Lets see if the liberals actually debate the issues, or if they prefer, once again, to call me names and insult my intelligence.
(If you want to skip ahead, I put the insults at the bootom.)
Today's article......was written by none other than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV:
"Republicans Renew War on Women"
Let me summarize it for you:
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is good, it provides things to women for "free." Republicans are opposed to ACA, therefore republicans have declared a "war on women."
Lets look at my comments and the reactions to them:notanaxkiller-
“Democrats continue to decieve(sic) women.”
"Republicans continue to make statements with no basis in reality."
" Are you saying that the article here is not just an attempt by a democrat to get women to support democrats by claiming that republicans have declared a "war on women?
It seems to me, that this article is an attempt to deceive women into opposing republicans because of a phony war."
"You have no idea what the Democrats are talking about, do you?
Oh, for one example, what is the Republican position on Planned Parenthood?
Why did all of the Republicans vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?
You still have no idea, I'm sure.
From the article: "They've blocked efforts to give women who want it, access to contraception, and they've shown little interest in protecting the health of victims of sexual assault."
I saw a cartoon that showed a Republican saying, "What war on women? We just have a war against the slu.ts who use contraception."
"The senator is in favor of ACA and calling republicans names.
"Oh, for one example, what is the Republican position on Planned Parenthood?"
The republican position is that it is immoral to force someone who is morally opposed to abortion to pay for it. If planned parenthood is to exist it should not be paid for by the government, but by individuals who wish to donate to it or similar. No public funds.
"Why did all of the Republicans vote against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?"
Government interference in the private sector causes more problems than it helps. If you do not like how much you are paid at one place, then ask for a raise or work someplace else.
Do you think that I have an "idea" now?
Insulting me is hardly a good way to win an argument. I thought that those of you on the left were "good guys." Do the "good guys" always call their opponents names in lieu of arguments?
I have seen cartoons making fun of democrats too. So what?
'Keep your laws off my body.'"
"Regarding Planned Parenthood: "The republican position is that it is immoral to force someone who is morally opposed to abortion to pay for it."
Federal law currently prohibits any taxpayer money from funding abortions (Hyde Amendment). No public funds for abortion. Planned Parenthood services funded by taxpayers provide treatment and screening to women and men who otherwise couldn't afford them. You didn't have any idea about that did you? Or you wouldn't have made the claim.
Fairness in pay for the same work at the same job isn't "government interference". It's a matter of equality - and you're male, so you see no problem. Equal protection is part of the 14th amendment, and the basis for the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
So, you're still clueless.
I'm insulting you because you have adopted a misogynistic view of society that is part of the problem. It's part of the reason that a male dominated government can seek to deprive women of services specific to women, or permit discriminatory pay that is systematically inferior for the same work at the same job."
"Do you disagree with this:
1. the federal government gives money to Planned Parenthood
2. Planned Parenthood performs abortions
A government law that restricts the actions of private citizens is of course government interference. You can argue that this law is good, but you cannot argue that it does not interfere with the freedom and liberty of private citizens.
Since you posted a link to the 14th amendment, I assume that you are in favor of every citizen being treated equally by the government.
Is this true?
If this is the case, then I will also assume that you are in favor of everyone being taxed equally. A progressive tax, like the one we have now, treats people differently. A flat tax, for example, treats everyone the same.
So far, you've said: "You have no idea what the Democrats are talking about, do you?" and "You still have no idea, I'm sure." You've also called me "clueless" and "misogynistic."
Have you noticed that, despite the fact that I think you are wrong, I have only questioned your arguments. I have not called you names or insulted your intelligence?
My position, so that we can be perfectly clear: I do not believe that the government should interfere with any action of private citizens unless the citizen in question is himself interfering with the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another citizen."
" The ACA is intended to allow everyone access to healthcare without either 1) imposing their costs on others or 2) going bankrupt. If you don't have healthcare insurance because you can't afford it, one visit for an illness requiring hospitalization will really put you under financially. We're talking $10,000.00 a crack - minimum.
You aren't saying you want anyone to pay for anything - while you're healthy, but when you are confronted with bills that only Mitt Romney could afford, someone will have to pay, won't they? Can't happen to you? Be real.
I'm going to pay for you. That's right, me. My costs will go up because you don't have the cash, and so hospitals, doctors and emergency rooms charge extra to make up for people like you without insurance.
I'm making this personal because it's personal. It affects all of us. I have insurance, and you don't.
Incidentally, I see "healthy" men all the time. They develop problems just like everyone else. Like this guy:
Remember what ACA stands for: Affordable Care Act. It's not just for the rich. It's for everyone, including you.
'Keep your body off of my laws.'"
" Just because a law intends to do something doesn't mean that that is what it does. For example: did the stimulus stimulate the economy?
The healthcare insurance I would like is one with a high deductible that I only use when I have emergencies. Like how I pay for my car's gas out of pocket but use insurance if I get into an accident.
Because of current healthcare laws, I am required, if I buy healthcare insurance, to get insurance that covers all sorts of things whether I need them or not.
Every time someone gets some rare and horrible disease there is a push to make testing for that disease covered by all health insurance. No matter that testing for a disease almost no one gets takes the time of doctors and nurses who would be better attending to illnesses people actually have.
If government were not interfering, then the people who want to get tested for every disease imaginable can, and will need to pay more for it, and the people who only want to have insurance that covers an emergency could get that if they want, and pay lower premiums.
I am opposed to you, or anybody else, paying for my needs. (Though I thank you for the thought.)
I would like to point out that me, and my body, were not involved in this discussion until ACA forced it upon us. Please do not interfere with my life, and I will give you the same courtesy."
Lets summarize the insults and name calling:
"You have no idea what the Democrats are talking about, do you?"
"You still have no idea, I'm sure."
"You didn't have any idea about that did you?"
"So, you're still clueless."
"I'm insulting you because you have adopted a misogynistic view of society that is part of the problem."
Fewer name calling than usual, only: "clueless" and "misogynistic," but some good insults too.
If you found a place where I have been rude or incorrect in my arguments please let me know so that I can improve in the future.
If you could let me know if you like this format or if you prefer my earlier posts on the subject, found here and here, I would appreciate it.