GOP Presidential Debate

[KarenInWA]

Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.

This is where I got the quote "dildoes and other perversions".

[Hemodoc]

A little over three years ago, birth control pills saved my life.

Yes, you read that right and no, it is not hyperbole.  I will spare you all the gory details because it was gruesome, but it is a fact that birth control pills saved my life.

I would not have been responsible for the fallout if someone had denied me this medication because of their "morals".

So, I resent this underlying assumption that contraception is only for the prevention of pregnancy due to constant, slutty sex.  It's just not true.

I believe that having access to affordable birth control IS a pro-family position.  I believe that a husband and wife should have the ability to determine and control the size of their family if this is what they choose to do.  I do not see anything wrong with wanting to take personal responsibility for the size of your family. 

This debate about whether or not employers should be forced to cover any medication or services they might not "agree with" wouldn't be happening if we had single payer, universal health care.  Your employer should not have the right to infringe upon the decisions made by you and your doctor.  What if your employer decided he wasn't going to pay for your dialysis because you're diabetic, and he thinks that it's your fault that you couldn't be arsed to eat properly or lose weight or do whatever he ignorantly thinks would have prevented your ESRD?  Really, should your employer have that much power over your life? 

Why do we expect business owners to provide health insurance?  If we are really that interested in businesses and their economic health, why do we insist they shoulder this particularly heinous expense?  I thought the Republicans were supposed to be Pro-Business, but this notion of making businesses provide insurance doesn't seem pro-business to me.  Can someone explain this to me? 

I am a patient gal, and I will wait until the GOP select their nominee.  After that, I want to see what that nominee has to say.  I want to see what his plan will be for the economy, for taxation, for an energy policy, for an immigration policy and for a foreign policy.

I will give President GW Bush one thing, and that is he attempted to craft a comprehensive immigration policy that included a path to citizenship.  I think that was a good path to be on, but it does not look like any of the current nominees are thinking along those same lines.  This concerns me as I don't know what else should be done with the millions of people who are here illegally.  Can you imagine how much it would cost to identify, round up, detain and then deport 12 million people?  It can't be done, so what do we do instead?  If a GOP nominee utters a compassionate word about this group of people (like Rick Perry did in one of the debates), they're thrown to the wolves.  Little did I know I'd ever stick up for Rick Perry!!  LOL!

And Iran...OMG, what's going to happen there!  We all know that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have broken our economy.  Even if you agreed with the basic premises of those wars, you still cannot say that they have done anything but ruin our economy.  And the GOP nominees are advocating entering another war with a country that's not the backwater like Iraq and Afghanistan.  Do we forget so quickly the tremendous cost of warfare?  And this is to protect Israel?  Why are we going to war to protect Israel?  Are we going to let another nation pull us into war?  This really, really scares me, and I can't tell if Romney et al really want to do this or if they are just saying what they perceive their base wants to hear.

I understand the appeal of, say, Mr. Romney to those people who see his business experience as a conduit to the eventual financial health of the US.  But again, I am very uncomfortable with the idea that government should be run as a business, and this is what Mr. Romney seems to be saying.  All of us with CKD/ESRD would be the first ones to be fired because we are not good for America's profit margin.

The love of family, of country, of business, of faith, of innovation and of fair play are not solely conservative values.  The desire to send your kids for higher education is not "snobbish".  Investing in America means investing in AMERICANS and in all of those who want to live here, learn here and work here.

I know that the role of religion in making policy has been a subject of debate.  I am no theologian, but I'm sitting here looking at my copy of the Constitution, and there is no mention of "God".  Now, in the Declaration of Independence, first paragraph, there is reference to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", but whose God?  Why are we assuming any and all references to "God" in any of our historical documents are to a Christian God?  It is my understanding that Muslims, Jews and Christians all pray to the same God; the differences come in the interpretation of the role of Jesus Christ, and I can't find any reference specifically to "Jesus Christ" anywhere.  I was watching an Indian movie the other day that took place in the Punjab, and even THEY were talking about "God".  My point is that I am not sure what is meant by the phrase "people of faith."  When Rick Santorum said that to think there is no place for "people of faith" in the public square made him want to throw up, does he mean to imply that devout Muslims and devout Hindus have a place in our government, maybe even in the Oval Office?  If the President was a devout Muslim, wouldn't he, too, be a "person of faith"?  Or does that kind of faith not count?  Whose faith is the proper faith?

It was proper that Ed Schultz was removed from the air when he called Laura I. a "slut".  I've looked at his apology several times, and he spent almost nine minutes apologizing for a comment that took 1 second to make.  Rush L. went on a tirade that lasted three days.  He's been married 4 times and he doesn't know how birth control works.  To even jokingly suggest that Sandra Fluke post sexually explicit videos of herself in return for her birth control is just too pervy and gross.  Ewwwww....

Dear Moosemom,

This is a NEW entitlement fomented by Obama to help buy his reelection, just like all of his mortgage proposals as well. This is being forced on those with longstanding doctrines against contraception and expecting them not to react to this new proposal is a bit absurd to say the least. we have free choice in this nation and the Catholics state that they are against this due to their religious convictions. This is an attack on religious liberty. Contraceptives are widely available most are not expensive at all. Most insurance companies already cover these medications in their policies.

This is only a very small subset of religious affiltiated organizations. This is not about individual liberty since no one is stopping you from buying these things yourself. You were free to do that yesterday, today and tommorow. This is about forcing religious institutions to go against their doctrine which you personally have every right to personally state you don't wish to follow. This is coercing the religious institution.

The media has turned this story inside out. NO ONE is preventing anyone from getting contraceptives. No one.

Husbands and wives have the right to privacy right now. NO ONE is stating different. Give me a break!!

As far as Islam, Jews and Christians worshipping the same God, no. Allah has no son. The God of the Bible does have a Son named Jesus Christ and I can find those referrences in the OT and the NT. Not the same God at all.

If you don't like the policies of Catholic employer, you have the right to work some where else that agrees with your views instead of you forcing your views on the Catholics. That is what is happening in this new Obama created crises to manipulate the masses into complete hysteria which he has.

Rick Perry is actually a very good governor, we just found out he can't talk his way out of a wet paper basket.  Not a skill everyone has.

As far as Israel goes, don't worry, God has His hand of protection on them even though the Bible states all nations shall soon come against them. Many folks have made the wrong assumption that God does not exist.  I know that to be quite wrong. In such a case, Israel is the most important nation on earth as it is God's chosen nation. The Bible discusses the blessings to Israel noted by Moses for their obedience and that he would cast them out of their land for their disobedience. This all happened. What most folks and it looks like you included is failing to understand that God sent many different prophets to state He would not utterly cast them away for ever, but would bring them back into the land and no one would ever displace them again.

That happened on May 14th, 1948 in fulfillment of prophecy to the exact day prophesied 2520 years prior to that. The fact that Israel exists is the greatest  proof of the truth of the Bible in many ways.  Moses wrote of their entire history over 3000 years ago. Read Leviticus chapter 26 for instance and see how God promised all things that they have experienced in the last 3000 years. One promise God made to Abraham was to bless those that bless him and to curse those that curse him. Since God is real, His word is forever, those are heady reasons for us to continue our support of Israel as a nation.

Sadly, the Bible states that ALL nations shall one day come against it, so that is coming true as the support for Israel erodes here in America. If you don't want to support Israel, don't worry, the Bible already states that America will be one of those coming against Israel one of these days, but that won't be a pretty day for Israel or all of the other nations coming against it.

I truly feel deep sorrow for people that deny God's existence and go further than that in many ways to deny His existence. I have no doubt that He is real, His teachings are forever, and His judgements are forever. We may not like death and taxes, but that is part of life. Folks may not like the idea of God, but I have no doubt that we shall all stand before Him one day and give an account of everything we have done in our bodies, whether good or bad. Sadly, most folks won't get to know God before they meet God. Not the way to do it, but oh well, free country, each to his own.

[Hemodoc]

KarenInWA
Premium Member
Sr. Member

 Offline

Gender:
Posts: 552

 
   
Re: GOP Presidential Debate
« Reply #275 on: Today at 10:39:57 PM »

Quote from: Hemodoc on Today at 04:14:47 PM
Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.


This is where I got the quote "dildoes and other perversions".

This is the thread started by Gerald that got lost in that discussion.

http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=25999.msg419116#msg419116

[Hemodoc]

I still don't get where taxpayes are paying for "dildoes and other perversions" when the issue re contraception was about employer-sponsored health insurance paying for contraception.  Since when do taxpayers pay for my employer-sponsored health insurance??? Granted, I work for a private company, not the government. But, if the employee pays any part of their health insurance premium, then their employer should not dictate what healthcare they receive. I feel that way about any and all healthcare that a patient may need.

Does this mean I was a slut when I was taking the pill while I was on dialysis to control renal anemia??? According to rush limbot I was. I read the transcript of what Sandra Fluke read to congress. I thought she had very good points, and none had to do with young women having wonton sex with lots of men. I don't understand where everyone gets that idea.

Then there's this sad blog written by the mother of a 16 year-old girl who takes the pill to control her painful, life-interrupting periods. Because of a field trip she went on with the school band, and a policy of Rx meds being handled by a doctor-parent-chaperone on the trip, some mean girls at her school started a war on her and called her a slut at school repeatedly, all because their moms "listen to that man on the radio who said so, and he's right about everything".  Um WTF?? Here is the link if you care to read it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?via=search


This country is turning into Jerry Springer because of blowhards like limbot. He crossed a line and went waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overboard. If I were a Republican, I'd be mad as hell at him and thinking he was working for President Obama, because it is obvious that this is taking away from the real issues at hand, and making the Republicans look like chumps.

Edited to add: The transcript from Sandra Fluke's testimony to Congress. Yeah, it reads like a Penthouse erotica letter  http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

KarenInWA

Dear Karen, when you are outraged by the Ed Shultz comments as well, then your dialogue will have more meaning than simply falling in line with Democratic presidential propaganda. I already stated I disagree with calling anyone that name, Period so no need to display all of your public sexuality. None of my business, nor anyone elses.

As far as insurance coverage, you pay for what you get. Insurance companies have various levels of coverage. Some just the bare bones, others pay for every aspect. The price of those coverages reflects what you buy.

Not to defend Rush, but the analogy he tried and failed to make is that if they are asking the government to pay for contraceptives, that is tantamount to paying for sex which would make her a prostitute and a slut. No one seems to quote it in the context he stated.I would not have stated that, but that is what he stated in a hypothetical that has obviously failed. Fluke knowingly went to a university that publicly opposes contraception. No one forced her to go there. She could have chosen a thousand secular schools, but instead she chose to go there with their very public no contraception policy. Now Obama is stirriing up a hornets nest for his own poltical gain over a settled Catholic issue. That would be like going to BYU and asking where's the Starbuck's coffee shop? Ain't going to happen at BYU if you know what I mean.

This is a deliberite crises created by Obama to win the female vote in November. No one is stating limits on existing policies. He is instead trying to force religious institutions to go against their religious teaching which you or anyone else is free to dismiss and go to school somewhere else.

I personally believe we should get a Starbucks on every corner of Mormon schools and campuses, it is my right to have coffee anywhere I wish in this nation. After all, that is my right!!

Sorry, we have a right to privacy. I suspect folks don't understand that you are turning over your rights to privacy by insisting on government sponsored contraception. That gives the goverment the right to REGULATE that entitlement.

But if that is what you folks want, go for it. No skin off of my nose.

Hemodoc, I still don't get how or why you think this has anything to do with government paying for contraception?!?! Again, this whole issue is around employer-sponsored health insurance.  In the case of Fluke, it was University-sponsored health insurance that the students had to pay full premiums for. Nowhere in her testimony did she say anything about herself having sex. She did say, however, that the insurance in question would pay for birth control pills for medical reasons. They would call patients who were prescribed this to make sure it was for a legitimate medical reason. They did not pay for her friend's birth control because they apparently did not believe her - even though said friend was a lesbian, and therefore, would have no need to take birth control pills for contraception. As a result, she could not afford the $100 a month her doctor-prescribed pills cost each month, and she ended up having surgery, which has resulted in more medical issues. Can you not see what is wrong with that???

Also, I'm a bit confused. At what point in my above quoted post did I display my public sexuality??? Is it the fact that I was on the pill to help regulate renal anemia a part of my sexuality??? Really??? I looked at it as a way to lessen my periods so I wouldn't have to deal with a dip in my hgb each month.  When I started those pills, along with my epo shots at D, my hgb stabilized and I was even able to take periodic breaks from epo. Before that, I was stuck at under 10. My quality of life improved, and I was better able to do my job, drive my car, and live my life. I worked FT all throughout my time on D, and was lucky in that I experienced little to no side effects. And I did the horrible in-center, 3 times a week D. I was going to look into doing HHD, but a family member donated her kidney to me, so I didn't.

If rush limbot had called Sandra Fluke a slut once, and that was it, this whole issue would have died a much sooner death that what has transpired.  He didn't do that, he harped on it for *DAYS*. That is why I am outraged over what he did vs what Ed did. Also, Ed did a formal apology *on his own show's airtime* and had a week of unpaid administrative leave. There is no way that you can compare Ed to rush. Ed said a word and did a big apology. Rush had a whiney-boy tirade for days and barely burped to the media. If I were a conservative, I'd be ashamed and embarassed over his behavior, and I'd be mad as hell for him doing what he did in helping to make the Republican party a joke. More so if I was a fan of his.

KarenInWA

Yes, well let's have Obama give back the million dollars from Bill Maher's PAC as well if we are going to go down that road, and perhaps we should. Late night comics routinely attack Republican women with vile comments all of the time, yet that is excepted and probably felt justifiable in many people's eyes since there is never any call for their resignations nor indignation from NOW or any other feminist organizations. Yes, stop it all.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/03/08/pro-obama-pac-wont-give-back-mahers-money

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, I am not entirely sure how to square the biblical idea of Israel with the political state of present day Israel.  Frankly, I think most people think that theirs is the chosen nation of God or of whichever deity they worship. 

I am not sure that the nation of Israel acts in a Godly way at all times to all of their neighbors.  I am uncomfortable with the idea that Israel, as God's chosen nation, can therefore behave in any way they like because, well, God has chosen them.  Israel has to live on this Earth just like the rest of us, chosen or not, and they cannot run over the rights of others because God told them to.  I suspect that the Palestinians' God told them much the same thing.

Yes, there are rogue nations that have stated that they do not recognize Israel's right to exist, but so what?  Israel exists whether or not Somewherestan "recognizes" it or not.

I'd like to ask you...if Israel were to strike Iran militarily, do you think the United States should follow them into armed combat?  Do you think that American protection of Israel trumps good fiscal policy and the rescue of the American economy?  Do you think that following Israel into war against Iran is worth going deeper into debt?  Do you think our Congress should, if circumstances presented a choice, protect God's chosen nation with armed force, knowing that it will break our own nation?  If Israel were to attack Iran, could Congress constitutionally declare war on Iran?  Do we go to war because the Bible tells us to since Israel is the most important nation?

I've just downloaded a new book called "A Single Role of the Dice:  Obama's Diplomacy with Iran" by Trita Parsi.  He was on the Daily Show talking about it, and from what little he said (as it was not a long interview), there are a LOT of players in this theater, including Turkey and Brazil!  It's a lot more complicated than most of us realize, so I am hoping to learn more.  I just have this horrible feeling that we'll all be bopping along this election season, immersed in frivolities like who is the latest worst name-caller, and then suddenly Wolf Blitzer starts screaming that Israel has just attacked what is believed to be an Iranian nuclear facility, and we're all caught off guard and are suddenly facing a REAL war.  I'm afraid that we will get dragged into a conflict that's started by an Israel that can't finish it, and we'll be responsible for that.  And then our fragile economic recovery will be well and truly thrashed.  It feels like Netanyahu is itching for war.  I know that many Israelis are opposed to that, but which way does God want them to go?  What is God telling Mr. Netanyahu?

[KarenInWA]

I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*.  He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials.  However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.

Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.

KarenInWA

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, I am not entirely sure how to square the biblical idea of Israel with the political state of present day Israel.  Frankly, I think most people think that theirs is the chosen nation of God or of whichever deity they worship. 

I am not sure that the nation of Israel acts in a Godly way at all times to all of their neighbors.  I am uncomfortable with the idea that Israel, as God's chosen nation, can therefore behave in any way they like because, well, God has chosen them.  Israel has to live on this Earth just like the rest of us, chosen or not, and they cannot run over the rights of others because God told them to.  I suspect that the Palestinians' God told them much the same thing.

Yes, there are rogue nations that have stated that they do not recognize Israel's right to exist, but so what?  Israel exists whether or not Somewherestan "recognizes" it or not.

I'd like to ask you...if Israel were to strike Iran militarily, do you think the United States should follow them into armed combat?  Do you think that American protection of Israel trumps good fiscal policy and the rescue of the American economy?  Do you think that following Israel into war against Iran is worth going deeper into debt?  Do you think our Congress should, if circumstances presented a choice, protect God's chosen nation with armed force, knowing that it will break our own nation?  If Israel were to attack Iran, could Congress constitutionally declare war on Iran?  Do we go to war because the Bible tells us to since Israel is the most important nation?

I've just downloaded a new book called "A Single Role of the Dice:  Obama's Diplomacy with Iran" by Trita Parsi.  He was on the Daily Show talking about it, and from what little he said (as it was not a long interview), there are a LOT of players in this theater, including Turkey and Brazil!  It's a lot more complicated than most of us realize, so I am hoping to learn more.  I just have this horrible feeling that we'll all be bopping along this election season, immersed in frivolities like who is the latest worst name-caller, and then suddenly Wolf Blitzer starts screaming that Israel has just attacked what is believed to be an Iranian nuclear facility, and we're all caught off guard and are suddenly facing a REAL war.  I'm afraid that we will get dragged into a conflict that's started by an Israel that can't finish it, and we'll be responsible for that.  And then our fragile economic recovery will be well and truly thrashed.  It feels like Netanyahu is itching for war.  I know that many Israelis are opposed to that, but which way does God want them to go?  What is God telling Mr. Netanyahu?

No, you have all wrong Moosemom. It is Israel that is threatened by ALL of their surrounding nations. Look at how big Israel is and compare that to all of its immediate enemies and you will get the picture.  It is a promise that God made even though most of the people in Israel today are quite secular just like in America. It is His promise and I have no doubt He will keep it Himself.

If all of Israel's enemies put down their guns, there would be peace over night.
If Israel puts down its guns, it will be wiped out over night.

As far as Israel acting in the eyes of God, never said that. I said God promised that they would never be driven out of their land ever again and soon, all the nations of the world shall come against Israel, but they will not prevail.

Zechariah 12:2     Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3     ¶ And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it. . .
9     ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10     And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
13:6     And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. . .
8     And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
9     And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

[Hemodoc]

I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*.  He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials.  However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.

Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.

KarenInWA

Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[MooseMom]

At least one candidate--Ron Paul--has consistently and emphatically discussed those very issues among many others such as the ridiculous "war on drugs." Now if we met face-to-face and had a nice friendly chat about politics you might wind up considering me a right-wing extremist. But there is a significant part of the conservative Right--Libertarian actually--that just wants the government to follow the Constitution and quit spending Other Peoples Money until we go bankrupt. Otherwise, we just don't care if someone is gay or smokes dope or doesn't believe in God. Just leave us the hell alone. These are the true conservatives and they are damn few in number as Ron Paul's delegate count is proving.

I can understand Mr. Paul's point, but I sense that he doesn't quite understand the interconnectedness of society today.  It's great if you have the health and the resources to want to be left the hell alone, but too many people in this country can't be left the hell alone...those of us who need a lot of medical care, for instance.  I was not impressed with his non-answer about what to do with someone who decided not to buy insurance yet fell ill.  That was a valid, important question, and the answer simply could never be "leave me the hell alone."  I also am not sure this is a good foreign policy, either, especially in the case of situations like Rwanda (where we did nothing and 800,000 people died) and Bosnia (where we finally DID do something, but rather too late, and still hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered...by CHRISTIANS, no less!).  As the world shrinks via fast travel and communication, it is not so easy to separate "us" from "them", especially if you are a nation that sees itself as morally superior.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc, so you think that Congress will base their decision to risk plunging the American economy MUCH further into DEBT by going to war with Israel against Iran upon Bible verses?  Maybe they will, I don't know...I'm asking you.

You have often spoken against the massive government spending that you see is driving us into penury.  There is nothing that is more costly than war.  So I am asking you straight up....do we go to war against Iran should Israel strike first?  Yes or no?

[KarenInWA]

I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*.  He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials.  However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.

Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.

KarenInWA

Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Well, yeah, that is the big issue here. Public airwaves during the day vs pay-cable channel with no commercials at night. Insulting a public political figure vs insulting a private citizen. Saying a comment during a show vs making comments "be* the show not for a day, but for DAYS.

Can you honestly not see the difference??? If it were the other way around, *I* would be embarrased. I certainly wouldn't be defending him (or her).  I'd be angry at the radio host for taking away from the real argument at hand. That's what rushie has done. No other way to call it.

But, you did not reply to my comment about how I feel what Obama should do with Maher's money. I think he should either give it back, or put it towards a worthy non-profit. Preferably one that helps Americans.

KarenInWA

[MooseMom]

In my very humble opinion, Mr. Obama should not give Bill Maher's money back because legally, Mr. Obama didn't receive it and cannot tell the superPac what to do with it.  There is not supposed to be ANY coordination between a candidate and a superPac.  Those are the new rules, so like it or lump it.  And I'd say the same if Rush Limbaugh gave a hunk of money to any of the GOP nominees.  Citizens United has given free rein to anyone that wants to donate anything.  It's a brave new world, folks.

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, so you think that Congress will base their decision to risk plunging the American economy MUCH further into DEBT by going to war with Israel against Iran upon Bible verses?  Maybe they will, I don't know...I'm asking you.

You have often spoken against the massive government spending that you see is driving us into penury.  There is nothing that is more costly than war.  So I am asking you straight up....do we go to war against Iran should Israel strike first?  Yes or no?

Sorry, America is a very secular nation now nearly completely ignoring every aspect of the Bible.  I seriously doubt that there is more than a handful of people in congress that understand these prophecies and I seriously doubt you will hear that in a debate. Nevertheless, this is God stating what will happen, not how it will happen. A hundred years ago, Jerusalem was an abandoned town with few inhabitants. Today, world peace hangs at the hands of what happens in and around Jerusalem. It will only get more so in the coming years. This is only one of many prophecies that are true today.

As far as war, I don't see America going against Iran by themselves, but in a more complex set of Bible prophecies, yes, I believe America will go into Syria and Iran. If you want to know why I believe that, please send me a PM.

A nuclear Iran is a destabilising influence in the region and such nations as Saudi Arabia are calling for military intervention. Will America go into Iran in an election year? I seriously doubt that.

[MooseMom]

As far as war, I don't see America going against Iran by themselves, but in a more complex set of Bible prophecies, yes, I believe America will go into Syria and Iran. If you want to know why I believe that, please send me a PM.

A nuclear Iran is a destabilising influence in the region and such nations as Saudi Arabia are calling for military intervention. Will America go into Iran in an election year? I seriously doubt that.

Actually, I have heard some "experts" say that we will probably go into Iran precisely BECAUSE it is an election year.  So I don't know what to think!  LOL!

Yes, I'd be very interested to know why you believe America will go into Syria and Iran and which complex set of prophesies illustrate this.  I'd send you a PM, but I'm going to bed now, so take your time if you'd care to reply, and feel free to do so via either PM or email. I look forward to hearing from you, as always.  Have a wonderful, restful night!

[Hemodoc]

I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*.  He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials.  However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.

Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.

KarenInWA

Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Well, yeah, that is the big issue here. Public airwaves during the day vs pay-cable channel with no commercials at night. Insulting a public political figure vs insulting a private citizen. Saying a comment during a show vs making comments "be* the show not for a day, but for DAYS.

Can you honestly not see the difference??? If it were the other way around, *I* would be embarrased. I certainly wouldn't be defending him (or her).  I'd be angry at the radio host for taking away from the real argument at hand. That's what rushie has done. No other way to call it.

But, you did not reply to my comment about how I feel what Obama should do with Maher's money. I think he should either give it back, or put it towards a worthy non-profit. Preferably one that helps Americans.

KarenInWA

Karen, Fluke is represented by Obama's old advisor Anita Dunn and who left early in his administration over her comments I believe about Mao. Sorry, this is a pure propaganda/Alinsky where Obama has out Roved Carl Rove on this issue.  Sure we don't have propaganda or Alynski rule in America.

One more note, under Title 10 from the 1970's, contraceptives are available to everyone who requests them:

http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/

This is a totally made up non-existent crises by Obama to manipulate the masses, especially the woman to improve his ratings among woman. This political ploy has worked.

[Hemodoc]

As far as war, I don't see America going against Iran by themselves, but in a more complex set of Bible prophecies, yes, I believe America will go into Syria and Iran. If you want to know why I believe that, please send me a PM.

A nuclear Iran is a destabilising influence in the region and such nations as Saudi Arabia are calling for military intervention. Will America go into Iran in an election year? I seriously doubt that.

Actually, I have heard some "experts" say that we will probably go into Iran precisely BECAUSE it is an election year.  So I don't know what to think!  LOL!

Yes, I'd be very interested to know why you believe America will go into Syria and Iran and which complex set of prophesies illustrate this.  I'd send you a PM, but I'm going to bed now, so take your time if you'd care to reply, and feel free to do so via either PM or email. I look forward to hearing from you, as always.  Have a wonderful, restful night!

After 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, America is war weary and why shouldn't we be? Should we go into Iran, well that is a different question entirely, but please note that it is Iran and Syria that call for the complete destruction of Israel, not the other way around. Did you know that those countries don't include Israel on their maps?

[Gerald Lively]

We will make them put Israel on the map, or we will bomb the heck out of them.

HemoDoc, you are easy.

gl

[cariad]

I still can't compare Bill Maher, who is on HBO - which I don't even get in my living room - at night, to rush, who is on public airwaves during the day. Also, Bill was saying this about a public political figure, where as rush was saying this about a private citizen who testified before congress about an issue that affected people in her life. And again, he harped on it for *DAYS*.  He's the one who wouldn't shut up about it! There is a difference between using public airwaves vs cable-paid channels for your platform. For one, cable paid channels don't have sponsors/commercials.  However, since Maher did indeed use the c-word, which is a pretty reprehensible word, if I were in Obama's shoes, I'd either give the money back, or, with Maher's permission, donate it to a worthy non-profit.

Interestingly enough, Bill Maher is sticking up for limbot. Here is a link about that: http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/07/439805/bill-maher-defends-rush-limbaugh/ His doing that could be career suicide. It will be interesting to see how that turns out.

If you can come up with an apples-to-apples comparison - meaning derogatory insulting a private conservative citizen on a liberal radio show on public airwaves - then I'll be happy to debate the issue.

KarenInWA

Yeah, yeah,yeah, man is that a big difference. Yes, of course, liberals can cus and insult and use derogatory terms and they are applauded, but if a conservative crosses the line and Rush did cross the line, then off with their heads. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Well, yeah, that is the big issue here. Public airwaves during the day vs pay-cable channel with no commercials at night. Insulting a public political figure vs insulting a private citizen. Saying a comment during a show vs making comments "be* the show not for a day, but for DAYS.

Can you honestly not see the difference??? If it were the other way around, *I* would be embarrased. I certainly wouldn't be defending him (or her).  I'd be angry at the radio host for taking away from the real argument at hand. That's what rushie has done. No other way to call it.

But, you did not reply to my comment about how I feel what Obama should do with Maher's money. I think he should either give it back, or put it towards a worthy non-profit. Preferably one that helps Americans.

KarenInWA

Oh, Karen, of course anyone can see the difference. Back when I had satellite television I watched that apology from Ed Schultz. I remember it seemed to take forever and he labored to chastise himself over and over and over. Laura Ingram basically said she couldn't care less what Ed Schultz said about her. She mocked his show for only drawing a small audience. Also, there is most certainly a difference between calling someone a right-wing slut, which clearly refers to her being willing to change her rhetoric for the highest bidder, and what Limbaugh was saying, which was calling Sandra Fluke a literal, sexual slut. Ed Schultz was calling her a type of media whore, not referring to her sexuality, that was completely obvious. He said it in an offensive way, was rightly called out for it and immediately corrected it rather than embarrassing himself for days and days as Limbaugh did. Limbaugh only apologised when advertisers started fleeing, as they should. Who the hell wants to be associated with that monstrously hypocritical specimen?

It is frightening how many Republicans seem to fully agree with Rush Limbaugh. What number wife is he on now? How much illegal viagra has he taken overseas without his wife? Didn't he promise to move to Costa Rica if Obamacare passed? That was a cruel lie! Oh, and O'Reilly? Anyone follow his sexual harassment lawsuit? If you haven't, you must! Warning, you will likely have to stop eating falafel - the image he evokes is just too upsetting and may never leave your brain. It's been 4 years and I'm still trying to forget....

I like Bill Maher and I completely get where he is coming from in defending Limbaugh. I certainly think he is wrong in this instance. He has consistently defended people like David Letterman against lowlifes like Palin, and he has no doubt been on the receiving end of campaigns to sack him or convince his advertisers to drop him. He is of the school that I agree with in principle - political discourse is a waste of time when people play these gotcha games. In the cases of David Letterman and Ed Schultz, clearly the intent did not matter, all they cared about was trying to topple them. In Rush Limbaugh's case, no one should waste their flipping time trying to argue that he was not judged precisely on the spirit and meaning of what he was saying and wanted to say. Bill Maher is a comedian, and therefore takes the stance that you shouldn't lose your job over a bad joke. However, Rush Limbaugh is not a comedian (if he thinks he is I am very embarrassed for him indeed) and was not making a joke. He was whipping himself up into a self-righteously hypocritical frenzy.

[cariad]

The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.

You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.

[cariad]

The game is already over Gerald. Perhaps you haven't read that yet. Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.

It is not being funded by the tax payer, the contraception issue was about private insurance, and you know it. You just wish it weren't so.

So, you're calling Desert Dancer a pervert. Nice.

Sorry, America is a very secular nation now nearly completely ignoring every aspect of the Bible.

Wrong again! America is known to be one of the most religious nations in the industrialized world.

[Gerald Lively]

http://www.gocomics.com/robrogers/2012/03/09

[Willis]

The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.

You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.

OK, let's read directly to see what it says:

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.

The First Amendment is doing BOTH, i.e., protecting the free exercise of religion ("freedom OF religion") and prohibiting any government sponsored "establishment" of religion ("freedom FROM religion").

So you are both only half right.

 

[Hemodoc]

The game is already over Gerald. Perhaps you haven't read that yet. Yes, America wants their dildos and every perversion of sex openly and in public and for us (the taxpayor) to pay for it as you and others mentioned on another thread.

It is not being funded by the tax payer, the contraception issue was about private insurance, and you know it. You just wish it weren't so.

So, you're calling Desert Dancer a pervert. Nice.

Sorry, America is a very secular nation now nearly completely ignoring every aspect of the Bible.

Wrong again! America is known to be one of the most religious nations in the industrialized world.

Cariad, you are wrong once again. I NEVER called anyone a pervert. Get your facts straight please. I was referring to the American population in general that eats up pornography, vile lifestyles as the new norm and all manner of sexual perversions in literature, film and TV. That is the American way. Please refrain from false allegations against me if you can. It is rather unbecoming.

As far as America STILL being a religious nation, many churches today are quite secular in manner. The majority of people take issue with old fashioned Christian values. If that were not true, we wouldn't even have this debate right now on IHD.

[Hemodoc]

cariad
Premium Member
Elite Member

 Offline

Gender:
Posts: 2785

What's past is prologue
   
Re: GOP Presidential Debate
« Reply #293 on: Today at 10:46:26 AM »

Quote from: Hemodoc on March 08, 2012, 07:16:34 PM
The first amendment is freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

WRONG. Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt whatsoever FALSE.

You are wrong, Peter, and Gerald is completely correct. If you have to twist and torture the Constitution to try to force it to say what you want it to say, that certainly reveals quite a bit about the ideal world that you envision. Ick.

Dear Cariad, the First amendment is to protect freedom of religion. If you go back into history, England and europe had established, state religions that became heavily involved in politics of those nations. There is NOTHING in the first amendment or the constitution that excludes Christian influences from the government. It was a one way wall of separation keeping the governments hands off of religion.

Today, many falsely believe that the original intent was freedom FROM religion to exclude Christian influences from the government. If your view is true, then all of the state constitutions with Christian tests of office would have been unconstitutional at the moment the constitution and the bill of rights was ratified. That didn't happen Cariad, because the original intent of the constitution and bill of rights was for freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. This was expanded upon in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States - 143 U.S. 457 (1892) where it was noted that this is a Christian nation.

In 1962, with no precedent and over turning all prior Supreme court rulings, the secularization of the government began with a new interpretation of the first amendment and incorporation of the 14th amendment to preclude any government institution, Federal, state, county or local from any religious expression. This first such case was Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

Today, it has gone so far that many people state that their should not be any private religious expression in public. This is 100% in opposition to the original intents of the first amendment. Today, Obama can force religious institutions to go against their long standing principles and TRY to force them to provide abortion and contraceptives in the guise of his health care bill. I suspect, that since Obama has already had his bump in the polls for woman, he won't push this to a constitutional, first amendment challenge and in the end will back down since that is where this issue is heading. He won't prevail, but once again, this has been a political, reelection ploy since you already have Title 10 contraception coverage since 1970.

In other words, this is a totally made up crises utilizing the Alinsky rules for radicals to bring about political gain for Obama. The fact that Fluke is directed by Anita Dunn's public relations firm and the fact that Title 10 already provides contraception to all who request it and several charitable organizations are well, this is only an extremely organized and orchestrated event.

[MooseMom]

I happened to catch the tail end of an interesting conversation on the radio yesterday about what it means to be Christian.  It was in the context of whether or not Mormonism is really "Christian".  I wish I could remember all of the details, but I'll do my best to post what I recall.  One person said that to be defined as Christian meant that you had to believe in 6 things...the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the deity of Jesus Christ, the crucifixion being for our sins, and two other things that I just can't remember, sorry.  The other radio host said that he had always been taught that to get into Heaven, one only had to look at Matthew 25 which outlines "good works".  I grew up going to churches of many different denominations (long story behind that), and it is this second "definition" of Christianity that was consistently taught to me.

My point is that I am confused by such terms as "secular" and "religious" and "old fashioned Christian values."    I don't know what it means for a church to be "quite secular in manner."  Are some churches more "Christian" than others, and if so, who decides that?  How can one possibly defend oneself against a charge of not being the "right" kind of Christian or not Christian 'enough"?

It is all very interesting to have theological debates, but I personally am more interested in how these ideas translate into the world we inhabit here, today.  For instance, government forces in Syria are bombarding innocent civilians.  As Christians, what do we do about that?  We cannot claim ignorance; this isn't 1776 where we can't know about the slaughter of innocents half a world away.  This is the age of Facebook and CNN where we can see almost instantaneously the brutality that man inflicts upon man.  As Christians, are we not obliged to do something?

In our own country, there are people who are "food insecure" and people who have chronic medical conditions but no insurance; going to the ER is not really an option.  As Christians, what is our obligation to them, our fellow humans that God created?  Jesus says that in clothing the poor, we clothe Him and are righteous.  But we have so many people who begrudge any benefit to anyone else.  Texas is severely narrowing their requirements for Medicaid assistance, leaving 130,000 women without primary health care.  Is this Christian?  If you believe in the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection and all of those tenets that define you as Christian, does that feed or clothe anyone?  Instead of being eager to help, we have too many people who are eager to let these people fall by the wayside because they "are not exercising personal responsibility."  Since when has personal responsibility trumped the Christian responsibility we have for each other?  This is the fundamental thing that I simply cannot understand about our politics today.

Mr. Santorum feels that one's religious faith should guide public policy.  Ok, that's fine.  I agree.  If you are a Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, then we should have policies in place that make sure that no one is ever hungry, that no one is ever thirsty, that every prisoner is visited (yes, that's in the Bible, Matthew 25), and that everyone is clothed.  We should make sure that every child like Isabella Santorum has equally good access to medical care, no matter how rich or poor her parents might be.  If you want to be righteous and enter the Kingdom of Heaven, this is what the Bible says we must do.

I don't see the current form of the GOP advocating for these kinds of policies.

I have one question regarding going to war alongside Israel against Iran.  I could be wrong, but I get the impression that the section of the population that consider themselves to be evangelicals/born-again Christians are by and large lower down on the income ladder.  These are the people who will bear the brunt of any economic catastrophe brought upon us by entering yet another war.  Do you all think that this constituency would sacrifice their financial self interest for the sake of Israeli security?  How does this group (would this group be defined as "Tea Party constituents?) view the role of Israel in their lives?  Anyone know?