While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

[lektrode]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Is it really going to generate that much revenue???....

well... of course it will, cb - for the construction cronies - who are just beginning to get fattened-up by another 'little project' (the local comments on this one are priceless ;) and will be in prime shape for some.... uhhhhh... donations - that and the davis-bacon guys who actually WORK on building it and dont fergit the patronage perps - aka, The Usual Suspects...

when is the last time you added a presidential library to your travel itinerary? and my wife and I are history buffs.... might stop into the Obama library if .... but it will not draw me to...

well.. thats beside the point - but some seem to think it WILL BE a tourist attraction and by the sounds of the 'grand design' it'll be right up there with the 'other 7' wonders of the world...

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Warren already has the base of the left and she would do well if she stuck to economic policies, attacked FIRE and corporatocracy, and thereby appealled to a wider swath of middle and lower classes, and leave the gender identify, gay marriage, global warming stuff alone - still can't fault her for being honest about her priorities, which unfortunately have occupied the leftist agenda for the past 40 years while the middle and working classes were sold out by both parties. Still, watching her debate ms Clinton would be quite entertaining as well as revealing

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...mandments.html

"We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect
this Earth." Global warming
"We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations,
and that means real net neutrality." REgulation of the Internet

"We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in
the workplace, it's true in all of America." Gay marriage
"And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to
their bodies. We will overturnHobby
Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!" no conscience rights

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

re "conscience rights" and hobby lobby - i've been wondering if devout christian scientists can refuse to offer any health insurance whatsoever. and whether jehovah's witnesses can exclude coverage for transfusions.

[shiny!]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

re "conscience rights" and hobby lobby - i've been wondering if devout christian scientists can refuse to offer any health insurance whatsoever. and whether jehovah's witnesses can exclude coverage for transfusions.

I've wondered the same thing, e.g. can an employer refuse to pay for routine circumcision if it violates their religion?

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

re "conscience rights" and hobby lobby - i've been wondering if devout christian scientists can refuse to offer any health insurance whatsoever. and whether jehovah's witnesses can exclude coverage for transfusions.

The religious views of one very rich, very right wing family is now settled law. The court came to this 5/4 decision on the basis of such high legal argumentation as birth control harms women because men will only want them "for the satisfaction of [their] own desires" and that contraception leads to "the maximization of sexual activity".

All bets are off and anything goes. Corporations need only assert a "sincerely held religious belief." There was a time when slavery and segregation was justified by some as God's will and codified into civil law. Now the intellectual progeny of the slaveholder and the segregationist are back in charge and playing the same game, so who knows what to expect?

I wonder; if the religious rights of corporate owners, directors and officers are inseparable from the corporations they control, then surely they have waived their rights to be personally shielded from responsibility for corporate financial liabilities and malfeasance, no?

There is no end to this.

[vinoveri]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

re "conscience rights" and hobby lobby - i've been wondering if devout christian scientists can refuse to offer any health insurance whatsoever. and whether jehovah's witnesses can exclude coverage for transfusions.

I've been wondering why abortion wasn't/isn't a required coverage?
No rhyme or reason as far as I can tell, just politics and pushing the envelope as far as one can ... and knowing where to stop ... at least at this point (sort of like the founding fathers not doing away with slavery in order to get what they want?)


Why should Chick-fila be allowed to shutter its doors on Sunday's? Why should those churches get a tax-break? After all those church-goers ain't producing or spendin nuttin on sunday; gud-dum pinkos, knocking 1/7 off the potential GDP by sitting out one day a week. Oughta be a law

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

What about Muslims? Aren't they exempt from some part of Obamacare?

What is their stance on gay marriage?

I respect their religious views, as I do other religions. However the arguments that come up about religion always focus on Christians but never
Muslims. Why is that if both might agree on a particular issue; for example gay marriage?

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

What about Muslims? Aren't they exempt from some part of Obamacare?

What is their stance on gay marriage?

I respect their religious views, as I do other religions. However the arguments that come up about religion always focus on Christians but never
Muslims. Why is that if both might agree on a particular issue; for example gay marriage?

What about them? In the case of Hobby Lobby, I don't believe any Muslim organization or mosque provided an amicus brief in support or against.

In terms of raw headcount or percentages, Muslims, Hindus, Bahá'í, etc. are a tiny minority of the US population. Compared to Christians, smaller still. In terms of national influence, largely insignificant and a non-entity. Here is the breakdown in the US according to the wiki:

Christianity (73%)
Other Religions (6%)
Non-Religious (19%)
Don't know/Not Stated (2%)

The largest religion in the US is Christianity, claimed by the majority of the population. From those, roughly 48% of Americans are Protestants, 22% are Catholics, 2% are Mormons and 1% have affiliations with various other Christian denominations.

Why the focus on Christians? Because they've dominated religious expression in the US since the first Europeans arrived in the 1600s. Because it is not Jews or Muslims or Hindus who are using the courts to impose or gain special accommodations for their religious beliefs. Once it became clear to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, Terry Dolan, Richard Viguerie, Howard Phillips and the other leaders of the evangelical right wing that they would be unsuccessful in getting people to modify their private and public behavior through force of argument or appeals to authority, they sought to compel them by turning to politics and the courts. And by every measure they have been fabulously successful in their efforts. Muslims? Not so much.

I would note the various times and places where right wing evangelicals insist that the US is a Christian nation. I would also note that when Americans speak of God, most do so from a Christian perspective. When we say prayers as part of a convocation, most every one is of the Christian variety. Those places where there are still dry counties forbidding the sales of alcohol do so not from the perspective of the Koran or the Talmud, but from an interpretation of the Christian Bible. Same for those blue laws preventing alcohol sales on Sunday or before noon on Sunday.

Right wing evangelical Christians are fond of presenting themselves alternatively as supremely dominant or a persecuted minority. Which one is it?

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

re "conscience rights" and hobby lobby - i've been wondering if devout christian scientists can refuse to offer any health insurance whatsoever. and whether jehovah's witnesses can exclude coverage for transfusions.

i'm really curious about what hobby-lobby supporters think about these questions. they were not meant to be merely rhetorical.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I'm not against abortion (nor gay marriage, but that's a different issue).

As for Hobby Lobby there are views on both sides. HL and supporters don't want to have their dollars pay for abortion. HL is not against birth control and provides that to employees.
HL just doesn't want to pay for a pill that would "abort" a very recent pregancy.

Abortion supporters want companies to cover all of this even though they can get what they want elsewhere very cheaply and easily.

I'm not up on Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, or other denominations.

The key point is why force them to do something they have strong convictions against if it can be easily and cheaply obtained, even free in some cases?

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

christian scientists do not believe in ANY medical care, whatsoever. [from wikipedia: " In particular they subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion. This includes the view that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated, not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health."] note that there have been instances of states intervening to take custody of the children of christian scientists so as to allow those children to receive urgent medical care for severe illnesses.

so should a closely held corporation owned by christian scientists, even one employing over 20,000 individuals as does hobby lobby, be allowed to opt out of regs requiring that they offer any medical insurance at all? there's big corporate money at stake, as well as the religious beliefs of the majority owners.

to expand this exercise a bit, should the employees of such a corporation be eligible for medicaid, tax supported by you and me, if their incomes are low enough to qualify, even as the christian science owned corporation gets to report higher profits?

surely, there is a big problem inherent in medical insurance being provided by employers, but that is the legacy of the wage control policies imposed during wwii, quite some time ago. is single payer the answer?

just askin' here.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

You're speaking of ALL medical care vs. a very tiny subset of a procedure.

[jk]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

You're speaking of ALL medical care vs. a very tiny subset of a procedure.

i thought i was speaking about religious belief. are you saying that we should "respect" the religious beliefs of people who only want to impose their beliefs on their employees if they want to exclude "a very tiny subset" of procedures, but not a larger subset? where's the line on "very tiny," and are you then saying we should ignore the religious beliefs of employers who have more than "very tiny" beliefs? also, what about jehovah's witnesses who want to exclude transfusions? isn't that a "very tiny subset" of procedures? that one ok?

[Woodsman]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

I'm not against abortion (nor gay marriage, but that's a different issue).

As for Hobby Lobby there are views on both sides. HL and supporters don't want to have their dollars pay for abortion. HL is not against birth control and provides that to employees.
HL just doesn't want to pay for a pill that would "abort" a very recent pregancy.

Abortion supporters want companies to cover all of this even though they can get what they want elsewhere very cheaply and easily.

I'm not up on Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, or other denominations.

The key point is why force them to do something they have strong convictions against if it can be easily and cheaply obtained, even free in some cases?

You're not up on the decision and you need get up to speed on what emergency contraceptives are all about, too. They are not "abortion pills" and do not trigger so-called spontaneous abortions. Except for higher doses of hormones, they are no different than regular, garden variety oral contraceptive pills. Women take then not to induce abortions, but to prevent pregnancy from occurring after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure.

The level of ignorance of about this most basic issue of women's health is stunning to me, never mind the details of the Hobby Lobby decision. It's especially galling knowing that every swinging johnson out there in iTulipland has personally benefited from women's access to the very contraceptives so offensive to the tender faith of the Greens.

ECs do not terminate pregnancies; they prevent them. They do not encourage women to have sex. Women who use them are already sexually active. They will not turn your daughter into a trollop or your son into a satyr. The American Academy of Pediatrics has time and again said that emergency contraceptives offer no increase in risky behavior and will not disrupt an established pregnancy. In Europe emergency contraceptives have been available to women for more than a decade and most of those years as an OTC drug and they've had no increase in the rate of abortions. I wish these blind dogmatists and misogynists would get a clue and understand that emergency contraceptive results in fewer abortions because the women who take them do not wish to become pregnant and some will in the absence of these drugs seek to abort their pregnancies.

Contraception is a human right for women and to deny them access to it is to diminish them as human beings. I love women and children and I hate abortion. I find our willingness to resort to it to the degree we do utterly shocking and symptomatic of a fundamental sickness in our society. I want to do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions and give women a sense that there are other choices available to them. But with this decision, the Supremes, the Green family, the right wing conservative evangelicals who cheer this on, and most importantly President Obama himself - for his cowardly refusal to fight for a single payer public option - absolutely positively without a doubt guarantee that there will be more abortions, not fewer.

Forgive us Lord. We're idiots and we know not what we do.

[vt]

Re: While Clinton Offers a Resume, Warren Offers a Plan

Woodsman, appreciate your explanation.

The article below shows why even someone who reads about what is going on may be honestly confused.
.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...iuds/11768653/

The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't currently affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used. But Planned Parenthood Federation of America spokeswoman Justine Sessions says the decision "opens the door for other corporations to be able to opt out of providing any form of birth control."
It doesn't affect:
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
It does affect:
• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.

There are some health risks with IUDs though less than in the past:

https://nwhn.org/not-your-mother%E2%...ks-modern-iuds

Woodsman, you make a valid point about the prevention of abortions and the costs for the methods Hobby Lobby is opposed to. But wouldn't a woman using the methods
Hobby Lobby is not opposed to not find herself in a position of needing morning after solutions.

What about the issue of STD, that seem to be on the rise? Many birth control methods do not protect. How can cheap, protective birth control also prevent disease?you

Just trying to find a way to respect opinions on both sides of the issue, and hopefully come to a compromise.

One request: please do not assume someone opposed to an idea you may favor is an "idiot". You may find others more open if you are more tactful in presentation.

Thank you..