Shared publicly  - 
 
The GOP Exposed, screwed by their own religious fanaticism

Go Obama!
18
Jim Tipping's profile photoCary Scofield's profile photoAmy Sutor's profile photoNuroSlam FreeMan's profile photo
32 comments
 
What a ridiculous article. The picture makes Obama looks like a goof and seems to imply that his whole strategy is playing games so that the other side looks as goofy as he does in this picture.
I have nothing against contraception and the arguments I've heard against it have all been qualified to include religious institutions that don't buy into that school of thought.
To make the whole article into a who-punked-who and what does the GOP need to do now to save face is ridiculous and juvenile. Why don't they work together to craft legislation that achieves the goals they are going for without playing these stupid games that waste time and money?
Who ultimately pays for that wasted time & money: the taxpayers. Gee, thanks...
 
+Troy Juntunen someone laughing or smiling does NOT look life a goof. And it's far better than the scowls and snarls of most politicians.
 
Don't blame Obama for this +Troy - it was the crazy Republicans that were making this into a big issue. I'm actually very proud of the way that Obama played this. Don't think he deliberately waited two weeks to spring this, though - pretty sure it took two weeks to come up with this "solution" that still guarantees women the health coverage they deserve.
 
I do get Troy's complaint about this kind of coverage, though. There's an awful lot of reporting that focuses on political infighting and strategy. I think maybe that seems more interesting to the reporters than the issues themselves. Or easier to understand.
 
Wow... that is the single lamest attempt I've ever seen to turn a politician having his ass handed to him by public reaction into a campaign strategy, and completely goes against what everyone with knowledge of the inner working of the Administration has reported.
 
+Eli Fennell When I first saw the headlines, I thought so, too. But knowing the details, this solution is a win/win for women who need contraception and principled defenders of religious freedom.

The only losers are the a-holes who just wanted to deny women access to contraception. And few will publicly admit that they really wanted to do that.
 
+Jim Tipping I'd be glad to see every woman get coverage for birth control, but not at the expense of separation of Church and State. I'm not even religious, but I hold that the separation of the two is sacrosanct and meant to protect both sides. It isn't just meant to protect the Government from the Churches.
 
+Jim Tipping Yeah, but I wonder if Catholics, a group he needs to win, will see this as I see it... a last-minute bend-over-and-take-it from a group that got up in arms about it.
Bob Lai
+
3
4
3
 
It's funny how everyone was worried about JFK's Catholicism, but, suddenly, government is supposed to be doing what the church wants.

I'm all for religious freedom, but it has to be recognized what a can of worms this can be, not just for Christians, but people of all faiths. Do we start making exceptions for Judaism? Islam? Wicca? Hinduism? Which faiths get to ignore the law, and which ones have to toe the line? Which laws can you claim to be a matter of conscience and ignore?

Neither church nor state should be so quick as to declare, 'Yay! We won!' - we should be looking at how to provide quality care to Americans regardless of faith. What's next, a declaration that sex is for procreation only, or that women should be popping out babies as fast as they can?

A woman must have the right to make decisions about her own body.
 
Nice to see him actually respecting the bill of rights for a change
 
What is really funny about this is that because contraception saves insurance companies money

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/10/the_economics_of_birth_control_subsidies.html

in a rational free-market, they should charge more for insurance coverage that does not have contraception coverage. They should charge the Catholic organizations more for their health care, but then by giving contraception coverage to the women for free, they will reduce their costs.

The Catholic organizations will be paying more for less coverage, the insurance companies will be making more profit by giving away more coverage.
 
+Ralph Sevy +David Whitlock Yes, it's the key point. It's what makes the “compromise” a win-win, because the insurance companies are only too happy to provide contraception for free.
 
+Peter DO Smith And it doesn't matter who "won." The spins are interesting, but not critical.

The only thing that really matters is that further debate will have to proceed on an honest basis, because the freedom-of-religion issue has been taken of. Those people who only want to limit access to contraception will have to admit it. They won't find a lot of public support for their thinking.
 
Probably the cleverest communist to ever hold public office.
 
Hmmm GM, banks, 90000 pages of regulations. One payer healthcare. Open your eyes
 
LOL That makes me laugh.
 
The whole article. The republicans not knowing what to do with themselves because they didn't truly care in the first place, and the picture that went with it. I used to be republican, and using the "Christians" to get votes is what drove me away from them to begin with. The WHOLE article made me LOL.
 
Mr. Sevy, assuming you are talking to me, what does that have to do with anything? How would you know whether I even use them?
 
Well, its about contraceptives isn't it? I though that's what condoms were?
 
That is a pretty limited view. There are all sorts of contraceptives, and condoms are well and good, but what they are talking about is things like the pill, IUDs, Nuva Ring, the shot, the patch, probably even the one is basically an out patient tube tie. I paid hard earned money for my IUD, not you or any other tax payer. I chose that because condoms are not reliable enough. My point however is this, what does your statement "Why should I pay for your condoms." have to do with me finding the article funny? Was the article titled "Ralph Sevy purchases 100 trillion condoms so people can get laid worry free"? No, it was a (kinda dumb) article on why the author could see the events being something that could work in Obama's favor, and how said author wondered if he planned it that way. I think it is funny. Plain and simple.
 
Because the issue is who's going to pay for contreceptives. You may find it funny, but that is on you. You want to belittle people, feel free. But it is about who pays for what. The fact that you can laugh when some people have concerns on how their tax dollars are spent just shows how little you care about anything but your beliefs. The fact that you choose one type over another is not the issue. if its about contreceptives then no, I should not pay for your condoms, if you want to use something else then pay for them. Having been in the "sex industry" condoms are as effective as any other if properly used. 98%. Facts are facts, you want convience pay for it. Don't ask me to pay for your inability to control your urges.
 
If you want me to pay to have your tubes tied, I would be happy to just to keep you from beeding, want me to pay for your covenice to drop your panties in any parking lot and still have the chance of breeding, not a chance in hell
 
I do think everyone should have access because I don't want to pay for the children later (ie welfare). My beliefs are pretty basic. We all deserve the same, equal rights. We all need to be responsible for our choices. I think you are assuming you know me through this little exchange. If something I don't ultimately agree with would eventually better serve the whole of the well being in the place in which I choose to live, then I will vote for it, unlike most people. I am willing to pay a little more for things like education and healthcare because they will end up being good in the long run, even if it costs me a little more. FYI, your sex industry tidbit doesn't impress me. Nor does your meant to be ballsy comment on controlling my urges or the one on belittling. Nor do they have anything to do with my first comment. I have found the troll. The one who only wants to get a rile, the one who truly cannot control his urges.
 
My point is simple, its my tax dollars, I do not wish to pay for your convence to have sex and still breed. If I am to pay for birth control, then I will pay to have your tubes tied. You being "figuratively". It is not far to force to pay for indiscrinate sex and then end up paying to support the child should that 2% chance happen. My point with my previous life was there is no difference in the means only the method. By supporting any method of birth control with tax dollars does not solve any problem, just makes the problems worse.
 
Someone I know once had the idea for the government to permanently sterilize people who were not fit to be parents and pay them some amount to do it, say $500. Then if they wanted to have it reversed they would have to pay an even larger sum, say, $2,000 back into the system. They actually started a similar program in the UK and I think some politician in Louisiana had something like minded he proposed. I just don't see it as that big of a deal in the long haul (there are far worse things my taxes could go to). I still find the article itself (the photo, the way it was written, and what it eluded to) to be really freaking funny. I see your point, and to some extent, I agree... our country just isn't ready for that sort of thing. Also, I am not saying that condoms are bad, for the record. I just think that there are safer ways for committed relationships. I even would go so far as to say that many people should probably use condoms and the pill if they are not in committed relationships. I just know far too many people who have had problems with condoms alone. Not having some sort of hormonal backup plan has always seemed like such a gamble.
 
First, it doesn't matter to me if they are fit or not, if the want tax payer birthcontrol then it should be tubes tied/vasctomy. Otherwise its none of my business, this idea that people can be irresponsible just because someone else will pay for it is what pisses me off. I will agree with you the more layers of protection the better, but it has come down to other people paying for someone being irresposible. (Pardon the spelling). That is my only issue. I would rather see changes in the healthcare system to address these issues then just throwing tax dollars at them.
Add a comment...