Community >> View Thread

Author
Gernot 

Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,184


Isn't it wonderful? This anti-gay racist moron who was partially responsible for the widespread of AIDS in Indiana is in support of our openly racist "President."

We have a LOT of work to do to fix this country... \:\(

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pence-says-stands-trump-aftermath-174202823.html



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486


Pence is not really a good guy. Just speaking for some of his really off the wall thoughts on numerous topics over the years, leaving his religious beliefs aside.

He is also an devote liar. He has had to lie to try and back Trump but then gets tied in knots.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Thurisaz


Member Since: Thu Oct 09, 2008
Posts: 5,460


Is this news? Pence has been with Trump for some time now. In many ways he might even be worse than the Donald. Heck, he's Trump's best insurance policy against impeachment or assassination.




[URL=http://s1362.photobucket.com/user/wulabo/media/Doom_zps60271c02.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1362.photobucket.com/albums/r693/wulabo/Doom_zps60271c02.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.90 on Windows 10
Gernot 

Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,184


It IS news, but mainly just to those who are hoping for Trump's Palin-like self-removal from office. People have told me they'd MUCH rather have Pence in the WH than the Groper-In-Chief.

I keep telling them the MAIN difference between Trump and Pence is that Pence is less insane, and thus far more evil.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
Gernot 

Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,184


He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.

I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
Butthead1


Member Since: Fri Jul 28, 2017
Posts: 38


Everyone can whine and complain all they want about Trump and Pence and even Obama but they did the one thing I wanted more then anything else. They kept Hilary Clinton from being President and that is all I care about. I do not have to see her face or hear her voice on my TV screen and I am grateful.


Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
Sumidor


Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115



    Quote:
    He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.



    Quote:
    I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...


Rather than name calling ("anti-gay racist moron", "responsible for aids", "evil"), is there any *policy* you would like to discuss?

Let's start with this....What do you have to demonstrate that Pence wants to install an official religion, and make all other religions illegal?


Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.90 on Windows 7
Gernot 

Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,184


WHAT, pray tell, did Hillary Clinton do that was so awful? Was it her standing up for women's rights? Was it her refusing to insult gays and the disabled? Was it her refusal to mock the family of a fallen soldier? Oh, wait! EYE know!

It was her refusal to release Trump's tax returns!



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
Sumidor


Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115



    Quote:
    WHAT, pray tell, did Hillary Clinton do that was so awful? Was it her standing up for women's rights? Was it her refusing to insult gays and the disabled? Was it her refusal to mock the family of a fallen soldier? Oh, wait! EYE know!


You are the moderator, and should be providing a better example of etiquette for the board.

You have a relative new poster reply to you that he preferred Trump to Hillary. He offered not much insight behind that. You could have asked him in a civil manner for his reasons. But your response is a weird sarcastic mocking of the poster.

By suggesting those who did not vote for Clinton didn't favor her due to her standing up for women's rights, her refusing to insult gays and the disabled, and her refusal to mock the family of a fallen soldier...what you are insinuating is that those who did not vote for her are anti-woman, anti-gay, and are in favor of mocking the disabled. Your post offers no substance, and relies on name calling and mocking someone based only on who they voted for. Is that proper behavior for this board?


    Quote:
    It was her refusal to release Trump's tax returns!


And your punchline....the tax returns! We're now over nine months past the election, and you still don't seem to understand why Trump won. The tax return issue was not as important to the average voter as Democrats wanted it to be. It's a partisan issue that only one side cared about, it didn't win over independents. The majority of voters in Pennsylvania were worried about jobs. Trump spoke to them about jobs. Hillary spoke to them about Trump's tax returns.

And the tax returns which were leaked...they showed he paid a lot of taxes.

So you keep beating that tax return drum. Let me know how it works out for you.



Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
Gernot 

Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,184





    Quote:
    You are the moderator, and should be providing a better example of etiquette for the board.



YOU are wrong.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
Sumidor


Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115



    Quote:

      Quote:
      You are the moderator, and should be providing a better example of etiquette for the board.



    Quote:

    YOU are wrong.


This is your reply?

Imagine if I responded back with only "No, YOU are wrong". Where does that get us?

Why am I wrong? Where have I erred? Correct me, and we can have a conversation about what proper etiquette should be on the board.


Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
Butthead1


Member Since: Fri Jul 28, 2017
Posts: 38


If I really gave my honest opinion of Hilary I would probably be banished from this board. And since she is finally off my TV screen and I am not seeing her any more I don't really need to say that much. All I can do is pray she just stays retired and enjoys the rest of her life and does not run for President again. I can tell you a lot of women did not vote for her. The few things I will say that that made her an undesirable candidate was her big campaign to raise taxes on the rich people. The taxes on the rich are already high enough and she ran her mouth saying the rich would pay their fair share. The rich already pay too much. Then she wanted to raise the death tax to as high as 65% which is nothing but highway robbery. Trump wants to eliminate it and that is much better. That is an unfair tax that needs to go away. And I did not like listening to anything she had to say and I did not feel she could make a speech worth a dam. I feel if any other candidate would have run besides Hilary then Trump might not have won. I have said from the beginning I was not a fan of Trump as a Presidential candidate and I am not happy with stuff he is doing but I am extremely glad Hilary is not President and I will not back down on that.


Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
Gernot 

Manager

Location: St. Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 12,184


No. You'll see for yourself, someday. Or rather, your children and grandchildren will.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486



    Quote:

      Quote:
      He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...



    Quote:
    Rather than name calling ("anti-gay racist moron", "responsible for aids", "evil"), is there any *policy* you would like to discuss?



    Quote:
    Let's start with this....What do you have to demonstrate that Pence wants to install an official religion, and make all other religions illegal?


This later point is something of a straw man argument. It would require something akin to finding a letter where that is writen out. I have seen others make that claim as the only way to be sure that somebody is racist. If that is our standard than few would be guilty of much of anything.

Having lived in Indiana for some time it was always clear that Pence is a very religious man and very much a religious conservative.

I am not sure he wants Christianity to be a state religion per se but he wants his view of Christianity to be what guides policy.

In 2002 he went to the House floor and asked that science textbooks promote creationism but casting doubt on Evolution.

RFRA. A law that was not really needed but was pretty vague in wording to allow people to potentially say hateful things at gay people etc. This was a major issue in Indiana. They put a patch on it but it was a minor fix at best. It had no purpose other than to make sure that the right to dehumanize another person was ok. For whatever reason, dislike of homosexuality has become the core Christian value in some part of the country.

In the ongoing HIV/AIDs epidemic in the state he had to be dragged along to open needle exchanges. When he did do it, it was underfunded and staffed. The State Health secretary was pretty mad at him. As it likely made it worse. His reasons for this were shared by many pasturs and the like that these people did it to themselves and basically brought it on themselves. He did not say that, but he was doing everything that those folks were recommending until backlash was high enough.

In the past he has blocked federal funding to help combat HIV unless statements about gay sex were not included. The big bug a boo among some religious conservatives. Ignoring that this disease can be passed on with any sex.

He has been against homosexuals in the military

He has been against condoms because they were a poor defense against STDs and is a massive supporter of abstinence only education.


So, while I am unaware that he has specifically said that Christianity should be the state religion. It is pretty clear that he puts his faith above the personal rights of any group that gets in his way.

“I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,”

There is nothing illegal or wrong with being guided by faith. Many are and it helps guide their views. However, they also tend to be the most rigid holders to their views because in their minds it came from God.

And that alone is concerning enough or should be. Anybody thinking they have a mandate to basically tell everybody they should live the life by the morality of a specific faith is a problem.

I mean there are many in religious right circles that would be just fine running the US under a version of Christian law. Yet fewer freak out about that than the falw Shiara law scares.








Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Sumidor


Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Rather than name calling ("anti-gay racist moron", "responsible for aids", "evil"), is there any *policy* you would like to discuss?

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Let's start with this....What do you have to demonstrate that Pence wants to install an official religion, and make all other religions illegal?



    Quote:
    This later point is something of a straw man argument. It would require something akin to finding a letter where that is writen out. I have seen others make that claim as the only way to be sure that somebody is racist. If that is our standard than few would be guilty of much of anything.


It's not a straw man argument at all. I was directly questioning Gernot's statement. He said that Pence wants to establish an official religion, and that Pence will make it illegal for people to worship God in their way. I asked him him for evidence to support his claim.

Had Gernot stated that Mike Pence allows his religion to guide his governing polices too much, then that would have been a fair opinion to share. But he didn't say that. And if he had provided examples as you have done, then he and I might have had a discussion, but he didn't do that.

I challenged him on his blunt falsehood. In no way did I make a straw man argument.


    Quote:
    Having lived in Indiana for some time it was always clear that Pence is a very religious man and very much a religious conservative.



    Quote:
    I am not sure he wants Christianity to be a state religion per se but he wants his view of Christianity to be what guides policy.



    Quote:
    In 2002 he went to the House floor and asked that science textbooks promote creationism but casting doubt on Evolution.


I know next to nothing about Mike Pence. If this is true, then I disagree with him regarding teaching creationism in public schools.


    Quote:
    RFRA. A law that was not really needed but was pretty vague in wording to allow people to potentially say hateful things at gay people etc. This was a major issue in Indiana. They put a patch on it but it was a minor fix at best. It had no purpose other than to make sure that the right to dehumanize another person was ok. For whatever reason, dislike of homosexuality has become the core Christian value in some part of the country.


A law allowing people to say hateful things? Similar to the first amendment? I don't see why it would be needed, as it seems redundant, but I agree with the peoples' right to *say* anything they please.


    Quote:
    In the ongoing HIV/AIDs epidemic in the state he had to be dragged along to open needle exchanges. When he did do it, it was underfunded and staffed. The State Health secretary was pretty mad at him. As it likely made it worse. His reasons for this were shared by many pasturs and the like that these people did it to themselves and basically brought it on themselves. He did not say that, but he was doing everything that those folks were recommending until backlash was high enough.


The *policy* of not using taxpayer money to fund criminal activity may be something you disagree with. Not forcing people who stay clean of drugs to pay for needles of drug addicts may be something you disagree with. That the needle program might make drug use look like less of a problem when the government is helping people get supplies may be a point of view that you disagree with. But calling someone evil for having this opinion is not what I thought this board was about.

When we differ with someone on policy we should discuss the demerits of the opposing view, and the merits of ours.

For example...a husband who shoots drugs might contract aids and then infect his innocent wife who is not aware of his drug habit. That is, I think a powerful argument in favor of the needle program. If Pence has a different point of view, maybe it means he disagrees about the weights of what good vs. harm the needle program has on society. It doesn't make him evil.



    Quote:
    In the past he has blocked federal funding to help combat HIV unless statements about gay sex were not included. The big bug a boo among some religious conservatives. Ignoring that this disease can be passed on with any sex.


I don't understand what statements regarding gay sex could not be included. So I can't comment further.


    Quote:
    He has been against homosexuals in the military

Many politicians have on both side of the aisle. It doesn't make someone evil. And it doesn't prevent someone from practicing religion their way.


    Quote:
    He has been against condoms because they were a poor defense against STDs and is a massive supporter of abstinence only education.


Again, a policy difference. By saying he's against condoms, I'm assuming you mean he's against making tax payers pay for condoms for other people. You don't mean he wants to make condoms illegal. How government spends taxpayer money is something intelligent people can have different opinions about. It doesn't mean one side is "responsible for aids". Vilifying people who disagree with you is not necessary when you are able to coherently, and logically express your own opinion and provide support for how you arrived at that opinion.


    Quote:

    So, while I am unaware that he has specifically said that Christianity should be the state religion. It is pretty clear that he puts his faith above the personal rights of any group that gets in his way.


That's not clear. It's clear he has a number of policy differences to what you would prefer, and maybe even to what I would prefer. It in no way means he wants to establish an official religion. It in no way means people can't worship their religion however they please. And it doesn't make him evil.


    Quote:
    “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,”



    Quote:
    There is nothing illegal or wrong with being guided by faith. Many are and it helps guide their views. However, they also tend to be the most rigid holders to their views because in their minds it came from God.



    Quote:
    And that alone is concerning enough or should be. Anybody thinking they have a mandate to basically tell everybody they should live the life by the morality of a specific faith is a problem.


I don't believe it's the government's job to enforce morality.


    Quote:
    I mean there are many in religious right circles that would be just fine running the US under a version of Christian law. Yet fewer freak out about that than the falw Shiara law scares.



    Quote:


I'm not sure what Christian law means, but that's fine, it's not the point of my original post in this thread. The point is how a discussion should be conducted on this board. I'm fairly new here, but I don't believe we should vilify people, call them names, or spread falsehoods. I do believe we should discuss differences in opinion with civility.




Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486


I wrote alot but the main point is you seem to brush a ton off as policy difference. And thus no stance can be made other than opinion. I take some issue with that if one is ignoring the data available while doing it.

Two people can have policy differences and one person can be totally and utterly wrong. It does not make their points of view on the same field. Particularly in areas where data is available.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Rather than name calling ("anti-gay racist moron", "responsible for aids", "evil"), is there any *policy* you would like to discuss?

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Let's start with this....What do you have to demonstrate that Pence wants to install an official religion, and make all other religions illegal?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This later point is something of a straw man argument. It would require something akin to finding a letter where that is writen out. I have seen others make that claim as the only way to be sure that somebody is racist. If that is our standard than few would be guilty of much of anything.


You are correct on the points below, I am having formatting issues and that may have helped me miss part of what he said.


    Quote:
    It's not a straw man argument at all. I was directly questioning Gernot's statement. He said that Pence wants to establish an official religion, and that Pence will make it illegal for people to worship God in their way. I asked him him for evidence to support his claim.



    Quote:
    Had Gernot stated that Mike Pence allows his religion to guide his governing polices too much, then that would have been a fair opinion to share. But he didn't say that. And if he had provided examples as you have done, then he and I might have had a discussion, but he didn't do that.



    Quote:
    I challenged him on his blunt falsehood. In no way did I make a straw man argument.


      Quote:
      Having lived in Indiana for some time it was always clear that Pence is a very religious man and very much a religious conservative.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am not sure he wants Christianity to be a state religion per se but he wants his view of Christianity to be what guides policy.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          In 2002 he went to the House floor and asked that science textbooks promote creationism but casting doubt on Evolution.



    Quote:
    I know next to nothing about Mike Pence. If this is true, then I disagree with him regarding teaching creationism in public schools.


I could provide links to this one and most of the others easily. Pence, in this regard, and in others was always skeptical of science that got in the way of some things.

For instance, a non-religious one, he was big that second smoke had no link to cancer. And had various other views not supported by science (condom safety).


    Quote:

      Quote:
      RFRA. A law that was not really needed but was pretty vague in wording to allow people to potentially say hateful things at gay people etc. This was a major issue in Indiana. They put a patch on it but it was a minor fix at best. It had no purpose other than to make sure that the right to dehumanize another person was ok. For whatever reason, dislike of homosexuality has become the core Christian value in some part of the country.



    Quote:
    A law allowing people to say hateful things? Similar to the first amendment? I don't see why it would be needed, as it seems redundant, but I agree with the peoples' right to *say* anything they please.


Than you misunderstand the law and the history behind it. Probably because I did a poor job. However, the history of the thing is tied to the First Amendment.

In the early 90's the SCOTUS made a decision that changed the way religious freedom was viewed in the US. As a response Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Free Exercise clause was seen earlier on as ensuring people were not unduly burdened by a law based on religious faith. A somewhat nebulous standard in my view but this was changed some into the 80's but particularly in the early 90's.

Stolen from Wikipedia. Check out the RFRA page for this and others.

"The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens. Also, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, intended to protect the freedoms of tribal religions, was lacking enforcement. This led to the key cases leading up to the RFRA, which were Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). In Lyng, the Court was unfavorable to sacred land rights. Members of the Yurok, Tolowa and Karok tribes tried to use the First Amendment to prevent a road from being built by the U.S. Forest Service through sacred land. The land that the road would go through consisted of gathering sites for natural resources used in ceremonies and praying sites. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an adequate legal burden because the government was not coercing or punishing them for their religious beliefs.[8] In Smith the Court upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to give unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they used in a religious ceremony. Peyote use has been a common practice in Native American tribes for centuries. It was integrated with Christianity into what is now known as the Native American Church.[9]

The Smith decision outraged the public. Many groups came together. Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the Sherbert Test, overturning laws if they burden a religion.[10] The act, which was Congress's reaction to the Lyng and Smith cases, passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 and was signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton."

The goal of this law was to establish what was the interpretation before those views. Depending on the group there are back and forths about what burden is and what is too much etc. But that was the reason for it. Many states passed a similar law to have on the books around the same period.

Indiana passed the first version in 2015 (about 10 years later than most other states). A few states jumped in afterwords. This law was based on the Hobby Lobby case and basically reads (from wiki)

"As signed into law, Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion... [unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The bill defines a "person" to include any individual, organization, or "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association" or another entity driven by religious belief that can sue and be sued, "regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes."[20] A "person," as defined by the bill, would be permitted to cite violation of this law as a defense in legal proceedings. While the bill explicitly states that no government entity need be involved in the legal proceeding to invoke such a defense, it also states that "the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter."

As read many viewed this as giving some business the right to refuse service to homosexuals in this case, but potentially other groups so long as they had some sort of deeply held religious belief in it. And the recourse was limited.

This view was supported by many in the state house that supported the view

"Indiana, unlike neighboring Illinois, does not have a state-wide anti-discrimination ordinance, and the majority of the state does not have local ordinances against discrimination against LGBT people. When a reporter asked Speaker of the House Brian Bosma whether it would be against the law for a business to put up a “no gays allowed” sign, he stated that "it would depend" on whether the business was in "a community that had a human rights ordinance."

There are others, you will see a few more on the wiki page and I could pull some more out. Many of groups that helped support the bill were very religiously conservative and supported the bill as a method to protect florists or whomever to refuse service to those whom they disagreed etc.

Given Pence's history of being fairly anti-homosexual in terms of the law (and his statements that this was non discriminatory) it is hard to argue the reason for this. This was during the homosexual marriage stuff too. It was in many ways something of a backlash of sorts.

It had to be amended because of backlash to some degree.

This is not the issue of one person saying hateful things to another person. The argument and allowance in the law as originally stated would be for discrimination outright against individuals with whom a given company disagreed. That was the backlash. Not free speech per se. It was more using religion as an excuse to exclude people under the law protected by religion.

You may not have an issue with that, I do not know, but it is similar to many race based situations too. So it is questionable at best. It was not a limit on speech. I will add that speech is limited in the US. It is just under specific situations.

And in various formats there is nothing to legally prevent a given forum from preventing speech. The First Amendment merely refers to the government. If we want to argue about academic discussions than maybe not but care has to be given with those too. As having a debate on opinion is fine but we must remember that in terms of hate speech talked about in such a way, nothing good usually comes from it. As those spreading it have minimal interest in having much discourse. And legitimizing it has perils all its own.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      In the ongoing HIV/AIDs epidemic in the state he had to be dragged along to open needle exchanges. When he did do it, it was underfunded and staffed. The State Health secretary was pretty mad at him. As it likely made it worse. His reasons for this were shared by many pasturs and the like that these people did it to themselves and basically brought it on themselves. He did not say that, but he was doing everything that those folks were recommending until backlash was high enough.



    Quote:
    The *policy* of not using taxpayer money to fund criminal activity may be something you disagree with. Not forcing people who stay clean of drugs to pay for needles of drug addicts may be something you disagree with. That the needle program might make drug use look like less of a problem when the government is helping people get supplies may be a point of view that you disagree with. But calling someone evil for having this opinion is not what I thought this board was about.


I am going to try to not be insulted. I never called the man evil. Gernot did. So please get off accusation wagon.

Let us go through the facts shall we. Since you have a strong opinion about them but they appear based on ideology that is similar.

1. There is a drug epidemic in Indiana and parts of the midwest. Particularly the Southern parts of Indiana.

2. Drug use in these areas has many causes among them are poverty etc.

3. The sharing of needles with drug use has resulted in a boom in HIV/AIDs cases into the population.

4. The later leads to increase in other forms of transmission like unsafe sex etc. as there are more cases around.

5. The state of Indiana public health department and the CDC recommended the use of funds to set up needle exchanges as a first method of stemming the spread of disease.

6. As part of this exchange individuals would be offered treatment to help fight addiction etc.

7. Even this does not cure the state of that region or the causes that led to addictions. Medicine can only do so much.

Pence in this case had to have pretty intense battles with physician groups and the health department before using state funds to help these people. It is a public health emergency, meaning danger to the public. He ignored it. Many local health departments were swamped until a very watered down funding scheme was passed.

Money was stated as a reason at times, but it is pretty callous for anybody to use the argument that state funds should not help people. Why have the CDC or public health departments if they are not looking out for public health?

The only argument ever really made by Pence that I heard was money.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/mike-pence-needle-exchanges-indiana.html?mcubz=3

The article does a fairly good job of covering the whole thing, but if the health department is making recommendations and the Gov is not helping than it is not a good situation. Why have them?

Now he did give in, but this is not good governance. Does not matter his reasons. The policy was and has been debated but the data so far is that the exchanges do help and do not increase drug use. So, limited downside. And little state funds were used to help, meaning local areas were still cash strapped dealing with this.

Keep in mind, that the Gov. looked very indifferent during this whole thing. He may not be. It sounds like he was talking to people but his comments to the public were that not much was going to be done. Make an argument about tax money but when we are talking about people's lives and probably increased tax money going to life time treatment. Is it cheaper to stop it or curb it or to tread new cases?

Economically the case is weak too. The article does not mention some of the other steps but some of those were ham handed too. As condoms and such are more hot topic than they should be at times in Indiana. Or parts of it.


    Quote:
    When we differ with someone on policy we should discuss the demerits of the opposing view, and the merits of ours.


Cool, how about not judging me for calling a man evil when I never did. I can tell you how he came off because I was there. I did not say evil.

The issue I have with you bringing this up in this way and how you always do is by your views here you are sort of wanting to open the door to all view points. Why? To what end? Shouldn't those with the knowledge in the matter have the biggest say in the first place?

Not all opinions are created equal. Not all views are created equal. Which often seems to be what people mean when they want a debate on an issue. It is like we should ignore everything said or done to this point and remake the wheel every decade or so instead of building on the work to that point.


    Quote:
    For example...a husband who shoots drugs might contract aids and then infect his innocent wife who is not aware of his drug habit. That is, I think a powerful argument in favor of the needle program. If Pence has a different point of view, maybe it means he disagrees about the weights of what good vs. harm the needle program has on society. It doesn't make him evil.


I never said as much or that there was not potential merky areas. Only that the data and recommendations were clear. He had to be fought a fair bit by folks with expertise to give even a little.

Pence was worried that it increased or potentially supported drug use. A hypothesis that has been tested in other places. It does not. It reduces the public health issue and does not result in an upsurge in drug use.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Now I did say that some in the religious community were very much of the mind that the people brought this on themselves. Some that were fairly near Pence. Pence never outright said this that I have heard. At least not as Gov. The fact that he was ignoring public health experts for quite a while with what they recommended was the best method to address the problem. That is not a good look. People have called him cruel and evil for it. I have not personally made a judgement on him for being good or evil. He was doing what he thought was right. That does not mean he was right though. I think he was horribly wrong.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      In the past he has blocked federal funding to help combat HIV unless statements about gay sex were not included. The big bug a boo among some religious conservatives. Ignoring that this disease can be passed on with any sex.



    Quote:
    I don't understand what statements regarding gay sex could not be included. So I can't comment further.


He was big on pushing the myth of homosexual intercourse being the cause of HIV/AIDs. It was pushing the importance of that in particular over other forms of intercourse. Basically reliving some of the past battles in the 80's when it was associated with homosexuals only, incorrectly.

They should be included, but there is not much of a need to put them front and center either as a matter of policy. Making statements about unsafe sex is key. Pence would always make sure that homosexuality was prominent.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      He has been against homosexuals in the military

    Many politicians have on both side of the aisle. It doesn't make someone evil. And it doesn't prevent someone from practicing religion their way.
      Quote:

        Quote:
        He has been against condoms because they were a poor defense against STDs and is a massive supporter of abstinence only education.



    Quote:
    Again, a policy difference. By saying he's against condoms, I'm assuming you mean he's against making tax payers pay for condoms for other people. You don't mean he wants to make condoms illegal. How government spends taxpayer money is something intelligent people can have different opinions about. It doesn't mean one side is "responsible for aids". Vilifying people who disagree with you is not necessary when you are able to coherently, and logically express your own opinion and provide support for how you arrived at that opinion.


Not what I said at all. Nor do I like your tone much. You are acting like I am making this stuff up besides mentioning over and over again that you were not there and do not have much experience with it.

Pence was arguing that condoms are not effective and should not be used as a method of prevention. This has nothing to do with if the state should provide contraceptions or whatever else.

He is very much pro abstinence because of his Biblical based views. He has said as much. This is fine for him as a person. It ignores the public health benefits of condoms and others to the population as a whole. Saying that they do not work or are crappy is spreading misinformation.

It is lying. If he said he does not agree with sex before marriage that is a fair enough position. Saying something does not work when it is not so is misinformation.


    Quote:

      Quote:

      So, while I am unaware that he has specifically said that Christianity should be the state religion. It is pretty clear that he puts his faith above the personal rights of any group that gets in his way.



    Quote:
    That's not clear. It's clear he has a number of policy differences to what you would prefer, and maybe even to what I would prefer. It in no way means he wants to establish an official religion. It in no way means people can't worship their religion however they please. And it doesn't make him evil.


Never called him evil. So, stop condescending to me. My point is he has every view (plus some I did not go into) of those that want state religions. He has never explicitly said it. So, it is a bit too far but most of his views are based more on faith or arguments from morality as opposed to much data.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,”

      Quote:

        Quote:
        There is nothing illegal or wrong with being guided by faith. Many are and it helps guide their views. However, they also tend to be the most rigid holders to their views because in their minds it came from God.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          And that alone is concerning enough or should be. Anybody thinking they have a mandate to basically tell everybody they should live the life by the morality of a specific faith is a problem.



    Quote:
    I don't believe it's the government's job to enforce morality.


Neither do, but many do. If you do not see that than I am not sure what I can do to help.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I mean there are many in religious right circles that would be just fine running the US under a version of Christian law. Yet fewer freak out about that than the falw Shiara law scares.

      Quote:

        Quote:



    Quote:
    I'm not sure what Christian law means, but that's fine, it's not the point of my original post in this thread. The point is how a discussion should be conducted on this board. I'm fairly new here, but I don't believe we should vilify people, call them names, or spread falsehoods. I do believe we should discuss differences in opinion with civility.


To be fair, you are guilty of the same things as you are accusing others of here. I do not like how Gernot worded things but you are often as guilty at spreading falsehood as any of the others on the board.

Nor is everything he said totally false, but under explored and stated in ways that I do not agree with. That said, Pence has a history of doing things a very certain way that is often guided by his faith and that often comes down against those that would seem to be disadvantaged.

Some would make a case against that, but that Pence has been a huge liar about a great many things is not even in question at this point.

Arguments for academic freedom involving creationism, safety of second hand smoke, condoms being ineffective and various other things. This is not hard to prove at all.

At some point somebody has to call an egg an egg. Everybody makes mistakes but when one has a history of resisting evidence for various reasons not based on much evidence than at what point are they dismissed by the logic you are expounding?

I do not agree with what Gernot said or more to the point how he said it. But you just said above you have no issue with freedom of speech and what all opinions out there. Unproductive speech is still speech. I find it worthless but by the standards you often want to employ it still counts.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Sumidor


Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 115


I have so far lacked the time necessary to reply to other posts below, which I intend to do. But I wanted to reply here to correct an error on my part.


    Quote:
    I wrote alot but the main point is you seem to brush a ton off as policy difference. And thus no stance can be made other than opinion. I take some issue with that if one is ignoring the data available while doing it.



    Quote:
    Two people can have policy differences and one person can be totally and utterly wrong. It does not make their points of view on the same field. Particularly in areas where data is available.


Absolutely. The problem is that people place different weights on various pros and cons. Regarding government intervention in many areas, I likely place much more weight on individual liberty. You might place weights on the perceived benefits to those being helped. Thus we can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Rather than name calling ("anti-gay racist moron", "responsible for aids", "evil"), is there any *policy* you would like to discuss?

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Let's start with this....What do you have to demonstrate that Pence wants to install an official religion, and make all other religions illegal?

        Quote:

          Quote:
          This later point is something of a straw man argument. It would require something akin to finding a letter where that is writen out. I have seen others make that claim as the only way to be sure that somebody is racist. If that is our standard than few would be guilty of much of anything.



    Quote:
    You are correct on the points below, I am having formatting issues and that may have helped me miss part of what he said.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      It's not a straw man argument at all. I was directly questioning Gernot's statement. He said that Pence wants to establish an official religion, and that Pence will make it illegal for people to worship God in their way. I asked him him for evidence to support his claim.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Had Gernot stated that Mike Pence allows his religion to guide his governing polices too much, then that would have been a fair opinion to share. But he didn't say that. And if he had provided examples as you have done, then he and I might have had a discussion, but he didn't do that.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I challenged him on his blunt falsehood. In no way did I make a straw man argument.


            Quote:
            Having lived in Indiana for some time it was always clear that Pence is a very religious man and very much a religious conservative.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              I am not sure he wants Christianity to be a state religion per se but he wants his view of Christianity to be what guides policy.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                In 2002 he went to the House floor and asked that science textbooks promote creationism but casting doubt on Evolution.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I know next to nothing about Mike Pence. If this is true, then I disagree with him regarding teaching creationism in public schools.



    Quote:
    I could provide links to this one and most of the others easily. Pence, in this regard, and in others was always skeptical of science that got in the way of some things.



    Quote:
    For instance, a non-religious one, he was big that second smoke had no link to cancer. And had various other views not supported by science (condom safety).



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        RFRA. A law that was not really needed but was pretty vague in wording to allow people to potentially say hateful things at gay people etc. This was a major issue in Indiana. They put a patch on it but it was a minor fix at best. It had no purpose other than to make sure that the right to dehumanize another person was ok. For whatever reason, dislike of homosexuality has become the core Christian value in some part of the country.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        A law allowing people to say hateful things? Similar to the first amendment? I don't see why it would be needed, as it seems redundant, but I agree with the peoples' right to *say* anything they please.



    Quote:
    Than you misunderstand the law and the history behind it. Probably because I did a poor job. However, the history of the thing is tied to the First Amendment.



    Quote:
    In the early 90's the SCOTUS made a decision that changed the way religious freedom was viewed in the US. As a response Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Free Exercise clause was seen earlier on as ensuring people were not unduly burdened by a law based on religious faith. A somewhat nebulous standard in my view but this was changed some into the 80's but particularly in the early 90's.



    Quote:
    Stolen from Wikipedia. Check out the RFRA page for this and others.



    Quote:
    "The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens. Also, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, intended to protect the freedoms of tribal religions, was lacking enforcement. This led to the key cases leading up to the RFRA, which were Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). In Lyng, the Court was unfavorable to sacred land rights. Members of the Yurok, Tolowa and Karok tribes tried to use the First Amendment to prevent a road from being built by the U.S. Forest Service through sacred land. The land that the road would go through consisted of gathering sites for natural resources used in ceremonies and praying sites. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an adequate legal burden because the government was not coercing or punishing them for their religious beliefs.[8] In Smith the Court upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to give unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they used in a religious ceremony. Peyote use has been a common practice in Native American tribes for centuries. It was integrated with Christianity into what is now known as the Native American Church.[9]



    Quote:
    The Smith decision outraged the public. Many groups came together. Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the Sherbert Test, overturning laws if they burden a religion.[10] The act, which was Congress's reaction to the Lyng and Smith cases, passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 and was signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton."



    Quote:
    The goal of this law was to establish what was the interpretation before those views. Depending on the group there are back and forths about what burden is and what is too much etc. But that was the reason for it. Many states passed a similar law to have on the books around the same period.



    Quote:
    Indiana passed the first version in 2015 (about 10 years later than most other states). A few states jumped in afterwords. This law was based on the Hobby Lobby case and basically reads (from wiki)



    Quote:
    "As signed into law, Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion... [unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The bill defines a "person" to include any individual, organization, or "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association" or another entity driven by religious belief that can sue and be sued, "regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes."[20] A "person," as defined by the bill, would be permitted to cite violation of this law as a defense in legal proceedings. While the bill explicitly states that no government entity need be involved in the legal proceeding to invoke such a defense, it also states that "the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter."



    Quote:
    As read many viewed this as giving some business the right to refuse service to homosexuals in this case, but potentially other groups so long as they had some sort of deeply held religious belief in it. And the recourse was limited.



    Quote:
    This view was supported by many in the state house that supported the view



    Quote:
    "Indiana, unlike neighboring Illinois, does not have a state-wide anti-discrimination ordinance, and the majority of the state does not have local ordinances against discrimination against LGBT people. When a reporter asked Speaker of the House Brian Bosma whether it would be against the law for a business to put up a “no gays allowed” sign, he stated that "it would depend" on whether the business was in "a community that had a human rights ordinance."



    Quote:
    There are others, you will see a few more on the wiki page and I could pull some more out. Many of groups that helped support the bill were very religiously conservative and supported the bill as a method to protect florists or whomever to refuse service to those whom they disagreed etc.



    Quote:
    Given Pence's history of being fairly anti-homosexual in terms of the law (and his statements that this was non discriminatory) it is hard to argue the reason for this. This was during the homosexual marriage stuff too. It was in many ways something of a backlash of sorts.



    Quote:
    It had to be amended because of backlash to some degree.



    Quote:
    This is not the issue of one person saying hateful things to another person. The argument and allowance in the law as originally stated would be for discrimination outright against individuals with whom a given company disagreed. That was the backlash. Not free speech per se. It was more using religion as an excuse to exclude people under the law protected by religion.



    Quote:
    You may not have an issue with that, I do not know, but it is similar to many race based situations too. So it is questionable at best. It was not a limit on speech. I will add that speech is limited in the US. It is just under specific situations.



    Quote:
    And in various formats there is nothing to legally prevent a given forum from preventing speech. The First Amendment merely refers to the government. If we want to argue about academic discussions than maybe not but care has to be given with those too. As having a debate on opinion is fine but we must remember that in terms of hate speech talked about in such a way, nothing good usually comes from it. As those spreading it have minimal interest in having much discourse. And legitimizing it has perils all its own.


One of the problem I have limiting hate speech is in defining it. Laws have to be exact, laws should be clearly understood by all. Hate speech laws have been misused, expanded, and can lead to extreme differences of interpretation.

A man in England was arrested for singing the 1970's song "Kung Foo Fighting" at a kareoke bar. The line from the song "There were funky china men from funky chinatown" was deemed hate speech.

Proving my point above, I value individual liberty of not putting people in jail for singing bad 1970's disco songs over the perceived benefit of protecting people's feelings from being called bad names. I think you will disagree. So while we look at the same information, we come to different conclusions.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        In the ongoing HIV/AIDs epidemic in the state he had to be dragged along to open needle exchanges. When he did do it, it was underfunded and staffed. The State Health secretary was pretty mad at him. As it likely made it worse. His reasons for this were shared by many pasturs and the like that these people did it to themselves and basically brought it on themselves. He did not say that, but he was doing everything that those folks were recommending until backlash was high enough.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The *policy* of not using taxpayer money to fund criminal activity may be something you disagree with. Not forcing people who stay clean of drugs to pay for needles of drug addicts may be something you disagree with. That the needle program might make drug use look like less of a problem when the government is helping people get supplies may be a point of view that you disagree with. But calling someone evil for having this opinion is not what I thought this board was about.



    Quote:
    I am going to try to not be insulted. I never called the man evil. Gernot did. So please get off accusation wagon.


Apologies for the misunderstanding. No insult was meant. I thought you were defending Gernot's post, and so my reply above was more towards Gernot's words which I took you as being in agreement with.


    Quote:
    Let us go through the facts shall we. Since you have a strong opinion about them but they appear based on ideology that is similar.



    Quote:
    1. There is a drug epidemic in Indiana and parts of the midwest. Particularly the Southern parts of Indiana.



    Quote:
    2. Drug use in these areas has many causes among them are poverty etc.



    Quote:
    3. The sharing of needles with drug use has resulted in a boom in HIV/AIDs cases into the population.



    Quote:
    4. The later leads to increase in other forms of transmission like unsafe sex etc. as there are more cases around.



    Quote:
    5. The state of Indiana public health department and the CDC recommended the use of funds to set up needle exchanges as a first method of stemming the spread of disease.



    Quote:
    6. As part of this exchange individuals would be offered treatment to help fight addiction etc.



    Quote:
    7. Even this does not cure the state of that region or the causes that led to addictions. Medicine can only do so much.



    Quote:
    Pence in this case had to have pretty intense battles with physician groups and the health department before using state funds to help these people. It is a public health emergency, meaning danger to the public. He ignored it. Many local health departments were swamped until a very watered down funding scheme was passed.



    Quote:
    Money was stated as a reason at times, but it is pretty callous for anybody to use the argument that state funds should not help people. Why have the CDC or public health departments if they are not looking out for public health?



    Quote:
    The only argument ever really made by Pence that I heard was money.



    Quote:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/mike-pence-needle-exchanges-indiana.html?mcubz=3



    Quote:
    The article does a fairly good job of covering the whole thing, but if the health department is making recommendations and the Gov is not helping than it is not a good situation. Why have them?



    Quote:
    Now he did give in, but this is not good governance. Does not matter his reasons. The policy was and has been debated but the data so far is that the exchanges do help and do not increase drug use. So, limited downside. And little state funds were used to help, meaning local areas were still cash strapped dealing with this.



    Quote:
    Keep in mind, that the Gov. looked very indifferent during this whole thing. He may not be. It sounds like he was talking to people but his comments to the public were that not much was going to be done. Make an argument about tax money but when we are talking about people's lives and probably increased tax money going to life time treatment. Is it cheaper to stop it or curb it or to tread new cases?



    Quote:
    Economically the case is weak too. The article does not mention some of the other steps but some of those were ham handed too. As condoms and such are more hot topic than they should be at times in Indiana. Or parts of it.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      When we differ with someone on policy we should discuss the demerits of the opposing view, and the merits of ours.



    Quote:
    Cool, how about not judging me for calling a man evil when I never did. I can tell you how he came off because I was there. I did not say evil.


As stated above, the misunderstanding might have been mine. I assumed you were defending Gernot's post, and so I was still referring to that in my reply.


    Quote:
    The issue I have with you bringing this up in this way and how you always do is by your views here you are sort of wanting to open the door to all view points. Why? To what end? Shouldn't those with the knowledge in the matter have the biggest say in the first place?


Why? To what end? To be sure all information is had. To allow for corrections. To allow for constant questioning and improvement.

Who decides who's knowledge is best, or more accurate? To decide one opinion is correct, and shall ever be, is something that sounds dangerous to me. Situations change, and unless we always leave the door open to all points of view, how do we know we have the best solution to any problem?


    Quote:
    Not all opinions are created equal. Not all views are created equal. Which often seems to be what people mean when they want a debate on an issue. It is like we should ignore everything said or done to this point and remake the wheel every decade or so instead of building on the work to that point.


Not ignore everything said and done prior. But not to ignore the possibility that better solutions may always be available. Always question our decisions.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      For example...a husband who shoots drugs might contract aids and then infect his innocent wife who is not aware of his drug habit. That is, I think a powerful argument in favor of the needle program. If Pence has a different point of view, maybe it means he disagrees about the weights of what good vs. harm the needle program has on society. It doesn't make him evil.



    Quote:
    I never said as much or that there was not potential merky areas. Only that the data and recommendations were clear. He had to be fought a fair bit by folks with expertise to give even a little.


I've stated before....but will correct myself at each instance. As I thought you were defending Gernot's post, I was replying as much to his words as yours. This seems to be my error.


    Quote:
    Pence was worried that it increased or potentially supported drug use. A hypothesis that has been tested in other places. It does not. It reduces the public health issue and does not result in an upsurge in drug use.



    Quote:
    Please stop putting words in my mouth.


That was not at all my intention. The error here was mine for the reason stated above.


    Quote:
    Now I did say that some in the religious community were very much of the mind that the people brought this on themselves. Some that were fairly near Pence. Pence never outright said this that I have heard. At least not as Gov. The fact that he was ignoring public health experts for quite a while with what they recommended was the best method to address the problem. That is not a good look. People have called him cruel and evil for it. I have not personally made a judgement on him for being good or evil. He was doing what he thought was right. That does not mean he was right though. I think he was horribly wrong.



    Quote:

      Quote:


        Quote:
        In the past he has blocked federal funding to help combat HIV unless statements about gay sex were not included. The big bug a boo among some religious conservatives. Ignoring that this disease can be passed on with any sex.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I don't understand what statements regarding gay sex could not be included. So I can't comment further.



    Quote:
    He was big on pushing the myth of homosexual intercourse being the cause of HIV/AIDs. It was pushing the importance of that in particular over other forms of intercourse. Basically reliving some of the past battles in the 80's when it was associated with homosexuals only, incorrectly.



    Quote:
    They should be included, but there is not much of a need to put them front and center either as a matter of policy. Making statements about unsafe sex is key. Pence would always make sure that homosexuality was prominent.


Aids has been more common in the gay community than among heterosexuals. There are gay people who have been critical of the suppression of that data since it has taken the spotlight away from the extreme importance of condom use.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        He has been against homosexuals in the military

      Many politicians have on both side of the aisle. It doesn't make someone evil. And it doesn't prevent someone from practicing religion their way.
        Quote:

          Quote:
          He has been against condoms because they were a poor defense against STDs and is a massive supporter of abstinence only education.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Again, a policy difference. By saying he's against condoms, I'm assuming you mean he's against making tax payers pay for condoms for other people. You don't mean he wants to make condoms illegal. How government spends taxpayer money is something intelligent people can have different opinions about. It doesn't mean one side is "responsible for aids". Vilifying people who disagree with you is not necessary when you are able to coherently, and logically express your own opinion and provide support for how you arrived at that opinion.



    Quote:
    Not what I said at all. Nor do I like your tone much. You are acting like I am making this stuff up besides mentioning over and over again that you were not there and do not have much experience with it.


Once again, the error here is mine. My reply about vilifying people was pointed at Gernot's comments, which I thought you were in agreement with. If I am wrong regarding that, then I apologize.


    Quote:
    Pence was arguing that condoms are not effective and should not be used as a method of prevention. This has nothing to do with if the state should provide contraceptions or whatever else.



    Quote:
    He is very much pro abstinence because of his Biblical based views. He has said as much. This is fine for him as a person. It ignores the public health benefits of condoms and others to the population as a whole. Saying that they do not work or are crappy is spreading misinformation.



    Quote:
    It is lying. If he said he does not agree with sex before marriage that is a fair enough position. Saying something does not work when it is not so is misinformation.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

        So, while I am unaware that he has specifically said that Christianity should be the state religion. It is pretty clear that he puts his faith above the personal rights of any group that gets in his way.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        That's not clear. It's clear he has a number of policy differences to what you would prefer, and maybe even to what I would prefer. It in no way means he wants to establish an official religion. It in no way means people can't worship their religion however they please. And it doesn't make him evil.



    Quote:
    Never called him evil. So, stop condescending to me. My point is he has every view (plus some I did not go into) of those that want state religions. He has never explicitly said it. So, it is a bit too far but most of his views are based more on faith or arguments from morality as opposed to much data.


You are correct in that you did not call him evil. I was not being condescending, but I was wrong in thinking you were directly continuing Gernot's post.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,”

        Quote:

          Quote:
          There is nothing illegal or wrong with being guided by faith. Many are and it helps guide their views. However, they also tend to be the most rigid holders to their views because in their minds it came from God.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            And that alone is concerning enough or should be. Anybody thinking they have a mandate to basically tell everybody they should live the life by the morality of a specific faith is a problem.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I don't believe it's the government's job to enforce morality.



    Quote:
    Neither do, but many do. If you do not see that than I am not sure what I can do to help.


No help required. I agree that others do.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I mean there are many in religious right circles that would be just fine running the US under a version of Christian law. Yet fewer freak out about that than the falw Shiara law scares.

        Quote:

          Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I'm not sure what Christian law means, but that's fine, it's not the point of my original post in this thread. The point is how a discussion should be conducted on this board. I'm fairly new here, but I don't believe we should vilify people, call them names, or spread falsehoods. I do believe we should discuss differences in opinion with civility.



    Quote:
    To be fair, you are guilty of the same things as you are accusing others of here. I do not like how Gernot worded things but you are often as guilty at spreading falsehood as any of the others on the board.



    Quote:
    Nor is everything he said totally false, but under explored and stated in ways that I do not agree with. That said, Pence has a history of doing things a very certain way that is often guided by his faith and that often comes down against those that would seem to be disadvantaged.



    Quote:
    Some would make a case against that, but that Pence has been a huge liar about a great many things is not even in question at this point.



    Quote:
    Arguments for academic freedom involving creationism, safety of second hand smoke, condoms being ineffective and various other things. This is not hard to prove at all.



    Quote:
    At some point somebody has to call an egg an egg. Everybody makes mistakes but when one has a history of resisting evidence for various reasons not based on much evidence than at what point are they dismissed by the logic you are expounding?



    Quote:
    I do not agree with what Gernot said or more to the point how he said it. But you just said above you have no issue with freedom of speech and what all opinions out there. Unproductive speech is still speech. I find it worthless but by the standards you often want to employ it still counts.


I don't know the details behind Pence's stint as governor, and so have no argument to make in many of the points you raise. My point in this thread was Gernot's name calling and lack of support provided. I apologize for directing my replies to his words to you. My error was in thinking you were defending his post.


Posted with Google Chrome 56.0.2924.87 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486



    Quote:
    I have so far lacked the time necessary to reply to other posts below, which I intend to do. But I wanted to reply here to correct an error on my part.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I wrote alot but the main point is you seem to brush a ton off as policy difference. And thus no stance can be made other than opinion. I take some issue with that if one is ignoring the data available while doing it.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Two people can have policy differences and one person can be totally and utterly wrong. It does not make their points of view on the same field. Particularly in areas where data is available.



    Quote:
    Absolutely. The problem is that people place different weights on various pros and cons. Regarding government intervention in many areas, I likely place much more weight on individual liberty. You might place weights on the perceived benefits to those being helped. Thus we can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.


Yes, but that still does not make the extra weighting correct.

Is one person's liberty to potentially threaten another person's life? This is becoming a hot topic in public health as many use liberty arguments to undercut major initiatives. Despite the data being supportive of steps taken, all from a liberty perspective.

What individual liberty even means to different people is very different. Does one person's liberty supersede that of another person's? It potentially ends up in the same area either and at times can be an argument more from "me" vs "other". Liberty is important, but I view it with some skepticism depending on the argument and what is an undue burden to a given person's liberty.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              He's one of the fake Christians who want to install Sharia Law in the United States, establishing an "official" religion here.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                I wonder how people will react when it becomes illegal to worship God in THEIR way, if that ever comes to pass...

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Rather than name calling ("anti-gay racist moron", "responsible for aids", "evil"), is there any *policy* you would like to discuss?

              Quote:

                Quote:
                Let's start with this....What do you have to demonstrate that Pence wants to install an official religion, and make all other religions illegal?

          Quote:

            Quote:
            This later point is something of a straw man argument. It would require something akin to finding a letter where that is writen out. I have seen others make that claim as the only way to be sure that somebody is racist. If that is our standard than few would be guilty of much of anything.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You are correct on the points below, I am having formatting issues and that may have helped me miss part of what he said.

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            It's not a straw man argument at all. I was directly questioning Gernot's statement. He said that Pence wants to establish an official religion, and that Pence will make it illegal for people to worship God in their way. I asked him him for evidence to support his claim.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Had Gernot stated that Mike Pence allows his religion to guide his governing polices too much, then that would have been a fair opinion to share. But he didn't say that. And if he had provided examples as you have done, then he and I might have had a discussion, but he didn't do that.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                I challenged him on his blunt falsehood. In no way did I make a straw man argument.


                  Quote:
                  Having lived in Indiana for some time it was always clear that Pence is a very religious man and very much a religious conservative.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    I am not sure he wants Christianity to be a state religion per se but he wants his view of Christianity to be what guides policy.

                    Quote:

                      Quote:
                      In 2002 he went to the House floor and asked that science textbooks promote creationism but casting doubt on Evolution.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  I know next to nothing about Mike Pence. If this is true, then I disagree with him regarding teaching creationism in public schools.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I could provide links to this one and most of the others easily. Pence, in this regard, and in others was always skeptical of science that got in the way of some things.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              For instance, a non-religious one, he was big that second smoke had no link to cancer. And had various other views not supported by science (condom safety).

              Quote:

                Quote:

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    RFRA. A law that was not really needed but was pretty vague in wording to allow people to potentially say hateful things at gay people etc. This was a major issue in Indiana. They put a patch on it but it was a minor fix at best. It had no purpose other than to make sure that the right to dehumanize another person was ok. For whatever reason, dislike of homosexuality has become the core Christian value in some part of the country.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    A law allowing people to say hateful things? Similar to the first amendment? I don't see why it would be needed, as it seems redundant, but I agree with the peoples' right to *say* anything they please.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  Than you misunderstand the law and the history behind it. Probably because I did a poor job. However, the history of the thing is tied to the First Amendment.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    In the early 90's the SCOTUS made a decision that changed the way religious freedom was viewed in the US. As a response Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Free Exercise clause was seen earlier on as ensuring people were not unduly burdened by a law based on religious faith. A somewhat nebulous standard in my view but this was changed some into the 80's but particularly in the early 90's.

                    Quote:

                      Quote:
                      Stolen from Wikipedia. Check out the RFRA page for this and others.

                      Quote:

                        Quote:
                        "The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person's exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was "generally applicable" to all citizens. Also, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, intended to protect the freedoms of tribal religions, was lacking enforcement. This led to the key cases leading up to the RFRA, which were Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). In Lyng, the Court was unfavorable to sacred land rights. Members of the Yurok, Tolowa and Karok tribes tried to use the First Amendment to prevent a road from being built by the U.S. Forest Service through sacred land. The land that the road would go through consisted of gathering sites for natural resources used in ceremonies and praying sites. The Supreme Court ruled that this was not an adequate legal burden because the government was not coercing or punishing them for their religious beliefs.[8] In Smith the Court upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to give unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they used in a religious ceremony. Peyote use has been a common practice in Native American tribes for centuries. It was integrated with Christianity into what is now known as the Native American Church.[9]

                        Quote:

                          Quote:
                          The Smith decision outraged the public. Many groups came together. Both liberal (like the American Civil Liberties Union) and conservative groups (like the Traditional Values Coalition) as well as other groups such as the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals joined forces to support RFRA, which would reinstate the Sherbert Test, overturning laws if they burden a religion.[10] The act, which was Congress's reaction to the Lyng and Smith cases, passed the House unanimously and the Senate 97 to 3 and was signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton."

                          Quote:

                            Quote:
                            The goal of this law was to establish what was the interpretation before those views. Depending on the group there are back and forths about what burden is and what is too much etc. But that was the reason for it. Many states passed a similar law to have on the books around the same period.

                            Quote:

                              Quote:
                              Indiana passed the first version in 2015 (about 10 years later than most other states). A few states jumped in afterwords. This law was based on the Hobby Lobby case and basically reads (from wiki)

                              Quote:

                                Quote:
                                "As signed into law, Indiana SB 101 stipulates that "a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion... [unless it] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The bill defines a "person" to include any individual, organization, or "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association" or another entity driven by religious belief that can sue and be sued, "regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes."[20] A "person," as defined by the bill, would be permitted to cite violation of this law as a defense in legal proceedings. While the bill explicitly states that no government entity need be involved in the legal proceeding to invoke such a defense, it also states that "the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter."

                                Quote:

                                  Quote:
                                  As read many viewed this as giving some business the right to refuse service to homosexuals in this case, but potentially other groups so long as they had some sort of deeply held religious belief in it. And the recourse was limited.

                                  Quote:

                                    Quote:
                                    This view was supported by many in the state house that supported the view

                                    Quote:

                                      Quote:
                                      "Indiana, unlike neighboring Illinois, does not have a state-wide anti-discrimination ordinance, and the majority of the state does not have local ordinances against discrimination against LGBT people. When a reporter asked Speaker of the House Brian Bosma whether it would be against the law for a business to put up a “no gays allowed” sign, he stated that "it would depend" on whether the business was in "a community that had a human rights ordinance."

                                      Quote:

                                        Quote:
                                        There are others, you will see a few more on the wiki page and I could pull some more out. Many of groups that helped support the bill were very religiously conservative and supported the bill as a method to protect florists or whomever to refuse service to those whom they disagreed etc.

                                        Quote:

                                          Quote:
                                          Given Pence's history of being fairly anti-homosexual in terms of the law (and his statements that this was non discriminatory) it is hard to argue the reason for this. This was during the homosexual marriage stuff too. It was in many ways something of a backlash of sorts.

                                          Quote:

                                            Quote:
                                            It had to be amended because of backlash to some degree.

                                            Quote:

                                              Quote:
                                              This is not the issue of one person saying hateful things to another person. The argument and allowance in the law as originally stated would be for discrimination outright against individuals with whom a given company disagreed. That was the backlash. Not free speech per se. It was more using religion as an excuse to exclude people under the law protected by religion.

                                              Quote:

                                                Quote:
                                                You may not have an issue with that, I do not know, but it is similar to many race based situations too. So it is questionable at best. It was not a limit on speech. I will add that speech is limited in the US. It is just under specific situations.

                                                Quote:

                                                  Quote:
                                                  And in various formats there is nothing to legally prevent a given forum from preventing speech. The First Amendment merely refers to the government. If we want to argue about academic discussions than maybe not but care has to be given with those too. As having a debate on opinion is fine but we must remember that in terms of hate speech talked about in such a way, nothing good usually comes from it. As those spreading it have minimal interest in having much discourse. And legitimizing it has perils all its own.



    Quote:
    One of the problem I have limiting hate speech is in defining it. Laws have to be exact, laws should be clearly understood by all. Hate speech laws have been misused, expanded, and can lead to extreme differences of interpretation.


Many laws are not exact though. Some are, many are not. Most have large areas of deference to the enforcement agency to figure out what Congress wanted. And is part of Congress deferring to greater expertise in some areas. Not always the case but it is. It is why these things can cause so many court cases in the first place.

So, I would almost argue that any law could be used that way and it honestly depends on how much one wants to fight and how many friendly judges one can find more than anything.

In terms of interpretation of if hate speech is ok or not seems to vary depending on the era and the SCOTUS at the time really. As some have deferred to states and others have not.

All of that said, it is hard to imagine that Hate Speech adds very little to any conversation. As it is an attack on a person based on an intrinsic characteristic of a given person or group of people. Which adds nothing of note nor is anything the person has control over.

At least IMO, people using FoS as a catch all to be a jerk and needlessly cruel has no place in any public arena. Be it to whatever group.


    Quote:
    A man in England was arrested for singing the 1970's song "Kung Foo Fighting" at a kareoke bar. The line from the song "There were funky china men from funky chinatown" was deemed hate speech.


I thought it was a cover band sort of thing. I cannot comment on the laws in England or each country in Europe as each are a bit different.

However, I am not sure that random examples are the best argument points either unless they are pretty severe. As one can find an arrest for nearly any reason if you look hard enough. The fellow looks to have been let go. It was goofy that it happened in this case.

I think the line can be fuzzy but that is also the legal system is it not. Even supposedly clear laws have less clear edges. It is one reason there are so many court cases about what laws mean.


    Quote:
    Proving my point above, I value individual liberty of not putting people in jail for singing bad 1970's disco songs over the perceived benefit of protecting people's feelings from being called bad names. I think you will disagree. So while we look at the same information, we come to different conclusions.


A very strong statement considering that this is not really the area of discussion for this. You put more value on individual liberty but your assumption is that I by extension support this person going to jail.

So basically, you are setting up this example and a false dichotomy. You present only this example and ignore opposition cases of something either working. Meaning you are pointing out and worrying more about potential or real false accusations as opposed to worrying about addressing actual hate speech.

There is a pretty clear difference between one person saying kill the blacks and the example you are pointing out. For that matter, you are expanding the argument to involve the abstract concepts and dragging it through different countries.

This is not an example of what I am saying above either. I am referring to instances more akin to herd immunity vs people not believing in getting vaccines. The data is all on one side the other side only has their belief and calls to liberty.

In such cases, for example the Measles outbreak in Minnesota, where numerous speakers just dumped false information into the community and caused confusions and drops in vaccination rates leading to high morbidity. Those spreading the false views technically have the right to do so. But they caused harm in doing so. Is that Constitutionally protected to spread false information that could hurt people?

Is it ok or add anything to the conversation to give attacks on given groups of people just because one can? I see no reason for that. Just because something may or may not be legal does not make it right or adding anything.

What liberty even means is highly variable to a given person or different view of law. And that is often in the legal system, let alone misconceptions of the public. As we accept that liberties are not absolute at the core.




    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          In the ongoing HIV/AIDs epidemic in the state he had to be dragged along to open needle exchanges. When he did do it, it was underfunded and staffed. The State Health secretary was pretty mad at him. As it likely made it worse. His reasons for this were shared by many pasturs and the like that these people did it to themselves and basically brought it on themselves. He did not say that, but he was doing everything that those folks were recommending until backlash was high enough.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          The *policy* of not using taxpayer money to fund criminal activity may be something you disagree with. Not forcing people who stay clean of drugs to pay for needles of drug addicts may be something you disagree with. That the needle program might make drug use look like less of a problem when the government is helping people get supplies may be a point of view that you disagree with. But calling someone evil for having this opinion is not what I thought this board was about.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am going to try to not be insulted. I never called the man evil. Gernot did. So please get off accusation wagon.



    Quote:
    Apologies for the misunderstanding. No insult was meant. I thought you were defending Gernot's post, and so my reply above was more towards Gernot's words which I took you as being in agreement with.


I am trying to point out what he is getting at in a very crude way. I do not think the man is evil. However, he does not have a good relationship with the truth. And his decisions have been panned for making situations worse needlessly.

In his mind and some around him there were probably good reasons. Does not mean they were good reasons.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Let us go through the facts shall we. Since you have a strong opinion about them but they appear based on ideology that is similar.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        1. There is a drug epidemic in Indiana and parts of the midwest. Particularly the Southern parts of Indiana.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          2. Drug use in these areas has many causes among them are poverty etc.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            3. The sharing of needles with drug use has resulted in a boom in HIV/AIDs cases into the population.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              4. The later leads to increase in other forms of transmission like unsafe sex etc. as there are more cases around.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                5. The state of Indiana public health department and the CDC recommended the use of funds to set up needle exchanges as a first method of stemming the spread of disease.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  6. As part of this exchange individuals would be offered treatment to help fight addiction etc.

                  Quote:

                    Quote:
                    7. Even this does not cure the state of that region or the causes that led to addictions. Medicine can only do so much.

                    Quote:

                      Quote:
                      Pence in this case had to have pretty intense battles with physician groups and the health department before using state funds to help these people. It is a public health emergency, meaning danger to the public. He ignored it. Many local health departments were swamped until a very watered down funding scheme was passed.

                      Quote:

                        Quote:
                        Money was stated as a reason at times, but it is pretty callous for anybody to use the argument that state funds should not help people. Why have the CDC or public health departments if they are not looking out for public health?

                        Quote:

                          Quote:
                          The only argument ever really made by Pence that I heard was money.

                          Quote:

                            Quote:
                            https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/mike-pence-needle-exchanges-indiana.html?mcubz=3

                            Quote:

                              Quote:
                              The article does a fairly good job of covering the whole thing, but if the health department is making recommendations and the Gov is not helping than it is not a good situation. Why have them?

                              Quote:

                                Quote:
                                Now he did give in, but this is not good governance. Does not matter his reasons. The policy was and has been debated but the data so far is that the exchanges do help and do not increase drug use. So, limited downside. And little state funds were used to help, meaning local areas were still cash strapped dealing with this.

                                Quote:

                                  Quote:
                                  Keep in mind, that the Gov. looked very indifferent during this whole thing. He may not be. It sounds like he was talking to people but his comments to the public were that not much was going to be done. Make an argument about tax money but when we are talking about people's lives and probably increased tax money going to life time treatment. Is it cheaper to stop it or curb it or to tread new cases?

                                  Quote:

                                    Quote:
                                    Economically the case is weak too. The article does not mention some of the other steps but some of those were ham handed too. As condoms and such are more hot topic than they should be at times in Indiana. Or parts of it.

                                    Quote:

                                      Quote:

                                        Quote:
                                        When we differ with someone on policy we should discuss the demerits of the opposing view, and the merits of ours.

                                      Quote:

                                        Quote:
                                        Cool, how about not judging me for calling a man evil when I never did. I can tell you how he came off because I was there. I did not say evil.



    Quote:
    As stated above, the misunderstanding might have been mine. I assumed you were defending Gernot's post, and so I was still referring to that in my reply.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      The issue I have with you bringing this up in this way and how you always do is by your views here you are sort of wanting to open the door to all view points. Why? To what end? Shouldn't those with the knowledge in the matter have the biggest say in the first place?



    Quote:
    Why? To what end? To be sure all information is had. To allow for corrections. To allow for constant questioning and improvement.


Sounds pretty but not realistic. Most of the people making choices do not have and will not have even most of the information. And if they did, they will pick and chose what they want to go with in the first place.

It sounds good but at the same time you assume that everybody is able and willing to objectively look at things. Which is an outright falsehood.


    Quote:
    Who decides who's knowledge is best, or more accurate? To decide one opinion is correct, and shall ever be, is something that sounds dangerous to me. Situations change, and unless we always leave the door open to all points of view, how do we know we have the best solution to any problem?


Again, sounds nice, but it also means loads of work to get to the same conclusion. And you also make the point that many are jumping on against experts. At least that is my reading.

Those are the people to go with in most cases, not some blogger that claims to be looking at all sides or some such like that. The easiest way is the scientific method when it is possible to use.

Have an issue with what is and the knowledge collected to date. Fine, test the hypothesis you have and find evidence for it. Great claims require a fair bit of evidence. That is the way it should be. Areas that lack information should get more.

But we often pretend that things are built on crappy foundations when they are not. Maybe I misunderstand you, but I disagree with your premise and the idea that everybody is equally able to understanding every problem on equal footing. It is not possible. Nobody is an expert on every issue. It is easier to fall into camps and that is what near everybody does.

There is a reason in public debates that we hear views from the left and right and little from those with actual knowledge on the matter.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Not all opinions are created equal. Not all views are created equal. Which often seems to be what people mean when they want a debate on an issue. It is like we should ignore everything said or done to this point and remake the wheel every decade or so instead of building on the work to that point.



    Quote:
    Not ignore everything said and done prior. But not to ignore the possibility that better solutions may always be available. Always question our decisions.


Yes, but evidence needs to be put forward for an alternative. Just saying something or that somebody questions something is not grounds to dismiss something based on available data either.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        For example...a husband who shoots drugs might contract aids and then infect his innocent wife who is not aware of his drug habit. That is, I think a powerful argument in favor of the needle program. If Pence has a different point of view, maybe it means he disagrees about the weights of what good vs. harm the needle program has on society. It doesn't make him evil.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I never said as much or that there was not potential merky areas. Only that the data and recommendations were clear. He had to be fought a fair bit by folks with expertise to give even a little.



    Quote:
    I've stated before....but will correct myself at each instance. As I thought you were defending Gernot's post, I was replying as much to his words as yours. This seems to be my error.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Pence was worried that it increased or potentially supported drug use. A hypothesis that has been tested in other places. It does not. It reduces the public health issue and does not result in an upsurge in drug use.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Please stop putting words in my mouth.



    Quote:
    That was not at all my intention. The error here was mine for the reason stated above.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Now I did say that some in the religious community were very much of the mind that the people brought this on themselves. Some that were fairly near Pence. Pence never outright said this that I have heard. At least not as Gov. The fact that he was ignoring public health experts for quite a while with what they recommended was the best method to address the problem. That is not a good look. People have called him cruel and evil for it. I have not personally made a judgement on him for being good or evil. He was doing what he thought was right. That does not mean he was right though. I think he was horribly wrong.

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:


            Quote:
            In the past he has blocked federal funding to help combat HIV unless statements about gay sex were not included. The big bug a boo among some religious conservatives. Ignoring that this disease can be passed on with any sex.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I don't understand what statements regarding gay sex could not be included. So I can't comment further.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          He was big on pushing the myth of homosexual intercourse being the cause of HIV/AIDs. It was pushing the importance of that in particular over other forms of intercourse. Basically reliving some of the past battles in the 80's when it was associated with homosexuals only, incorrectly.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            They should be included, but there is not much of a need to put them front and center either as a matter of policy. Making statements about unsafe sex is key. Pence would always make sure that homosexuality was prominent.



    Quote:
    Aids has been more common in the gay community than among heterosexuals. There are gay people who have been critical of the suppression of that data since it has taken the spotlight away from the extreme importance of condom use.


That is true, if the story is a bit more complicated.

However, one needs to understand Pence's actions before assuming some of the things you are. Why would he cut funding for public health in Indiana to deal with these issues for any group? Why refuse to use state funds at all and let overworked and underfunded stations deal with situations while all his policy gave was legality? The only reason most of the areas pulled it off was eventual federal funding.

So, why the focus on homsexuality while not providing the tools to any particular group to deal with the problem in the first place? It is not like there is no funding but it is not good either.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/21/486771345/as-indiana-governor-mike-pence-s-health-policy-has-been-contentious

If this was done as part of a public health push than I think folks would be on board. Given the man's stances on many things it should make anybody skeptical. As it is only sort of related to public health.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          He has been against homosexuals in the military

        Many politicians have on both side of the aisle. It doesn't make someone evil. And it doesn't prevent someone from practicing religion their way.
          Quote:

            Quote:
            He has been against condoms because they were a poor defense against STDs and is a massive supporter of abstinence only education.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Again, a policy difference. By saying he's against condoms, I'm assuming you mean he's against making tax payers pay for condoms for other people. You don't mean he wants to make condoms illegal. How government spends taxpayer money is something intelligent people can have different opinions about. It doesn't mean one side is "responsible for aids". Vilifying people who disagree with you is not necessary when you are able to coherently, and logically express your own opinion and provide support for how you arrived at that opinion.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Not what I said at all. Nor do I like your tone much. You are acting like I am making this stuff up besides mentioning over and over again that you were not there and do not have much experience with it.



    Quote:
    Once again, the error here is mine. My reply about vilifying people was pointed at Gernot's comments, which I thought you were in agreement with. If I am wrong regarding that, then I apologize.


I do not think he is evil. I do not really think of him as a good decision maker and consider him to be a liar and an ideologue. I think he was doing what he was because he thought it was the right thing to do.

Again, that does not mean that it was. And his history of policy choices and supporting issues should make one very skeptical of the man in my view. That does not make the man evil, but it does not make him a saint either.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Pence was arguing that condoms are not effective and should not be used as a method of prevention. This has nothing to do with if the state should provide contraceptions or whatever else.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        He is very much pro abstinence because of his Biblical based views. He has said as much. This is fine for him as a person. It ignores the public health benefits of condoms and others to the population as a whole. Saying that they do not work or are crappy is spreading misinformation.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          It is lying. If he said he does not agree with sex before marriage that is a fair enough position. Saying something does not work when it is not so is misinformation.

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:

                So, while I am unaware that he has specifically said that Christianity should be the state religion. It is pretty clear that he puts his faith above the personal rights of any group that gets in his way.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                That's not clear. It's clear he has a number of policy differences to what you would prefer, and maybe even to what I would prefer. It in no way means he wants to establish an official religion. It in no way means people can't worship their religion however they please. And it doesn't make him evil.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Never called him evil. So, stop condescending to me. My point is he has every view (plus some I did not go into) of those that want state religions. He has never explicitly said it. So, it is a bit too far but most of his views are based more on faith or arguments from morality as opposed to much data.



    Quote:
    You are correct in that you did not call him evil. I was not being condescending, but I was wrong in thinking you were directly continuing Gernot's post.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          “I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,”

          Quote:

            Quote:
            There is nothing illegal or wrong with being guided by faith. Many are and it helps guide their views. However, they also tend to be the most rigid holders to their views because in their minds it came from God.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              And that alone is concerning enough or should be. Anybody thinking they have a mandate to basically tell everybody they should live the life by the morality of a specific faith is a problem.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I don't believe it's the government's job to enforce morality.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Neither do, but many do. If you do not see that than I am not sure what I can do to help.



    Quote:
    No help required. I agree that others do.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I mean there are many in religious right circles that would be just fine running the US under a version of Christian law. Yet fewer freak out about that than the falw Shiara law scares.

          Quote:

            Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I'm not sure what Christian law means, but that's fine, it's not the point of my original post in this thread. The point is how a discussion should be conducted on this board. I'm fairly new here, but I don't believe we should vilify people, call them names, or spread falsehoods. I do believe we should discuss differences in opinion with civility.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        To be fair, you are guilty of the same things as you are accusing others of here. I do not like how Gernot worded things but you are often as guilty at spreading falsehood as any of the others on the board.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Nor is everything he said totally false, but under explored and stated in ways that I do not agree with. That said, Pence has a history of doing things a very certain way that is often guided by his faith and that often comes down against those that would seem to be disadvantaged.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Some would make a case against that, but that Pence has been a huge liar about a great many things is not even in question at this point.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Arguments for academic freedom involving creationism, safety of second hand smoke, condoms being ineffective and various other things. This is not hard to prove at all.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                At some point somebody has to call an egg an egg. Everybody makes mistakes but when one has a history of resisting evidence for various reasons not based on much evidence than at what point are they dismissed by the logic you are expounding?

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  I do not agree with what Gernot said or more to the point how he said it. But you just said above you have no issue with freedom of speech and what all opinions out there. Unproductive speech is still speech. I find it worthless but by the standards you often want to employ it still counts.



    Quote:
    I don't know the details behind Pence's stint as governor, and so have no argument to make in many of the points you raise. My point in this thread was Gernot's name calling and lack of support provided. I apologize for directing my replies to his words to you. My error was in thinking you were defending his post.


He made the points pretty poorly. But there are some grounding for them. In the state some people agree with him all the time, some people never did and a fair number of people varied with the issue.

That said, there are things that he did that drew ire from many. And his track record on many issues tends to lead us in a direction on what his views are.

I have more of an issue with how much of a liar the guy can be and how out there some of his views have been.

http://www.businessinsider.com/mike-pences-most-controversial-stances-on-gay-rights-abortion-and-smoking-2016-11

He is very much a guy that will preach personal liberty for some but not for others. Which rubs many wrong.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 927


Add in her rabid support for and funding FROM a regime that treats women as less than animals.

The DNC corruption and more.

SHE was a horrible person and a horrible choice.

So was Trump. But it baffles me that no one can see how terrible she would have been as well.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486



    Quote:
    If I really gave my honest opinion of Hilary I would probably be banished from this board. And since she is finally off my TV screen and I am not seeing her any more I don't really need to say that much. All I can do is pray she just stays retired and enjoys the rest of her life and does not run for President again. I can tell you a lot of women did not vote for her. The few things I will say that that made her an undesirable candidate was her big campaign to raise taxes on the rich people. The taxes on the rich are already high enough and she ran her mouth saying the rich would pay their fair share. The rich already pay too much. Then she wanted to raise the death tax to as high as 65% which is nothing but highway robbery. Trump wants to eliminate it and that is much better. That is an unfair tax that needs to go away. And I did not like listening to anything she had to say and I did not feel she could make a speech worth a dam. I feel if any other candidate would have run besides Hilary then Trump might not have won. I have said from the beginning I was not a fan of Trump as a Presidential candidate and I am not happy with stuff he is doing but I am extremely glad Hilary is not President and I will not back down on that.


I really would like to hear some of this sourced. Particularly that Trump and his rambling speeches were better than hers. Trump had no policy positions and what few concepts he had changed as needed. His basis was look how everybody is against me.

Also, the tax stuff in the US is more complicated than you are laying out.

1. In terms of the wealth disparity the wealthy do not pay what would be a "fair share". Is that right or whatever is another story. But given that about the wealthiest 10% have about 76% of the wealth in the US.

I am not saying that taxes are the best way of going about it. But I do not think it is fair to pretend that they are taxed at a given rate and ignore why they are. It seems if they have such wealth and it is not being distributed through the economy by other means (capitalism mechanisms) and the government needs tax revenue than it makes some sense.

It honestly depends on ones priorities with taxation, but there is logic to taxing those that are wealthy more. Historically, they were taxed at much higher rates and the economy did not crash either.

2. The Estate Tax, death tax, is a perfectly fine tax. The estimate for 2017 was that 1 in 487 pay the tax (0.2%). This is hardly a pressing matter given the number of people implicated. There are bigger issues of fairness in the tax code and other issues than worrying about if very wealthy people can pass property and material tax free.


IMO, the corporate tax code is more worthy of looking at. But even then we pretend that tax cuts alone are what matters. The base rate should be lowered to help out companies that do not have massive accounting firms. But more needs to be done to try and ensure it is paid. Fewer deductions etc.

I think in terms of tax policy we often here overstated the value of tax policy. Playing with the tax code in and of itself is not a solution. It can help but there are conflicting examples of the roles for such things. And too often we hear that cutting taxes is a fix all for the economy.

When in many cases it really is just shifting more money into the hands of the few. Unless it is done well and it has rarely been.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Butthead1


Member Since: Fri Jul 28, 2017
Posts: 38


As I said already. I was not a fan of Trump and and he is not doing a great job in my opinion. And unfortunately I cannot say how I feel about Hilary because it would upset the moderators and could get me banished. One thing I can say is Obama was a true statesman "in my opinion" and at least I enjoyed listening to his speeches to a degree. When Hilary even opened her mouth on TV I had to change the channel because I could not stand listening to her. That is as far as I will go since Hilary is all but gone from the spot light and yesterdays news and no need to keep bringing up something irrelevant now. It was unfortunate that this last election had what I consider 2 candidates that I did not want and I am happy it turned out the way it did but that does not mean it is a good thing. The one President I have to give the most praise to is Ronald Reagan for the way he lowered those outrageous 70% tax rates. I honestly do not care if 10% of people have 76% of the wealth. I am definitely not in that 10% but I still do not feel the government has a right to try to take away that wealth through higher rates. I do not think drastically lowering the rates on the wealthy is the answer but I feel it is high enough now and should not be raised. I do not care that only 1 in 487 people pay Estate taxes. It is unfair and raising the highest rate back up to 65% is just ridiculous like Hilary proposed. Do I feel people like Bill and Melinda Gates and others should give 65% of their wealth to the government when they die? Hell No. They should not be forced into giving most it to charity either to avoid what I consider out right highway robbery by the government. I personally know people who were severely hurt by the Estate Tax and I knew people who had to sell the family business to pay that outrageous 55% tax at the time that the deduction was way lower then now. It is easy for the other 99.8% of people to say the Estate Tax is perfectly fine but I bet people would think differently if they were in that 0.2%. I would be ok with it being like 20% top rate after a much larger deduction then now. If Trump can remove the Estate Tax or lower it or even make a law to prevent some future Democrat from raising it higher then I would be very happy with Trump. The best thing he can do is make a law to avoid it from being raised higher by any future president and hopefully lower it as well.


Posted with Google Chrome 60.0.3112.101 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486



    Quote:
    As I said already. I was not a fan of Trump and and he is not doing a great job in my opinion. And unfortunately I cannot say how I feel about Hilary because it would upset the moderators and could get me banished. One thing I can say is Obama was a true statesman "in my opinion" and at least I enjoyed listening to his speeches to a degree. When Hilary even opened her mouth on TV I had to change the channel because I could not stand listening to her. That is as far as I will go since Hilary is all but gone from the spot light and yesterdays news and no need to keep bringing up something irrelevant now. It was unfortunate that this last election had what I consider 2 candidates that I did not want and I am happy it turned out the way it did but that does not mean it is a good thing. The one President I have to give the most praise to is Ronald Reagan for the way he lowered those outrageous 70% tax rates. I honestly do not care if 10% of people have 76% of the wealth. I am definitely not in that 10% but I still do not feel the government has a right to try to take away that wealth through higher rates. I do not think drastically lowering the rates on the wealthy is the answer but I feel it is high enough now and should not be raised. I do not care that only 1 in 487 people pay Estate taxes. It is unfair and raising the highest rate back up to 65% is just ridiculous like Hilary proposed. Do I feel people like Bill and Melinda Gates and others should give 65% of their wealth to the government when they die? Hell No. They should not be forced into giving most it to charity either to avoid what I consider out right highway robbery by the government. I personally know people who were severely hurt by the Estate Tax and I knew people who had to sell the family business to pay that outrageous 55% tax at the time that the deduction was way lower then now. It is easy for the other 99.8% of people to say the Estate Tax is perfectly fine but I bet people would think differently if they were in that 0.2%. I would be ok with it being like 20% top rate after a much larger deduction then now. If Trump can remove the Estate Tax or lower it or even make a law to prevent some future Democrat from raising it higher then I would be very happy with Trump. The best thing he can do is make a law to avoid it from being raised higher by any future president and hopefully lower it as well.


I am not really questioning your right to dislike the women as much as you feel is needed. Just for comparison though, I am not sure, based on what we knew in context, how it is possible for one to like Trump better. As he was usually guilty of whatever he was blaming others of too.

Those are ideological reasons and more abstract ones though. To be fair, nothing I could say would really change your mind on any of that, but I just wanted to put the context as to why things are that way and it does make sense.

I do find it a bit telling in a way.

Also, Trump cannot do really anything about tax policy. That is Congress. He can only make suggestions. And even Congress cannot stop a future Congress from changing a law about taxation. Not without a Constitutional Amendment, which could be changed with another Amendment.

I am not sure that it would suck that much to be in the 0.2%. As you still gained property and wealth you did not have before either way. And a fair bit of it to even fall under the gap in the first place. Given appreciation and the nature of the stuff it would be gained back in fairly short order.

IMO, worrying about the wealthy and their tax problems often is at the expense of more American's who are not in those categories.

I mean it is more concerning, IMO, that one of the things being kicked about in the Congressional tax talks is taxation of 401k plans. Switching them all to Roth plans is pretty much what Trump and the GOP are supposed to hate. Big government telling you how you are to invest and changing retirement strategies out from under people.

After already planning to scrap rules to help retirement plans anyway. To me, those should be bigger worries.

That and why should we worry about folks like Trump and his family getting major tax breaks in the first place? Other than an abstract sense of fairness does that lead to a loss of revenue and services that lead to a great deal more suffering.

I just have issues with abstract ideas of fairness potentially leading to major fights that involve hurting people that are not getting along as well all to make sure some guy somewhere pays less and pockets an extra hundred thousand that year.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 927





    Quote:
    2. The Estate Tax, death tax, is a perfectly fine tax. The estimate for 2017 was that 1 in 487 pay the tax (0.2%). This is hardly a pressing matter given the number of people implicated. There are bigger issues of fairness in the tax code and other issues than worrying about if very wealthy people can pass property and material tax free.


So you like multiple taxing on the same source of income?


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486



    Quote:

      Quote:
      2. The Estate Tax, death tax, is a perfectly fine tax. The estimate for 2017 was that 1 in 487 pay the tax (0.2%). This is hardly a pressing matter given the number of people implicated. There are bigger issues of fairness in the tax code and other issues than worrying about if very wealthy people can pass property and material tax free.



    Quote:
    So you like multiple taxing on the same source of income?


I recommend you look at other sources

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/10-myths-about-the-estate-tax






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 927



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        2. The Estate Tax, death tax, is a perfectly fine tax. The estimate for 2017 was that 1 in 487 pay the tax (0.2%). This is hardly a pressing matter given the number of people implicated. There are bigger issues of fairness in the tax code and other issues than worrying about if very wealthy people can pass property and material tax free.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        So you like multiple taxing on the same source of income?



    Quote:
    I recommend you look at other sources



    Quote:
    https://www.cbpp.org/blog/10-myths-about-the-estate-tax


...when a parent dies the child receives taxes on what's left to them. Which is essentially at least a 3rd tax. First it was taxed when their parent made the money...then there was a tax on any purchases they made and then its taxed again when passed to their children.

I know its often a state issue...maybe I misunderstood what you two were referring too.

Either way...multiple taxing on the same source of revenue is dicey.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,486



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          2. The Estate Tax, death tax, is a perfectly fine tax. The estimate for 2017 was that 1 in 487 pay the tax (0.2%). This is hardly a pressing matter given the number of people implicated. There are bigger issues of fairness in the tax code and other issues than worrying about if very wealthy people can pass property and material tax free.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          So you like multiple taxing on the same source of income?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I recommend you look at other sources

        Quote:

          Quote:
          https://www.cbpp.org/blog/10-myths-about-the-estate-tax



    Quote:
    ...when a parent dies the child receives taxes on what's left to them. Which is essentially at least a 3rd tax. First it was taxed when their parent made the money...then there was a tax on any purchases they made and then its taxed again when passed to their children.


https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/General-Tax-Tips/Video--Is-Inheritance-Money-Counted-as-Income-by-the-IRS-/INF19544.html

If they are left money apparently it is not taxed. And they would only pay taxes on material in excess of the cap. Which, in 2017 is $5.49 million dollars. So, one could own property or have property of that value given to them and owe nothing.

So, unless there is something I do not know about. You are mistaken. At least on the federal level. Everything above is about federal.

Now if you are talking states than some of them do that.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Taxes-101/What-are-Inheritance-Taxes-/INF14800.html

But that is different than the topic at hand. As it seemed to me we were discussing federal taxes and actions at the federal level. In particularly the Estate Tax or Death Tax as it is commonly called by critics.


    Quote:
    I know its often a state issue...maybe I misunderstood what you two were referring too.


It is, the fellow above is referring only to the federal tax system. As that is what Trump and Congress have power over. Nothing they do could fix issues with individual states. At least not through tax law.


    Quote:
    Either way...multiple taxing on the same source of revenue is dicey.


Maybe, it really depends on what way one looks at it going in. One person did pay taxes on given money. They die and give it to somebody else.

If it is taxed under state law than this would be the only way of doing so. As the person would potentially be getting a load of money that they did not have before. Thus having a new income stream.

So at least by that logic it does make sense to some degree. Given that almost all sources of income are taxed, if people record it right is another matter.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software