First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last

We need to talk about the Republican parties voting record.

Post Reply
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

karatecowboy wrote:

... or you just did a poor job communicating your point; putting the word 'obviously' in front of something doesn't make it so. Reading your paragraph, it comes across as a gross misunderstanding of business management. And, if you're talking about big MNCs, well, you're still grossly out of touch. I've worked at big MNCs, and "their shareholders" is not 'the only pull' by a long shot. And, if you didn't really mean that it's the only pull then why write that?



I just find moral absolutism funny. You come into the conversations throwing around buzzwords like you are so sure of my ideas but you didn't even take the time to really understand my stance, or even ask me about it.

Who in their right mind would think every company has a shareholder? Are you really gonna play this card now? I shouldn't have to explain every minor detail when the entirety of every post I've made shows how I'm thinking here. And moreover an incorrect assumption doesn't fall on me, it falls on you for not clarifying, and making an assumption.

Of course all companies aren't equal. That's my point entirely...

But I want to make it clear, if you're going to be so intolerant to other people, without giving them the common curtesy of understanding, don't be surprised when they show you intolerance back.
14006 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

runec wrote:


jtjumper wrote:
Not everything on your list is bad, e.g. "Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act" more like "Force Companies to Finance Employee Abortion Act."


Er, the word "abortion" doesn't even appear in the act. The act was about birth control coverage.



Come on Runec, you can do better than that. We both the know the Hobby Lobby case wasn't just about condoms.
runec 
43147 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

jtjumper wrote:
Come on Runec, you can do better than that. We both the know the Hobby Lobby case wasn't just about condoms.


It wasn't about condoms either. Are you doing this on purpose? >.>
14006 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

runec wrote:


jtjumper wrote:
Come on Runec, you can do better than that. We both the know the Hobby Lobby case wasn't just about condoms.


It wasn't about condoms either. Are you doing this on purpose? >.>


You said birth control. Anyways, for earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.#Specific_contraceptives_contested_by_plaintiffs
runec 
43147 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18


Yes, I did say birth control. But if you knew about the case ( or even just ACA itself ) or had followed the story at the time you'd know what I was referring to and seeing as you tried to invoke abortion you must have known what was being referred to. So contrary to your commentary, you're the one that should perhaps "do better than that".

As for your link, the "contrary to scientific consensus" part kind of blows your earlier comment out of the water. Unless you're filing an absurd religious objection here in the vein of karate's. If you are, please let me know so I can save my breath as we'd be entering a realm where neither science nor reason holds any sway. >.>





14006 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/18/18 , edited 6/18/18

runec wrote:



Yes, I did say birth control. But if you knew about the case ( or even just ACA itself ) or had followed the story at the time


I had followed the story on Hobby Lobby and the ACA, but apparently hadn't put in enough effort because I didn't know that that this was possible: https://newrepublic.com/article/144793/insurance-cover-abortion. My only objection to the ACA was that it required employers to provide coverage for abortion, but apparently I was misinformed. I think I must have misread the article.



you'd know what I was referring to and seeing as you tried to invoke abortion

Invoke? Hardly. Misinformed? Apparently.

you're the one that should perhaps "do better than that".

Maybe.

we'd be entering a realm where neither science nor reason holds any sway. >.>

You've taken me there before. It wasn't pleasant, but I was the first to leave.


The only other thing is, "What about the Catholics?"




runec 
43147 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/18 , edited 6/19/18

jtjumper wrote:
I had followed the story on Hobby Lobby and the ACA, but apparently hadn't put in enough effort because I didn't know that that this was possible: https://newrepublic.com/article/144793/insurance-cover-abortion. My only objection to the ACA was that it required employers to provide coverage for abortion, but apparently I was misinformed. I think I must have misread the article.


If ACA went anywhere near abortion the GOP wouldn't have had to invent so many BS arguments against it. They could just rely on good ol' fashion wedge issue outrage. I mean, could you imagine? They'd have people burning this shit to the ground literally and figuratively.




jtjumper wrote:You've taken me there before. It wasn't pleasant, but I was the first to leave.


Citation needed.




jtjumper wrote:
The only other thing is, "What about the Catholics?"


The Catholics are free to do whatever they want, unless, you know, they're running a for profit business for the general public.

14006 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/19/18 , edited 6/19/18

runec wrote:


Citation needed.






runec wrote:


jtjumper wrote:
That escalated quickly. I politely inform you that I did not ogle the pictures. You seem to be responding to my posts with one sentence statements of similar meaning. Are you trolling me?


Oh, no, I'm not trolling you. I'm just making fun of you for demonstrating how effective my point was. ;p

You were about two more posts away from accusing me of being a wizard because you were working a chub before the second spoiler tag.


I had said an "argument" you had made wasn't compelling. I gave long explanations as to why it wasn't. You continued to respond with with short sentences that basically amounted to: "yeah it is and your sexually threatened!" It wasn't pretty and I just got tired of the B.S. and decided to leave the thread.

Edit: Also, I did a little more research and found this: https://nwlc.org/resources/state-bans-insurance-coverage-abortion-endanger-women’s-health-and-take-health-benefits-away-women/
Apparently, some states require insurance to cover abortions. So then requiring insurance coverage would require abortion coverage in some states. So, apparently, my original point does stand at least partially.
runec 
43147 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/19/18 , edited 6/19/18

jtjumper wrote:
I had said an "argument" you had made wasn't compelling. I gave long explanations as to why it wasn't. You continued to respond with with short sentences that basically amounted to: "yeah it is and your sexually threatened!" It wasn't pretty and I just got tired of the B.S. and decided to leave the thread.


I really had to dig through Google to find that to get context of the quote.

And the context was that you accused me of using a "psychological" trick to fool you into thinking pictures of transwomen were ciswomen. Thus I poked fun at you, yes. When you came back with a lengthy diatribe about how I had pulled a con on you and it wasn't a fair test. I poked fun at you again, yes. I flat out told you I was poking fun at you because of how serious you were taking it. 7 pages later you were still insisting on an argument when there was no argument to be had. Your entire point was I used a trick. My entire point was also that I used a trick. There was nothing to argue about. The trick was completely in line the context of the OP which was some dude claiming he could tell trans and cis women apart.

Regardless, that back and forth hardly falls under the umbrella of "science and reason". I freely told you it was a trick and I freely told you I was poking fun at you right from the get go when you protested so much at being tricked. But you insisted on trying to argue about it. I didn't want to argue about it as there was nothing to argue about. It was a trick aimed at the OP. When someone insists on arguing with you when you don't want to argue about something its obviously annoying. Especially when they want to argue about something that is rather trivial.

Also, no offense, but in that thread I told you that you were in "thou doth protest to much" territory and were coming across as overreacting given how much it seemed to be stuck in your craw. Drudging up a thread from 2 years ago in a thread about GOP voting records comes across as reinforcing that point don't you think? >.>

And for the record I did begin to give you more than short sentences because you kept insisting on an argument.



jtjumper wrote:
Edit: Also, I did a little more research and found this: https://nwlc.org/resources/state-bans-insurance-coverage-abortion-endanger-women’s-health-and-take-health-benefits-away-women/
Apparently, some states require insurance to cover abortions. So then requiring insurance coverage would require abortion coverage in some states. So, apparently, my original point does stand at least partially.


It honestly doesn't though. We're talking about the GOP's voting record. You referred to a bill as forcing companies to fund abortions. The bill doesn't do that. ACA, which the bill is tied to, doesn't do that. The link you just gave says ACA actually did the opposite and gave states more control over prohibiting any coverage for abortion.







First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.