please step away from the faux news.... this type of speech shows exactly the problem in politics: fear and ignorance of the masses over actually understanding something, easier to namecall then really understand the issues.
I agree. Stick with the issues. Listen to all sides objectively then make a decision. Not a judgement.
__________________
__________________
"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Never forget that everything the Founding Fathers did was not." Martin Luther King, Jr.
My understanding of the issue is that birth control contraceptives are easily affordable at WalMart so why should "big brother" get into the game with mandates? Is that what government is for as it seems to fit "Government Explained"?
My understanding of the issue is that birth control contraceptives are easily affordable at WalMart so why should "big brother" get into the game with mandates? Is that what government is for as it seems to fit "Government Explained"?
because the cost of the pill is WAY cheaper than welfare...
IUDs, tubal ligation, and other long-term birth control options are fairly expensive procedures. Should a hysterectomy not be covered because it involves rendering a woman infertile?
Why should hormonal birth control pills be treated different than any other sort of prescription medication? Especially where those pills are used to treat hormonal conditions and not just for contraception.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
To save a little time, I'll just post the latest post in the last thread where you tried to link North Carolina's eugenics program to the democratic party:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rivalarrival
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie_T
Could it be that you googled it and just didn't like the answer? Or maybe you missed the lamestream news of election coverage in 2010.
There are always oddballs in both parties, that's why I am an independent.
You made it such a point to show us that democrats have controlled North Carolina for decades; let me ask you something: Who was in charge when the program was canceled? That's right, a Democrat. But I guess that's really here nor there.
You know who was in charge when the North Carolina eugenics program was started? O. Max Gardner.
Gardner was a moderate and pragmatic politician. As a mill owner and friend of Piedmont textile, tobacco, and banking interests, Gardner promoted a pro-business agenda and fought unions, child labor legislation, and economic regulations. Often he opposed the eastern, agrarian, more liberal wing of the party, championed by Josephus Daniels, editor of the influential Raleigh News and Observer.
Back then, that was a Democrat. Today, that's a conservative Republican.
How about in 1973, when the program was cut? Who was in charge then? I looked that up too: Robert W. Scott
Scott seemed to thrive on controversy, which was good because he had a way of looking to the future with a ?devil-be-damned? attitude. Scott needed additional revenue to fund his proposed public kindergarten program, and North Carolina was one of the few states with no tax on cigarettes. He proposed a modest two cents, and a howl went up. ?Didn?t he understand how important tobacco was to North Carolina?s economy and the negative impact pushing for a tobacco tax could have on his political career??
Of course he did, but that did not deter him. His reply ? which some considered blasphemy ? set off a spate of negative editorials. ?Tobacco is no longer king in North Carolina,? Scott said and pushed ahead. As Jack Betts of The Charlotte Observer has noted, it was 22 years later before anyone had courage enough to try to raise the tax, which remains one of the lowest in the nation.
Those sure seem to be characteristics we would associate with a modern, liberal Democrat.
I guess you showed us how bad things can get when we put conservatives in charge.
Let's remember what the GOP had to say on the issue:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Bauer, Lt Governor, NC, (R) January, 2010
My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You?re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don?t think too much further than that. And so what you?ve got to do is you?ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don?t know any better.
That's right, the problem is that we let poor people breed. We've got to curtail that.
For those of you who have trouble identifying it, that last line is something we call "sarcasm".
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Facts are facts! I am an independent voter that left the democrat party because I don't agree with killing pre-born children. I don't have to defend politicians of either stripe. I am for less government meddling, the NC Eugenics Board was extreme meddling.
Facts are facts! I am an independent voter that left the democrat party because I don't agree with killing pre-born children. I don't have to defend politicians of either stripe. I am for less government meddling, the NC Eugenics Board was extreme meddling.
The NC Eugenics board was created and operated by the conservatives of the day, and was ended by liberal progressives. The fact that the intervening years saw NC democrats go from conservatism to progression says nothing about contemporary democrats. You just told us that you're making your voting decisions based in large part on the actions of people 80-some years ago, whose political ideology has nothing in common with contemporary politicians. You're claiming that modern democrats are bad because 80 years ago, the radical right called themselves democrats. This is not independence.
If this were really independence, you would look at the political positions of these politicians 80 years ago, and you would choose politicians who opposed such political ideology. Instead, you're supporting such people. How do you justify this as "independence"? This seems to fit the definition of "hypocrisy" better than independence.
Pro-life and anti-government-meddling are mutually exclusive. Interfering in care decisions between a woman and her doctor is government meddling. Interfering in marriage decisions between two people based on their matching genitalia is government meddling. Telling doctors they are obligated to withhold information about fetal defects so a woman doesn't choose to abort is government meddling. The parties that support such meddling are not contemporary democrats.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Nope, they just happened to be democrats. Frankly I don't care for either party. Abortion or contraception is not a government care issue. People can choose where they work and Obama says we can choose our health care providers so the government should bow out.
Linear Mode
