The Cellar - The proper role and scope of government

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - The proper role and scope of government (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26074)

The Catholic church receives 2.9 billion in government funding each year.

So just give them 2.9 billion minus the cost of birth control for their employees, and give it directly to their insurance company instead. Problem solved.

...or put that toward the debt and give them nothing.
The Catholic Church is richer than most countries in the world.
They could do with a little less glitz anyway.

My post was explicitly about the birth control rule, and had the cites you requested, and does not make use of any references to marriage.

You respond with some sentence fragments about marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 797252)

Pretty clear to me.

That makes one of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 797294)

My post was explicitly about the birth control rule, and had the cites you requested, and does not make use of any references to marriage.

Ibby dragged that into the discussion which is where the whole thing ended up before you chimed in. Hence, my responses were about those two issues, repeatedly.

Quote:

You respond with some sentence fragments about marriage.

That makes one of you.

You came late to the party. So what, are you impotent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 797289)

I agree, but the Federal Government does not have the power to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 797388)

Ibby dragged that into the discussion which is where the whole thing ended up before you chimed in.

And your take on the marriage question was that it was completely different from the birth control question, and you did not want any arguments that referenced marriage to be used in arguments about birth control

Therefore, in my post, I did not mention the marriage question.

And you brought it in anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 797389)

I agree, but the Federal Government does not have the power to do so.

That is an argument you have yet to support. My post directly addresses that question, and you responded with something about marriage, which you yourself have repeatedly claimed was irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 797397)

Again, read carefully now, I did not bring it into the discussion.

Quote:

That is an argument you have yet to support. My post directly addresses that question, and you responded with something about marriage, which you yourself have repeatedly claimed was irrelevant.

Read carefully now, you came in late, the issue had already come up and our discussion was fleeting on that issue. And yes it was irrelevant to the discussion because I was talking about the Constitutional issue of religion vs a States Right issue concerning marriage and repeatedly stating they were apple and oranges and not one in the same. Trying to drag terms like "Liberty" into the issue did not focus on my point but attempted to deflect and diffuse it.

OK. We've established that you think marriage and the birth control question are apples and oranges.

We've established that you didn't bring marriage up.

Granting both of those, I made an argument about the birth control question that had no reference to marriage.

Can you address it without referencing marriage?

Two views of government oversight and regulation...

Bloomberg News
Brian Wingfield
March 10, 2012

Post-Fukushima U.S. Nuclear Reactor Rules Questioned Over Cost, Adequacy

Quote:

The first rules for U.S. reactors imposed in response to last year’s nuclear disaster in Japan
are fueling a debate over the adequacy and cost of the measures.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission yesterday approved three
orders to improve safety at the nation’s 104 operating reactors,
issued following a triple meltdown at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant,
which occurred a year ago this weekend.

While the NRC’s orders “are necessary to address the major gaps in the nuclear power safety net,”
they “do not go far enough,” Jim Riccio, a nuclear-energy analyst in Washington
for anti-nuclear group Greenpeace USA, said in an e-mail.

The rules include a requirement for nuclear plants owned by companies
such as Exelon Corp. (EXC) and Entergy Corp. (ETR) to have a plan to indefinitely survive blackouts.
Reactor owners also must have adequate instruments to monitor spent-fuel cooling pools.
Another order calls for older reactors with General Electric Co (GE).-design
containment structures similar to those that failed at Fukushima to have sturdier venting systems
to prevent damage to reactor cores.
<snip>

“We need the NRC to be an industry watchdog, not an industry lapdog,”
Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts,
the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee,
said in a statement yesterday.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503544_1...4.html?tag=hdr
CBS News
Sarah B. Boxer
March 9, 2012

Romney: Regulators should make "friends" with business

Quote:

JACKSON, Miss. - Campaigning in the Deep South,
where he faces tough opposition from more conservative rivals for the GOP nomination,
Mitt Romney is promoting an anti-government regulation theme and
a vision of a new environment in which regulators "see businesses
and enterprises of all kinds as their friends."<snip>

Under a Romney administration, regulations would be "updated and modernized and streamlined," he said, and,
"I want regulators to see businesses and enterprises of all kinds as their friends,
and to encourage them and to move them along."

------

Quote:

"President Obama has aggressively pursued an all-of-the-above energy strategy by approving hundreds of drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico and making millions of acres available for oil and gas development." said Lis Smith, a campaign spokeswoman.

So Obama is or isn't pushing forward with more drilling?
How, specifically has this administration made it now safe to drill in the same location where we just had a major drilling disaster?

Quote:

"Mitt Romney, on the other hand, would continue tax subsidies for oil and gas companies making ~snip~ that will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump. " ~snip~ she said.

So what you are saying is that:
Obama wants to end the subsidies which are making fuel affordable for people so they can get to and from work.

Gas companies are still making record profits. Record as in they are the most profitable companies that have ever existed in the history of the world. i don't think they need their subsidies. Just yesterday on Up with Chris Hayes the independent federal regulator of the speculative market estimated that oil speculation, not cost, accounts for almost ALL of the price increase.
Sounds like we need more regulation of speculators to me!

The cost is relative to supply and demand. The speculation is a byproduct of that.
As the demand from China and a few other countries INCREASES and with it, their willingness to pay more, so will we.

Oh, and Chris Hayes can suck it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 800959)

Oh, and Chris Hayes can suck it.

Go to hell, the 4-hour Chris Hayes/Melissa Harris-Perry block weekend mornings is the absolute best 4-hour block of programming on TV.

Not in my view, but it's fine for you to have that opinion.

yeah i didnt mean really go to hell. I just REALLY respect and enjoy both of them. get a little defensive. I can't imagine what your problem with them is though? they go to great pains to try to keep the debate reasonable and rational and round-table.