Page 54 of 140

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:03 am
by Nooska
Can't really fault them for asking to be judged by the set standards, even though they disagree with them - I mean wanting to change the law/interpretation of the law is not the same as personally having to be judged by that interpretation untill the law is changed.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:25 am
by Skye1013
If you truly want the law to change, you have to be willing to be judged by the standards you want... not the ones that benefit you at the time.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:54 am
by Skye1013
Consider this, if they had not compromised their beliefs and allowed the lawsuit to be tried without bringing up the current law, a few things could have happened:

1) They win the suit anyway, beliefs remain in tact, doc gets to keep his job, no money (outside of paying for lawyers/court costs) is lost.

2) They lose the suit, beliefs remain in tact, they appeal to a higher court (all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary.) SC rules it a win in their favor, see #1. SC rules it against them, they have to pay out, beliefs still remain in tact and now there is suddenly SC precedence that 7 month fetuses fall under living human laws. Sure it isn't conception, but it's a starting line for them.

Instead... they chose to compromise their beliefs, win the suit, and now it's up to the family to push it into a higher court and the church looks bad.


Granted, I don't really expect that the church cares much, considering their stance on homosexuality and molestation, yet they're harboring child molesters in their ranks.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:01 am
by KysenMurrin
Yeah, the issue is the precedent it sets. They could have bitten the bullet, risked losing the case, but set a precedent by losing it that a foetus is to be treated as a human being in these situations. Instead, they protested the charges based on the existing law they disagree with, potentially setting a precedent that doctors are not fully liable for malpractice when unborn foetuses are put at risk.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:37 am
by Nooska
I agree that the hospital and the faith could have chose that, but unless I'm completely mistaken, its the doctor that has to pay up if they win, and I'm pretty sure they could sue the lawyers for malpractice if they didn't argue the full use of precedent law to win their case (malpractice suit over losing a malpractise suit, yay!)

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:40 am
by Shoju
Skye1013 wrote:
If you truly want the law to change, you have to be willing to be judged by the standards you want... not the ones that benefit you at the time.



QBIUFC-FT

All that emphasis is mine, because that's the heart of the matter. If you don't want them to be people when you are accused of wrongful death, you really don't have the right to tell your employees that they are people when they are inside of them.

It's a double standard. I understand the defense. They are playing by the letter of the law. But that's a PR nightmare that they shouldn't have stepped into. That's like saying:


Hey, when we kill them? They're just fetuses. But when you want to choose when to have one inside you, or when you don't want to have one inside you while you are my employee, They're a person.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:50 am
by Koatanga
But if they lose the suit, don't they establish legal precedent for the unborn to be considered persons without having to go through the appeals process?

Besides which, fetuses are not people - they are evidence:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/new-mexico-abortion-bill_n_2541894.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.


Cause so many rapists pay for the abortion...

Hey I just raped you
And this is crazy
But I will pay to
Abort your baby

Yeah right.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:01 pm
by Klaudandus
I swear the GOP is obsessed with RAPE and FETUSES
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 ... lp00000009

Too bad the don't give a lick once the kid is out of the womb.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:24 pm
by Koatanga
Klaudandus wrote:I swear the GOP is obsessed with RAPE and FETUSES
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 ... lp00000009

Too bad the don't give a lick once the kid is out of the womb.

I swear I have seen that link somewhere before...

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:26 pm
by Klaudandus
WOW... My bad, I completely derped -- somehow I totally missed your post... :oops:

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:41 pm
by Koatanga
Possibly an automatic response to protect you from all things Carly Rae Jepsen. Understandable.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:05 pm
by Fivelives
It boggles my mind that ANY woman could support some crazy shit like that New Mexico abortion bill, let alone sponsor it. Let's just push women's suffrage back a couple of decades, why don't we?

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:35 am
by Passionario
Fivelives wrote:It boggles my mind that ANY woman could support some crazy shit like that New Mexico abortion bill, let alone sponsor it.

Internalized misogyny?

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:56 am
by Fetzie
Koatanga wrote:Possibly an automatic response to protect you from all things Carly Rae Jepsen. Understandable.

Going by her Live Lounge performance, out of the 2012 one/two hit wonders she is the only one of them that can actually hit a note and hold it without an auto-tune.


/on topic: I can't see how anybody takes these ultra-republicans seriously enough to elect them.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:03 am
by Klaudandus
Bottom of the gene-pool, I tell you...

seriously... we're quite the political laughingstock...

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:06 am
by Shoju
Klaudandus wrote:Bottom of the gene-pool, I tell you...

seriously... we're quite the political laughingstock...


Yep. In the panic / paranoia ridden delusions of the ultra conservative to combat the evils of Theological Tyrants who oppress their people with burgeoning laws based on religious views, they have become that which they intended to stop.

If it wasn't so absolutely shitbag crazy and appalling, you'd think it was a good storyline for a comic hero. But they even found a way to ruin that angle.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:07 am
by bldavis
Fetzie wrote:/on topic: I can't see how anybody takes these ultra-republicans seriously enough to elect them.

they are typically older people that holding on to their ultra conservative values, or younger folks raised with them

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:48 pm
by Aubade
They are voted in by a majority of people who are republicans because that's who they are. They vote republican straight down the line, regardless if they know who the person is or not.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:51 pm
by bldavis
Aubade wrote:They are voted in by a majority of people who are republicans because that's who they are. They vote republican straight down the line, regardless if they know who the person is or not.

much better explanation...

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 9:37 pm
by Koatanga
Fivelives wrote:It boggles my mind that ANY woman could support some crazy shit like that New Mexico abortion bill, let alone sponsor it. Let's just push women's suffrage back a couple of decades, why don't we?

Well, you can't spell "crazy" without "R (AZ)"

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:13 pm
by bldavis
but...that bill is in NM....:?

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 10:18 pm
by Koatanga
bldavis wrote:but...that bill is in NM....:?

Well, AZ doesn't have an exclusive on bat-crap-crazy Republicans, just a lot of em. Maybe one escaped to NM?

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:06 pm
by fuzzygeek
The discourse in this thread is illuminating.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:04 am
by Shoju
fuzzygeek wrote:The discourse in this thread is illuminating.


I'm unsure what you mean by this.

And for my daily Political interaction: Shit like this drives me bonkers. I don't know if this letter is real, but there have been reports lately of companies who are laying off workers as a way of dealing with "Obamacare" or "Obamatax" or whatever they want to call it.

Image

This is the same batshit insanity that I reference above, when I said that they have become the very thing that they fear. You didn't vote the same way I did? Fine. You're fired.

http://www.facebook.com/RandomLayoffs
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4141208

Yes. That's TOTALLY American. I really have a serious problem with the companies who are doing it this way. Not performance related. Politics related. Firing someone over this, (and the fact that there are plenty of places where it is legal to do so) is the most mindnumbingly shittastic thing in the world.

This is still discrimination. But currently, it's not outlawed in many states. What's the difference between firing someone based on Age, Sex, Race, Relgion, or Politics? You are still discriminating against them.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:43 am
by Torquemada
It's only fair that liberals have their fair share of mouth breathers, too:
Image

I'm seriously reconsidering my stances on abortion based on this cretin. I used to support it being legal as a necessary but distasteful evil. Now I'm starting to think that maybe it is a good idea for some people.