liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, again you're making up facts as you go along, that support your beliefs. Please state the law that guarantees workplace accessability to contraception.

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.

I see you haven't responded to the pesky first amendment.

Spence, the Bill Of Rights applies to everyon, even those you disagree with. It's tough, I admit. Freedom of expression means some jerk can hang a picture of Christ covered in fecal matter. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds stopping it. Freedom of the press means that tabloid journalists can report smut. I don't like it, but I don't want the feds outlawing it. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a peaceful rally. I don't like it, but I dodn't want the feds stopping it. And LIKE IT OR NOT, freedom of religion means that Catholics have the right to teach that contraception is wrong.

If enough peopl eagree with you, then you go ahead and amend the constitution. Until then, neither you nor Obama has the right to selectively apply the rights protected by the first amendment.

Spence, I posted the relevent portion of the first amendment. You keep referring to legally protected access to contraception. I keep asking you to postthe law saying that employers are obligated to provide contraception, even if the employer is a religious institution. You havern't posted that law, but you keep referring to freedom of access of contraception.

Kindly post said law, or admit that you made it up please. Is that too much to ask?

Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

[scottw]

creating a "legal mandate" forcing private insurers(companies) to provide a product, for free, with no co-pay and effectively forcing institutions(who may be self-insurers and may be Catholic or otherwise) who pay for or sponsor the service(insurance) to provide something which may contradict their religious or moral teaching and belief is a usurpation of the Constitution....and it's just the beginning



yes Spence...the insurers are targets

“The private market is in a death spiral,” Sebelius said

Later on Tuesday, in an address to the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, Sebelius discussed the “broken” health insurance system that Obamacare aims to fix.

Sebelius said that the next “important step” in implementing the president's health care plan is to establish “essential health benefits”--the basic package of coverage that the federal government will order all health insurance plans to cover.

The Affordable Care Act outlines 10 areas of basic coverage, including preventive services, prescription drugs, pediatric care and hospital services. The "preventive services" area is the one under which the administration has already ordered that all health insurance plans must cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that induce abortions, without charging any fees or co-pay to insured workers and their dependents.

[spence]

The Federal Government has been setting minimum national standards for health insurance since the 1980's.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The Federal Government has been setting minimum national standards for health insurance since the 1980's.

-spence

and ...that...means????

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay..

It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers.

Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.
-spence

oh brother

you forgot the part about Obamacare mandating insurance coverage....one thing leads to another...very conveniently I suppose

you may also want to remember that the contraception mandate was not part of the original law that was dubiously passed...what was passed gave power to Sebilius to defiine at a later date what constituted and could be mandated for certain care, the possibilities may be endless....I guess if you don't mind laws like these being passed giving people like Sebilius(or perhaps someone who you disagree with) a very wide berth to determine and mandate what does and does not constitute certain care free or otherwise....or anything else....the pendulum swings both ways

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;926156]
"maybe not all liberals behave like this, or even approve of it. But (1) I don't hear a lot of liberals chastising this behavior, and (2) when you hear of this behavior, it's virtually always liberals who do it. Almost always."

Didn't you see my post saying I didn't approve of the behavior? And I didn't see any conserv. chastising the behavior of calling woman sluts and prostitutes (sure there was some half hearted comments after the uproar - but conserv. constantly insult people they don't like. You yourself call woman vile names on this site.

"Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies"

One or two posters out of hundreds, and there are liberal groups that now admit to planting people at Tea Party Rallies with racist signs to discredit the group (how is that for civilized debate).

"So if I pull up a picture of a leader of the teabaggers with a racist sign that doesn't that discredit this comment?"

Paul, I'm sorry that there's an endless list of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes your side look uncivilized. That's not my fault.

And Jim, I'm sorry there is a whole lost of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes "your side" look classless and uncivilized. That is not my fault. PS - I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."

"the teabagger rallies"

And there's that liberal hypocrisy. You tell me I'm offensive, yet you see nothing wrong with calling me a tea bagger, simply because - OH MY GOODNESS- I feel fiscal responsibility is better than fiscal suicide.

"Wasn't that what they refered what they refered themselves to? Frankly I'm just responding to your posts."

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Nice respect toward a US Supreme Court Judge.

And insulting our President by lying about his religion and where he was born- Nice respect towards our President.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...this is absurd...companies, institutions and organizations set standards with regard to "standards".. behaviour ,dress codes, fraternization policies, even speech.....etc...all the time....the test is that it apply equally and that noone is treated unequally.....Ms. Fluke is not being treated unequally within the institution....she's not being singled out and denied access to contraception( if she purchases contraception I doubt anyone is going to confiscate it), she just not receiving something free through the institution(or via it's insurer) that conflicts with the institutions policies and morals and what you have pointed out is that now a questionable government mandate is something that she is pointing to and applauding....it should be part of the upcoming argument in the Supreme Court on the subject....it's the government, specifically Congress that that is restricted from implementing these restrictions...not private institutions, organizations and companies...instead of the Rasmussen book, you should grab something on our founding documents and then tell me which "Right" Ms. Fluke is being denied and which "Liberty" had been taken away

The constitutionality of the mandate is a separate topic, although the polls I've seen show about 65% support for it in regards to contraception.

The issue still is if it's OK for a religious institution to be exempt from Federal law. There are numerous state laws which offer similar mandates so the First Amendment argument Jim is grasping for doesn't seem reasonable.

Considering Justice Scalia's comments on Indians smoking peyote for religious reasons...I'm not so sure there's a good argument at the Federal level either.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The constitutionality of the mandate is a separate topic, although the polls I've seen show about 65% support for it in regards to contraception.
it's not at all a separate topic...we wouldn't be having this discussion if the democrats hadn't rammed constitutionally questionable legislation through congress which gave a political appointee the broad power to arbitrarily create mandates ....and "rights" apparently....a number of democrats would not have supported the legislation if this were spelled out at the time the legislation was passed and I'm pretty sure that some of them have said that they would not have been on board if they knew that this was going to result...this is insane Spence and you continue to not only support it but make excuses for it....... your poll doesn't mean squat

The issue still is if it's OK for a religious institution to be exempt from Federal law. no, it is whether the federal government can force a religious institution to conform to an arbitrary and questionable federal mandate which violates their religious principles and was created as a result of a questionable federal law, have you forgotten the dubious way in which the law was actually passed??? you are on very weak ground when you refer to it as "Federal Law" There are numerous state laws which offer similar mandates so the First Amendment argument Jim is grasping for doesn't seem reasonable. there's a big difference between what the states can mandate and the Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, another thing that you seem to not understand

Considering Justice Scalia's comments on Indians smoking peyote for religious reasons...I'm not so sure there's a good argument at the Federal level either.

-spence

this is really basic stuff Spence..but somehow, like our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief, you spend all of your time and supposed knowledge undermining the Constitution...

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;926379]... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types on most issues and many on the right, you'll likely note that much of what is being debated in this current election was addressed quite thoroughly by Reagan...you should spend some time

here's one that is currently applicable..his radio addresses were brilliant..1961

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman Administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the- door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.


funny how history repeats itself

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general.

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA

Pennsylvania Legislature swears in new members; GOP has majority
Tuesday, January 04, 2011,
By The Associated Press The Associated Press

The Pennsylvania General Assembly began its new legislative session today by swearing in new and returning members and electing Republican veterans to lead each chamber.

Twenty-one freshmen Republicans and eight new Democrats were sworn in to the House, and Jefferson County Republican Sam Smith was elected speaker. The Senate swore in 25 members, including three Democratic freshmen, and elected Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, to a third term as president pro tempore.

Neither Smith nor Scarnati was opposed.

Smith urged members to live up to the responsibilities of their office, and gave the freshman class particular advice. "Don't read your own news releases, keep your feet on the ground and be mindful of why you wanted to be here and why the voters elected you," Smith said.

With both the House and Senate in GOP hands, and Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett preparing to be inaugurated Jan. 18, the Capitol is poised to take a rightward turn from the divided government of recent years. State government's massive deficit will be their first challenge.

House Republicans regained the majority in the November election after two terms in the minority; their margin is 112-91. The Senate has been firmly in GOP hands for many years, and its majority is currently 30-20. Each house also has a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic lawmaker.

I also count 1 Republican Senator and 1 Democrat Senator as well as 12 Republican Congresspeople and 7 Democrat Congresspeople

which Pennsylvania were you referring to ????

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty. It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
BIG difference and the whole point of the discussion. Liberty does not equal paying for it!
You dont have to have sex. I am bald, should my company HAVE to pay for Rogain. No, its not essential to my health.


I support insurance co covering it for all, but I also respect religious organizations beliefs and their right to exercise them. Where are all the libs that were foaming at the mouth over the Islamic center in NYC? Wasnt religious freedom the whole argument for it?
Liberal tolerance......

FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com


You can believe and speak about whatever you want as long as liberals dont disagree with it,.......tolerance my arse

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.


Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

" never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

First of all, you said this on this thread...

"Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception"

That's your quote. If you concede that there is NO LAW WHATSOEVER that requires employers to offer contraception, then why are we having this conversation? If there is no such law, from where does Obama get the authority to order an employer (Catholic Church) to offer contraceptives to its employees?

Spence, it seems like you're all over the place here...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I never stated that Federal law "guarantees workplace accessability to contraception."

Again, you're making things up to accuse someone of making things up! Good lord it's chronic...

The 2010 HCB does mandate that health insurance providers cover contraception without copay.. It's a law targeted at insurers rather than employers. That's what the Blundt Amendment was trying to change.


Nobody is seeking to infringe on the rights of Catholics to teach that contraception is immoral. Although, you might question the effectiveness of such teaching considering that the vast majority of Catholic women are reported to have used contraception.

The Catholic Church is free to teach what they want, what they can't do is restrict an insurance company from covering contraception in violation of current law.

-spence

"you might question the effectiveness of such teaching"

No, you and your liberal ilk should question the effectiveness of contraception. When libs demanded that contraception be made universally available diring the sexual revolution, they said that contraceptives would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and STD's. Turns out, your side could not have been more wrong (as usual), as the numbers of those things have skyrocketed now that we have transformed sex into a casual thing.

Not a great cultural leap forward in my book.

And refraining from the use of contraceptives is not a "binding belief" of the catechism. Some beliefs are "binding" - meaning, you are not allowed to disoute that Jesus is the son of God. Other beliefs (like saying the rosary, refraining from contraceptives) are non-binding.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

Where to begin?

You're saying today's Democrats aren't more liberal than a generation ago? Condoms in elementary schools? Partial birth abortions? Willfully ignoring immigration laws? Giving public labor unions a blank check? Pretending that we're not at war with Islamic terrorists?

"Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's"

Yeah, Newt was a real nut. He (along with Bill Clinton, who I assume you also consider a right-wing nut) balanced the budget, cut spending, cut taxes, and got millions of welfare recipients back to work. God knows, none of those ideas has any usefulness today, right, Zimmy?

Our country is more polarized today than at any time since the Civil War, and I'm as guilty of that as anybody. Any group that thinks murderers have more of a right to live than unborn babies, who think that affirmative action isn't clearly unconstitutional, who is afraid to admit that there's any such thing as Islamic terrorists, who thinks it's OK to ignore immigration laws, and who thinks it's OK for states to go bankrupt to enrich public labor unions, is kooky in my opinion.

My side stands for individual freedom, compassion for those who need it, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, supporting the free market. I can see how Zimmy sees these ideas as radical.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

no company is denying access, they are denying paying for it. you and everyone else is free to get whatever birth control is legal. Its not a law that it has to be free.
FCC should clear Limbaugh from airwaves - CNN.com

I'd love to see Spence try to respond to this in a rational way.

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you keep saying that the Catholic church is "denying access". In what way are they denying access? If my employer won't give me a free Porsche, are they denhying my access to owning a Porsche?

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.

The Catholic Church isn't telling these folks they can't use birth control. The Catholic Church is saying they cannot be forced to pay for it, because that requires them to abandon their religious beliefs, and they are correct.

The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....predictable you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the statist bunch that curently inhabits Washington...your arguments indicate that you don't think the government is limited by the Constitution as long as it in regard to things that you approve of

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

wow....yup..that's what you exhale when you seek to continue right along undermining the Constitution....very weak...and predictable you could argue that the government might madate just about anything throwing around all sorts of numbers and claims....the crux of the argument is the overreaching of the bunch that curently inhabits Washington

Allysia Finley: Coffee Is an Essential Benefit Too - WSJ.com

I think the crux of the argument is ensuring people get a base level of care in their insurance.

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche.


The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything.

First off, the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy.

Second, in the compromise position (when Obama reached across the aisle) institutions with moral objections would have been afforded an exemption from the contraception provision...under the assumption the insurance provider could offer it directly and at no cost to the insured.

-spence

"There is no Federal law stating your employer must give you a Porsche."

Spence, you keep spinning in circles here, so let's make it simply clear.

Is there, or is there not, a law which compels employers to offer free contraception to employees?

"The Catholic Church wasn't ever asked to pay for anything"

They weren't? Spence, here you go making it up as you go along. That's what started all of this, Obama wanted the church to pay for contraception.

"the analysis shows that the provision for contraception doesn't add to the total cost of coverage. The math is simple, a few hundred dollars in pills is a lot cheaper than several thousands for an unplanned pregnancy."

That math may be simple, but it's also tragically flawed. First, if you assume that every single woman denied contraception has an unwanted pregnancy, then maybe it's cheaper to give her contraception. And maybe not, because are you sure an abortion costs more than a "few hundred dollars"?

Second, that analysis assumes that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies. If that were true (and that's demonstrably false), why have there been so many more kids born out of wedlock AFTER contraception was made widely available?

Third, Catholics aren't concerned about dollars, we are concerned with that pesky First Amendment. you know, the one that liberals hold up to support the right of pornographers? Freedom of religion happens to be in there too.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You have the liberty issue backwards. Letting a company deny legally protected access to contraception through insurance for moral reasons is taking away someone's liberty.

Liberty is freedom from coercion. This includes freedom from coercive association. ALL parties in an association must be free from coercion, the employer as well as the employee in this case. You seem to feel that it is only the employee's freedom which must be protected. The Federal Government (unconstitutionally) mandated (through unelected bureaucrats of the NLRB) that employers must bargain collectively with unions under some guise of free association (free for employees, but not for employers who MUST associate with the collective group and cannot collude, associate, with other employers as a collective group). Though Ms. Fluke is not a member of a union, she is free to bargain for certain benefits, and the Church is free to agree or not--that is, in the world that the Constitution envisions. Of course, in the progressive world of our Administrative State, it is not up to either Ms. Fluke, nor up to the Church to bargain for or against something that a particular unelected administrator wishes to impose--for whatever reason that administrator wishes to conjure up. Nor does the administrator of this new regulatory agency need to feel any compunction to follow a pattern regulated by another regulatory agency (bargaining). As we keep "progressing" down this road toward complete Central planning and regulation, we can more blatantly dictate.

It's saying that the religious belief supersedes US Law...which is exactly what the Constitution sought to prohibit.

-spence

Herein lies the dissonence in arguments about what the Constitution sought to prohibit. The Constitution PLAINLY circumscribes the limits of Federal power. But the Federal Government has PLAINLY exceeded those limits--to a point nearing omnipotence so that the Constitution can prohibit nothing. The Constitution, as written and intended, is irrelevant. It is the Federal Government now that does the granting and prohibiting. When some of us argue that a Federal mandate is unconstitutional, we are speaking in terms of the Constitution that was originally, clearly, plainly, written and intended. And the original intentions were clearly debated and recorded during and after the Constitutional convention and well after in commentaries by the founders and framers. When others argue about current legally protected "liberties" they are speaking of mandates created, for the most part, by unelected, unrepresentative Federal regulatory agencies, the existence of which does not comport with the Constitution.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Coffee and Mormons? Really?

-spence

points out the absurdity of your argument if this is the road that you want to go down setting a precedent to have future Congresses ramming legislation through in the manner that Obamacare was achieved, among other things, granting broad power to political appointees to create questionable mandates at will ....

The Times of London 1846

The greatest tyranny has the smallest beginnings. From precedents overlooked, from remonstrances despised, from grievances treated with ridicule, from powerless men oppressed with impunity, and overbearing men tolerated with complaisance, springs the tyrannical usage which generations of wise and good men may hereafter perceive and lament and resist in vain.

At present, common minds no more see a crushing tyranny in a trivial unfairness or a ludicrous indignity, than the eye uninformed by reason can discern the oak in the acorn, or the utter desolation of winter in the first autumnal fall. Hence the necessity of denouncing with unwearied and even troublesome perseverance a single act of oppression. Let it alone, and it stands on record. The country has allowed it, and when it is at last provoked to a late indignation it finds itself gagged with the record of its own ill compliance.


our founding documents

affirm individual rights(which pre-exist government "US Law")
acknowledge state's rights
limit the federal government's ability to infinge on those rights

like I said, not complicated...all of the numbers and talking points and spinning mean nothing...the answer/solution lies herein

hey Detbuch, did you know I was born in Ann Arbor, we were practically neighbors

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA

There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2.

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=scottw;926385]

Originally Posted by zimmy

... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types

Tefra, Payroll taxes, amnesty for illegals. You apparently aren't very familiar with his policies? His words may jive with the flea party, but his policies aren't even close.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2


Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general.

Republican Governor
Republican controlled state senate
Republican controlled state house of reps
1:1 Senators
12:7 Republican Conresspeople

apparently they aren't voting for democrats very much

what is your definition of "barely competitive"?

how do I "change what you say" if I quote you exactly?

never mind..I get it...

Originally Posted by zimmy

Even if your point is 100% true, it is pretty much irrelevant.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

how do I "change what you say" if I quote you exactly?

By taking my statement that the Republicans I knew growing up have switched or are independent and spinning it to "Yup, there are barely any Republicans left in PA." I know some in these forums like to pretend this is a jury'd professional journal and get antsy if the information isn't sited in APA format, so here at least is a link.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...y_teixeira.pdf

"Political shifts in Pennsylvania since 1988 have seen the growing eastern part of the state swing toward the Democrats, producing four [actually, 5 and looking like 6] straight presidential victories for that party. "

Sort of supports what I said in my post, though not necessarily your "interpretation" of what I said.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Sort of supports what I said in my post, though not necessarily your "interpretation" of what I said.

???
not really...but this is fun...like a conversation with my 8 year olds

Noun 1. general election - a national or state election; candidates are chosen in all constituencies

Wiki (ZIMMY)Answers

What is a general election?

In: Politics and Government, Elections, Political Parties

A general election is an election in which all or most members of a given political body are up for election.

General election is also a term used in opposition to primary election. In the United States, primary elections serve to narrow down a field of candidates, and general elections actually elect candidates to offices. The general election is usually held on Election Day, the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years.
It meets the above definition of "general election" in that the entire United States House of Representatives is elected on Election Day, though not the entire United States Congress. Prior to the 17th Amendment, members of the United States Senate were not directly elected by the people but rather by their state legislature. Though Senators have been directly elected since then, only one-third of them are up for election on any given Election Day. The U.S. President is also chosen during a November general election that follows primaries.


Originally Posted by zimmy
There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2. doesn't show based on the Pa election outcomes....see above

Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. Originally Posted by zimmy



show me where Pa(Republicans) is/are "barely competitive " in the general election which is what I had issue with and why I put it in bold and pointed out(pretty clearly) the error in that statement...