quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

I don't know what to take away from the election, honestly. It's not like either of the presidential candidates had a sparkling new vision or was/is a transformative personality. A lot of people who voted didn't vote because they were in love with either candidate, they voted the way they did because they viewed that candidate as the lesser of two evils.

Besides, there really wasn't a change in the government at all. The President stayed the same, the Senate kept basically the same composition, and so did the House. It's not like Republicans were completely blown away at the ballots.

There are very few elections in American history that stand out as being remarkable. 1800, the first time an opposition party triumphed (and the world didn't end!); 1828, the onset of the Jacksonian era; 1860, Lincoln's election as an anti-slavery candidate; 1932, the beginning of the New Deal...and that's probably it. You could make an argument for JFK or Reagan's elections coming to that level, if you like, but JFK didn't have a chance to make the changes that he could have made, and Reagan's legacy is (in my opinion) still being determined.

Lost seats in house and senate and didn't win back the presidency. I'd say that was an ass kicking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

Pretty much up to your own opinion. What isn't opinion is that it was a pretty good kick in the ass to republicans who had considered this "THE" year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
Did the Dems gain seats in the house and senate and retain the white house because they were good or did they do it because they sucked less than the Republicans?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Thank you Jeff.
DS, women arent as stupid as you seem to wish we were. I dont go on and on about wars on ____.. I make allowances and look for the truth. Lucy and kalik and a few other women on these threads are the same way. We call bullshit when we see it, on both parties.
When I see state after state attempting to override a SC decision, when I see businesses using RELIGION as an excuse to treat women differently then men. When I see a political party using every excuse in the book to keep women "barefoot and pregnant", even going so far as to actually say that rape prevents pregnancy... I see a war. These were not isolated incidents but wide spread. Vulgar attempts to control women based upon their own morality.

Fuck that. "Control women." That's the bullshit about it. So, the abortion debate is about reducing a woman's choice? Or, is it about supporting the growing life within her womb? You say it's the former, I say the latter. We agree that birth control medications should be covered for non birth control uses. We disagree that birth control for birth control purposes should be covered. I don't think it's anyone's damn business what insurance benefits a business is offering. You see an idiot who spouts anatomical nonsense as one party's bent against women, while I see an idiot spouting anatomical nonsense because he's an idiot.

quote:

And, before someone can come along and say the liberal agenda is to force "Christians" to accept something they find abhorrent, liberals have made no attempts to force women to have abortions, to force them to take contraceptives, to force anyone to agree that abortions are morally acceptable. When that happens, then you can say liberals are forcing their own morality onto everyone else.

Oh, stop that. Forcing a Christian organization to provide birth control (solely for birth control reasons), when it is against its belief system, is the Liberals forcing their morality. So, it's morality forcing, even if it's but one facet.

Plenty of "christians" in countries with one payer systems that are quite happy to pay taxes so everyone has equal access to health care. what makes "christians" here so special? More pure perhaps?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Fuck that. "Control women." That's the bullshit about it. So, the abortion debate is about reducing a woman's choice? Or, is it about supporting the growing life within her womb?

quote:

Oh, stop that. Forcing a Christian organization to provide birth control (solely for birth control reasons), when it is against its belief system, is the Liberals forcing their morality. So, it's morality forcing, even if it's but one facet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

I'm actually more curious how anyone could actually, with a straight face, ask...."Did the GOP really understand the last election?"

'cause I'm thinking...if you didn't, regardless of party....you're one dumb sum bitch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Fuck that. "Control women." That's the bullshit about it. So, the abortion debate is about reducing a woman's choice? Or, is it about supporting the growing life within her womb?

And there is the morality issue. You see it as "supporting a life growing within" and others see it as a sack of tissues without any chance of viability outside of the woman's body.
What gives YOU the right to tell ME how I can see MY own body?

quote:

Oh, stop that. Forcing a Christian organization to provide birth control (solely for birth control reasons), when it is against its belief system, is the Liberals forcing their morality. So, it's morality forcing, even if it's but one facet.

Stop that yourself. Is the government supposed to take religion into consideration when making laws? You see a christian organization. I see a business run by a group of christians demanding special treatment because of their religious affiliation.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And this is the type of issue that calls into question the ethical ramifications of using Government to provide something. Like it or not, this one has an impact on the free exercise of religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And this is the type of issue that calls into question the ethical ramifications of using Government to provide something. Like it or not, this one has an impact on the free exercise of religion.

I don't know why I'm bothering with this but I'll give it a go.
ALL government does this. Down this path is anarchy and I think we all understand that nobody likes that. Yup, when a bunch of people all try to decide something then some of them aren't going to get their way. For those people, the government is oppressing them -- at least in that instance. Now if we're to limit it to "the free exercise of their religion" that still changes nothing. We all readily acknowledge that the law of the land trumps religion. Were that not so then why is anyone annoyed with the child molestation in the Catholic church? I mean... it was sanctioned by the Pope himself... the direct voice of God. It's their religion, right? Or what about all the religions which say it's OK to beat your wife? I wouldn't recommend using that as a defense in court.
Within limits we try to be tolerant of other religions in this culture. But there's a crapload of religions in the world that say things which we would not tolerate here in the US. Sadly, an awful lot of religions are highly oppressive to women. So no, I'm not going with this "But my religion says..." line of reasoning. I'm more interested in running a country than pandering to every religion out there. Nor am I interested in having a host of shadow "other governments" that we call religions.
Or, alternately, I'm starting religion right now that says it's OK to not pay your taxes and rob from banks because I honestly believe that insofar as there is a "god" he'd be fine with both of those (given our government and our banks).
Did you seriously never explore the limits of "freedom of religion" in your own head?

quote:

The courts have found that a substantial and compelling State Interest exists when the religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or Welfare of the public.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
Well then are "christians" in other countries commiting mortal sins because they are accepting of what government does? Should a Christian in the US foment revolution based on Roe v. Wade?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

And right here is where everything goes to Hell in a handbasket. When your choice starts to cost me (generally speaking, nothing specific), shouldn't I have some say in that choice? Thus, if I am paying for your insurance, medications, etc., and I am against contraception for birth-control reasons, then why are you trying to force me to pay for your contraceptives that are being used solely for birth-control reasons? If you are forcing someone to do something against their beliefs, you are not allowing for the free exercise of their chosen religion.

quote:

Now, if you are going to force Christian organizations to cover abortion costs, that might not pass muster.