Then and now
Obama Then:
Obama now:
-Debt the day he took office $10.6 trillion
-Debt now $15.537 trillion
-$5 trillion added in 3 years
Bush is "unpatriotic." What is Obama?
The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.
Obama now:
-Debt the day he took office $10.6 trillion
-Debt now $15.537 trillion
-$5 trillion added in 3 years
Bush is "unpatriotic." What is Obama?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>He's a politician, just like the rest of them.
Not according to him. He stated over and over that he would change politics as usual and change Washington.
>>Obama is doing the same thing.
In 3 years Obama added $1 trillion more than Bush did in 8 years.
Not according to him. He stated over and over that he would change politics as usual and change Washington.
>>Obama is doing the same thing.
In 3 years Obama added $1 trillion more than Bush did in 8 years.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>So it's disingenuous to compare the current deficit to Obama's "first day in office"
His first days in office Obama tripled the deficit. That's disingenuous to attribute to Bush.
(you need to branch out from the Huffingtonpost.com)
>>Bush put his tax breaks and 2 wars on the credit card,
1. Tax breaks more than pay for themselves. In fact, tax revenue went up after the breaks.
2. Democrats voted in favor of both wars. Unlike Obama, Bush got Congressional approval for military action (Kerry voted for it, as did Hillary).
3. And let's not forget that Bush was hit with 9/11 shortly after becoming President.
His first days in office Obama tripled the deficit. That's disingenuous to attribute to Bush.
(you need to branch out from the Huffingtonpost.com)
>>Bush put his tax breaks and 2 wars on the credit card,
1. Tax breaks more than pay for themselves. In fact, tax revenue went up after the breaks.
2. Democrats voted in favor of both wars. Unlike Obama, Bush got Congressional approval for military action (Kerry voted for it, as did Hillary).
3. And let's not forget that Bush was hit with 9/11 shortly after becoming President.
CarsRST, in a nutshell it sounds like your position is that any spending Bush did was justified and any spending that Obama did was not.
>>He stated over and over that he would change politics as usual and change Washington.
Once again, he wanted to get elected and maybe even had a rosy idea in his head that he could, but that obviously didn't happen. They are all politicians.
>>In 3 years Obama added $1 trillion more than Bush did in 8 years.
Not according to this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
Any fact you pull up from somewhere, I can find an opposing one. Which is true? Who knows?
>>He stated over and over that he would change politics as usual and change Washington.
Once again, he wanted to get elected and maybe even had a rosy idea in his head that he could, but that obviously didn't happen. They are all politicians.
>>In 3 years Obama added $1 trillion more than Bush did in 8 years.
Not according to this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
Any fact you pull up from somewhere, I can find an opposing one. Which is true? Who knows?
ASKER
>>Any fact you pull up from somewhere, I can find an opposing one. Which is true? Who knows?
Look at the national debt when the community organizer took office and then look at the debt clock.
There's your answer. Indisputable. No left wing web site can refute it.
Look at the national debt when the community organizer took office and then look at the debt clock.
There's your answer. Indisputable. No left wing web site can refute it.
There's your answer. Indisputable. No left wing web site can refute it.
http://didyoucheckfirst.blogspot.com/2009/08/someone-want-to-verify-or-validate.html
If there is one thing the Internet has taught me is that ANYTHING is disputable.
http://didyoucheckfirst.blogspot.com/2009/08/someone-want-to-verify-or-validate.html
If there is one thing the Internet has taught me is that ANYTHING is disputable.
The world according to Cars:
Facts supporting the right are indisputable.
Facts supporting the left are illegitimate.
Despite 8 years of Bush policies, deregulation and tax cuts, the economy tanked in 08 because of policies from Carter in the 70's.
Despite coming into office with a surplus, Bush created a deficit, but his policies were better economically.
Oh yeah, and Clinton got a blow job.
Facts supporting the right are indisputable.
Facts supporting the left are illegitimate.
Despite 8 years of Bush policies, deregulation and tax cuts, the economy tanked in 08 because of policies from Carter in the 70's.
Despite coming into office with a surplus, Bush created a deficit, but his policies were better economically.
Oh yeah, and Clinton got a blow job.
ASKER
>>Facts supporting the left
Oxymoron
>>Oh yeah, and Clinton got a blow job.
By a fat chick
Oxymoron
>>Oh yeah, and Clinton got a blow job.
By a fat chick
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Clinton left office 11 years ago.
We're debating Rush because it's current, and because of the outright lies, misinformation and character assassination which basically extends to all women who use contraception he used in trying to shape the debate.
The "two words" he used are what he apologized for, not the content of what he said which is what "leftists" and most women are outraged by.
If he wasn't so exalted by the right, this wouldn't even be an issue.
We're debating Rush because it's current, and because of the outright lies, misinformation and character assassination which basically extends to all women who use contraception he used in trying to shape the debate.
The "two words" he used are what he apologized for, not the content of what he said which is what "leftists" and most women are outraged by.
If he wasn't so exalted by the right, this wouldn't even be an issue.
BTW - your revisionist account of the Clinton Presidency is very amusing :)
100% factual about Clinton. Point out one thing I said that's not factual.
Name ONE "outright lie" Rush used about any woman in his comments on this topic.
Leftists can't claim anything good for Obama, except with transparent lies, so they attempt a diversion with Rush. Yeah, good luck on that, most people aren't as stupid as the left thinks they are. And no one on the left is as smart as they think they are.
Joe Biden and Al Gore are outright idiots and the left still hails them.
Name ONE "outright lie" Rush used about any woman in his comments on this topic.
Leftists can't claim anything good for Obama, except with transparent lies, so they attempt a diversion with Rush. Yeah, good luck on that, most people aren't as stupid as the left thinks they are. And no one on the left is as smart as they think they are.
Joe Biden and Al Gore are outright idiots and the left still hails them.
Rush lied about the number of people she had to be having sex with. It seems he's not familiar with birth control pills, or how they work. If he's not lying, he's incredibly ignorant.
What "lie"? Did he *state* how many or *surmise* how many it seemed like it must have been based on the LIE she told about the cost?
She CLEARLY lied about the cost -- $3000? That's a lie or she is the biggest slut in the country.
She CLEARLY lied about the cost -- $3000? That's a lie or she is the biggest slut in the country.
You're doubling down on his lies ( or his ignorance). Birth control doesn't work on how much sex you have, it works by taking it every day. In order to do that, you have to go to the doctor and get a prescription. You have to go to the doctor every year. You have to pay for the prescription.
I don't know about her doc, her pharmacy, what she takes, where she goes, but what does any of that matter? If it's so much cheaper for the insurance companies to provide contraception, they will do it simply as a business case. Your point that it doesn't cost that much bolsters that argument.
Calling it a violation of religious freedom is disingenuous and simply being used as a political weapon.
I don't know about her doc, her pharmacy, what she takes, where she goes, but what does any of that matter? If it's so much cheaper for the insurance companies to provide contraception, they will do it simply as a business case. Your point that it doesn't cost that much bolsters that argument.
Calling it a violation of religious freedom is disingenuous and simply being used as a political weapon.
ASKER
>> Birth control doesn't work on how much sex you have, it works by taking it every day.
If she wants to bang every dude she sees, that's her problem. Not mine. Don't ask me to pay for it.
30 day supply of birth control pills is $9 at Target. That's a $108 per year. That leaves $2,892 left per year. If she uses the rest for condoms (prevent diseases), that means she's banging 39 dudes per day.
If she wants to bang every dude she sees, that's her problem. Not mine. Don't ask me to pay for it.
30 day supply of birth control pills is $9 at Target. That's a $108 per year. That leaves $2,892 left per year. If she uses the rest for condoms (prevent diseases), that means she's banging 39 dudes per day.
Guess you missed the part about going to the doctor to get the prescriptions, and don't understand the need for different prescriptions that might cost more. Also, she didn't say it was for 1 year, but for the duration of the students attendance at law school:
But kudos to you for showing your shared ignorance with Rush, and purporting misinformation in true conservative fashion.
A young woman goes to testify before congress about women's health. Conservatives respond by insisting she be stoned at the stake for promiscuity.
Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
But kudos to you for showing your shared ignorance with Rush, and purporting misinformation in true conservative fashion.
A young woman goes to testify before congress about women's health. Conservatives respond by insisting she be stoned at the stake for promiscuity.
ASKER
...and ineffective. In fact, that method is usually used by people trying to have a baby, not the other way around.
From the very link you posted:
Want to stop abortions? Try contraception.
From the very link you posted:
One concern related to the use of calendar-based methods is their relatively high failure rate, compared to other methods of birth control. Even when used perfectly, calendar-based methods, especially the rhythm method, result in a high pregnancy rate among couples intending to avoid pregnancy.
Want to stop abortions? Try contraception.
ASKER
>>Want to stop abortions? Try contraception.
Stop f***ing
Stop f***ing
>>Stop f***ing
And that is another reason Obama will win.
Conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved has said repeatedly that the Republicans are hurting themselves with Santorum's claims and Rush's comments. He states it makes the Repubs look like they are against sex.
Sex is pretty popular in the main public and this position is hurting the party.
Thanks for proving the point CarsRST.
And that is another reason Obama will win.
Conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved has said repeatedly that the Republicans are hurting themselves with Santorum's claims and Rush's comments. He states it makes the Repubs look like they are against sex.
Sex is pretty popular in the main public and this position is hurting the party.
Thanks for proving the point CarsRST.
ASKER
>>Conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved has said repeatedly that the Republicans are hurting themselves with Santorum's claims and Rush's comments
Democrats lost in the contraception battle.
Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate Battle
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/washington-post-poll-contradicts-washington-post-narrative-women-voters_633469.html?nopager=1
Democrats lost in the contraception battle.
Obama Fares Worse Among Women after Month-Long Contraception Mandate Battle
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/washington-post-poll-contradicts-washington-post-narrative-women-voters_633469.html?nopager=1
Then, from March 7 to 10--a week into the national media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's degrading remarks about Georgetown Law student and liberal activist Sandra Fluke--Washington Post/ABC conducted another poll. It found Obama's approval rating at 46 percent, down four points from February
She inflated the number and ignored all the places you can get a lot of those services for free, including the doctor's visit.
It's absolutely only about religious freedom. No one cares how much of a slut she and her friends are (or aren't). Only that she demands that others pay for it. And when she demands that others pay for it who morally object to it, that directly contradicts the 1st Amendment, the one leftists pretend to like only when it suits their purposes. See, the 1st Amendment has to apply to EVERYONE, not just leftist pals like NAMBLA and American flag burners.
Since leftists want us all to be culturally sensitive, how about we include some African and Middle Eastern customs about women in health care plans? Female circumcision is practiced in many places. How about insurance companies be required to provide that free if the parents want it? Sure, you object to it morally, but you and Obama just said that doesn't matter, it's what any woman (or her mother when she's a minor, I guess) wants for "her health".
It's absolutely only about religious freedom. No one cares how much of a slut she and her friends are (or aren't). Only that she demands that others pay for it. And when she demands that others pay for it who morally object to it, that directly contradicts the 1st Amendment, the one leftists pretend to like only when it suits their purposes. See, the 1st Amendment has to apply to EVERYONE, not just leftist pals like NAMBLA and American flag burners.
Since leftists want us all to be culturally sensitive, how about we include some African and Middle Eastern customs about women in health care plans? Female circumcision is practiced in many places. How about insurance companies be required to provide that free if the parents want it? Sure, you object to it morally, but you and Obama just said that doesn't matter, it's what any woman (or her mother when she's a minor, I guess) wants for "her health".
The least the government can do is provide free contraception to everyone, given the way they keep f^cking us all the time!
>>Surveys
Surveys are all slanted conservatively because they are the ones that still have land line and answer the phones when they don't recognize the number.
>>It's absolutely only about religious freedom.
I fully understand the argument against having to pay for someone else's contraception as a recreational activity.. I can even support that to a point. If conservatives stuck to that point then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
The whole religious freedom argument is crap though. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions, so should they have the option not to cover them?
I might believe in the ways of the Jedi and feel that meditation is needed. Or laughter is the best medicine and just let me tell you jokes until you feel better. Eastern religions may only cover acupuncture or some of their beliefs.
Coverage should be based on medical facts. Not anyone's beliefs.
Make your argument about not paying for someone else's fun and I can understand and even support that. Argue for your religious beliefs to restrict someones care and I'll fight that every step of the way.
Surveys are all slanted conservatively because they are the ones that still have land line and answer the phones when they don't recognize the number.
>>It's absolutely only about religious freedom.
I fully understand the argument against having to pay for someone else's contraception as a recreational activity.. I can even support that to a point. If conservatives stuck to that point then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
The whole religious freedom argument is crap though. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions, so should they have the option not to cover them?
I might believe in the ways of the Jedi and feel that meditation is needed. Or laughter is the best medicine and just let me tell you jokes until you feel better. Eastern religions may only cover acupuncture or some of their beliefs.
Coverage should be based on medical facts. Not anyone's beliefs.
Make your argument about not paying for someone else's fun and I can understand and even support that. Argue for your religious beliefs to restrict someones care and I'll fight that every step of the way.
>>...not just leftist pals like NAMBLA...
Makes me reconsider my welcome back to you Scott. Please try to keep it civil.
Makes me reconsider my welcome back to you Scott. Please try to keep it civil.
The ACLU has voluntarily pro bono represented NAMBLA in many court cases ... that's just a fact.
>> Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions, so should they have the option not to cover them? <<
Of course. They should NOT have to pay for something they consider morally wrong. What is so hard to understand about that?
Where in the Constitution does the *fed* govt get any authority to force anyone to do anything related to health insurance? It's simply not in their enumerated powers, and is thus completely unconstitutional.
>> Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions, so should they have the option not to cover them? <<
Of course. They should NOT have to pay for something they consider morally wrong. What is so hard to understand about that?
Where in the Constitution does the *fed* govt get any authority to force anyone to do anything related to health insurance? It's simply not in their enumerated powers, and is thus completely unconstitutional.
>> I might believe in the ways of the Jedi and feel that meditation is needed. <<
I'm talking about actual, recognized religions, not mediocre science fiction movies.
I'm talking about actual, recognized religions, not mediocre science fiction movies.
ASKER
Apparently Obama is ok with NAMBLA.
Obama appointee [Kevin Jennings] lauded NAMBLA figure
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2009/10/obama-appointee-lauded-nambla-figure/9800
Obama appointee [Kevin Jennings] lauded NAMBLA figure
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2009/10/obama-appointee-lauded-nambla-figure/9800
Kevin Jennings...praised Harry Hay of the North American Association for Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which promotes the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.
Scientologists don't believe in doctors. Should a scientologist who owns a business not have to provide any health care?
It's against Christianity to kill - yet those businesses in question pay taxes, and those taxes fund wars. Should they be given tax credits? Should I?
It's against Christianity to kill - yet those businesses in question pay taxes, and those taxes fund wars. Should they be given tax credits? Should I?
And Scientologists may not cover any psychological visits or counseling. That is their right.
They should have to disclose that when you join the company, but other than that, the govt should not be allowed to force anyone to violate their ethics code if their code is otherwise legal and doesn't harm others.
In fact the fed govt already officially does not pay for any abortions for that very reason -- so many people consider it immoral. Of course Planned Parenthood and other groups get around it, by pretending that the fed money is used for something else.
They should have to disclose that when you join the company, but other than that, the govt should not be allowed to force anyone to violate their ethics code if their code is otherwise legal and doesn't harm others.
In fact the fed govt already officially does not pay for any abortions for that very reason -- so many people consider it immoral. Of course Planned Parenthood and other groups get around it, by pretending that the fed money is used for something else.
See, there's a lot of problems in this country caused by a lack of health care funding. That was the impetus behind the health care law.
You have to realize you're living in a society, where what happens to others in that society directly affects you.
Your moral opposition to perfectly legal procedures does not trump the positive benefits that affordable and comprehensive health care would have on society.
Your religious beliefs do not trump the religious beliefs of others.
You want to run a business in this country? You need to obey the business laws.
You have to realize you're living in a society, where what happens to others in that society directly affects you.
Your moral opposition to perfectly legal procedures does not trump the positive benefits that affordable and comprehensive health care would have on society.
Your religious beliefs do not trump the religious beliefs of others.
You want to run a business in this country? You need to obey the business laws.
>> It's against Christianity to kill <<
No, it's against Christianity to murder.
>> those taxes fund wars. Should they be given tax credits? Should I? <<
That's a big stretch, don't ya think? Getting so desparate that's all you can come up with?
That's not direct funding, and (almost) no version of Christianity considers all wars automatically immoral. (Not sure about the Amish, but they are already allowed exemptions from Soc Sec, the draft, etc., based on religious beliefs. I guess you would take that way from them too??)
I'm talking about being forced to violate one's fundamental religious beliefs by the fed govt by directly funding something your religious creed states is immoral.
I'm not sure Scientologists genuinely believe seeing doctors is "immoral". They view as a mistake and unproductive, but I really don't think they actual claim it is "immoral".
OTOH, Catholic doctrine clearly claims it is immoral to fund abortion or abortifacients, or, as I understand it (I'm certainly not any type of authority on Catholicism), to fund drugs to prevent/inhibit pregnancy. It's their fundamental doctrine.
Based on the 1st Amendment, the govt shouldn't be able to abuse and attempt to force them to betray their moral code just because it furthers govt's own aims.
No, it's against Christianity to murder.
>> those taxes fund wars. Should they be given tax credits? Should I? <<
That's a big stretch, don't ya think? Getting so desparate that's all you can come up with?
That's not direct funding, and (almost) no version of Christianity considers all wars automatically immoral. (Not sure about the Amish, but they are already allowed exemptions from Soc Sec, the draft, etc., based on religious beliefs. I guess you would take that way from them too??)
I'm talking about being forced to violate one's fundamental religious beliefs by the fed govt by directly funding something your religious creed states is immoral.
I'm not sure Scientologists genuinely believe seeing doctors is "immoral". They view as a mistake and unproductive, but I really don't think they actual claim it is "immoral".
OTOH, Catholic doctrine clearly claims it is immoral to fund abortion or abortifacients, or, as I understand it (I'm certainly not any type of authority on Catholicism), to fund drugs to prevent/inhibit pregnancy. It's their fundamental doctrine.
Based on the 1st Amendment, the govt shouldn't be able to abuse and attempt to force them to betray their moral code just because it furthers govt's own aims.
Muhammad Ali was able to dodge the draft because of his alleged religious beliefs.
Would you end that too?
Would you end that too?
I'm pretty sure the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Thou shalt not murder", and I don't believe it mentions abortion anywhere, although in the past the Catholic church has come out saying life begins some 120 days into a pregnancy, not the minute a dick shoots into a vagina.
That's a big stretch, don't ya think? Getting so desparate that's all you can come up with?
No further of a stretch than saying what health care should or shouldn't provide, and not nearly as much of a stretch as saying that even though the insurance companies won't charge us, we just don't believe them.
Further, no one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs. Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Period. Don't believe in gay marriage? Marry someone of the opposite sex - but if you run a business, and you offer family health coverage, you can't discriminate against a same sex couple because YOU believe they don't count as a family.
That's a big stretch, don't ya think? Getting so desparate that's all you can come up with?
No further of a stretch than saying what health care should or shouldn't provide, and not nearly as much of a stretch as saying that even though the insurance companies won't charge us, we just don't believe them.
Further, no one is forcing anyone to do anything against their beliefs. Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. Period. Don't believe in gay marriage? Marry someone of the opposite sex - but if you run a business, and you offer family health coverage, you can't discriminate against a same sex couple because YOU believe they don't count as a family.
"Muhammad Ali was able to dodge the draft because of his alleged religious beliefs.
Would you end that too?"
It directly affected Ali - HE would have been forced to violate HIS beliefs.
Would you end that too?"
It directly affected Ali - HE would have been forced to violate HIS beliefs.
ASKER
>>It directly affected Ali - HE would have been forced to violate HIS beliefs.
Can you really call him a Muslim? Is he stocking C4, owns an AK47, ever detonated a car bomb, flown a plane in to a building, knows how to pack a backpack with nails and explosives?
Can you really call him a Muslim? Is he stocking C4, owns an AK47, ever detonated a car bomb, flown a plane in to a building, knows how to pack a backpack with nails and explosives?
A new low, even for you Cars.
"God told me to invade Iraq"
-the words of a Christian.
"God told me to invade Iraq"
-the words of a Christian.
ASKER
>>A new low, even for you Cars.
Time after time, time after time
Time after time, time after time
>> HE would have been forced to violate HIS beliefs. <<
But his "moral opposition to perfectly legal procedures does not trump the positive benefits that comprehensive" waging of war would have on American society.
>> Is he stocking C4, owns an AK47, ever detonated a car bomb, flown a plane in to a building, knows how to pack a backpack with nails and explosives? <<
Good point, but he supported all those things against "the great satan", so he probably slides in on that angle.
>> Your moral opposition to perfectly legal procedures does not trump the positive benefits that affordable and comprehensive health care would have on society. <<
Hmm. So in pre-Civil War America, I would have no right to object to my tax dollars being used to round up escaped slaves and taking them back to their masters?
That was a "perfectly legal procedure" at the time. The supreme court itself had upheld it (which leftists consider the holy grail of rightness, since they often have no other god to turn to).
Or when the fed govt itself was doing syphilis experiments on black men to provide "[more] affordable comprehensive health care for society", I'd have no right to object to that?
That's the problem with what's "legal". What's "legal" is often NOT moral. Especially to someone who is genuinely religious.
The govt is one long-running Milgram experiment. It needs restrained, all the time, in every way possible.
The founders knew that because they studied history.
Leftists ignore it because they love the power it gives them over everyone else ... to make things "better", of course. Oh, if only, if only we'd all listen to you "smarter" people, you'd take over all the thinking and make everything so much "better" for everyone. And then you could teach the rest of us proles that sometimes 2 + 2 is 5, if the govt thinks that result is better for us that day.
But his "moral opposition to perfectly legal procedures does not trump the positive benefits that comprehensive" waging of war would have on American society.
>> Is he stocking C4, owns an AK47, ever detonated a car bomb, flown a plane in to a building, knows how to pack a backpack with nails and explosives? <<
Good point, but he supported all those things against "the great satan", so he probably slides in on that angle.
>> Your moral opposition to perfectly legal procedures does not trump the positive benefits that affordable and comprehensive health care would have on society. <<
Hmm. So in pre-Civil War America, I would have no right to object to my tax dollars being used to round up escaped slaves and taking them back to their masters?
That was a "perfectly legal procedure" at the time. The supreme court itself had upheld it (which leftists consider the holy grail of rightness, since they often have no other god to turn to).
Or when the fed govt itself was doing syphilis experiments on black men to provide "[more] affordable comprehensive health care for society", I'd have no right to object to that?
That's the problem with what's "legal". What's "legal" is often NOT moral. Especially to someone who is genuinely religious.
The govt is one long-running Milgram experiment. It needs restrained, all the time, in every way possible.
The founders knew that because they studied history.
Leftists ignore it because they love the power it gives them over everyone else ... to make things "better", of course. Oh, if only, if only we'd all listen to you "smarter" people, you'd take over all the thinking and make everything so much "better" for everyone. And then you could teach the rest of us proles that sometimes 2 + 2 is 5, if the govt thinks that result is better for us that day.
"Hmm. So in pre-Civil War America, I would have no right to object to my tax dollars being used to round up escaped slaves and taking them back to their masters?
That was a "perfectly legal procedure" at the time."
Yes - the founding fathers had slaves, and it was legal in the constitution and even in the Bible. See how things change?
" The supreme court itself had upheld it (which leftists consider the holy grail of rightness, since they often have no other god to turn to)."
Scott, you're actually quite disgusting with the way you consider yourself to be morally superior to the rest of the world based on your chosen deity.
That was a "perfectly legal procedure" at the time."
Yes - the founding fathers had slaves, and it was legal in the constitution and even in the Bible. See how things change?
" The supreme court itself had upheld it (which leftists consider the holy grail of rightness, since they often have no other god to turn to)."
Scott, you're actually quite disgusting with the way you consider yourself to be morally superior to the rest of the world based on your chosen deity.
I'm arguing against the *govt* FORCING people to do immoral things.
You want to allow govts to FORCE people to do anything that the "law" supports.
It's not my fault that your position is inherently immoral, thus you can't defend it, thus you continually try to deflect the topic.
You want to allow govts to FORCE people to do anything that the "law" supports.
It's not my fault that your position is inherently immoral, thus you can't defend it, thus you continually try to deflect the topic.
>>Obama appointee [Kevin Jennings] lauded NAMBLA figure
Right wing smear campaign!
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912150006
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912170004
>>I'm talking about actual, recognized religions, not mediocre science fiction movies.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/09/jedi_knights_achieve_official_recognition/
No I don't believe it, but just goes to show it doesn't take much to create a religion. 2000 years from now they are all based on ancient stories and will all be the same. I actually added it in just for fun.
>>They should have to disclose that when you join the company, but other than that, the govt should not be allowed to force anyone to violate their ethics code if their code is otherwise legal and doesn't harm others.
This is the core problem. If you have a belief, then my medical coverage is based on your belief no matter if I believe it or not. If it is Christianity, Jehovah, Scientology, Islam, Jedi, Crackpot, or whatever religion it is, it is still not based on medical fact or science.
It's wrong.
If you jump out of an airplane, praying to any god in any religion over and over isn't going to save you. Opening the parachute and the science of it capturing air molecules to slow you down is what will save you. Not praying to some storybook.
This is the problem. You are choosing to use belief, rather than fact with MY HEALTH!
That should not be allowed.
Right wing smear campaign!
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912150006
http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200912170004
>>I'm talking about actual, recognized religions, not mediocre science fiction movies.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/10/09/jedi_knights_achieve_official_recognition/
No I don't believe it, but just goes to show it doesn't take much to create a religion. 2000 years from now they are all based on ancient stories and will all be the same. I actually added it in just for fun.
>>They should have to disclose that when you join the company, but other than that, the govt should not be allowed to force anyone to violate their ethics code if their code is otherwise legal and doesn't harm others.
This is the core problem. If you have a belief, then my medical coverage is based on your belief no matter if I believe it or not. If it is Christianity, Jehovah, Scientology, Islam, Jedi, Crackpot, or whatever religion it is, it is still not based on medical fact or science.
It's wrong.
If you jump out of an airplane, praying to any god in any religion over and over isn't going to save you. Opening the parachute and the science of it capturing air molecules to slow you down is what will save you. Not praying to some storybook.
This is the problem. You are choosing to use belief, rather than fact with MY HEALTH!
That should not be allowed.
"It's not my fault that your position is inherently immoral, thus you can't defend it, thus you continually try to deflect the topic."
I really don't think providing decent health insurance to employees is immoral. Quite the opposite really, but maybe I'm just a "radical leftist?"
I really don't think providing decent health insurance to employees is immoral. Quite the opposite really, but maybe I'm just a "radical leftist?"
No, the company has NO legal obligation to provide health insurance for you at all!
If it chooses to, it's morals should not be forcibly overridden by govt goons.
Nothing is forcing you to work there. You don't like their morals go somewhere else.
Just because you believe only in social darwinism, ala Hitler, doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to.
The govt should not FORCE doctors to do abortions if they morally object to them. I guess in the name of "science", you think it can and should? Otherwise, the govt is "letting" faith get in the way of "my health" because that's who I chose for my doctor. So he/she should be forced to anything (current) scientific thinking believes is right, no matter what. When forced sterilization of people with mental problems was current scientific thinking, hey, ALL doctors should be FORCED to go along, because nobody wants to hear their stupid, storybook moralizing, right?
If a doctor in China objects to aborting babies because of the "1 baby" policy, and refuses to do the operations him/herself, he/she should be thrown in jail, right? They're legal, and they're what the govt believes is in the best interest of the nation. They can't let stupid religious dolts with their obsolete beliefs in morals get in the way of their country's progress, right?
If it chooses to, it's morals should not be forcibly overridden by govt goons.
Nothing is forcing you to work there. You don't like their morals go somewhere else.
Just because you believe only in social darwinism, ala Hitler, doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to.
The govt should not FORCE doctors to do abortions if they morally object to them. I guess in the name of "science", you think it can and should? Otherwise, the govt is "letting" faith get in the way of "my health" because that's who I chose for my doctor. So he/she should be forced to anything (current) scientific thinking believes is right, no matter what. When forced sterilization of people with mental problems was current scientific thinking, hey, ALL doctors should be FORCED to go along, because nobody wants to hear their stupid, storybook moralizing, right?
If a doctor in China objects to aborting babies because of the "1 baby" policy, and refuses to do the operations him/herself, he/she should be thrown in jail, right? They're legal, and they're what the govt believes is in the best interest of the nation. They can't let stupid religious dolts with their obsolete beliefs in morals get in the way of their country's progress, right?
>> I really don't think providing decent health insurance to employees is immoral. <<
"Decent" is in the eye of the beholder.
You get your idea of "decency" from a govt official. I refuse to.
History supports my position on that 100%.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Assad, (Suddam) Hussein, Obama all ran govts in modern times. No thanks, I'll get my definition of "decency" from outside govt.
"Decent" is in the eye of the beholder.
You get your idea of "decency" from a govt official. I refuse to.
History supports my position on that 100%.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong Il, Assad, (Suddam) Hussein, Obama all ran govts in modern times. No thanks, I'll get my definition of "decency" from outside govt.
You got me Scott.
I believe that working Americans deserve comprehensive health care = I'm Hitler.
I believe that working Americans deserve comprehensive health care = I'm Hitler.
You are all for FORCED govt control, regardless of religious views or personal moral values, right?
The only problem for you is, we have a Constitution that expressly prohibits that.
The problem for all Americans is that our courts ignore the Constitution and do anything they want to do.
The only problem for you is, we have a Constitution that expressly prohibits that.
The problem for all Americans is that our courts ignore the Constitution and do anything they want to do.
Your religious views should not infringe on my rights. Ever!
Nothing gives you a "right" to health care.
The govt has even less "right" to FORCE private companies to pay for immoral procedures for your "health care".
Even the Catholics don't object to paying for contraceptives **if the health of the woman is actually dependent on the drugs**.
So this isn't "health care". The possibility of getting pregnant isn't a disease or condition.
Just because leftists want to falsely use terms that don't apply to something doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
If I want the govt to pay for a Ferrari for me, otherwise my mental condition will deteriorate, does that make the Ferrari "health care"? 'Cause that's essentially the "argument" women are using.
The govt has even less "right" to FORCE private companies to pay for immoral procedures for your "health care".
Even the Catholics don't object to paying for contraceptives **if the health of the woman is actually dependent on the drugs**.
So this isn't "health care". The possibility of getting pregnant isn't a disease or condition.
Just because leftists want to falsely use terms that don't apply to something doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
If I want the govt to pay for a Ferrari for me, otherwise my mental condition will deteriorate, does that make the Ferrari "health care"? 'Cause that's essentially the "argument" women are using.
ASKER
I believe that working Americans deserve comprehensive health care =
NAIVE
"Nothing gives you a "right" to health care."
Guess you missed the whole health care debate, and are ignorant to the issues surrounding health care, the economy, and society. That explains why your arguments are so irrational.
"The govt has even less "right" to FORCE private companies to pay for immoral procedures for your "health care"."
So the gov't can't FORCE them to pay into unemployment either?
"Even the Catholics don't object to paying for contraceptives **if the health of the woman is actually dependent on the drugs**."
Except that they did object, and never mentioned this clause. None of the proposed legislature from the Insane Old Party has this clause either. In fact, this is the first time I've heard anyone from the right even mention such a thing. Kudos to you for being so progressive compared to the rest of your ilk. BTW - how do you feel about them providing Viagara?
"So this isn't "health care". The possibility of getting pregnant isn't a disease or condition."
Pregnancy is definitely a condition. If Viagara is used for pleasure, not pro-creation, should that then not be covered as well? What if the man is unmarried? Or his wife is past child bearing years?
"Just because leftists want to falsely use terms that don't apply to something doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
If I want the govt to pay for a Ferrari for me, otherwise my mental condition will deteriorate, does that make the Ferrari "health care"? 'Cause that's essentially the "argument" women are using."
The argument your using is "Some old guy read a book and thinks it means people shouldn't use contraception, and should only have sex for procreation, so let's ignore any issues about unwanted pregnancies, reducing the number of abortions, associated health care costs, and other women's health care issues".
Your religion does not promote tolerance, at least not in the hands of those running it. Instead it's causing oppression, even if you're loathe to admit it.
Look at the rash of anti-abortion laws. Some make no exception for the woman's health, others cause doctors to do unnecessary and invasive procedures or give ridiculous speeches to a woman who may be already carrying a dead fetus. Which one of us was the oppressive brutal dictator again?
Guess you missed the whole health care debate, and are ignorant to the issues surrounding health care, the economy, and society. That explains why your arguments are so irrational.
"The govt has even less "right" to FORCE private companies to pay for immoral procedures for your "health care"."
So the gov't can't FORCE them to pay into unemployment either?
"Even the Catholics don't object to paying for contraceptives **if the health of the woman is actually dependent on the drugs**."
Except that they did object, and never mentioned this clause. None of the proposed legislature from the Insane Old Party has this clause either. In fact, this is the first time I've heard anyone from the right even mention such a thing. Kudos to you for being so progressive compared to the rest of your ilk. BTW - how do you feel about them providing Viagara?
"So this isn't "health care". The possibility of getting pregnant isn't a disease or condition."
Pregnancy is definitely a condition. If Viagara is used for pleasure, not pro-creation, should that then not be covered as well? What if the man is unmarried? Or his wife is past child bearing years?
"Just because leftists want to falsely use terms that don't apply to something doesn't mean I have to go along with it.
If I want the govt to pay for a Ferrari for me, otherwise my mental condition will deteriorate, does that make the Ferrari "health care"? 'Cause that's essentially the "argument" women are using."
The argument your using is "Some old guy read a book and thinks it means people shouldn't use contraception, and should only have sex for procreation, so let's ignore any issues about unwanted pregnancies, reducing the number of abortions, associated health care costs, and other women's health care issues".
Your religion does not promote tolerance, at least not in the hands of those running it. Instead it's causing oppression, even if you're loathe to admit it.
Look at the rash of anti-abortion laws. Some make no exception for the woman's health, others cause doctors to do unnecessary and invasive procedures or give ridiculous speeches to a woman who may be already carrying a dead fetus. Which one of us was the oppressive brutal dictator again?
Yes Cars,
One of the richest most powerful nations in the world should not care for it's citizens. Perhaps you're right, as we come in what, about 17th in the world for health care?
One of the richest most powerful nations in the world should not care for it's citizens. Perhaps you're right, as we come in what, about 17th in the world for health care?
ASKER
>> Perhaps you're right, as we come in what, about 17th in the world for health care?
Which explains why a lot of people come to the US for treatment. Those are distorted "facts" and you know it.
Which explains why a lot of people come to the US for treatment. Those are distorted "facts" and you know it.
No, they aren't. You're the one distorting the facts.
We may have the most advanced TREATMENTS, which is why people would come here, not the most advanced CARE, which is why people go to other countries for operations and health care; it's cheaper to travel abroad and have an operation than to have one here.
The issue was never about how good our TREATMENTS are, it's about access by working Americans to those treatments.
We may have the most advanced TREATMENTS, which is why people would come here, not the most advanced CARE, which is why people go to other countries for operations and health care; it's cheaper to travel abroad and have an operation than to have one here.
The issue was never about how good our TREATMENTS are, it's about access by working Americans to those treatments.
>> That explains why your arguments are so irrational. <<
You're irrational. What in the American Constitution or law gives you the RIGHT to health care? Especially to FREE health care?
>> So the gov't can't FORCE them to pay into unemployment either? <<
I never claimed unemployment was immoral. Another one of your related-to-absolutely-noth
>> Except that they did object, and never mentioned this clause. <<
No, Obama's govt never did. The actual church stated it clearly.
>> If Viagara is used for pleasure, not pro-creation, should that then not be covered as well? <<
Viagra has been ruled as a treatment for a health condition. Contraceptives are not.
>> What if the man is unmarried? Or his wife is past child bearing years? <<
Huh? Irrelevant. If you have a disease or condition, you have it whether you are married or not.
>> The argument your using is <<
No, I'm saying for people who believe it's IMMORAL to do something, the govt can't, under the 1st Amendment, force them to violate their true conscious-based beliefs.
You like to put pathetic straw men for me, then knock them down, but you never deal with my core statements and issues.
What gives the fed govt the right to ignore the 1st Amendment just because it involves women and birth control?
I mean *specifically*, what part of the Constitution overrides fundamental rights to living morally based on your religion?
The govt can't be allowed to ignore basic rights just because they need more women's votes to get re-elected (for now; give them a little time, their "morals" could change, since they're not grounded in anything).
You're irrational. What in the American Constitution or law gives you the RIGHT to health care? Especially to FREE health care?
>> So the gov't can't FORCE them to pay into unemployment either? <<
I never claimed unemployment was immoral. Another one of your related-to-absolutely-noth
>> Except that they did object, and never mentioned this clause. <<
No, Obama's govt never did. The actual church stated it clearly.
>> If Viagara is used for pleasure, not pro-creation, should that then not be covered as well? <<
Viagra has been ruled as a treatment for a health condition. Contraceptives are not.
>> What if the man is unmarried? Or his wife is past child bearing years? <<
Huh? Irrelevant. If you have a disease or condition, you have it whether you are married or not.
>> The argument your using is <<
No, I'm saying for people who believe it's IMMORAL to do something, the govt can't, under the 1st Amendment, force them to violate their true conscious-based beliefs.
You like to put pathetic straw men for me, then knock them down, but you never deal with my core statements and issues.
What gives the fed govt the right to ignore the 1st Amendment just because it involves women and birth control?
I mean *specifically*, what part of the Constitution overrides fundamental rights to living morally based on your religion?
The govt can't be allowed to ignore basic rights just because they need more women's votes to get re-elected (for now; give them a little time, their "morals" could change, since they're not grounded in anything).
"I never claimed unemployment was immoral. Another one of your related-to-absolutely-noth
My point was, the government forces businesses to pay for unemployment, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. So maybe there is hope for health care.
"No, Obama's govt never did. The actual church stated it clearly." The Repbulicans left it out of their proposed bills. Please show me where the church made that exception? I didn't here of it in their "testimony".
Viagara - what's the condition? Not being able to fuck? Why does an old man need to fuck his old wife? Or is he cheating, which would go against the catholic church, and is therefore immoral? If the catholic church is against contraception, then it would follow their belief that sex is only for reproduction, and since an old woman is past child bearing years, forcing the church to pay for the husband to be able to fuck her is against their moral teachings.
The thing is, even without the insurance companies picking up the bill, the government is NOT forcing anyone to live immorally against their religious rights. It's simply applying business laws to businesses. Churches are excluded from the law and have been since its proposal.
My point was, the government forces businesses to pay for unemployment, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. So maybe there is hope for health care.
"No, Obama's govt never did. The actual church stated it clearly." The Repbulicans left it out of their proposed bills. Please show me where the church made that exception? I didn't here of it in their "testimony".
Viagara - what's the condition? Not being able to fuck? Why does an old man need to fuck his old wife? Or is he cheating, which would go against the catholic church, and is therefore immoral? If the catholic church is against contraception, then it would follow their belief that sex is only for reproduction, and since an old woman is past child bearing years, forcing the church to pay for the husband to be able to fuck her is against their moral teachings.
The thing is, even without the insurance companies picking up the bill, the government is NOT forcing anyone to live immorally against their religious rights. It's simply applying business laws to businesses. Churches are excluded from the law and have been since its proposal.
>> Viagara - what's the condition? <<
The insurance companies have already made that decision. Obama himself is not trying to force them to change that. So how is this relevant to anything?
>> the government forces businesses to pay for unemployment, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. <<
STATE govts force business to pay for unemployment. STATE govts DO have that authority under the Constitution. The FED govt does not.
Really, the Constitution is not a long document, why is it soooooo hard for leftists to understand?
>> It's simply applying business laws to businesses. <<
But churches run some businesses. You can't limit religious freedom to just inside a church building.
The insurance companies have already made that decision. Obama himself is not trying to force them to change that. So how is this relevant to anything?
>> the government forces businesses to pay for unemployment, which is not mentioned in the Constitution. <<
STATE govts force business to pay for unemployment. STATE govts DO have that authority under the Constitution. The FED govt does not.
Really, the Constitution is not a long document, why is it soooooo hard for leftists to understand?
>> It's simply applying business laws to businesses. <<
But churches run some businesses. You can't limit religious freedom to just inside a church building.
"The insurance companies have already made that decision."
They also decided to cover contraception. For free. Churches should not want Viagara covered on the same basis as contraception. That's how it's relevant.
Unemployment is a federal-state program, but do you know of any states that DON'T pay into it? I know of about 28 states that require health care to cover contraception, even for "religious businesses". This was never an issue before.
Once a church becomes a business, it's no longer protected as a church and needs to follow business laws. If the church believes that waving it's hand over a bottle of wine transforms it into a holy artifact, that doesn't mean they can open a day care center and give alcohol to kids.
They also decided to cover contraception. For free. Churches should not want Viagara covered on the same basis as contraception. That's how it's relevant.
Unemployment is a federal-state program, but do you know of any states that DON'T pay into it? I know of about 28 states that require health care to cover contraception, even for "religious businesses". This was never an issue before.
Once a church becomes a business, it's no longer protected as a church and needs to follow business laws. If the church believes that waving it's hand over a bottle of wine transforms it into a holy artifact, that doesn't mean they can open a day care center and give alcohol to kids.
>> They also decided to cover contraception. For free. <<
No, O just ordered them to cover it for "free" (a myth, of course, NOTHING is free except in leftist fantasy land.)
>> Unemployment is a federal-state program <<
No, umemployment is a STATE program. The feds now provide "extended ui" at various levels for various states, but that does not make it a "federal" program.
>> I know of about 28 states that require health care to cover contraception, even for "religious businesses". This was never an issue before. <<
Really, that force church-run companies to provide contraception coverage? I'd like to know three of those states so I could research it.
>> If the church believes that waving it's hand over a bottle of wine transforms it into a holy artifact, that doesn't mean they can open a day care center and give alcohol to kids. <<
Geez, the idiotic desparation never ends. Reality? Hello? Can you get at least a remote grip on reality?
No, O just ordered them to cover it for "free" (a myth, of course, NOTHING is free except in leftist fantasy land.)
>> Unemployment is a federal-state program <<
No, umemployment is a STATE program. The feds now provide "extended ui" at various levels for various states, but that does not make it a "federal" program.
>> I know of about 28 states that require health care to cover contraception, even for "religious businesses". This was never an issue before. <<
Really, that force church-run companies to provide contraception coverage? I'd like to know three of those states so I could research it.
>> If the church believes that waving it's hand over a bottle of wine transforms it into a holy artifact, that doesn't mean they can open a day care center and give alcohol to kids. <<
Geez, the idiotic desparation never ends. Reality? Hello? Can you get at least a remote grip on reality?
Gee, that's real hard to find:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
The church needs to get a grip on reality - people have sex and use contraception. Gay people exist and aren't inherently evil. The church's position is that they're paying for something they're against, even if they're already doing it, or don't have to pay it at all.
Seriously, these laws have been around for years WITHOUT controversy. Hmm, what's the difference? Why is it an issue now?
At least 26 states have laws requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs also provide coverage for any Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. An additional two states—Michigan and Montana—require insurance coverage of contraceptives as a result of administrative ruling or an Attorney General opinion. Two states—Texas and Virginia—require that employers be offered the option to include coverage of contraceptives within their health plans. Twenty-one states offer exemptions from contraceptive coverage, usually for religious reasons, for insurers or employers in their policies: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (administrative rule), Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia. (These states are indicated with an * in the table below.) Several states require employers to notify employees of their refusal to provide contraceptive coverage.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
The church needs to get a grip on reality - people have sex and use contraception. Gay people exist and aren't inherently evil. The church's position is that they're paying for something they're against, even if they're already doing it, or don't have to pay it at all.
Seriously, these laws have been around for years WITHOUT controversy. Hmm, what's the difference? Why is it an issue now?
Geez, the idiotic desparation never ends. Reality? Hello? Can you get at least a remote grip on reality?
You mean like saying that health coverage violates the first amendment on Religious grounds?
Really?
You mean like saying that health coverage violates the first amendment on Religious grounds?
Really?
The Catholic church -- of which I am not a part and, as stated before, claim no authority for
-- has addess the issue of birth control as medication.
"
Since the reason for the medication is not to impede procreation, then there is no sin. This subject is addressed in Humanae Vitae.
"
>> The church's position is that they're paying for something they're against <<
Oh come on. For the BILLIONTH time, the church's objection is that you're forcing them to pay for something they consider IMMORAL. They're not just "against it". Obama is clearly against religious freedom, but I don't think he considers it "immoral".
>> You mean like saying that health coverage violates the first amendment on Religious grounds? Really? <<
Forcing a religious org to pay for something they consider immoral -- regardless of why you're forcing them.
-- has addess the issue of birth control as medication.
"
Since the reason for the medication is not to impede procreation, then there is no sin. This subject is addressed in Humanae Vitae.
"
>> The church's position is that they're paying for something they're against <<
Oh come on. For the BILLIONTH time, the church's objection is that you're forcing them to pay for something they consider IMMORAL. They're not just "against it". Obama is clearly against religious freedom, but I don't think he considers it "immoral".
>> You mean like saying that health coverage violates the first amendment on Religious grounds? Really? <<
Forcing a religious org to pay for something they consider immoral -- regardless of why you're forcing them.
Cars considers the unemployed a bunch of lazy leeches - yet his unemployment insurance goes into the same pot. Should he be allowed to not pay because he thinks being unemployed is immoral?
If a woman has a child out of wedlock, is that not considered immoral by the church? Should they then have the right to deny the child ANY health insurance? Or should they deny the woman's coverage?
There are churches in the south that consider interracial marriage immoral - should they be able to discriminate against employees who are in interracial marriages and then not have to provide family coverage to them?
If the churches can't abide our business laws, then they shouldn't go into business.
If a woman has a child out of wedlock, is that not considered immoral by the church? Should they then have the right to deny the child ANY health insurance? Or should they deny the woman's coverage?
There are churches in the south that consider interracial marriage immoral - should they be able to discriminate against employees who are in interracial marriages and then not have to provide family coverage to them?
If the churches can't abide our business laws, then they shouldn't go into business.
ASKER
>>There are churches in the south that consider interracial marriage immoral
Yeah, I think this Democrat Senator may fall in to that category.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/15/sen-sherrod-brown-denounces-niggardly-colleagues/
>>Cars considers the unemployed a bunch of lazy leeches
You're being nice. I think much worse of them. God bless Nancy Pelosi's daughter. She did an awesome job.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/PelosivideowelfareHBO/2012/03/20/id/433239
Yeah, I think this Democrat Senator may fall in to that category.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/15/sen-sherrod-brown-denounces-niggardly-colleagues/
There’s plenty of people, as you know Matt, in this Congress that will always send a blank check when it comes to spending money on defense, on war, but are a little bit more niggardly,
>>Cars considers the unemployed a bunch of lazy leeches
You're being nice. I think much worse of them. God bless Nancy Pelosi's daughter. She did an awesome job.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/PelosivideowelfareHBO/2012/03/20/id/433239
>> If a woman has a child out of wedlock, is that not considered immoral by the church? <<
Of course getting pregnant outside of wedlock is considered immoral by the church. So I feel the church should not be forced to pay to help unmarried women get pregnant.
You must think otherwise. Can't imagine even you being that idiotic, but you did write it, so no other conclusion is possible.
Of course all of us now ARE forced to pay for her and the child after that, and support her and the child until 18 (and beyond if the kid goes to college). This enforces a cycle of poverty that generates dependency -- and Dem votes, which is the main reason Dems support it so resolutely.
>> Should they then have the right to deny the child ANY health insurance? <<
The child's not immoral. No (non-islamic) church has ever said that about any baby that I know of.
>> Or should they deny the woman's coverage? <<
During the pregnancy? No, of course not. After the pregnancy? Yes, if she otherwise would not have it.
>> There are churches in the south that consider interracial marriage immoral <<
Name one Christian church denomination that has that as a tenet of their church.
Of course getting pregnant outside of wedlock is considered immoral by the church. So I feel the church should not be forced to pay to help unmarried women get pregnant.
You must think otherwise. Can't imagine even you being that idiotic, but you did write it, so no other conclusion is possible.
Of course all of us now ARE forced to pay for her and the child after that, and support her and the child until 18 (and beyond if the kid goes to college). This enforces a cycle of poverty that generates dependency -- and Dem votes, which is the main reason Dems support it so resolutely.
>> Should they then have the right to deny the child ANY health insurance? <<
The child's not immoral. No (non-islamic) church has ever said that about any baby that I know of.
>> Or should they deny the woman's coverage? <<
During the pregnancy? No, of course not. After the pregnancy? Yes, if she otherwise would not have it.
>> There are churches in the south that consider interracial marriage immoral <<
Name one Christian church denomination that has that as a tenet of their church.
Scott,
I know the church considers children born out of wedlock to be immoral - I was just wondering if you knew, and could follow the argument. The church's views on morality are thankfully NOT what guides or governs this country. This is a perfect example. This is discrimination pure and simple. Can you see that? Or are YOU too much of an idiot?
By your logic, Bristol Palin shouldn't be eligible for post natal care.
Dems want to provide contraception, which would curb this "cycle of poverty for votes" you fantasize about. That defeats your own logic, idiot.
"Name one Christian church denomination that has that as a tenet of their church."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57334337/small-ky-church-bans-interracial-couples/
I know the church considers children born out of wedlock to be immoral - I was just wondering if you knew, and could follow the argument. The church's views on morality are thankfully NOT what guides or governs this country. This is a perfect example. This is discrimination pure and simple. Can you see that? Or are YOU too much of an idiot?
By your logic, Bristol Palin shouldn't be eligible for post natal care.
Dems want to provide contraception, which would curb this "cycle of poverty for votes" you fantasize about. That defeats your own logic, idiot.
"Name one Christian church denomination that has that as a tenet of their church."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57334337/small-ky-church-bans-interracial-couples/
<< KY church >> That doesn't show it's a TENET of their church.
Is it a TENET of Obama's church to "Damn America" and heap praise on 9/11 because America deserved it, that her "chickens were coming home to roost", just because "Rev" Wright and his faithful follower Obama believe that?
It's scary either way. Now we have to worry about Christian groups terrorizing the USA, not just muslims.
>> By your logic, Bristol Palin shouldn't be eligible for post natal care. <<
Are you deliberately pretending to be this stupid? I CLEARLY stated the CHILD would be covered. NOT the parent herself AFTER caring for the birth of the child, but CLEARLY I STATED WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT.
>> I know the church considers children born out of wedlock to be immoral <<
Geez. I said no church considers THE CHILD ITSELF "immoral" just because it was born out of wedlock. Of course the church considers the ACT of sex before marriage immoral, but again, NOT necessarily the person(s) involved, and it can absolved.
Is it a TENET of Obama's church to "Damn America" and heap praise on 9/11 because America deserved it, that her "chickens were coming home to roost", just because "Rev" Wright and his faithful follower Obama believe that?
It's scary either way. Now we have to worry about Christian groups terrorizing the USA, not just muslims.
>> By your logic, Bristol Palin shouldn't be eligible for post natal care. <<
Are you deliberately pretending to be this stupid? I CLEARLY stated the CHILD would be covered. NOT the parent herself AFTER caring for the birth of the child, but CLEARLY I STATED WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT.
>> I know the church considers children born out of wedlock to be immoral <<
Geez. I said no church considers THE CHILD ITSELF "immoral" just because it was born out of wedlock. Of course the church considers the ACT of sex before marriage immoral, but again, NOT necessarily the person(s) involved, and it can absolved.
>> By your logic, Bristol Palin shouldn't be eligible for post natal care. <<
Are you deliberately pretending to be this stupid? I CLEARLY stated the CHILD would be covered. NOT the parent herself AFTER caring for the birth of the child, but CLEARLY I STATED WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT.
Umm post natal means she's no longer pregnant, stupid. And just because you think they should cover the woman while she's pregnant, the church might not see it that way. Heck, they could fire the woman for doing something "immoral" under your ideology of the church not having to follow business laws.
KY - just because it's not written in some tome, doesn't mean the church doesn't believe it. Obviously, they do. And the laws and religious "freedoms" your suggesting make no requirement that the "tenents" be written down anywhere. The word "abortion" doesn't appear in the Bible. It's "religious beliefs" and if these people "believe" interracial marriage is wrong, how can you trample on their first amendment rights like that?
Are you deliberately pretending to be this stupid? I CLEARLY stated the CHILD would be covered. NOT the parent herself AFTER caring for the birth of the child, but CLEARLY I STATED WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT.
Umm post natal means she's no longer pregnant, stupid. And just because you think they should cover the woman while she's pregnant, the church might not see it that way. Heck, they could fire the woman for doing something "immoral" under your ideology of the church not having to follow business laws.
KY - just because it's not written in some tome, doesn't mean the church doesn't believe it. Obviously, they do. And the laws and religious "freedoms" your suggesting make no requirement that the "tenents" be written down anywhere. The word "abortion" doesn't appear in the Bible. It's "religious beliefs" and if these people "believe" interracial marriage is wrong, how can you trample on their first amendment rights like that?
>> how can you trample on their first amendment rights like that? <<
When do I ever say I would?
You may think the fed govt has a right to force the church to allow those people in.
I do NOT. So, yes, I would let the church decide its own membership. I would object to a judge ordering the church to allow the couple back in. It's NOT the govt's business to decide membership of individual churches.
Consistency is THE primary difference between conservatives/libertarians
Leftists ALWAYS want to selectively apply laws based on whether they agree with that particular situation or not. Genuine laws cannot work that way.
Brisol Palin IS a child, which is what I was thinking.
If you're talking about the child Bristol herself had, yes, the child itself should be covered but Bristol not. There must be limits to what govt forces others to pay for.
I thought women were strong and independent? Then why do you mention post-natal care ONLY for the mother?
What about the FATHER? Equal protection under the law is always ignored here. IF you provide for the mother, you should HAVE to provide for the father, under equal protection. But leftists don't care about fathers -- they're a nuisance to the left, who force them OUT of homes, not try to bring them in. That hurts the child far more than cutting the mother's post-natal health care, so this is obviously not about the best thing for children for leftists, despite their lies and claims to the contrary.
When do I ever say I would?
You may think the fed govt has a right to force the church to allow those people in.
I do NOT. So, yes, I would let the church decide its own membership. I would object to a judge ordering the church to allow the couple back in. It's NOT the govt's business to decide membership of individual churches.
Consistency is THE primary difference between conservatives/libertarians
Leftists ALWAYS want to selectively apply laws based on whether they agree with that particular situation or not. Genuine laws cannot work that way.
Brisol Palin IS a child, which is what I was thinking.
If you're talking about the child Bristol herself had, yes, the child itself should be covered but Bristol not. There must be limits to what govt forces others to pay for.
I thought women were strong and independent? Then why do you mention post-natal care ONLY for the mother?
What about the FATHER? Equal protection under the law is always ignored here. IF you provide for the mother, you should HAVE to provide for the father, under equal protection. But leftists don't care about fathers -- they're a nuisance to the left, who force them OUT of homes, not try to bring them in. That hurts the child far more than cutting the mother's post-natal health care, so this is obviously not about the best thing for children for leftists, despite their lies and claims to the contrary.
Well you consistently bash the left, I'll give you that.
I didn't mention fathers because in the hypothetical case we're discussing, it was a woman who works for an employer and had a child out of wedlock; the father would not be eligible for insurance on the woman's health plan. That's all.
Your claims about leftists not caring about fathers is based solely on your personal bigotry against "leftists", and nothing more, and is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Now your position is that it's ok for churches to be racist. Fine. But it's NOT OK for businesses to be racist - that's clearly defined in law. See the difference? Which brings me to my point:
If it's not trampling religious freedoms to say you can't have a business and discriminate who you hire based on race or religion. Agree or disagree?
Now tell me how the health care law tramples religious freedom, and why the anti-discrimination laws do not especially when you yourself just said THE CHURCH HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE?
I didn't mention fathers because in the hypothetical case we're discussing, it was a woman who works for an employer and had a child out of wedlock; the father would not be eligible for insurance on the woman's health plan. That's all.
Your claims about leftists not caring about fathers is based solely on your personal bigotry against "leftists", and nothing more, and is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Now your position is that it's ok for churches to be racist. Fine. But it's NOT OK for businesses to be racist - that's clearly defined in law. See the difference? Which brings me to my point:
If it's not trampling religious freedoms to say you can't have a business and discriminate who you hire based on race or religion. Agree or disagree?
Now tell me how the health care law tramples religious freedom, and why the anti-discrimination laws do not especially when you yourself just said THE CHURCH HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE?
>> If it's not trampling religious freedoms to say you can't have a business and discriminate who you hire based on race or religion. Agree or disagree? <<
Depends, of course, as the current law does. If the company is public, agree. As I understand current law, a private club, such as a golf club, CAN discriminate if it so chooses. (As Augusta did by not allowing women members for so long.)
YOU brought up the case of a CHURCH SPECIFICALLY and ITS MEMBERSHIP.
So you believe the govt has a right to dictate to a church who it admits as members?
>> the father would not be eligible for insurance on the woman's health plan <<
Why? How is that "fair"? Why is the mother automatically eligible and the father not? That's discrimination against men. Why do you support that?
What if a father gets sole custody? Is he still excluded?
>> Now tell me how the health care law tramples religious freedom, and why the anti-discrimination laws do not <<
Anti-discrimantion laws already do not apply to churches the same way they do other businesses, under existing law.
Depends, of course, as the current law does. If the company is public, agree. As I understand current law, a private club, such as a golf club, CAN discriminate if it so chooses. (As Augusta did by not allowing women members for so long.)
YOU brought up the case of a CHURCH SPECIFICALLY and ITS MEMBERSHIP.
So you believe the govt has a right to dictate to a church who it admits as members?
>> the father would not be eligible for insurance on the woman's health plan <<
Why? How is that "fair"? Why is the mother automatically eligible and the father not? That's discrimination against men. Why do you support that?
What if a father gets sole custody? Is he still excluded?
>> Now tell me how the health care law tramples religious freedom, and why the anti-discrimination laws do not <<
Anti-discrimantion laws already do not apply to churches the same way they do other businesses, under existing law.
Being a member of a private club is different than being an employee.
Yes, I brought up the Church and it's membership to illustrate your position and the difference between laws that apply to the church, and laws that apply to businesses. The church can discriminate; businesses cannot.
Regarding the father: he's not part of the situation because he doesn't work at the company, the mother does. Since he doesn't work there, he's not eligible for benefits at the company. This is a red herring.
"Anti-discrimantion laws already do not apply to churches the same way they do other businesses, under existing law." To church run businesses? Are you sure about that? Are you telling me a church run hospital can refuse to hire a black man? Or can fire someone if they get divorced or if they are unwed and get pregnant?
Yes, I brought up the Church and it's membership to illustrate your position and the difference between laws that apply to the church, and laws that apply to businesses. The church can discriminate; businesses cannot.
Regarding the father: he's not part of the situation because he doesn't work at the company, the mother does. Since he doesn't work there, he's not eligible for benefits at the company. This is a red herring.
"Anti-discrimantion laws already do not apply to churches the same way they do other businesses, under existing law." To church run businesses? Are you sure about that? Are you telling me a church run hospital can refuse to hire a black man? Or can fire someone if they get divorced or if they are unwed and get pregnant?
>> To church run businesses? <<
No, to CHURCHES. Churches are free to do what they want because of the 1st Amendment.
Otherwise, it depends. You do realize that businesses under a certain size don't fall under all these fed anti-discrimination laws, don't you? How the hell you can slice and dice the words of the Constitution enough to figure out EXACTLY how many employees it's constitutional to have before you have to follow the fed's quota system is yet another supreme court mystery.
>> Yes, I brought up the Church and it's membership to illustrate your position and the difference between laws that apply to the church, and laws that apply to businesses. <<
NO, you EXPLICITLY asked if the church had the right to do that. You did NOT know.
OF COURSE THEY DO. Even the love-govt-power supreme courts we've had since FDR acknowledge something that obviously covered by the 1st Amendment.
>> he's not part of the situation because he doesn't work at the company <<
How do you know? He COULD work at the same place. He likely works at SOME company. Why isn't he ENTITLED to (free?) coverage there, if the mother is? Why isn't that company FORCED to pay for the FATHER?
Again you dodge, putting up straw men to refuse answering the basic q:
Why is it legal to discriminate against men by forcing companies to pay for women who have children but not the fathers of those children?
No, to CHURCHES. Churches are free to do what they want because of the 1st Amendment.
Otherwise, it depends. You do realize that businesses under a certain size don't fall under all these fed anti-discrimination laws, don't you? How the hell you can slice and dice the words of the Constitution enough to figure out EXACTLY how many employees it's constitutional to have before you have to follow the fed's quota system is yet another supreme court mystery.
>> Yes, I brought up the Church and it's membership to illustrate your position and the difference between laws that apply to the church, and laws that apply to businesses. <<
NO, you EXPLICITLY asked if the church had the right to do that. You did NOT know.
OF COURSE THEY DO. Even the love-govt-power supreme courts we've had since FDR acknowledge something that obviously covered by the 1st Amendment.
>> he's not part of the situation because he doesn't work at the company <<
How do you know? He COULD work at the same place. He likely works at SOME company. Why isn't he ENTITLED to (free?) coverage there, if the mother is? Why isn't that company FORCED to pay for the FATHER?
Again you dodge, putting up straw men to refuse answering the basic q:
Why is it legal to discriminate against men by forcing companies to pay for women who have children but not the fathers of those children?
Because it's an entirely different question, you dolt.
?? LOL.
It's all related to the general topic. I can see you have NO answer for that.
>> Now tell me how the health care law tramples religious freedom, and why the anti-discrimination laws do not especially when you yourself just said THE CHURCH HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE? <<
The anti-discrimination laws do not because they also don't apply to churches the same way they apply to other businesses. And, as has been my main point all along, anti-discrimination does the violate the moral tenets of any (non-islamic) church. Therefore, the church has no moral objection to it so doesn't contest if the govt says those laws apply to them.
Churches HAVE gone to court to maintain their right to limit employees in certain cases to only members of the their faith -- and they've WON ... solely because of their rights under the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
It's all related to the general topic. I can see you have NO answer for that.
>> Now tell me how the health care law tramples religious freedom, and why the anti-discrimination laws do not especially when you yourself just said THE CHURCH HAS THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE? <<
The anti-discrimination laws do not because they also don't apply to churches the same way they apply to other businesses. And, as has been my main point all along, anti-discrimination does the violate the moral tenets of any (non-islamic) church. Therefore, the church has no moral objection to it so doesn't contest if the govt says those laws apply to them.
Churches HAVE gone to court to maintain their right to limit employees in certain cases to only members of the their faith -- and they've WON ... solely because of their rights under the Bill of Rights and other amendments.
ASKER
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/legislative-branch
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/16/cbo-obama-budget-deepens-debt-35-trillion/
CBO: Exploding debt under Obama policies
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74109.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-has-increased-5-trillion-speaker-pelosi-vowed-no-new-deficit-spending