Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

i studied poly sci and constitutional law while in college. Ill leave it at that. If really interested in my employment, you can dig through my older posts. I only ask what you do for a living/studied to see if you have any background knowledge in the constitution and property rights. Most people that put groups over individuals dont.

I don't put groups over individuals. You just don't understand my position.

Any why're you gonna "leave it at that," unless you have some reason to not answer your own question? Anyone can "study" poli sci and the constitution and property rights. You still don't have any reason to believe that I have no background knowledge in these things and I have no real reason to believe that you do. I'm not going to dig through your fucking posts. Why didn't you dig through my posts if you wanted to know about my education and employement? :roll:

but you do, your putting the rights of a group - women in this case - over private property rights for every individual.

as far as the job, plain and simple, i shouldnt be having this conversation and I could catch hell if my employer knew I was airing my biases. Lets just say I spend everyday of the winter in my state's capitol building. i see special interests group trample all over basic constitutional standards everyday - and support of said trampling by members of both parties. Some days, I come home from work literally sick to my stomach. THen I hop online, read most of these posts, and throw up. What's most frustrating is I know most of you are very intelligent people but you cherry pick which parts of the good book you think we ought to abide by. Its not consistent and it results in an encroachment on all of OUR freedoms.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

so in short you say freedom trumps all?

so what is it you do in your capital building? surely you can't be an elected official when earlier in this thread you bounced on me for calling you a conservative, when last i checked, conservatives and libertarians are on the right side of the spectrum on a lot of issues...

my problem with the perspective from which you are posting is the inherent over the top selfishness of it all... and that can not work in a society....not to mention the superiority complex...

im always blown away when people say freedom is selfish

WaveRyder wrote:

my biases.

Exactly.

WaveRyder wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.


Thought id share this story.
(Ill respond to above posts after work)

Funny, up here in Canada we have government health care and a strong social safety net, yet people still work hard. I believe this is the same in socialist countries.

A more apt analogy would be: Nobody would fail but those who do well would still receive a higher grade than those who do not.

Hmm..

its a good theory.

Actually, it's flat out wrong given what happens in a country with a soft socialism and a large social safety net. There are still rich guys that want to get ahead, guys that work hard and don't get ahead, and people who for whatever reason can't get ahead. Luckily, those that can't get ahead are taken care of.

In response to new regulations from the Obama Administration that would mandate Catholic hospitals, universities and charitable organizations to provide services against Church teachings, Roman Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh says the administration is telling American Catholics: “To Hell with you.”

WaveRyder wrote:

bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!


im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)

But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.

i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.

Then why is Canada doing alright?

keeponrockin wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!


im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)

But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.

i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.

Then why is Canada doing alright?

hmmm, why is Canada doing alright? in short, because they cut spending. Not cutting projected increases in spending, but making actual cuts. Entitlements WERE cut in Canada....something you all would be flippin a lid over if it happened here.

Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.

Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.

October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.

June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.

January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."

The article is headline news in Canada.

February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.

April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.

October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.

March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)

February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.

June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.

May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.

2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.

Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.

October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.

June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.

January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."

The article is headline news in Canada.

February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.

April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.

October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.

March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)

February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.

June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.

May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.

2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.

Fact: Anytime a nations citizens are taxed beyond 25percent of GDP, that country has withered and decayed away.
Fact: America is far and above that number right now.

Fact: The Constitution exists to restrict government, not individuals.

WaveRyder wrote:

hmmm, why is Canada doing alright? in short, because they cut spending. Not cutting projected increases in spending, but making actual cuts. Entitlements WERE cut in Canada....something you all would be flippin a lid over if it happened here.

Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.

Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.

October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.

June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.

January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."

The article is headline news in Canada.

February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.

April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.

October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.

March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)

February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.

June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.

May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.

2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.
Mon Aug 8, 2011 6:29pm EDT
(Reuters) - Canada took a decade to win back its prized AAA rating after debt downgrades in the early 1990s that were prompted by concern that its budget deficit was billowing out of control.

Here are some highlights of what took place over that decade, when a Liberal government tamed the deficit, with the backing of a conservative opposition party.

October 1992 - Standard & Poor's cuts its rating on Canada's foreign-denominated government debt to AA-plus from AAA on concern about the current account deficit, a growing government debt load and uncertainty about the political situation in French-speaking Quebec, home to a popular separatist party.

June 1994 - Moody's Investors Service lowers its rating on Canada's foreign currency debt to Aa1 from Aaa, citing the government's large and growing public debt.

January 1995 - A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal calls Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."

The article is headline news in Canada.

February 1995 - Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin introduces a budget where deep spending cuts outweigh tax increases by seven to one. "Not to act now to put our fiscal house in order would be to abandon the purposes for which ... this government stands -- competence, compassion, reform and hope," he says. In a display of unity that's rare outside wartime, the right wing opposition party, the Reform Party, backs the spending cuts.

April 1995 - Moody's, which had warned of further downgrades even before the budget, cuts Canadian dollar debt from Aaa to Aa1. It also lowers foreign currency debt from Aa1 to Aa2, despite the fact that the markets had mostly supported the government's fiscal plans.

October 1995 - Quebec voters reject a proposal to separate from Canada, removing a layer of uncertainty that had pressured Canadian markets.

March 1996 - Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio peaks at around 72 percent of GDP in the 1995-96 fiscal year, ending March 31. (By way of context, S&P expects the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio to end 2011 at 74 percent.)

February 1998 - With the budget already in surplus, Finance Minister Martin introduces a balanced budget for the first time in decades. The era of budget surpluses ends only when the Conservative government steps up stimulus spending to pull Canada out of the 2008 recession.

June 2000 - Moody's upgrades Canada's foreign currency rating to Aa1 from Aa2, leaving the domestic currency rating at Aa1.

May 2002 - Moody's restores Canada's Aaa rating for both foreign and domestic currency debt. Two months later, S&P follows suit, citing fiscal and current account surpluses along with low inflation.

2014-15 - Conservative government's target fiscal year to bring the budget back into surplus.

Great post. I guess the point I'm making is IF done responsibly, countries can provide a large social safety net along with financial sanity.

Right now, the USA has neither.

_ wrote:

WaveRyder wrote:

bleeding hearts are well intended but it just doesnt work. we've seen these socialism experiments a thousand times throughout history and it always ends the same. Keep trying though!


im steadfast in my beliefs because ive covered the spectrum. I used to be just like you guys, thinking that if only the right policies were in place, the govt could create a system where none of us had problems, where socio economic issues went away. Then, my beliefs were based on emotion and how I thought the world ought to be.
It doesnt work. I was a staunch liberal Democrat (obvious by my then use of emotion rather than facts to argue my positions.)

But, real world experiences coupled with studying of the Constitution and the founders' intent brought me to my current beliefs. Im not going to say I wont be changing my mind again, but i find it hard to imagine that i will gravitate to the left ever again.

i guess it is true, if youre young and conservative, you have no heart. If your old and liberal, you have no brain. I saved myself some time and expedited that process into a 15 year period.

I'm just baffled as to why someone who's supposedly so enlightened has nothing but personal attacks to support his opinion.

i agree. i take issue with pretty much his entire post, but it is pointless to try to debunk his prejudices of the left.

bleeding hearts, socialism, use of emotion rather than facts to defend a position, not having real world experience, these are all standard responses from "conservatives" who claim to have more experience and be superior to and more intelligent than those of us on the left. i have been hearing that same shit on here from the conservative minority since before the onset of the iraq war. it is just pure, condescending bullshit. nothing more.

most of them claim to have studied the constitution and claim to know the intentions of the founding fathers. that is an outright bullshit claim as well. how can anyone know the actual intent of those that lived over 220 years ago? yes there are letters and books, but you can not apply everything written in that timeframe to today's world. besides, there are so many different ways that those things could be interpreted that nobody can know all of it with any degree of certainty...

so waveryder, are you saying that the liberals on here have no brain?