US Ambassador killed in Libya

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

"See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. "

No, the bill isn't hate...it's religious intolerance. The reaction to the Catholic Church's stance on the bill was what was hateful.

RIROCKHOUND, can you honestly say that, after the Catholic Church resisted paying for contraception, that liberals weren't bashing Catholicism? All this nonsense about a war on women? That's not hate-mongering and fear-mongering?

ROCKHOUND, liberals constantly refer to the 'war on women'. either (1) you believe that there is literally a war on women, or (2) liberals are misleading the public to cast Catholics in a negative light.

Which is it? You tell me, which is it?

As to the bill, you are wrong. The Catholic Church believes contraception is immoral. "Separation of church and state" has been interpreted to mean that the federal government not appear to either endorse nor reject the beliefs of any religion. Telling the Catholic Church thatthey must provide what they teach is immoral, can easily be construed as a rejection of Catholic cathechism. We;ll see how it plays out in court.

as to your over-simplified suggestion that increased availability of contraception will reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies? That sounds very logical...but the facts don't support it. During the sexual revolution of the 1960's, those in favor of contraception availability used that same argument...that if birth control was available everywhere, we'd have fewer abortions and unwanted pregnancies. And what happened, was the exact opposite. we now have more abortions and unwanted pregnanices. Many sociologists say it's because liberals have created a public perception that sex is a casual thing. I don't know what caused it. All I know is that after contraception became widely available, we see more abortions, more infidelity, more STD's, more kids born out of wedlock. Not less, but more. Way more. Way, way more.

Try making that wrong.

That's liberalism, ROCKHOUND. Something that sounds like common sense, and makes a great bumper sticker, but blows up in your face when you implement it. What I will never understand (maybe you can explain it), is why folks continue to say things like "widespread availability of contraception results in fewer abortions", when we have 30 years of data tells us it just ain't so.

[JohnR]

FYI - getting close to locking this thread down

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

This business of the federal government demanding that a third party pay for contraceptives befuddles me. If buying something as cheap as contraceptives should be povided for all women, not just very poor ones who government could provide with all the other stuff they get, then what else should not be provided by third parties? If contraceptives should be provided by insurance then cars and houses and clothing and college education . . . and . . . and . . . etc., which are much more expensive, should be provided by some form of insurance other than the insurance you provide for yourself by earning the money to buy them.

And tying contraception to health care is also befuddling. Every thing you do or buy can be tied to health care as much or more. The primary purpose of contraCEPTIVES is to prevent pregnancy. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease? Some forms of contraception, condoms, can also prevent venereal diseases, but their main function was to prevent pregnancey, and they are cheap.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The primary purpose of contraCEPTIVES is to prevent pregnancy. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease? Some forms of contraception, condoms, can also prevent venereal diseases, but their main function was to prevent pregnancey, and they are cheap.

Contraceptives cover a range of products many of which have valid medicinal uses outside of prevention of pregnancy. This was one of the core arguments for their coverage.

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by JohnR

FYI - getting close to locking this thread down

Great...how long can they beat a dead horse...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you denied something that irrefitably happened (Michelle Obama's statement). Denying that something happened, when it clearly did happen, is not 'critical thought'. I don;t know what it is exactly (ask a psychiatrist about that), but it's not 'critical thought'. I don't think they taught you in grade school to deny facts which don't serve your agenda.

The fact that she said some words is meaningless without an understanding of context. I bias my context by what she said around those words, you bias it through your preconceived idea of what you think she represents...

Seriously? That's your response? How could you possibly know that? How could you know what was in his mind?

One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically.

Obama's statement came out the day the ambassador was killed, and at the time they were saying that the ambassador was killed because of the video. So it stands to reason that if Obama is connecting violence to religion-bashing, that's what he was talking about. Nice try.

I said it was indirect. Bush did the exact same thing you know, to make a general statements around tolerance and violence when that Danish cartoon ruckus lit up.

I'm not consumed with hate. I just don't like it when people deny irrefutable facts to protect Obama. You do it all the time. I'm trying to keep it honest. because I repeatedly call out your 'critical thought', you dismiss it as hate.

You're not really basing an argument on facts from what I can see.

It's not a fact that Michelle Obama didn't feel proud of her country until 2008, it's not a fact that Obama responded to the movie by sympathizing with rioters and it's not a fact that Obama hates the Catholic church.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Great...how long can they beat a dead horse...

I'm just trying to provide clarity to a confusing situation. People should be grateful I'm not charging my usual fee

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

. So, is pregnancy to be considered a disease?

yes, a disease, and also according to our president it can be a punishment, it can also be unwanted which may be slightly different than unplanned but won't likely end well for either the unwanted or unplanned and which sort of flies in the face of the whole "it's for the children", "I'm my brother's keeper" and "caring for the least among us" routine I guess you only count if you are lucky enough to be planned and wanted and can collect some kind of government benefit

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm just trying to provide clarity to a confusing situation. People should be grateful I'm not charging my usual fee

-spence

you constantly move the goal posts(little Pats reference) and flip reality on it's head...that's not clarity..it's sophistry

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you constantly move the goal posts(little Pats reference) and flip reality on it's head...that's not clarity..it's sophistry

I'll take that as a compliment, but please be more specific.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'll take that as a compliment, but please be more specific.

-spence

A sophism is taken as a specious argument used for deception. It might be crafted to appear logical while actually representing a falsehood, or it might use obscure words and complicated sentence constructions in order to intimidate the opponent into agreement out of fear of feeling foolish. Other techniques include manipulating the opponent's prejudices and emotions to overcome their logical faculties.

I think we refer to it as "Spencism" around here

you should take it as a compliment...you are world class in this arena.....

[spence]

I'm certainly aware of what a sophism is, what I was asking for were examples in this thread where you believe it is evident.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The fact that she said some words is meaningless without an understanding of context. I bias my context by what she said around those words, you bias it through your preconceived idea of what you think she represents...


One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically.


I said it was indirect. Bush did the exact same thing you know, to make a general statements around tolerance and violence when that Danish cartoon ruckus lit up.



You're not really basing an argument on facts from what I can see.

It's not a fact that Michelle Obama didn't feel proud of her country until 2008, it's not a fact that Obama responded to the movie by sympathizing with rioters and it's not a fact that Obama hates the Catholic church.

-spence

"The fact that she said some words is meaningless without an understanding of context"

Before you started talking about 'context', you denied she said it.



"One would think he would have mentioned the film specifically"

One would think he would do a lot of things differently. The man made a career by voting 'present' in IL, now you're curious as to why he wasn't being specific...

"Bush did the exact same thing you know..."

Spence, you have now played every desperate card that exists. You denied that there was a statement about Islam and the violence. We showed you there was. You denied the state department said anything about 'hurt feelings', we showed you that you were wrong again. With your back against the wall, and no honest way to escape, you dredge up Bush.

Spence, I promise that it won't kill you to admit that you were wrong on the facts here. Almost everyhting you have said has been demonstrably false.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

It's posts like this that really illustrate how bad a read people have on Obama.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor:

Sorry Spence, but I believe the investagative reporter who obtained his
information from the White House last week showing Obama has only attended %50
of the daily intelligence meetings and his last attended meeting was on 9/5 before 9/11.

How can you say he is putting the safety of the American people first when he READS the briefs %50 of the time?
Rediculous, he should be at every meeting and have probing questions in that meeting everyday.
Symantics or whatever, we are at war.

The time close to the 9/11 anniversary and right up to it has to be a time for extra vigliance yet he was not in attendance asking questions and staying on top of the situations.
Say what you want about Bush,and there is plenty to say, but his first order of business for the day was to attend the intelligence briefing. Kept our citizens safe in the duration of his term. Can't say that about Obama now.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you have now played every desperate card that exists. You denied that there was a statement about Islam and the violence. We showed you there was. You denied the state department said anything about 'hurt feelings', we showed you that you were wrong again. With your back against the wall, and no honest way to escape, you dredge up Bush.

Spence, I promise that it won't kill you to admit that you were wrong on the facts here. Almost everyhting you have said has been demonstrably false.

Interesting...

You're missing pretty much everything I've posted. This post gives really good insight into how you process information.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm certainly aware of what a sophism is, what I was asking for were examples in this thread where you believe it is evident.

-spence

pick a post...it's what you practice, picking a specific post would be enabling, another opportunity for you to argue what the meaning of "is" is, move the goal post, argue, insult, ignore reality...you are "smart"...anyone that disagrees with you is dumb...see your last post....it's an odd game...Obama is brilliant and if you don't get that you just aren't smart enough to understand how really brilliant he really is...YIKES

"It's posts like this that really illustrate how bad a read people have on Obama."-SPENCE

we have a pretty good read on Obama Spence...he's an historic disaster and it's getting worse and he's none of what you continue to pretend he either is or isn't

[Jim in CT]

For those who don't know, Kirsten Powers is a regular on Foxnews, MSNBC, and CNN. She is a commited liberal, but unlike most liberal newsies, she's thoughtful, articlualte, respectful, never throws any bombs. She loves Obama. Here's an interesting piece she wrote...

President Obama, stop blaming the victim for Mideast violence | Fox News

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Sorry Spence, but I believe the investagative reporter who obtained his
information from the White House last week showing Obama has only attended %50
of the daily intelligence meetings and his last attended meeting was on 9/5 before 9/11.

How can you say he is putting the safety of the American people first when he READS the briefs %50 of the time?

No, the report doesn't say he reads the briefs 50% of the time, it says he only has them READ TO HIM 50% of the time.

You should read the Woodward book "Obama's Wars". It reveals that Obama is extremely engaged in the intelligence and security process, so much so that top military brass found the contrast with Bush to be noteworthy.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

"It's posts like this that really illustrate how bad a read people have on Obama."-SPENCE

That wasn't sophistry.

The investigative report is clearly misleading, even Justplugit is coming to false conclusions.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

No, the report doesn't say he reads the briefs 50% of the time, it says he only has them READ TO HIM 50% of the time.

You should read the Woodward book "Obama's Wars". It reveals that Obama is extremely engaged in the intelligence and security process, so much so that top military brass found the contrast with Bush to be noteworthy.

-spence

maybe he should have joined the military.... because in Woodward's new book, "The Price of Politics" he kicks the crap out of your war hero for his lack of presidential leadership....maybe he just likes blowing things up

"Over the course of almost 450 pages, Woodward depicts Obama as an arrogant, aloof and hyperpartisan president who manages to either alienate or disappoint everybody he needs to help govern Washington."

sounds about right

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

That wasn't sophistry.

The investigative report is clearly misleading, even Justplugit is coming to false conclusions.

-spence

atta boy....you are right, and have all the facts....everyone else is wrong or misleading or misled....makes the world a great place don't it?

[justplugit]

Spence, point being as Commander in Chief, responslble for the safety
of America's Citizens, he is missing personal interaction with his Daily Intelligence
Meetings %50 of the the time, no matter how hard you try to explain it away.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, point being as Commander in Chief, responslble for the safety
of America's Citizens, he is missing personal interaction with his Daily Intelligence
Meetings %50 of the the time, no matter how hard you try to explain it away.

Do we know what % of these briefings either Bush or Clinton went to?
Or is this just more rhetoric and hyperbole?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Spence, point being as Commander in Chief, responslble for the safety
of America's Citizens, he is missing personal interaction with his Daily Intelligence
Meetings %50 of the the time, no matter how hard you try to explain it away.

I can explain it...par for the course...pardon the pun

Obama Holds First Cabinet Meeting Since January
9:02 AM, Jul 26, 2012

According to President Barack Obama's official schedule, "Later in the afternoon, the President will hold a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room. There will be a pool spray at the top of the meeting."

By CBS reporter Mark Knoller's account, this cabinet meeting is the first one President Obama has held since January 31:
......................

President Obama's jobs panel missing in action
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 7/18/12 4:37 AM EDT

President Barack Obama’s Jobs Council hasn’t met publicly for six months, even as the issue of job creation dominates the 2012 election.

President Obama's jobs panel missing in action - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com


probably just really, really "extremely engaged in the intelligence and security process"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Do we know what % of these briefings either Bush or Clinton went to?
Or is this just more rhetoric and hyperbole?

Marc Thiessen: Why is Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence meetings? - The Washington Post

While the Bush records are not yet available electronically for analysis, officials tell me the former president held his intelligence meeting six days a week, no exceptions — usually with the vice president, the White House chief of staff, the national security adviser, the director of National Intelligence, or their deputies, and CIA briefers in attendance. Once a week, he held an expanded Homeland Security briefing that included the Homeland Security adviser, the FBI director and other homeland security officials. Bush also did more than 100 hour-long “deep dives” in which he invited intelligence analysts into the Oval Office to get their unvarnished and sometimes differing views. Such meetings deepened the president’s understanding of the issues and helped analysts better understand the problems with which he was wrestling.


at some point Spence and the other Obama defenders have to wake up from this fantasy that he's the smartest ever and anything that pokes holes in that big pink bubble is unfair, untrue, misleading or...something far worse(when all else fails)...

the results are a pretty good indicator...middle east is in chaos, don't know if you are paying attention to China and Japan but the groundwork is being laid for a major confrontation in the Asian Pacific, the Fed has undertaken QE3, dependence on government is at record levels and going up, you have to do a houdini every jobs report to try to claim any improvement, gas is at 4 bucks, funny that O came into office bashing Wall Street and basically the one thing that he can try to claim is doing much better under his watch is...WALL STREET

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

See you see hatred in things like the health services bill. I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs by taking advantage of contraceptives (which largely should reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the potential number of abortions, no?), but lets those who may work in a Catholic hospital/school who may not have the same fervent belief's in the churches stance on contraceptives.

Bryan....this is rhetoric and hyperbole

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

Bryan....this is rhetoric and hyperbole

Actually, that quote, I would say is my interpretation, vs. the way Jim interprets it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Actually, that quote, I would say is my interpretation, vs. the way Jim interprets it.

Here's what you said...

"I see a policy that doesn't require members to violate their personal beliefs..."

OK, maybe it doesn't violate the beliefs of the individuals. But how can you say it doesn't violate the belief of the employer, for example the Catholic Church? Obama is telling the Cathlic Church that it must pay for, and provide, that which it teaches is immoral. Nothing could be a more obvious violation of Catholic Catechism than telling the Church it must provide contraception on demand, for the explicit purposes of recreational sex (the Church does provide contraception for legitimate medical need, but not for recreational sex)

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=scottw;959179

the results are a pretty good indicator...middle east is in chaos, don't know if you are paying attention to China and Japan but the groundwork is being laid for a major confrontation in the Asian Pacific, the Fed has undertaken QE3, dependence on government is at record levels and going up, you have to do a houdini every jobs report to try to claim any improvement, gas is at 4 bucks, funny that O came into office bashing Wall Street and basically the one thing that he can try to claim is doing much better under his watch is...WALL STREET[/QUOTE]

That says it all. How this guy is polling north of 45%, with that track record, is beyond me. It's just incomprehensible.

[RIJIMMY]

For all, please google Fiscal Cliff
This stuff is real. This is non-partisan. This is very, very scary.