Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

whygohome

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

and what is it about the Constitution and the bill of rights that is so outdated?

the right to due process
free speech
the right to vote
Congress having the power to declare war and not the president
The treasury charged with regulating currency
property rights
the right to bear arms
protection from unlawful search and seizure
the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial
the right to a speedy and fair trial
the right to state provided attorney
protection from cruel and unusual punishment

What is it about these principles that is so outdated? Please fill me in. Please

let's see...here is what we have today...the constitution completely being abused and distorted...

the right to due process unless you are hispanic, black, or of middle eastern descent, in which case the odds are stacked against you. just look at the demographics in our nation's prisons..and look at all of the gitmo detainees who were never charged with anything...just held for years with no charges, no trials, and no hearing in front of a military tribunal....

free speech to a certain extent. hate speech from the tea party and those on the right seems to be acceptable, and it is possible to run an entire political campaign paid for by superpacs who base the entire campaign on making up shit and attacking the other guy and not having to prove the accusations, so in that regard free speech is being abused. and do not get me started on citizen's united where corporations are people and money is speech

the right to vote unless you live in the south where mandatory picture ids are being required to vote and as such people are being disenfrancised

Congress having the power to declare war and not the president funnily enough congress is the most dysfunctional it has ever been. it is so divided. congress would rather let the economy collapse rather than see obama succeed at anything. some people call that good policy, when in actuality it is nothing more than being a dick.

The treasury charged with regulating currency

property rights people have the right to acquire property. when this was written PEOPLE were considered property...

the right to bear arms this is outdated. the intent of the founding fathers with this was to allow people to protect themselves from the brits, such as when british soldiers were quarterd in american homes, which is completely irrelevent in today's reality..

protection from unlawful search and seizure LOL patriot act anyone? there is no equal protection under the law and you can be unreasonably searched for anything at all these days.

the right to not incriminate yourself while on trial coerced confessions anyone? this happens all the time. especially in cases of people who are in gitmo or were at other black site prisons...

the right to a speedy and fair trial people do get trials. most times they are not "speedy" (ie gitmo detainees) and most times, but not all times, they are fair.

the right to state provided attorney do people really want a public defender these days? if you want to get off or stay out of a long jail sentence you have to pay someone to get you off...

protection from cruel and unusual punishment death penalty is still legal, and we are still torturing people...

and that was just from the top of my head. if i really wanted to i could go through and find more examples. it does appear that this constitution has been shat upon. so how do ya suppose we clean up the mess??

beat me to it, gimmie..............

whygohome

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

it depends how old you are I suppose. I didnt make that up, its a commonly used figure of speech.


and WHYGOHOME just admitted having no regard for the constitution. like it or not, that is the doctrine that is suppose to give our country some sort of direction. How can you disrespect something intended to protect YOUR rights as a human being?

He expressed neither disregard nor disrespect for the Constitution. What he expressed disregard & disrespect for are the people who think they have some kind of inside scoop on how the founding fathers would apply it to present times.

Regardless, having just won Ed solo tickets through both 10C and the radio today, I'm in way too good a mood to continue with this discussion.

That's pretty much it. I thought it was obvious.
I'm just kind of tired of this hiding behind and quoting the founding fathers (slave owners) and Constitution shit.

MayDay Malone

whygohome wrote:

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

it depends how old you are I suppose. I didnt make that up, its a commonly used figure of speech.


and WHYGOHOME just admitted having no regard for the constitution. like it or not, that is the doctrine that is suppose to give our country some sort of direction. How can you disrespect something intended to protect YOUR rights as a human being?

He expressed neither disregard nor disrespect for the Constitution. What he expressed disregard & disrespect for are the people who think they have some kind of inside scoop on how the founding fathers would apply it to present times.

Regardless, having just won Ed solo tickets through both 10C and the radio today, I'm in way too good a mood to continue with this discussion.

That's pretty much it. I thought it was obvious.
I'm just kind of tired of this hiding behind and quoting the founding fathers (slave owners) and Constitution shit.

What a forward thinker you are.

whygohome

MayDay Malone wrote:

whygohome wrote:

That's pretty much it. I thought it was obvious.
I'm just kind of tired of this hiding behind and quoting the founding fathers (slave owners) and Constitution shit.

What a forward thinker you are.

Thank you. What a backward thinker you are.

WaveRyder

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

but the thing that people need to understand is that this all did not suddenly occur in january 2009 and it can not be fixed with the wave of a magic wand.


the problem is everyone has accumulated more power since the constitution was ratified. the president has gained power given to gwb after 9/11. obama mentioned he was going to relinquish some of that power and he hasn't. nobody is going to give away power and weaken their position in government. absolute power corrupts absolutely.


unless glee becomes a civics lesson program and unless american idol would be for the presidency then this population will never have the attention span to grasp the things that you and ron paul are saying.

question is whose freedom is more important, the employer or the employee??

were just gooing in circles here.

three things i want to address from you post.
1. I never claimed Obama did any more trampling than Bush. I despised Bush's actions as president and every day that goes by I begin to despise Obama's actions as president more and more. I am not a partisan guy.

2. Im glad you mentioned Ron Paul. You say no one elected would ever give up any power...... thats the main reason I am so devoted to supporting Paul's ideas. And I would argue this "revolution" wont die with his campaign.

3. whose freedom is more important, the employer or the employee = BOTH! Under current law, freedom lies with both. (kind of.. the third party payer system is inherently broken and should be fixed. Employers shouldnt have a hand in individuals insurance. Insurance should go with the person, therefor if you lose your job you dont lose your insurance just because your unemployed.)

and with that, im tapping out of this consversation because, like i said, we're just going in circles here.

WaveRyder

“We need to surrender our attachments to government in every aspect of life. This goes for the right and the left. We need to give up our dependencies on the state, materially and spiritually. We should not look to the state to provide for us financially or psychologically… Let us understand that it is far better to live in an imperfect world than it is to live in a despotic world ruled by people who lord it over us through force and intimidation.” - Ron Paul


now im tapping out. sorry. good luck everybody and sorry if things got personal. I wish you all the best.

WaveRyder

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1432320073001/

WaveRyder

To the point of the original post.....even left leaning editorial boards agree with me.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... 52975796/1

The thumbnail nails it "We're sympathetic to the medical reasoning, but good intentions are not sufficient grounds to override the First Amendment."

The Times and Newsweek have run similar editorials.

"Few Americans of any political stripe would disagree with the simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs. Certainly, it should never try to force a religiously affiliated institution to violate a central tenet of its faith.

Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform, the Obama administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom."

Not that I needed to read it to know i am right on this issue, this makes me feel so validated, and so sad for you guys.

_

WaveRyder wrote:

Not that I needed to read it to know i am right on this issue, this makes me feel so validated, and so sad for you guys.

Really? More ego & insults?? :roll:

WaveRyder

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

To the point of the original post.....even left leaning editorial boards agree with me.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... 52975796/1

The Times and Newsweek have run similar editorials.

"Few Americans of any political stripe would disagree with the simple proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church affairs. Certainly, it should never try to force a religiously affiliated institution to violate a central tenet of its faith.

Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform, the Obama administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom."

Not that I needed to read it to know i am right on this issue, this makes me feel so validated, and so sad for you guys.

It's funny that I never noticed what a pompous ass you are until this thread. So sad for you.

i got revoked from the boards for two weeks for making insulting posts like this once. I hope Kat and the rest notice.

but to your post, you don't come back with an a point, just an insult.... very telling.

WaveRyder

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

Not that I needed to read it to know i am right on this issue, this makes me feel so validated, and so sad for you guys.

Really? More ego & insults?? :roll:

what insult?

_

WaveRyder wrote:

i got revoked from the boards for two weeks for making insulting posts like this once. I hope Kat and the rest notice.

but to your post, you don't come back with an a point, just an insult.... very telling.

WaveRyder wrote:

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

Not that I needed to read it to know i am right on this issue, this makes me feel so validated, and so sad for you guys.

Really? More ego & insults?? :roll:

what insult?

I've already elucidated the flaws in your argument and I'm not going to do it again. But I just don't think I've ever before seen someone on this board go on and on as much as you have about how he's so much smarter than everyone else. Regarding my initial comment, I retracted it within a few seconds of posting it and I apologize to Kat for being so forthright about my thoughts on your post.

ETA: I love how the rest of us had long since dropped this conversation but you just keep returning over and over again with bait.

WaveRyder

_ wrote:

I've already elucidated the flaws in your argument and I'm not going to do it again. But I just don't think I've ever before seen someone on this board go on and on as much as you have about how he's so much smarter than everyone else. Regarding my initial comment, I retracted it within a few seconds of posting it and I apologize to Kat for being so forthright about my thoughts on your post.

ETA: I love how the rest of us had long since dropped this conversation but you just keep returning over and over again with bait.

so point out the flaws in the editorial then?

_

WaveRyder wrote:

_ wrote:

I've already elucidated the flaws in your argument and I'm not going to do it again. But I just don't think I've ever before seen someone on this board go on and on as much as you have about how he's so much smarter than everyone else. Regarding my initial comment, I retracted it within a few seconds of posting it and I apologize to Kat for being so forthright about my thoughts on your post.

ETA: I love how the rest of us had long since dropped this conversation but you just keep returning over and over again with bait.

so point out the flaws in the editorial then?

I don't have time to read the editorial. But the first flaw is that it's an editorial. Those have no weight whatsoever. And, from what you posted, they've failed to mention that actual religious employers ARE exempt from the law.

WaveRyder

_ wrote:

I don't have time to read the editorial.

exactly. keep your head in the sand

WaveRyder

_ wrote:

I don't have time to read the editorial. But the first flaw is that it's an editorial. Those have no weight whatsoever. And, from what you posted, they've failed to mention that actual religious employers ARE exempt from the law.

1.Editorials are editorials.....its not one person writing it...its a group of people coming to agreement on an issue.

2. What do you mean "actual religious" employers?

gimmesometruth27

i can find editorials that say the opposite, so meh...

as i recall, those written on behalf of many people are either from the board of editors or from something with an agenda, such as a thinktank.

WaveRyder

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can find editorials that say the opposite, so meh...

lets see them?

i simply point out that these newspapers also endorsed Barack for president and most likely will again....still, they correctly point out the flawed policy.

and this board is not the only place ive discussed this issue,.... but this is the only place where so many think it's a good policy. My bleeding heart coworkers even think its an overstep.

WaveRyder

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

as i recall, those written on behalf of many people are either from the board of editors or from something with an agenda, such as a thinktank.

yeah, editorials are written by editorial boards....... what are you getting at? I think editorials hold more water than your run of the mill column, because they pass the test of logic by consensus. A one person column only has to satisfy the author's logic.

WaveRyder

and i didnt go hunting for this editorial....it landed on my doorstep. i felt compelled to pull it off their website and share with you guys.

gimmesometruth27

WaveRyder wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can find editorials that say the opposite, so meh...

lets see them?

i simply point out that these newspapers also endorsed Barack for president and most likely will again....still, they correctly point out the flawed policy.

and this board is not the only place ive discussed this issue,.... but this is the only place where so many think it's a good policy. My bleeding heart coworkers even think its an overstep.

really????

you are asking me to produce editorials to the contrary of the one you posted?

i am steadfast in my position on this issue. no matter what i produce here it is not changing your mind and you are not changing my mind, so i don't see much of a point in doing that.

whygohome

(Religion. Oy vey)

WaveRyder

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you are asking me to produce editorials to the contrary of the one you posted?

yes i am.

but i want to see an editorial from a nationally known publication..... i dont think you can.

WaveRyder

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

no matter what i produce here it is not changing your mind and you are not changing my mind, so i don't see much of a point in doing that.

well thats healthy... :?

gimmesometruth27

WaveRyder wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

you are asking me to produce editorials to the contrary of the one you posted?

yes i am.

but i want to see an editorial from a nationally known publication..... i dont think you can.

you are sitting in front of a computer now, aren't you?

it just strikes me as funny that of all of the things to be outraged about that this administration has or has not done, this is IT?? this is the one thing that gets people's attention???

:?

if this is counter to the constitution, this is probably the least offensive thing that has been counter to it.

when does my freedom from religion come into play in all of this? religion should have no bearing on any policies in this country.

WaveRyder

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this is the one thing that gets people's attention???

i agree. but i didnt start this thread. just pointing out the unconstituionality of the policy. Id do the same thing on any thread about policy that violates the constitution. I dont pick and choose which parts to follow.

WaveRyder

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

it just strikes me as funny that of all of the things to be outraged about that this administration has or has not done, this is IT??

things Obama has done that piss me off:
Left Gitmo open
pass unconstitional healthcare law (i agree we need healthcare reform but dont have to trample the Const. to do it)
Entered Lybia conflict without declaring war
NDAA -doing away with our right to due process
Ordered the assisination of two US citizens (we have a murderer in the white house)
increased debt cieling


Things Bush did that made me hate him:
opened Gitmo
Signed the patriot act
No child left behind
entering Iraq and Afganhistan without a Congressional declaration of war
Increased debt cieling

_

WaveRyder wrote:

_ wrote:

I don't have time to read the editorial.

exactly. keep your head in the sand

So everyone has to read every single editorial ever written or their heads are in the sand? :roll:

WaveRyder wrote:

2. What do you mean "actual religious" employers?

I already quoted the exact definition earlier in this thread.

WaveRyder wrote:

and this board is not the only place ive discussed this issue,.... but this is the only place where so many think it's a good policy. My bleeding heart coworkers even think its an overstep.

And I don't know a single other person who thinks it's a bad policy, so your coworkers opinions are moot.

WaveRyder wrote:

just pointing out the unconstituionality of the policy. Id do the same thing on any thread about policy that violates the constitution. I dont pick and choose which parts to follow.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule that this policy is unconstitutional. And people who are much smarter and more educated on the Constitution that you are say it IS constitutional. So until the Supreme Court says otherwise, you are picking and choosing which parts to follow. It's not the Supreme WaveRyder that decides what's constitutional and what's not. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it would be appropriate for you to recognize that that's all it is.

WaveRyder

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

_ wrote:

I don't have time to read the editorial.

exactly. keep your head in the sand

So everyone has to read every single editorial ever written or their heads are in the sand? :roll:

WaveRyder wrote:

2. What do you mean "actual religious" employers?

I already quoted the exact definition earlier in this thread.

WaveRyder wrote:

and this board is not the only place ive discussed this issue,.... but this is the only place where so many think it's a good policy. My bleeding heart coworkers even think its an overstep.

And I don't know a single other person who thinks it's a bad policy, so your coworkers opinions are moot.

WaveRyder wrote:

just pointing out the unconstituionality of the policy. Id do the same thing on any thread about policy that violates the constitution. I dont pick and choose which parts to follow.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule that this policy is unconstitutional. And people who are much smarter and more educated on the Constitution that you are say it IS constitutional. So until the Supreme Court says otherwise, you are picking and choosing which parts to follow. It's not the Supreme WaveRyder that decides what's constitutional and what's not. Thanks for sharing your opinion, but it would be appropriate for you to recognize that that's all it is.

" And people who are much smarter and more educated on the Constitution that you are say it IS constitutional."
who? source please.... maybe a link would help prove your point.

and as far as the supreme court, ill bet you some of my most cherished PJ shit for some of yours that they do rule it unconstitutional.

I dont know if youve ever read the constitution, but i have. and ive always been perplexed about the confusion. Its a very simple, to the point doctrine.... its only hard to understand for people who are trying to push an agenda

WaveRyder

The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - pretty easy to see the problem if you actually look at the text.