Pluck the Worms from the Hobby Lobby can


Off-Topic Discussions

301 to 350 of 523 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

wicked cool wrote:

So the thread has gotten a little off topic

For those of you who are against this what are your thoughts on the First Amendment in regards to religion?

If you truly believe IUD is murder then why should you have to pay for it. Cant these same people just go to planned parenthood?

Rush Limbaugh: you want your boss out of your sex life but you want him/her to pay for it?

I think meat is murder. So is war. I still have my tax dollars go to farm subsidies and defense.

Once it leaves my pocket its not my responsibility, nor is it my fault.


wicked cool wrote:

So the thread has gotten a little off topic

For those of you who are against this what are your thoughts on the First Amendment in regards to religion?

If you truly believe IUD is murder then why should you have to pay for it. Cant these same people just go to planned parenthood?

Rush Limbaugh: you want your boss out of your sex life but you want him/her to pay for it?

If I truly believe for religious reasons women are inferior to men, why should I have to treat them equally at work?

Where does it stop?
Why is it only sexual issues where this is a legitimate debate?

Liberty's Edge

wicked cool wrote:

So the thread has gotten a little off topic

For those of you who are against this what are your thoughts on the First Amendment in regards to religion?

If you truly believe IUD is murder then why should you have to pay for it. Cant these same people just go to planned parenthood?

Rush Limbaugh: you want your boss out of your sex life but you want him/her to pay for it?

They're not paying for it. The employee is paying for it. The employee's health insurance is part of their pay.

It's like your boss saying "I don't like those role playing games. You can't use your pay to buy Pathfinder books. I suppose I'll let you buy Hero, but Pathfinder is of the devil so you can't use your money to buy it."


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, the first amendment protects the rights of people to practice their religion, they still don't get to enforce their religious choices on others, though that's long been fought against by religious types.The whole point of incorporating is to create a separate legal entity through which to do business, hence why a company gets sued, not the owners, now that corporate veil is in question.

Even if you truly believe something that's wrong, the law should abide by the medical facts. I believe cancer is a mark of the devil, therefore my company will no longer contribute to cancer treatment. You can't prove I don't sincerely believe it, yet it's wrong, no difference from believing that an IUD is murder. And planned parenthood has been steadily defunded making it difficult to go to one even if you wanted to and were able, which is not even close to a guarantee.

I don't want my boss in my sex life, nor do i want him to pay for it, but he should have no control whatsoever over how an employee uses their rightfully earned compensation, that's between me and my doctor. And with the way insurance works, I'm also contributing to his erectile dysfunction medicine, so maybe he should chill a little.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wicked cool wrote:

So the thread has gotten a little off topic

For those of you who are against this what are your thoughts on the First Amendment in regards to religion?

Freedom of Religion also means freedom from other people's religion. I shouldn't be beholden to my bosses religion

Quote:


If you truly believe IUD is murder then why should you have to pay for it. Cant these same people just go to planned parenthood?

Aside from their funding being repeatedly attacked, I shouldn't have to make end runs around my boss just for my healthcare. My boss is not paying for birth control. My boss might provide health insurance which covers medical costs. My medical treatment is decided by my doctor and myself, not my boss.

Quote:


Rush Limbaugh: you want your boss out of your sex life but you want him/her to pay for it?

Quoting Rush Limbaugh is the surest way to lose any argument. Ignoring the non-sex related aspects of birth control, it's my boss that's trying to get into my bedroom. No one is asking for health insurance and free birth control. Health insurance covers birth control and then my boss is sticking his head in and saying "no sex stuff." So kindly stay out of my bedroom, out of my doctor's office, and out of wherever I choose to spend my Sundays. This is America, thank you.


thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.

You may want to check where your getting your figures. Current front page of the HuPo (so admittedly massively biased) - more than 3/4 of Republicans who have enrolled in Obamacare are in favor of their new coverage.


MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.

I don't think they'll necessarily hold the Senate. I think, given the gerrymandering involved, the chances of taking the House are very slim. I think Obamacare isn't going to be the driving force this cycle.

But, if you do in fact want the law to change to override this decision, the only way that will happen is to hold the Senate and flip the House Democratic.


Squeakmaan wrote:
And planned parenthood has been steadily defunded making it difficult to go to one even if you wanted to and were able, which is not even close to a guarantee.

Not to mention having to wade through the wall of screaming protestors -- I mean sidewalk counselors -- calling you a murderer and worse.


Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.
You may want to check where your getting your figures. Current front page of the HuPo (so admittedly massively biased) - more than 3/4 of Republicans who have enrolled in Obamacare are in favor of their new coverage.

I checked my numbers before posting.

The data is a little old, but still current enough.


thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.

I don't think they'll necessarily hold the Senate. I think, given the gerrymandering involved, the chances of taking the House are very slim. I think Obamacare isn't going to be the driving force this cycle.

But, if you do in fact want the law to change to override this decision, the only way that will happen is to hold the Senate and flip the House Democratic.

The Republicans are making a push to have it be anti-Obamacare and anti-abortion; the second of those tends to be popular at the moment, and poll data I posted in my previous post suggests they have a good footing on the first. It can all easily change by November, though.

So, despite Republican antics with government shutdown, they might have a good chance of seizing control of Congress.


MagusJanus wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.
You may want to check where your getting your figures. Current front page of the HuPo (so admittedly massively biased) - more than 3/4 of Republicans who have enrolled in Obamacare are in favor of their new coverage.

I checked my numbers before posting.

The data is a little old, but still current enough.

So yours is coming from a massively biased republican source and involves asking people conceptually about the law, and finds at best 51% opposed. Mine is from a massively democratically biased source looking at what people thought after getting new insurance and found people were generally happy. In the end, like pretty much every other benefit program, people are going to care more about it making them happy than conceptually being opposed to what it does.

Edit: I can see republicans banking on anti-obamacare backfiring as it becomes more popular and works better in bluer states.


MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.

I don't think they'll necessarily hold the Senate. I think, given the gerrymandering involved, the chances of taking the House are very slim. I think Obamacare isn't going to be the driving force this cycle.

But, if you do in fact want the law to change to override this decision, the only way that will happen is to hold the Senate and flip the House Democratic.

The Republicans are making a push to have it be anti-Obamacare and anti-abortion; the second of those tends to be popular at the moment, and poll data I posted in my previous post suggests they have a good footing on the first. It can all easily change by November, though.

So, despite Republican antics with government shutdown, they might have a good chance of seizing control of Congress.

Not saying they don't. Just saying that if you want the decision overturned, you need the Democrats to retake the House and hold the Senate.


Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.
You may want to check where your getting your figures. Current front page of the HuPo (so admittedly massively biased) - more than 3/4 of Republicans who have enrolled in Obamacare are in favor of their new coverage.

I checked my numbers before posting.

The data is a little old, but still current enough.

So yours is coming from a massively biased republican source and involves asking people conceptually about the law, and finds at best 51% opposed. Mine is from a massively democratically biased source looking at what people thought after getting new insurance and found people were generally happy. In the end, like pretty much every other benefit program, people are going to care more about it making them happy than conceptually being opposed to what it does.

Edit: I can see republicans banking on anti-obamacare backfiring as it becomes more popular and works better in bluer states.

Here's a second source that is hopefully less biased.

One of the interesting things about their data is they demonstrate a very definite party split on who is and who is not satisfied, but in turn show that outside of the parties the trend tends towards dissatisfaction. At least, in the one area they bothered to do that divide.

Silver Crusade

Scythia wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The situation. As explained by sock-puppets.
Thank you, this sums up my thoughts in creating this thread quite nicely.

Np :3


MagusJanus wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.
You may want to check where your getting your figures. Current front page of the HuPo (so admittedly massively biased) - more than 3/4 of Republicans who have enrolled in Obamacare are in favor of their new coverage.

I checked my numbers before posting.

The data is a little old, but still current enough.

So yours is coming from a massively biased republican source and involves asking people conceptually about the law, and finds at best 51% opposed. Mine is from a massively democratically biased source looking at what people thought after getting new insurance and found people were generally happy. In the end, like pretty much every other benefit program, people are going to care more about it making them happy than conceptually being opposed to what it does.

Edit: I can see republicans banking on anti-obamacare backfiring as it becomes more popular and works better in bluer states.

...

Right, so, if I'm reading it right, the 13% of the marketplace that was forced to switch plans shows a ~50-60% dissatisfaction rate with their new plan. That is hardly surprising or showing of general disapproval with the law.


Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
Caineach wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

I don't think they'll necessarily end up staying in office. There's a lot of people burned by Obamacare who may be willing to toss women's healthcare under the bus just to be rid of the program. Including a surprising number of women, from what I've seen.
You may want to check where your getting your figures. Current front page of the HuPo (so admittedly massively biased) - more than 3/4 of Republicans who have enrolled in Obamacare are in favor of their new coverage.

I checked my numbers before posting.

The data is a little old, but still current enough.

So yours is coming from a massively biased republican source and involves asking people conceptually about the law, and finds at best 51% opposed. Mine is from a massively democratically biased source looking at what people thought after getting new insurance and found people were generally happy. In the end, like pretty much every other benefit program, people are going to care more about it making them happy than conceptually being opposed to what it does.

Edit: I can see republicans banking on anti-obamacare backfiring as it becomes more popular and works better in bluer states.

...
Right, so, if I'm reading it right, the 13% of the marketplace that was forced to switch plans shows a...

When they did the poll of who is favorable to ACA, they showed that 46% of the public doesn't like it, while only 38% do. It's on page 21.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

Those are both mighty big ifs. The economy has not been doing well, and typically the party that holds the White House gets the blame, and in such situations tends to loose seats, not gain them.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

Apparently, there is now effort to make a law to go around the SCOTUS decision

I hope they succeed.

They won't. At least not in this session. If the Democrats hold the Senate and take back the House, then it's likely in the next session.

So Vote.

Those are both mighty big ifs. The economy has not been doing well, and typically the party that holds the White House gets the blame, and in such situations tends to loose seats, not gain them.

So Vote. :)

Honestly, barring major events, the Senate is a tossup and the House is out of reach. Democrats are at a disadvantage in off election years, since they do better with more turn out. But there's also no sign of a 2010 like Republican wave.
Sadly, crazy Republicans are the best things the Democrats have going for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wicked cool wrote:
So the thread has gotten a little off topic

Further than you realize. :P

wicked cool wrote:


For those of you who are against this what are your thoughts on the First Amendment in regards to religion?

If you truly believe IUD is murder then why should you have to pay for it. Cant these same people just go to planned parenthood?

Rush Limbaugh: you want your boss out of your sex life but you want him/her to pay for it?

Some fundamentalists believe that HIV is God's punishment upon those who live sinful lives. Up until recent decades, it was the position of a particular denomination that people with dark skintones were descendants of Cain, and thus spiritually impure. Some faiths still practiced today eschew all forms of medical care in favour of "faith healing". Can we say that beliefs on birth control are okay to use in running a business, but no other beliefs? Why or why not? Any line that is drawn will be quite obviously arbitrary, and thus vulnerable to legal challenge.

The first amendment is exactly why they will be unable to limit it to specific Christian groups' discomfort with birth control, as making an exception only for their beliefs, but no others, would be illegally favouring one religion above all others.

The better question is "Why should my boss's beliefs be forced upon me?"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scythia wrote:
Up until recent decades, it was the position of a particular denomination that people with dark skintones were descendants of Cain, and thus spiritually impure.

Since Adam isn't mentioned about having any more kids, we're all descendants of Cain. Big question though, where in hell did his wife come from?

In the World of Darkness though, Cain was the first Vampire. and all vampires trace their bloodlines to him.


LazarX wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Up until recent decades, it was the position of a particular denomination that people with dark skintones were descendants of Cain, and thus spiritually impure.
Since Adam isn't mentioned about having any more kids, we're all descendants of Cain. Big question though, where in hell did his wife come from?

Seth was the third son of Adam.

It's still not clear where the wives come from. :)

Though it is said that Adam fathered sons and daughters and he had hundreds of years to do so.


LazarX wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Up until recent decades, it was the position of a particular denomination that people with dark skintones were descendants of Cain, and thus spiritually impure.

Since Adam isn't mentioned about having any more kids, we're all descendants of Cain. Big question though, where in hell did his wife come from?

In the World of Darkness though, Cain was the first Vampire. and all vampires trace their bloodlines to him.

Not quite true.

Genesis 4:25,26 wrote:
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

However, IIRC, Noah's children were married to Cainites, who ended up on the Ark.

Which only makes the beliefs about some people being living Cainites just because of race even worse.


And I've usually seen the dark skintones being descended from Ham, due to him being cursed after looking on a drunken Noah.

But none of it matters. Whether it's true scientifically or even if can't be justified Biblically, as long as you believe it, the Supreme Court's on your side.

Or possibly, they're only on your side when they believe it too. Which is where we run into "Establishment of religion."

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ignorance in this thread is appalling. I think I am going to go another few months without looking in Paizo again.


Crimson Jester wrote:
The ignorance in this thread is appalling. I think I am going to go another few months without looking in Paizo again.

Or you could enlighten us. Anything in particular we're ignorant of?


Crimson Jester wrote:
The ignorance in this thread is appalling. I think I am going to go another few months without looking in Paizo again.

Without backing that statement its just an insult.


thejeff wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Frankly, I'm not really certain why we should care whether or not the founders liked or disliked a democracy. We have a representative democracy, at least in theory, and democracy seems to be a pretty common system of government these days. Maybe we messed up when we gave the vote to non-land owners but how many people can say they truly want to go back to a system that restricts the ability to vote to an incredibly small portion of the population. Aren't people already complaining that the government seems to be controlled by a tiny minority of wealthy interests?

Even beyond the implicit racism (and sexism. Guess who else couldn't vote in 1889?), that's why I think the idea is laughable. Whatever the founders thought of democracy, we've changed a lot of things they started with, many of them for the better. I'm also not convinced that their understanding of "democracy" matches our current usage, so while they might recoil in horror at the use of the term to describe our government, they might not have such a problem if the workings were described to them without using that word.

Frankly, I expect far more culture shock would come from modern attitudes towards race, women and sexuality in general, along with the vast technological gulf and the speed of modern life. They'd probably also be disgusted by the reverence the Constitution is held in and surprised that with all the changes in society we're still working off the same framework. Their first attempt only lasted a little over a decade.

More generally, there's something to be said for only giving the franchise to those educated and invested enough to use it thoughtfully. The first problem is identifying those without bias. The second deeper problem is that such people will over the long run be mostly concerned with their own problems and be less inclined to take the problems of the disenfranchised seriously. Wasn't representation one of the original rallying cries?

The Democracy we have today is in fact what the FFs were hoping for. However - and this is a BIG caveat - they were of the opinion that universal education would bring everyone up to the same general level of competency. In my opinion the FFs were far too optimistic about the power of education.

What we have today is a state of affairs where the absolutely worst qualified individual has as much voting power as the very best. And this description isn't even dependent on all of us agreeing who is "worst" or "best" qualified to vote. It simply acknowledges that anyone can vote regardless of competency, however we define it.

I also want to point out that I agree with your statement,

thejeff wrote:
...giving the franchise to those educated and invested enough to use it thoughtfully. The first problem is identifying those without bias. The second deeper problem is that such people will over the long run be mostly concerned with their own problems and be less inclined to take the problems of the disenfranchised seriously.

The FF thought of this too and the system they set up represented about 95% of the households at the time. It doesn't work that way anymore. We fixed some problems over the years (women have a clear voice in the public process; so-called minorities have a clear voice; etc) but we've boogered it up big time too.

As I said in another post,
"By law, I can make myself and my dependents functional wards of the state for no other reason than I don't feel like being responsible to earn a living and take care of them. As long as my negligent actions to achieve this end aren't violent no one will hold me responsible even if I'm fully capable."

That type of attitude would get me jail, fines, and/or hard labor in 1889. Today, in certain large circles of American life, that attitude only gets me what I want - someone else to take care of the things I don't want to be responsible for.

To a man the FFs would flip if they could see what we've done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:

The Democracy we have today is in fact what the FFs were hoping for. However - and this is a BIG caveat - they were of the opinion that universal education would bring everyone up to the same general level of competency. In my opinion the FFs were far too optimistic about the power of education.

What we have today is a state of affairs where the absolutely worst qualified individual has as much voting power as the very best. And this description isn't even dependent on all of us agreeing who is "worst" or "best" qualified to vote. It simply acknowledges that anyone can vote regardless of competency, however we define it.

I also want to point out that I agree with your statement,

thejeff wrote:
.giving the franchise to those educated and invested enough to use it thoughtfully. The first problem is identifying those without bias. The second deeper problem is that such people will over the long run be mostly concerned with their own problems and be less inclined to take the problems of the disenfranchised seriously.

The FF thought of this too and the system they set up represented about 95% of the households at the time. It doesn't work that way anymore. We fixed some problems over the years (women have a clear voice in the public process; so-called minorities have a clear voice; etc) but we've boogered it up big time too.

As I said in another post,
"By law, I can make myself and my dependents functional wards of the state for no other reason than I don't feel like being responsible to earn a living and take care of them. As long as my negligent actions to achieve this end aren't violent no one will hold me responsible even if I'm fully capable."

That type of attitude would get me jail, fines, and/or hard labor in 1889. Today, in certain large circles of American life, that attitude only gets me what I want - someone else to take care of the things I don't want to be responsible for.

To a man the FFs would flip if they could see what we've done.

I'm curious where you got the 95% of households number? And exactly what is meant by "represented" there. Obviously black slaves either didn't count as part of the 95% or are assumed to be represented by their owners. Either of which is a distortion.

Did 95% of white males own enough property to qualify? Even 95% of head of household types? Renters? Laborers? Everything else is less than 5%? Or is household a term designed to count all the servants and workers a s "represented" by the master's vote?

Of course a big factor that has changed is that we've gone from a mostly agricultural society to a post-industrial worker society. And we don't have a frontier where anyone with a strong back and a bit of ambition can go and claim his 40 acres and get those voting rights.

But to your other point: That very frontier also served as a release valve. Those who didn't own land and couldn't find work could always head west and claim land on which to support themselves.

That's gone now. As the frontier closed and as the country industrialized, those attitudes you prize, the "root hog, or die" approach, led to widespread poverty and misery in every economic downturn. The horrific conditions among the poor, even those who had work, both in terms of compensation and treatment, led to the movements that created unions and all the welfare state that you despise.
There's a temptation to forget that, to look around at the comfortable middle class and think that if we just stopped supporting the poor they'd start to struggle and be inspired to reach the good life on their own. It's crap. Even the middle class are workers and though we don't think much about it we depend on those protections too. Dismantle it and we all fall back down to the 1920s' slums.

And "making yourself a functional ward of the state", short of getting locked up, which is far easier now, is harder than it looks. It's a lousy life. The vast majority of people who take any assistance use it as intended, as a temporary safety net, to give themselves a chance to get back on their feet. Those in the long term are often working, but not making enough to get by on their own. Cutting them off won't boost their wages, nor are just lounging around now. They'd find a better job if one was available.
Some, admittedly, have given up. Often they have little reason to see any hope of a better life. It's just not part of the world they deal with.

It's also worth pointing out, back on the voting topic, that the poor vote at much lower rates than other demographics. They are rarely driving elections.


"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"

Gasp! That is UN-American! You need to BUY those votes from the private sector, not get them from big government!

PS Thanks thejeff! You said it better then I could.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Once it leaves my pocket its not my responsibility, nor is it my fault.

"I did not kill that man, your honor. A bullet did."

"But you fired the bullet, did you not?"
"No, your honor, my gun did. Am I free to go now?"


Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Once it leaves my pocket its not my responsibility, nor is it my fault.

"I did not kill that man, your honor. A bullet did."

"But you fired the bullet, did you not?"
"No, your honor, my gun did. Am I free to go now?"

Judge: But you pulled the trigger?

Kirth: No, it's an AI. It >fired all by itself<


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"

So long long as there's a lifelong residency requirement for voting so that politically concerned mary-sues, murder-hobos and special snowflakes adventurers can't show up and stuff the ballot box with their WBL, that sounds like a great system! I mean, there's already a poll tax here in Demesne Dice, why not just point a coin slot on each candidate's ballot box, and whoever earns the most wins? (All proceeds kept by the winner.) I'm torn between providing a jar of beans for the masses to use or minting a coin higher in value than pp so I can throw the election whichever way I want suit the needs of the upper classes; politics is full of tough decisions!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Once it leaves my pocket its not my responsibility, nor is it my fault.

"I did not kill that man, your honor. A bullet did."

"But you fired the bullet, did you not?"
"No, your honor, my gun did. Am I free to go now?"

More like "So you have the homeless man 5 dollars, and he bought a knife and stabbed someone. Murderer! " or "You payed your employee, he used the money for a gun, and then shot up a building. Murderer!"


BigNorseWolf wrote:

More like "So you have the homeless man 5 dollars, and he bought a knife and stabbed someone. Murderer! " or "You payed your employee, he used the money for a gun, and then shot up a building. Murderer!"

If the homeless man or employee was showing murderous intentions, and you just shrug and say "Oh, well, murderers gonna murder," and handed over the cash, I don't think you can totally shirk a bit responsibility there.

For the record, I do pay taxes, and I consider many of the things done with them -- overseas wars and internal prison-filling "wars" both -- to be odious, counterproductive, and downright evil. I do indeed feel some complicity in these evils, by dint of being insufficiently motivated for martyrdom (by refusing to pay taxes) and insufficiently awesome to get a job overseas and emigrate (lord knows I've tried).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
If the homeless man or employee was showing murderous intentions, and you just shrug and say "Oh, well, murderers gonna murder," and handed over the cash, I don't think you can totally shirk a bit responsibility there.

I don't think anyone does that.

Nor do employers (thankfully) have any means of tracking if their employees are displaying intent to abort or intent to get birth control..


thejeff wrote:

I'm curious where you got the 95% of households number?

And "making yourself a functional ward of the state", short of getting locked up, which is far easier now, is harder than it looks. It's a lousy life. The vast majority of people who take any assistance use it as intended, as a temporary safety net, to give themselves a chance to get back on their feet.

Re the 95% - Most people were landowners of course. And yes, the landowner did vote for the entire household. Would the wife have voted differently than her husband? Not likely. Would the adult male slaves (if any) vote differently? Possibly, and the FF set up a system where that eventually happened... Yay!

I said previously that the consequences of shirking my familial responsibilities in 1889 would get me "jail, fines, and/or hard labor" but I should also have added public flogging and/or humiliation in the town square stocks.

Now the "fact" that today, you say, the vast majority use public assistance "as intended". Well, I disagree. My uncle got laid off a few years back, along with a couple thousand others (jobs went to China you know), and due to the circumstances (Trade Act and other bureaucratic stuff) a good many of them were on the dole for 18 months - this included insurance and a weekly stipend of ~$500. Many of them earned money "under the table" and otherwise "took an 18 month vacation" (a phrase my uncle heard often). They did not look for work because they did not have to.

There are some states that are reversing this trend - Wisconsin is one (by my understanding) and helping people while expecting effort on their part is the way to go. The USA as a whole has been going in the opposite direction for nearly the last 50 years... and it shows.

As for the poor not voting. What I said was,

Quote:
What we have today is a state of affairs where the absolutely worst qualified individual has as much voting power as the very best. And this description isn't even dependent on all of us agreeing who is "worst" or "best" qualified to vote. It simply acknowledges that anyone can vote regardless of competency, however we define it.

I repeat, anyone can vote regardless of competency, however we define it.

This idea of a democracy -- one adult = one vote -- was envisioned by the FF, I do not dispute.

But they also believed universal education would level the playing field so that universal suffrage was a preferred state of affairs.

How they missed the fact that humans as a whole prefer "bread and circuses" I do not know. Likely it was partly due to the fact that they were committed to Enlightenment Ideals ("Believing is seeing", as they say) and partly due to the fact that they hung together and did not perceive just how outstanding they were among the rest of the citizenry. Thus applying the first mistake to their own case - that is, they believed they were outstanding entirely due to education and not largely to biological inheritance - they came up with the system that worked pretty well... until about the mid 1960's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
If the homeless man or employee was showing murderous intentions, and you just shrug and say "Oh, well, murderers gonna murder," and handed over the cash, I don't think you can totally shirk a bit responsibility there.
I don't think anyone does that.

I do exactly that every time I pay U.S. taxes, so that more unasked-for overseas military invasions can take place, so that more of our own citizens can have their lives destroyed as casualties of the "war on drugs" and "war on so-called sex offenders" and "war on pirates" and finally "war on everyone left after that." So, yeah, the horrible things that Uncle Sam does with some of that money are, to some extent, on my head, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

On everyone's.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm curious where you got the 95% of households number?

Re the 95% - Most people were landowners of course. And yes, the landowner did vote for the entire household. Would the wife have voted differently than her husband? Not likely. Would the adult male slaves (if any) vote differently? Possibly, and the FF set up a system where that eventually happened... Yay!

I said previously that the consequences of shirking my familial responsibilities in 1889 would get me "jail, fines, and/or hard labor" but I should also have added public flogging and/or humiliation in the town square stocks.

In other words you made the 95% number up. And counted, not just slaves, but women and servants and laborers and anyone else attached to the household as represented by the owner's vote.

Good to know you trust the boss to look out for your interests.

And that's "The FF set up a system where it took 80 years and a horrendously bloody war to make that happen legally and another 100 years for voting rights for blacks to become reality." Um. Yay?

As for your idyllic life of real personal responsibility back in the Gilded Age, I point you to the excellent photographic evidence, linked by Gentle Giant over in the sixty-thousand homeless thread

That's what you're pushing for, whether you think so or not. That's the endgame when you don't give people alternatives to scrabbling for whatever crummy work they can find. Especially when you want to take any political voice away from them.

And finally, I'll just leave this with what I said after your earlier post

Quote:

You know, when I see someone talking about how we started to slip into mob rule in the 60s when we allowed everyone to vote, I start to wonder about who exactly they think shouldn't be allowed to vote. What changed in the 60s anyway? Hmmm.

Shall we bring back Literacy Tests? They did such a great job.


thejeff wrote:
In other words you made the 95% number up. And counted, not just slaves, but women and servants and laborers and anyone else attached to the household as represented by the owner's vote.

Not at all. About 95% of housholds were involved in farming and ipso facto land ownership. It's a round number to be sure but the "real answer" isn't 99% nor is it closer to 75%.

And yes, I thought you knew that the 'master of the house' spoke (voted) for everyone under his care in those days? Sorry :o didn't realize you were uncertain about that state of affairs.

thejeff wrote:
And that's "The FF set up a system where it took 80 years and a horrendously bloody war to make that happen legally and another 100 years for voting rights for blacks to become reality." Um. Yay?

Hey, the system worked! Yay, indeed! Beats the <bleep> out of the system they use most other places, even today - and everyplace prior to the American Revolution.

thejeff wrote:
As for your idyllic life of real personal responsibility back in the Gilded Age, I point you to... That's what you're pushing for, whether you think so or not. That's the endgame when you don't give people alternatives to scrabbling for whatever crummy work they can find. Especially when you want to take any political voice away from them.

"Idyllic"? You're putting words in my mouth.

People don't want to live out the consequences of their choices. And in our "modern" democracy they don't have to. At least not the full consequences.

Lit Prof at my U <abridged>:
"Last summer a number of us who served in the Peace Corp went back to the country we worked in 40 years ago. Back then these farmers lived hand-to-mouth and had dirt roads, a crappy dirt floored house, and ten hungry kids.

"We gave them well drilling, fertilizers, better building methods, and (via USAID) paved roads.

"Today they live hand-to-mouth, in crappy houses not built to code, with ten hungry kids, and the paved roads have potholes you can get your car stuck in. Oh, and they all have TVs.

"Not sure what we actually did for them...

My answer to him:
Believing in a cause not founded in reality you missed the fact that humans, as a whole, prefer "bread and circuses".

Lit Prof: <shrug>Yeah... suppose so.</shrug>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why do we even bother with statistics when we could just ask you if your uncle knows a couple of guys?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Quark, you haven't been outside the US much, have you?
Doesn't seem so if you think everyone else has "systems" so much inferior to what the exists in the US.
I guess you think massive homelessness, highly expensive medical care, weekly shootings, rapidly rising inequality and, as this thread is about, religious interference in medical care is better than... well, pretty much none of those.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Why do we even bother with statistics when we could just ask you if your uncle knows a couple of guys?

It was over 2,000 that got laid off. And a great many of them took the opportunity to take a looong vacation at the "government's expense". A statistically significant sample size, for that region, for that time.

Why did so many act like that? Because there was absolutely no negative consequences for them. As far as they were concerned, it was a paid vacation that lasted a year and a half (or so).


GentleGiant wrote:

Quark, you haven't been outside the US much, have you?

Doesn't seem so if you think everyone else has "systems" so much inferior to what the exists in the US.
I guess you think massive homelessness, highly expensive medical care, weekly shootings, rapidly rising inequality and, as this thread is about, religious interference in medical care is better than... well, pretty much none of those.

You obviously haven't read all my posts in this thread.

I think this country is one of the suckyest 'western-style' democracies going. And the suck started in earnest in the 1960's.

And even at that, on a global scale, we do pretty good. There are about 3 billion people in India and China (and the countries in between) that have it significantly worse than we do here. Add to that about 1 billion in Africa that are measurably worse off and I don't need anymore examples to then say we beat "most other places" in relative suck.


GentleGiant wrote:

Quark, you haven't been outside the US much, have you?

Doesn't seem so if you think everyone else has "systems" so much inferior to what the exists in the US.
I guess you think massive homelessness, highly expensive medical care, weekly shootings, rapidly rising inequality and, as this thread is about, religious interference in medical care is better than... well, pretty much none of those.

PENIS MEASURING CONTEST GETTING READY TO START!

MY COUNTRY HAS A BIGGER PENIS THEN YOURS!


pres man wrote:


PENIS MEASURING CONTEST GETTING READY TO START!

MY COUNTRY HAS A BIGGER PENIS THEN YOURS!

And here I was slightly trepidatious about using the word "suck". :D


95% of the population couldn't have been land owning white men. I'm guessing 50-ish % were women and a significant portion black.

You should stop lying.

Liberty's Edge

I don't really see the problem. It's a few specific products, they still cover all other forms of female birth control. Also the birth control not covered generally costs less in-store than the co-pay for many of the forms that are covered.

Why is this a world ending issue? Do I not understand because I'm a sexist racist patriaricle capitalist pig?

301 to 350 of 523 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Pluck the Worms from the Hobby Lobby can All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.