Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to add on (again, I'm the 9:17, 9:19 poster), the big problem is the "foreseeable consequences". Once we start chipping away at human rights, it is a slippery slope...

OK, I'm as far left as anyone, and I agree with you in nearly all respects, but seriously - the slippery slope? Stop, I'm begging you. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. In other words, an error in reasoning. Citie the slippery slope as a means to attack your opponent's argument, not as support for your own. And seriously, when confronted with the "reasoning" displayed on this thread, you don't need to resort to questionable argument strategies.

Carry on.

The slippery slope discussion interests me. As you imply, labeling something a slippery slope is not a valid logical argument. But it can be a useful terminological shorthand for a certain type of situation. I think the important things are to note that most slopes are not slippery and to distinguish those that are.

For example, for most ex-smokers, it's a slippery slope from one cigarette back to the pack or two a day habit. Unfortunately, it now seems to be a slippery slope from running for the GOP presidential nomination to becoming a raving wing-nut. I'll leave it to 9:17/19 to argue the case of rights-chipping.

Anonymous wrote:
Wednesday, forced employers to pay for contraception

Thursday, petitioned congress to allow DC to use americans taxpayer money for abortions

Wednesday - many states require health plans to cover certain conditions. Maryland, for instance, requires employers over a certain size to cover fertility treatments. So, the "forced coverage" isn't the issue - it's that you don't agree contraception. In other words, "I don't believe in it so it shouldn't be available to anyone."

Thursday - Many states provide assistance to women to pay for abortions. Those states all receive significant federal funding. This is not an uncommon occurrance. But since those states have their own federal representatives woy can fight back, there's no movement to strip federal funding for them, or otherwise influence their decisions. But DC, with no representation, is defenseless, so have at it. It's simply bullying.

More importantly, the double standard is mind boggling. Tuesday, your theme is, "The federal government has no business interfering in our lives! Stay out!" Wednesday, the theme is, "The federal government should interfere to its heart's content in the lives of DC residents." Which is fine, I guess, as long as you don't thereafter get on your high horse about unwanted government intrusion.

Anonymous wrote:And to add on (again, I'm the 9:17, 9:19 poster), the big problem is the "foreseeable consequences". Once we start chipping away at human rights, it is a slippery slope...

OK, I'm as far left as anyone, and I agree with you in nearly all respects, but seriously - the slippery slope? Stop, I'm begging you. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. In other words, an error in reasoning. Citie the slippery slope as a means to attack your opponent's argument, not as support for your own. And seriously, when confronted with the "reasoning" displayed on this thread, you don't need to resort to questionable argument strategies.

Carry on.

Anonymous wrote:when the uninsured need med care the uninsured get treated tax payer pays for all care Obama care = all insured paiying for theirs own
services tax payer
psys for-no one but their own share of services. tell me what's wrong with thisequation

Your grammar. It's unreadable.

when the uninsured need med care the uninsured get treated tax payer pays for all care Obama care = all insured paiying for theirs own
services tax payer
psys for-no one but their own share of services. tell me what's wrong with thisequation

Anonymous wrote:

Politicalgal wrote:I take that last post back, I think I've got it now...

NO!!!! You have to hang out with us anonymous flame throwing fools!

Hey, flame-thrower, why not register as "anonymous". Then we could at least distinguish you from all those "Anonymous" listers.

Politicalgal wrote:I take that last post back, I think I've got it now...

NO!!!! You have to hang out with us anonymous flame throwing fools!

Politicalgal wrote:I take that last post back, I think I've got it now...

Well done! Welcome to the Recognizables.

I take that last post back, I think I've got it now...

Testing, logging in with my new username....

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to add on (again, I'm the 9:17, 9:19 poster), the big problem is the "foreseeable consequences". Once we start chipping away at human rights, it is a slippery slope...

I suspected you were one person, but you Anonymous guys are hard to recognize. In any case I think you and I are on the same wavelength on this issue. And I think it's beyond the slippery slope. The actual wording, either by carelessness or intent, goes much further than what the supporters claim, and takes us right down to the bottom of the slope.

Yes, and I suppose I should start logging in for the political responses (for now I'll call myself 9:17gal). My husband seems to think I'm diving way off the left end. But slowly chipping away at rights...?? How far down the slope do you think it has gotten? How much worse can it get? I am ready to leave the country (not for the first time), if only I could get my husband on board. I just don't think my views fit with the majority of this country at this time.

Anonymous wrote:And to add on (again, I'm the 9:17, 9:19 poster), the big problem is the "foreseeable consequences". Once we start chipping away at human rights, it is a slippery slope...

I suspected you were one person, but you Anonymous guys are hard to recognize. In any case I think you and I are on the same wavelength on this issue. And I think it's beyond the slippery slope. The actual wording, either by carelessness or intent, goes much further than what the supporters claim, and takes us right down to the bottom of the slope.

And to add on (again, I'm the 9:17, 9:19 poster), the big problem is the "foreseeable consequences". Once we start chipping away at human rights, it is a slippery slope...

takoma wrote:9:17, I agree with you. The fact that Santorum considers environmentalism to be an ideology, and an ideology to be a secular theology, shows that he does not distinguish between religious beliefs and public policy.

9:19, I also agree with you. One problem with this law is that what the supporters claim it is intended to do is different from what the foreseeable consequences will be.

9:17 and 9:19 were the same person (me).

Anonymous wrote:Tuesday, gave rats in DC more rights than an unborn baby

Wednesday, forced employers to pay for contraception

Thursday, petitioned congress to allow DC to use americans taxpayer money for abortions

Friday, forced African American mothers to abort their babies. Ethnic cleansing. Good weekend ahead.

There.

the week doesnt include marrying a bunch of heathen gays or forging a bunch of birth certificates for our next crop of presidents? be more creative