U.S. Politics VIII

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, part of the people disapproving of the handling of the economy will be those that think he is not going far enough in his actions, or is regulating and helping the wrong people. When a policy is in the middle people from the extremes will disagree, so just because those people are in the same broad 'I disagree' category does not mean they'll actually agree with you.

You're right. I should have taken the time to look for more specific polls on certain issues that draw the point better. In any case, we do at least have the last midterms, where those who cared enough to vote did support the opposition party over Obama. At worst, that is evidence that we are a fairly evenly-divided country.

[Ormond]

That's also leaving aside that HBC is used as a treatment for irregular menstruation, such as can be caused by PCOS or other disorders. I'm trying to find out more about this Guttmacher Institute, but they have a study which indicates potentially millions of girls and women in the US use hormonal methods for non-contraceptive purposes.

Unless you think that the drugs should be repackaged and recategorised so that they can be covered by insurance, these diseases and disorders are all treatable (or at least controllable) by medication that is uncoverable by some insurance simply because it happens to have contraception as a side effect. How is that reasonable either?

I don't know of any insurance plans that cover condoms, but there may be some. How many plans cover OTC medication in general?

What I have been told about the above in regard to one particular Roman Catholic institution is exactly the opposite of what you say. I have a very good friend who works for a Roman Catholic university whose insurance coverage does NOT include contraception. But he says it certainly DOES include the use of the same medications for menstrual problems. In practice what that means is that a lot more women than you would expect have been diagnosed with those menstrual problems by their physicians at his university, so they can get the insurance company to pay for the pills.

Do you have any evidence that most Roman Catholic institutions do NOT pay for these medications when they are prescribed for reasons other than contraception and contraception is just a side effect?

[DanteGabriel]

As I said, I don't like Santorum at all.

I really really hope, just for my own entertainment, that Santorum is the nominee. I'm going to enjoy watching you talk yourself into him.

The less assholey part of me knows Santorum is a dangerous kook who wouldn't have been elected dogcatcher in a healthy political system and wants him nowhere near even a hope of winning the Presidency.

I was on here a year ago supporting Daniels. I know AP hates him, but he's hardly some freaky radical. He's the kind of guy I really hoped would be the GOP nominee in 2012.

I believe the chief problem with Daniels is that he's not enough of a moron or a sociopath to hang with the rest of the GOP national slate. That's Huntsman's problem too, but he at least went after it.

[lokisnow]

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/rick-santorum-frontrunner.html

Notice he explicitly cites the bedroom as the place where big government can intervene. If you are not reproducing as the Vatican demands, legal penalties are in principle possible. There is no public-private distinction. His mentor, Robbie George, takes the view that in principle, the state also has the right to penalize masturbation with criminal penalties, a position flushed out of him in the Prop 2 trial in Colorado.

If you believe in individual freedom, this country has no greater opponent than Rick Santorum. And for three years, the GOP has tried to tell us that the Tea Party was about extending freedom and ending debt rather than extending the power of Christianist Big Government. We know better now.

[Jon Sprunk]

No, the Administration could have granted it. The GOP offered legislation to do exactly that, and Dmeocrats said no.

Bitching then is no good because it comes after the election.

But you were the one who raised Presidential appointees as an issue, and specifically asked how many Democrats Bush appointed. And after you got your answer, and found it wasn't to your liking, you say you don't give a damn about the issue you raised. I think that's rather amusing, because what it illustrates is that you invent facts in your head to justify the opinions you hold.

Wow. The person who moved the goalposts was you. You brought up cabinet appointments, not me. Right?

If you do not think Obama is the most liberal President we've had in 40 years, then please identify the guy you think was more liberal. And while you're at it, why don't you outline which liberal policies LBJ advanced on which Obama is to his right. Because the way I see it, Obama supports everything LBJ did, plus more.

Yes, the administration could have approved it, and it would have been fucking stupid. You don't go building oil pipelines across your country without the proper studies, and a big pipeline means longer studies. Why do you hate science? (jk, had to throw that in.)

I gave the the cabinet stuff as an example of how Obama is not an extreme liberal, but in fact a moderate. Answering your claim is not moving the goalposts, but good try. Actually, bad try. A radical does not invite people of the opposing side into their camp. If Obama had launched a pogrom on his first day and cleared out everyone who affiliated repub or had served in the Bush admin, I'd have to agree with you. But he didn't. He kept a good deal of the old admin, some in important positions, and went out of his way to approach Gregg. You can admit defeat now, and I promise not to rub it in.

And I asked for a democratic senator in W's cabinet, and you still haven't supplied a name. Crow all you want, but you still failed to answer my simple question.

And no thank you, I'm busy enough without doing your homework for you.

[Shryke]

What I have been told about the above in regard to one particular Roman Catholic institution is exactly the opposite of what you say. I have a very good friend who works for a Roman Catholic university whose insurance coverage does NOT include contraception. But he says he certainly DOES include the use of the same medications for menstrual problems. In practice what that means is that a lot more women than you would expect have been diagnosed with those menstrual problems by their physicians at his university, so they can get the insurance company to pay for the pills.

Do you have any evidence that most Roman Catholic institutions do NOT pay for these medications when they are prescribed for reasons other than contraception and contraception is just a side effect?

I'm struggling to figure out why this matters.

[Shryke]

I really really hope, just for my own entertainment, that Santorum is the nominee. I'm going to enjoy watching you talk yourself into him.

The less assholey part of me knows Santorum is a dangerous kook who wouldn't have been elected dogcatcher in a healthy political system and wants him nowhere near even a hope of winning the Presidency.

He already said like last thread or the one before that he'd vote for Santorum if it came down to it.

I believe the chief problem with Daniels is that he's not enough of a moron or a sociopath to hang with the rest of the GOP national slate. That's Huntsman's problem too, but he at least went after it.

Daniels is alot like Huntsman in that he's a font of horrible ideas, but less directly bigoted ones then people like Santorum. He's more of a Romney but not a robot.

[Dornish]

I believe the chief problem with Daniels is that he's not enough of a moron or a sociopath to hang with the rest of the GOP national slate. That's Huntsman's problem too, but he at least went after it.

I am so damn glad Daniels didn't run. I'm not sure how he'd have done in the primary but if he got through he'd be a much more serious threat to the democrats than any of the ignorant asshats currently running. The man knows how to play the game.

[DanteGabriel]

I am so damn glad Daniels didn't run. I'm not sure how he'd have done in the primary but if he got through he'd be a much more serious threat to the democrats than any of the ignorant asshats currently running. The man knows how to play the game.

I think he and Huntsman certainly are more convincingly human than hatebots like Bachmann and Santorum, but neither of them has a lick of charisma. And let's be honest, Presidential elections usually go to the more charismatic/telegenic of the two major party candidates.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

DG, I'd have no problem supporting Santorum over Obama.

Trisk, I agree about Romney having a tough time attacking Santorum. The best option I can see is there is a Santorum quote from a few years ago where he rips on the idea of government leaving people alone, libertarianism, etc. Most republicans I know react negatively to it. If I were him, I'd hit that hard, because I think it not only hurts him in the primary, but makes him almost unelectable in the general election.

[Seli]

DG, I'd have no problem supporting Santorum over Obama.

Trisk, I agree about Romney having a tough time attacking Santorum. The best option I can see is there is a Santorum quote from a few years ago where he rips on the idea of government leaving people alone, libertarianism, etc. Most republicans I know react negatively to it. If I were him, I'd hit that hard, because I think it not only hurts him in the primary, but makes him almost unelectable in the general election.

No problem, none at all? That is really really scary.

[Ser Greguh]

As I said, I don't like Santorum at all.

Sadly the "I don't like him" deflection doesn't really discredit the hypothesis in question, which is that the Birther virus has infected the GOP to a very pervasive degree, and in a way that I think you'll find it difficult to find one of your famous equivalencies on the Left.

This is actually a fantastic case study in the problems with a general strategy of declaring that people of Opinion X are No True Scotsmen: when people start pointing out the self-proclaimed Scotsmen that hold (or at the very least seem receptive toward) Opinion X, the admission of a gradual depletion of True Scotsmen kind of starts to become congruent with the opposition's case to begin with.

Also, BTW FLOW, making your arguments look foolish is not part of some attempt to convert you; I think the general consensus is that you're far too far down the partisan rabbit hole for that. We're not after you, we're after them.

[Jon Sprunk]

But Romney has to be seeing internal polls showing his favorability is dropping like a rock, and tying that to the negative blitz in Florida. I agree going negative against Santorum is his best way of winning, but it might come at a high price.

[DanteGabriel]

DG, I'd have no problem supporting Santorum over Obama.

Now I'm curious where you draw the line. Would you have no problem supporting Palin over Obama? Because I don't think Santorum is much better than she is.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The truth is that the scary things about Santorum are things he couldn't get enacted anyway, or that would get tossed by the Court. In practice, I think he'd be a big lump of nothing.

[slayer420]

Now I'm curious where you draw the line. Would you have no problem supporting Palin over Obama? Because I don't think Santorum is much better than she is.

This could be a fun game, who would FLOW not vote for over Obama?

[lupis42]

What are you going on about?

It isn't a wash: http://livewire.talk...rance-companies

The answer is very simple: It's cheaper and insurance companies know this. They price it that way. Your contention that it will raise prices doesn't make sense.

I'd like to see some actual numbers, because my own experience pricing plans, as well as that of my friends, was that adding BC to the plan increased the cost of the plan by about the same as the cost of the BC. It's possible that that doesn't hold across income levels or regions.

[Ser Greguh]

This could be a fun game, who would FLOW not vote for over Obama?

I'll set the over/under at Carrot Top if he registers as a Republican.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I vote based overwhelmingly on what good legislation I think a candidate will pass, and/or the bad stuff that they won't do. That's a subjective preference, obviously. I put a great deal less weight on how smart someone is.

As much as I' not a fan, Palin is an easier call for me than Santorum.

[Seli]

The truth is that the scary things about Santorum are things he couldn't get enacted anyway, or that would get tossed by the Court. In practice, I think he'd be a big lump of nothing.

With the civil rights ignoring stuff US congresses have been doing these last decades I would not want to bet on that. And I believe odds are the next president will get to make some appointments in the Supreme court as well.

But it is your consideration.