the "New" Poli"ticks" thread isn't so new anymore. (In Fact it is about 4 posts from being shutdown) So here it is, Poli"ticks" the third!

FRIST!

Get it

bhodilee wrote:FRIST!

Get it

great, now we get to see that in perpetuity as the second post... how droll.

You've been waiting over a year to do that, haven't you?

joelsisk wrote:great, now we get to see that in perpetuity as the second post... how droll.

You've been waiting over a year to do that, haven't you?

Basically my whole life. Now that I've accomplished that I feel lost in the wilderness.

bhodilee wrote:Basically my whole life. Now that I've accomplished that I feel lost in the wilderness.

Are there politics involved in that? ;)

inkycatz wrote:Are there politics involved in that? ;)

absolutely, it's basically how I feel about the presidential race this time around also. Do I vote for the haunted woods or the ones teeming with venomous snakes?

Women favored Romney in FL

"Some of the data from Tuesday's exit poll suggested women's votes were influenced more by a personal distaste for Gingrich than by liking Romney."

Sounds reasonable to me.

chemvictim wrote: Women favored Romney in FL

"Some of the data from Tuesday's exit poll suggested women's votes were influenced more by a personal distaste for Gingrich than by liking Romney."

Sounds reasonable to me.

Seems pretty locked to me. Romney is pubs candidate. Obama wins, but not by much. 4 more years of (no)"Change!"

bhodilee wrote:absolutely, it's basically how I feel about the presidential race this time around also. Do I vote for the haunted woods or the ones teeming with venomous snakes?

I think it comes down to which will pair best with the wine you have on hand.

inkycatz wrote:I think it comes down to which will pair best with the wine you have on hand.

Well apparently snakes taste like chicken and it seems a lighter meat so some sort of a white? And haunted woods? It seems chilly and cold, so a nice bold red?

bhodilee wrote:absolutely, it's basically how I feel about the presidential race this time around also. Do I vote for the haunted woods or the ones teeming with venomous snakes?

Dang it! I was hoping those were new Woot Filters!!!!

I would curse you, if only you didn't have your legion of bhomicidal lesbian terrorists.

kylemittskus wrote:Seems pretty locked to me. Romney is pubs candidate. Obama wins, but not by much. 4 more years of (no)"Change!"

Nope. Electoral math doesn't work out.

No way a republican wins oregon, but I think this map undersells Romney in Michigan, a state where his father was the governor and where he has a substantial amount of name recognition.

Given Israel, I think Obama doesn't take Florida (and NC and VA are easy calls to swing back). Given the economy, and his hostility towards oil and shale gas, I think PA is a loss too (especially with them also electing republican senator and governor, and being next door to the Christie Miracle). I don't see him winning Ohio either, but without Florida, the Dems needs PA, OH, *AND* basically a sweep of the mountain/west swing states (NM, NV, CO) AND not lose any of the states that might go the other way (MI, WI, MN).

PetiteSirah wrote:Nope. Electoral math doesn't work out.

No way a republican wins oregon, but I think this map undersells Romney in Michigan, a state where his father was the governor and where he has a substantial amount of name recognition.

Given Israel, I think Obama doesn't take Florida (and NC and VA are easy calls to swing back). Given the economy, and his hostility towards oil and shale gas, I think PA is a loss too (especially with them also electing republican senator and governor, and being next door to the Christie Miracle). I don't see him winning Ohio either, but without Florida, the Dems needs PA, OH, *AND* basically a sweep of the mountain/west swing states (NM, NV, CO) AND not lose any of the states that might go the other way (MI, WI, MN).

Granted, I didn't read that whole thing, but it's basically saying his approval rating sucks, which we know. What it doesn't say is what Romney's approval rating looks like in those same states. Just because he's not popular doesn't mean he isn't more popular than Romney. Goodnight, everybody!, his own damn party doesn't even want to elect him, you think the country at large does?

Spam bump.

really? one whole day, no comments?

Two things that amuse me:

1) Trump endorsing Romney right after the "poor" flap. Good timing Chump.

2) Rosanne Barr for President! Um.......no. I might even vote Santorum before that.

bhodilee wrote:really? one whole day, no comments?

Two things that amuse me:

1) Trump endorsing Romney right after the "poor" flap. Good timing Chump.

2) Rosanne Barr for President! Um.......no. I might even vote Santorum before that.

1) I'm not sure why anyone would even want Trump's endorsement. It's impossible to take him seriously. This might be weird, but I actually liked the "poor" comment. I thought it was practical, and I'm sick of hearing about crap we ought to do, or want to do, with no mention of how we're going to do it. So let's not waste time and pretend we care about the poor.

2) Rosanne Barr > Santorum, any day. You all know exactly why and how I can't tolerate Santorum. But at least he appears to practice what he preaches. Gingrich is a frothy mixture of hypocrisy and crankiness - the little kid type of crankiness, not the old man type of crankiness. Unseemly for a man of his experience. Romney > Newt.

chemvictim wrote:1) I'm not sure why anyone would even want Trump's endorsement. It's impossible to take him seriously. This might be weird, but I actually liked the "poor" comment. I thought it was practical, and I'm sick of hearing about crap we ought to do, or want to do, with no mention of how we're going to do it. So let's not waste time and pretend we care about the poor.

2) Rosanne Barr > Santorum, any day. You all know exactly why and how I can't tolerate Santorum. But at least he appears to practice what he preaches. Gingrich is a frothy mixture of hypocrisy and crankiness - the little kid type of crankiness, not the old man type of crankiness. Unseemly for a man of his experience. Romney > Newt.

I liked the poor comment and the firing comment. Neither was received well though. Trump is just making the rounds for his reality show (which will have Lisa Lampinelli so I'm watching it til she's gone).

bhodilee wrote:I liked the poor comment and the firing comment. Neither was received well though. Trump is just making the rounds for his reality show (which will have Lisa Lampinelli so I'm watching it til she's gone).

Both comments weren't so bad for their substance, though one might question whether he would actually support the safety net he mentioned if he became President. The problem was that he said these things so badly. When a large percentage of the population will never learn of the full context of the statements but certainly will see the sound bite portions in attack ads, Romney handed gifts to the Obama campaign. That's something he should be smart enough to not do.

So, who else thinks Obama is violating the 1st Amendment with this?

... White House spokesman Jay Carney on Thursday tried to shut down growing opposition to the president’s decision to force religious groups to pay fines if they decline to comply with a policy regarding health insurance and contraception.

New York’s Catholic archbishop, Timothy Dolan, for example, pushed back hard against Obama’s commandment, saying, “never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience.”

“This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights,” said Dolan.

Chipping away at our rights.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Chipping away at our rights.

That was an interesting issue for me. The fact that Obama is trying to stop people from speaking out against it is absolutely absurd. BUT, the required contraception coverage... I'm ambivalent.

kylemittskus wrote:That was an interesting issue for me. The fact that Obama is trying to stop people from speaking out against it is absolutely absurd. BUT, the required contraception coverage... I'm ambivalent.

It's still violating the 1st amendment. What if Obama said eating Spaghetti or dressing like a Pirate was no longer allowed?

MarkDaSpark wrote:It's still violating the 1st amendment. What if Obama said eating Spaghetti or dressing like a Pirate was no longer allowed?

Which part is violating the first amendment? The wanting to stop people talking about it? Absolutely. The contraception thing? Breaches freedom of religion? Not so sure. It doesn't apply to the church; only to church sponsored organizations like a hospital where the employees may or may not be Catholic. Although, they can choose not to work there... yeah, I'm ambivalent.

MarkDaSpark wrote:

Chipping away at our rights.

I read about this, and I can't up my mind. Obama is not forcing Catholics to use contraception (although from what I've read, approximately 99% of them do that anyway), so he is not interfering with the employees' free exercise of religion. Does it interfere with the employer's free exercise of religion? After much consideration, I think not. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't think the individual's right to free exercise extends to his being permitted to "exercise" it on an unwilling second party. I'm sure everybody already knows this, but birth control pills and even some IUD's are used for legitimate medical purposes outside of facilitating whorish behavior. So if my employer is the church (*shudder*) and I have one of the many "female problems" that can alleviated by oral contraception, I can't use my insurance to treat my health problem? My health problem is not covered because of someone else's religion, in effect I'm being treated unfairly by my employer because of his religion, that's a problem. The church is not the only interested party in this debate.

MarkDaSpark wrote:It's still violating the 1st amendment. What if Obama said eating Spaghetti or dressing like a Pirate was no longer allowed?

That would be funny, but what Obama is doing isn't comparable to that. He's not stopping anyone from doing his own thing; he's stopping someone from doing his own thing to another person.

chemvictim wrote:I read about this, and I can't up my mind. Obama is not forcing Catholics to use contraception (although from what I've read, approximately 99% of them do that anyway), so he is not interfering with the employees' free exercise of religion. Does it interfere with the employer's free exercise of religion? After much consideration, I think not. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't think the individual's right to free exercise extends to his being permitted to "exercise" it on an unwilling second party. I'm sure everybody already knows this, but birth control pills and even some IUD's are used for legitimate medical purposes outside of facilitating whorish behavior. So if my employer is the church (*shudder*) and I have one of the many "female problems" that can alleviated by oral contraception, I can't use my insurance to treat my health problem? My health problem is not covered because of someone else's religion, in effect I'm being treated unfairly by my employer because of his religion, that's a problem. The church is not the only interested party in this debate.

I thought Vatican got with the program on Contraception? or was it just condomns?

I confess that I haven't delved into this in any depth, but I do have one question. Here and elsewhere this is being presented as something Obama is doing, as if nobody else had thought of this at all. I'm sure he/his apointees have a hefty bit of influence over the rules being drafted, but is there any possibility that this is actually a logical and maybe even necessary rule given the law as written and passed by Congress?

I'm sure someone could cite passages and clauses and all that. Have at it.

bhodilee wrote:I thought Vatican got with the program on Contraception? or was it just condomns?

Condoms. But only for homosexual, male prostitutes. And the pope took a lot of Potty Emergency for even that.

coynedj wrote:I confess that I haven't delved into this in any depth, but I do have one question. Here and elsewhere this is being presented as something Obama is doing, as if nobody else had thought of this at all. I'm sure he/his apointees have a hefty bit of influence over the rules being drafted, but is there any possibility that this is actually a logical and maybe even necessary rule given the law as written and passed by Congress?

I'm sure someone could cite passages and clauses and all that. Have at it.

Everyone loves a scapegoat!

kylemittskus wrote:Condoms. But only for homosexual, male prostitutes. And the pope took a lot of Potty Emergency for even that.

I thought it was for everyone, basically cause they were taking such heat for saying African's shouldn't use them even though Aids is so rampant there I'm going to get tested just for typing African's.

bhodilee wrote:I thought it was for everyone, basically cause they were taking such heat for saying African's shouldn't use them even though Aids is so rampant there I'm going to get tested just for typing African's.

Oh. If that's true, I missed it. Good for them, entering into the real world.

kylemittskus wrote:Oh. If that's true, I missed it. Good for them, entering into the real world.

I have also heard, though I doubt, that African Priests can marry, because marriage is such a part of the culture that no one wanted to be a priest.

Edit: NM, a quick googly shows that's just not true. Cause ya know, marriage makes you not religious or something.

Eastern Orthodox Priests marry, and actually should marry if they want to be in charge of their own church. I think the Pope said that the condoms were for only male homosexual prostitutes.

kylemittskus wrote:Which part is violating the first amendment? The wanting to stop people talking about it? Absolutely. The contraception thing? Breaches freedom of religion? Not so sure. It doesn't apply to the church; only to church sponsored organizations like a hospital where the employees may or may not be Catholic. Although, they can choose not to work there... yeah, I'm ambivalent.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

I think it comes to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If birth control is against your religion and you are required to provide it, that is prohibiting you from freely exercising your religion.

(By the way, I am very pro birth control. I just look at the policy.)

chemvictim wrote:I read about this, and I can't up my mind. Obama is not forcing Catholics to use contraception (although from what I've read, approximately 99% of them do that anyway), so he is not interfering with the employees' free exercise of religion. Does it interfere with the employer's free exercise of religion? After much consideration, I think not. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I don't think the individual's right to free exercise extends to his being permitted to "exercise" it on an unwilling second party. I'm sure everybody already knows this, but birth control pills and even some IUD's are used for legitimate medical purposes outside of facilitating whorish behavior. So if my employer is the church (*shudder*) and I have one of the many "female problems" that can alleviated by oral contraception, I can't use my insurance to treat my health problem? My health problem is not covered because of someone else's religion, in effect I'm being treated unfairly by my employer because of his religion, that's a problem. The church is not the only interested party in this debate.

What ekeavney said.

But basically, you don't have to work for them. It's your choice to work for them. You want it covered, go work somewhere else where it is covered. It's called a Free Market Economy.

And for someone who is against forcing someone to do something against their will, you sure are willing to force a religion to do something against their "will" when it suits you.

For the record, I'm haven't been Catholic for decades, nor have I made up my mind on the abortion issue. But I lean towards making it illegal after the first trimester.

Putting this reply here, where it belongs ....

mother wrote:Just to balance things out then...




And sadly the truth:

And sadly, the real truth:

Ron Paul: "At age five, Paul worked with his brothers in the basement of the family's home, checking hand-washed milk bottles for spots."


Rudy Giuliani: "the only child of working-class parents"


Fred Dalton Thompson: "He attended public school in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, graduating from Lawrence County High School. Thereafter, he worked days in the local post office, and nights at the Murray bicycle assembly plant.

Thompson then entered Florence State College (now the University of North Alabama), becoming the first member of his family to go to university."


Mike Huckabee: "He has cited his working-class upbringing as the reason for his de-centralized populist conservative political views;[12] his father worked as a fireman and mechanic, and his mother worked as a clerk at a gas company"


So tell me again which ones are "privileged" since birth? I don't know the one on the far left, but out of the other 5, only Mitt Romney could be considered "privileged", and only barely.


Equal time:

MarkDaSpark wrote:What ekeavney said.

But basically, you don't have to work for them. It's your choice to work for them. You want it covered, go work somewhere else where it is covered. It's called a Free Market Economy.

And for someone who is against forcing someone to do something against their will, you sure are willing to force a religion to do something against their "will" when it suits you.

For the record, I'm haven't been Catholic for decades, nor have I made up my mind on the abortion issue. But I lean towards making it illegal after the first trimester.

I thought we were discussing whether this contraception thing violated first amendment rights. The free market isn't relevant to that particular question, and contraception is not abortion.

Now, on to my nasty habit of forcing a religion to bend to my will (cue evil laugh). The contraception requirement wasn't my idea, so I can't take the credit or the blame for it. I don't think this is a simple issue at all. Catholic hospitals are large institutions, and they're fully intertwined with the secular and the public. The hospital is not a church, and its employees don't necessarily belong to the church. I don't know how these insurance plans are organized. Are they internal or do they go through blue cross, etc.? Do the employees have to pay a portion of the insurance, like most of us do? In other words, how direct is the "providing," and how much mixing of Catholic funds and public or individual funds is going on? What portion of the money need be Catholic-provided for them to assume total control of how that money is spent? What about situations where the patient needs oral contraceptives or an IUD for a health condition? Is the free exercise clause so flexible that I can simply declare whatever as a deeply held religious belief and get special treatment as a result, or is there some requirement that it's a legitimately held belief? Like maybe a belief that more than 2% of the faith observes? Finally, which individual person's rights are being violated?

To step outside of the question of the first amendment a little and back to your other comments, contraception is not that expensive. You can get generics. If you have a job, chances are you can manage the cost. You can use your salary provided by your Catholic employer and buy it yourself, and then do whatever is in your power to find an employer who doesn't actively work against your interests. I don't consider oral contraceptives or IUD's to be abortion-inducing drugs, but if they actually did have that function, it would necessarily be during the first trimester. As for the abortion issue generally, I'd keep it legal in all cases during the first trimester, illegal in almost all cases during the third, and leave the second open to debate, pretty much how it is now.

We got our jokes in our politics, and vice versa. The following video might be helpful in determining which candidates are persons of "privilege."

Life is hard

Did I already post it though? I can't recall, apologies if so.

MarkDaSpark wrote:A bunch more sohpistry* worthy of Faux News / MSNBC/ The Politics III thread

Seriously dude?

As I just effectively demonstrated to you, people only think obnoxious political jokes are funny when they already agree with them. The visual jokes I posted were in fact far less obnoxious than the joke Dd posted.

You OBVIOUSLY didn't think they belonged over there, which means Dd's joke REALLY didn't belong there.

Keep your political bullshit and sophistry* over in this thread please.

*If you're unfamiliar with the term, I like this "simple" definition: arguing to win. Saying anything to make the other person seem foolish and yourself wise. Saying anything to persuade or deceive. Sophistry, at the highest level, sounds as if it might be true, unlike totally insaney, which sounds as if it might be untrue.

chemvictim wrote:I thought we were discussing whether this contraception thing violated first amendment rights. The free market isn't relevant to that particular question, and contraception is not abortion.

Now, on to my nasty habit of forcing a religion to bend to my will (cue evil laugh). The contraception requirement wasn't my idea, so I can't take the credit or the blame for it. I don't think this is a simple issue at all. Catholic hospitals are large institutions, and they're fully intertwined with the secular and the public. The hospital is not a church, and its employees don't necessarily belong to the church. I don't know how these insurance plans are organized. Are they internal or do they go through blue cross, etc.? Do the employees have to pay a portion of the insurance, like most of us do? In other words, how direct is the "providing," and how much mixing of Catholic funds and public or individual funds is going on? What portion of the money need be Catholic-provided for them to assume total control of how that money is spent? What about situations where the patient needs oral contraceptives or an IUD for a health condition? Is the free exercise clause so flexible that I can simply declare whatever as a deeply held religious belief and get special treatment as a result, or is there some requirement that it's a legitimately held belief? Like maybe a belief that more than 2% of the faith observes? Finally, which individual person's rights are being violated?

To step outside of the question of the first amendment a little and back to your other comments, contraception is not that expensive. You can get generics. If you have a job, chances are you can manage the cost. You can use your salary provided by your Catholic employer and buy it yourself, and then do whatever is in your power to find an employer who doesn't actively work against your interests. I don't consider oral contraceptives or IUD's to be abortion-inducing drugs, but if they actually did have that function, it would necessarily be during the first trimester. As for the abortion issue generally, I'd keep it legal in all cases during the first trimester, illegal in almost all cases during the third, and leave the second open to debate, pretty much how it is now.

Ahh, but you forget that Dear Obama has decreed that ALL organizations must offer the ObamanationCare. So it doesn't matter how many employees are actually members of that religion, nor how much funding they receive from the government. So even if they received no Federal Funding, they would still have to violate their religious principles.

Of which (while we may disagree with some of those principles) many have been around for more than a few centuries. Is that long enough for you?

And it's not just the abortion aspect (which the RC Church is totally opposed to), it's all the rest (of which external Birth Control methods forbidden by the RC is only one item) as well. And since the hospitals are normally wholly owned by the Church, it's an extension of them. Just like a school attached to a church is part of it as well. Which IIRC, was another issue brought up in the old thread, when one of the lower courts ruled something weird about an employee in a Church School (not RC IIRC).


And I looked on WebMD, and didn't see one health condition that an Oral Contraceptive would be needed for, that another drug couldn't be substituted safely. So what health condition(s) are you referring to?

mother wrote:Seriously dude?

As I just effectively demonstrated to you, people only think obnoxious political jokes are funny when they already agree with them. The visual jokes I posted were in fact far less obnoxious than the joke Dd posted.

You OBVIOUSLY didn't think they belonged over there, which means Dd's joke REALLY didn't belong there.

Keep your political bullshit and sophistry* over in this thread please.

*If you're unfamiliar with the term, I like this "simple" definition: arguing to win. Saying anything to make the other person seem foolish and yourself wise. Saying anything to persuade or deceive. Sophistry, at the highest level, sounds as if it might be true, unlike totally insaney, which sounds as if it might be untrue.

Then you are the King of Sophistry. Because you just implied that you are wise and I'm foolish by using the asterisk and "explaining" it.

The one showing the Republicans wasn't a joke at all, similar to the "Liberal" images I used here (which is why I used them here as a point, and not there in the Jokes thread, where they don't belong). And it contained those levels of Sophistry you accuse me of using. Which I tried to point out, yet you've ignored how untrue they are.

And the other was an Editorial Cartoon from an Op/Ed page. We could post those back and forth all day. And while that one really was true, it wasn't a joke.


And the joke Ddog published was obviously a joke not to be taken seriously. Just like all the jokes about Bush, Clinton, etc. published there.

So his joke did indeed belong there, while your "jokes" did not. Find and post a real joke about Republicans. It's okay there. I may not laugh at it, but if it's as ridiculous as Ddog's, I might.