In today's New York Times poll, a huge majority of Americans(57-36 percent, which is a rout) believe that religiously affiliated employers should be exempt from offering contraceptives to employees, i fthe objection is based on moral grounds.

This poll was conducted by the most liberal rag out there, and still the outcome could not be more clear...despite what you hear in the media, Americans seethis is not about contraception, but about religious freedom. I hope liberals keep beating the "war on women"" drum, because even the New York Times says it ain't resonating with the folks.

Poll: Most back exemption to HHS mandate - (BP) (http://bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=37383)

In today's New York Times poll, a huge majority of Americans(57-36 percent, which is a rout) believe that religiously affiliated employers should be exempt from offering contraceptives to employees, i fthe objection is based on moral grounds.

This poll was conducted by the most liberal rag out there, and still the outcome could not be more clear...despite what you hear in the media, Americans seethis is not about contraception, but about religious freedom. I hope liberals keep beating the "war on women"" drum, because even the New York Times says it ain't resonating with the folks.

Poll: Most back exemption to HHS mandate - (BP) (http://bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=37383)
Regarding your conclusions on the poll...they are flawed. If you read the actual poll you'd see that a clear majority do see this as a women's health issue...they even asked that specific question.

I'd also note that polls taken just the week prior showed 61% support for the contraception provision.

-spence

Regarding your conclusions on the poll...they are flawed. If you read the actual poll you'd see that a clear majority do see this as a women's health issue...they even asked that specific question.

I'd also note that polls taken just the week prior showed 61% support for the contraception provision.

-spence

take any poll asking if "x" should be provided for free and guess what you get? :uhuh: 61% seem a little low in this day and age

hey, are all of the entities, way over 1000(seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions ) I'm pretty sure, who have somehow gotten Obamacare "the law of the land" waivers, going to be waivered from this mandate as well??? just wondering? it could be construed as a "war on women"

Regarding your conclusions on the poll...they are flawed. If you read the actual poll you'd see that a clear majority do see this as a women's health issue...they even asked that specific question.

I'd also note that polls taken just the week prior showed 61% support for the contraception provision.

-spence

My conclusion was not the least bit flawed...you just need to claim that, because the fcats make your side look out of touch.

A majority of people want to be able to "get" contraception. But the New York Times poll I posted sjows, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE NY TIMES, that a big majority don't want religios institutions to be forced to provide that which they teach is immoral.

Spence, I didn't conduct that poll, the NY Times did. I'm sorry that you hate the results of that poll, but the facts is still the facts.

Keep spinning Spence. And keep ignoring everything which challenges your cnclusions.

Let's recap...

The poll says that 57% of Americans want exemptions for religious institutions.

I said that as a result of this poll, it's clear that a majority of Americans want exemptions for religios institutions.

Spence says my conclusion (which wasn't any interpretation, just a regurgitation of what the poll showed) was flawed.

Spence, people want contraception. But not at the expenswe of trampling the constitution.

Spence, your mind is unable, or unwilling, to process that which doesn't support liberal ideology. This is not rocket science, it's as simple as it gets.

My conclusion was not the least bit flawed...you just need to claim that, because the fcats make your side look out of touch.
You concluded from the CBS/NYTimes poll that Americans felt this was an issue of religious freedom rather than women's health.

The same poll you cited included a specific question with nearly the exact same wording you used that contradicts your own conclusion.

Multiple polls held in a similar time period also offer contradictory findings to your conclusion.

Republicans Losing on Birth Control as 77% in Poll Spurn Debate - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-14/republicans-losing-on-birth-control-as-77-percent-in-poll-spurn-debate)

Birth Control Mandate Supported by Most Catholics, Evangelicals, Says New Poll, Christian News (http://www.christianpost.com/news/birth-control-mandate-supported-by-most-catholics-evangelicals-says-new-poll-70670/)

For someone so obsessed with facts you sure seem to hate facing them :hihi:

-spence

You concluded from the CBS/NYTimes poll that Americans felt this was an issue of religious freedom rather than women's health.

The same poll you cited included a specific question with nearly the exact same wording you used that contradicts your own conclusion.

Multiple polls held in a similar time period also offer contradictory findings to your conclusion.

Republicans Losing on Birth Control as 77% in Poll Spurn Debate - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-14/republicans-losing-on-birth-control-as-77-percent-in-poll-spurn-debate)

Birth Control Mandate Supported by Most Catholics, Evangelicals, Says New Poll, Christian News (http://www.christianpost.com/news/birth-control-mandate-supported-by-most-catholics-evangelicals-says-new-poll-70670/)

For someone so obsessed with facts you sure seem to hate facing them :hihi:

-spence

"Multiple polls held in a similar time period also offer contradictory findings to your conclusion"

The polls you cited did not specifically ask about religious exemptions. The polls you cited said that most Americans want contraception available through health insurance.

The poll I cited, by the NY Times, went one step further, and asked whether or not exemptions should be granted on religious grounds. The results of that poll speak for themselves.

Even if the NY Tmes poll showed otherwise, we still have the issue of that pesky constitution, and the Bill Of Rights contained therein.

Furthermore, the Catholic bishops have said that contraception WOULD BE PROVIDED if there was a documented medical reason for the contraception (my wife has such an issue, we had to clear her use of contraception with my priest). This is worth pointing out, because the issue therefore has nothing whatsoever to sdo with legitimate health issues, but rather, liberal desires to have others pay for them to engage in recreational sex. Thats all this is about.

Liberals think free love and casual sex is not only something to be celebrated, but something that the public has to pay for. Absurd.

despite what you hear in the media, Americans seethis is not about contraception, but about religious freedom.

You concluded from the CBS/NYTimes poll that Americans felt this was an issue of religious freedom rather than women's health.

The same poll you cited included a specific question with nearly the exact same wording you used that contradicts your own conclusion.


For someone so obsessed with facts you sure seem to hate facing them :hihi:

-spence

"More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll -- including almost 70 percent of women -- say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11." :smash:

"More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll -- including almost 70 percent of women -- say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11." :smash:

shouldn't this be 100%?

Let's all fight about birth control while they turn us into Serfs without us realizing it..

"More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll -- including almost 70 percent of women -- say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11." :smash:

Zimmy and Spence...

The Church has said it will cover contraception where there is a legitimate medical need.

What about that sentence do you not underatsnd?

When it's for a medical purposes, meaning when it's actually about healthcare, the Church will pay. They don't want to pay when it's strictly a way to engage in casual sex.

This has nothing, nothing, to do with healthcare. Anyone who says differently is either lying or ignorant.

Where am I wrong?

Your conclusion remains to be disturbingly flawed.

Because American's appeared to be in favor for a religious exemption in one poll, doesn't magically over ride Americans believing the issue is a women's rights issue as shown in three polls.

Your conclusion was that...hell, the title for the thread had nothing to do about religion but rather a "war on women" your quotes.

Further, in just your last post you make idiotic comments that this is all about sexual promiscuity, the same sort of pig headed crap that has lost Rush 100 paid sponsors.

Your claim about Catholic Bishops seems to indicate they're a lot closer to middle ground with Obama's compromise position than you are.

The poll you cited doesn't include anything about shifting Catholic positions...Are you changing your story?

Who's side are you on again?

-spence



"Multiple polls held in a similar time period also offer contradictory findings to your conclusion"

The polls you cited did not specifically ask about religious exemptions. The polls you cited said that most Americans want contraception available through health insurance.

The poll I cited, by the NY Times, went one step further, and asked whether or not exemptions should be granted on religious grounds. The results of that poll speak for themselves.

Even if the NY Tmes poll showed otherwise, we still have the issue of that pesky constitution, and the Bill Of Rights contained therein.

Furthermore, the Catholic bishops have said that contraception WOULD BE PROVIDED if there was a documented medical reason for the contraception (my wife has such an issue, we had to clear her use of contraception with my priest). This is worth pointing out, because the issue therefore has nothing whatsoever to sdo with legitimate health issues, but rather, liberal desires to have others pay for them to engage in recreational sex. Thats all this is about.

Liberals think free love and casual sex is not only something to be celebrated, but something that the public has to pay for. Absurd.

Your conclusion remains to be disturbingly flawed.

Because American's appeared to be in favor for a religious exemption in one poll, doesn't magically over ride Americans believing the issue is a women's rights issue as shown in three polls. doesn't magically over ride the Constitution....free stuff from the government or mandated by the governemnt is womens rights?...can't wait to get some men's rights

Your conclusion was that...hell, the title for the thread had nothing to do about religion but rather a "war on women" your quotes. "war on women" is the left's new montra, you should know that

Further, in just your last post you make idiotic comments that this is all about sexual promiscuity, the same sort of pig headed crap that has lost Rush 100 paid sponsors. wow, you are turning into Bill Maher

Your claim about Catholic Bishops seems to indicate they're a lot closer to middle ground with Obama's compromise position than you are. it wasn't a compromise or middle ground, maybe you aren't smart enough to recognize that

The poll you cited doesn't include anything about shifting Catholic positions...Are you changing your story? irrelevent just as polls on this issue are the irrelevent with regard to Constitutionality which is acutally a reason that the founders did not concentrate power in Washington...huh?...you can dream up polls to justify just about anything

Who's side are you on again? hopefully America's, the one where the elected officials swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, not undermine and evicerate it with the help of folks like you:)

-spence

you are very angry lately Spence...it's "messiah failure syndrome"...hope you can recover :)

you are very angry lately Spence...it's "messiah failure syndrome"...hope you can recover :)

All that and you didn't even make a point?

-spence

All that and you didn't even make a point?

-spence

you say stuff like that when you are REALLY angry...and wrong....take a nap...there's always tomorrow:)

you say stuff like that when you are REALLY angry...and wrong....take a nap...there's always tomorrow:)

I'd think if I was wrong you'd have made the point by now.

Instead you want to argue that public opinion is governed by the Constitution?

-spence

I'd think if I was wrong you'd have made the point by now.

Instead you want to argue that public opinion is governed by the Constitution?

-spence

no, you want to argue the Constitution is governed by public opinion

I argued that public opinion is irrelevent where we are governed by the Constitution

\Americans seethis is not about contraception, but about religious freedom.





This has nothing, nothing, to do with healthcare. Anyone who says differently is either lying or ignorant.

Where am I wrong?

"More than six in 10 respondents to a Bloomberg National Poll -- including almost 70 percent of women -- say the issue involves health care and access to birth control, according to the survey taken March 8-11." :smash:

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

shouldn't this be 100%?

I agree completely. The "involves health care" part is pretty ridiculous and could have could been "is about" or "is an issue of." I didn't check what the actual language was in the poll. I imagine they were trying to tease out whether people really believe this is solely a religious freedom issue. Clearly, many don't. 70% of women polled are apparently liars or ignorant :buds::rotf2:

"messiah failure syndrome"...hope you can recover :)

Growing economy, health care passed (especially pleasing because it spites your type so much :)), pretty much leading in the polls, wall street hiring, markets up. If you don't hate him, it is actually pretty darn good. Better to be on his side of the isle, for sure. Look at all the pent up anger on the right. Not good to live like that.

Growing economy, health care passed (especially pleasing because it spites your type so much :)), pretty much leading in the polls, wall street hiring, markets up. If you don't hate him, it is actually pretty darn good. Better to be on his side of the isle, for sure. Look at all the pent up anger on the right. Not good to live like that.

so what you are saying is 1.7% growth in 2011, a Constitutionally questionable power grab that the CBO now says will cost nearly double what it was origianlly promised over 10 years, a relatively small lead by a sitting president over a yet to be determined challenger,...... I thought you guys hated Wall Street,...... again, I thought you guys hated Wall Street, "pretty good is an interesting way of putting it", yeah, you get to hang out with Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Wasserman Schultz, etc...you know..all the CONSTITUTIONALISTS..., the only people out there angry, marching, breaking stuff and getting arrested are the OCCUPY nuts and they're supported and funded by "his side of the aisle".......there must be a pill they're handing out....glad you are happy...and confident Zim:)

you forgot unemployment which if we factor in those that have given up looking it really over 10%...but this admin needs to get to 8% by election day


here's a poll that may have some relevence in terms of a Presidential Election:
CBS/NYT March 12th

Scribd (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/85113774)

condition of the National Eonomy these days- fairly bad/very bad 75%
is the economy getting better/worse ?- worse/same 65%
do you app/disapp of the way BO is handling the economy?- disapp 54%...up from 50% last month
is the country going in right/wrong direction- seriously gotten off the wrong track 63%
compared to 4 years ago is your family better/worse?- worse/about same 80%
is the price of gas something the President can do a lot about?- yes, can do a lot 54%

*note at the bottom of the poll, Republicans were the smallest sampling less than 1/3rd of those polled

perception is an interesting thing:uhuh:



and this, you always have to remember, is with Obama enjoying constant cheerleading from nearly every media outlet....which you'd think would really sway "public opinion"

President Romney will be hardly different than President Obama. Santorum would get trounced. All in all, the nut jobs on the far right lose out in any case.

Repubs. are now coming out against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

"Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday."

If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast.

Repubs. are now coming out against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

"Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday."

If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast.


Zimmy, who are the nutjobs on this issue?

My side says that if women need contraception for legitimate medical reasons, they will provide it. But the church will not pay for the tools for folks to engage in casual sex.

Your side says that's not good enough. Your side says that somehow (no one can tell me what the logic is) that employers are obligated to pay for the means to engage in voluntary, casual, recreational sex.

The poll I shared shows tht a huge majority of Americans are on my side, not your side. So who are the "nut jobs:"?

Zimmy, Spence, Paul S...anyone...where does it say that employers shuold make it easier for their employees to have casual sex? Why stop at condoms? Why not force the Catholic church to provide employees with rooms with mirrors on the ceilings, vibrating beds, and Barry White music in the background?

"If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast"

And if 1% of Catholics make the opposite switch because we don't like having our rights trampled upon, the liberals are toast.

You cannot say it's about healthcare. This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex. Maybe a majority of Americans support that, I don't know. But let's at least frame the question honestly, is that too much to ask?

War on women...not according to the NY Times poll...

This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex...

If we want my wife's covered on our insurance, so we can have sex w/o having a kid right now, is that 'casual sex' or 'recreational sex' I see both terms used...? Just curious where the line is.

You cannot say it's about healthcare. This is about liberals wanting others to pay for them to have casual sex.

Hey Mr. freedom, who gives you the right to say it isn't about health care? You certainly like to determine what other people should think. I agree, it isn't a "war" on women, the nutso obsession with contraception and sex sure is going to put-off enough women to make it harder for any Republican, whether you care about the polls or not.

Hey Mr. freedom, who gives you the right to say it isn't about health care? You certainly like to determine what other people should think. I agree, it isn't a "war" on women, the nutso obsession with contraception and sex sure is going to put-off enough women to make it harder for any Republican, whether you care about the polls or not.

I'm not claiming any "right" to say it's not about healthcare, I'm saying the facts show it's not about healthcare. Legitimate healthcare needs are covered. What the church wants to avoid covering is not "medicine" by ane rational definition.

"the nutso obsession with contraception "

Excuse me? My side says contraception is fine, just don't ask the Catholic church to pay for it. Nothing nutso about that...

"make it harder for any Republican"

yeah, that explains why the GOP did so poorly in 2010 I guess...

If we want my wife's covered on our insurance, so we can have sex w/o having a kid right now, is that 'casual sex' or 'recreational sex' I see both terms used...? Just curious where the line is.

I'm not saying that sex with one's spouse isn't more meaningful than a one night stand, give me a little credit?. I'm saying that when I have sex with my wife, and we're trying to avoid getting pregnant, I'm not asking anyone else to violate their religious beliefs to make it happen. I don't work for the Catholic church, but if I did, I'd buy my own condoms and call it a day.

And we need to stop framing this as a "healthcare" issue. Liberals deliberately do that to marginalize the Catholic church, and make us look like we're turning a blind eye to legitimate health needs. What does is say about liberals, when they are framing the debate so dishonestly? Even THEY know they have no logical argument when they discuss it honestly, so the do what liberals always do, and demonize instead of debate.

If we want my wife's covered on our insurance, so we can have sex w/o having a kid right now, is that 'casual sex' or 'recreational sex' I see both terms used...? Just curious where the line is.

According to Santorum, any sex that isn't a specific attempt to procreate is recreational and immoral. Not that his Church or Bible teaches that.

"make it harder for any Republican"

yeah, that explains why the GOP did so poorly in 2010 I guess...

You are not trying to say that this recent uproar over contraception was equally relevant in 2010 are you?

Liberals deliberately do that to marginalize the Catholic church, and make us look like we're turning a blind eye to legitimate health needs. What does is say about liberals, when they are framing the debate so dishonestly? .

Dishonesty? The question could also be made that an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no? You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong.

You are not trying to say that this recent uproar over contraception was equally relevant in 2010 are you?

Nope. What I'm saying, and I'm 100% correct, is that conservative views on sex, and Catholic views on sex, have not changed one bit since 2010. Liberals are making hay out of this, because what are they going to do, point to the economy? Gas prices? Our debt?

You mentioned my side's "nutso" views on sex. We feel sex is a healthy, yet serious, thing, not to be taken lightly.

Your side says that if it feels good, DO IT! As a result of that, numbers are up for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, infidelity, and kids born out of wedlock. That's irrefutably a result of making sex a casual thing. Those results, in my opinion, do not represent a great cultural leap forward. Your side won't have that conversation, because it makes you look crazy.

Dishonesty? The question could also be made that an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no? You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong.

"an insurance company should not discriminate against a client because of the employers belief, no?"

Zimmy, for the last time, there IS NO LAW that says that women have the right to contraception, except where there are legitimate health needs.

However, there IS precedent (the 1st amendment) saying that the feds cannot force a religion to violate its beliefs.

What part of those 2 paragraphs can't you understand? I know you don't like it, you don't have to like it. But liberals need to realize that the Bill Of Rights even applies to Catholics.

"You will be much better off when you start to consider that people with other views are not inherently wrong"

You called my church's beliefs "nutso", and now you're telling me I need to me more mindful of the possibility that the other side is right? Get over yourself, OK? Did you get appointed God, and I missed that announcement?

The First Amendment says my side is right, and your side is wrong.

Nope. What I'm saying, and I'm 100% correct, is that conservative views on sex, and Catholic views on sex, have not changed one bit since 2010.

Your side says that if it feels good, DO IT! As a result of that, numbers are up for unwanted pregnancies, abortions, divorce, infidelity, and kids born out of wedlock. That's irrefutably a result of making sex a casual thing. Those results, in my opinion, do not represent a great cultural leap forward. Your side won't have that conversation, because it makes you look crazy.

Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches? Which divorce rates? Newt's? You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth? You say too much patently untrue bs.

"
Zimmy, for the last time, there IS NO LAW that says that women have the right to contraception, except where there are legitimate health needs.
?

The First Amendment says my side is right, and your side is wrong.

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches? Which divorce rates? Newt's? You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth? You say too much patently untrue bs.

"Which Catholic views? Santorums or the churches?"

This may be news to you, but Rick Santorum is not the Pope. If he says something, he is not speaking on beghalf of the Church. The Catholic Church advocates family planning, which is a form of birth control.

"Which divorce rates? Newt's?"

Unless I said that no Republican ever got divorced, Newt's past has nothing to do with this. I said divorce rates are higher after the sexual revolution than they were before. Newt Gingrich's divore statistics don't reflect on anyone other than Newt Gingrich. You're going to pick one extreme case, and apply it to all conservatives? You think that's reasonable? Do you also assume Osama Bin Laden's actions tell you something about all Muslims? Godd luck getting out of that...

"You know divorce rates are higher among Republicans, for whatever that is worth?"

I didn't know that. I never said divorce rates are lower for Republicans,. I said that the sexual revolution (which was a liberal cause) had a lot of devasting consequences on the stable family unit, and nothing you said refutes that one bit.

"You say too much patently untrue bs"

One example please. I've made mistakes here, and I admit them. That's the difference between me and you, and between me and Spence.

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

"do you even know what the first Amendment says?"

Sure. Here is the relevent portion...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another"

"The church isn't required to foot the bill"

They aren't? Zimmy, if the church's insurance policy is expanded to provide contraception, who do you think does pay the bill? The customer, that's who.

You liberals crack me up. Time and time again, you act as if taking money from businesses is mutually exclusive from taking money from individuals. Liberals act as if there's this giant, infinite ATM out there called "business", which we can raid whenever we want. You could not be more wrong.

How can you not understand that? Have you never ever bought something from a business? Don't those businesses raise your prices as their costs increase?

I work as an actuary Zimmy, which means it's my job to set insurance rates. When state laws require that we increase coverage, guess what? One hundred percent of the time, we pass that on to the customer. Every single time. We have no other choice.

I know what the ist amendment says. Perhaps you should be as well versed in economics 101 as I am with the 1st amendment.

By the way, do you even know what the first Amendment says? The insurance coverage of contraception does not establich a religion or prohibit free excercise of religion. Anyone who does not want the contraception does not have to take it. The church isn't required to foot the bill.

Do you have any familiarity with the Church's position on this issue? The church doesn't forbid its employees from using contraception for casual sex. The church just refuses to pay for it, because the church believes it's immoral. The 1st amendment clearly gives the Church that right, doesn't it?

Do you have any familiarity with the Church's position on this issue? The church doesn't forbid its employees from using contraception for casual sex. The church just refuses to pay for it, because the church believes it's immoral. The 1st amendment clearly gives the Church that right, doesn't it?

Based on what you are saying, the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway, unless they use a company that does not cover birth control at all. The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer. Obama was wrong to require Catholic organizations to directly fund the contraception. By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church.

Based on what you are saying, the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway, unless they use a company that does not cover birth control at all. The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer. Obama was wrong to require Catholic organizations to directly fund the contraception. By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church.

"the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway"

If it's used as medicine (which is rare), they pay for it. The vast majority of women on birth control are not using it for medicinal purposes, but for "recreation", I don't know what else to call it.

"The price the employer is quoted is affected by everyone insured by the insurance provider, not just one particular employer"

Absolutely, 100% not true. I do this for a living. In quoting premiums for the vast majority of our customers (employers), we look at how much money that employer costs us in the form of benefits. If the church was one of our customers, and now they're forced to offer more benefits than before, that means my health insurance company will have higher benefits paid than before, which means the church must pay a higher premium. In order for my profit margin (as the insurance company) to stay the same, I have to raise my rates for the Church.

Zimmy, trust me on this. The premium you pay for any insurance policy is the expected value of what the insurance company will pay out in benefits, plus expenses (rent on the building, etc) plus a small profit load. In this case, when you increase coverage, that necessarily means that the insurance company will pay more dollars out in the form of benefits, which necessarily means they increase the premium.

Think of your auto policy. Let's say you only have liability coverage, not physical damage. If you call your agent (or company) and tell them you want to add physical damage coverage to your vehicle, you don't fully expect to pay more? You have to pay more.

"By shifting it to the insurance company, it is not specifically covered by the church"

I do not know what planet you, or Obama, live on. Zimmy, from where do you think businesses get their money? From revenue, from the customer. When a business has an increase in expenses, that is almost always passed on the customer. In this case, when an insurance policy is modified to increase coverage, it is always associated with an increase in costs. Always...

If what you and Obama said was true, that would mean you could get something for nothing. The real world doesn't work that way Zimmy. When the feds take money from businesses (through tax hikes, raising the minimum wage, whatever), the businesses pass that expense on to the customer.

Zimmy, neither you nor Obama can claim that taking money from business somehow "spares" the customers of that business from paying more. It may sound great in a press conference. But it's completely ridiculous, and I bet you know that.

"the Catholic church pays for birth control anyway"

If it's used as medicine (which is rare), they pay for it. The vast majority of women on birth control are not using it for medicinal purposes, but for "recreation", I don't know what else to call it.



Zimmy, trust me on this. .



Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine, if you know it. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

Did you work specifically in health insurance?

Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine, if you know it. Otherwise, you are just speculating.

Did you work specifically in health insurance?

"Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine"

Common sense, i don't have #'s. I see that you didn't provide #'s to say that more Republicans get divorced, so it's OK when you speculate I guess.

"Did you work specifically in health insurance?"

I did, and do. But even if I didn't, I'd know that the liberal "myth" that taking $$ from businesses is easier on people than taking $$ from people, is a crock. And I bet you know it, too.

"Please give an actual percentage of woman who use birth control pills for medicine"

Common sense, i don't have #'s.
"Did you work specifically in health insurance?"

I did, and do. But even if I didn't, I'd know that the liberal "myth" that taking $$ from businesses is easier on people than taking $$ from people, is a crock. And I bet you know it, too.

Common sense :rotf2: Enough said :)

The Republican vs. Democrat divorce rate is from actual census bureau data. I haven't recently come across the original data, you could find it on their website. Here is a link that has a related simplified graph. It seems to show the same data, but doesn't give the specific numbers the census bureau did.
Chart of the Day: Red States, Blue States, and Morality Vox Nova (http://vox-nova.com/2009/06/30/chart-of-the-day-red-states-blue-states-and-morality/)

As far as the taking money from business "myth," your view is way too simplistic for a complex issue. Same with the insurance. You think the rates are entirely determined by a particular group? The underwriters make the decision based on the costs of insuring all of the customers, figure out probabilities and costs associated with the probabilities, then calculate the cost per customer. Yes, there are different levels of coverage. But... the rate charged to Notre Dame U as an employer is affected by the entire population insured by the insurer, including the percent who use birth control, viagra, eat cheese steaks and fries 4 days a week, etc.

Common sense :rotf2: Enough said :)

The Republican vs. Democrat divorce rate is from actual census bureau data. I haven't recently come across the original data, you could find it on their website. Here is a link that has a related simplified graph. It seems to show the same data, but doesn't give the specific numbers the census bureau did.
Chart of the Day: Red States, Blue States, and Morality Vox Nova (http://vox-nova.com/2009/06/30/chart-of-the-day-red-states-blue-states-and-morality/)

As far as the taking money from business "myth," your view is way too simplistic for a complex issue. Same with the insurance. You think the rates are entirely determined by a particular group? The underwriters make the decision based on the costs of insuring all of the customers, figure out probabilities and costs associated with the probabilities, then calculate the cost per customer. Yes, there are different levels of coverage. But... the rate charged to Notre Dame U as an employer is affected by the entire population insured by the insurer, including the percent who use birth control, viagra, eat cheese steaks and fries 4 days a week, etc.

Zimmy, are you serious?

Just because the divorce rate is higher in "red" states than "blue" states, doesn't mean that conservatives divorce more than liberals. Here is why...not everyone in a red state is conservative, not everyone in a blue state is liberal. The average divorce rate for a state doesn't tell you how that divorce rate breaks down by conservative versus liberal.

And if common sense isn't a valid argument, I'll hold yuo to that, and ask you to provide support for every opinion you have.

Zimmy, do you really doubt that most women who use contraception, are using it solely to avoid getting pregnant? Do you really think a majority of these women have a legitimate medical issue requiring contraception?

In any event, that doesn't matter. Because if a woman has a legitimate medical need, the church pays for the contraception. So the only women who can't get the contraception are the ones who don't need it as "medicine". So what's the argument in favor of forcing the church to fund the voluntary, recreational activities of its employees? If I want to climb Mt Everest, is my emlpoyer obligated to hire a sherpa guide for me? If I want to buy a motorcycle, is my employer obligated to pay for the helmet?

What a quanundrum! Jim says there is no war on woman yet House Repubs. think the opposite???


"WASHINGTON — House Republicans, unsure how to proceed, have slowed their efforts to overturn a federal rule requiring employers, including religious institutions, to provide female employees with free health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

While most House Republicans still support legislation to broaden the exemption for religious employers, House Republican leaders are carefully reviewing their options on the issue, which Democrats used to political advantage in the Senate.

The goal of House Republicans has not changed, they said, but they worry about further alienating women in this year’s elections"

What a quanundrum! Jim says there is no war on woman yet House Repubs. think the opposite???


"WASHINGTON — House Republicans, unsure how to proceed, have slowed their efforts to overturn a federal rule requiring employers, including religious institutions, to provide female employees with free health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

While most House Republicans still support legislation to broaden the exemption for religious employers, House Republican leaders are carefully reviewing their options on the issue, which Democrats used to political advantage in the Senate.

The goal of House Republicans has not changed, they said, but they worry about further alienating women in this year’s elections"

Paul - I never said the media wasn't spinning this as a war on women. I'm saying that's not what it is, if you look at the facts surrounding the issue.

Instead of posting a gotcha! link, can yuo answer a question?

As you may or may not know, the church is covering contraception where there is a valid medical need. The church won't cover contraception if it's a tool to engage in recreational sex. Here is my question...why would liberals assume that an employer is legally obligated to pay for the voluntary, recreational activities of its employees?

That's all this issue boils down to. The rest is liberal spin. It may be effective spin, but it's still intellectually dishonest spin.

If your side needs to frame the debate in a totally dishonest way right off the bat, qwhat does that tell you?

I said divorce rates are higher after the sexual revolution than they were before.

You mean when a women's place was in the kitchen barefoot and making babies, not voting, not allowed to work also when it was a woman's fault if she was raped?

Head out of butt please. Pronto.

Or just stop wasting JohnR's poor bandwidth with this drivel.

You mean when a women's place was in the kitchen barefoot and making babies, not voting, not allowed to work also when it was a woman's fault if she was raped?

Head out of butt please. Pronto.

Or just stop wasting JohnR's poor bandwidth with this drivel.

A very well thought out post, Glad you took a break from your MENSA meeting to enlighten us...

"You mean when a women's place was in the kitchen barefoot and making babies, not voting, not allowed to work "

No, I never said any such thing. I said divorce rates were lower before the sexual revolution, and I was irrefutably correct. It wasn't women's rights that caused divorce rates to skyrocket, it was moral decay, and the general view that sex is more casual than the way society viewed it then. I don't see how the acceptance of casual sex has helped the woman's rights movement.

"also when it was a woman's fault if she was raped?"

Abortions were always legal in the case of rape.

Was there anythihg else you wanted to add? Perhaps something pertinent?

"just stop wasting JohnR's poor bandwidth with this drivel"

In other words, why worry about silly things like the Constitution...

No, I never said any such thing. I said divorce rates were lower before the sexual revolution, and I was irrefutably correct.

Divorce rates where lower before we landed on the moon. I am irrefutably correct. They were also lower before Reagan came into office and Michael Jackson made the Thriller video. In my opinion, it was having an actor as president and his Hollywood mentality that led to higher divorce rates.


Here is some anecdotal (circumstantial :love:) evidence for an other possibility, based on a life experience of someone I was close to:
Female person friend was born into a very strict Catholic family. Parents were born in the 1920's, she was born in the 1950's. In the 1980's, she divorced her husband who was severly abusive; physically and mentally. Her father disowned her for going against the teachings of the church. He was old school Catholic and in his mind the circumstances did not matter in the Church's eyes. The percentages who felt the same were almost certainly higher for his generation than today. Maybe there are some changes in religious conviction about divorce, which are unrelated to the moon landing or sexual revolution, that have contributed with the divorce rate. That said, Reagan's Hollywood antics certainly correlate with the demise of marriage. I mean, look at his connection to Newt.

As you may or may not know, the church is covering contraception where there is a valid medical need.


So then it is up to a doctor to decide what is a valid medical need, correct?

everyone take a breath for a minute....
Can I provide another angle, one I believe 100% valid and may help liberals understand this
Religious organizations invest their $. They do it for pensions and for charitable trusts. Now, written into many (I've seen a lot) of the guidelines is that a money manager cannot invest in weapons of mass destruct, sin stocks - gambling, alcohol, etc. The religous organizations do not want any part of their $ going to things that are against their religion.
I dont think anyone here would have a problem with that, right?
Well, what if the govt suddenly changed the Social Security laws and mandated that all businesses buy into some govt run fund which invested in all kinds of stocks, some of these were sin stocks or abortion companies? Dont you think these religous organzatins have a right to say they dont want to fund this? Isnt it against their 1st amendment rights to practice their religion?
I think its a good comparision.
For the record, Im all for providing it and for free love for all BUT, unlike the people with the Tolerance stickers on their cars, I am tolerant of others beliefs and their rights.

Paul - I never said the media wasn't spinning this as a war on women. I'm saying that's not what it is, if you look at the facts surrounding the issue.



but I just gave you quotes from Repub. leaders saying that is how it is coming across. They did not say that the media was spinning it that way.

Divorce rates where lower before we landed on the moon. I am irrefutably correct. They were also lower before Reagan came into office and Michael Jackson made the Thriller video. In my opinion, it was having an actor as president and his Hollywood mentality that led to higher divorce rates.

Divorce rates were lower when the Pilgrims landed. Irrefutable.

BRB, need to go shoot Indians.

everyone take a breath for a minute....
Can I provide another angle, one I believe 100% valid and may help liberals understand this
.

Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs, but if it is clear in the terms of employment, and the employee agrees to them, so be it. My personal opinion is that this part of the health law was questionable, though not necessarily unconstitutional. It doesn't prevent practice of religion or force anyone into a religion. That said... the law needed to be changed. The way they changed the law, no matter what someones "opinion" is, eliminates the burden for the church to specifically cover birth control of employees who choose to use it. The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. It may reduce profits by some small percent, but it would prevent the church from paying for it. Another perspective is that the costs of all prescriptions are actually already written into the formula used by the underwriters in determining rates , so the Church is affected by birth control costs, no matter what (even if some claim that it isn't true).

Divorce rates where lower before we landed on the moon. I am irrefutably correct. They were also lower before Reagan came into office and Michael Jackson made the Thriller video. In my opinion, it was having an actor as president and his Hollywood mentality that led to higher divorce rates.


Here is some anecdotal (circumstantial :love:) evidence for an other possibility, based on a life experience of someone I was close to:
Female person friend was born into a very strict Catholic family. Parents were born in the 1920's, she was born in the 1950's. In the 1980's, she divorced her husband who was severly abusive; physically and mentally. Her father disowned her for going against the teachings of the church. He was old school Catholic and in his mind the circumstances did not matter in the Church's eyes. The percentages who felt the same were almost certainly higher for his generation than today. Maybe there are some changes in religious conviction about divorce, which are unrelated to the moon landing or sexual revolution, that have contributed with the divorce rate. That said, Reagan's Hollywood antics certainly correlate with the demise of marriage. I mean, look at his connection to Newt.

Zimmy, I don't think putting a man on the moon led to higher divorce rates and more abortions.

Everyone who can think rationally for a minute knows that there are more abortions and divorces, because our society views sex more casually than we did in the past.

Your single observation says nothing about national trends, most trends don't aply 100% of the time. I'm not saying that there's never a valid reason for a divorce. Please don't put crazy jibberish words in my mouth.

You're coming unglued. Take a breath.

but I just gave you quotes from Repub. leaders saying that is how it is coming across. They did not say that the media was spinning it that way.

Your post contained EXACTLY ZERO specific quotes from specific "Republican leaders".

Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs, but if it is clear in the terms of employment, and the employee agrees to them, so be it. My personal opinion is that this part of the health law was questionable, though not necessarily unconstitutional. It doesn't prevent practice of religion or force anyone into a religion. That said... the law needed to be changed. The way they changed the law, no matter what someones "opinion" is, eliminates the burden for the church to specifically cover birth control of employees who choose to use it. The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. It may reduce profits by some small percent, but it would prevent the church from paying for it. Another perspective is that the costs of all prescriptions are actually already written into the formula used by the underwriters in determining rates , so the Church is affected by birth control costs, no matter what (even if some claim that it isn't true).

"I am in complete agreement that religious organizations shouldn't be forced to pay for things that are against the religion. It gets murky once the Church or any organization chooses to employ people who have different religious beliefs,"

So you think it makes sense to penalize the Catholic church for hiring non-Catholics? They should be rewarded for that kind of tolerance, no?

"The cost of the birth control can be eaten by the insurance company. "

No, it can't, and it won't. It will get passed on to the Church. Or, it would, if that law ever got enacted, but it will not. When actuaries set the rates, they do it based on what the policy covers. If the policy is changed to cover more, it necessarily costs more. Customers pay for the cost of the products they buy.

Repubs. are now coming out against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

"Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska sternly warned her colleagues that the party was at risk of being successfully painted as antiwoman — with potentially grievous political consequences in the fall, several Republican senators said Wednesday."

If 1% of independents switch sides b/c of this war on woman, the Repubs are toast.

Your post contained EXACTLY ZERO specific quotes from specific "Republican leaders".

I posted that earlier

Here are 2 more:

"Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said, “We should keep our focus on economic growth and jobs, instead of getting sidetracked by issues that divide us.”

Representative Tom Reed, Republican of New York, disagrees with the president’s policy. But he said: “We have clearly staked out our opposition to it. It’s time to move on to other issues, like jobs and the economy.”

Zimmy, I don't think putting a man on the moon led to higher divorce rates and more abortions.



I actually don't know how to respond. It has been entertaining Jim :)

Divorce rates were lower when Jesus was riding dinosaurs.

IRREFUTABLE!!!!!

Divorce rates were lower when Jesus was riding dinosaurs.

IRREFUTABLE!!!!!

Are you 100% correct?

Game, set and match.

-spence

I posted that earlier

Here are 2 more:

"Representative Judy Biggert, Republican of Illinois, said, “We should keep our focus on economic growth and jobs, instead of getting sidetracked by issues that divide us.”

Representative Tom Reed, Republican of New York, disagrees with the president’s policy. But he said: “We have clearly staked out our opposition to it. It’s time to move on to other issues, like jobs and the economy.”

First of all, I've never heard of either of these 2, so they're not "leaders of the Republican party". Second of all, neither one of them conceded that there is a war on women.

You said that the Republican leadership views this as a war on women. Nothing you posted even comes close to supporting that.

But I agree, it's crazy to spend so much time talking about consoms, we have bigger issues. But liberals want to focus on this, so that no one is talking about unemployment, debt, or gas prices.

Zimmy and Spence and Likwid...I posted that after the sexual revolution and after the availability of contraception, divorces increased, abortions increased, STD's increased, and kids born out of wedlock increased.

Your response was that rates of those things were also lower when man went to the moon, and before Michael Jackson wrote Thriller.

Most rational folks concede a correlation between the sexual revolution, and those societal ills. Most rational folks concede a correlation between the availability of contraception and the societal ills I mentioned.

I assumed you were theorizing a correlation between space travel and those things I mentioned. I disagree. Now you're making it sound like I'm the one who brought up space travel. I give up...

.

I actually don't know how to respond. It has been entertaining Jim :)

Zimmy, you, not I, brought up the moon landing.

Most rational folks concede a correlation between the sexual revolution, and those societal ills. Most rational folks concede a correlation between the availability of contraception and the societal ills I mentioned.
Most rational folks understand that STD's used to be rampant.

They also realize that divorce rates have been heavily influenced by women who had no choice but to to stay with their man because they had few employment opportunities on their own...not to mention the stigma of a single woman or single mother.

They also know abortions used to happen unreported, in back alleys and in unregulated facilities.

Do you have any real statistics? I think you're just full of #^&#^&#^&#^&.

-spence

I think you're just full of #^&#^&#^&#^&.

-spence

jibberish

noone provides less evidence for their statements than you:)

I'm worried you are turning into Bill Maher :uhuh:...or ...Obama where you repeatedly accuse and chastise others for doing things that you will likely be doing minutes from now....:rotf2:

noone provides less evidence for their statements than you:)


Prove it or be silent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

be silent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ohhh....threatening tones now....

-spence[/QUOTE]
Anyone disagree with this? yes....MANY

Regarding the Keyston XL pipeline, it's far from a no-brainer.

3/8/2012 WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Thursday narrowly rejected a GOP provision to fast-track the construction of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline.

Eleven Democrats bucked President Barack Obama by voting in favor of the amendment. They include Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) Mark Pryor (Ark.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Jim Webb (D-Va.), Robert Casey (D-Pa.) and Kent Conrad (D-N.D).


“I think we should embrace it and develop a stakeholder-driven system of high standards for doing the work,” Bill Clinton said during remarks at an energy conference in Maryland.

The agency charged with making a formal recommendation regarding the pipeline is the U.S. State Department – which is run by Clinton’s wife, former first lady Hillary Clinton. In issuing its final environmental statement on the project last August, Clinton’s agency concluded that the pipeline would have “no significant impact” on the environment and recommended that it move forward.

Last October, nearly two dozen Democrats led by U.S. Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) announced their support for the $7 billion project.


Yes, it will create "shovel ready" jobs...but only for 6-12 months. Most of the steel for the project has already been manufactured...in India.
better than Obama's non-existent shovel ready jobs, call it an "investment", not paid for by the taxpayer:) WAPO Factchecker conclusion "Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle may have legitimate reasons for pushing this project, but they don’t need to oversell it. Imagine if someone actually said: “The company says this project will create an estimated 13,000 construction jobs over two years.”


Transcanada's own research for the US Government indicated the pipeline would actually INCREASE gas prices in the mid-west US and not have any real impact on domestic energy security.

"The line would create a new way to carry Canadian imports outside the Midwest and reduce an oil surplus that’s depressing prices in the central U.S. Spot gasoline was 55 cents cheaper in Chicago than in New York on June 1, the second-highest ever."

you think you are so clever:uhuh: I thought you were FOR redistribution? :uhuh:

"Meanwhile, Clinton said he worries that increased domestic oil and natural gas production could allow many in the U.S. to lose interest in investing in other, newer cleaner forms of energy."

meet the real resistence and the desire for higher prices...call it persuasion :uhuh:

And perhaps worse, the company has already been bullying landowners to sign easements or be sued to have their land taken under eminent domain. there isn't a single MSM report on this which I could locate, you'd think they'd have jumped on this given the attention to bullying and XL these days, would have fit perfectly into the template "BIG OIL BULLYING"..that's got a nice ring:uhuh:

All the Administration asked was for a new route that wouldn't threaten an environmentally sensitive area. Initially they said it would be impossible...then they agreed to do it. "all they were asking for???" gimme a break, that's pathetic, "no matter how imagined"?:)TransCanada – the company seeking to build the pipeline – first applied for a permit in 2008.


"One of the most amazing things to me about this Keystone pipeline deal is that they ever filed that route in the first place since they could've gone around the Nebraska Sandhills and avoided most of the dangers[/COLOR], no matter how imagined, to the Ogallala [aquifer] with a different route." Bill Clinton.....

huh?..."no matter how imagined"...wonder why he said that? Keystone should have planned for "imagined dangers" when plotting the route?
Read more: Bill Clinton on Keystone XL pipeline: 'Embrace' it - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73445.html#ixzz1pMRiyZN5)

If anything, Obama isn't playing politics and is evaluating the cost/benefit tradeoff for the Americans involved. You know where that oil will be going? To refineries in the Gulf Cost where it will be EXPORTED. Obama plays politics with EVERYTHING in case you haven't noticed...it's the "Chicago Way"


-spence[/QUOTE]

love Clinton, he can, as he says, say what he wants now that he's out of office and it might actually contain some truth now....

suggesting that Obama's resistance to the pipeline is anything but political is comical........


so Spence, that was an entire post by you which contained a wealth of claims without anything to back up any it up save for one link that you completely mischaracterized...that's just one post from a prolific poster....imagine the possibilities:uhuh:

probably a bad idea to start your post with...

"Anyone disagree with this?"....especially here :biglaugh::biglaugh:

I thought you were going to do some homework and present a reasonable case. Perhaps you did but I can't even read your post. I'm guessing not as you don't seem to have found some pretty obvious information...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Here is a good analysis of Transcanada's misrepresentation on the number of jobs to be created.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf#page=13

Yes, they applied in 2008 but environmental concerns persisted especially by people of Nebraska.

They challenged the pipeline...

TransCanada Pipeline Threatened by Proposed Nebraska Re-Routing - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/transcanada-s-keystone-pipeline-threatened-by-proposed-nebraska-re-routing.html)

And have worked to get Transcanada to work with the State to mitigate environmental concerns...

Media Advisory - State of Nebraska to Play Major Role in Defining New Keystone XL Route Away From the Sandhills (http://www.transcanada.com/5896.html)

Obama remarks in denying the fast track legislation by his own words were about the process and not about the merits of the project.

Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/18/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline)

The remarks by Clinton you referenced back up the Whitehouse position that the project needs to be done in a responsible manner.

-spence

I thought you were going to do some homework and present a reasonable case. Perhaps you did but I can't even read your post. I'm guessing not as you don't seem to have found some pretty obvious information...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Here is a good analysis of Transcanada's misrepresentation on the number of jobs to be created.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf#page=13

Yes, they applied in 2008 but environmental concerns persisted especially by people of Nebraska.

They challenged the pipeline...

TransCanada Pipeline Threatened by Proposed Nebraska Re-Routing - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-26/transcanada-s-keystone-pipeline-threatened-by-proposed-nebraska-re-routing.html)

And have worked to get Transcanada to work with the State to mitigate environmental concerns...

Media Advisory - State of Nebraska to Play Major Role in Defining New Keystone XL Route Away From the Sandhills (http://www.transcanada.com/5896.html)

Obama remarks in denying the fast track legislation by his own words were about the process and not about the merits of the project.

Statement by the President on the Keystone XL Pipeline | The White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/18/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline)

The remarks by Clinton you referenced back up the Whitehouse position that the project needs to be done in a responsible manner.

-spence

you've jumped all around with nothing that provides any reason to hold up the pipeline...it's being delayed...and probably killed for purely political and ideaological reasons....pretty sad

WASHINGTON | Fri Nov 11, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The move to delay a decision on a new oil pipeline from Canada may bolster support among President Barack Obama's liberal-leaning base in 2012 and help offset Republican criticism of his job-creation record.

The State Department said on Thursday it would study a new route for TransCanada Corp's Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline, delaying a decision to approve or reject until 2013, well after the presidential election in November 2012.

That delay, which came in the wake of large protests by environmentalists, gave Obama and his re-election campaign relief from threats by core supporters they would stay clear of his re-election effort next year.

"Yesterday's announcement ... took a lot of courage and it's that kind of courage that gets people up off the couch, pushes people to go down to campaign offices and volunteer," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club environmental group.

The organization, which has 1.4 million members and supporters, said previously a decision in favor of the project would dent enthusiasm among its membership to campaign for the president.

Obama's political advisers took that threat seriously. Although the White House denied that political factors influenced the delay, the outcome reduced concerns the topic would continue making headlines in the middle of a tough re-election campaign.

"He will have to address the issue less, which is what he wants to do," said Hunter College political science professor Kenneth Sherrill.

Labor groups, another key constituency for Obama, a Democrat, were split over Keystone but the issue is unlikely to dent their support for him.

you've jumped all around with nothing that provides any reason to hold up the pipeline...it's being delayed...and probably killed for purely political and ideaological reasons....pretty sad
Actually my points were laid out in an organized manner with supporting documentation.

Further...

At the end of last month the Administration approved the southern portion of the pipeline that didn't require State Department approval. This will transport American oil and benefit the economy. He did this at the expense of some left wing support.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/science/earth/keystone-pipeline-permit-request-to-be-renewed.html

Your assertion that the pipeline has been killed for ideological reasons has just been evaporated by reality, something you would have known had you put your time in.

Additionally, environmental concerns still remain.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Impact-of-Tar-Sands-Pipeline-Spills.pdf

The State Department will need to conclude the new route reduces enough risk, but the project is clearly moving forward...albeit in a responsible manner. Not rushed by Republicans trying to score cheap points.

You should really bone up a little more before getting behind the keyboard.

-spence

The point being missed is that this oil was being refined here and then on the open market. This wasn't some secret deal w/ Canada that we could buy $100 oil.... it will likely end up in Asia or another market....

The point being missed is that this oil was being refined here and then on the open market. This wasn't some secret deal w/ Canada that we could buy $100 oil.... it will likely end up in Asia or another market....

Missed by some, I think I stated it a few times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the project is clearly moving forward...-spence

they didn't "approve the southern portion last month", it was already approved but held up by State pending approval of the rest:

The pipeline to which Obama alluded is only being constructed because TransCanada redefined the project to avoid the State Department's regulatory control over the Keystone XL pipeline. "[TransCanada] informed the DOS that what had been the Cushing to U.S. Gulf Coast portion of the Keystone XL Project has its own independent value to the marketplace and will be constructed as a stand-alone Gulf Coast Project, not part of the Presidential Permit process," the company announced two weeks ago.

Obama touts southern half of Keystone pipeline | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-touts-southern-half-keystone-pipeline/415821)


The State Department indicated last month that it would not expedite a review of any new application for the cross-border portion of the pipeline.

this is how you tell people that you approved something while cynically killing it....very Obama like :uhuh:

you should read your own links...P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L:uhuh:


"Opponents mounted two large protests around the White House last year, calling for an end to the project. Mr. Obama tried to finesse the issue by delaying a decision until after the presidential election, but Republicans in Congress forced his hand. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/science/earth/keystone-pipeline-permit-request-to-be-renewed.html[/url]






Confusion Surrounds Federal Review of Southern Leg of Keystone XL

Saturday 10 March 2012
by: Lisa Song, InsideClimate News | Report

TransCanada says it has most of the state permits it needs, but no one knows which federal agency will oversee the project's final environmental review.

TransCanada's decision last week to build the southern half of the rejected Keystone XL has raised a tricky question about who will regulate the project review.

The process could be stickier at the federal level. The U.S. State Department was the lead agency on the original Keystone XL because it crossed an international boundary. But so far, no agency has stepped forward to take responsibility for the Gulf Coast Project.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA—a section of the federal Department of Transportation that regulates interstate pipeline safety—will definitely play a role in the review process. But when InsideClimate News asked if PHMSA would lead the project review, we didn't get a direct answer.

"All pipelines must be designed and constructed to meet federal, state and local safety standards," Jeannie Layson, PHMSA's public affairs director, said in a statement. "DOT will help coordinate with federal partners and among state agencies to streamline the process and ensure a safe start to the new pipeline."

Howard said that one of TransCanada's regulatory lawyers has identified the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the lead agency.

But Army Corps spokesman Doug Garman said it's too early to speculate on the agency's role. The Army Corps has a responsibility under the Clean Water Act to regulate water permits for pipelines that cross streams and rivers, he said. "[Our] jurisdiction is just for work [concerning] waters of the U.S. and not for the entire pipeline route."

"At the moment, no permit applications have been provided and there have not been conversations with any other federal agencies," Garman told InsideClimate News.

Howard said TransCanada is trying to arrange meetings with the Army Corps to discuss what's needed for the pipeline permits. "It's our hope that we can begin construction this summer, and we're building our plans on that kind of timeframe. But obviously the actual timing depends on certain approvals being in place at certain times."

"At the moment, no permit applications have been provided and there have not been conversations with any other federal agencies," Garman told InsideClimate News.

But TransCanada's Howard said the Gulf Coast Project is a stand-alone pipeline with "its own independent commercial value." The pipeline would help relieve the current glut of oil at Cushing by moving excess crude oil to Texas, where it will be refined.

"We have sufficient contracts in place regardless of what happens" to the northern segment of Keystone XL, Howard said.

Droitsch argues that the Gulf Coast Project needs a comprehensive environmental impact statement, and that it's important to have a lead agency to coordinate the review process.

"If the State Department isn't able to oversee the Gulf Coast segment for obvious reasons, then that does not mean other parts of the Obama administration are off the hook for ensuring compliance with environmental and cultural preservation laws," she said.

The Keystone XL's Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), published in August, didn't adequately address issues of refinery emissions and pipeline safety, Droitsch said. She also pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency—which noted significant problems with earlier versions of the EIS—never submitted comments on the final document.

"As far as the environmental community is concerned, that [FEIS] was never completely final," she said.

Howard said the Gulf Coast Project will not require a new environmental impact study. Wanna Bet:uhuh:

"There's been three and a half years of environmental review on the entire pipeline route," he said. "Saying that there needs to be more environmental review on the same route is just a stalling tactic by professional activists."worked on the northern portion

.... it will likely end up in Asia or another market....

likely?

they didn't "approve the southern portion last month", it was already approved but held up by State pending approval of the rest:

This...

The pipeline to which Obama alluded is only being constructed because TransCanada redefined the project to avoid the State Department's regulatory control over the Keystone XL pipeline. "[TransCanada] informed the DOS that what had been the Cushing to U.S. Gulf Coast portion of the Keystone XL Project has its own independent value to the marketplace and will be constructed as a stand-alone Gulf Coast Project, not part of the Presidential Permit process," the company announced two weeks ago.

And this...

Are contradictory.

And yes, the State Department said they weren't going to expedite a review of the new proposal. That doesn't mean they're dragging their heels...it means they want to do their jobs.

You claim that Obama is trying to "kill" the pipeline for "ideological" reasons...yet the Administration is granting permits for new pipelines to be built, oil production is up and Transcanada is working to mitigate environmental concerns which are a US national interest.

Sounds more like Obama is pretty good at his job.

-spence

Sounds more like Obama is pretty good at his job.

-spence[/QUOTE]

the timeline tells the entire story

WIKI
The Keystone XL extension was proposed in 2008. The application was filed in the beginning of 2009 and the National Energy Board of Canada started hearings in September 2009. ] It was approved by the National Energy Board on March 11, 2010.[14] The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission granted a permit on February 19, 2010

On July 21, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency said the draft environmental impact study for Keystone XL was inadequate and should be revised, indicating that the State Department's original report was "unduly narrow" because it didn't fully look at oil spill response plans, safety issues and greenhouse gas concerns.

The U.S. Department of State in 2010 extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest.
The final environmental impact report was released on August 26, 2011. It stated that the pipeline would pose "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures are followed, but it would present "significant adverse effects to certain cultural resources."

In the summer and fall of 2011, protests brought the challenge to the White House, leading ultimately to the President's November, 2011 postponement of the decision until 2013.

The final environmental impact report was released on August 26, 2011. It stated that the pipeline would pose "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures are followed, but it would present "significant adverse effects to certain cultural resources."

In September, 2011, Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute released the results of the GLI KeystoneXL Report which evaluated the pipeline's impact on employment, the environment, energy independence, the economy, and other critical areas. (where Senator Bernie Sanders is apparently a frequent and admired speaker).

McKibben and other activists moved toward a new oppositional approach which coalesced in August with over 1000 nonviolent arrests at the White House. They promised to continue to challenge President Obama to stand by his 2008 call to "be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil" as he entered the 2012 reelection campaign.

On November 7, 2011, several thousand environmentalist supporters, some shouldering a long black inflatable replica of a pipeline, formed a human chain around the White House to try to convince Barack Obama to block the controversial Keystone XL project.

On November 10, 2011, four days after twelve thousand people encircled the White House, the culmination of months of protests, President Obama announced "the decision on the pipeline permit would be delayed until at least 2013, pending further environmental review".

On November 10, 2011, TransCanada stated they have spoken with the U.S. Department of State and will have conversations to discuss next steps. TransCanada pointed out fourteen different routes for Keystone XL were being studied, eight that impacted Nebraska. They included one potential alternative route in Nebraska that would have avoided the entire Sandhills region and Ogallala aquifer and six alternatives that would have reduced pipeline mileage crossing the Sandhills or the aquifer.

On November 22, 2011, the governor of Nebraska signed two bills that enacted a compromise agreed upon with the pipeline builder to move the route, and approved up to US$2 million in state funding for an environmental study.

On November 30, Senate Republicans introduced legislation aimed at forcing the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days, unless the president declares the project is not in the national interest.

In December 2011, Congress voted to give the Obama Administration a 60-day deadline to make a decision on TransCanada's application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

On January 18, 2012, President Obama rejected the application, stating that the deadline for the decision had "prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact.

February 9, 2012 REUTERS The State Department’s inspector general has found no conflict of interest or improper political influence in the agency’s review of the disputed Keystone XL pipeline project.

Mon Feb 27, 2012 CALGARY/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - TransCanada Corp said on Monday it will build the southern leg of its $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline first, skirting a full-blown U.S. review

Feb 27, 2012(USA TODAY) -- The Obama administration, eager to tamp down the Keystone XL oil pipeline as a 2012 election issue, saluted news today that a Canadian company will proceed with part of the project.

POLITICO 3/8/12 Senate sends message to Obama on Keystone
Thursday’s squeaker of a Senate vote on the Keystone XL pipeline serves both as a warning to President Barack Obama that a majority of both houses of Congress supports the pipeline. Obama had personally lobbied Senate Democrats with phone calls urging them to oppose an amendment to the highway bill that would fast-track the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline. And as it turned out, he needed every bit of their help.
In all, 11 Democrats joined 45 Republicans to support the pipeline. Only the fact that 60 votes were needed for passage saved the White House from an embarrassing defeat.


here's a great question...how many Obama voters were arrested in 2011????

Read through your own timeline again, it refutes your own argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read through your own timeline again, it refutes your own argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess you read and interpreted it in much the same way that you read and interpret our founding documents.:)