Looks like not pushing for single payer is biting you Yanks in the ass.

(July 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 2:53 pm)A Theist Wrote: Moderate left? Tell me who you think is moderate right. You go first.

Sure.

Remember this candidate for the GOP primary?

John Huntsman




Next, we can move further to the right into "Conservative-but-not-bugfucked-crazy-wingnut-far-right-conservative" column:

My senator Turtle-man Mitch "My-God-Get-This-Man-Some-Properly-Fitting-Dentures-Now" McConnell from Kentucky. Much as I hope this guy loses in November, I'd classify him in this category.



...and the guy who won the primary before last in 2008? Granted, he's loopy at times when he hears of shots being fired somewhere in the world and he did give us Sarah Palin, so I'm so relieved he lost. Still, he's also been willing to slam on the breaks when his followers start talking about Democrats paling around with terrorists, etc. So I'd put him in the conservative-but-not-bugfucked-crazy-wingnut-far-right-wing GOP column.


Now let's move to "Mostly Crazy But Lucid on Some Specific Issues"

Sure this guy's a nut on some issues but if I was president (let that thought sink in) I'd happily have him audit the Pentagon:


Did you see it when he almost won Iowa in 2012? I thought heads were going to explode on Fox "News".

My picks for Moderate Left. Two come immediately to mind.

Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia. I think if he were ever nominated as a Democratic candidate for president Joe Manchin would pose a formidable challenge to his Republican opponent. He's one of the few in Washington who works well together with both sides...



Joe Lieberman was another who came to mind....

---

(July 2, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Had it not been for Palin, I would have voted for McCain in 2008 ... but the thought of the Presidency having a gravitational well of stupidity that close to it scared me shitless.

Now you know how we feel about Joe Biden.

(July 2, 2014 at 5:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: 2. 401K funds are not invested directly into companies which profit by killing unborn human beings. They invest in funds which diversify themselves by investing in multiple companies. Hobby Lobby has no control of what companies those funds will invest the money in.

That is 100% absolutely not true. A company can always choose what mutual funds to involve themselves in & the fund will have a breakdown of where they money goes. Personally, with my 401(k) I can choose exactly what industries my money goes into.

Have you never had a 401(k)?

---

Just read this.

Apparently, this terrible ruling allows any "religious company" to deny every single type of birth control should they so desire. Doesn't matter if if it's misconstrued as an abortifacient or not. Doesn't matter if it's for PCOS or any of the 20 non-contraceptive reasons that a woman could be taking birth control. This affects over 50 pending cases & DEITY$ only knows how many women.

97% of Catholic women have reported that they have used birth control at some point in their lives.

Neo-cons will be reaping this whirlwind come November.

(July 3, 2014 at 7:46 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 5:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: 2. 401K funds are not invested directly into companies which profit by killing unborn human beings. They invest in funds which diversify themselves by investing in multiple companies. Hobby Lobby has no control of what companies those funds will invest the money in.

That is 100% absolutely not true. A company can always choose what mutual funds to involve themselves in & the fund will have a breakdown of where they money goes. Personally, with my 401(k) I can choose exactly what industries my money goes into.

Have you never had a 401(k)?

Yes in principle you can choose what goes on the menu of mutual funds employees can choose from. However it would be impossible for you to limit the menu to funds which coincide with your religious beliefs without running afowl of pension laws.

(July 3, 2014 at 7:46 am)Jaysyn Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 5:25 pm)Heywood Wrote: 2. 401K funds are not invested directly into companies which profit by killing unborn human beings. They invest in funds which diversify themselves by investing in multiple companies. Hobby Lobby has no control of what companies those funds will invest the money in.

That is 100% absolutely not true. A company can always choose what mutual funds to involve themselves in & the fund will have a breakdown of where they money goes. Personally, with my 401(k) I can choose exactly what industries my money goes into.

Have you never had a 401(k)?

---

Just read this.

Apparently, this terrible ruling allows any "religious company" to deny every single type of birth control should they so desire. Doesn't matter if if it's misconstrued as an abortifacient or not. Doesn't matter if it's for PCOS or any of the 20 non-contraceptive reasons that a woman could be taking birth control. This affects over 50 pending cases & DEITY$ only knows how many women.

97% of Catholic women have reported that they have used birth control at some point in their lives.

Neo-cons will be reaping this whirlwind come November.

Where did it say that women are being denied access to contraceptives? Last I checked women still have legal access to them. They just have to foot their own money for them. Companies with religious convictions against abortions and contraceptives that induce abortions can't be forced now to provide for those services. It was a good ruling for religious liberty guaranteed by the first amendment and one that based in part on the "Religious Freedom and Restoration Act", signed into law by former prez Billy Clinton.

(July 3, 2014 at 12:06 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Heywood Wrote: Negative Ryantology.

It is not the same as buying insurance coverage. It is the same as compensating the employees with cash and letting them decide how to spend it.

As far as Hobby Lobby is concerned, it is precisely the same. They are not paying directly for any particular medical service. The insurance company and the employee are the ones directly paying for the birth control. That's how health insurance fucking works.

They were required to pay for contraceptive coverage. Nobody disputes this but you.

(July 3, 2014 at 12:06 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

Quote:The small tranche of cash will have a particular label recommending to the employee how it should be spent. This will fool the libertards into thinking they've done something good but the reality is we are exactly where we were regarding contraceptive coverage before Obamacare. People getting paid for their labor in cash and then buying contraceptives on the open market if that is what they choose to do.

In other words, we are placing the bulk of the financial burden on those with the least finances.

In other words we are letting the employee determine how to allocate the compensation they recieve for their labor instead of some liberaltard elitest telling them how to do it.

The reason liberaltards want employers to provide contraception coverage is because they think women are too stupid to buy it on their own.

(July 3, 2014 at 10:15 am)Heywood Wrote: Yes in principle you can choose what goes on the menu of mutual funds employees can choose from. However it would be impossible for you to limit the menu to funds which coincide with your religious beliefs without running afowl of pension laws.

Very clear now that you are just making shit up. There are no "pension laws" that force a company to pick one set of mutual funds over another.

Christian Mutual Funds

More Christian Mutual Funds

So much for "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness"

(July 1, 2014 at 12:26 am)Mothonis_Cathicgal Wrote: The problem with conservatives is they don't care unless it effects them.A theist is an example of this.he wont address Esquilax properly.

Conservatives are diverse. Most of them are like most people in general: basically decent. What they have in common is either alliance with the GOP or some other way they consciously align with some form of resistance to change. There are plenty of examples of conservatives who care about things that don't affect them, good or bad.

That said, the GOP has gone off the deep end. When I was a kid, it was a respectable party to which to belong. You didn't have to check your intellectual integrity at the door if you happened to be on board with scientific findings. There's plenty to complain about regarding the Democrats, but it's like the GOP has lost its collective mind in becoming an arm of the religious right.

The Democrats could be the only major party in twenty years if they become classic liberals: socially liberal, fiscally responsible. Otherwise, as the GOP social warriors die off, they will become that party (of classic liberalism) and experience a resurgence. I might vote for a Republican again someday if that happens (I voted for Dole, I think that was the last Republican I voted for, for national office).

(July 3, 2014 at 10:41 am)A Theist Wrote: Where did it say that women are being denied access to contraceptives?

Quit being so disingenuous.

I wasn't talking about contraceptives & you know it. I was talking about hormone therapy for a rainbow of common issues that mainly affect women. You can be smug as much as you'd like, we can see thru your mendacity like a cheap shirt. Your collective foolishness will have repercussions in November.

(July 1, 2014 at 6:00 pm)A Theist Wrote: No. It was a good week for the American people. It was just bad for the far-left. You're a ways out yet to be making predictions about who's going to be the next president. I think the country has had about enough of barack and anyone like him. The five justices of the SCOTUS did preserve one of our institutions through their decision. Last I checked, women are still allowed access to contraceptives and abortions in this country. They just can't impose their wills on employers who have religious convictions against it and force them to pay for it.

I'm not far left by any stretch, but I'm concerned by the precedent set by this decision. Already the court has indicated that rather than just appying to a few treatments mistakenly regarded as abortifacents, it could apply to all forms of birth control.

And if I understand your convictions correctly, you should be concerned by the potential of this decision to lead to single payer coverage of women's reproductive health, a program likely to expand if it's initiated.

Though I think the most likely outcome is that the insurance companies will pick up the cost. It's much less expensive to provide free birth control than to cover a pregnancy.