Obama says that now insurance co's, not churches, will have to pay for contraception

[Little-Acorn]

Apparently a little while ago the Obama admin announced that health care providers would have to provide free contraceptives etc. for women who wanted them. This didn't go over well with some, particularly hospitals etc. run by Catholic churches, who have always disapproved of contraception, morning-after pills etc.

So today I heard Obama go on the air and announce that he had changed his mind: now insurance companies, not hospitals (at least Catholic ones) would be required to pay for the contraceptives.

I had to do a double-take.

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

---------------------------

I just caught a little bit of the announcement, and maybe I'm missing something here (wouldn't be the first time :-/ )

But suppose that, instead of announcing that insurance companies had to pay for them, what if he had anounced instead that Little-Acorn, that guy with the computer in San Diego, had to pay for them?

Would I have no alternative? I would have to pay for them?

What's the difference between Obama ordering insurance companies to pay, and Obama ordering private individual(s) to pay?

If Congress, in its legislative majesty, had written up, discussed, and passed a bill saying XXX company (or Little-Acorn) had to pay. They vote on it, pass it, and send it to the President, who signs it.

Isn't that called a Bill of Attainder? Which is flatly banned in the Constitution?

----------------------------

As far as I know, Congress can't do that. So how on Earth can one man (the President) do it? Just order some person or group to pay for something?

I can see where a King might have the power to do that, in countries that have Kings.

Do we have one?

[jimnyc]

Welcome to the new millennium. Sit back and relax while the politicians and judges decide what is best for you and who should pay for it.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't see how this is any different. The religious institution, if it offers any heath insurance at all, still has to buy a policy for its employees which will include coverage for contraception, morning-after pills, etc. Which is against their religious beliefs.

[OCA]

Welcome to the new millennium. Sit back and relax while the politicians and judges decide what is best for you and who should pay for it.

Hey thats not right! Jimmy you are offending members here who believe that very thing, our strict constitutionalists.

[Gaffer]

The man thinks he rules the country. The coming revolution is going to be a very interesting time.

[fj1200]

Welcome to the new millennium. Sit back and relax while the politicians and judges decide what is best for you and who should pay for it.

It's always been that way. Politicians creates laws and (some) judges decide whether it violates the Constitution. This law just happens to be inconceivably stupid because it's greatly expands the power and encroachment of government.

[krisy]

These idiots don't get it. The Catholic church is still upset(as they should be). In all his infinite wisdom,Obama thought he was pulling a fast one. Nice try to the up and coming monarchy.


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/white-house-religious-employers-wont-have-to-cover-birth-control-but-insura

[Abbey Marie]

And here we thought we had defeated King George all those years ago.

[ConHog]

And here we thought we had defeated King George all those years ago.

Does anyone believe that if offered the title of King as George Washington was that Obama would likewise turn it down?

[Abbey Marie]

Does anyone believe that if offered the title of King as George Washington was that Obama would likewise turn it down?

Only if he thought he already had the title.

[Missileman]

Apparently a little while ago the Obama admin announced that health care providers would have to provide free contraceptives etc. for women who wanted them. This didn't go over well with some, particularly hospitals etc. run by Catholic churches, who have always disapproved of contraception, morning-after pills etc.

So today I heard Obama go on the air and announce that he had changed his mind: now insurance companies, not hospitals (at least Catholic ones) would be required to pay for the contraceptives.

I had to do a double-take.

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

---------------------------

I just caught a little bit of the announcement, and maybe I'm missing something here (wouldn't be the first time :-/ )

But suppose that, instead of announcing that insurance companies had to pay for them, what if he had anounced instead that Little-Acorn, that guy with the computer in San Diego, had to pay for them?

Would I have no alternative? I would have to pay for them?

What's the difference between Obama ordering insurance companies to pay, and Obama ordering private individual(s) to pay?

If Congress, in its legislative majesty, had written up, discussed, and passed a bill saying XXX company (or Little-Acorn) had to pay. They vote on it, pass it, and send it to the President, who signs it.

Isn't that called a Bill of Attainder? Which is flatly banned in the Constitution?

----------------------------

As far as I know, Congress can't do that. So how on Earth can one man (the President) do it? Just order some person or group to pay for something?

I can see where a King might have the power to do that, in countries that have Kings.

Do we have one?

Who pays if it turns out all the insurance companies are owned by Catholics?

[Little-Acorn]

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

[fj1200]

The Health Care "Reform" Act... or whatever it's called.

[Little-Acorn]

The Health Care "Reform" Act... or whatever it's called.

Acts of Congress cannot authorize the President to do things that aren't in the Constitution.

So, could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

[ConHog]

Acts of Congress cannot authorize the President to do things that aren't in the Constitution.

So, could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

Actually, I believe they can, so that's the wrong argument.

[krisy]

We need a constitutional lawyer to join the board:laugh:

I agree with little acorn,as well as a lot of people calling the radio today. It reminds me of the Ten Commandments. "So let it written,so let i be done",and pow. No wonder someone drew a picture of Obama standing on the Constitution.

[Little-Acorn]

Actually, I believe they can, so that's the wrong argument.

Your belief doesn't supersede the Constitution. True for both you and Obama.


We need a constitutional lawyer to join the board:laugh:


They'd be welcome.

BTW, it's been my experience that most so-called "Constitutional lawyers" specialize in advocating for the ways courts have interpreted the Constitution, not for what the Constitution itself says. As a result, as time goes by and more and more "settled" cases are added to the record, that tends to cause them to advocate further and further away from what it actually says.

For example, such "Constitutional lawyers" would tell you with no trace of irony or doubt, that the Constitution protects a right to abortion, and that it supports the right of government to use Eminent Domain to take private property, with "reasonable conmpensation", and turn it over to other private groups. For justification, they would point to Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London. This despite the fact that the Constitution itself gives no such authority for either doctrine.

[krisy]

Your belief doesn't supersede the Constitution. True for both you and Obama.

ding ding ding. we have a winner!

[ConHog]

Your belief doesn't supersede the Constitution. True for both you and Obama.

Of course my belief doesn't supersede the COTUS. That isn't what I said, what I DID say was there is nothing in the COTUS preventing the Legislative branch from ceding part of its authority over to the Executive branch.

Seems unlikely they would do that, but they have over the years. Some of them have been upheld in court , some have not.

Oh, and I don't believe Congress has the authority to force anyone to buy insurance, so therefor I don't beieve they can cede that power to the President. I'm just arguing that in general, there is nothing that prevents the Congress from giving some of it's power to the POTUS.

[LuvRPgrl]

And here we thought we had defeated King George all those years ago.

he came back as FDR, wrapped in the American flag and a new constitution, edited bill of rights

congress shall not enact any law that favors one atheist group over another, no shall they abridge the right of atheists to attack religion.
The people of the USA will have to fight, claw, demand, spend thousands on court fees to have a right to own a gun, and then maybe they still wont be able to own one.
Liberals shall decide all matters involving the death of an individual thru capital punishment, and what is legally personhood, and that definition can be changed at their whim depending on which groups benefit the most, by any law involved.

all freedoms and rights may be abridged, cancelled, ignored or otherwise rendered useless, thru rules, regulations and decrees which cannot be challenged in court,

Liberal democrats shall decide which groups get special protection from this constitution, and the media will be required to make it appear the lliberals are champions of equality and freedom for all.

succesful businesses shall be duly burdened thru regulations and taxation to not be able to be too succesful, unless its a corporation giving at least $500,000 to a political campaign

ALL Americans shall be subject to full body searches, including cavity searches at the whim of any TSA agent, anytime, anyplace, for no reason at all.

Americans shall be forced to believe cops dont lie, and cops shall be required to commit perjury if another cop is in danger of being found guilty of anything.

nobody shall earn more than one million dollars, unless they support liberal causes.

everybody who votes for liberals shall be entitled to free food, housing, and utilities.

there shall be special rights for all groups supporting liberal causes, especially feminists, atheists and homosexuals.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, shall democrats or liberals be required to answer a question that if answered honestly will show the dems/lliberals in a bad light. Such obfuscation by republican conservatives shall be deemed as the manipulation of the media and liberals shall be hailed as heroes.

Once the country flounders into oblivion, the lilberals retain the right to deny all responsability, even though they have been winning virtually every social, financial and political issue, and yet our society has reacted by becoming worse and worse and worse.

[Missileman]

there shall be special rights for all groups supporting liberal causes, especially feminists, atheists and homosexuals.


What special rights do any of these have? Be specific please and include only those rights that no one outside these groups has also.

[ConHog]

What special rights do any of these have? Be specific please and include only those rights that no one outside these groups has also.

hate crimes


That was all too easy

[Missileman]

hate crimes


That was all too easy

Race is used as a basis for hate crimes also, so it doesn't meet my criteria. Next!

[Little-Acorn]

Of course my belief doesn't supersede the COTUS. That isn't what I said, what I DID say was there is nothing in the COTUS preventing the Legislative branch from ceding part of its authority over to the Executive branch.


The Constitution doesn't prevent the government from doing things. It empowers government to do things.

(Actually, part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, does prevent the govt from doing certain things. But that was added later.)

The fundamental purpose of the Constitution, was twofold:

(1) It specified what government we would have (a President, a Congress, Courts, etc.), and
(2) it assigned each of those parts of government, what powers it could exercise.

And if there was a power it did not assign, that meant the Federal govt didn't have that power... and so it was was FORBIDDEN to exercise that power. Only the states and the people could still have that power, if they wanted it.

So if there's nothing in the Constitution about Congress ceding its powers to the President (and there isn't, I checked), that means Congress is FORBIDDEN to do so. The Constitution doesn't have to explicitly "prevent" Congress from doing it. (That's why, when it was first written and ratified, the Constitution didn't have a Bill of Rights. It didn't need one. There was no language in the Const authorizing the govt to make laws regarding religion or preventing its exercise... so the govt was automatically forbidden to do that. Also true of most other things mentioned in the BOR. But many states wanted explicit, ironclad guarantees, so the BOR was soon written and added.

[ConHog]

Race is used as a basis for hate crimes also, so it doesn't meet my criteria. Next!

yeah race, if it's the wrong race you attacked. I'll be happy to look at any examples of anyone being prosecuted for a hate crime against a white person.


But okay, how about this, Indian casinos? Black only scholarships? Can a white guy get in on either of those?

[Missileman]

yeah race, if it's the wrong race you attacked. I'll be happy to look at any examples of anyone being prosecuted for a hate crime against a white person.


But okay, how about this, Indian casinos? Black only scholarships? Can a white guy get in on either of those?

That wasn't the question. List a right that ONLY a feminist, an atheist, or a homosexual has.

[Abbey Marie]

We need a constitutional lawyer to join the board:laugh:

I agree with little acorn,as well as a lot of people calling the radio today. It reminds me of the Ten Commandments. "So let it written,so let i be done",and pow. No wonder someone drew a picture of Obama standing on the Constitution.

Was he peeing on it too?

[Missileman]

Was he peeing on it too?

Pretty sure it was a deuce... :laugh2:

[ConHog]

That wasn't the question. List a right that ONLY a feminist, an atheist, or a homosexual has.

Luv didn't limit his comments to JUST those groups, so why are you attempting to?

[LuvRPgrl]

What special rights do any of these have? Be specific please and include only those rights that no one outside these groups has also.

special rights doesnt require that "nobody" outside the group doesnt have those rights, onlly that "somebody'' doesnt have them.


That wasn't the question. List a right that ONLY a feminist, an atheist, or a homosexual has.

name a right that only those groups are denied.

[ConHog]

name a right that only those groups are denied.

The right to be left alone about their sex lives.


All too easy from you as well.

[Missileman]

there shall be special rights for all groups supporting liberal causes, especially feminists, atheists and homosexuals.


Luv didn't limit his comments to JUST those groups, so why are you attempting to?

I quoted him directly...twice now.


special rights doesnt require that "nobody" outside the group doesnt have those rights, onlly that "somebody'' doesnt have them.

Then define special right. And then list at least one example that meets your definition.


name a right that only those groups are denied.

You can't provide an example of something you claim exists so you ask me to provide an example of something that I HAVEN'T claimed exists.:wtf:

[ConHog]

I quoted him directly...twice now.

there shall be special rights for all groups supporting liberal causes, especially feminists, atheists and homosexuals.

He was speaking of a group that is inclusive of feminists, atheists, and homosexuals, not one that was exclusively feminists, atheists, and homosexuals. At least that is how I took it.

[Missileman]

there shall be special rights for all groups supporting liberal causes, especially feminists, atheists and homosexuals.

He was speaking of a group that is inclusive of feminists, atheists, and homosexuals, not one that was exclusively feminists, atheists, and homosexuals. At least that is how I took it.

He is saying that feminists, atheists, and homosexuals get special rights because they support liberal causes.

[ConHog]

He is saying that feminists, atheists, and homosexuals get special rights because they support liberal causes.

That isn't how I took it at all. Maybe I'm wrong and LUV in fact thinks if you go down to the local courthouse and register as a liberal you get special rights, but some how I doubt it.

Reminds me of a funny story from a few years back (well more Like 10 ) though. It's about that time that the Hispanic population around here really started to take off, and there were actually people here who not only believed that Tysons (the main employ of Hispanics here) not only didn't take income tax out of their checks but they ALSO believed that they didn't pay sales tax when they bought stuff at Wal Mart or whatever. I explained to them that if that was the case, I was going to become a Mexican and then sneak back across the border................

[PostmodernProphet]

because we all know that the insurance company isn't going to build the cost of providing that into the policy premium.......

[ConHog]

because we all know that the insurance company isn't going to build the cost of providing that into the policy premium.......

A smart insurance company sure would. What a way to grab the CHurch's business.

[fj1200]

Acts of Congress cannot authorize the President to do things that aren't in the Constitution.

So, could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

Incorrect, acts of Congress can't authorize the President to do things that aren't constitutional. But even then they can, it's just do they pass review. There's lots that government does that's not in the big C.

[ConHog]

Incorrect, acts of Congress can't authorize the President to do things that aren't constitutional. But even then they can, it's just do they pass review. There's lots that government does that's not in the big C.

They CAN and just like you say, that IS subject to judicial review. That is what happened to the line item veto , for instance. Congress gave the POTUS that power, but SCOTUS ruled against that saying no the COTUS was very specific on THAT particular power. But as you said not everything is in the COTUS .

[PostmodernProphet]

We need a constitutional lawyer to join the board:laugh:


with our luck, we'd get a liberal one....


A smart insurance company sure would. What a way to grab the CHurch's business.

???.....the point I was making was that this proposal isn't a solution, it's just sleight of hand......

[logroller]

Your belief doesn't supersede the Constitution. True for both you and Obama.
More importantly-- true for Congress. That's who actually passed the law.

[avatar4321]

I don't see how this is any different. The religious institution, if it offers any heath insurance at all, still has to buy a policy for its employees which will include coverage for contraception, morning-after pills, etc. Which is against their religious beliefs.

There is no difference. He is just trying to word it differently to decieve people into thinking it's somehow different.

People need to start taking a stand and tell Obama and any politician to get the hell out of our healthcare.

[ConHog]

There is no difference. He is just trying to word it differently to decieve people into thinking it's somehow different.

People need to start taking a stand and tell Obama and any politician to get the hell out of our healthcare.

A true argument, but has nothing to do with the question of should a religious hospital be exempt if this abortion of a law goes into effect. That's been my point all along.

[avatar4321]

A true argument, but has nothing to do with the question of should a religious hospital be exempt if this abortion of a law goes into effect. That's been my point all along.

This abortion of a law shouldnt go into effect.

[ConHog]

This abortion of a law shouldnt go into effect.

Agreed .

[avatar4321]

This is really invigorating the religious communities, and not just the Catholics. We are about to see some major changes in America. Some good, some really bad. We need to be prepared for that.

[Little-Acorn]

Incorrect, acts of Congress can't authorize the President to do things that aren't constitutional.
That's what I said.


But even then they can, it's just do they pass review.
In other words, just so they can worm it past the people who are supposed to stop them from doing it and force them to obey the law (Constitution in this case).


There's lots that government does that's not in the big C.
And is thereby in violation, correct.

And your point is....??

Look, there's a solution to this. Always has been one.

When people wanted the Fed to ban alcohol, they saw it had no authority in the Constitution to do so. So they passed an amendment. Problem solved. (Unfortunately, they found out that banning alcohol was a bad idea, being against the will of the people, but that's a different issue.)

So why don't the leftists simply put together an amendment saying that the President has the authority to decree which groups will pay for what? That will absolutely make Obama's recent order constitutional, no argument.

I'll tell you why: Because the American people would find it so abhorrent, the amendment would NEVER pass.

They would call their Congresscritters in droves, in a movement that would make the McCain-Kennedy Illegal Alien Amnesty repudiation look like a picnic, and tell them that if they voted for this amendment, they'd be out of a job in November. And if it somehow did get the 2/3 vote in each house of Congress needed to pass, each state legislature would face an even worse backlash, such that there would NEVER be 3/4 of the states willing to ratify.

Obama would never (and should never) get the authority to make decrees like he just tried to, and for the same reason he doesn't have it now: Because such authority would be very bad for the country. And the American people (unlike the present regime) know it.

This is the real battle our resident leftist fanatics have been fighting for nearly a hundred years: They don't have the authority to run their schemes and transform the country the way they want, because the American people absolutely won't give it to them.

And that's why the leftist fanatics have been trying instead, to implement most of it through unelected courts. And even evading those courts where they can, by simply passing unconstitutional laws and decrees, and then stalling and deflecting every attempt to take them to those courts.

The leftist fanatics KNOW their stuff is illegal, and frequently in flat violation of the Constitution. That's why they have to go through such incredible histrionics every time they try to pass any of it into law, and why they generate such huge controversy every time they try to put their fellow travelers onto the courts:

Because the people (and the Constitution that made this country such an attractive place) want no part of it.

[LuvRPgrl]

The right to be left alone about their sex lives.


All too easy from you as well.

so heterosexuals are not allowed to be left alone about their sex lives?

all too much easier from you as well

I dont think you understood the post I made,


I quoted him directly...twice now.
"especially" specificallly means there are some not mentioned in this clause,

[Missileman]

"especially" specificallly means there are some not mentioned in this clause,

Who gives a shit? You still haven't provided a single special right that's enjoyed by some groups, ESPECIALLY feminists, atheists or homosexuals.

[LuvRPgrl]

Then define special right. And then list at least one example that meets your definition.

first, you are quoting a "tongue in cheek" posting, which means its content is not to be taken literal, word for word, but just in general ideas.

again, hate crimes


Then define special right. And then list at least one example that meets your definition.

special simply means something that a, any group, may not be included, nor can be by its current defintion

[Missileman]

first, you are quoting a "tongue in cheek" posting, which means its content is not to be taken literal, word for word, but just in general ideas.

again, hate crimes

Exactly how does a feminist, atheist, or homosexual exercise this alleged right?

BTW, if it was meant to be humorous, then you shouldn't be trying to defend its actuality.

[LuvRPgrl]

Incorrect, acts of Congress can't authorize the President to do things that aren't constitutional. But even then they can, it's just do they pass review. There's lots that government does that's not in the big C.

If you are talking about the FEDS, then LITTLE A is right, if its not in the COTUS, then it should be reserved to the STATES rights


They CAN and just like you say, that IS subject to judicial review. That is what happened to the line item veto , for instance. Congress gave the POTUS that power, but SCOTUS ruled against that saying no the COTUS was very specific on THAT particular power. But as you said not everything is in the COTUS .

its actually semantics, at what point does the pres actually have those powers, permanently

one could say the power isnt given to the pres until theSCOTUS reviews it


Exactly how does a feminist, atheist, or homosexual exercise this alleged right?

BTW, if it was meant to be humorous, then you shouldn't be trying to defend its actuality.

Im defending the general content, or basic ideas, not the particular language and details involved.

hate crimes only apply to certain groups

taxation laws sometimes only apply to certain groups, and it isnt a rule, or by law, or regulation, or tax exemption,
all of those are allowed because of the law that originally created income tax

[ConHog]

???.....the point I was making was that this proposal isn't a solution, it's just sleight of hand......

Oh, that I completely agree with.

[Missileman]

Im defending the general content, or basic ideas, not the particular language and details involved.

hate crimes only apply to certain groups

taxation laws sometimes only apply to certain groups, and it isnt a rule, or by law, or regulation, or tax exemption,
all of those are allowed because of the law that originally created income tax

What does any of that have to do with your original statement? Where's your example of a special right afforded to "those who support liberal causes, especially feminsts, atheists, and homosexuals"?

[ConHog]

its actually semantics, at what point does the pres actually have those powers, permanently

one could say the power isnt given to the pres until theSCOTUS reviews it

Yes I suppose that could be said. But SCOTUS doesn't review EVERY law, so unless someone gets a case before the Court the POTUS could and would have that power in the interim.

[fj1200]

That's what I said.

Not really.


In other words, just so they can worm it past the people who are supposed to stop them from doing it and force them to obey the law (Constitution in this case).

No, it's not about worming, it's about passing a law and challenging it if appropriate.


And is thereby in violation, correct.

No. The Constitution can NOT say everything about everything so we have to rely on review. If we think that government has overstepped its bounds we have remedies to that. The bottom line is that most of the people like what we have or are at least completely ambivalent about it so they are not in an uproar to get their officials to reign it back in.


And your point is....??

Look, there's a solution to this. Always has been one.

When people wanted the Fed to ban alcohol, they saw it had no authority in the Constitution to do so. So they passed an amendment. Problem solved. (Unfortunately, they found out that banning alcohol was a bad idea, being against the will of the people, but that's a different issue.)

So why don't the leftists simply put together an amendment saying that the President has the authority to decree which groups will pay for what? That will absolutely make Obama's recent order constitutional, no argument.

I'll tell you why: Because the American people would find it so abhorrent, the amendment would NEVER pass.

They would call their Congresscritters in droves, in a movement that would make the McCain-Kennedy Illegal Alien Amnesty repudiation look like a picnic, and tell them that if they voted for this amendment, they'd be out of a job in November. And if it somehow did get the 2/3 vote in each house of Congress needed to pass, each state legislature would face an even worse backlash, such that there would NEVER be 3/4 of the states willing to ratify.

Obama would never (and should never) get the authority to make decrees like he just tried to, and for the same reason he doesn't have it now: Because such authority would be very bad for the country. And the American people (unlike the present regime) know it.

This is the real battle our resident leftist fanatics have been fighting for nearly a hundred years: They don't have the authority to run their schemes and transform the country the way they want, because the American people absolutely won't give it to them.

And that's why the leftist fanatics have been trying instead, to implement most of it through unelected courts. And even evading those courts where they can, by simply passing unconstitutional laws and decrees, and then stalling and deflecting every attempt to take them to those courts.

The leftist fanatics KNOW their stuff is illegal, and frequently in flat violation of the Constitution. That's why they have to go through such incredible histrionics every time they try to pass any of it into law, and why they generate such huge controversy every time they try to put their fellow travelers onto the courts:

Because the people (and the Constitution that made this country such an attractive place) want no part of it.

The solution is for the people to support politicians that will reign it back in. Do I like the expansiveness of what we have? No, but if you can't have the people decide that strict constructionalism is the way to go then there will be support for those who will advocate expansion and the justices who get appointed.

If the Amendment process was used and was used a lot then there would be the same pressures that there are now. We'd become the fiscal nightmare that CA is.


If you are talking about the FEDS, then LITTLE A is right, if its not in the COTUS, then it should be reserved to the STATES rights

The Constitution doesn't have to spell everything out as far as powers are concerned. I'd argue that EPA is Constitutional even though it says nothing about the environment.


its actually semantics, at what point does the pres actually have those powers, permanently

one could say the power isnt given to the pres until theSCOTUS reviews it

I'd say that the POTUS does have the power until the SC says otherwise. Presumably everyone is upholding the Constitution so I'd say the default is that the power is valid. An injunction could stem the enactment I suppose.


Im defending the general content, or basic ideas, not the particular language and details involved.

hate crimes only apply to certain groups

taxation laws sometimes only apply to certain groups, and it isnt a rule, or by law, or regulation, or tax exemption,
all of those are allowed because of the law that originally created income tax

They are designed to apply to certain groups but written to apply to all.

[ConHog]

They are designed to apply to certain groups but written to apply to all.

See, I completely hate that model. There should be ONE tax standard applied to all.

[LuvRPgrl]

They are designed to apply to certain groups but written to apply to all.nope

written to apply to all?
nope, many are specifically for certain groups, and if you dont fall into that category, you dont get the tax break. Its quite possible that in some, many or maybe even all, that ANYBODY could get into that category, but the tax break still only applies to a certain group. and since it is impossible for everyone to fit into some of those groups, then it is guaranteed that some people wont get the break. We may not know who,, by personal identification, but we do know that some will.
so, when the tax laws are written, it is KNOWN that some wont be included. Hence it CANT be intended or written for all.

AND THEN THERE ARE ALL THE "WOMENS RIGHTS" LAWS

[fj1200]

nope

written to apply to all?
nope, many are specifically for certain groups, and if you dont fall into that category, you dont get the tax break. Its quite possible that in some, many or maybe even all, that ANYBODY could get into that category, but the tax break still only applies to a certain group. and since it is impossible for everyone to fit into some of those groups, then it is guaranteed that some people wont get the break. We may not know who,, by personal identification, but we do know that some will.
so, when the tax laws are written, it is KNOWN that some wont be included. Hence it CANT be intended or written for all.

AND THEN THERE ARE ALL THE "WOMENS RIGHTS" LAWS

Yep, written to apply to all:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States;
But by design they will only benefit a particular industry or company.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yep, written to apply to all:

But by design they will only benefit a particular industry or company.

:laugh: U lost me on that 1:laugh:

[fj1200]

:laugh: U lost me on that 1:laugh:

I remember a story about a tax law that was written to comply with that uniform clause but by design the only companies that it could possibly have benefited were a couple of companies in AR. It was awhile ago.

[ConHog]

I remember a story about a tax law that was written to comply with that uniform clause but by design the only companies that it could possibly have benefited were a couple of companies in AR. It was awhile ago.

Probably Wal Mart, them fuckers can tell anyone what to do and they do it. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Probably Wal Mart, them fuckers can tell anyone what to do and they do it. :laugh:

No, not them. Seems like it was a couple, three companies. It may not even have passed.

[ConHog]

No, not them. Seems like it was a couple, three companies. It may not even have passed.

THere's no telling.

There are some big companies headquartered in Arkansas. More than people think, so no telling.

[LuvRPgrl]

No, not them. Seems like it was a couple, three companies. It may not even have passed.OW
some of the pundits on TV who support the use of force to get the catholic church to provide insurance coverage including contraceptives,
are screaming "WOMENS RIGHT !!"


What does any of that have to do with your original statement? Where's your example of a special right afforded to "those who support liberal causes, especially feminsts, atheists, and homosexuals"?

If a man kills the fetus of a woman, the law charges him with murder, if the woman does it, its legal.

[ConHog]

OW
some of the pundits on TV who support the use of force to get the catholic church to provide insurance coverage including contraceptives,
are screaming "WOMENS RIGHT !!"

Gabby tried the same trick here. Pretty dumb, as if not forcing the catholic hospitals to buy health care insurance that covers birth control prevents anyone from obtaining their own birth control.

[LuvRPgrl]

Gabby tried the same trick here. Pretty dumb, as if not forcing the catholic hospitals to buy health care insurance that covers birth control prevents anyone from obtaining their own birth control.


yes, they believe the COTUS mandates, requires employers to provide the coverage.
Problem is, it doesnt cover everyone, it caters to a special group.
It is my opinion, as stated in the COTUS, that no laws will past muster if not applied to all, equally, with exceptions maybe for the military, police, national guard, those who literally hold citizens lives in their hands.

But this entire complex can of worms exists now because the FEDS went into realms it simply doesnt belong.

Now it is so complicated and contradictory, that no one can make sense of the entirety. BECAUSE IT CANT WORK UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
INstead of fighting for LAWS that are constitutional, all the special interest groups simply fight for legitametly of a law based soley on whether it will benefit their particular special group.
HENCE FEMINISTS THINK THE RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION OVERIDES THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but ignorant and stupid masses of voters buy into it.

[ConHog]

yes, they believe the COTUS mandates, requires employers to provide the coverage.
Problem is, it doesnt cover everyone, it caters to a special group.
It is my opinion, as stated in the COTUS, that no laws will past muster if not applied to all, equally, with exceptions maybe for the military, police, national guard, those who literally hold citizens lives in their hands.

But this entire complex can of worms exists now because the FEDS went into realms it simply doesnt belong.

Now it is so complicated and contradictory, that no one can make sense of the entirety. BECAUSE IT CANT WORK UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
INstead of fighting for LAWS that are constitutional, all the special interest groups simply fight for legitametly of a law based soley on whether it will benefit their particular special group.
HENCE FEMINISTS THINK THE RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION OVERIDES THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but ignorant and stupid masses of voters buy into it.

I agree with you on this and have long stated that most people are concerned about their own rights even as they run right over another person's even though I disagree with you that this particular requirement would violate any church's rights.

If that makes sense?

[Missileman]

If a man kills the fetus of a woman, the law charges him with murder, if the woman does it, its legal.

If a woman takes $20 out of my wallet, the law charges her with theft. If I take $20 out of my wallet its legal.

This STILL doesn't provide an example of a special right afforded to the groups you listed.

[LuvRPgrl]

If a woman takes $20 out of my wallet, the law charges her with theft. If I take $20 out of my wallet its legal.

This STILL doesn't provide an example of a special right afforded to the groups you listed.

so you are comparing a TWENTY dollar bill to a baby?
LAME

[Missileman]

so you are comparing a TWENTY dollar bill to a baby?
LAME

No dummy...I'm comparing legal action with legal action and illegal action with illegal action. You're trying to compare an apple to a moon rock.

And you STILL haven't provided an example of a special right.

[LuvRPgrl]

No dummy...I'm comparing legal action with legal action and illegal action with illegal action. You're trying to compare an apple to a moon rocksl

And you STILL haven't provided an example of a special right.

so, you are saying the preg woman OWNS the baby? slavery is illegal you know.

whaat exactly would the man driving the car that kills the unborn baby, be charged with?

[Gunny]

Apparently a little while ago the Obama admin announced that health care providers would have to provide free contraceptives etc. for women who wanted them. This didn't go over well with some, particularly hospitals etc. run by Catholic churches, who have always disapproved of contraception, morning-after pills etc.

So today I heard Obama go on the air and announce that he had changed his mind: now insurance companies, not hospitals (at least Catholic ones) would be required to pay for the contraceptives.

I had to do a double-take.

Could somebody explain to me where the President gets the authority to simply command that a certain groups must pay for something, and Bingo, they have to do it?

---------------------------

I just caught a little bit of the announcement, and maybe I'm missing something here (wouldn't be the first time :-/ )

But suppose that, instead of announcing that insurance companies had to pay for them, what if he had anounced instead that Little-Acorn, that guy with the computer in San Diego, had to pay for them?

Would I have no alternative? I would have to pay for them?

What's the difference between Obama ordering insurance companies to pay, and Obama ordering private individual(s) to pay?

If Congress, in its legislative majesty, had written up, discussed, and passed a bill saying XXX company (or Little-Acorn) had to pay. They vote on it, pass it, and send it to the President, who signs it.

Isn't that called a Bill of Attainder? Which is flatly banned in the Constitution?

----------------------------

As far as I know, Congress can't do that. So how on Earth can one man (the President) do it? Just order some person or group to pay for something?

I can see where a King might have the power to do that, in countries that have Kings.

Do we have one?

I'm wondering what the difference is anyway. Sounds like more double-talk. The insurance companies were ALWAYS going to pay for the contraception. What's that got to do with who is required to PROVIDE it? Thsi guy's got a GO. And more than couple of Democrat congresspersons along with him.

Obama's doing whatever he wants, and damn the US Constitution. That's how our rulers in Chicago act, and that's where he was trained in the fine art of the most sorrupt political machine in the US.

[cadet]

The man thinks he rules the country. The coming revolution is going to be a very interesting time.

So.. since I'm going into the military, when this happens, do i fight for Uncle Sam, or the people and constitution I swore to uphold?

maybe I'll just go AWOL...

[Gunny]

He is saying that feminists, atheists, and homosexuals get special rights because they support liberal causes.

They get special rghts becaause leftwing causes support THEM. I'd say "hate crime" legislation is a "special right", and applies only to aberrent minorities.

Atheists have been getting away with your years systematically tearing down the moral origns and standards of this Nation, and homosexual and feminists want special laws that legislate them into the decision-making position of the majority, and or be recognized as equal in behavior to actual normal people.

There're your examples. They exist. No doubt you'll deny the obvious, as usual. But it won't change the truth. It's there for anyone to see who bothers to look.

[Missileman]

They get special rghts becaause leftwing causes support THEM. I'd say "hate crime" legislation is a "special right", and applies only to aberrent minorities.

Atheists have been getting away with your years systematically tearing down the moral origns and standards of this Nation, and homosexual and feminists want special laws that legislate them into the decision-making position of the majority, and or be recognized as equal in behavior to actual normal people.

There're your examples. They exist. No doubt you'll deny the obvious, as usual. But it won't change the truth. It's there for anyone to see who bothers to look.

So being black makes one an abberant minority? Or white, or asian, etc? Hate crime has been assigned to cases involving more than just homosexuals. In order to claim it, you need to provide an example of an atheist and a feminist being attacked and it prosecuted as a hate crime. Good luck!

Besides, calling prosecution of certain crimes a right enjoyed by the victims is a s t r e t c h.

As for the rest of your post, it is MISSING any example of a special right, especially when you consider the vast amount of special interest legislation passed each year. To put in terms you might relate to, "that dog don't hunt". As for denying the obvious, it's a shame you haven't posted any for me to deny.


so, you are saying the preg woman OWNS the baby? slavery is illegal you know.

It would be really refreshing if occasionally you would put down the straw and just respond to what I wrote.


whaat exactly would the man driving the car that kills the unborn baby, be charged with?

What exactly are the circumstances of the crash?

[ConHog]

It would be really refreshing if occasionally you would put down the straw and just respond to what I wrote.



What exactly are the circumstances of the crash?

LUV actually brings up an interesting point no matter what a person believes about abortion. A person COULD be charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing the very same fetus/baby that a woman can legally choose to abort. How is that equitable?

[Missileman]

LUV actually brings up an interesting point no matter what a person believes about abortion. A person COULD be charged with vehicular manslaughter for killing the very same fetus/baby that a woman can legally choose to abort. How is that equitable?

I believe criminality varies from state to state and varies with the viability of the fetus. The decision to abort is the woman's alone, it's her body...agree or disagree is a moot proposition.

[ConHog]

I believe criminality varies from state to state and varies with the viability of the fetus. The decision to abort is the woman's alone, it's her body...agree or disagree is a moot proposition.

As far as I know there is no set standard in any jurisdiction to determine when to begin charging with manslaughter . It's up to the DA to convince a jury and that's all that matters. Which is kind of the point. WHy is there NOT a standard?

As for abortion, I completely DISAGREE, leaving the man out of the decision making (barring rape of course) while at the same time telling him if the woman chooses to keep the baby that he WILL pay child support is sickeningly sexist. But that is perhaps best left for another thread.

[Missileman]

As far as I know there is no set standard in any jurisdiction to determine when to begin charging with manslaughter . It's up to the DA to convince a jury and that's all that matters. Which is kind of the point. WHy is there NOT a standard?


Is your complaint there's no federal standard? I think you're wrong about jurisdictions not having a standard of their own.

[ConHog]

Is your complaint there's no federal standard? I think you're wrong about jurisdictions not having a standard of their own.

Actually my wife just read over my shoulder and told me to relate that it's a good thing that neither you or I is a lawyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

And she says that since federal law trumps state law there really isn't a reason for a state to even have a law. Even though some might.

[Missileman]

Actually my wife just read over my shoulder and told me to relate that it's a good thing that neither you or I is a lawyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

And she says that since federal law trumps state law there really isn't a reason for a state to even have a law. Even though some might.

from the link:


The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States) government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on Federal (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Federal_Government_of_the_United_States) properties, against certain Federal (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Federal_Government_of_the_United_States) officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Federalism) embodied in the United States Constitution (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/United_States_Constitution), Federal (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Federal_Government_of_the_United_States) criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/U.S._state). However, 36 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Homicide) or feticide (http://www.debatepolicy.com/wiki/Feticide).[2] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#cite_note-1)


Please relate to your wife that it's a good thing she's not in here debating me...:laugh2:

[ConHog]

from the link:



Please relate to your wife that it's a good thing she's not in here debating me...:laugh2:

She didn't read the link, she just told me the name of the law. I just googled and posted the link.

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually my wife just read over my shoulder and told me to relate that it's a good thing that neither you or I is a lawyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

And she says that since federal law trumps state law there really isn't a reason for a state to even have a law. Even though some might.

NICE FIND !
The contradictory nature of that law is blatantly obvious and it basically indicates that lawmakers no longer have to make laws equally applied to all people.

The bogus nature of this law is astonishing in its illegality.

Congress has reached a new level, along with eminent domain, there is no longer any line to cross. Its no holds barred.

ONLY WOMEN CAN LEGALLY ABORT THE UNBORN CHILD, OR CONVERY THAT POWER TO ANOTHER PARTY.

What is really incredible is how the definition of "human being", "homo sapiens" and an "unborn child, in utero" not only changes depending on who did the act, but flip flops the definitions of the exact very same "human being"

I mean, is it an individual human being or not. It has to be one or the other, But for their purposes, they defined it as both.
HOW UTTERLY BIZARRE, AND OPPOSED TO THE VERY NATURE OF ALL LAWS FROM EVEN THE STONE AGE DAYS
HATE CRIMES ARE THE SAME THING.
'

[Gunny]

So being black makes one an abberant minority? Or white, or asian, etc? Hate crime has been assigned to cases involving more than just homosexuals. In order to claim it, you need to provide an example of an atheist and a feminist being attacked and it prosecuted as a hate crime. Good luck!

Besides, calling prosecution of certain crimes a right enjoyed by the victims is a s t r e t c h.

As for the rest of your post, it is MISSING any example of a special right, especially when you consider the vast amount of special interest legislation passed each year. To put in terms you might relate to, "that dog don't hunt". As for denying the obvious, it's a shame you haven't posted any for me to deny.

Want to try again? Yo didn't say anything about blacks, nor did I. Hate crames have been assigned almost exclusively to minorities. Period. I don't need to provide an example of jack shit. What's as obvious as daylight is just what it is.

A special right would be a Constitutional Amendment supporting Gay marriage. Marriage is not a COnstitutional right, period. It's a God-given one. Don't believe in God? Tough shit for you.

You STILL can't keep up with me. Give yourself a break and go argue with someone you might be able to confuse with your literalist bullshit. It ain't happening here. You're wrong. Have been for the last 8 years. End of story.

[Black Diamond]

What percentage of the Left would say that Lorena Bobbit committed a hate crime?

[Missileman]

Want to try again? Yo didn't say anything about blacks, nor did I. Hate crames have been assigned almost exclusively to minorities. Period. I don't need to provide an example of jack shit. What's as obvious as daylight is just what it is.

A special right would be a Constitutional Amendment supporting Gay marriage. Marriage is not a COnstitutional right, period. It's a God-given one. Don't believe in God? Tough shit for you.

You STILL can't keep up with me. Give yourself a break and go argue with someone you might be able to confuse with your literalist bullshit. It ain't happening here. You're wrong. Have been for the last 8 years. End of story.


Do I have to spell it out for you? You claim that hate crime legislation is an example of a SPECIAL right enjoyed by feminists, atheists, and homosexuals. Not that it's really a right, but even if it were, it's shared by Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Hindis, blacks, asians, whites, hispanics, etc...who the fuck is it a special right for if EVERYONE is covered?

And if the best you can come up with is a hypothetical amendment to the COTUS, maybe you need to give yourself a break.

[Jess]

What percentage of the Left would say that Lorena Bobbit committed a hate crime?
Only those possessing the appendage she hatefully lopped off.:laugh:
.

[MtnBiker]

If Obama is going to tell insurance companies to pay for contraceptions, when is going to tell oil companies to pay for my gas?

[Jess]

If Obama is going to tell insurance companies to pay for contraceptions, when is going to tell oil companies to pay for my gas?

I think that only works if you're black.

Cuz it was the black people who voted for him, saying he was going to take care of their gas, rent/mortgage and everything.

[krisy]

I think that only works if you're black.

Cuz it was the black people who voted for him, saying he was going to take care of their gas, rent/mortgage and everything.

Yes,if I remember right,it was those oh so handy Obamabucks that were going to pay for those things. They didn't know where they came from,just that they would get them.

[ConHog]

Yes,if I remember right,it was those oh so handy Obamabucks that were going to pay for those things. They didn't know where they came from,just that they would get them.

At least one idiot is on video claiming that Obama was going to pay all her bills out of his own pocket.

[Intense]

For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it, “The Parable of the Kosher Deli.”

Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork. There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.

The Orthodox Jewish community—whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides—expresses its outrage at the new government mandate. And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork—not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths—because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty. They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle. They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced—under threat of severe government sanction—to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.

Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you. It is, after all, the other white meat.” Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.” Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”

But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following.

First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate. Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe—even if they believe in error—that pork is not good for you, should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not—and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions. Does the fact that large majorities in society—even large majorities within the protesting religious community—reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power? In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards. Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews. Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers. Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork, that they sometimes give pork away for free.

In this context, the question is this: can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is no.

So in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.

In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners, and offer them a new “accommodation.” You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer. But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises, and to offer, prepare, and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers, free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept. And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.

Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu, and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself. But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things. First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers, themselves, are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing, or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare, and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.

This story has a happy ending. The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.

The question before the United States government—right now—is whether the story of our own Church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too. Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity? We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be yes. We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way.

http://www.zenit.org/article-34309?l=english

:beer:

[Missileman]

:beer:


A better parable might be one where a Kosher Deli is being forced to buy school lunches for their employee's kids where pork is sometimes served.

As I understand it, no Catholic run hospital is being forced to perform abortions or dole out birth control. Totally different scenario than what the article is trying to compare it to.

[ConHog]

A better parable might be one where a Kosher Deli is being forced to buy school lunches for their employee's kids where pork is sometimes served.

As I understand it, no Catholic run hospital is being forced to perform abortions or dole out birth control. Totally different scenario than what the article is trying to compare it to.


They don't get it, because they don't want to get it.

[Intense]

Or, you are just watching the first shoe drop, with no concern for what comes next. There are instances where Birth Control Pills are covered under Existing Church Employee Insurance plans. Acne, to better regulate menstrual cycles, are two examples. The Issue is forced Birth Control effecting Procreation being forced on the Church. You try for the front door, and the Church opposes it, in effect because the Church is Forced by Law to Directly support Contraception, Pregnancy Termination, and Abortion, which are against It's teachings, regardless of what It's members do. It's not us that don't get it, it's you. This is a fundamental change to the status quo without regard for the Protection of Religious Freedom. Maybe the Churches biggest fault is in turning a blind eye to Statist Progressive Indoctrination for so long. In one sense the Statist Progressive Platform is a violation of Secularism in itself. It is a Cult in it's own right.

[Shadow]

If Obama is going to tell insurance companies to pay for contraceptions, when is going to tell oil companies to pay for my gas?


I'd rather have the gas anyway...I'm getting screwed in the contraception deal since I can't even use it, because I am at high risk for it giving me a stroke.

We need to be fair to everyone right??

[ConHog]

Or, you are just watching the first shoe drop, with no concern for what comes next. There are instances where Birth Control Pills are covered under Existing Church Employee Insurance plans. Acne, to better regulate menstrual cycles, are two examples. The Issue is forced Birth Control effecting Procreation being forced on the Church. You try for the front door, and the Church opposes it, in effect because the Church is Forced by Law to Directly support Contraception, Pregnancy Termination, and Abortion, which are against It's teachings, regardless of what It's members do. It's not us that don't get it, it's you. This is a fundamental change to the status quo without regard for the Protection of Religious Freedom. Maybe the Churches biggest fault is in turning a blind eye to Statist Progressive Indoctrination for so long. In one sense the Statist Progressive Platform is a violation of Secularism in itself. It is a Cult in it's own right.

Violation of secularism? You do realize there is no such mandate right? The only mandate is no OFFICIAL religion. That's how Congress, for example, gets away with prayers before each session they simply have different religious leaders give those prayers. IF we were a completely secular society then of course prayer at a government function itself would be a no no.

[Missileman]

Or, you are just watching the first shoe drop, with no concern for what comes next. There are instances where Birth Control Pills are covered under Existing Church Employee Insurance plans. Acne, to better regulate menstrual cycles, are two examples. The Issue is forced Birth Control effecting Procreation being forced on the Church. You try for the front door, and the Church opposes it, in effect because the Church is Forced by Law to Directly support Contraception, Pregnancy Termination, and Abortion, which are against It's teachings, regardless of what It's members do. It's not us that don't get it, it's you. This is a fundamental change to the status quo without regard for the Protection of Religious Freedom. Maybe the Churches biggest fault is in turning a blind eye to Statist Progressive Indoctrination for so long. In one sense the Statist Progressive Platform is a violation of Secularism in itself. It is a Cult in it's own right.

The church IS NOT being forced to provide birth control. In fact, the church IS NOT even being forced to provide insurance that covers birth control to their employees. They have the option of not providing insurance at all.

[ConHog]

The church IS NOT being forced to provide birth control. In fact, the church IS NOT even being forced to provide insurance that covers birth control to their employees. They have the option of not providing insurance at all.

I think I could actually make a case that by declaring that employees must have health insurance and that the only affordable option is employer provided insurance that IF the government gave these hospitals this exemption that the government is in fact forcing the Catholic Church's religious beliefs on non Catholic employees of said hospitals. That to me seems to be a CLEAR violation of the first amendment.

[Missileman]

I'm sure that one of those who protest can explain how this would be any different than one of their employees using some of their salary to buy birth control...after all, the church IS being forced to pay them minimum wage.

[logroller]

A better parable might be one where a Kosher Deli is being forced to buy school lunches for their employee's kids where pork is sometimes served.

As I understand it, no Catholic run hospital is being forced to perform abortions or dole out birth control. Totally different scenario than what the article is trying to compare it to.

I do like that comparison better. How is health insurance different than, say, a tax which provides meals to school kids?

Admittedly Obamacare is a dilemma; but it think employers offering healthcare insurance is a dilemma too. Why is it of any concern to anybody but the beneficiary who actually uses the insurance? Why should employers have a say at all if they aren't the beneficiary? Because they pay for it you say; but what, and more specifically, why do they pay for it? Sure healthy workers are more productive, but its not as though providing insurance makes them healthier-- they [the employee] must choose to go to the doctor among other choices which lead to a healthier person. The point of healthcare insurance (at least as I see it) is to moderate the financial burden of medical care (which totally backfires IMO, healthcare costs have skyrocketed); but regardless, the purpose of healthcare insurance isn't to instruct employees on how to live healthier lives, let alone a more ethical one, is it?

[Intense]

The church IS NOT being forced to provide birth control. In fact, the church IS NOT even being forced to provide insurance that covers birth control to their employees. They have the option of not providing insurance at all.

Currently they have that option, to not cover contraceptives. That will now soon change. They will be mandated to provide Insurance or be fined. Why fuck with a formula that works? Why manipulate the Church to fit in with your new Social(ist) agenda? The policies the church has provided until now have been fine? Why now? why at all? Is it that you are trying to show the church what happens to any entity, big or small, that questions the great ass, I mean the Great Ozz. ;) I think there is a pattern here, and the agenda is the Socialist Progressive Utopian State. Like most proclaimed Unicorns, it ends up being a Dark Horse. Obama will split the Catholic Vote, he is good at division, if nothing else, but considering that he got, what, 56 to 57% of the Catholic Vote last time, I think he will be cutting his losses this time. Did he stumble across this mine field unsuspectingly? No Way. This was calculated. Did he anticipate the Church standing up to him? Not like this.


Violation of secularism? You do realize there is no such mandate right? The only mandate is no OFFICIAL religion. That's how Congress, for example, gets away with prayers before each session they simply have different religious leaders give those prayers. IF we were a completely secular society then of course prayer at a government function itself would be a no no.

Yeah. Technically you are right there regarding the Established Church. My point relates to the Undeclared Church of Statist Progressivism. Most Victims (Acolytes) are brain washed before they know what hit them. The primary symptom is Hive Think. Sometimes you see them raising their hands to go to the bathroom, it's a clear give away. :) :lmao:

[Missileman]

Currently they have that option, to not cover contraceptives. That will now soon change. They will be mandated to provide Insurance or be fined. Why fuck with a formula that works? Why manipulate the Church to fit in with your new Social(ist) agenda? The policies the church has provided until now have been fine? Why now? why at all? Is it that you are trying to show the church what happens to any entity, big or small, that questions the great ass, I mean the Great Ozz. ;) I think there is a pattern here, and the agenda is the Socialist Progressive Utopian State. Like most proclaimed Unicorns, it ends up being a Dark Horse. Obama will split the Catholic Vote, he is good at division, if nothing else, but considering that he got, what, 56 to 57% of the Catholic Vote last time, I think he will be cutting his losses this time. Did he stumble across this mine field unsuspectingly? No Way. This was calculated. Did he anticipate the Church standing up to him? Not like this.

In case you might have missed it earlier, I'm opposed to Obamacare too. I don't think it's the employer's responsibility nor the government's to furnish people with health insurance.

That said, I do recognize a false claim of religious persecution when I see one, and this is one.

[ConHog]

In case you might have missed it earlier, I'm opposed to Obamacare too. I don't think it's the employer's responsibility nor the government's to furnish people with health insurance.

That said, I do recognize a false claim of religious persecution when I see one, and this is one.

EXACTLY my stance on this issue as well.

[Gunny]

So.. since I'm going into the military, when this happens, do i fight for Uncle Sam, or the people and constitution I swore to uphold?

maybe I'll just go AWOL...

Don't join. That simple. If Article 86 is all you got on your mind, just let it go.

[ConHog]

Don't join. That simple. If Article 86 is all you got on your mind, just let it go.

eh cut him some slack Gunny. I doubt he's joining with going AWOL as his goal.

Cadet if you're reading. It's a tricky proposition. Frankly I resigned my commission when I did because I DID think there might come a time when I would be ordered to fire on Americans under Obama and I wanted none of it.

The short answer is , in boot camp you will be schooled thoroughly on the difference between a legal order and an illegal order. If and when you are ordered to fire on Americans at that time you will have to use your own judgement to decide if an order is legal or illegal AND your own judgement to decide if the possibility of going to prison is worth ignoring an order that a jury may decide was legal.

The thing to remember is that you are going to be swearing to defend the country against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic so there are certainly some situations where using the military against US citizens is appropriate. There are many more situations where it is NOT appropriate of course.

If you already KNOW that you won't be able to fight against your own countrymen no matter what then you are best served taking Gunny's advice.

[Intense]

In case you might have missed it earlier, I'm opposed to Obamacare too. I don't think it's the employer's responsibility nor the government's to furnish people with health insurance.

That said, I do recognize a false claim of religious persecution when I see one, and this is one.

Specifically, Forcing the Church to Directly or Indirectly pay for Contraception, Sterilization, or Abortion, which are against It's Teachings, is a Violation against the Church. This is a matter of Principle, not Economics. It is not Persecution, It is Totalitarian. It is a corruption of Principle. Another view of the Church, rightly or wrongly, for example, would be when faced with the choice of saving the Mother or the Baby, the life of the Baby takes precedent. It is what it is. You are recognizing Federal Encroachment, while at the same time ignoring it. There are all kinds of Catholics with and without strong conviction. I'm for allowing those with Strong Conviction, the Backbone of the church, to be spared the Corruption of Populist Morality, which can be viewed as an oxymoron. This is an attack on the More Faithful, and an attempt to divide. The one thing Obama is good at is Division.

[Missileman]

Specifically, Forcing the Church to Directly or Indirectly pay for Contraception, Sterilization, or Abortion, which are against It's Teachings, is a Violation against the Church. This is a matter of Principle, not Economics. It is not Persecution, It is Totalitarian. It is a corruption of Principle. Another view of the Church, rightly or wrongly, for example, would be when faced with the choice of saving the Mother or the Baby, the life of the Baby takes precedent. It is what it is. You are recognizing Federal Encroachment, while at the same time ignoring it. There are all kinds of Catholics with and without strong conviction. I'm for allowing those with Strong Conviction, the Backbone of the church, to be spared the Corruption of Populist Morality, which can be viewed as an oxymoron. This is an attack on the More Faithful, and an attempt to divide. The one thing Obama is good at is Division.

Address post #113.

[ConHog]

Specifically, Forcing the Church to Directly or Indirectly pay for Contraception, Sterilization, or Abortion, which are against It's Teachings, is a Violation against the Church. This is a matter of Principle, not Economics. It is not Persecution, It is Totalitarian. It is a corruption of Principle. Another view of the Church, rightly or wrongly, for example, would be when faced with the choice of saving the Mother or the Baby, the life of the Baby takes precedent. It is what it is. You are recognizing Federal Encroachment, while at the same time ignoring it. There are all kinds of Catholics with and without strong conviction. I'm for allowing those with Strong Conviction, the Backbone of the church, to be spared the Corruption of Populist Morality, which can be viewed as an oxymoron. This is an attack on the More Faithful, and an attempt to divide. The one thing Obama is good at is Division.

oh bull. UNLESS their specific belief is that they shouldn't provide healthcare insurance which MIGHT pay for birth control then this isn't religious persecution.

NO ONE is being forced to use said birth control. They aren't even being forced to pay more for the coverage. Even if it DID cost more, we all know some insurance carrier would throw it if for free just for the publicity it would bring.

Oh, by the way a HOSPITAL's main purpose is medical, not religious so they have no standing ANYWAY. It's not like a school where they are primarily teaching but their religeon is part of that teaching. I've been in many St whatever hospitals and not seen ANY sign of the Church whilst being healed.

[Jess]

OSF (Order of St. Francis) and Methodist hospitals are very big here. They most definitely ARE based on religion, as can be seen on their walls all over the hospitals. Currently, OSF will not tie tubes for women. That is their choice. They shouldn't have to lower/change the standards they have held since their inception.

[Missileman]

OSF (Order of St. Francis) and Methodist hospitals are very big here. They most definitely ARE based on religion, as can be seen on their walls all over the hospitals. Currently, OSF will not tie tubes for women. That is their choice. They shouldn't have to lower/change the standards they have held since their inception.

I agree...and at this point they aren't being asked to.

[Little-Acorn]

OSF (Order of St. Francis) and Methodist hospitals are very big here. They most definitely ARE based on religion, as can be seen on their walls all over the hospitals. Currently, OSF will not tie tubes for women. That is their choice. They shouldn't have to lower/change the standards they have held since their inception.
I agree...and at this point they aren't being asked to.

Correct.

That's next week.

[ConHog]

Correct.

That's next week.

So, you don't actually believe that THIS requirement violates anyone's rights, you're just afraid it will lead to something that does?

[LuvRPgrl]

Does that include when the govt becomes the enemy of the country. govt does not = country.

eh cut him some slack Gunny. I doubt he's joining with going AWOL as his goal.

Cadet if you're reading. It's a tricky proposition. Frankly I resigned my commission when I did because I DID think there might come a time when I would be ordered to fire on Americans under Obama and I wanted none of it.

The short answer is , in boot camp you will be schooled thoroughly on the difference between a legal order and an illegal order. If and when you are ordered to fire on Americans at that time you will have to use your own judgement to decide if an order is legal or illegal AND your own judgement to decide if the possibility of going to prison is worth ignoring an order that a jury may decide was legal.

The thing to remember is that you are going to be swearing to defend the country against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic so there are certainly some situations where using the military against US citizens is appropriate. There are many more situations where it is NOT appropriate of course.

If you already KNOW that you won't be able to fight against your own countrymen no matter what then you are best served taking Gunny's advice.



oh bull. UNLESS their specific belief is that they shouldn't provide healthcare insurance which MIGHT pay for birth control then this isn't religious persecution.

NO ONE is being forced to use said birth control. .

well then, we might as well include insurance coverage for injuries sustained when beating up homos, I mean, no one is being forced to use it,


Do I have to spell it out for you? You claim that hate crime legislation is an example of a SPECIAL right enjoyed by feminists, atheists, and homosexuals. Not that it's really a right, but even if it were, it's shared by Jews, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Hindis, blacks, asians, whites, hispanics, etc...who the fuck is it a special right for if EVERYONE is covered?

And if the best you can come up with is a hypothetical amendment to the COTUS, maybe you need to give yourself a break.

please explain what hate laws are, and whom they are targeted at.

Please explain why the catholic and other churces are so up in arms about a mandate which you guys consider either immaterial or constitional.

YOU and CH are mistaking what 'being forced to ' means.

FORCED means, 'NO OTHER OPTION',,if the church doesnt provide coverage, the people still have the option, but mandating that the church must provide a certain coverage, then its is being forced.

The key words are 'must' AND 'cant' , Must means no other option, cant means one of the options is taken away, but there are others.
Please word obamas health insurance regulation re birth control, without using the word MUST.

[ConHog]

Does that include when the govt becomes the enemy of the country. govt does not = country.

Umm here is the oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

You will notice that it says NOTHING about the country nor the people of this country. It DOES however mention the COTUS, which would mean an officer in the US military is duty sworn to defend the COTUS and all in entails, which would INCLUDE the duly elected government.

So to answer your question, no no one's oath includes fighting the elected US government. Now of course if that government were NOT elected, imagine a military coup, then yes the oath would include fighting the government. If the government simply started doing things you didn't like or even that you felt were unconstitutional then no you still aren't authorized by your oath to fight that government. And that is of course on purpose because under our Constitution we don't militarily overthrow governments we don't like, we simply vote them out of office ( hopefully anyway)

And of course an officer has the ability to resign his commission if he is that disgusted with the current regime.


please explain what hate laws are, and whom they are targeted at.

Please explain why the catholic and other churces are so up in arms about a mandate which you guys consider either immaterial or constitional.

Technically speaking hate laws apply to any crime which is committed based on race, gender, religion, etc etc. But I defy anyone to show me any evidence that the law is being applied equally in terms of who the perpetrators and victims are.

Stupid law anyway. Are there love crimes? Aren't all crimes committed out of hate?

[LuvRPgrl]

Umm here is the oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

You will notice that it says NOTHING about the country nor the people of this country. It DOES however mention the COTUS, which would mean an officer in the US military is duty sworn to defend the COTUS and all in entails, which would INCLUDE the duly elected government. .

OH FUCK YOU mr 'I know the constitution better than anybody' PROVE duly elected official = country.
duly elected officials are suppose to represent the people, so if they are the 'country' then so are the people

the country can exist without the govt, but not without the people.
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DO ORDAIN.....I dont see it saying WE THE GOVT.
Rights assigned by the constitution are assigned to people, not the govt.

Duly elected officials change all the time, so you must have meant, THE OFFICE OF,,,, yet each and every office could be replaced or eliminated, but not THE PEOPLE.

THE GOVT IS SUPPOSE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE PEOPLE LISTEN TO THE GOVT, UNLESS THAT GOVT IS HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED THEM IN. THEN, THE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THEMSELVES.

FF spoke of self governing, which means THE PEOPLE GOVERN THEMSELVES....
The requirement for elected officials is they be US citizens, not GOVVT OFFICIALS BEFORE BEING ELECTED.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS ?

So to answer your question, no no one's oath includes fighting the elected US government. Now of course if that government were NOT elected, imagine a military coup, then yes the oath would include fighting the government. If the government simply started doing things you didn't like or even that you felt were unconstitutional then no you still aren't authorized by your oath to fight that government. And that is of course on purpose because under our Constitution we don't militarily overthrow governments we don't like, we simply vote them out of office ( hopefully anyway).

NO, WE DONT MILITARILY THROW OUR OWN GOVT OFFICIALS OUT OF OFFICE, BUT WE SURE DO IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES.

The constitution gives the people rights, which are extremely difficult if not impossible to remove, and assigns the govt duties, which are extremely amiable.


And of course an officer has the ability to resign his commission if he is that disgusted with the current regime.

Is that what you would have done when HITLER came to power?

[ConHog]

OH FUCK YOU mr 'I know the constitution better than anybody' PROVE duly elected official = country.
duly elected officials are suppose to represent the people, so if they are the 'country' then so are the people

the country can exist without the govt, but not without the people.
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DO ORDAIN.....I dont see it saying WE THE GOVT.
Rights assigned by the constitution are assigned to people, not the govt.

Duly elected officials change all the time, so you must have meant, THE OFFICE OF,,,, yet each and every office could be replaced or eliminated, but not THE PEOPLE.

THE GOVT IS SUPPOSE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE, NOT THE PEOPLE LISTEN TO THE GOVT, UNLESS THAT GOVT IS HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED THEM IN. THEN, THE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THEMSELVES.

FF spoke of self governing, which means THE PEOPLE GOVERN THEMSELVES....
The requirement for elected officials is they be US citizens, not GOVVT OFFICIALS BEFORE BEING ELECTED.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS ?


NO, WE DONT MILITARILY THROW OUR OWN GOVT OFFICIALS OUT OF OFFICE, BUT WE SURE DO IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES.

The constitution gives the people rights, which are extremely difficult if not impossible to remove, and assigns the govt duties, which are extremely amiable.



Is that what you would have done when HITLER came to power?



What the hell? Little early to be so angry isn't it LUV? I gave a perfectly rational and correct interpretation of the Officer's oath for the US military. I don't care if you like that or not. It is what it is.

As to your question about Hitler, I probably would have resigned, I may have stayed in the military and fought him from within but in either case I would not be within my oath to do so.

[LuvRPgrl]

Technically speaking hate laws apply to any crime which is committed based on race, gender, religion, etc etc. But I defy anyone to show me any evidence that the law is being applied equally in terms of who the perpetrators and victims are.

Stupid law anyway. Are there love crimes? Aren't all crimes committed out of hate?


NOPE, hate laws are based on HATE, not race, religion, etc. HATE laws only apply to those groups, although they shouldnt. Like you said, arent all crimes based on hate, so why would some victims be excluded?

IT should be SPECIAL VICTIMS laws.

Just like HEALTH CARE should be called BAD HEALTH CARE
and PLANNED PARENTHOOD should be called, PLANNED ABORTION AND ELIMINATION OF THE BLACK PEOPLE.


What the hell? Little early to be so angry isn't it LUV? I gave a perfectly rational and correct interpretation of the Officer's oath for the US military. I don't care if you like that or not. It is what it is.

As to your question about Hitler, I probably would have resigned, I may have stayed in the military and fought him from within but in either case I would not be within my oath to do so.


BUT, BUT BUT, he was duly elected.

ANGRY, me? hahahahha, projecting again, I Dont get angry, I get even.

[ConHog]

BUT, BUT BUT, he was duly elected.

ANGRY, me? hahahahha, projecting again, I Dont get angry, I get even.

He was duly elected, and then he made all of his officers take a personal oath to HIM. So in that situation, I wouldn't have been in the military, because I wouldn't swear an oath to a man.

Sorry you don't understand the difference between swearing an oath to a man and swearing an oath to a form of government.

[Missileman]

please explain what hate laws are, and whom they are targeted at.

Please explain why the catholic and other churces are so up in arms about a mandate which you guys consider either immaterial or constitional.

YOU and CH are mistaking what 'being forced to ' means.

FORCED means, 'NO OTHER OPTION',,if the church doesnt provide coverage, the people still have the option, but mandating that the church must provide a certain coverage, then its is being forced.

The key words are 'must' AND 'cant' , Must means no other option, cant means one of the options is taken away, but there are others.
Please word obamas health insurance regulation re birth control, without using the word MUST.

I will gladly answer all of these questions as soon as you provide an example of a "special" right that is enjoyed by feminists, atheists, and homosexuals. As I've already pointed out that hate crime legislation protects damned near everybody in the US, it can't be considered a special right...you'll need to provide a different example.

[ConHog]

I will gladly answer all of these questions as soon as you provide an example of a "special" right that is enjoyed by feminists, atheists, and homosexuals. As I've already pointed out that hate crime legislation protects damned near everybody in the US, it can't be considered a special right...you'll need to provide a different example.


*raises hand*

Does women having the sole "right" to choose whether to abort an unborn child or not without any input from the father count?

[Missileman]

*raises hand*

Does women having the sole "right" to choose whether to abort an unborn child or not without any input from the father count?

Only if ALL of the women who seek abortion are feminists, atheists, AND lesbian. Besides, should a man ever get pregnant, he will also be able to abort legally without input from whoever knocked him up.


NOPE, hate laws are based on HATE, not race, religion, etc. HATE laws only apply to those groups, although they shouldnt. Like you said, arent all crimes based on hate, so why would some victims be excluded?

IT should be SPECIAL VICTIMS laws.

Just like HEALTH CARE should be called BAD HEALTH CARE
and PLANNED PARENTHOOD should be called, PLANNED ABORTION AND ELIMINATION OF THE BLACK PEOPLE.

Do yourself a favor and read more. Start with this.

http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc09/preface09.pdf

Hate crimes are those motivated by bias, defined as -
A preformed negative opinion or attitude toward a group of persons based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or physical/mental disability.

[ConHog]

Only if ALL of the women who seek abortion are feminists, atheists, AND lesbian. Besides, should a man ever get pregnant, he will also be able to abort legally without input from whoever knocked him up.

feminists ? I'm talking about FEMALES. Oh and men will never be able to have babies. So that's no better than if we gave a man something and told a woman "hey when you have a penis you can have this to"

[LuvRPgrl]

I will gladly answer all of these questions as soon as you provide an example of a "special" right that is enjoyed by feminists, atheists, and homosexuals. As I've already pointed out that hate crime legislation protects damned near everybody in the US, it can't be considered a special right...you'll need to provide a different example.

when men can get pregnant, man are you reaching. that just shows that no matter what someone comes up with, you will have an answer based on some hypothetical impossibility

[logroller]

feminists ? I'm talking about FEMALES. Oh and men will never be able to have babies. So that's no better than if we gave a man something and told a woman "hey when you have a penis you can have this to"
Like urinals in women's restrooms.:laugh:

[Missileman]

when men can get pregnant, man are you reaching. that just shows that no matter what someone comes up with, you will have an answer based on some hypothetical impossibility

All this shows is you AREN'T capable of providing an example of a special right enjoyed by the groups you listed and YOU are reaching for any excuse to change the subject.

[LuvRPgrl]

All this shows is you AREN'T capable of providing an example of a special right enjoyed by the groups you listed and YOU are reaching for any excuse to change the subject.

I never said they all enjoy the same special right, or hate crime law, YOUR WORDS NOT MINE,
SO you answer the question

not to mention, what I posted was tongue in cheek humour, which means it has some basis in fact, but isnt entirely technically accurate.

I know you are humour handicapped, but dont make it so damn obvious.

but still in still, some groups do enjoy special rights, pregnant women, oh, AND PREGNANT MEN.

[ConHog]

when men can get pregnant, man are you reaching. that just shows that no matter what someone comes up with, you will have an answer based on some hypothetical impossibility

Not to mention, I'm fairly sure that men are still required to have a baby.

[Intense]

Like urinals in women's restrooms.:laugh:

Ever see a Woman use a Urinal??? It ain't pretty. .... Don't even ask. :laugh:

[Missileman]

I never said they all enjoy the same special right, or hate crime law, YOUR WORDS NOT MINE,
SO you answer the question

not to mention, what I posted was tongue in cheek humour, which means it has some basis in fact, but isnt entirely technically accurate.

I know you are humour handicapped, but dont make it so damn obvious.

but still in still, some groups do enjoy special rights, pregnant women, oh, AND PREGNANT MEN.

So you finally admit that feminists, atheists, and homosexuals don't get any special rights for supporting liberal causes?

[ConHog]

So you finally admit that feminists, atheists, and homosexuals don't get any special rights for supporting liberal causes?

I would submit that atheists certainly WOULD like for the First Amendment to apply only to them and not to anyone who believes , especially Christians.

[Missileman]

I would submit that atheists certainly WOULD like for the First Amendment to apply only to them and not to anyone who believes , especially Christians.

That might indeed be the wish of SOME, but not all. I for one could give a shit what anyone else believes as long as they aren't trying to get their beliefs instituted where it doesn't belong. As the First doesn't apply only to them, it certainly doesn't meet the definition of a special right that is enjoyed by atheists.

[LuvRPgrl]

So you finally admit that feminists, atheists, and homosexuals don't get any special rights for supporting liberal causes?

nope

[Missileman]

nope

Then we're back to where we've been all along. Provide a single example of a special right enjoyed by feminists, atheists, and homosexuals,

It's funny...you claim the comment was tongue in cheek, but you defend it like a sow bear.

[Intense]

I would submit that atheists certainly WOULD like for the First Amendment to apply only to them and not to anyone who believes , especially Christians.

Statist Progressives, Yes. Atheist's, Agnostic's that are not brain dead, No.

[ConHog]

Statist Progressives, Yes. Atheist's, Agnostic's that are not brain dead, No.

I ShOULD have written "some atheists" , mea culpa.

[LuvRPgrl]

Then we're back to where we've been all along. Provide a single example of a special right enjoyed by feminists, atheists, and homosexuals,

It's funny...you claim the comment was tongue in cheek, but you defend it like a sow bear.

special right for feminists, atheists OR, (not AND) homos.

[ConHog]

special right for feminists, atheists OR, (not AND) homos.

how about this special "right" for men. We can go topless in public. Women can't (bummer, well in SOME cases.)

[Missileman]

special right for feminists, atheists OR, (not AND) homos.

Your initial statement said AND, but in the interest of finishing this, let's go with OR.

Provide an example of a special right enjoyed by feminists, atheists, OR homosexuals. And please remember that per your initial statement, it should be a special right they receive for supporting liberal causes. IOW, it should be a special right that ISN'T enjoyed by anyone who might have supported a conservative cause.

[ConHog]

Your initial statement said AND, but in the interest of finishing this, let's go with OR.

Provide an example of a special right enjoyed by feminists, atheists, OR homosexuals. And please remember that per your initial statement, it should be a special right they receive for supporting liberal causes. IOW, it should be a special right that ISN'T enjoyed by anyone who might have supported a conservative cause.

The right to a polling place that isn't patrolled by a nigger in camo gear swinging a billy club around? :laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Your initial statement said AND, but in the interest of finishing this, let's go with OR.

Provide an example of a special right enjoyed by feminists, atheists, OR homosexuals. And please remember that per your initial statement, it should be a special right they receive for supporting liberal causes. IOW, it should be a special right that ISN'T enjoyed by anyone who might have supported a conservative cause.

is that what I said?

[Missileman]

is that what I said?

Have you forgotten or are you denying it?

[LuvRPgrl]

Have you forgotten or are you denying it?

I dont think I said that.

[Missileman]

I dont think I said that.

Let me refresh your memory:


there shall be special rights for all groups supporting liberal causes, especially feminists, atheists and homosexuals.

[LuvRPgrl]

Let me refresh your memory:

"there shall be " isnt = 2 "there are"

we, GEORGE, JOHN, THOMAS AND I, are still working on the final text.

[logroller]

"there shall be " isnt = 2 "there are"

we, GEORGE, JOHN, THOMAS AND I, are still working on the final text.

Syntax matters; if there's a line between semantics and gibberish-- I believe you've crossed it.

[Missileman]

"there shall be " isnt = 2 "there are"

we, GEORGE, JOHN, THOMAS AND I, are still working on the final text.


That lame explanation doesn't jive with the "nope" from #134.

[LuvRPgrl]

That lame explanation doesn't jive with the "nope" from #134.

yes it is, and you are the one who opened the door on technical interpetation of the terms. so I just followed your lead

but let me say this, it was fun hanging that carrot in your face and see you running around trying to get a taste.
SOME groups do, however enjoy special laws for them

[Missileman]

yes it is, and you are the one who opened the door on technical interpetation of the terms. so I just followed your lead

but let me say this, it was fun hanging that carrot in your face and see you running around trying to get a taste.
SOME groups do, however enjoy special laws for them


And yet your initial statement remains a pile of unsubstantiated dung.

[ConHog]

yes it is, and you are the one who opened the door on technical interpetation of the terms. so I just followed your lead

but let me say this, it was fun hanging that carrot in your face and see you running around trying to get a taste.
SOME groups do, however enjoy special laws for them

Time to concede that Missile took your carrot, beat you over the head with it, and made you like it.


There's always next time.

[LuvRPgrl]

Time to concede that Missile took your carrot, beat you over the head with it, and made you like it.


There's always next time.

He did no such thing.
Not at any time was I compelled , or needed to answer his ridiculous question, and/or statement.

In case you didnt get it either, it was a tongue in cheek post,
done off the top of my head,
not intended to be completely 100% legally accurate.

[LuvRPgrl]

And yet your initial statement remains a pile of unsubstantiated dung.


to you maybe, but Im sure others dont feel the same way you do.
I think IM still on your hit list for past crimes against you.:laugh:

[Missileman]

He did no such thing.
Not at any time was I compelled , or needed to answer his ridiculous question, and/or statement.

In case you didnt get it either, it was a tongue in cheek post,
done off the top of my head,
not intended to be completely 100% legally accurate.

Yet you continue to defend your statement and won't admit that it's not accurate. No one's buying your "tongue in cheek" story.

[Missileman]

to you maybe, but Im sure others dont feel the same way you do.
I think IM still on your hit list for past crimes against you.:laugh:


Bloodying my virtual knuckles on your vitrual teeth is not a crime you committed against me. I have no hit list, I'm all about equal opportunity when it comes to pointing out bullshit. You just happen to provide more opportunities than anyone else on the board.

[LuvRPgrl]

Bloodying my virtual knuckles on your vitrual teeth is not a crime you committed against me. I have no hit list, I'm all about equal opportunity when it comes to pointing out bullshit. You just happen to provide more opportunities than anyone else on the board.

see, tongue in cheek, NOW YOUR GETTING IT!!!!

[Intense]

Here is a perspective a little more along the way than tongue in cheek. ;)

The Catholic Church and ObamaCare
Posted on February 15, 2012

There’s an old adage that goes something like, if you lay down with dogs, don’t be surprised if you get up with fleas. Well, the American Catholic Church has been enjoying a long lay about with that unconstitutional hound dog of healthcare chicanery known as ObamaCare, and now, much to their horrified surprise, the Church leaders are finding themselves infested with a very bad case of Big Government cooties.

When Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, outlined the Obama Administration’s definition of preventive healthcare, declaring that these services included the enforced provision of contraception, morning-after pills, and sterilization by all employers and their insurance carriers, the Catholic Church’s leadership was out-and-out stunned. Such notorious liberal ObamaCare trucklers as Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Organization and the Left-leaning Conference of Catholic Bishops were absolutely floored at what they saw as a total betrayal by Barack Obama.

The liberal Catholic establishment nearly exploded. Sister Keehan was so horrified she threw her lot in with the more conservative Dolan in full-throated opposition to Obama. Cardinal Roger Mahony, the spectacularly liberal archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles, wrote, “I cannot imagine a more direct and frontal attack on freedom of conscience.  .  .  . This decision must be fought against with all the energies the Catholic community can muster.” Michael Sean Winters, the National Catholic Reporter’s leftist lion, penned a 1,800-word cri de coeur titled “J’accuse!” in which he declared that, as God was his witness, he would never again vote for Obama. The editors of the Jesuit magazine America denounced a “wrong decision,” while the Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne called the policy “unconscionable.” When you’ve lost even E.J. and the Jesuits, you’ve lost the church. Weekly Standard

What, pray tell, did the Catholic hierarchy think they were doing when they gave their blessing to such a government-mandated healthcare schism? What catechism of Christian dogma were they mouthing when they publicly proclaimed their support for the beguiling creed of the Democrat demons? Did they naively believe they could dance with the Secular Devil and not find themselves royally screwed by the Big Dick policies of the Obama administration? I guess all that liberation theology doesn’t go down too well when the Catholic bishops themselves are the ones expected to bend over and take their social justice like a man.

http://lesbianconservative.com/2012/02/15/contraception-catholic-church/

[Black Diamond]

How does the Catholic church view Infanticide?

[Missileman]

If these Cathoilc entities can't dictate what an employee does with their wages, why should they be allowed to dictate what's done with any of their other compensations?

[LuvRPgrl]

If these Cathoilc entities can't dictate what an employee does with their wages, why should they be allowed to dictate what's done with any of their other compensations?


Because their religous rights allow them to

[Missileman]

Because their religous rights allow them to


Bullshit!

[jimnyc]

Not sure if it's been addressed in here or not, but I guess we'll have a courts opinion sooner than later. 7 states have filed suit and are asking a federal judge to block the mandate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57384003/7-states-challenge-birth-control-coverage-rule/

[LuvRPgrl]

Bullshit!

nooo, its true, its in the Constitution.

[Intense]

Bullshit!

Actually , no.
When You are paid wages, there is a transfer of Property. It's currency that you are free to do with as You will.

A Group Insurance Plan, paid for by Your Employer, by Right, would be subject to the Employer's terms, mandating an Employer to insure you for things, it deems unethical, is ludicrous. Personally I think we have for the most part become a Society of "I Want & I want it Now" Babies. What entitlement out there, does not force those that work into bondage? Buy your own condoms, Viagra, and Motel Room's, or do you think Insurance should pay for that too? Birth Control Prescriptions are commonly obtained and covered for non birth control reasons. Wanting the Church to Bankroll the Morning After Pill, Abortion, and Infanticide, is a violation of Conscience.

[LuvRPgrl]

actually , no.
When you are paid wages, there is a transfer of property. It's currency that you are free to do with as you will.

A group insurance plan, paid for by your employer, by right, would be subject to the employer's terms, mandating an employer to insure you for things, it deems unethical, is ludicrous. Personally i think we have for the most part become a society of "i want & i want it now" babies. What entitlement out there, does not force those that work into bondage? Buy your own condoms, viagra, and motel room's, or do you think insurance should pay for that too? Birth control prescriptions are commonly obtained and covered for non birth control reasons. Wanting the church to bankroll the morning after pill, abortion, and infanticide, is a violation of conscience.

yea , what he said ! errr, she?

[Missileman]

Actually , no.
When You are paid wages, there is a transfer of Property. It's currency that you are free to do with as You will.

A Group Insurance Plan, paid for by Your Employer, by Right, would be subject to the Employer's terms, mandating an Employer to insure you for things, it deems unethical, is ludicrous. Personally I think we have for the most part become a Society of "I Want & I want it Now" Babies. What entitlement out there, does not force those that work into bondage? Buy your own condoms, Viagra, and Motel Room's, or do you think Insurance should pay for that too? Birth Control Prescriptions are commonly obtained and covered for non birth control reasons. Wanting the Church to Bankroll the Morning After Pill, Abortion, and Infanticide, is a violation of Conscience.

It's compensation for working there and the policy belongs to the employee, not the employer. It is NO different than wages.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's compensation for working there and the policy belongs to the employee, not the employer. It is NO different than wages.

COTUS protects religous rights.

[Missileman]

COTUS protects religous rights.

There isn't anything in the COTUS that allows an employer to dictate what an employee does with their salary.

[LuvRPgrl]

There isn't anything in the COTUS that allows an employer to dictate what an employee does with their salary.

yea, it is, its in one of those thingies, I think they are called, amendments?

[fj1200]

There isn't anything in the COTUS that allows an employer to dictate what an employee does with their salary.

It's not take home, it's employer provided HC insurance.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's not take home, it's employer provided HC insurance.

Is it taxed? If not, then its not income.
If its income, it would be listed under "INCOME" on the tax returns

[Intense]

It's compensation for working there and the policy belongs to the employee, not the employer. It is NO different than wages.

Yes it is. Your wages are undefined when paid to you. The Insurance Premium is Tailored to the Specifics of the Employer. I'm not the one here justifying the status quo on it's head. The Established system has worked fine until now. The Church want's no part in Abortion. Go to Planned Parenthood if your need is so real. Leave the Church out of Eugenics.

[fj1200]

The Established system has worked fine until now.

Actually it hasn't but that's a completely different issue.

[Missileman]

yea, it is, its in one of those thingies, I think they are called, amendments?

I'd ask you to post where it says that, but you've already established that you'll only continue to post unsubstantiated bullshit.

[Missileman]

It's not take home, it's employer provided HC insurance.

It is part of their compensation for working there.

[fj1200]

It is part of their compensation for working there.

It is paid for by the employer. The employer gets the tax break... if it were for profit that is.

[Missileman]

It is paid for by the employer. The employer gets the tax break... if it were for profit that is.

The policy "belongs" to the employee.

[fj1200]

The policy "belongs" to the employee.

Now only if they "paid" for it.

[Missileman]

Now only if they "paid" for it.


They DO with their labor.

[SassyLady]

The policy "belongs" to the employee.

For how long does it "belong" to the employee? If they owned it, wouldn't it follow them no matter who they worked for?

[Missileman]

For how long does it "belong" to the employee? If they owned it, wouldn't it follow them no matter who they worked for?

It belongs to the employee as long as it's paid for. It's no different than if the employer gave the employee a set amount of money in their paycheck for them to procure a policy. The only benefit to employer funded policies is pool pricing.

[SassyLady]

It belongs to the employee as long as it's paid for. It's no different than if the employer gave the employee a set amount of money in their paycheck for them to procure a policy. The only benefit to employer funded policies is pool pricing.

So, if the employee quits and goes to another employer he's covered by the policy as long as "someone" keeps paying for it? So, who gets the write off .... the old employer, the employee, or the new employer?

[Missileman]

So, if the employee quits and goes to another employer he's covered by the policy as long as "someone" keeps paying for it? So, who gets the write off .... the old employer, the employee, or the new employer?


When the employee leaves, the employer stops paying for the policy and it ends. The employee will have to get a different policy.

[SassyLady]

When the employee leaves, the employer stops paying for the policy and it ends. The employee will have to get a different policy.

So, the employee doesn't own the policy....they are only bartering for temporary use.

[Missileman]

So, the employee doesn't own the policy....they are only bartering for temporary use.

Of course they own it...even if you want to call the financial arrangement bartering.

[Intense]

Of course they own it...even if you want to call the financial arrangement bartering.

Word games, all of it. The Church want's no part in funding Abortion. If you were in the Military, who's business is it if you get a tattoo in the wrong place? It's your body, right? Still, that is not in the equation. If it's fair is not in the equation. Yet the Government imposes it's will on you. Why do you need to impose your will on a Church you want nothing to do with. You expect the Church to jump through a new hoop, and kiss the ring of the Despot in Chief. Why? What purpose does it serve?

[Missileman]

Word games, all of it. The Church want's no part in funding Abortion.

If they feel that strongly about it, the remedy is within their grasp...stop offering insurance to employees. And if they're truly concerned about their employees' health, they can raise their wages to cover what the employees will lay out for an individual policy.

[fj1200]

When the employee leaves, the employer stops paying for the policy and it ends. The employee will have to get a different policy.

So the policy depends on the employer, not the employee.


If they feel that strongly about it, the remedy is within their grasp...stop offering insurance to employees. And if they're truly concerned about their employees' health, they can raise their wages to cover what the employees will lay out for an individual policy.

And then they are penalized for no longer offering insurance, IIRC, as a benefit.

[Missileman]

So the policy depends on the employer, not the employee.
.

Possibly, I believe there are some arrangements where a portion of the policy is paid for by both....but that doesn't alter the fact that the policy belongs to the employee.

[logroller]

So the policy depends on the employer, not the employee.
.
Not really; technically, if they don't have employees, they're not an employer-- so really it hinges on rather they have people in their employ. Regardless, having any employer offer health insurance as nontaxable compensation is just an all-around BAD IDEA. If an employer wants to throw in another few grand per year for their employees to buy insurance, good on them; but one's health insurance coverage should be an individual choice IMO, not an employer's. They, the employers, should have some say in how much $ they give for such coverage, even none-- as any application of the individual mandate should be on just that--the individual!

Or maybe some think a religious institute should be able to compensate me with Bibles and crucifixes too. I could make a strong case for the immorality of fiat currency.

[SassyLady]

Possibly, I believe there are some arrangements where a portion of the policy is paid for by both....but that doesn't alter the fact that the policy belongs to the employee.

I have never felt like the policy belonged to me because at any time the employer could choose to terminate the policy without my approval. Please explain again how the policy belongs to me, the employee, no matter who is paying for it. Seriously, even if I'm paying the majority of it, the employer can terminate at any time.

[Intense]

If they feel that strongly about it, the remedy is within their grasp...stop offering insurance to employees. And if they're truly concerned about their employees' health, they can raise their wages to cover what the employees will lay out for an individual policy.

That will probably be the solution should the Supreme Court fail in It's responsibility. A sad remedy for abuse of power.

[Missileman]

I have never felt like the policy belonged to me because at any time the employer could choose to terminate the policy without my approval. Please explain again how the policy belongs to me, the employee, no matter who is paying for it. Seriously, even if I'm paying the majority of it, the employer can terminate at any time.

The policy belongs to whomever derives benefit from it. Sorry, but that's the best I can explain it.

[fj1200]

:spin:

[LuvRPgrl]

So the policy depends on the employer, not the employee.



And then they are penalized for no longer offering insurance, IIRC, as a benefit.

OR, they might even be, illegally in my opinion, forced to provide insurance.

BUT STILL, MM, are they taxed on the insurance?
simple question.,

[LuvRPgrl]

I have never felt like the policy belonged to me because at any time the employer could choose to terminate the policy without my approval. Please explain again how the policy belongs to me, the employee, no matter who is paying for it. Seriously, even if I'm paying the majority of it, the employer can terminate at any time.

Typically when people speak about the health care, they refer to it in terms of non-ownership, like, MY COMPANY PROVIDES MY HEALTH INSURANCE,
I get my insurance from my.....
they never say, I pay for my health insurance but then its deducted out of my pay,

and, just like if a company provides other benefits in leu of money, like, they provide my car, the company owns the car and is letting the employee use it, the employer basically has a plan with some insurance company, and the only consistent partners are the employer and the insurer.

everybody else comes and goes.

Not to mention its a policy that provides discounts because its such a large plan, something an employee cant take with them if they quit. THAT plan is not available to the employee unless they sign onto a plan already in place by an employer.

one of the reasons benefits got so popular once they started was because of tax exemption, so, if they were legally income, you can bet the IRS would be taxing it,

oh, and then there;'s that amendment thingie

[Missileman]

Typically when people speak about the health care, they refer to it in terms of non-ownership, like, MY COMPANY PROVIDES MY HEALTH INSURANCE,
I get my insurance from my.....
they never say, I pay for my health insurance but then its deducted out of my pay,

and, just like if a company provides other benefits in leu of money, like, they provide my car, the company owns the car and is letting the employee use it, the employer basically has a plan with some insurance company, and the only consistent partners are the employer and the insurer.

everybody else comes and goes.

Not to mention its a policy that provides discounts because its such a large plan, something an employee cant take with them if they quit. THAT plan is not available to the employee unless they sign onto a plan already in place by an employer.

one of the reasons benefits got so popular once they started was because of tax exemption, so, if they were legally income, you can bet the IRS would be taxing it,

oh, and then there;'s that amendment thingie

So let's see you walk into a company that you DON'T work for and get a policy through them. If it's not compensation for working there, you should have no problem.

[LuvRPgrl]

So let's see you walk into a company that you DON'T work for and get a policy through them. If it's not compensation for working there, you should have no problem.

lets see u walk thru a door of some company and use their photocopy machine. Does that make using the machine a part of your income?

[Missileman]

lets see u walk thru a door of some company and use their photocopy machine. Does that make using the machine a part of your income?


NO, you idiot...because I DON'T WORK THERE.

[SassyLady]

The policy belongs to whomever derives benefit from it. Sorry, but that's the best I can explain it.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here MM....but that is like saying my car belongs to my daughter because she drives it to school everyday ... she is the benefactor, but I'm the one paying all the expenses related.

Sorry ... can't accept this explanation either.

[LuvRPgrl]

NO, you idiot...because I DON'T WORK THERE.

Dont call me names.

Its the exact point. But an employee can use the photocopier, but that doesnt mean it belongs to them

[fj1200]

So let's see you walk into a company that you DON'T work for and get a policy through them. If it's not compensation for working there, you should have no problem.


NO, you idiot...because I DON'T WORK THERE.

;)

[Missileman]

Dont call me names.

Its the exact point. But an employee can use the photocopier, but that doesnt mean it belongs to them

They can use it for company purposes and most employers probably don't have an issue with an occasional personal copy. Regardless, this has absolutely no correlation to a health insurance policy. You're trying to compare something for company use with something for personal use.

[Missileman]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here MM....but that is like saying my car belongs to my daughter because she drives it to school everyday ... she is the benefactor, but I'm the one paying all the expenses related.

Sorry ... can't accept this explanation either.

If the policy didn't belong to the employee, but belonged to the employer, then the employer could send another employee to get treated under your policy and stick YOU with the copays.

[SassyLady]

If the policy didn't belong to the employee, but belonged to the employer, then the employer could send another employee to get treated under your policy and stick YOU with the copays.

It has been my experience that there is a Group # for the employer and that all employees are listed as a member of that group, therefore no one individual owns a separate policy.

However, maybe I'm just not as up-to-date on current benefit plans. Perhaps there are companies that allow each individual to choose their own plan and the employer just agrees to pay a flat portion each month toward the premium. If that is the case, then I would agree that that premium is a benefit to the employee and it should show up as taxable wages. Then I would also agree, if it shows up as taxable wages to the employee, then the company should be allowed to deduct it as if it were wages paid out.

[logroller]

OR, they might even be, illegally in my opinion, forced to provide insurance.

BUT STILL, MM, are they taxed on the insurance?
simple question.,
I don't believe the employer is taxed on the premiums either...so, what's your point?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here MM....but that is like saying my car belongs to my daughter because she drives it to school everyday ... she is the benefactor, but I'm the one paying all the expenses related.
Well, to be fair, let's say its her car, (as its certainly the employee's body and health) and you agree to pay for the insurance. Shouldn't she be able to get some low/no cost addition to the policy, like say, uninsured driver at her own expense to protect her car?


lets see u walk thru a door of some company and use their photocopy machine. Does that make using the machine a part of your income?
It would have to be a lot of copies to qualify as reportable income, but yes, it would be.


It has been my experience that there is a Group # for the employer and that all employees are listed as a member of that group, therefore no one individual owns a separate policy.

However, maybe I'm just not as up-to-date on current benefit plans. Perhaps there are companies that allow each individual to choose their own plan and the employer just agrees to pay a flat portion each month toward the premium. If that is the case, then I would agree that that premium is a benefit to the employee and it should show up as taxable wages. Then I would also agree, if it shows up as taxable wages to the employee, then the company should be allowed to deduct it as if it were wages paid out.

There are, when I was at fedex we could select between PPO, POS, or HMO; each with different costs. And for the record--best coverage I've ever had; better than any and all the union bargained crap I've seen. Agreed-- its taxable compensation and should be tax deductible.:2up: