Politics Forum.org | PoFo

I want to push for a federal anti-discrimination ordinance.

Both parties are anti-discrimination. This shouldn't be a hard ask, Mr. Lieberman.

I can understand the hostility towards the PNL, their membership makes them the BNP/FN of Pofo.

Where do we fall?

Ombrageux wrote:What exactly is the obstacle to forming a coalition with the CA?

We actually got a lot of complaints about CA. I think there is a much greater area of agreement with PNL. If you actually read their platform, their positions are far from the extreme racialism that others are shouting about. In any case, I will not presume to speak for the party on this until enough party members have had their say.

Both parties are anti-discrimination. This shouldn't be a hard ask, Mr. Lieberman.

Why do I have the feeling that it will still be complicated?

Ombrageux wrote:I mean, I can understand the hostility towards the PNL, their membership makes them the BNP/FN of Pofo.

Don't be ridiculous. Pofo has an explicitly fascist party, and we've dropped any and all racial overtones from our platform. We are not even close to being Nazis, and do not deserve to be treated as such.

Disagree. Any student who has demonstrated actual talent in the field should be subsidized, its in society's interest. Those that haven't shown ability above and beyond but still want to pursue tertiary education then should have the fall back of national service in exchange for funding. There is no reason, IMO, for that service to be directly related to their studies though.

I never said Tertiary education should be universal. I should have gone further in explaining high school scores. You need to still score well to get into tertiary education courses... depending on institution.

I'm still down, sorry guys, just have to be in the background for a while.

Attica wrote:It is crucial that the church (of any religion) be separate from state power.

I'm not sure if I can be a party to a conscious vote on this issue either as if it would pass and I was a member of the government that passed it, I would have to resign. I stand by the seperation of the state and church, as I stated before, to the nth degree.

We need to address this issue right now.

How much is the PUC willing to compromise on this matter? Both Zagadka and Attica have expressed their concern about funding religious groups of any kind. This might endanger coalition talks if it isn't settled quickly.

PUC-C will not agree to any funding of hospitals and clinics that perform abortions unless religious organizations may compete with secular organizations for charity dollars intended for secular purposes (soup kitchens, and the like).

So you are saying you'd permit federal funding of abortions, free and easily accessible through state hospitals (and clearly available through private institutions) if religious groups can compete fairly with secular groups for money to secular programs like soup kitchens?

So long as on paper, the government money is officially allocated to hospital activities which aren't abortions. On paper, the government should not fund any abortions. This is sub-optimal, but I think it is a good compromise.

No deal from me.

What is the sticking point, Attica?

On paper, money is not allocated to abortions out of some kind of moral trickery. I'm pretty sure God can still see that occurring.
Have it on paper (which makes it easier to assess the monetary cost on the health system to ensure we can put in place measures that minimize the procedure in the first place). On paper, makes it law. If on paper, it says, money is officially allocated to hospital activities which aren't abortions, then money cannot be given to hospital activity which are abortions. It's as simple as that. Have it out in the open. The government funds abortions as part of the health system like any respectable and caring government would, and also puts plenty of funds into minimization of the procedure through proper sex-education. See Scandinavian models which dropped the abortion rates through proper education. No-body wants people having abortions. They are the last option available. But a woman should have the final say over her own body.

So long as on paper, the government money is officially allocated to hospital activities which aren't abortions. On paper, the government should not fund any abortions. This is sub-optimal, but I think it is a good compromise.

I can't agree to that.

On paper, money is not allocated to abortions out of some kind of moral trickery. I'm pretty sure God can still see that occurring.

My opposition to abortion isn't religious.

Well that doesn't phase me. If you can't agree to that, then you can't agree to that. We are stuck. I am not moving. And with that, my major sticking point, apart from seperation of church and state, I no longer take part in negotiations. My vote has changed to THP.

Attica wrote:Well that doesn't phase me. If you can't agree to that, then you can't agree to that. We are stuck. I am not moving.

Just for clarification, Attica, you realize abortion is still legal under this proposal and hospitals and clinics that receive funding may offer abortions at no or low cost, due to that funding? In addition, sexual education isn't being opposed by Nets et al...

With all due and just respect, good sir, that's a very reasonable stance from a group that could just as well side with anti-abortion parties.

For the price of a few soup kitchens that do good social work, it's not a bad compromise...

Too late.

Attica wrote:Too late.

I don't follow...too late for...?

Infidelis wrote:I don't follow...too late for...?

He's already changed his vote from SLD to Falx Party.

I'm sorry...I didn't catch that..my head just imploded.