Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Pre-Convention Election Round-UpFollow

#152 Aug 16 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Actually there isn't a single quote I can pull from it, which is kind of the point. The entire document is a guide on how to build/determine actuarial equivalence between plans while staying within some required guidelines. Note that I've never claimed there are no guides or boundaries, I said that you were not guaranteed that the second-cheapest plan would offer directly equivalent benefits to Medicare. Gbaji has spun this off to some strawman arguments ("bottle of generic painkillers and a 20% off casket gift certificate") but the reality is that there's many ways to tweak what the plans offer while staying within the requirements but not necessarily giving the same benefits as you receive with Medicare. That's the entire point of a guide detailing the tests that will be used to judge the plans. And that's just a guide for prescription drugs where there isn't a ton of flexibility, it's not even getting into doctor visits, hospital stays, surgery (critical or elective), hospice care, well being care, medical devices, etc.

There's nothing innately wrong with this -- someone might value some benefits over others, but it's patently false to state that you'll be guaranteed the same benefits.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 Aug 16 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't think it's unreasonable...

I understand that you had no "precise" quote to prove me wrong with. I just explained why you wouldn't have been able to find one, but it was fun watching you try and bluff your way out of it.

Brownduck may not have found it entertaining but I got a few smirks out of it. I can only hope he forgives me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#154 Aug 16 2012 at 8:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Actually there isn't a single quote I can pull from it, which is kind of the point. The entire document is a guide on how to build/determine actuarial equivalence between plans while staying within some required guidelines. Note that I've never claimed there are no guides or boundaries, I said that you were not guaranteed that the second-cheapest plan would offer directly equivalent benefits to Medicare. Gbaji has spun this off to some strawman arguments ("bottle of generic painkillers and a 20% off casket gift certificate") but the reality is that there's many ways to tweak what the plans offer while staying within the requirements but not necessarily giving the same benefits as you receive with Medicare. That's the entire point of a guide detailing the tests that will be used to judge the plans. And that's just a guide for prescription drugs where there isn't a ton of flexibility, it's not even getting into doctor visits, hospital stays, surgery (critical or elective), hospice care, well being care, medical devices, etc.

There's nothing innately wrong with this -- someone might value some benefits over others, but it's patently false to state that you'll be guaranteed the same benefits.


Ok. That's actually quite reasonable. But, as I already pointed out earlier in this thread, the ability of those plans to deviate is the same as the ability of the existing medicare coverage to deviate, right? I mean, at some point, there's just a set of guidelines that medicare follows to decide what the exact coverage it provides at any given time is. The same guidelines would have to be followed by any of the alternative plans as well. So while I suppose we can say they aren't guaranteed to be "exactly the same", the same can be said of medicare itself (I know I made this point already). And we certainly can't make any assumptions that one will be worse than another.


IMO, it's a meaningless point because the standard you're using is itself not "exact" either. It's unfair to point to the proposed alternative plans and assume they'd somehow screw people over, but then insist that medicare, operating under the same set of guidelines, is some sort of magically perfect standard simply because it happens to be named "medicare". Even medicare doesn't guarantee that in 15 years, it'll provide the "exact same care". It only guarantees that the care it provides will meet the guidelines. I'm struggling to see why we'd assume one would result in any better care than another.


Imagine if the government created a set of guidelines for a basic "people's car", with requirements involving number of passengers, safety features, cargo room, mpg, etc and the government currently provides them to people at a cost of $20k. Then someone comes along and says that if we opened the car market to competition and allow private companies to make cars they could find ways to make cars that meet all the requirements for less than what the government charges (like say $18k). Quite reasonable (and historically shown to be true). But you're arguing that this will result in a lower quality car because they're only required to meet a set of requirements and they might find ways to cheat or something. I just think that's an incredibly weak argument. And if history is any indication, introducing a competitive market will not only reduce the cost of the cars over time, but will usually dramatically improve the quality as well.


While I'll freely admit that health care isn't the same as building cars, the basic market argument is the same. By introducing competition, it provides an incentive for private companies to figure out ways to provide the same coverage at a lower price. And we often find that when we do this, we find that costs can be reduced quite easily. It's not like anyone doesn't agree that costs can be reduced. Heck. Obama's own plan (and the justification for his cuts to medicare) assume that he can find ways to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. But which is more likely to find and eliminate that? A government program created to audit the health care industry to find where it's overcharging medicare? Or a set of free market players, each with a financial incentive to force the care providers to give them the best deal possible in a competitive bidding situation?


Let's not forget that both the Ryan plan *and* the Obama plan cut medicare. Obama's actually cuts more. But does anyone seriously think that the government method of reducing costs will work anywhere near as well as the private market method? Ryan's plan is far more likely to actually be able to cut the costs for the care itself equal to (or greater than!) the amount he proposes to reduce the budget for medicare by. Obama's is basically just wishful thinking. He cuts the budget for medicare, but proposes some magical fantasy method of reducing costs. One of those is a realistic and workable plan. The other is just plain not.

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 7:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#155 Aug 16 2012 at 8:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok. That's actually quite reasonable. But, as I already pointed out earlier in this thread, the ability of those plans to deviate is the same as the ability of the existing medicare coverage to deviate, right? I mean, at some point, there's just a set of guidelines that medicare follows to decide what the exact coverage it provides at any given time is. The same guidelines would have to be followed by any of the alternative plans as well. So while I suppose we can say they aren't guaranteed to be "exactly the same", the same can be said of medicare itself (I know I made this point already). And we certainly can't make any assumptions that one will be worse than another.

The issue is that, for instance, the second-cheapest plan can skimp in prescription medicines by adjusting the co-pays required for generics versus name brands and then make up the actuarial difference in something like substantial rebates on therapeutic massage chairs. But if you're a senior who is reliant upon the name brand medication coverage, you're now required to pay an additional premium to keep the coverage you would have had with Medicare.

I'll state immediately that that's just an easily digested example and not to get hung up on the details of massage chair rebates. Given the massive spectrum of things that fall under health care and the technicalities, it shouldn't take much imagination to come up with examples where the second-cheapest plan may well be a "good" plan and yet fail to achieve the same benefits as Medicare.

Do Medicare benefits change? Of course they do. But you don't have to chase paying a premium difference every year to stay on the plan. Making them no longer the default option takes that off the table. You can argue that it "might be just as good" or whatever but you can not honestly state that Ryan's plan will let you keep your same Medicare coverage (or equivalent benefits) without potentially paying a surcharge. Maybe it'll be nominal, maybe not. Who's to say (and who's to say how much an extra $30 or $60 or $100 a month will impact any given senior). But the idea that you're going to be guaranteed the same coverage from the second-cheapest plan is just straight up false. It turns Medicare into an annual guessing game of how "good enough" a plan will be and praying that you understand the technicalities of it well enough to make an informed decision (against a for-profit industry well versed in these technicalities) about which plan you should take.

If you want to argue that Ryan's plan is a good one, go for it. But you can not honestly argue that it's a good plan because it guarantees Medicare benefits without any additional cost.

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 9:33pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Aug 16 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Lulz...
Political Wire wrote:
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) got tongue tied "as he attempted to rally Illinois Democrats behind President Barack Obama and the state's congressional and legislative candidates," the State Journal-Register reports.

But the Democratic governor's speech ran aground when he tried to praise Obama for the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Said Quinn: "We have a president who understands that. He's our commander in chief and he takes good care of the troops. I think everybody knows that Obama, uh, he's gone, he's dead, and the American auto industry is alive and well, thanks to our president."

The Chicago Sun Times called it the "mother of all gaffes."

They were talking about this on the radio earlier. It seems that a bunch of union guys were booing him and shouting him off the stage because they were protesting impending changes to the state pension program. Quinn got flustered and all around messed up and was trying to at least get out some applause lines about the president and you can see how well that went.

You have to wonder about the (lack of a) thought process that went into deciding to publicly jeer the Democratic governor with the Democratic State Assembly leader before the pension debates. Are the unions expecting to find GOP allies instead?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#157 Aug 17 2012 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
The Chicago Sun Times called it the "mother of all gaffes."
That's "a bit" overdramatic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#158 Aug 17 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
If we were talking about two men named Johnson and Johnston, it might be the mother of all giraffes.
#159 Aug 17 2012 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
The Chicago Sun Times called it the "mother of all gaffes."
That's "a bit" overdramatic.

Your mom is the mother of all gaffes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#160 Aug 17 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
The Chicago Sun Times called it the "mother of all gaffes."
That's "a bit" overdramatic.

Your mom is the mother of all gaffes


I'm pretty sure someone here is the mother of all Gaffes.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#161 Aug 17 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
I keep reading it as giraffe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#162 Aug 17 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Don't giraffe me, bro!
#163 Aug 17 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
I keep reading it as giraffe.

Your mom is the mother of all giraffes.

Because she's a whore. A dirty whore who fucks giraffes.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Aug 17 2012 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I keep reading it as giraffe.
Your mom is the mother of all giraffes.

Because she's a whore. A dirty whore who fucks giraffes.
Put me through college. Smiley: crymore
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#165 Aug 17 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
15,935 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
I'm starting to suspect they're just intentionally trying to make themselves look bad by now. I'm half expecting Romney to slip on a banana peel during his next public appearance.


Obama is definitely the golden boy of our owners, no question about that. Primed and primped.
From this thread is seems like that you people actually believe that you are voting for different candidate with different agendas.. as if both parties have not been all but totally hijacked by people who have more money than we can possibly wrap our pleb minds around.. and money has no borders.. so where does that leave us? It leaves us wherever they put us which apparently is milling about in a maze of propaganda and feeding at the trough of bullsh*t.
I saddens me to see such great minds (lol!) squabbling over which direction to paddle a leaky raft and either completely ignoring or are oblivious to the fact that it's sinking.
Big money is the name of the game; let's keep that in mind at all times... or don't keep that in mind and continue to be herded slowly into further brainwashed contentment.. like a frog slowly being boiled to death.

You people act like this is a parade. It's a funeral.

Long story short; Vote Independent Suckers!!

Edited, Aug 17th 2012 11:43am by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#166 Aug 17 2012 at 10:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Vote for a guy with with a zero percent chance of winning and who isn't even on the ballot in most states guaranteeing that he can not collect the electoral votes necessary to become president thus effectively removing yourself from the voting process! That'll show... someone!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Aug 17 2012 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
It's called nihilism, Joph. We can't all be bothered with giving a f*ck.
#168 Aug 17 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
If it were nihilistic, the suggestion would be to not vote at all.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#169 Aug 17 2012 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Voting independent = not voting at all.
#170 Aug 17 2012 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,552 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Vote for a guy with with a zero percent chance of winning and who isn't even on the ballot in most states guaranteeing that he can not collect the electoral votes necessary to become president thus effectively removing yourself from the voting process! That'll show... someone!

Well, your vote in Illinois is going to be just as meaningless, but you're still going to cast it. Smiley: grin

I could see the value in making an independent "statement" vote if your state is already decided, but I wouldn't do it in a battleground state. Sure, it's a near-futile effort to try to promote the viability of a 3rd party by accumulating enough votes to reach a sort of tipping-point of normalcy, but one vote out of 130 million is near-futile anway.


Edited, Aug 17th 2012 12:18pm by trickybeck
____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#171 Aug 17 2012 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If you want to make some gesture of reforming politics, the time to do so is during the primaries. You're better off trying to drive the direction of the major parties then (a la the Tea Party) than casting an impotent ballot in November.

And my vote will matter on my Congressional House race, so nyeah!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#172 Aug 17 2012 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Guenny wrote:
Voting independent = not voting at all.
Not voting at all = not voting at all.
Voting independent = Voting with the knowledge your vote does nothing.

Subtle difference, but a difference none the less.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#173Guenny, Posted: Aug 17 2012 at 11:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) A difference that you seem to think I care about.
#174 Aug 18 2012 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,874 posts
Here's Spinney's take.

I generally agree with his analysis, barring his longer term prediction. I just don't think we have the stomach for it. Not in the near to mid term, at least.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#175 Aug 18 2012 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
At least for Romney, being Mormon means he can have multiple VPs.

That's how it works, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#176 Aug 18 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,604 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
At least for Romney, being Mormon means he can have multiple VPs.

That's how it works, right?


And they could be under the age of 35?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#177 Aug 19 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
Suckers vote independent (Green, etc.).

____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#178 Aug 19 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Rep. Todd Akin attempts to make the Missouri senate race a lot easier for his opponent Claire McCaskill by letting us know that women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape".
Roll Call wrote:
Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri, justified his opposition to all abortion, even in instances of rape, by saying that “legitimate rape” rarely leads to pregnancy — comments that have set off a media firestorm in an already contentious race.

In an interview with a St. Louis television station posted today, Akin said that female bodies “[have] ways to try to shut that whole thing down” and that only rapists, and not unborn children, should be punished.

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV, in an interview first reported nationally by Talking Points Memo. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Akin (and Paul Ryan) were among those trying to redefine rape this past last year to only include "forcible rape" where the woman could prove she physically fought the rapist.

Edit: Oops, that was in 2011, not 2012



Edited, Aug 19th 2012 9:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#179 Aug 19 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,078 posts
You know, if our bodies could turn off pregnancy at will, we probably wouldn't have any single mothers.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#180 Aug 19 2012 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,604 posts
catwho wrote:
You know, if our bodies could turn off pregnancy at will, we probably wouldn't have any single mothers.


And Republicans wouldn't have to worry about those poor insurance companies having to cover the cost of female birth control for whores!
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#181 Aug 19 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
And the "of course there isn't, don't worry your pretty head about it" war on women continues.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#182 Aug 19 2012 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
"Ovaries, this is Uterus! Code red! Do not inseminate! Repeat, do not inseminate!"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#183 Aug 19 2012 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
"Error, false alarm... no external injuries present!"
#184 Aug 19 2012 at 7:58 PM Rating: Good
Apparently the GOP really do have a hard on for Israel.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#185 Aug 19 2012 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
What's wrong with a little drunken skinny dipping?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#186 Aug 19 2012 at 9:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
What's wrong with a little drunken skinny dipping?


Idk, ask Cantor.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#187 Aug 20 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Samira wrote:
And the "of course there isn't, don't worry your pretty head about it" war on women continues.

I'm much more worried about the liberal War on Imaginative Rhetoric Naming Conventions.

Clearly, they're winning.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#188 Aug 20 2012 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
Weeeelllllll, I'm not sure it's fair to blame the fad of using "War on <cause of your choice" on us lefties when it all started with the War on Christmas, caused by people with the unmitigated gall to want to include non-Christians in the holidays.


Edit: dropped phrase.

Edited, Aug 20th 2012 5:35pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#189 Aug 20 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
If "War on Christmas" was the first one, it's all the ones that followed that are the problem!
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#190 Aug 20 2012 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
War On Religion!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#191 Aug 20 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
I suppose technically it was the Reagan-era War on Drugs that started the whole thing.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#192 Aug 20 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
War on Poverty!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#193 Aug 20 2012 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
War on Civility!
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#194 Aug 20 2012 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
War on Protesting!

I'm against picketing, I just don't know how to show it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#195 Aug 20 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
War on Wars!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Aug 20 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
War on wah-wah! The anti-syntesizers WILL be heard, with minimal reverb.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#197 Aug 20 2012 at 11:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
Samira wrote:
War on wah-wah! The anti-syntesizers WILL be heard, with minimal reverb.

How about War on Autotuning? Seriously, they use it to death on *Bubble Guppies*. What the fuck?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#198 Aug 21 2012 at 6:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,524 posts
My war is going to be on slugs.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#199 Aug 21 2012 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
No way, Wawa makes amazing sandwiches.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#200 Aug 21 2012 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I mentioned in the other thread that the GOP is (again) putting the "Constitutional Amendment to end all abortion, no matter what" plank into their platform despite the laughable assurances from embarrassed Republicans that, no, really... they totally believe in rape/incest exemptions and they really just want to make it a state issue, not a federal one.

Well, also in the "Shit Republicans Lie About" folder is SSM. Certain people would want you to believe that it's only about the "definition" of marriage and that they'd totally be on board with civil unions or some other separate-but-equal marriage alternative but those darn liberals just demand marriage and that's what's causing all the problems.
Politico wrote:
The Republican platform committee resoundingly rejected an amendment Tuesday that would have endorsed civil unions for gay couples.

The GOP will maintain its official support for a constitutional amendment that would “protect traditional marriage” by defining it as between a man and a woman.
[...]
After the civil unions amendment failed, Nevada representative Pat Kerby tried to amend the traditional marriage section to say that every American should be treated “equally under the law” as long as they are not hurting anyone else. He said that the GOP should focus on an economic message, not waging the culture wars.
[...]
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach opposed the amendment on the ground that government routinely regulates behaviors like drugs and polygamy.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#201 Aug 21 2012 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
STATES' RIGHTS! Because the arbitrary border established between Iowa and Missouri is more ironclad than a 17 year old's panties the day before her 18th birthday.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Demoncard, Anonymous Guests (56)