Some Things Interesting That I Have To Admit....

[MIKolbe]

After reading the first post of dUSt's stupid thread about 'oh, golly will you apologize when Romney repeals HHS mandate and does something else' that I forgot about because it's about as likely as hasan getting a girlfriend with opposible thumbs...

I got to thinking...and I figured if I am to believe something.. i had better be honest about it through and through, I had better say it here because of everything I've already said about it this election..

But to my thoughts...

1) Assuming Romney will get elected....

There is close to zero political gamble for him to shread the HHS mandate.

If he shreads it, who's he gonna piss off? The people who already dislike him.

If he shreads it, who's gonna love him for it? Social conservatives, many of the fine pholks at phatmass...and those people who are duped into loving him already...

If he shreads it, who would stay ambivilent about the whole thing? Conservatives who figure 'he's our boy, we GOTTA vote for him', who may not like him, but certainly don't dislike him; either because they are too stupid or too scared to listen to an informed conscience..if they actually had one.


so... if he shreads it... the haters keep hating, the lovers keep loving, and the whatevers keep whatevering.

The move has close to zero political risk...



further.........

2) Assuming Romney will get elected....

The 'media pass' that the office of the president has been getting for the past 4 years will be unceremoniously revoked. There will be no more 'evolved positions' coming from the office of the president... the president will be seen (from the standpoint of the MSM) as more as an enemy and less as the messianic figure the current office holder enjoys today.

Therefore, I think there could be an out-of-the-blue outrage about the continued use of drones and their less-than-positive effect on innocent civilians and children.

Perhaps the same outrage will be ascertained, considering there is such a thing as a 'kill list'... with all its implications.

So, because of this outrage..maybe a president romney would be forced to change his mind and policies, and put a stop to these things?









so... yeah...gotta admit that.

[Anomaly]

I disagree that there is zero political risk in repealing the HHS Mandate. Here are the reasons why:

In the United States, contraceptive use saves about $19 billion in direct medical costs each year.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Trussell2009-1"][size="2"][2][/size][/url][/sup]
About half of US [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy"]pregnancies are unintended[/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Trussell2009-1"][size="2"][2][/size][/url][/sup] Highly effective contraceptives, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_devices"]intrauterine devices[/url] (IUDs), are underused in the United States.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size="2"][3][/size][/url][/sup] Increasing use of highly effective contraceptives could help meet the goal set forward in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_people"]Healthy People 2020[/url] to decrease unintended pregnancy by 10% before 2020.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size="2"][3][/size][/url][/sup] Cost to the user is one factor preventing many US women from using more effective contraceptives.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size="2"][3][/size][/url][/sup] Making contraceptives available without a copay increases use of highly effective methods, reduces unintended pregnancies, and may be instrumental in achieving the Healthy People 2020 goal.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size="2"][3][/size][/url][/sup]

There are very sound financial reasons whey people would support keeping the HHS mandate. The vast majority of voters do not see contraceptive use in the moral terms the Catholic Church does. They don't see chemical contraception as an abortificant, so it's morally neutral. I don't think the majority of people see it as an icursion into religious freedom.

The best way to limit HHS, is removing it as a Federal Mandate and allowing the States to decide within thier own populations. You have Red states and Blue states, which will allow some victories. Any Federal Policy that is attempting to reflect the national political will has to look at the entire body of public opinion.

Politically, Romney would find it easier to avoid mandating via Federal Policy, and turning it back to the States to decide. He can claim that he's doing what he did in Mass., while not preventing what a significant number of people would like to happen. This is the argument against equivocating Romney and Republicans as identical to Obama and Democrats. O and the D's think this issue should be decided on the Federal Level and reflect the will of the majority opinion of the entire nation, and not an option that can be decided State by State. Ron Paul saw the issue is controversial with a significant number of people opposed to it and why he ran on letting the States Decide. It's always a balancing act for politicians to balance offending the least amount of people. Turning it over to the States let's people think they can have it either way, letting it be decided by the majority within the State. If you live in a Red/Dem state, no risk, because you know your state will keep it. If you live in a Blue/Rep state, you can have your way and over-rule it. Florida is attempting to make it part of their State Constitution that Government cannot fund abortion, but opponets are saying it's meaningless when it's already a Federal Mandate.

The question you have to ask yourself when voting on national politicians, is what is the national Party policy going to tolerate. The Democrats are fundamentally opposed to having this decided on the State Level because they've already committed to that Policy. There is hope that Republicans are more open to letting it be a State issue. Rep's may not be doing so because of commitment to being anti-abortion, but there's a significant number of people that have a strong preference to limiting abortion and it's a political opportunity for them as a political Party.

Shred, not shread. Just sayin.

[MIKolbe]

it's how the skaters spell it, dude...

[kujo]

Gee, I thought you were going to come out of the closet, bro. Color me disappointed.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351518315' post='2499604']
it's how the [s]skaters[/s] surfers spell it, dude...
[/quote]
Oh, okay. My bad dude. I didn't want you to noggle.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Anomaly

[MIKolbe]

[quote]
[color=#222222][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I disagree that there is zero political risk in repealing the HHS Mandate.[/background][/color]
[/quote]

i said close to zero. so there.

[quote]
In the United States, contraceptive use saves about $19 billion in direct medical costs each year.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Trussell2009-1"][size=2][color="#0f72da"][2][/color][/size][/url][/sup]
About half of US [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy"][color="#0f72da"]pregnancies are unintended[/color][/url].[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Trussell2009-1"][size=2][color="#0f72da"][2][/color][/size][/url][/sup] Highly effective contraceptives, such as [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrauterine_devices"][color="#0f72da"]intrauterine devices[/color][/url] (IUDs), are underused in the United States.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size=2][color="#0f72da"][3][/color][/size][/url][/sup] Increasing use of highly effective contraceptives could help meet the goal set forward in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_people"][color="#0f72da"]Healthy People 2020[/color][/url] to decrease unintended pregnancy by 10% before 2020.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size=2][color="#0f72da"][3][/color][/size][/url][/sup] Cost to the user is one factor preventing many US women from using more effective contraceptives.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size=2][color="#0f72da"][3][/color][/size][/url][/sup] Making contraceptives available without a copay increases use of highly effective methods, reduces unintended pregnancies, and may be instrumental in achieving the Healthy People 2020 goal.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_mandate_(United_States)#cite_note-Cleland-2"][size=2][color="#0f72da"][3][/color][/size][/url][/sup]
[/quote]

so about 1/2 of US pregnancies are unintended, yet we have "highly effective methods" of contraception? you love to make me smile, don't you?


[quote]
There are very sound financial reasons whey people would support keeping the HHS mandate. The vast majority of voters do not see contraceptive use in the moral terms the Catholic Church does. They don't see chemical contraception as an abortificant, so it's morally neutral. I don't think the majority of people see it as an icursion into religious freedom.
[/quote]

Your first sentence there has nothing to do with other 3, or am I missing something? While I can agree to the last 3, those sentences seem to make up those who I said are the whatevers... Though, I could see if you were to say they would get upset...but then really.. how many catholic business owners are NOT gonna offer it? I think we both know it will be few and far between.


[quote]The question you have to ask yourself when voting on national politicians, is what is the national Party policy going to tolerate.[/quote]

There is some accuracy to this statement... other than it erroneously presupposes the clever and cute caveat of national parties,(be a good boy and czech the spelling on that hard word four me); one does have to weigh toleration. It is disheartening, as I always thought I was the one with the power...and now I am reduced to what I can tolerate. My vote is no longer a prize to be won, but is given to be stipulated. Perhaps this is the source of my angst. And perhaps my immaturity amplifies it.

But yeah, your're right. In this day and age, to get stuff done, toleration plays a roll.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1351518874' post='2499608']
Oh, okay. My bad dude. I didn't want you to noggle.
[/quote]
dude..

surfers spell it shred.

skaters spell it shread.

I would know.

I was the fat white kid playing with my new tandy 100 ex...

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1351518336' post='2499605']
Gee, I thought you were going to come out of the closet, bro. Color me disappointed.
[/quote]
you dirty old man.

[Anomaly]

[size=4][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif][font=Arial][quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351520103' post='2499620']
i said close to zero. so there.
[/quote]Point for Gryffindor!

[quote]so about 1/2 of US pregnancies are unintended, yet we have "highly effective methods" of contraception? you love to make me smile, don't you?[/quote] I was quoting from a site that defended the National HHS. Not my opinion, but showing the opinion of supporters that wuld have to be dealt with.

[quote]Your first sentence there has nothing to do with other 3, or am I missing something? [/quote]Another point for Gryffindor! Yes, my grammar and punctuation is worse than I thought your spelling was...[/font][/font][/color]


[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif][quote]While I can agree to the last 3, those sentences seem to make up those who I said are the whatevers... Though, I could see if you were to say they would get upset...but then really.. how many catholic business owners are NOT gonna offer it? I think we both know it will be few and far between.[/quote]

[quote]There is some accuracy to this statement... [/quote]Thanks! I burnish my ego with my self induced fantasy that I'm a practical man.[/font][/color]

[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif][quote]other than it erroneously presupposes the clever and cute caveat of national parties,(be a good boy and [s]czech[/s] ([/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]check[/font][/color][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]) the spelling on that hard word [s]four[/s] ([/font][/color][color=red][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]for[/font][/color][color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]) me); one does have to weigh toleration. It is disheartening, as I always thought I was the one with the power...and now I am reduced to what I can tolerate. My vote is no longer a prize to be won, but is given to be stipulated. Perhaps this is the source of my angst. And perhaps my immaturity amplifies it.

But yeah, you’re right. In this day and age, to get stuff done, toleration plays a roll.
[/quote]No, I don't think it's immaturity that's the source of your angst. Nothing illegitimate about it. [/font][/color]

[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]On the National level, you have to tolerate more disagreement because you have to consider the entire voting public and your vote is one of millions. On the State level, you are one in fewer millions, and changing a few minds makes a greater impact because you're working with a sub-set of voters. Then on the local level, again, the fact that it's an even smaller sub-set of voter, you have a greater degree of influence. [/font][/color]

[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]I've tried to make the point that little change is done on the National level. More change is done on the local political levels. However, although political policy does little to cause social change, political policy does matter if it permits social change or ideas to influence politics. ie: Codifying the concept of Personhood. Tax money paying for abortion or permitting 'opting out', etc.[/font][/color]


[color=#222222][font=Arial', 'sans-serif]And it was brought up that fundamental changes in attitude and perspective are done in the family, Church, local social groups, etc. that change the social treatment of unwed mothers and bastard children that make abortion the appealing alternative to becoming a pariah at Church, ridiculed by friends, and an unwanted outsider in families.[/font][/color][/size]

Edited October 29, 2012 by Anomaly

[MIKolbe]

i am too old to read type that font!


(i did that for you)


oh, why thank you.

[MIKolbe]

I see what you are saying.

The logic is undeniable.

I can't help thinking the system was made for me, not me for the system.

I feel if I were to 'adhere' (for lack of a better word) to what you have said, I would not feel comfortable with the inconsistency.

Granted, I am a liar, a cheat, and a scammer.

But taking your logic, voting's power is inversely coorelated to the size of the voting pool. My vote will have more power in a local rather than a national election. Taking all of this, what about a voting pool of 1, and its power as it relates to me? Clearly, you see where I am going with this... Perhaps, to me, my vote changes me? That my vote either affirms or denies beliefs (not just moral ones)?

it's like being presented with a logical argument that makes sense......but somehow...in a way that is difficult to explain, it just doesn't feel right.

but then, i'm a pansy..so take whatchu get.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1351523355' post='2499637']
But taking your logic, voting's power is inversely coorelated to the size of the voting pool. My vote will have more power in a local rather than a national election. Taking all of this, what about a voting pool of 1, and its power as it relates to me? Clearly, you see where I am going with this... Perhaps, to me, my vote changes me? That my vote either affirms or denies beliefs (not just moral ones)?

it's like being presented with a logical argument that makes sense......but somehow...in a way that is difficult to explain, it just doesn't feel right.

but then, i'm a pansy..so take whatchu get.
[/quote]
I don't think it's beng a pansy at all. I am not always right, but at least I'm brave enough to commit to my opinion (at least as rationaly as I can). For example, one of my two daughters is very liberal and would very likely vote for Obama. She knows my opinion, disagrees, but feels jaded about politics. I told her it upsets me more that she won't exercise her opinion, or voice her conscience than the idea that we disagree.

[MIKolbe]

being, not beng...jus' saying

[GregorMendel]

Is everyone forgetting the likelihood of democrats pulling the same blocking measures that republicans have done for the past four years?

[Socrates]

Romney has explicitly promised that if elected President, "on day one I will eliminate the Obama administration rule that compels religious institutions to violate the tenets of their own faith."

I trust him to keep his promise, not because he's a saint, but because to break it would be political suicide for him, as he'd lose much of the "religious right" part of the Republican base.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Socrates