Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

sudopod

(5,019 posts)

19. As a poster upthread noted, depending on how many transfers of ownership we follow the money through

Reply to HereSince1628 (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 13, 2012, 01:40 PM

Feb 2012

we are all fourth or fifth order purchasers of nuclear weapons and cluster bombs. No "serious people" worry about the problems Quakers would have with that, though. Clearly, there is a level of "laundering" (for lack of a better term) that makes these purchases acceptable from a "freedom of conscience" perspective. The only question is how many steps will make everyone happy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please help me understand the co-called controversy around the birth control compromise [View all] sudopod Feb 2012 OP

The only way to explain it is if you where completely and utterly insaine. /nt Drale Feb 2012 #1

Obama proposed it, the right wing and their media pundits want to make it an issue liberal N proud Feb 2012 #2

The nontroversy has been re-framed as a religious freedom issue gratuitous Feb 2012 #3

nontroversy is one of my favorite neologisms. :D sudopod Feb 2012 #5

Wouldn't it be great if we could ALL refuse to pay for things we disagree with? Sparkly Feb 2012 #4

Great post Sparkly! smirkymonkey Feb 2012 #9

Here's a case: what if I'm a pacifist Quaker? Can I refuse to pay any taxes, that go the military? Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #15

First question: sudopod Feb 2012 #21

Because it's an opportunity for the GOP Aerows Feb 2012 #6

The idea that McConnel actually cares one way or another is pretty funny. sudopod Feb 2012 #9

the controversy has been manufactured by the media and the cons bowens43 Feb 2012 #7

I just don't understand their argument at all. sudopod Feb 2012 #8

The argument doesn't make sense gratuitous Feb 2012 #11

Close, but not quite zipplewrath Feb 2012 #12

This is hugely informative. sudopod Feb 2012 #16

We get it with no co-pay here in MA Marrah_G Feb 2012 #24

you're talking the patient side zipplewrath Feb 2012 #28

It's all so damned confusing Marrah_G Feb 2012 #30

here's their (ridiculous) argument: unblock Feb 2012 #13

Your third paragraph really nails it. sudopod Feb 2012 #18

Actually, it was a pretty good deal; and the Chruch wasn't entirely closed to it. Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #14

Part of it is that money is fungible and this looks like a shell game/smoke and mirrors accounting HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #17

As a poster upthread noted, depending on how many transfers of ownership we follow the money through sudopod Feb 2012 #19

I appreciate the 'laundering argument' but I think the question hinges on a single question HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #25

Major consumers of insurance services, often negotiate their own independent deal Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #20

BUT, if a sine qua non for being a health insurer HereSince1628 Feb 2012 #26

Basically it's the employer being picky about how he spends the money you earned. JVS Feb 2012 #22

LOL sudopod Feb 2012 #23

An Episcopal priest friend of mine has summarized the absurdity of the RC bishops' position well... markpkessinger Feb 2012 #27

If they're sensible, they already pay for full health packages muriel_volestrangler Feb 2012 #29

exactly nt sudopod Feb 2012 #31

So? The original compromise offer was pretty good; the Church should reconsider Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #32