untrue.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 5:46 AM

"...If only Democrats are, "uncomfortable with their party's position on the issues, so they try to couch them in artificial language"."

I don't believe I used the word 'only' in saying that.

However, 'political correctness' is generally recognized as a product of the left. Certain words and phrases are not to be used because the offend the sensitivity of persons or groups. 'The right' generally believe that a little offense is a good thing.

That's not to say 'the left' is above offense. They have little difficulty offending those parties they see as leaning rightward. Their offensensitivity is limited and, in my humble opinion, somewhat patronizing.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 5:54 AM

You have shown nothing. You are saying things that aren't true and then are using that as your proof! "I think it, therefore it is true" Do you understand contraception? You are very confused!

Show me, Shapley Hunter, where the Democratic party wants to offer free abortions to everyone.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 6:05 AM

"Show me, Shapley Hunter, where the Democratic party wants to offer free abortions to everyone."

You could start by showing me where I said "the Demcorat Party wants to offer free abortions to everyone".

But, from the Democratic Party Platform of 2012:

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."

...regardless of ability to pay means, in case you have difficulty with that concept, that somebody else (i.e., society) foots the bill.

Also from the Democratic Party Platform of 2012:

"...and provides women with free access to preventive care, including prenatal screenings, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, breast-feeding supports, and contraception."

There's that word 'free', together with 'contraception. 'Free' means, of course, that someone else (i.e. society), foots the bill.

You can read it yourself:

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-nati...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 8:06 AM

"Do you understand contraception?"

Yes, I understand it, but I had been using the term 'birth control, rather than 'contraception'. 'Birth Control' covers both contracteption and abortion, as both prevent the birth of children.

I should also point out that Planned Parenthood proudly proclaims that they provide contraceptive services, while we're on the subject. And there are no greater advocates for funding Planned Parenthood's contraceptive programmes than the Democratic Party. Ergo, the Democrat Party supports societal funding of birth control. I would also point out that the Democratic Party has opposed parental notification laws with regards to abortions and birth control for minors. Ergo, the Democratic Party advocates societal funding of brith control, making my first statement entirely true.

Where is your proof to the contrary, other than your merely saying 'false', as if your statement is somehow definitive.

I've provided links, you've provided nothing.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 8:13 AM

"...Democrat Party supports societal funding of birth control."

It seems that you have developed your own definition of "societal funding." Having birth control part of a basic plan is not "societal funding," but is rather funding by the participants in a given insurance pool. It has nothing to do with society or government.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 8:54 AM

"It has nothing to do with society or government."

Yours seems to be the rather odd definition. If it is mandated by government, then it most definitely has something to do with government. If the participants are not a part of society, who are they? If all insurance companies are required to provide it, and all citizens are required to belong to the pool, then how can it not be society who is paying for it?

To quote another poster here: "You're starting to strain credulity."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 8:59 AM

Spaniard,

Apparently, they don't even understand for what they voted. If Commonsensematters and Reasoning are trying to argue that they dont' stand for the things you claim were voted for, are you acknowledging that they are wrong?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 10:22 AM

"...they don't even understand what took place two weeks ago today."

Apparently, it is they who do not understand what took place two weeks ago, since they are denying the very essence of the party platform they apparently supported.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 10:24 AM

Nothing in my posts denies what happened. The denial is on the part of they who voted for things they claim they don't support.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 10:25 AM

I think it's not that they don't know what they voted for, I think it's that they are ashamed to admit it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 10:59 AM

Obama is very supportive of a welfare state, as are all neoconservatives, Republican or Democrat.

-- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:50 AM

Poor Mr. Hunter, he doesn't understand the meaning of contraception. Oh, and I do support providing free contraception to those who cannot afford health care.

Thanks Spaniard. I don't believe he understands he lost, again.

-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:55 AM

What we see here is that the Democrats really were 'revenge' voters, as Mr. Obama had suggested. It's not about what's right for the country, and surely isn't about 'healing the divide' if the message they took is that half the nation was told to 'take a hike'.

Small wonder the secessionist movement is showing its head. Clearly the Democrats do not know how to be gracious in winnning. We're seeing the old Pelosi 'we won, you lost', 'I hold the gavel, now' and Mr. Obama's 'they can ride in the back of the bus' attitude showing.

They're not interested in healing, and they certainly aren't interested in compromise.

Yet, they'll blame the Republicans for 'dividing the nation'. They refuse to look in the mirror, just as they refuse to admit what they've supported.

It's only been two years since Mr. Obama was handed a 'thumpin'. Perhaps they shouldn't be so cocky...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:57 AM

Rick,

I don't understand why you are asking this question. But here goes, the father pays. Or may be she doesn't abort the pregnancy, and then you pay for the child. Or, she goes to a backstreet address? How would I know that answer to this?

-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 11:57 AM

What we see here is that the Democrats really were 'revenge' voters, as Mr. Obama had suggested. It's not about what's right for the country, and surely isn't about 'healing the divide' if the message they took is that half the nation was told to 'take a hike'.

Small wonder the secessionist movement is showing its head. Clearly the Democrats do not know how to be gracious in winnning. We're seeing the old Pelosi 'we won, you lost', 'I hold the gavel, now' and Mr. Obama's 'they can ride in the back of the bus' attitude showing.

They're not interested in healing, and they certainly aren't interested in compromise.

Yet, they'll blame the Republicans for 'dividing the nation'. They refuse to look in the mirror, just as they refuse to admit what they've supported.

It's only been two years since Mr. Obama was handed a 'thumpin'. Perhaps they shouldn't be so cocky...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 12:02 PM

"...he doesn't understand the meaning of contraception."

Really? And on what do you base that assumption? What, in my posts, is inconsistent with the meaning of 'contraception'?

"Oh, and I do support providing free contraception to those who cannot afford health care."

So, you admit I didn't lie. Thank you.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 12:03 PM

This country told them to take a hike. they don't even understand what took place two weeks ago today. -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 10:19 AM

What have you been smoking? The house maintained it's republican leadership.

State legislatures and governors are by far dominated by republicans. 60% of governors, state senates and state houses are REPUBLICAN. And Obama won 50.6% of the US vote. I think you have been told to "take a hike Ike". Based on your assumption of a massive message (50.6%?) to republicans the 60% win by republicans in state houses says you lost.

Please explain the 60% domination in state legislatures and governships? You can't. Just like you can't put together a cogent argument for gay marriage. I'll await your non-response.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 12:43 PM

Here is the important point Rick! You are NOT paying for her abortion

-- Posted by Reasoning on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 2:14 PM

"Who is?"

The baby is paying the ultimate price, though society is footing the bill.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 2:32 PM

"All other forms of life on Mother Earth know by instinct that life is vital for survival of their species ..."

Some species devour their young after birth.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 3:23 PM

"...humans are the only life form on Mother Earth who decides to abort life."

That's only partially correct. For example, female kangaroos, if faced with adverse environmental conditions will spontaneously abort by reabsorbing the fetus, because the female is not healthy or strong enough to continue the pregnancy.

Humans appear to be too far advanced, or not advanced enough to be able to do that.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 3:54 PM

For example, female kangaroos, if faced with adverse environmental conditions will spontaneously abort by reabsorbing the fetus, -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 3:54 PM

OMG - you sound like Todd Akin. Be careful common.

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 4:05 PM

"For example, female kangaroos, if faced with adverse environmental conditions will spontaneously abort by reabsorbing the fetus, because the female is not healthy or strong enough to continue the pregnancy."

That aborts the birth, but not the pregnancy. The fetus, after reabsorption, is still alive and viable. Kangaroos have the unique ability to hold their fetus 'in reserve' until suitable conditions for birth exist.

I would hope you would recognize the difference between destroying a fetus and returning it to the protection of the womb.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 4:15 PM

"...seems to be the rather odd definition."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 8:59 AM

Try another or different example. The government mandates liability insurance for vehicle registration and all vehicles are required to be registered. People who pay liability insurance are part of society. Insurance companies are required to provide it and all citizens are required to buy it. It does not follow that society pays for people's liability insurance, they pay for their own.

"To quote another poster here: 'You're starting to strain credulity.'"

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 5:15 PM

You are not required to drive a car or just say you can own a car and not license it.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 5:29 PM

This country told them to take a hike. they don't even understand what took place two weeks ago today. -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 10:19 AM

Please explain the republican 60% domination in state legislatures and governships? You can't. I'll await your non-response. -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 12:43 PM

Hello Ike? You still here? Your explanation on how americans told your party to take a hike?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Nov 20, 2012, at 7:53 PM

" The government mandates liability insurance for vehicle registration and all vehicles are required to be registered."

Wrong, again. Only those vehicles operated upon public roadways are required to be registered, licensed, and ensured. Farm tractors, construction equipment, powered lawn mowers, ATVs, UTVs, and other vehicles which are not operated upon publicly-maintained thoroughfares do not have to comply with those requirements.

We generally accept that the government has the right to set conditions upon the use of the roadways they build and maintain at our expense.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 6:23 AM

It's also worth noting that the insurance mandate on publicly-used roadways only requires one to cover other people who use the roadways, not yourself. You do not have to have collision coverage to repair your vehicle, or even health coverage for yourself, only those who are at risk of being harmed by your presences upon the roadways in the event you act in a reckless or imprudent manner.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 6:26 AM

You missed the point...

The govenment requires insurance. People must pay for it. Society is comprised of people.

It does not follow that society pays for people's liability insurance, they pay for their own.

The same is true of health insurance. People pay for it, not society.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 7:21 AM

"The same is true of health insurance. People pay for it, not society."

You either miss the point, or you willffully ignore it. I rather think it is the latter.

Insurance is a hedge against contingent costs. When it is used to require others to help defray routine costs, it is being misused as a welfare programme. As such, it is being used to require others (i.e. 'society') to subsidize the the cost of routine living.

I've covered this before, but here it goes again:

If a person uses birth control and it costs $6,000 per year for the annual usage, then that person is spending $6,000 of their own money for their own bills. That is how society is supposed to work. If they can't afford the $6,000, they can do with out birth control, stop having sex, find a cheaper alternative, or whatever.

Along comes the HHS mandate. Now the person's insurance has to provide them birth control 'free of charge', which is to say with no co-pay or out-of-pocket. The insurance company reviews this mandate and decides to raise everyone's premiums by $100 per month to cover it. Now, the person is paying $1,200 per year for their prescription (the amount the premium was hiked to provide it), and society is footing the bill for the remaining $4,800.

If the insurance company were to hike only the user's premiums by the amount of their usage, that is to say the insurance charged only child-bearing-age women who have apply for birth-control prescriptions the additional fee, then

they could expect to see their premiums go up by $6,000 per year, and you would be correct that they are paying for their own drugs regardless. But that isn't how it's done, and you know it.

By having other enrollees subsidize the usage, society is paying for the birth control, and that which Reasoning called a lie is not a lie. Reasoning is being unreasonable, and you are not applying commmon sense.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 8:08 AM

Common - You going to explain the government subsidization of those families with incomes less than $82,000.00 next? Tell us that is not society's bill. -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 7:43 AM

You're not going to get any answers on the tough questions from Common or Spaniard. It's spin and run - same as their president.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 8:56 AM

Again, any two people can enter into a contract. The question is whether not the state has a reason to sanction that contract or recognize its validity. The state has no seen the benefit in recognizing the validity of marriage contracts involving couples of the same sex.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 11:31 AM

-- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 11:05 AM

The basis for polygamy is 100% in line with your argument for gay marriage. If someone believes in polygamy then based on your "basic civil right" they should not be denied. That's all you have and it is nothing more than your opinion. Do you support polygamy? These poor polygamists are being denied a "basic civil right".

You aren't open to the spreading of civil rights. You're open to only those that you support which is no "basic" civil right. If opinion is all you have then you're still losing. A majority of Americans and states do not agree with gay marriage.

I'm still awaiting your non-response on the "landslide mandate" of republican control of state governorships and legislatures. You said America rejected republicans yet they continue to dominate the states. Still googling for an answer on that one?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 11:39 AM

"Why would any 2 people need a "middle-man" to set up a "contract" to satisfy their own personal lives ?"

They don't. The state recognizes some contracts as valid and of benefit to the state. They sometimes reward those entering into such contracts by granting license and extending certain benifits - legal protections and tax breaks, for example. Those they do not wish to endorse are granted no such recognition nor benefits.

If a group of people decide to go into business, the state generally sees benefit to the growth of commerce and thus grants them license in the form of incorporation, which carries with it certain tax benefits and legal protections. They do not extend that benefit to everyone who applies, and certain requirements must be met by those so applying. They acquire certain responsibilities in exchange for the license granted. No one has a right to incorporate. The state can extend incorporation or not, as it sees fit.

The same can be said to be true of marriage. People can enter into a compact in the manner of marriage, but the state is not obligated to recognize it if it is not beneficial to the state.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 11:50 AM

"....and you are not applying com(m)mon sense."

(Your spelling not mine.)

Let's get a bit more realistic here. First of all, effective birth control does not cost $500 per month. The cost depending on the method is closer to $15 to $50 per month. The cost is then added to the basic plan that applies to women in child bearing age, and the cost for policies with that option goes up slightly because not all women are going to use their benefit at all times, and the insurance company knows this. Furthermore for those companies it is tremendously cheaper to subsidize birth control that it is to pay for unintended pregnancies and child birth.

The point is still that providing the birth control service in a basic plan makes it highly more likely that it will be used, as opposed to having to pay out of pocket. Women are still paying for birth control, not society, and not the government.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM

"Let's get a bit more realistic here. First of all, effective birth control does not cost $500 per month. The cost depending on the method is closer to $15 to $50 per month."

Being Catholic, I'm not aware of the actual costs. Sandra Fluke testified that it could cost upwards of $3,000 during law school.

"The cost is then added to the basic plan that applies to women in child bearing age, and the cost for policies with that option goes up slightly because not all women are going to use their benefit at all times, and the insurance company knows this."

Which supports my claim - the cost is spread over all people buying policies (which is mandatorily all citizens). Thus, society is footing the bill, though you and Reasoning deny this.

"Furthermore for those companies it is tremendously cheaper to subsidize birth control that it is to pay for unintended pregnancies and child birth."

If that were the case, they probably would have been providing it all along, except for those who refuse for religious reasons (and are no longer permitted to do so). But, not every woman who uses birth control is going to get pregnant without it, and it's not 100% effective in any case. Then, of course, there is the cost of treating side effects, etc.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 2:48 PM

"The point is still that providing the birth control service in a basic plan makes it highly more likely that it will be used, as opposed to having to pay out of pocket."

Which, for those with an objection to birth control, is contrary to their goal, isn't it. Thus, you've just supported the Catholic Church's position on why they should not be paying for it.

"Women are still paying for birth control, not society, and not the government."

Again, you are wrong. Society, via the insurance companies, is paying for it. Since all of society is mandated to buy insurance, and all who buy insurance are paying for it, society is paying for it.

That does not include those who recieve it via publicly-funded institutions such as planned parenthood, or those who recieve it via Medicaid or other publicly-funded health plans.

I never said 'the government'. You are the one who has the absurd notion that the government is society.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 2:56 PM

"....spread over all people buying policies..."

No, it is spread over all people buying a certain class of policy that has birth control as part of the basic plan.

Why would policies for men contain birth control as part of the basic package? Why would policies for children contain birth control as part of a basic package.

Your claim that society is paying for all birth control for all women is still wrong.

Insurance policies are tailored to the policy holders, they are not a "one size fits all" business. If your company believes that, you should change businesses. Perhaps you can wait for the state insurance exchange to begin operation.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:12 PM

Perhaps you can wait for the state insurance exchange to begin operation. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:12 PM

Looks like you'll have to leave that backward state of Missouri if you want a "state exchange". May not happen here.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:14 PM

"No, it is spread over all people buying a certain class of policy that has birth control as part of the basic plan."

Apparently, you're not paying attention. All policies now have to include birth control as part of the basic plan. If it were possible to offer plans that do not include birth control, the Catholic Church would not be having an issue, since that is the only type they would offer.

Group plans, of which most employee-offered packages are, do not include one plan for men and one plan for women. Where you got that idea from is puzzling to me.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:34 PM

"Your claim that society is paying for all birth control for all women is still wrong."

Where did I say 'all women'?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:35 PM

And if the states fail to set it up the feds will have to get congress to fund one.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:35 PM

"Under this plan, every insurance company will be obligated to provide contraceptive coverage. Administration officials stated that a woman's insurance company "will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to pay for it."

"Moreover, women will not have to opt in or out; contraceptive care will be part of the basic package of benefits offered to everyone. Contraceptive care will simply be "part of the bundle of services that all insurance companies are required to offer," said a White House official.

"We are actually more comfortable having the insurance industry offer and market this to women than religious institutions," said the White House official because they "understand how contraception works" to prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce health care costs. "This makes sense financially."

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...

_____

Note that very imporant part: "contraceptive care will be part of the basic package of benefits offered to everyone."

"Everyone" not 'every woman' or 'everyone who wants it'. In fact, according to Mr. Obama: "women will not have to opt in or out"

Thus, your entire premise is wrong, and my statement stands.

Perhaps you should change businesses...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:39 PM

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:35 PM

I've heard that is the next challenge for Obamacare. A number of states have said they won't set up an exchange and bear the cost for a program that the federal government has 100% control over.

Another interesting year with the socialists in power.

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:40 PM

As I see it, Commonsensematters has just the President a liar and suggested that he, too, should change businesses, since he obviously knows less about insurance than does Commonsensematters...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 4:49 PM

I think the long term goal of progessives is to have one federal program covering old age benefits, medical expenses and welfare. A sort of craddle to grave agency that gives all Americans an equal chance to reach poor or lower middle class status and remain protected in that blessing throughout old age.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 5:01 PM

"...has just the President a liar..."

???

I think it might be best to drop the entire discussion. If you really believe that the President wants "all" policies to include female birth control, I guess that's you privilege. I would maintain that the logical result is that birth control is no longer an extra for child-bearing age females. If that requires some changes to current policies, so be it.

Nevertheless, people pay for their own policies, society does not.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 5:40 PM

"I think it might be best to drop the entire discussion."

A more concise verbage would be to just cry "uncle". :)

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 6:17 PM

"I think it might be best to drop the entire discussion. If you really believe that the President wants "all" policies to include female birth control, I guess that's you privilege."

I provided you the quote from the Obama administration. I can understand your wanting to give up, and I'll accept that as your concession.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 8:39 PM

"Moreover, women will not have to opt in or out; contraceptive care will be part of the basic package of benefits offered to everyone. Contraceptive care will simply be "part of the bundle of services that all insurance companies are required to offer," said a White House official.

If that's the quote, I agree, but it still says nothing about anything being free. It says "all insurance companies are required to offer" and the policy holder then pays.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 9:10 PM

"If that's the quote, I agree, but it still says nothing about anything being free. It says "all insurance companies are required to offer" and the policy holder then pays."

I've already posted the quote from Mr. Obama himself who said it would be offered free of charge.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 9:16 PM

We have to understand that when Obama said free of charge he was pandering to those who want free.

It's kind of like a basic element of salesmanship. You always focus on giving the customer something and investing in something for the money rather than buying something. In all fairness the president was just doing what democrats [and republicans] do and that has little to do with the substance of the debate.

The crust of the debate in essence is if the government is mandating people to accept what is contrary to their religious beliefs.

To say people choose and pay for the plan they opt for is one thing but to restrict the choosing is another.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Nov 21, 2012, at 10:02 PM

"...quote from (President) Obama himself who said it would be offered free of charge."

Yes, it is free of "charge," just like the 100,000 mile drive-train warranty on my truck is, per the salesman, "free of charge" because it has been paid for as part of the basic price. No difference, someone else did not pay for it, the buyer did.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 5:31 AM

One more aspect...

"(AP) -- US abortions fell 5% during the recession and its aftermath in the biggest one-year decrease in at least a decade, perhaps because women are more careful to use birth control when times are tough, researchers say. The decline, detailed today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, came in 2009."

It should be fairly clear that access to birth control as part of a basic health care plan reduces abortions. I would think that people opposed to abortion would strongly support the President's initiative to make birth control more readily available, even if "society" were to pay for it, which it does not.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 5:44 AM

"...quote from (President) Obama himself who said it would be offered free of charge."

Yes, it is free of "charge," just like the 100,000 mile drive-train warranty on my truck is, per the salesman, "free of charge" because it has been paid for as part of the basic price. No difference, someone else did not pay for it, the buyer did.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 5:31 AM

Bingo!

Just like the free insurance I get from my bank. I am paying for it whether I choose to accept the insurance or 'use' it, I have paid for it!

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:01 AM

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:01 AM

So the premiums your company pays for your health insurance are "free" to the company? I think you've missed the entire point here.

If a Catholic institution pays insurance premiums for their employees and Obama requires them to cover abortion meds and birth control YOU aren't paying for anything - except maybe some copays or deductions. The institution is paying it for you.

It has nothing to do with "free" insurance from your bank.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:08 AM

Where did I say anything about premiums from my company???

And where do you sign up with a company who pays the insurance premiums for their employees??

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:48 AM

And where do you sign up with a company who pays the insurance premiums for their employees?? -- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:48 AM

Do you seriously not know of the 1000's of companies right here in SE Missouri that would pay for your health insurance premiums? You've never worked for an organization that provided health care coverage for you?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 10:03 AM

"You've never worked for an organization that provided health care coverage for you?"

You missed the meaning of a key phrase, "worked for an organization" which clearly says that the health insurance is part of your compensation for work, not some free benefit the company bestows on you because they are nice.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 10:30 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 10:30 AM

Of course. And that insurance - just like your pay, the office you get, the hours you work - are completely dictated by the company.

Why is that so hard? The company decides to OFFER you employment and you can decide to ACCEPT/REJECT that offer. It's called "choice". And the companies insurance plan is likely different than any other company you might work for as each company decides what is/is not covered.

Now we have a president that has decided to mandate coverage from his WH office - whenever he happens to be at home. He is forcing companies to cover his pet social programs. Forced. I thought all you liberals were "pro-choice"? What happened?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 11:06 AM

Just to keep the perspective of how benefits came about, perks were a way around government price controls when employers sought to lure the best, talented, skilled people into their employ.

It was a way of offering more compensation without paying more than the government allowed.

In a true free market situation people would buy their own insurance in a market of real competition sans government coersion.

Also, "I have an ear infection; how much will the doc charge to treat that? Ok, thanks, I'll check with the other docs and decide who offers the best value and get back to you." I suspect the referral docs might start practicing medicine if that were the more the normal way of seeking their services.

To put it in a nutshell, when any government official has a real solution in his mind it will be in a nut shell. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 11:25 AM

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Abortion Provisions

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act maintains the status quo on abortion policy and does not shift federal abortion policy in either a pro-life or pro-choice direction. The following provisions will ensure that the bill does nothing to restrict or expand existing abortion law, while ensuring that federal funds cannot be used for abortion coverage or care.

 Health Plans Cannot Be Required to Cover Abortion. Health plans cannot be required to cover abortions as part of its essential health benefits package. Health plans can choose to cover: no abortions, only those abortions allowed by the Hyde amendment (rape, incest and life endangerment), or abortions beyond those allowed by Hyde.

 No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage or Abortion Care. Tax credits or cost sharing subsidies may not be used for abortions not permitted by Hyde. Private premiums would be segregated from public funds, and only private premiums could pay for abortion services beyond those permitted by Hyde.

 No Federal Funds for Abortion Coverage in the Community Health Insurance Option"

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 6:13 PM

"She has no income what-so-ever ... who pays for her abortion ??"

Since you appear to require an inordinate amount of assistance in gathering information.

Try looking up Planned Parenthood. They have several separate agencies to offer counseling for women's health issues. Among these are privately funded charities that can provide financial assistance for individuals having made an abortion decision. There is no government funding whatsoever.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 7:40 PM

Abortion ain't the big problem. You are gonna have a very small percentage of smart kids going to medical school that once did. They will be replaced by students, that at this time, couldn't make the grades. AKA Dumb *****.

Other problems:

"Failure of Democrats to pass meaningful tort reform to rein in frivolous health-related lawsuits running up the cost of malpractice insurance for physicians."

"Lack of availability of vital medicines and medical devices for patients as the result of federal regulatory restrictions and taxation of drug manufacturers."

"Emergency Room doctors complain that the most verbally abusive patients are those receiving free medical service. They say it will be worse when Obamacare or, as some call it, Obama Bucks, kicks in completely."

"Major pharmaceutical companies have pulled out of the U.S. market, unwilling to make sizable dollar investments in research and development required for new drugs." Thus the production of much needed new antibiotics is drying up."

Making the physicians look like rich businessman and forcing them into lower paying servitude will blow up. You will miss the smart kids that once went into the medical field. I am old enough there will still be a few smart docs left for my lifetime.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 8:37 PM

Maybe some figure the flow of Indian and Chinese docs will work for less.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 9:13 PM

It wont be a good thing OJ. My nephew is brilliant and is going into the financial field instead.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 10:45 PM

OJ

Sorry I left off:

That makes 3 of our family members that were going to be doctors earlier but have changed their fields of study. I guess since an empty suit can be president just anyone can be a doctor.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 11:31 PM

Regret, I know a guy from India that claims to have 52 docs in his family that have came to the U.S.. He is counting a lot of extended kin folk over 20 years.

I suspect in time they too will discourage their children from being docs in the traditional way we think of.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 11:54 PM

What we will see more of is nurse practitioners. Don't get me wrong they can be good but when it come to surgeons I don't want the guy that barley made the cut. Also like wheels says "get used to looking at the wallpaper.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 12:40 AM

Common are you actually stating that Planned parenthood does not receive any federal funding?

-- Posted by Mowrangler on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 7:51 AM

"My nephew is brilliant and is going into the financial field instead."

Good choice, the country needs more payday lenders.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 8:21 AM

Rick? I posted your information, no response?

-- Posted by Reasoning on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 8:23 AM

-- Posted by Reasoning on Thu, Nov 22, 2012, at 6:13 PM

I assume you either ignore or are not knowledgeable in the ways of health insurance. You don't need federal funds to pay for abortion and birth control if you can force and dictate that religious institutions do it with executive orders.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 9:43 AM

"Good choice, the country needs more payday lenders."

Common, You've confirmed your sense of humor is nearly as warped as mine.

There maybe some truth to that for the sign of a prosperous Obama economy will be more payday loan stores and pawn shops with more liquor stores in between.

Remember to bring in some of your least favorite canned goods to give back to the community when visiting the free health clinic.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 10:30 AM

Remember when insurance paid for accidents, broken bones, and major health problems? Back then insurance was not all that expensive. Even marginal companies provided insurance for their employees.

Today, mandates have driven coverage beyond the range of marginal employers. The mandates have pushed the costs of insurance beyond the budgets of average Joes.

Ending mandates are off the table for discussion to the Ivy League government pushers in Washington. The mandate created problems in healthcare have provided them employment in government.

Now ask yourself, "where are all these mandates originating from? The Northeast and its Ivy League schools. The same can be said for the failed central bank and the problems it has created, they are tied to the Northeast Ivy Leagues.

Leadership in both major political parties look to the Northeast Ivy Leagues for presidential candidates. Why?

-- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 11:05 AM

"Back then insurance was not all that expensive."

"Now ask yourself, "where are all these mandates originating from?"

I think it would be closer to the truth to look at insurance companies for the answer. The companies themselves appeared to be competing with each other and started offering more and more coverage. It was not the northeast "Ivy Leaguers" but gradual increases in services offered and health insurance companies trying to keep up with each other.

You see a similar move today with proliferation of auto repair insurance. Ads that shout "Never pay repair bills again!!" just buy our insurance.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 11:16 AM

Rick, Obama has said and many of his followers right here on the formums have expressed favoring a single payer system.

I have said in the past that the plan is to run the insurance companies out in a similar way planned to close coal plants.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 12:11 PM

"Yes, it is free of "charge," just like the 100,000 mile drive-train warranty on my truck is, per the salesman, "free of charge" because it has been paid for as part of the basic price. No difference, someone else did not pay for it, the buyer did."

So, again, you are saying Mr. Obama lied.

But I've already dispelled that notion that the I buyer pays for it. If that were true, there would be no advantage to the mandate, and no outcry against it.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 8:20 PM

"It should be fairly clear that access to birth control as part of a basic health care plan reduces abortions. I would think that people opposed to abortion would strongly support the President's initiative to make birth control more readily available, even if "society" were to pay for it, which it does not."

If the decrease can in 2009, which is to say before the mandate, then the mandate is redundant, since birth control is being accessed and abortions are dropping. Clearly there is nothing to indicate that the yet-to-be-imposed mandate had any effect upon that.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 8:23 PM

"So, again, you are saying (President) Obama lied."

That is clearly not the case. If you receive something "free of charge" you simply do not have to pay at the time you receive it. The fact that you paid for it earlier through a basic plan does not alter that. I would say that most people understand that concept.

Hopefully you don't believe that the "free lunch" at old time saloons was really "free." The patrons just paid for it through the price of the drinks.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 9:29 PM

Of course it's free, just pay seperate shipping and handling.

Back to the original grievence, a church that believes it is wrong should not be forced to pay for it through the high price of bar drinks or after they recieve it.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 11:06 PM

"Hopefully you don't believe that the "free lunch" at old time saloons was really "free." The patrons just paid for it through the price of the drinks."

I've never bought into that, but what you are buying is equally wrong.

Yes, someone paid for it, but not the person using the policy. In the case of group policies, the employer pays for the bulk, if not all, of the premiums. Since most employers pass those costs to the consumers through the cost of goods, society pays for them through higher prices.

Your argument has been that the coverage is a part of the employees' compensation. I disagree. As I have noted, it is a cost of doing business, a part of overhead, not a compensation offering in most cases. Additionally, since it is mandated by government, it is not a part of the compensation package negotiated between the employee and the employer.

If, for example you and I agree that the value of a hole I need to have excavated is $100, and you are willing to accept $100 to excavate the hole and I am willing to pay $100 to have the hole excavated, then $100 is the compensation value of the hole. If the government, in turn, says that in exchange for the permission to dig the hole and as a consequence of enacting such commerce within their jurisdiction, they will add burdens to the cost of excavating the hole equal to $50, a problem exists.

Clearly you still expect $100 for your efforts and the I find the value of the hole to stll be only $100, thus who is responsible for the $50 in burdens? If I take it out of the $100 in compensation, then it can fairly be said to be a part of the compensation package. If I add to my costs and pay you the agreed-upon $100, then it is not a part of the compensation and is rather, a burden of business. If, instead, we compromise and I pay you $75 in compensation and $25 to towards the burden, while paying the remaining $25 out of my own pockets, such that the actual cost to me of excavating the hole become $125, with you accepting a reduction in pay in order to reduce the burden shouldered by either of us, then it can be said that half the burden is part of your compensation package, the remainder is a cost of doing business.

Keep in mind that the freedom remains for me to either excavate the hole myself, without your assistance, or not excavating the hole because the cost, at $150, is to high to justify it.

In whatever case, if the burden imposed by government exceeds the agreed-upon compensation, the added burden is not compensatory, and is shouldered by the employer and, thus, by society.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 9:26 AM

"-- Posted by .Rick. on Fri, Nov 23, 2012, at 11:30 AM"

An e-mail to that effect has been circulating for a while. The unnamed relative who supposedly works for an unnamed branch of the federal government has been tripling the order for ammunition since at least 2010.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 9:29 AM

Shapley, I agree with the point you are conveying 9:20 AM but have to wonder: You been hanging around Festus Hagan again? :)

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 10:16 AM

My apologies, then, for questioning the veracity.

I have seen e-mails regarding the issue, supported by articles such as this:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...

When I see a post that claims something along the lines of "My cousin's husband is a Federal Government Agent" without identifying the agency, I am suspect.

That is further compounded by the statement: "One of his responsibilities is ordering supplies for the central/northern Federal Government Zone Agents" which, again, lacks specificity as to the department to which the agents belong.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 11:17 AM

"Since most employers pass those costs ( for the premiums) to the consumers through the cost of goods, society pays for them through higher prices."

All employers pass the cost of all their expenses on to consumers, that's how business works.

- - - - - - - -

"...not a part of the compensation package negotiated..."

Of course it is. Why would it not be? Either the employee gets a set policy as part of his compensation, or he can negotiate and it becomes part of a billing rate as is the case with all overhead. In the case of my last job, I received a higher salary because I declined health coverage because I already was under Tricare.

- - - - - - - -

"In whatever case, if the burden imposed by government exceeds the agreed-upon compensation, the added burden is not compensatory, and is shouldered by the employer and, thus, by society."

It would be simpler to realize that the extra $50 for the digging permit (or whatever) becomes part of the cost of the project. The cost of the hole becomes $150, as part of the cost of doing business. If the buyer who wants the hole can't afford $150, he can dig it himself, or find someone who will do it for $50.

All burdens are eventually paid for by a buyer. The cost of rent, taxes, utilities etc., all go into the price of labor or into the cost of the product sold. The only real difference maker is competition. If one company adds new expenses to the price of its product, and his competitor reduces his profit margin to maintain the same price, the second company may sell more that the first. But in any case those are all business decisions, there is no magic formula to pass expenses on to "society."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Nov 24, 2012, at 8:34 PM

"All employers pass the cost of all their expenses on to consumers, that's how business works."

Not all employers in a business that permits that. Churches and charities, for example, cannot pass the cost to the consumer, but they are businesses that hire employers and are affected by the mandate.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 25, 2012, at 6:28 AM

"In the case of my last job, I received a higher salary because I declined health coverage because I already was under Tricare."

That is a rare example. In most businesses you can decline coverage if you don't need it, but you don't get compensated for not doing so.

'Cafeteria Plans' frequently offer a variety of benefits from which one can choose, or they can sometimes choose a cash benefit instead. It is part of the compensation, but it is not part of the mandate.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 25, 2012, at 6:33 AM

"It would be simpler to realize that the extra $50 for the digging permit (or whatever) becomes part of the cost of the project. The cost of the hole becomes $150, as part of the cost of doing business. If the buyer who wants the hole can't afford $150, he can dig it himself, or find someone who will do it for $50."

The government has artificially inflated the price of the hole, with the result that fewer holes get excavated, excavators receive lower pay, or those paying for the holes pay more, as you note. Whichever the case, unless good reason exists for the artificial inflation, it clearly has a negative impact upon commerce.

But I'm glad you agree it is a part of the cost of doing business, and not a part of compensation, even if that artificial increase in for the purpose of providing insurance or other mandated benefit to the excavator of the hole. That is, after all, what we are talking about here - the increase in premiums raises the cost of excavating a hole by adding cost to the business of excavating.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 25, 2012, at 6:40 AM

"Churches and charities, for example, cannot pass the cost to the consumer..."

Actually they do in a way. They have projected income based on past donation experience, budget their employee expense, and then determine how much they can utilize for charitable works. If their employee expense rises slightly due to a need to provide adequate health insurance, then they can either seek additional donations or reduce charitable activities. So the consumer does pay in one sense.

- - - - - - -

"...even if that artificial increase in for the purpose of providing insurance..."

That I do not agree with. Government permits are a cost of doing business. Health insurance, whether government mandated or not, is compensation for the employee, primarily because it is specifically for the benefit of the employee. If a company reduces its workforce by half, it reduces its health care premium by half. The cost of the government permit remains the same regardless of the number of employees.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Nov 25, 2012, at 7:51 AM

Wheels, I think you understand it better than you let on.

"Not all jobs were required to have permits, so why would you call it a cost of doing business and spread it to all of your customers?"

That is what the concern is about.

Birth control should not be a cost of doing business to be spread around when purchasing medical insurance. It should be charged to the job that needs it.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 25, 2012, at 12:49 PM

"Actually they do in a way. They have projected income based on past donation experience, budget their employee expense, and then determine how much they can utilize for charitable works. If their employee expense rises slightly due to a need to provide adequate health insurance, then they can either seek additional donations or reduce charitable activities. So the consumer does pay in one sense."

That's a bit of a stretch. They can't raise their prices, since they have none. Ergo, they can only reduce their services and, perhaps, dismiss some of the employees the mandated cost is supposed to help.

A reduction of services does not 'cost the consumer' of a charity, it deprives him of services. Since the consumers of charity do not pay for the services, it cannot be said that their cost has increased.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 6:33 AM

"If a company reduces its workforce by half, it reduces its health care premium by half. The cost of the government permit remains the same regardless of the number of employees."

Not entirely true. Frequently companies must reduce employment to keep such costs the same or from not increasing markedly. One option t

o retain both employees and coverage would be to reduce the level of coverae in order to retain employees but, when those costs are mandated, that option is off the table. Ergo, the mandate negatively impacts employment.

But I digress. I've already noted that I disagree with you on the idea that such a cost is compensatory. There are many costs which increase with the number of employees, but that does not make them compensatory in nature.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 6:39 AM

"... primarily because it is specifically for the benefit of the employee."

If an employer adds safety guarding, it is specifically for the benefit of the employees, but that does not make the safety guarding a part of the employees' compensation package.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 6:41 AM

"If an employer adds safety guarding..."

That act may serve to protect an employee, but its primary purpose is to protect the employer from lost time with associated lost productivity, possible law suits, and is likely is in response to safety standards imposed by others.

So it is not compensation, because it benefits the employer just as much or more.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 9:17 AM

"That act may serve to protect an employee, but its primary purpose is to protect the employer from lost time with associated lost productivity, possible law suits, and is likely is in response to safety standards imposed by others."

And mandated insurance, or components within mandated insurance, is provided as much to protect the business from government fines and harrassment as it is to compensate the employee, is it not? Thus, I see no difference.

In the case of unionized businesses, it is provided as a condition to prevent lost time due to strikes and walkouts, and thus is as much a benefit to the company as to the employee. Again, no difference.

Finally, in the case of those businesses that wilfully extend it to their employees as an addition to their salary, it offered to keep the employees happy, healthy, and productive and thus, is no different than other costs to business.

It is paid by the employer, it is a cost to the employer, it is deducted from taxes (where applicable) by the employer, and thus is an cost of business, not compensation to the employee. Were it, it would be taxed as such by the government.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 10:47 AM

"...to protect the business from government fines and harrassment as it is to compensate the employee, is it not?"

It is not. When normal insurance is left as part of the employee's compensation there is no harrassment, no fines, just satisfied workers.

The union, happy, and tax issues are just red herrings.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 12:36 PM

Allowing unions to get special "waivers" to avoid tax penalties on their "cadillac" insurance plans is no red herring. It's political payola and vote buying. Which I would expect from a liberal democrat Chicago politician. Doesn't make it right or legal.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 12:43 PM

"The union, happy, and tax issues are just red herrings."

Spoken like a true Democrat. I wasn't talking about union harassment in that sentence. Many state governments mandate that companies over a certain size provide insurance. Obviously, the law was imposed because some chose not to do so. Failure to comply with the law results in fines and harrassement, unionized or not.

The union issue was addressed in the statement which followed.

"...tax issues are just red herrings."

No. The the government levies taxes on the employee upon his compenation. The business is taxed upon its earnings, and its costs, including health care costs, are deducted against those earnings. That the employee does not pay taxes upon those coverage indicates that it is not considered a part of his compensation package by the government.

Obamacare does require the value of health coverage to be listed now on W-2s, but does not compute them as earnings unless they are 'Cadillac plans' (excessively costly plans). This may shift the status of health coverage to a compensatory status, because the Obama administration is obviously as confused as you about the nature of such benefits. If he begins to tax them, I'll accept that they are compensation. As it now stands, they remain untaxed as such.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 26, 2012, at 2:34 PM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.