Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? - Page 784 - Politics and Economics

I don't really see why religion ought to get any special treatment over anything else...it is simply for historical/realpolitik reasons that it retains its status. The idea that my beliefs about what is right and wrong is more or less valid legally based on whether these beliefs are part of a religion is utter nonsense.

Frankly i agree, but unfortunately that right to do what I want without hurting people isnt codified in our constitution.

02-17-2012 , 09:53 PM

#19577

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brons

Why is it desperate? Could you try to refute it even though it's desperate?

It's desperate because it relies on an absurd hypothetical with absolutely no relevance. It also relies on the assumption that two people agreeing to be paid an amount less than an arbitrary number as hurting somebody.

Quote:

Who am I hurting? Maybe the person I might potentially hit? That makes the bar pretty low, how about the women that are hurt because they're not receiving birth control?

Putting someone's life at risk isnt ok lol.

Quote:

By the way, I can think of these examples all day.

No one is going to stop you from embarrassing yourself.

02-17-2012 , 09:56 PM

#19578

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

You can start your own repeal the first amendment drive.

02-17-2012 , 10:00 PM

#19579

peetar69

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,553

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brons

So, the first amendement says that religious people/organizations are exempt from all laws except if they're hurting someone? So, they could pay less than minimum wage to their janitors?

Why not address the issue at hand? Because you can't. No need for a hypothetical.

The threshold as far as I can tell is "compelling interest". Obama needing to get re-elected will not hold water towards compelling interest. Nor will the new obama word "access". Every woman in the country has had reasonable and affordable "access" to birth control.

02-17-2012 , 10:06 PM

#19580

Brons

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 6,565

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Ok, so in your opinion the first amendment allows religious organizations to ignore the minimum wage laws? I know it's desperate and absurd and all but still.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peetar69

Why not address the issue at hand? Because you can't. No need for a hypothetical.

It's absurd that organizations run by churches get exemptions. Personally I think birth control shouldn't be mandated but allowing religious employers to play by different rules is pretty absurd.

Like, if you're going to allow religious employers to play by different rules you open a whole ****load of problems like minimum wage, overtime, etc.

Last edited by Brons; 02-17-2012 at 10:13 PM.

02-17-2012 , 10:20 PM

#19581

peetar69

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,553

Quote:

Originally Posted by willie24

i realize i'm probably different from ike and others on my side in this argument, but i don't get how religion has anything to do with it. i'm totally stuck on why anyone would ever think we should have these bizarre laws about what types of healthcare compensation people can/can't agree to.

if you want your company to provide you with birth control, don't work for a catholic school? if you want a free christmas ham every year don't work for a jewish one?

Your missing the point. You are giving people the freedom to make decisions for themselves. How on earth could government control anything? Really, in the "how smart are you" thread, it was conceeded by some very bright people that Obama is, like, smarter than everybody. He knows better than you, or the people you deal with.

So why allow people to make bad decisions? He knows better, he is smarter than you, he knows how to run your life better than you do.You should thank him for taking care of all the decisions. He knows best.

02-17-2012 , 10:21 PM

#19582

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

How I Rank Based on Policy

Paul > Romney > Gingrich > Santorum

How I Rank Based on Chance to Win Nomination

Santorum = Romney > Paul > Gingrich

Thoughts?

02-17-2012 , 10:22 PM

#19583

Riverman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 73,135

Frothy still has very little chance.

02-17-2012 , 10:26 PM

#19584

DVaut1

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 30,005

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

How I Rank Based on Chance to Win Nomination

Santorum = Romney > Paul > Gingrich

Thoughts?

Intrade has Romney ~70%, Santorum ~15%. That's probably about right. I would not take Santorum at even money.

02-17-2012 , 10:26 PM

#19585

Jonaspublius

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,182

Quote:

Originally Posted by peetar69

You make Descartes' point so very swimmingly.

02-17-2012 , 10:42 PM

#19586

FlyWf

It's the other way

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 58,097

Quote:

Originally Posted by willie24

That's an entirely different argument, though. One whose time has come and gone.

02-17-2012 , 10:42 PM

#19587

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,426

Quote:

Originally Posted by peetar69

Every woman in the country has had reasonable and affordable "access" to birth control.

o rly

02-17-2012 , 10:46 PM

#19588

ZBTHorton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 19,874

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

How I Rank Based on Policy

Paul > Romney > Gingrich > Santorum

How I Rank Based on Chance to Win Nomination

Santorum = Romney > Paul > Gingrich

Thoughts?

Not trying to be snarky or whatever. But can you please outline a scenario where RP wins the nomination?

02-17-2012 , 11:11 PM

#19589

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZBTHorton

Not trying to be snarky or whatever. But can you please outline a scenario where RP wins the nomination?

Well, obviously it's the scenario where RP sweeps all the caucus delegates in the caucus states at the state conventions because RP fans infiltrate and get elected by the political elite to go to the convention, netting Paul something like 200 delegates, just enough to deny Santoromney a majority. Then, at the brokered convention, all the GOP political insiders there rally around Ron Paul.

02-17-2012 , 11:17 PM

#19590

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Quote:

Originally Posted by DVaut1

Intrade has Romney ~70%, Santorum ~15%. That's probably about right. I would not take Santorum at even money.

Can I have Santorum at 17%?

02-17-2012 , 11:19 PM

#19591

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZBTHorton

Not trying to be snarky or whatever. But can you please outline a scenario where RP wins the nomination?

Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all attack each other with ads while Paul slowly climbs up the ratings, and then the economy takes a nose dive or something, and people rally behind him.

I don't think it is very high, but I just think Gingrich has a non zero but negligible shot.

02-17-2012 , 11:23 PM

#19592

willie24

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 9,573

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyWf

That's an entirely different argument, though. One whose time has come and gone.

when did it come, and why is it not allowed to come again?

if we are going to have socialized health care, why force it through employers? i don't get that at all. i mean if the catholic school won't hire me because i have poker on my resume, does it still owe me birth control?

02-17-2012 , 11:26 PM

#19593

ZBTHorton

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 19,874

Quote:

Originally Posted by krmont22

I feel like any chance anyone has other than Mittens/Frothy is going to win it's going to happen at the convention. RP has no realistic chance of winning at the convention(short of this stupid delegate quasi shady stuff).

I guess the question to me becomes. If we go to convention, and chaos erupts. Who is more likely to come out the choice? Gingrich? Or some random guy who hasn't been involved so far?

02-17-2012 , 11:29 PM

#19594

krmont22

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,078

I'd take the outside field vs Newt.

02-17-2012 , 11:44 PM

#19595

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joss

First CUM, now a Santorum video with gross splotches all over the place. The odds of Santorum being one mega-level are increasing, IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

FYP like two days late

02-17-2012 , 11:52 PM

#19596

LirvA

banned

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 43,574

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeylump

I'm sure its been talked about but I wonder what the country thinks about rape babies being a gift? Frothy is out of touch.

what a ****ing ******

02-18-2012 , 12:39 AM

#19597

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brons

Ok, so in your opinion the first amendment allows religious organizations to ignore the minimum wage laws? I know it's desperate and absurd and all but still.It's absurd that organizations run by churches get exemptions. Personally I think birth control shouldn't be mandated but allowing religious employers to play by different rules is pretty absurd.

Yeah, we get it. You think it's dumb. Because you think it's dumb, you're willing to trample over a document that describes a person's fundamental rights.

Quote:

Like, if you're going to allow religious employers to play by different rules you open a whole ****load of problems like minimum wage, overtime, etc.

1) This only applies if there's some religion that limits pay. Since that doesn't exist, GMAFB
2) Thank god for the minimum wage and government. Without it, people would work for nothing.

02-18-2012 , 12:49 AM

#19598

Fedorfan

veteran

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,928

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

Newt is back from the dead with $10M, again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57380147-503544/gingrich-to-get-another-$10-million-from-casino-backer-sources/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Hello Romney sucks ads.

I'm pulling for Gingrich now, what better lulz US democracy statement can you get than a billionaire throwing around 10's of millions openly to win the gop primary for his chosen candidate. US democracy: the system where we pretend your vote is equal to Sheldon Adelson's of the world.

I think a system where regular people only got 1/8th of a vote and wealthy people like Adelson got a full vote but couldn't use their wealth to greatly influence elections, would be more fair/democratic.

Last edited by Fedorfan; 02-18-2012 at 12:55 AM.

02-18-2012 , 12:59 AM

#19599

suzzer99

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World

Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 99,991

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

It's the politics version of the meth-heads' plot to rob the hospital in The Salton Sea. Can't possibly fail.

02-18-2012 , 01:06 AM

#19600

peetar69

old hand

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 1,553

I have been a huge Newt fan from the start, He might be a great president, with the off chance he would suck.

Romney would be ... basically, Evan Bayh.

The left (and establishment GOP) decided that Newt aint gonna be president. So I now support Santorum.

Page 784 of 865

First

284 584 684 734 764 774 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 794 804 834

Last

...

Page 784 of 865

First

284 584 684 734 764 774 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 794 804 834

Last