Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

WaveRyder · February 2012

_ 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?

_ · February 2012

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 · February 2012

_ 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?

_ · February 2012

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 · February 2012

_ wrote:

I don't have time to read the editorial.

exactly. keep your head in the sand

WaveRyder · February 2012

_ 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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

(Religion. Oy vey)

WaveRyder · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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 · February 2012

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

_ · February 2012

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 · February 2012

_ 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 · February 2012

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.

Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill

Comments

Categories