Possible Saul Alinsky Run For President??

[DieselBurps]

Originally Posted by spademan

Do you see how ludicrous this argument is? It has nothing to do with HCC, and everything to do with gov. control.

That pretty much sums it up. It's all about government control. The best thing to do is oppose all government growth - and if that doesn't work, stop working for the government. Go "Galt" and start sucking off the government teat rather than contributing to it. Let the system collapse.

Our government has become nothing more than "mob mentality", interested in power, control and self preservation. Anytime a government has to defend itself rather than have its citizens defend it - it's time for a revolution. If we still had 50 states loosely affiliated, with strong local governments and a very weak, purposely small Federal government - we'd be on track with the original intent of our Constitution and it would be a system worth fighting to save. Instead - we have 50 weak, ineffective states and a tyrant of a Fed government in place. It really is time to fix this problem.

[spademan]

Originally Posted by DieselBurps

That pretty much sums it up. It's all about government control. The best thing to do is oppose all government growth - and if that doesn't work, stop working for the government. Go "Galt" and start sucking off the government teat rather than contributing to it. Let the system collapse.

Our government has become nothing more than "mob mentality", interested in power, control and self preservation. Anytime a government has to defend itself rather than have its citizens defend it - it's time for a revolution. If we still had 50 states loosely affiliated, with strong local governments and a very weak, purposely small Federal government - we'd be on track with the original intent of our Constitution and it would be a system worth fighting to save. Instead - we have 50 weak, ineffective states and a tyrant of a Fed government in place. It really is time to fix this problem.

DB for prez!

[inconu]

http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-re...ry-solved.html

[MBachmann]

They ARE allowed to work there. They just have to pay for their own contraception. What part of that is not being understood by you?

The part where they are allowed to discriminate against their employees. Interesting enough these old Catholic Bishops who have a problem with family planning say no contraception, but yes to Viagra. Kind of gross considering their history with pedophilia.

FTR - Anyone working in a hospital is making enough money to pay for their contraception every month.

Irrelevant to the debate.

There are also hospitals in every city that aren't affiliated with Catholic hospitals. Go get a job there if purchasing your own contraception is striking at the heart of your personal value system.

Again, irrelevant.The issue is about religion and their vagina idealogues who seek to discriminate against their employees. Also the courts have ruled that those hospitals do not meet the criteria for a "religious employer."

Even for an atheist- Is this issue worth abolishing the 1st amendment of the constitution?

The constitution is precisely the reason for the debate. This is a new attempt by Conservatives to discriminate based on gender which violates the constitution. Rules requiring contraception coverage by insurers has been in place for years, and over half of the states have some form of it with a religious exemption.

[MBachmann]

Again, no one is telling the women employed in these hospitals and religious orgs. that they cannot use contraception. This is laughable on its face.

What they are saying is we are not going to pay for it.

Which would be discrimination, which violates the constitution.

What this means for the individual woman, or man for that matter, since condoms and viscetimies, aren't covered either, is they will have to pay for this stuff out of their paycheck.

Well, except for Viagra. That one is covered. How else would those dirty old catholic men molest all those boys? Now they want the the power to dictate family planning to the rest of the world?

[spademan]

Originally Posted by MBachmann

The part where they are allowed to discriminate against their employees. Interesting enough these old Catholic Bishops who have a problem with family planning say no contraception, but yes to Viagra. Kind of gross considering their history with pedophilia.


Irrelevant to the debate.


Again, irrelevant.The issue is about religion and their vagina idealogues who seek to discriminate against their employees. Also the courts have ruled that those hospitals do not meet the criteria for a "religious employer."


The constitution is precisely the reason for the debate. This is a new attempt by Conservatives to discriminate based on gender which violates the constitution. Rules requiring contraception coverage by insurers has been in place for years, and over half of the states have some form of it with a religious exemption.

Talking about things irrelevant to the debate. Man!

You are engaging in all types of personal attacks against catholics as if this somehow strengthens your argument.
That's like stating young men who stare at their moms in bikinis becomes child molesters!

What states have or have not done is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The topic at hand is specifically the executive branch of the US gov. mandating what a religious based entity will or will not do.
Gender discrimination is not an issue because men cannot purchase viscectimys or condoms under the insurance ether.

Oh wait a minute, men have BUY their condoms!!!! Never mind.
Isn't that some form of discrimination?????

As much as you would like for Religion to be banned, it is not going to happen. It is protected by the constitution.

Grow up and stop playing the victim.

[MBachmann]

The topic at hand is specifically the executive branch of the US gov. mandating what a religious based entity will or will not do.

The "religious" entity is not required, they are exempt according to the new rule. These sort of rules have been in place for some time in many other states. The courts have upheld this, based on the civil rights act.

As much as you would like for Religion to be banned, it is not going to happen. It is protected by the constitution.

And as much as you want to have your religion dictate what I can and cannot do in my own private life, it won't happen, because of the constitution. At least for now anyways.......

Grow up and stop playing the victim.

I refuse to stand by and watch religious institutions dictate their moral values on the general public.

When a religious organization chooses to hire nonbelievers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit. A large hospital in NYC, employees many thousands of different people with many different beliefs.

What if all hospitals in the country are catholic owned? Your answer would be too damn bad, but that is precisely the reason for the constitution.

[inconu]

The Church is a paternalistic organization with a long history of condoning pedophilia which has no right whatsoever to control women's vaginas. That's what the separation of Church and State in the Constitution is all about, neither can influence the affairs of the other.

[spademan]

Originally Posted by MBachmann

And as much as you want to have your religion dictate what I can and cannot do in my own private life, it won't happen, because of the constitution. At least for now anyways.......


I refuse to stand by and watch religious institutions dictate their moral values on the general public.

When a religious organization chooses to hire nonbelievers, it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees' legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit. A large hospital in NYC, employees many thousands of different people with many different beliefs.

What if all hospitals in the country are catholic owned? Your answer would be too damn bad, but that is precisely the reason for the constitution.

My religion????? I can assure you I am not catholic.

What religion is attempting to control your private life?

What religious institutions are dictating their moral values on the general public?

Before ObamaCare, employers regularly switched insurance companies to get the best policy/lowest price for their employees. It had less to do with specific coverages and more to do with best price for the employer.
The unconstitutional Obama HCP changed all the rules on that.

They then chose a specific coverage, in an election year, that they knew they could manipulate ignorant idiots with and so far they seem to be successful to a point.

They are changing the national focus from the abysmal, anemic economy to "here come the mean ole religious zealots again".

You are employed at the will of the employer in all "right to work" states. I realize not every state is a right to work state. Some have been hijacked by labor unions over the years. This is one of the main reasons the higher paying jobs have relocated to the Southeast.

Any power that any religious institution has over any individual in the U.S. is the power that said individual willingly gives it.

Why do you feel it so necessary for health insurance to pay for contraceptives? For anyone? Anywhere. In any business in America. Not just employees of catholic hospitals.

Is it because Obama said so? I am just trying to understand why this is such an issue for you.
Did you father or mother a child out of wedlock?
And do you now feel that if the government had just been there for you with free contraceptives you would not have been the victim of such a terrible tragedy in your life?

Obama wants to control every aspect of the lives of Americans. He is not happy with the way America turned out. He believes everyone who has money stole it, or used forced labor to get it, and he believes it is the governments duty to redistribute it to the poor masses in society.

This HCP is just another form of gov. control and wealth redistribution.

[spademan]

Originally Posted by inconu

The Church is a paternalistic organization with a long history of condoning pedophilia which has no right whatsoever to control women's vaginas. That's what the separation of Church and State in the Constitution is all about, neither can influence the affairs of the other.

To a point, in specific instances within the catholic church you are correct. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As has already been pointed out, many of the nation's hospitals would not exist without the catholics behind them. This is a good thing.

Also, correct on separation of church and state, which is why I am at such a loss as to why the obama admin. thinks it can force a religious based org. to pay for something that goes against their religious tenants. This is influencing the affairs of the other.

The U.S. gov. has no business mandating health care to begin with, let alone to religious orgs.

Isn't it funny how the unions were exempted from many parts of the HCP due to its inability to pay.