Obama COMPROMISES on birth control issue

[Jim Jeffries]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

So no examples then?

Why waste time providing examples that you've already asserted will surely be "out of context?" The thousand hours or so you've spent attacking Christianity on this site, was that rooted in tolerance by chance?

You mean like trying to amend the constitution to prevent gay people from marrying, trying to ban abortion and embarking on

California (our most populous state) is hugely Democrat and voted to ban same sex marriages.

court case after court case in a vain attempt to counter the teaching of evolution?

There are court cases attempting to remove crucifixes from christian colleges.

You mean like anti-gay policy advisers going on holiday with rentboys?

Or like Class Warfare proponent John Kerry docking his 7 million dollar yacht out of state to avoid taxes. Or Global Warming alarmist Al Gore making 10s of millions claiming the oceans will swallow half of Florida, before buying a 9 million dollar mansion on the beach.

You mean like Chicago's Focus on the Family trying to get atheist teachers fired for being atheists?

Now that surprises me, a conservative organization surviving among the corrupt Chicago political machine.

You ARE ridiculously partisan though, hence your continual endorsement of ideas that you have claimed to find repugnant purely because they are proposed by the party in which you are seemingly enthralled.

I am totally for abortion. Until unemployment hit double digits, I was completely fine with illegal immigration. I believe in Evolution and I don't have a problem with gay marriage. And you calling me "ridiculously" partisan is like Newt Gingrich calling me obese.

I don't tow a party line in the US. Nor do I despise the US. Bizarre assertion but I guess that's the way of the Grand Old Party.

An assertion based on comments about your "fat, stupid neighbor to the South." Not exactly bizarre.

"If you're not with us you're against us and if you're against us you're the enemy of America!"

If you don't think that this is the philosophy of the Republican party then you really haven't been paying attention.

So just to be clear. The Democrat Party in this country is perfect, can do no wrong and anyone who disagrees with any of their policies or the conduct of politicians like Clinton, Weiner, Rangel, Waters, Pelosi, etc is just an ignorant partisan? While the Republican Party has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Gotcha.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Jim Jeffries

Why waste time providing examples that you've already asserted will surely be "out of context?"

You couldn't even think of one.

The thousand hours or so you've spent attacking Christianity on this site, was that rooted in tolerance by chance?

Attacking ideas and concepts for their lack of veracity is not the same as"intolerance". Attacking religious fascism is not the same as "intolerance". If this is your best example of intolerance as practiced by "the left" you need to revise your definition of intolerance AND of the left.

California (our most populous state) is hugely Democrat and voted to ban same sex marriages.

If you look at the breakdown by county you'll see that most of those votes come from republicans as you'd expect. Religious fascists played their part as well by abusing their influence to interfere with politics.

There are court cases attempting to remove crucifixes from christian colleges.

Oh yes, because if there is one group in the United States that is suffering intolerance it's rich white christians.

Besides: [citation needed]

Or like Class Warfare proponent John Kerry docking his 7 million dollar yacht out of state to avoid taxes.

Not an example of intolerance. Do you really want to compare tax practices of Republicans to those of Democrats?

Or Global Warming alarmist Al Gore making 10s of millions claiming the oceans will swallow half of Florida, before buying a 9 million dollar mansion on the beach.

I think you may have forgotten something: You claimed that Democrats were hypocritical about their intolerance. There's no intolerance about making claims about the environment. Hypocrisy about intolerance would be, for example, somebody railing against illegal immigration while employing an immigrant gardener who lacks status. There's nothing intolerant about making claims about the environment.

Besides, if Gore is making "10s of millions" then spending 9 million on a house is small change so it doesn't matter if it'll be underwater in a decade.

Now that surprises me, a conservative organization surviving among the corrupt Chicago political machine.

It's a republican affiliated religious nutter group, the sort of thing that reflects badly on fiscal conservatives, and it attempted to get teachers fired for being atheists.

I am totally for abortion. Until unemployment hit double digits, I was completely fine with illegal immigration. I believe in Evolution and I don't have a problem with gay marriage. And you calling me "ridiculously" partisan is like Newt Gingrich calling me obese.

And yet you STILL tow the party line on these issues! THAT is my point. You allow your personal beliefs to be subservient to party policy, you slavishly defend untenable positions that you don't share, and you do it because republican politicians do, and for no other reason.

An assertion based on comments about your "fat, stupid neighbor to the South." Not exactly bizarre.

I don't hate people just because they are fat or stupid.

So just to be clear. The Democrat Party in this country is perfect, can do no wrong and anyone who disagrees with any of their policies or the conduct of politicians like Clinton, Weiner, Rangel, Waters, Pelosi, etc is just an ignorant partisan? While the Republican Party has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Gotcha.

This is a precise example of the phenomenon I described. No, the Democratic party is far from perfect. There are too many millionaires in it for starters. How on earth are the majority of Americans supposed to be fairly represented when almost all of their representatives are moneyed beyond the reaches of 90% of the constituents? There are too many people that either are religious or pretend to be and this gives disproportionate power to a tiny minority of religious fundamentalists while the bulk of the population who are functionally atheists while living their day to day lives labour under policies crafted with one eye on the god botherers.

I've never said that you have to choose a side. Having two political parties is stupid. The US electoral system is stupid because it FORCES power to be a coin toss instead of a representation of the people. Picking one party and backing it regardless of what they are saying is also stupid. In my voting life I have voted at various times for all three main parties in the UK and I will be similarly pragmatic when voting in Canada. Right now I lean towards the conservatives but if they were to embrace the sort of vulgar religious pandering that the US political system seems to endorse I would change my vote in a heartbeat.

So yes, ridiculously partisan you are.

[Jim Jeffries]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

You couldn't even think of one.

Sure I did, you simply ignored it, the same way you do everything that doesn't fit neatly into your confirmation bias.

Attacking ideas and concepts for their lack of veracity is not the same as"intolerance". Attacking religious fascism is not the same as "intolerance". If this is your best example of intolerance as practiced by "the left" you need to revise your definition of intolerance AND of the left.

So all Christianity is religious "fascism?" I disagree.

If you look at the breakdown by county you'll see that most of those votes come from republicans as you'd expect. Religious fascists played their part as well by abusing their influence to interfere with politics.

Blacks in California voted for Proposition 8 by a margin of 70-30. And their turnout was huge in 2008 for Barack Obama.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-blacks-tank/

Oh yes, because if there is one group in the United States that is suffering intolerance it's rich white christians.

So basically intolerance is okay, so long as the victim is either rich, white or christian? I disagree.

Not an example of intolerance. Do you really want to compare tax practices of Republicans to those of Democrats?

Absolutely. Be sure to include a list of those delinquent on the taxes they owe.

It's a republican affiliated religious nutter group, the sort of thing that reflects badly on fiscal conservatives, and it attempted to get teachers fired for being atheists.

Why should I care about some unsuccessful attempt by a fringe group?

And yet you STILL tow the party line on these issues! THAT is my point. You allow your personal beliefs to be subservient to party policy, you slavishly defend untenable positions that you don't share, and you do it because republican politicians do, and for no other reason.

I don't tow the party line on abortion. But I am against religious intolerance. And I don't think that people who believe that life begins at conception should have to pay (directly or indirectly) for free abortion pills for everybody (indeed all of our insurance premiums will be higher to pay for abortion pills.)

No, the Democratic party is far from perfect.

I agree, yet whenever criticism of them is raised, you are always there to defend them.

There are too many millionaires in it for starters. How on earth are the majority of Americans supposed to be fairly represented when almost all of their representatives are moneyed beyond the reaches of 90% of the constituents?

So you think Obama is hindered in some way in representing Americans because he's a millionaire. Interesting. Or is rich only a problem if you're rich, white and a christian?

There are too many people that either are religious or pretend to be

Like Obama, according to you?

and this gives disproportionate power to a tiny minority of religious fundamentalists while the bulk of the population who are functionally atheists while living their day to day lives labour under policies crafted with one eye on the god botherers.

The overwhelming majority of the US profess to believe in God, but you think they're almost ALL pretending? Sounds like a conspiracy.

Having two political parties is stupid. The US electoral system is stupid because it FORCES power to be a coin toss instead of a representation of the people. Picking one party and backing it regardless of what they are saying is also stupid.

Actually there are 435 "coin tosses" in the House, 100 in the Senate, so if the one for the White House turns out to be a disaster, we have three equal branches of government to help reduce the damage.

Now back to the topic at hand. President Obama attended a national prayer meeting (something some of our more ignorant posters had a problem with when Rick Perry did it, but not now) earlier this month. There he qualified his intentions to raise taxes on upper income earners by saying "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that,'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." In the past he has said "my salvation depends on the collective salvation." Now he is saying that the 1st Amendment only applies to those who don't really take their religion seriously. I disagree.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Jim Jeffries

Sure I did, you simply ignored it, the same way you do everything that doesn't fit neatly into your confirmation bias.

No, you explained that you needn't provide an example as it would only be dismissed. You then proceeded to list instances which were not examples of intolerance.

So all Christianity is religious "fascism?" I disagree.

As do I. All christianity is not religious fascism, nor have I ever claimed it was. However all christianity is ideology and as I see it it is nonsense. As such it would be ridiculous to describe discussion of its veracity and worth as "intolerance". If you must abuse that word then you must also condemn as intolerant any discussion of any ideology. Which means that your constant bickering about Democrat policy or socialists or anarchists would be off limits.

Wouldn't want to be "intolerant" would you?

Blacks in California voted for Proposition 8 by a margin of 70-30. And their turnout was huge in 2008 for Barack Obama.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...d-blacks-tank/

It's such a shame that religious fascists have the power to influence so many people by fear-mongering.

So basically intolerance is okay, so long as the victim is either rich, white or christian? I disagree.

Well no, I never said that. It's just that most of the whining that comes from rich white christians about how intolerant America is towards rich people, white people and christians is not complaining about actual persecution, it's complaining about loss of privilege. "What do you mean I'm not allowed to proselytise to children in my public school class, that's SO INTOLERANT!"
"What do you mean I can hang up irrelevant stone age lists of rules in modern court cases? Why are you so INTOLERANT!?"
"What do you mean allow dirty fags to live with dignity? WHY MUST YOU PERSECUTE MY RELIGION!!!???"

Why should I care about some unsuccessful attempt by a fringe group?

You accused Democrats or left wing groups or some set of commies or other (it's never clear on that, again because of the standard Republican trope that anyone who isn't a Republican is by default a Democrat, commie or left winger and that these things are all the same) of attempting to silence people whose ideology they disagree with, citing this is a difference between right wing barmcakes and left wing barmcakes. Hey guess what? Right wing barmcakes do it more.

I don't tow the party line on abortion.

But you still defend it the moment it becomes a partisan issue.

But I am against religious intolerance.

I'm also against religious intolerance, which is why I abhor any attempt of religious organisations to be intolerant of women's health rights on the basis of their religion.

And I don't think that people who believe that life begins at conception should have to pay (directly or indirectly) for free abortion pills for everybody (indeed all of our insurance premiums will be higher to pay for abortion pills.)

What are you talking about? Abortion pills? The provision was for contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent fertilisation. This idea of abortion pills is, yet again, a strawman.

The objection, and I will state this again, was entirely brought about because of misogynistic objection to women being sexually active. That is the ONLY reason for rules against contraception. It has nothing to do with any heartache about the poor babies (after all none of the principle objectors to contraception seem to care much about poor babies after they are born) and everything to do with punishing "sluts" for having sex, regardless of their marriage or partnership status.

I agree, yet whenever criticism of them is raised, you are always there to defend them.

I'm not defending the Democrat party. I will counter and challenge nonsense and bullshit and wickedness wherever I see it. It just so happens that most of the nonsense and most of the bullshit and most of the wickedness in the US comes from one party.

So you think Obama is hindered in some way in representing Americans because he's a millionaire. Interesting. Or is rich only a problem if you're rich, white and a christian?

Absolutely he is hindered in his ability to represent the electorate. Not as hindered as a standard republican who believes that all wealth comes from innate qualities and hard work, after all he does recognise and has worked with people in poverty (not just illegally hiring them as domestic servants), but yes, he is still hindered in representing Americans.

Politics is always going to be skewed towards a higher socioeconomic background because positions of power tend to be won by people with access to the best education, the most privilege, but the US fetishism of financial success brings this tendency to an extreme.

The American dream was always that one could arrive with nothing and through hard work, inspiration and frugality could end ones' life as a wealthy man. Over time this has been corrupted to the degree that it is no longer the hard work that is the virtue. The virtue is the wealth, regardless of the means by which it was accrued. Hence it is considered that wealthy people DESERVE power and DESERVE influence, otherwise they wouldn't be wealthy.

Like Obama, according to you?

As stated in the rest of the civilised world it is the height of vulgarity for politicians to announce their religious leaning. It is especially vulgar to do so in order to win votes. Despite the US having a constitutional decree making religious tests for office illegal there is a de-facto religious test brought about by persecution of nonbelievers. The republican primary in particular has become a pissing contest about who is more pious. I don't think that Obama is terribly religious. If I were to put money on it I would say he is one of those people for whom christianity is a Sunday pastime. You know, like almost every other believer in the world.

It becomes an issue when he says things like "My faith informs all my decisions". How would you feel if you were to see a dentist who immediately prior to starting to drill your teeth made a similar proclamation?

The overwhelming majority of the US profess to believe in God, but you think they're almost ALL pretending? Sounds like a conspiracy.

I think most people live their lives according to atheist principles. Most people live their every day lives as though gods don't exist. Think about this: How many people look before crossing the road? How many people plan for retirement? How many people work for a living and raise families and make car payments and join gyms? A cursory reading of the Gospels makes it quite clear that Jesus doesn't want any of that stuff, he wants followers who will jack it all in and follow him.

No, people act as though gods do not exist ALL THE TIME. They may sincerely believe in the bible, and I don't dispute that many of them do. But they live their lives as though they don't.

Actually there are 435 "coin tosses" in the House, 100 in the Senate, so if the one for the White House turns out to be a disaster, we have three equal branches of government to help reduce the damage.

I'm thinking more about the electoral college system. If a state has 27 electors and the vote is split 51-49 for one party then the winner gets all 27 college votes. It's a coin toss. Not enough representation in the choosing of a president.

Add to that the fact that there are just two parties from which to choose. In Canada there were traditionally two parties contesting the leadership, Liberal and Conservative, with the Bloc and the NDP bringing up the rear. But in the last election the NDP made huge strides and the liberals and Bloc dropped in the pecking order. Most civilised nations have more than two parties. Having just two makes it a coin flip. Which set of (mostly) rich (mostly) white (mostly) men do I choose to best represent me?

Now back to the topic at hand. President Obama attended a national prayer meeting (something some of our more ignorant posters had a problem with when Rick Perry did it, but not now) earlier this month.

Obama went to a meeting, Perry went to a prayer rally. Huge difference. Prayer meetings are loathsome in politics anyway.

[squealpiggy]

There he qualified his intentions to raise taxes on upper income earners by saying "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus' teaching that,'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required."

But Jesus was a republican, surely!

Jesus also said that he had come to turn family against family and brother against brother. He also said "render unto Caesar". He also said that his father's house had been turned into a "den of thieves". He also, and this is important, said that prayer should be done in secret and not on the street corners and at the front of the temple like the hypocrites (not my words) do. And yet here is someone repeating the purported words of Jesus in a disgraceful public display of piety.

In the past he has said "my salvation depends on the collective salvation." Now he is saying that the 1st Amendment only applies to those who don't really take their religion seriously. I disagree.

No. He is saying that the rights of people to access contraceptives outweighs the rights of those who dislike contraceptives to prevent them from accessing them. You've failed in your attempt to make this an issue of religious freedom instead of what it is, a partisan issue in which social conservatives have abused their own god in order to legislate their squeamishness about sex and women's empowerment.

[Cupocity303]

This guy sees the bigger picture (economically) and all the unintended consequences of forcing Health Insurance companies to provide free Birth Control. Other than the "Clowns with condom balloons" example, spot on:

[Jim Jeffries]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

What are you talking about? Abortion pills? The provision was for contraceptives. Contraceptives prevent fertilisation. This idea of abortion pills is, yet again, a strawman.

How on earth did I get this deep into a discussion with someone who has such a feeble understanding of the topic at hand? Try to follow:

Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pr...20120120a.html

Recommendations for Preventive Health Care Services for Women that Should be Considered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Recommendation 5.5: The full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Rep...f_updated2.pdf

Male condom
Female condom
Diaphragm with spermicide
Sponge with spermicide
Cervical cap with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Oral contraceptives
Patch
Vaginal contraceptive ring
Shot/injection

Emergency contraception ("the morning after pill")
You must swallow the pills within 72 hours of having unprotected sex.

Implanted devices-copper IUD, IUD with progestin, implantable rod
Sterilization Surgery (risks - pain, bleeding, infection)
Transcervical Surgical Sterilization Implant
Vasectomy (risks - pain, bleeding, infection)

http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/byau.../ucm118465.htm

[squealpiggy]

The closest you get to "abortion pills" are the "morning after" emergency contraceptive. These work in precisely the same was as the usual contraceptive pill.

[Jim Jeffries]

The phrase "morning-after pill" is a misnomer; ECPs are effective when used shortly after intercourse. Depending on the drug, they are licensed for use for up to 107 to 120 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure.

There is controversy about whether such drugs may in some cases act not as a contraceptive but as a contragestive, a drug that prevents the implantation of a human embryo in the uterus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

Thanks, but I'll wait for more than one study that fails to confirm the latter emboldened. And it's only a matter of time before mifepristone (which is currently being used in China and Russia) is approved here. As it stands, rather than the most commonly used condoms (which are very inexpensive and shouldn't be an insurance item,) people with now have free alternatives in a 50 dollar abortifacient or a very expensive (and dangerous) surgery, both of which will lead to an increase in the spread of STDs (not to mention insurance premiums.)

[ƒallenloki]