DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on July 02, 2014, 01:33:43 PM
-
does anyone here think this issue of hobby lobby has gotten way out of hand?
-
The idea that an artificial entity can have a religion is ridiculous. They might as well argue that a refrigerator can be a Seventh Day Adventist and have a right to take Saturdays off.
I had to get rid of my Osterizer: it became a Baptist and when it tried to baptize the toaster in the sink as I was washing dishes, it was clear I had to get rid of it. Now it is suing me.
-
Is the Democratic Party people?
This is overblown of a reason, it is a manufactured issue that the Democrats hope to use politically.
This is so liable to blow up in their faces, Republicans are gleeful, did you see Hillary Clinton speaking of the hypothetical Hobby Lobby clerk who could no longer afford contraception? This is an insult to the intelligence , Hobby Lobby had a good insurance package previous to Obamacare and contraception was and is covered without interruption.
Who has found a real person who is a Hobby Lobby employee and has standing to complain?
I have not seen that, the Democrats are very hot to protect theoretical people from nonserious nonthreats.
At some point Democrats are going to tire of having their intelligence insulted.
-
Both parties spend most of their time running stupid ads and campaigns.
-
Both parties spend most of their time running stupid ads and campaigns.
Bingo.
-
All parties insult the intelligence of the voters.
In the RMN/JFK election, someone asked if there was one single piece of "Free world" territory that was not worth fighting a major war over.
Some honest State Dept or Defense Dept person said that the tiny Taiwanese islands of Quemoy and Matsu were indefensible as well as largely useless.
If you look at a map, you can see that this is true: both are ver close to the coast of Mainland China, and would be useless as a place from where to stage an invasion, due to all the PRC guns trained on them.
They debated this over and over, and maps of the islands never appeared in any source I read.
After the election, nothing different happened: the ROC and PRC engaged in useless salvos as before and there was no invasion attempt by anyone. The debate was among the most useless ever to involve a presidential election.
The big deal was the "missile gap", which was fictitious. The Democrats claimed that the USSR had more missiles than the US. This was entirely untrue. The GOP refiused to reveal the truth, though surely the Russians knew the truth and the US knew the Russians knew the truth. The idea was to terrify the voters about the Russians, when the real problems were largely domestic: civil rights being the major issue.
-
All parties insult the intelligence of the voters.
Yes , I wish I knew how to get them to pay some attention to the greatest common denominator .In the RMN/JFK election, someone asked if there was one single piece of "Free world" territory that was not worth fighting a major war over.
Some honest State Dept or Defense Dept person said that the tiny Taiwanese islands of Quemoy and Matsu were indefensible as well as largely useless.
If you look at a map, you can see that this is true: both are ver close to the coast of Mainland China, and would be useless as a place from where to stage an invasion, due to all the PRC guns trained on them.
They debated this over and over, and maps of the islands never appeared in any source I read.
After the election, nothing different happened: the ROC and PRC engaged in useless salvos as before and there was no invasion attempt by anyone. The debate was among the most useless ever to involve a presidential election.
The big deal was the "missile gap", which was fictitious. The Democrats claimed that the USSR had more missiles than the US. This was entirely untrue. The GOP refiused to reveal the truth, though surely the Russians knew the truth and the US knew the Russians knew the truth. The idea was to terrify the voters about the Russians, when the real problems were largely domestic: civil rights being the major issue.
Yes , but don't hold the Russians blameless , they played their cards close to the vest and tried to project an image of strength above the reality. It took them a long time to realize that they were playing our game , doing that.
-
I did not say the Russians were blameless. They knew that the goal of the US was to destroy the Communist Party's role in leading the USSR.
The fact is that Nixon and Eisenhower knew there was no missile gap. The Russians knew they knew, and we knew that they knew we kenew and so on. Onlyn the American voters (and of course, the Soviet citizens) were kept in the dark.
Everyone knew that Quemoy and Matsu were indefensible from a concentrated PRC invasion, but they also knew that conquering these tiny islands would have served no purpose to the PRC if they put forth the great effort required.
When I was a kid, they told us that any day the Russians (never the Soviets, always the Russians) would attack the US and surely try to blow up Kansas City, because otherwise we might try to invade Russian with Chevrolets, Fords, Mercuries and Buicks. We could save ourselves from thermonuclear war by assuming a fetal position under our desks.
To be fair to Liberty Public Schools, they only had is do this silly drill three times. Kids elsewhere did it on a regular basis several; times per year.
Everyone knew that hiding under a desk is not going to save anyone. So what was the point of scaring us?
-
Looking fierce and strong was part of the Soviet strategy, within their own borders and their sphere of influence they proclaimed the inevitability of the world becoming Communist.
There was a lot of Soviet effort and expense to build some seriously impressive rockets, and certainly no attempt to correct anyone's overestimation.
I think Kennedy was honest when he began to build a massive fleet of ICBMs , he really did not know that half as many would have matched the threat.
Did the Soviet leadership know that striking fear in the American populace would be very useful to the American leadership class? They probably didn't know , I don't think that they ever understood us very well. But if they had understood us better , they might have done the same anyway, their internal focus was another reason to proclaim strength. After the way the people suffered through WWII it was very popular with the people to seem strong.
-
Ha Ha....a Liberal's nightmare!
A Pro-Life woman, with a Chick-Filet cup, shopping at Hobby Lobby!
(http://s2.postimg.org/u0izkyuhl/Chick_Filet_Hot.jpg)
-
It only shows that dolts like to group together and that other morons think that this is in any way making any point.
No heads will explode.
This is a facepalm moment.
-
I think Kennedy was honest when he began to build a massive fleet of ICBMs , he really did not know that half as many would have matched the threat.
=================================================================
The CIA had accurate data on what the Soviets had. JFK may not have known this before he was elected, but after he was in office he either knew and ignored it, or was lied to, because there was no need to piddle away so much money on weapons that served no purpose.
If he was honest, he was also either stupid (because he ignored the facts) or weak (because he did not get the true information from intelligence.)
JFK was vastly overrated. He was better than Nixon, but just barely.
-
The CIA had accurate data on what the Soviets had.
I don't think so, the Soviets were proclaiming a lot of strength, why do you think the CIA knew better?
-
Because what the CIA knew at the time is no longer a secret. The Russians have divulged nearly everything they knew as well.
It is not clear what everyone knew and how much each side knew about the other. Only the citizens did not know.
And since people do not read, they still don't.
-
That sounds interesting, could you point to a link or something ?
-
Just google "Missile gap" and you will find a lot of stuff.
I recall only that I read about this in one or more magazines: the NewYorker, Harpers, Utne Reader, Atlantic Monthly.
There was no missile gap: the US had vastly more missiles. JFK was unable to prevent the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. The profits from building secret crap were huge.
-
N. Kruchev bragged that there were factories turning out missiles "like sausages", what could a president have done?
The public would have demanded exactly what Kennedy gave them if he had not gotten in front of it.
Of course what missiles there were, were being placed as far forward as possible in Turkey and in Cuba.
There was a real possibility of war , or at least serious coercion , it was really being prepared .
Do you think that the Soviets would have built no missiles if the US had built none?
-
That is not the issue.
Khruschev saying stuff did not make it true, and JFK as president had the intelligence data to know how many missiles the Soviets had. The Soviets had been invaded by the Nazis and millions of them were killed. The US had previously invaded the USSR after the Revolution. No one invaded the US in WII unless you count a couple of useless Aleutian islands. The Soviets had certainly never invaded the USA..
Khruschev had replaced Stalin, he was a Ukranian in a mostly Russian federation, and he was trying to prove that he was up to the job. Many Ukrainians collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and the Russians did not entirely trust his leadership.
The issue is that the US had vastly more missiles than the Russians, and at least one base in Turkey, not 90 miles from the border, but right on the border of the USSR before the Soviets set up bases in Cuba. None of this was mentioned in the press in the US. JFK and following presidents p!ssed away fortunes on missiles that were never used. The Soviets did the same. It was a huge waste of resources. The Cold War was stupid, just like telling me and my classmates that the USSR was likely to bomb Kansas City next Thursday and we could save ourselves by hunching under our desks.
-
Khruschev saying stuff did not make it true, and JFK as president had the intelligence data to know how many missiles the Soviets had.
Most of what you posted sounds right or at least close, but this bit, I don't see.
-
The US had been sending U-2 spyplanes over the USSR for at least a decade before the Soviets managed to shoot down Gary Powers. The Soviets knew that they had been watched, they knew that their airspace had been violated, but they could do nothing to stop it until they finally shot down a U-2. JFK, as president, should have had access to all the information that was acquired.
The purpose of the Sputnik program was to put an eye in the sky to spy on the US eventually, since orbiting satellites did not come under international treaties. The first Sputnik did nothing useful, but it did indicate to the Americans that the Russians had a technology that the US had yet to develop.
-
I know a little of U2.
Although the U2 could take terrific and detailed pictures , it was recording only what it could point its camera .
Each flight over Asia would have caught, at most, a narrow stripe of this vast territory.
I do not know how many U2 aircraft existed , nor do I know how often they flew.
However I do surmise that the number of flights needed to prove that there was not a particular thing somewhere in Russia, Siberia, Mongolia, China and Tibet would be a vast and unlikely number of flights.
-
Just google "Missile gap" and you will find a lot of stuff.
This turns out to be good advice.
Check out this synopsis, covers everything we have discussed so far and ties in the 1964 movie version .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap
I never knew that Kennedy was embarrassed by the "Missile gap", or that he was briefed by the CIA before he was elected.
Looks as if the Soviets could have nipped the whole thing in the bud by being a bit more open, but this would not be like changing iron to ivory, not very likely.
-
The Soviets were interested in protecting themselves first and foremost. They also had an evangelical streak, believing that they had the best system for governing a society. The Americans had and still have a similar evangelical inclination.
South Vietnam was a poor country ruled by a small number of neocolonialists. After the Vietnam War, it is now a poor country ruled by a party elite. I believe that perhaps education is better now and that life expectancy is longer than previously. Had somehow South Vietnam had become a capitalist country, I think it would be more likely to resemble the Philippines than South Korea, because Vietnamese are quite different from Koreans . The main exports in both cases would be sneakers intended for the Western market.
Every country should be allowed to decide its own system of government. It is pretty obvious that we have not improved Iraq much after all the money we spent and all the people that were killed, dislocated, expelled and otherwise inconvenienced.
-
Every country should be allowed to decide its own system of government.
That seems reasonable and easy to agree with.
When a weaker nation is having its fate decided from without do we help ?
-
We certainly do not help if it is likely to cause problems for the American people. I suppose that if there was a takeover by a military junta in Palau, the US government would try to restore a democratic order. I am opposed to the US messing with the relations between Ukraine and Russia, because that could get some Americans killed or harmed, and Ukraine is now and always has been in the Russian sphere of influence. I am against messing with Venezuela, because Nicolas Maduro was fairly elected president of Venezuela and is not a dictator. I think the US should try to get some of the two hundred odd Egyptians sentenced to death a reprieve or a change of sentence, because their crimes were not capital offenses.
Each case should be dealt with separately.
-
and for the record.....
Hobby Lobby employee insurance already pays for 16 different types of contraception, so its not like they are not
paying for birth control items. Hobby Lobby just does not wish to pay for what they consider "abortion pills" or
similar type contraception items.
Here are the 16 birth control items Hobby Lobby employee insurance already covers: Imagine that a woman starts work
at Hobby Lobby Momday morning July 7th. She joins Hobby Lobby's health care plan. It includes access,
copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants
-
Free Vasectomies
For all employees!
-
that`s why I wrote snowball on the title . somehow the abortion aspect became a women`s right to choose issue. If hobby lobby successfully points out they did not deny birth control it may backfire with the people who protest.
-
The major problem here is that the decision opens the door for thousands of employers to deny coverage because of their alleged religious beliefs.
The actual decision probably does not affect many employees. Of course, it does apply to the morning-after pill, which is the sort of thing women would want in the case of an emergency, which could be a condom breaking.
-
The major problem here is that the decision opens the door for thousands of employers to deny coverage because of their alleged religious beliefs.
I sincerely hope so , the other choice opens the door for the government to forbid or allow anything and everything it pleases , the moral feelings of the citizens forced to participate and fund it all be dammed.
-
The forbidding in this and in all these religion based cases involves some religious taboo being used to prevent people from getting the medicine that they want.
The less time that the Court is dominated by overeager Catholic altar boys the better Four out of nine justices are Catholics. Whatever this nation was founded on, it was not on domination from the Holy Mother Church.
The motto should be " It is forbidden to forbid". Forbidden to forbid people marrying whom they choose, forbidden to prevent women from being discriminated against medically because of their gender.
Again Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. People should come before artificial legal entities which were only created to make capitalism function better for the benefit of all, HobbyLobby is a flaming bunch of hypocrites. Most of their merchandise is made by Chinese who provide abortions at will and at no charge and who in the past have made them compulsory.
-
This is a true statement.
:Corporations are people:
Much like soylent green , a corporation is composed mainly of people.
Who are the people who have standing to complain that Hobby Lobby was denying them ? Fictitious people, the government was not defending the fictitious rights of fictitious people the government was just looking for another means to be bossy and strip from people the rights to trust their own moral sense .
So when the government requires you to kill people that you do not think deserving od death, will you be comforted by the governments assurance that they are not fully qualified to be persons and that you are just following orders?
-
People create corporations, just as they create bowling leagues and beauty pageants.
Corporations, beauty pageants and bowling leagues are not people. It is total and utter bullshit to say that they are. When the Constitution was written, no one had in mind to give corporations and fictitious entities the rights of citizens.
The government does not require me to kill anyone. Where do you get that?
Even if a fetus is a human being, which I do not accept for a minute, I only advocate that the pregnant woman has the right to abort it, I have no part in this. Even if my taxes pay for th abortion, the woman will have the right to decide and not me. If there is a moral guilt problem, it is her problem, not mine. All I say is that she has the total control of her own body. Since she got herself pregnant, she has the right to get herself unpregnant. No eees my chob.