Bible Study by Consensus, a Liberal Approach to Faith

Or something like that because, oy VEY, is that hacktastic, asinine ape, Nick Kristof, ever bereft of a Clue™!

Perhaps we should provide him with one. We have one taped right here to this nice tool that we like to refer to as the Imperial ClueBat™.

I MAY not be as theologically sophisticated as American bishops,

Actually, we very much doubt that your relative sophistication in any area would impress anybody much, but we digress.

but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.

You might want to pick up an actual Bible one day and, what’s the word we’re looking for here?, oh yes: READ it. Helping the poor is certainly a worthy pursuit. After all, “there but for the Grace of G-d” and all that, but we very much doubt, mainly based on having actually read the document that you reach for in a pathetic and highly ineffectual call to authority, that G-d the Almighty placed His only son on Earth to suffer persecution, torture and death just so He could drive the point home that we need to “help the poor.” But we’re sure that you are going to need that tired leftist shibboleth later on to bolster the retarded parody of an argument that you’re going to make.

Dear L-rd are we ever tired of leftists using the Bible as an argument when it’s quite self-evident that they’ve never even opened it to the first page.

Oh, as an aside: Yes, helping the poor is a Good Thing™ if you’re a Christian, but we like to place an emphasis on the word “help.” Keeping the poor as a dependent underclass of helpless saps is not “helping.”

And what’s this about bishops “banning contraceptives?” Did we fall asleep and wake up in an America where bishops are part of the Legislature? We mean, we were constantly told by mental under-achievers like Kristof that the Horrid BushHitler Regime would bring about something very much like that, but didn’t he leave office three years ago?

Once more for the Dimwit Gallery: Refusing to fund something isn’t “banning” it.

The debates about pelvic politics over the last week sometimes had a patronizing tone, as if birth control amounted to a chivalrous handout to women of dubious morals.

It’s only a “handout” if somebody else is paying for it, but, apart from noting that you’re still not making any sense at all, do go on.

On the contrary, few areas have more impact on more people than birth control — and few are more central to efforts to chip away at poverty.

Because those damn poor people breed, so why don’t we just kill them all off already.

We don’t know about our own level of theological sophistication, but we’re pretty sure that Jesus didn’t ever suggest anything like that.

My well-heeled readers will be furrowing their brows at this point. Birth control is cheap, you’re thinking, and far less expensive than a baby (or an abortion). But for many Americans living on the edge, it’s a borderline luxury.

Newsflash: Keeping your knees together and your pants on is absolutely, positively free! And the pill is about the same price as two packs of cigarettes a month if you live in New York.

A 2009 study looked at sexually active American women of modest means, ages 18 to 34, whose economic circumstances had deteriorated. Three-quarters said that they could not afford a baby then.

Don’t have one then. It’s quite easy to avoid and it doesn’t cost a dime.

Yet 30 percent had put off a gynecological or family-planning visit to save money.

$20/month?

If the pleasure of sex without having to unduly worry about being “punished with a baby” isn’t worth 5 gallons of ObamaGas a month to you, then you not having any at all probably isn’t all that much of a sacrifice to begin with.

More horrifying, of those using the pill, one-quarter said that they economized by not taking it every day. (My data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health.)

HORRIFYING!

Quit using hyperbole, Nicky-boy. You’re not very good at it. It only makes you look even more silly.

One-third of women in another survey said they would switch birth control methods if not for the cost. Nearly half of those women were relying on condoms, and others on nothing more than withdrawal.

The cost of birth control is one reason poor women are more than three times as likely to end up pregnant unintentionally as middle-class women.

Those damn twenty bucks a month! Keeping America’s poor barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!

In short, birth control is not a frill that can be lightly dropped to avoid offending bishops. Coverage for contraception should be a pillar of our public health policy — and, it seems to me, of any faith-based effort to be our brother’s keeper, or our sister’s.

“Keeping” my brothers and sisters does not, to the best of our knowledge, include assuming responsibility for the cost of having them enjoy their promiscuity safely. At least not in any Christian denomination that we’re aware of. Well, maybe the Episcopalians, but they hardly qualify as Christian in the first place, seeing as how they treat the Bible as an interesting thesis open to discussion.

To understand the centrality of birth control, consider that every dollar that the United States government spends on family planning reduces Medicaid expenditures by $3.74,

We’re sure that funny smell in the room has nothing to do with you pulling yet another meaningless number out of your ample arse. Not that it matters, really, because we can show that 25 cents spent on a .45 ACP FMJ bullet will reduce lifetime government expenditures on any individual by a pretty astronomical amount, yet we’re not running around advocating that we should just shoot the poor in the back of their heads.

according to Guttmacher. Likewise, the National Business Group on Health estimated that it costs employers at least an extra 15 percent if they don’t cover contraception in their health plans.

How so? Because of maternity leaves? Who made that a mandate? We’re pretty sure it wasn’t Jesus.

And of course birth control isn’t just a women’s issue: men can use contraceptives too, and unwanted pregnancies affect not only mothers but also fathers.

Primarily by making them realize that actions have consequences which, as far as we’re concerned, is a lesson they should have learned long before they reached the age where they could reproduce. But our unionized publik skools are more interested in teaching them how to fist each other, which makes parenting sort of difficult.

This is the backdrop for the uproar over President Obama’s requirement that Catholic universities and hospitals include birth control in their health insurance plans. On Friday, the White House backed off a bit — forging a compromise so that unwilling religious employers would not pay for contraception, while women would still get the coverage — but many administration critics weren’t mollified.

“Compromise?”

What the Ogabe Junta proposed was that all insurance companies henceforth had to provide indiscriminate fuck protection for “free” so the ones paying for the policies wouldn’t be “paying” for it and, hey presto, nobody is forced to fund contraception against their Constitutionally protected freedom of religion! Yep, the Ogabe Junta just waved their magic wand and decreed that henceforth contraception and abortion would cost nothing, which might be a tough sell to the industry and doctors providing it, and we use the term “doctor” very loosely here, since it seems to us that chopping up a human being with an intrauterine blender conflicts a bit with the Hippocratic Oath, particularly the “do no harm” bit.

And since we’re already being unreasonable, we will go out on a limb here and suggest that the ones making pills, rubbers and shoving Cuisinarts up the cootches of women might still insist on being paid, which means that the insurance provider will have to shell out some shekels which, again, means that they’ll have to pass on that cost to somebody. Somebody like, say, the ones paying for the insurance policies.

Some “compromise” that is!

Look, there’s a genuine conflict here. Many religious believers were sincerely offended that Catholic institutions would have to provide coverage for health interventions that the church hierarchy opposed. That counts in my book: it’s best to avoid forcing people to do things that breach their ethical standards.

No. It’s not “best.” It’s paramount. And if you don’t believe us, try forcing us to do something that violates our core values. A word of advice, though: You won’t like the result.

Then again, it’s not clear how many people actually are offended. A national survey found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use birth control at some point in their lives. Moreover, a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute reported that even among Catholics, 52 percent back the Obama policy: they believe that religiously affiliated universities and hospitals should be obliged to include birth control coverage in insurance plans.

Hooray! It’s settled then! We can see the headline now:

“Word of G-d Voted Down by 52-48, Bible No Longer Relevant!” Fine, but you’d no longer be a Christian. The Episcopalians are looking for converts, though, so you might try there. What’s next? “Poll Shows that 53% of Christians See Nothing Wrong with Coveting their Neighbor’s Wife, 10th Commandment Struck Down by Majority Vote.”

We’re beginning to see what you mean by your early admission of lack of theological sophistication, Nicky-dear, because it’s obvious that you wouldn’t recognize faith if it jumped up and started chewing on your nipple rings.

You’re really taking this whole “science by consensus” Glowbull Wormening a bit too far there.

You might have a point in arguing that the Bible doesn’t specifically mention Trojans or the pill, but if that’s your point you need to take it up with your church or leave it altogether. That’s why His Imperial Majesty had to stop considering himself a Methodist and leave that church when they came up with the brilliant idea of divesting themselves of investments in Israel because they thought they were being too mean to the darling Paleoswinians. You see, we had actually read all the way to Genesis 12:3, so we knew at that moment that even suggesting punishing G-d’s chosen people was wrong, and we concluded that a church that hadn’t even made it through the first book of the Bible wasn’t one we could belong to.

But that’s not the point. The point IS that faith isn’t decided by majority vote. The Bible isn’t a “helpful list of suggestions”.

So, does America’s national health policy really need to make a far-reaching exception for Catholic institutions when a majority of Catholics oppose that exception?

It’s quite simple, really: If you oppose the doctrine of the Catholic church, then you’re not a Catholic and you don’t even get a vote. You may self-identify as a Catholic as much as you want, but you aren’t one, any more than His Majesty could call himself a “Methodist” once he realized that he didn’t agree with the leadership of the Methodist church. This is not a value judgment. You can disagree with the Catholic church’s rulings on contraception all day long and it doesn’t make you a Bad Person™, it just makes you Not A Catholic™. The doctrine of your chosen church (remember: You don’t HAVE to stay in it if you don’t agree with it) is no more optional than it’s optional for a Christian to believe that Jesus Christ was G-d’s only begotten son.

I wondered what other religiously affiliated organizations do in this situation. Christian Science traditionally opposed medical care. Does The Christian Science Monitor deny health insurance to employees?

“We offer a standard health insurance package,” John Yemma, the editor, told me.

That makes sense.

It does only if you were right to begin with which, as seems to be usual for you, is never the case. The Christian Science church never prohibited medical care, they just don’t believe in it. Therefore allowing their members to use it isn’t a contradiction.

After all, do we really want to make accommodations across the range of faith?

We do if we want to treat the Constitution’s First Amendment as more than toilet paper, which it is pretty evident that you do not.

What if organizations affiliated with Jehovah’s Witnesses insisted on health insurance that did not cover blood transfusions? What if ultraconservative Muslim or Jewish organizations objected to health care except at sex-segregated clinics?

What if indeed? Would it keep Jehovah’s Witnesses from getting blood transfusions anyway? Would it keep Muslims and Orthodox Jews from going to mixed sex clinics? No it wouldn’t. It would just keep them from demanding that their chosen churches fund their violations of the faith that they profess to hold. Freedom of religion. Do you UNDERSTAND it, motherfucker?

The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.

No. The basic principle of American life as outlined in the Constitution is that we DO respect religious beliefs. We don’t “try” to. That’s what a lot of religious people from Europe escaped from: The governments not “trying” hard enough. Freedom of religion is like freedom of speech: There are no degrees of it. Either you have it, or you don’t.

But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

That’s an interesting point, actually. But let’s first point out that there is a huge difference between prohibiting you from engaging in behavior that you want to engage in and forcing you to engage in behavior that you don’t. Prohibiting muslims from stoning gays is not the same as forcing Christians to do so.

Yes, we do modify freedom of religion to the extent that you’re not allowed to do something, no matter how much it goes against your faith, that will hurt others. That is THE core concept of the Constitution: You have a right to do whatever you want to do as long as you do no harm to the rights of others. His Imperial Majesty has a Constitutional right to carry around an arsenal that would make a Marine blanch, but he does not have the right to use it to kill anybody he doesn’t like. You do have a right to speak freely, but you do not have a right to libel and slander people.

And that’s where the issue of polygamy gets interesting because, quite honestly, as long as said polygamy is done with the happy consent of every party involved, we have a hard time trying to see where that harms anybody. Yes, we’re against it personally, but we just can’t see where the government gets the Constitutional authority to ban it outright unless it involves coercion or the intrusion upon the rights of others.

But we digress. The thing is that prohibiting people from doing what they faith says is OK is NOT the same as forcing them to do something that their faith clearly states is NOT OK.

In this case, we should make a good-faith effort to avoid offending Catholic bishops who passionately oppose birth control.

In other words: Lie.

Thanks. We knew that already.

I’m glad that Obama sought a compromise. But let’s remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops’ sensibilities and women’s health, our national priority must be the female half of our population.

Still trying to get laid, Nicky? With your looks and advanced age, we can’t say that we blame you for getting desperate. But it’s not an argument.

For one thing, pregnancy is not a “health issue.” Pregnancy is not a disease.

For another, unprotected sex is a choice. Nobody is putting a gun to your head forcing you to hump ugly.

Unless we’re talking about you, personally, trying to finally experience an orgasm before you die of old age, but that’s hardly an issue requiring federal intervention. You have a right hand that will do the trick.

Thatisall.

80 comments

  1. 1
    red_five growls and barks:

    What is it the libtards always tell us conservatives when we don’t like the content of a TV or radio program? Does “change the channel” ring any bells? For those “Catholics” who want to force the Church to change it’s beliefs because they’re “old-fashioned”, because they don’t like something that is a core belief of the Church: “change the channel”. Find another church whose beliefs you can tolerate more. The UCC might be more your speed, or the aforementioned Episcopal Church.

    And to you libtards outside the Catholic Church who are trying to ram this crap down the Church’s throat (Nicky, call your office): Fuck you and the maggot-infested glue-factory rejects you rode in on. You literally have no right to demand the Church support anything it believes is wrong. They don’t want to pay for birth control for female employees of Catholic-operated institutions? Great! They’d rather not have any homosexuals involved in their childrens’ programs? Fan-fucking-tastic! You intolerant shit-stains; would you be jumping all over the Muslims if they were the ones with this rejection of all forms of birth control? (We who have actual brains know that you wouldn’t. Muslims stone gays for being gay! crickets… Muslims stone women for getting raped! crickets…) Would you be beating Jeremiah Wright to a pulp if he were a black racist dumbass? (oh, wait, he was, and you didn’t) You’re riding a greased pole straight to Hell, and your rocket pack is throttled up to escape velocity.

    Hey, baby factories! You don’t want to pop out a(nother) kid? Keep your damn legs shut! Or demand a friggin’ rubber. If the dude refuses to wrap his pecker, politely demand he visit Mary Palm and her five little sisters instead. Abstinence works, every single time it’s tried. If it didn’t work, it wasn’t abstinence!

    Damn, but this shit pisses me off!

  2. 2
    Cannon Fodder growls and barks:

    But we ban polygamy, for example, even for the pious. Your freedom to believe does not always give you a freedom to act.

    I think he may be technically wrong here. the government has banned it in the sense that you can’t “legally” marry more than one person, but in the eyes of the church is another matter. I do believe that some Mormon’s practice polygamy in this country, just not truly a “legal” form.

  3. 3
    sleeper growls and barks:

    Dude! Where are you getting .45 ACP for 25 cents a round?

  4. 4
    dcs2244 growls and barks:

    I’m glad that Obama sought a compromise. But let’s remember that there are also other interests at stake. If we have to choose between bishops’ sensibilities and women’s health, our national priority must be the female half of our population.

    Compromise? G_D doesn’t compromise, especially not with would-be tinhorn dictators.

  5. 5
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    red_five says:

    What is it the libtards always tell us conservatives when we don’t like the content of a TV or radio program? Does “change the channel” ring any bells?

    Actually, it’s the conservatives who tell that to the liberals. If the liberals don’t like with they are hearing, they demand that the person be removed from radio/tv/newspaper/internet. If you disagree with them, then they want you to shut up, and they call you a nazi.

  6. 6
    Igor, Imperial Booby growls and barks:

    Not only read the Good Book, but read it with the Spirit to get all the true meanings of what is in it. Something that is far, FAR beyond Nickky’s capacity, apparently…

  7. 7
    BigDogg growls and barks:

    sleeper says:

    Dude! Where are you getting .45 ACP for 25 cents a round?

    My guess is that’s low-grain target ammo. :em05:

  8. 8
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    I don’t understand — when did having a baby become a punishment? I mean, people were squatting in the mud and squeezing out babies in the stone age, and I challenge anyone to suggest that stone age barbarians were better off than our “poor” (who have TV,s Iphones, Cars, etc…).

    Seriously, what the hell is it with people hating the idea of paying for a kid? I mean, people are SUPPOSED to reproduce. Oh wait, we’re a society where gucci bags, casual sex and frat parties are more important than family.

    What’s next? Telling the Catholic Church it has to buy Coach Purses for all its female constituency?

  9. 9
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    This isn’t about condoms or about birth control pills, since anyone with a body-temperature IQ knows they can go to Planned Parenthood or the county health department and get them for free. Nope, I remember back a little while ago I heard a news story about the morning-after pill being sold from vending machines in a college someplace. I’m pretty sure that’s where this is headed. After that, abortions. But the overriding objective here is to make the population dependent upon the government. The people who are cranking out these little roaches are the so-called “lower class”. The more welfare babies they squeeze out, the more cash the government gives them, and they create the next generation of democrat voters. We’ve seen what has happened…without the structure of a family, they become feral and the middle class demands the government protect them from the savages who live within the inner city. All this, while the nascent nobility improves their position, consolidates their power, and lives within their isolated, guarded, luxurious havens.

    While they enjoy the immunity provided by their power and position, it remains upon the middle class to pay for keeping the savages at bay. No one wants to face the problem, since there are no good solutions. The left asks, “would you let the children starve?” or “Someone’s going to have to pay for the children if they aren’t provided birth control.”

    If I say, “Fuck them. Let them starve before they have a chance to breed a new generation,” I’m seen as some vicious, nazi bastard. But this isn’t avoiding that rather dreadful end…it’s simply kicking the can down the road for a generation or two. Eventually, the resources are going to run out. When that happens, what will it look like? Zombie apocalypse?

    No one even wants to contemplate the alternatives. Sure, the best course of action is to get people away from being dependent upon the government, but that would not fit in with the plans of Those Who Would Be Royalty.

  10. 10
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    While, indeed, the Bible tells us to help the poor, in every case it is voluntary. The apostle Paul also said, “if a man does not want to work, neither let him eat.” Which very plainly means get off your ass and do for yourself if you can. No where in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament, nor the New Testament, nor in the words of Jesus, nor of the apostles was anyone forced to support the poor, whether those poor were deserving of help or not.
    And, while we’re on the subject, where is the much vaunted wall of separation of church and state on this subject?
    Also, one more time, slowly for brain damaged liberals (redundant) neither the Catholic Church nor the Republican Party want to outlaw contraception in this country. The Church does not want to pay for it, as it goes against their doctrine. Anyone who works for a Catholic entity, whether that person is of the Catholic faith or not, can purchase and use any form of contraception they wish to use. A box of condoms is not all that expensive. Nor is the pill or a diaphragm and contraceptive jelly terribly expensive. If you want it, buy the damn stuff yourself. But, there is no Constitutional Right to require anyone else to buy your contraception for you. :em08:

  11. 11
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    The three biggest lies: 1) the check is in the mail, 2) I’ll respect you in the morning, 3) I’m from the government, and I’m here to help. To this lest we can add a fourth: the Edit button is on the way. :em05:
    Continuing in the vein above: where is there a Constitutional or Biblical requirement that forces us to be the enablers of sluts, man-sluts, whores, man-whores, and bastardy?
    (Yer Majesty, that was a rhetorical question.)

  12. 12
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    Yeah, Ogrrre, it’s from the “good and plenty” clause in the constitution. It includes a woman’s right to free contraception on demand.

    To mildly change the subject, kudos to this kid for his courage:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/15/colorado-student-reportedly-quits-choir-over-islamic-song/

    We need about another hundred million or so like him.

  13. 13
    LC Spare Parts growls and barks:

    This edict is nothing more than the Demoncrat Party telling the people who don’t vote for them who God really is

  14. 14
    dasbow growls and barks:

    OK, so I’m no Biblical scholar, but wasn’t there something in there about being fruitful and multiplying? Apparently God didn’t want us to use contraceptives, after all.

  15. 15
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    Why is this still an issue? Oh wait, the CHURCH made it an issue, and is still bellyaching about it even now that they DON’T have to pay or provide.

    Do you know who is the happiest about all of this? The insurance companies. They are more than willing to provide birth control on their dime because they know it is a LOT cheaper for them to do so than to pay the average $20,000 per birth.

    Sure, they will no doubt find some accounting trick to offset the cost somewhere.

    Also everyone seems to be focused on birth control as being condoms, or that birth control is strictly for … well, birth control. Women use birth control for more than just the reason of preventing a birth. Some, like my wife, took the pill because she is at risk for ovarian cancer. (she has recently lost a second sister to that disease) Now that she is in menopause, ovulation is not an issue, so she no longer has to take the pill.

    But there are apparently other serious medical reasons for women to be on the pill.

    The point is, the Church is no longer being forced against their conscience (such as it is) to provide birth control. The insurance companies have agreed to provide it without charge — and are more than happy to do so, because overall it is cheaper for them.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  16. 16

    Those damn twenty bucks a month! Keeping America’s poor barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!

    I though their Boy-God gave them this $20 back in the payroll tax cut scam?

    There is actually a MUCH better argument against this silliness that I laid out last week.

    The HHS mandate and the administration’s “Heads I win, Tails you lose” transparent sham of a compromise doesn’t just violate the First Amendment. It also violates the Ninth. And the fact that I could use the left’s favorite “athiest” to make the point was icing on the cake:

    “The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”

    I enjoy the situation where you don’t even have to beat the dummie with their own arm for them not to “get it”.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  17. 17

    Oh wait, the CHURCH made it an issue, and is still bellyaching about it even now that they DON’T have to pay or provide.

    And yet by being required to provide a plan which still MUST provide something that they firmly believe to be a sin, the government still suborns their right of conscience by making them a participant in the use of those contraceptives.

    As for the “they don’t have to pay for it”, are you really so ignorant as to be unaware as to how product pricing works? While the contraceptives will be a zero line item, if included at ALL in the itemized billing for the plans, it will be part of the pricing nevertheless.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  18. 18

    The irony is that the same people who refuse to see that there is a legitimate Freedom of Religion and Right of Conscience issue here are the same ones who will see nothing wrong and be in favor of dictating to parents what the state will allow the parents’ children to ingest.

    Keep you government out of my uterus and put it im my kid’s lunch box where it belongs, you hatey hater haters!
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  19. 19
    LC HJ Caveman82952 growls and barks:

    Those damn twenty bucks a month! Keeping America’s poor barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!

    No kidding! I see these fucking maggots drop twice that on lottery tickets and cheetos……in one visit.

  20. 20
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    Do you know who is the happiest about all of this? The insurance companies. They are more than willing to provide birth control on their dime because they know it is a LOT cheaper for them to do so than to pay the average $20,000 per birth.

    Once again the resident Marxist sees what he wants to see. Yeah the insurance companies save $20k a birth. But that unborn baby COSTS them 26 years of family insurance premiums ( Thanks Jugears) and another 50 plus years of adult premiums. EASILY hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. Sure hope youre not in business for yerself DJ, your math SUCKS.

  21. 21
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    Once again, the left distorts the argument.

    If the insurance companies wanted to provide birth control, they could do it. It’s their business. Pretty much everything the government has touched, it has fucked up.

    Secondly, if Ogabe would have implemented ONE of the makes-sense provisions to Obama-care, this would not be an issue. That one: allow people to buy their OWN healthcare insurance from any provider. There’s no reason why the company should be involved in healthcare purchase. Give the employee the money it would ordinarily spend and let them buy their own. If they don’t, well, tough shit. It puts dumb people (those who buy iPhones and mocha crappucinos instead of insurance) at risk. If they die, then we’re probably just improving the breed. I’m pretty tired of paying for these assholes, anyway.

    Nope, there’s no rational intellectual argument for this. It’s all about gaining power…if conservatives object to it, then the left’s narrative is that conservatives are opposed to women’s health, which is total bullshit. Conservatives are, of course, opposed to people not having to accept the consequences of their own actions, but that is the left’s major message. Translated, it tells their followers that you’re just too fucking stupid to make your own decisions, so we’ll make them for you.

    We try to intellectualize against that sort of emotional rhetoric, and we’ll lose every time…especially when dealing with leftards, who are in general intellectual midgets, anyway.

  22. 22
    Duke Wayne growls and barks:

    “If you oppose the doctrine of the Catholic church, then you’re not a Catholic and you don’t even get a vote.”

    I think you got something here. If you had to be against rubbers and birth control pills to be a real Catholic, then there wouldn’t be any Catolics left, and the Bishops would have to find something else to do besides covering up pedophilia and talking a lot of reactionary nonsence.

  23. 23

    I think you got something here. If you had to be against rubbers and birth control pills to be a real Catholic, then there wouldn’t be any Catolics left, and the Bishops would have to find something else to do besides covering up pedophilia and talking a lot of reactionary nonsence.

    *golf claps*

    Oh very good, Commerade. You DID pay attention in your deconstructionalist dialectic at Patrice Lumumba University. It is an imperitave to cast criticisms in as simple a light as possible, so that the silly prols won’t dwell too much on the points that you deftly ignore, or simply weren’t capable of grokking in the first place.

    The Catholic Chuch is not a democracy, and while it does attempt to be the spiritual guide of its members, it could no more go against its own teachings on a behavior that it considers immoral simply because a number of its parishoners violate its teachings on the subject any more than I will start serving cake and ice cream for breakfast to my boys because it is what they would feed themselves if they had a choice.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  24. 24
    VonZorch Imperial Researcher growls and barks:

    Mark12A says:

    that is the left’s major message. Translated, it tells their followers that you’re just too fucking stupid to make your own decisions, so we’ll make them for you.

    Sadly, among those that do follow them, it’s true. :em08:

  25. 25
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    They are more than willing to provide birth control on their dime because they know it is a LOT cheaper for them to do so than to pay the average $20,000 per birth.
    Sure, they will no doubt find some accounting trick to offset the cost somewhere.

    Ah Deej, have you ever wondered why childbirth is so expensive? Was it so expensive historically? Actually childbirth costs have continually gone up 10%+ a year for some time, now. Why? Call me paranoid, but I believe the price inflation is deliberate, to provide an excuse for a government takeover of the entire industry. Even if it’s simply an unintended consequence of well-meaning regulation, the whole industry is fucked.

    But forget that, it’s not central to the topic in question.

    Why is the government telling a Church what kind of insurance it must buy, and what that product must cover? Will the government also regulate what cars the Church is allowed to buy? What airlines Bishops must fly on? What their parishioners must be served at social functions? Let’s say 95% of Catholic women in the US like to eat healthy, does this mean the Church should be legally barred from serving, say, a slab of bacon at a social function? The Church is a private organization, and should be allowed to make its own decisions on what it will buy and what it won’t. If you, as an employee of the Church don’t like the insurance — go work for somebody else.

  26. 26
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    Oh and 95% of Catholic women probably have premarital sex, too. Does this mean the government should force the church to hand out free condoms? The same justification will be used for Gay marriage, when it’s legalized. Eventually the government will tell the Church that it must conduct gay marriage ceremonies, or lose its legal right to officiate weddings. After all, X% of Catholics would support Gay marriage, so the church should be forced to conduct them, right?

    Don’t get me wrong — I don’t give a rats ass about gays marrying or not, as an issue. But I can see this birth control thing as a precedent for, at a later time, forcing the Church to conduct other business explicitly against its teachings.

  27. 27
    Duke Wayne growls and barks:

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

    “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

    “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

  28. 28

    “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

    “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

    *golf clap again*

    Very good. You learned how to cut and paste. Next on your to-do list is reading farther.

    The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press,…

    Or other unenumerated rights (damn that pesky Ninth Amendment!), like the right of conscience.

    To be fair, you imply a truckload of stupid in your very selective quotation, but I’ll have to address it later.

    Until then, maybe you’d like to tell the class why it is you believe that there is no distinction between Free Exercise claims related to activity engaged in for years prior to government involvment, and Free Exercise claims related to criminal activity?
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  29. 29
    Emperor Misha I growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    Sure, they will no doubt find some accounting trick to offset the cost somewhere.

    Hey! I know that arcane “accounting trick!” I went to school, you see. It’s called “passing the cost on to the customer or going bankrupt.”

    The customer being, in this case, the Catholic church. Meaning that through said “accounting trick”, the church ends up paying for that which it opposes anyway. Heckuva “compromise”, Barry!
    Emperor Misha I recently posted..Bible Study by Consensus, a Liberal Approach to FaithMy Profile

  30. 30
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere says:

    And yet by being required to provide a plan which still MUST provide something that they firmly believe to be a sin, the government still suborns their right of conscience by making them a participant in the use of those contraceptives.

    The relationship between the insurance company is with the patient, NOT the employer.

    What is really funny about those “right of conscience” Christians is that in most Catholic and Protestant hospitals, they regularly perform vasectomies on men. The last I looked, that is about as much of a birth control as you can get.

    LC Gladiator says:

    Once again the resident Marxist sees what he wants to see. Yeah the insurance companies save $20k a birth. But that unborn baby COSTS them 26 years of family insurance premiums ( Thanks Jugears) and another 50 plus years of adult premiums. EASILY hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime. Sure hope youre not in business for yerself DJ, your math SUCKS.

    Ah, the “future customer” argument. Dude, they already have a mandated customer base handed to them for life. Babies will be made. Premiums will be had.

    LC Xealot says:

    Ah Deej, have you ever wondered why childbirth is so expensive? Was it so expensive historically? Actually childbirth costs have continually gone up 10%+ a year for some time, now. Why? Call me paranoid, but I believe the price inflation is deliberate, to provide an excuse for a government takeover of the entire industry. Even if it’s simply an unintended consequence of well-meaning regulation, the whole industry is fucked.

    Now there is the most paranoid thought I’ve heard all day.

    It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that there are more bells and whistles offered by pediatricians these days. Or the need for the would-be parent to track every little development of that bun in the oven, using ever so much more complicated machine and testing? Or the doctors themselves ordering more and more tests and things, all of which are billed accordingly to the insurance companies at whatever price the doctor wants to charge? Remember we are talking about a health care system that will charge $3 for a tongue depressor.

    LC Xealot says:

    Why is the government telling a Church what kind of insurance it must buy, and what that product must cover?

    Actually, the government isn’t telling the CHURCH any such thing — as long as they are operating as a CHURCH. But when a church is operating as a secular business? THAT is a different story. The church has a choice — if they don’t like secular rules, stay out of secular business.

    If a Catholic hospital is only catering to Catholic patients using Catholic employees, then that is one thing. But if that Catholic church is open to the public and employs non-Catholic employees, then it is operating as a secular business. It is a pretty simple distinction.

    Like I said, the Church is buying insurance. They aren’t PAYING for some provisions of that insurance — that is between the PATIENT and the INSURANCE COMPANY.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  31. 31

    The relationship between the insurance company is with the patient, NOT the employer.

    Nonsense. If the Church did not negotiate and procure the plan that is to cover the employees, there would be no ‘relationship’ between the insurance company and the employee (and employee’s dependents).

    Pre-”compromise”, this means that the Church had to go out and procure a plan for employees that covered these “free” contraceptives, thus compelling their participation in providing something that their teachings expressly forbid.

    Post-”compromise”, this means that no matter what plan the Church procures for its employees, it will automatically contain the “free” comtraceptives, (assuming they would be able to afford the cost of a plan that provides such “free” stuff to their employees to begin with) thus still compelling their participation by the simple act of doing what they always have: providing a benefit for their employees. Only a control-freaky proggie would look at that this mandate and not see that this is like your neighbor being invited to dinner at the home of a jewish friend, and you thinking that YOU have the right to demand that the host serve bacon, ham, sausage, and pork chops for the dinner.

    What is really funny about those “right of conscience” Christians is that in most Catholic and Protestant hospitals, they regularly perform vasectomies on men. The last I looked, that is about as much of a birth control as you can get.

    No, what is REALLY funny is this notion that there is an “hypocrisy” exception to the exercise of conscience and the freedom of religion as guaranteed by the First and Ninth Amendments. I must have missed class the day we talked about those. And they must have given away the magic keywords for the search, because I just can’t seem to find these rulings on WESTLAW.[To say nothing of the fact that this is being called "preventative care" when pregnancy is not a disease, or the imperative to impose this "preventative care" but not other forms of "preventative care" which could actually prevent disease.]

    Unless of course, people who knew much more about such things than you do long ago realized that if such an exception existed, there would be no end to judicial scrutiny and interference as part of determining the “purity” and sincerity of various religious practices….oh, I’m sorry, your strawman seems to be blazing quite nicely. Marshmellow?

    Actually, the government isn’t telling the CHURCH any such thing — as long as they are operating as a CHURCH. But when a church is operating as a secular business? THAT is a different story. The church has a choice — if they don’t like secular rules, stay out of secular business.

    You have this ass-backwards, which is about as shocking as the sun rising in the East in the morning.

    The Church doesn’t have the chartities, the hospitals, and the univeristies because the Church leadership woke up one morning and decided “We need to encroach on the secular world and compete with them in providing these services!”

    The Church got involved in all of these because it they were following the example and the commands of Jesus, who was very clear about individuals and the body of believers engaging in charitable acts. He lead by example in healing the sick. And he didn’t just educate the apostles, he educated all who followed in the faith. These are not secular activites, they are acts of faith, and it was government which decided to impose its mandates on them, NOT the other way around. That is why it is a Constitutional violation, and not some harmless imposition of government.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  32. 32
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    This is all grand standing.

    Twenty two states has had this same provision and even more intrusive provisions that didn’t exempt churches for over a decade. Most of them were proposed and passed by the very Republicans who are foaming at the mouth now about it.

    I guess it is alright when Republicans propose these things, but suddenly EEEEEVIL when a Democrat uses virtually the same fucking rule (word-for-word) and suddenly y’all get your underoos in a knot.

    This is what happens when your side doesn’t have any accomplishments to run on. You grasp at straws.

    You have to see this issue is political suicide for Republicans. You lose one of the biggest constituencies out there — the woman vote. The majority of women are behind the president on this one, and this crosses all religious boundaries.

    The imagery today in Issa’s hearing was of a bunch of tired old men trying to make decisions on a woman’s vagina. You couldn’t have created a more powerful campaign poster against Republicans if you tried.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  33. 33
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    Even if they were secular activities (a concession I do not make — see Blackiswhite’s post)… it doesn’t matter. Why should a company NOT have the right to dictate what benefits it wishes to provide to employees? If a company wants to provide a company car, for example, it may do so (many do, including my fiance’s father’s company). If it does not wish to do so, it is under no obligation to. It may choose a basic car, or a fancy car, or if for some reason the company has a guiding principle that says “we hate cruise control” it may order cars without cruise control to provide to employees. Freedom of choice. If the employees don’t like it, they may eschew the company car, and purchase their own vehicle to their desired specifications, on their own dime. Should the government then mandate that all company cars must have cruise control?

    So if a company (or Church) wishes to purchase insurance coverage for employees that contains (X) coverages and declines (Z) coverages, that is its own business. The issue is exacerbated with the Church, because you also introduce freedom of religion into the mix, but even if we were to take that out, we’d still have the problem of government telling a private organization what extras it may give employees. If employees don’t like it, they may eschew the coverage and purchase their own, or they may leave the Church’s employ and seek a job elsewhere. Or, if they are smart, they will just buy their own damn contraceptives.

  34. 34
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    And Deej, you ought to know better — we here at the Rott can, have and will continue to slam Republicans who behave this way too.

  35. 35

    “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

    Ok, I’ve read the decision 3 times, and I don’t see where Scalia said this. Do you have a pinpoint citation?

    ———————————————————————————–

    That said, what makes you think that these qualify as “commercial” activites?
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  36. 36

    This is all grand standing.

    Yes, it is, which is why the shrieking harpies from Klanned Parenthood haven’t been roundly condemned everytime they utter such lies as “contraceptives are preventative care”.

    It’s much more in vogue to nod in agreement than it is to say “Pregnancy isn’t a disease. I guess all that college didn’t do much for your cognitive ablilities, did it?”
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  37. 37

    Better yet, is the “grand standing” about the potential that this “right” could be denied.

    When did it become a “right” and not a privilege?
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  38. 38
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    The relationship between the insurance company is with the patient, NOT the employer.

    Are you saying that the Insurance provider that the Employer chooses, to offer to its employers at a subsidized group rate has no continuing relationship with the Insurance provider? Seems to me both relationships exist at the initiation of the employer. What would happen to the patients insurance if the employer decided to cancel its non-relationship relationship with the Insurer?

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    What is really funny about those “right of conscience” Christians is that in most Catholic and Protestant hospitals, they regularly perform vasectomies on men.

    Please provide your source for this statistic, ever since your Canadian Nationals will be the dominant pipeline workers statement, and subsequent debunking, I have difficulty accepting this kind of statement from you without some reasonable corroboration.

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    But when a church is operating as a secular business? THAT is a different story. The church has a choice — if they don’t like secular rules, stay out of secular business.

    Whats the percentage of Catholic Hospitals in the US? Are you comfortable with the thought of ALL of them shutting down? How does a Catholic hospital a) identify a “catholic”, and b) l deny services to non-Catholics?
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    Like I said, the Church is buying insurance. They aren’t PAYING for some provisions of that insurance

    Hogwash. They are buying the Insurance and its “provisions” in its entirety. Finally, whats to stop a gainfully employed individual from purchasing their own insurance? The “self-employed” do it all the time. This is a “benefit” that the Employer provides. They dont legally have to provide anything.The way I see it, this leaves the Church with two options. 1) It can stop offering healthcare insurance as a whole or 2) they can close the hospital doors. And I’m thinking if I can understand this, why can’t the mighty minds in DC? You think the Pope is going to budge on this? Of those two choices, which one is most likely to occur? and what a coinky dink that this coincides with BamaCare? What was that ……single payer thing?

    This whole thing is just wrong. To try to bully the “church” that has been providing hospital well before most secular hospital existed into going against one of its major tenants is just wrong and no amount of bullshit justification is going to change that. This reeks of shitty thought, planning, and implementation. Another example of piss poor leadership.

  39. 39

    This reeks of shitty thought, planning, and implementation. Another example of piss poor leadership.

    I disagree. This was carefully thought out and executed. President Downgrade and his fellow travellers WANT this fight, and they chose this time to pick it.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  40. 40
    LC TerribleTroy growls and barks:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere @ #:
    My Machiavellian side agree’s BisW. I just don’t like giving them credit for the manipulative effort.

  41. 41
    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    The imagery today in Issa’s hearing was of a bunch of tired old men trying to make decisions on a woman’s vagina.

    The hearing was about whether private institutions should be forced to provide optional/recreational medication to employees. Nobody was trying to prevent anybody from accessing or utilizing anything.

    Once again, you clue-bereft cumstain, not providing someone with X is NOT the same thing as actively preventing them from acquiring/using X. All of this “women’s rights” horseshit is just deliberate misdirection. Nobody is stopping any woman from doing anything with her own time and/or money.

  42. 42
    redc1c4 growls and barks:

    although i am someone who gave up being Catholic for Lent back when Carter (spit) was president, i side 100% with the churches on this, for the many good and sundry reasons listed above.

    plain and simple, this is a violation of the First Amendment, and anyone who can’t or won’t see that is a mortal enemy of that Amendment, and thus the Constitution, and, by extension, me.

    i was following a friend on FB the other day at the Governor Walker website when some frothing at the mouth libtard told another poster that “…come the war, your kind will be strung up…” (or words to that effect)

    i see signs of the same sort of fanaticism here, in the stridently illogical defense of the indefensible, and i too want to know where i can get some of that 25 cent a round 45 ammo.

    after all, it’s a damn site cheaper than other forms of birth control, and the usual suspects can’t complain, since they support late term abortions anyway…

    so what if we string it out for longer than nine months? the principal is the same, by their “logic”.

  43. 43
    redc1c4 growls and barks:

    and i’ve w*rked at Catholic hospitals, in and around the OR, and i’ve never seen a vasectomy scheduled.

    even getting a tubal ligation approved, secondary to a Cesarian on a high risk pregnancy, was hard to get, and required mucho paperw*rk. and no, just having a metric buttload of kids already wasn’t a good enough reason. there had to be significant danger to the mother’s life if she every got pregnant again. approvals were rare.

    as for a tubal ligation as a stand alone procedure? so NOT happening.

    but nice try making up a reality to support your delusions. :em01:

  44. 44
    Alan K. Henderson growls and barks:

    but I had thought that Jesus talked more about helping the poor than about banning contraceptives.

    Who’s calling for banning contraceptives?

    Jesus was consistently against theft. Is it not theft to force a business to sell something it doesn’t want to sell?

    My data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization on issues of sexual health

    The Guttmacher Institute is an arm of Planned Parenthood, named after a former president of Planned Parenthood. They’re no more nonpartisan than the DNC, RNC, or Vladimir Putin.

  45. 45
    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    The majority of women are behind the president on this one, and this crosses all religious boundaries.

    O RLY? Do you have a citation for this, or is this just another one of your “facts.” DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that there are more bells and whistles offered by pediatricians these days.

    Bzzzt. Wrong. Go to the end of the line. The obstetrician handles the pregnancy from conception to delivery. The pediatrician takes over then.

  46. 46
    Lady H growls and barks:

    Thank you for this fantastic post, Sire.

  47. 47
    Mark12A growls and barks:

    This just continues to get better and better, as the Ogabe propaganda machine, with its most leg-tingly propagandist, Pissy Crissy Mathews, claiming Rick Santorum would not object to states banning contraception. The left is fabricating bald-faced LIES and no one is calling them out on it. I go back to my previous theory: People who support Obama are either (1) too stupid to understand what he is saying; (2) without the necessary powers of discernment to understand he is lying to them; or (3) standing in line to get more goodies without having to work for them.

    It’s my sincere hope that a lot of people…high wage earners, irreplaceable experience, and near retirement age…simply opt out of the workforce if that lying Marxist asshole gets re-elected.

  48. 48
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    LC Xealot says:

    Why should a company NOT have the right to dictate what benefits it wishes to provide to employees?

    Then take it completely out of the hands of the employer. The thing is, I am sure you know where THAT will end up at. You will have provided the people with a compelling reason to push for an actual government provided health insurance. The tidal wave demanding it will drown you out.

    You can already see that you are clearly in the minority on this issue.

    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. says:

    O RLY? Do you have a citation for this, or is this just another one of your “facts.”

    Are you lazy or something? You can’t Google this for yourself? Here, lemme help you.

    Surveys on this topic tell a mixed story because many Americans know little about the issue. Recent CBS and Fox polls indicate support for the new policy, using questions that describe the new policy in some detail. But in the CNN poll, when asked their opinion of the Obama policy with no details spelled out, support was much less and a large partisan divide emerged. A recent Pew poll also suggests Americans are closely divided, and that poll may hold the key to the differences. Nearly four in ten Americans say they have heard nothing at all about this controversy. [Emphasis mine]

    In other words, forty percent haven’t even heard of this “controversy”, and given no details about it, about half of the people are inclined to be against it. But those who learn the details tend to be FOR the plan — roughly 66 percent.

    So, ignorance is your only point in this battle. Once people actually hear what’s going on, they are on board with it.

    LC Grammar Czar, G.L.O.R. says:

    Bzzzt. Wrong. Go to the end of the line. The obstetrician handles the pregnancy from conception to delivery. The pediatrician takes over then.

    I was mixing my doctors. You KNEW what I meant. It doesn’t change the facts of why the costs of childbirth are so high.

    This is poison for Republicans. There is a reason why the issue came out in January — it was pushed out on purpose knowing full well how Republicans would respond. It was calculated and the Right took the bait. Like I said, as people learn the details, they are pretty much on board with it, contrary to your arguments about employers being forced into providing health insurance to their employees. Frankly, most people in the “employee” class don’t have a problem with employers being forced to provide health insurance benefits.

    I still get back to this idea I have about employers (or the government) providing access to BASIC health insurance plan for catastrophic health issues. If the employee wants more, then they can contract directly with that health insurance provider to purchase extra modules of coverage. The whole point of an employer providing the health insurance is to take advantage of a “group” pricing — the more people in a group, the cheaper it is.

    Having everyone on a BASIC plan with the ability to purchase additional modules of coverage on their own, out of their pocket, makes the most sense to me. The modules will be cheap only because the insurance companies won’t be concerned about the catastrophic stuff. I would prefer that the BASIC plan just be part of Medicare that is open to everyone. Strip out the redundancies, get a better hand on the fraudulent billing by doctors, hospitals, and suppliers, (which is where 100 percent of the medicare fraud comes from, not the patients) and make the system work, instead of trying to sabotage it as Republicans have been trying to do since its inception.

    Alternatively, since a lot of you have this insane idea that government is somehow “evil” (unless of course you want government to police our genitals and a woman’s womb) then have the BASIC plan run by a non-profit cooperative. If you religious types want to have your religion run your cooperative and provide as little health services as your Mosaic Law allows, then that is up to you. I would be all for that. You could be free to follow your “religious conscience” all you want. The rest of us would be happy also.

    Don’t even want BASIC health insurance? Great! You would make good fertilizer somewhere, because the Soylent Green trucks will pick your carcass up when you die.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  49. 49
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    25 cent a round 45 ammo

    Cheaper than Dirt

    Is it me or does ammo seem to be coming down in price?

    Anyhoo if a man or woman wants birth control then they can have it. But I’M NOT GOING TO PAY FOR IT NOR SHOULD ANYBODY ELSE BE FORCED TO FOR ANY REASON.

    Liberals love to warp the meaning of the constitution to fit their narrative like the 1st Amendment. The Founding Fathers never had the intention of erecting a wall between faith and government. What they intended was to prevent the government from imposing a particular religion on the people and to prevent the government from interfering with churches.

    The Founders deeply believed that faith (not religion) was just as important to freedom as much as the rule of law and this drives libtards insane. If FF didn’t believe in faith then why did they require the oath of office be recited while holding the Holy Bible?

  50. 50
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    This is CLASSIC liberal misdirection. Use Birth Control as a wedge issue to get the REAL goal…PAID ABORTIONS.
    You get women afraid they will lose BC access, they overwhelmingly (and near sightedly) support the change, which has buried in it, access to PAID FREE ABORTIONS. Do not be fooled that is the real prize here.

  51. 51
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    I still get back to this idea I have about employers (or the government) providing access to BASIC health insurance plan for catastrophic health issues. If the employee wants more, then they can contract directly with that health insurance provider to purchase extra modules of coverage. The whole point of an employer providing the health insurance is to take advantage of a “group” pricing — the more people in a group, the cheaper it is.

    Having everyone on a BASIC plan with the ability to purchase additional modules of coverage on their own, out of their pocket, makes the most sense to me. The modules will be cheap only because the insurance companies won’t be concerned about the catastrophic stuff.

    Actually DJ we would be much better off with the exact opposite. Have catastrophic coverage (since most people cant afford catastrophic care) and let the patient pay for the common colds, flu, broken fingers etc themselves.

  52. 52
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    LC Light29ID says:

    But I’M NOT GOING TO PAY FOR IT NOR SHOULD ANYBODY ELSE BE FORCED TO FOR ANY REASON.

    And who said you ARE?

    If you mean you are paying for it by being on some sort of group policy, you braying at the wrong horse. By that logic, I don’t want to be paying for your bad habits, whatever they are.

    But the simple fact is, we ALL are paying indirectly for other people, like it or not. Every time you pull a drink of water out of your faucet, I am paying for it, just as you are paying for mine. Every time you speak your mind on your computer, I am paying for it — indirectly. A person getting a nose job with their health insurance — WE are paying for it. That is the whole point of the insurance.

    I don’t plan on getting pregnant any time soon. My wife isn’t going to get pregnant any more either. Should I be paying for you to have kids? Should I have to pay for you to send them to school? Subsidize their food? Should I be paying for the stretch of freeway that YOU drive on?

    LC Light29ID says:

    The Founding Fathers never had the intention of erecting a wall between faith and government. What they intended was to prevent the government from imposing a particular religion on the people and to prevent the government from interfering with churches.

    And vice versa. They never intended the church to dictate to the government either. Hense, the metaphorical “wall”. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. The “Wall” was a way that Jefferson and others chose to explain what the religious clause of the First Amendment was all about. You get stuck on words and fail to see the concept behind them.

    LC Gladiator says:

    This is CLASSIC liberal misdirection. Use Birth Control as a wedge issue to get the REAL goal…PAID ABORTIONS.

    Birth control as a wedge issue? It is the RIGHT that is jumping on this, NOT the Left. “God, Guns and Aspirin.”

    Like I said earlier, this policy has been the rule in 22 states for roughly ten years. Most of those states, it was promulgated by Republican lawmakers and signed by Republican governors — many of whom are now on the bandwagon against Obama using the same exact rule almost word-for-word.

    Also, I might add, that many of those 22 states had even tougher language, that didn’t exempt the Church at all. Funny how the churches didn’t make an issue of it then, but are now making a stink.

    Just sayin’
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  53. 53
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    LC Gladiator says:

    Actually DJ we would be much better off with the exact opposite. Have catastrophic coverage (since most people cant afford catastrophic care) and let the patient pay for the common colds, flu, broken fingers etc themselves.

    I thought I said that. The BASIC would be the catastrophic coverage, because as you say, most people could never afford it. Everything else could be provided in modules that the customer could pick and choose from and pay for themselves.

    For example, MY family no longer has children in the home, nor do we plan on having any more children. So a module that contains pre and post natal care and child health wouldn’t be needed. Because we are older, we could do with health package that deals with senior issues. There could be other types of modules that cover ambulances, and hospital stays. Modules that cover prescription drugs.

    The idea would be to build your own personalized plan that goes on top of the BASIC plan you have using different modules. You pay for what YOU need, not what other people think you need or don’t need.

    Look, aside from all the bullshit here, I am offering up an idea that I think would appeal to a broad range of people. It puts more choices in your hands and allows you to control your own health care. The only sticking point I can see is who pays for the basic (or rather HOW is it paid) Whether you pay for it in a tax similar to Social Security, or whether you pay for it in a Co-op. I lean on the later myself, however I would make it mandatory that you have at the very minimum BASIC coverage.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  54. 54

    Hense, the metaphorical “wall”. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.

    Stuff and nonsense.

    Either you’ve swallowed some proggie “think”tank’s line hook line and sucker, or you know that history is against you on this, and you’re hoping that the rest of us won’t do the research.

    “Jefferson’s” “wall of separation” is a perfect example of this, as the people who scream loudest about it often don’t know that:

    1. The phrase is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, because Jefferson was in Paris having a mancrush on the French Revolution at the time the Constitution was drafted;

    2. Some actually know it was in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, but still fail to grok that the letter had to do with the favor that states often [Constitutionally] showed to one particular sect of Christianity, to the detriment of others;

    3. Have never read Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address, especially the last paragraph where he is clearly calling on his fellow citizens to pray for him;

    4. Have no idea where he spent his Sundays in Washington D.C. during his presidency; and

    5. What his plans were for the University of Virginia regarding spiritual instruction for the students who attended there.

    This is also not to mention the acts “offensive” to the modern misinterpretation of this “wall” by other prominent founders, such as Washington (who presided over the Constitutional Converntion as its President) calling for days of thanksgiving and prayer during his tenure as President, others serving in Congress and voting for funding of missionaries to the indian nations with the stated purpose of bringing them to Christendom, and others.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  55. 55

    This just continues to get better and better, as the Ogabe propaganda machine, with its most leg-tingly propagandist, Pissy Crissy Mathews, claiming Rick Santorum would not object to states banning contraception.

    What makes this a monumentally stupid lie, is that it presumes that he is completely unaware of the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  56. 56
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    The imagery today in Issa’s hearing was of a bunch of tired old men trying to make decisions on a woman’s vagina.

    Somebody has to since many ‘women’ nowadays treat their vaginas like phone booths, trying to see how many frat boys they can cram in at one time.

    Just the poisoned fruits of the “free love” movement taking their toll. Nice legacy for the left isn’t it?

  57. 57
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere says:

    Either you’ve swallowed some proggie “think”tank’s line hook line and sucker, or you know that history is against you on this, and you’re hoping that the rest of us won’t do the research.

    No matter how much you carry on about it, Jefferson simply offered an explanation as HE saw it, and it is purely conceptional. The government shall create, promote, or support a religion, NOR shall religion become part of the government. The CONCEPT was that neither would insert itself into the other’s business. The “wall” therefore is metaphorical, an after-the-fact explanation that most people could wrap their minds around. (present company excepted, apparently)

    Incidentally, it was Roger Williams, the founder of the first Baptist church in America, was the one who wrote in 1644 of “[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world” Jefferson borrowed it when he was writing Dansbury.

    WHY was there a religious clause added to the Constitution as an amendment? Because of the differing religions in the colonies. That, and the historic reason for most of these people to leave their previous countries to settle in the US.

    The Supreme Court, going back to Reynolds v. United States (1879) on forward have used this concept of a “wall”, because as the Court stated then that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment.” That is 132 years of law and precedent, and you, as an attorney MUST know that it is pretty much settled law.

    This isn’t something that has been pulled from someone’s ass in recent years. This has been consistently settled numerous times over the years by several different incarnations of the Court. Yet it is still being contentiously challenged.

    I’m sorry, but there comes a time when after several Courts have consistently ruled using this concept, that it is pointless to continue to argue any other way.

    The simple answer to all of this is that the government cannot restrict a religion or insert itself into that religion, and neither can that religion restrict a government or insert itself into that government. Forget a “wall”.

    I think Jesus said it best: “Render unto Caesar…”
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  58. 58
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    LC Gunsniper says:

    Somebody has to since many ‘women’ nowadays treat their vaginas like phone booths, trying to see how many frat boys they can cram in at one time.

    What a low opinion of women you have.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  59. 59
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    Oh Deej, thou art the master of misdirection.

    Number one, being in the “minority” of an issue doesn’t make me incorrect. Number two, most companies offer healthcare plans for important employees because they want to attract talent and make money — not because they are forced to. Now, sure, a burger-flipper or toilet bowl scrubber might not get that benefit — but then again, most people have the option to do something that pays more money with some education, talent and/or hard work. It doesn’t always have to be college — it can be vocational school, or even self-taught through books and practical experience (most good mechanics I know learn this way, a lot of web developers, too).

    So, Deej I don’t believe allowing companies and private organizations to tailor their benefit plans to their needs, beliefs and desires will result in a government mandate and/or popular uprising.

    In fact, I believe if you give the free market a REAL chance, not through crony capitalism or mixed economies, you will see a dramatic reduction of cost and a dramatic increase in availability to most Americans.

    Yet still, it doesn’t matter. This is not a proper government function to begin with. I don’t know how many times and how many different ways I have to explain it, but the government is not supposed to take care of you. It’s not supposed to be a safety net, make sure your belly is full or you are eating healthy. It’s not supposed to regulate your smoking habits or provide health care for you. It is supposed to only provide guarantees for natural rights, and do those things which CANNOT be done without national and/or community consensus.

    An example of the latter would be the Road system. While private companies should be able to (and often times can) build private toll roads, the road system requires community and national cooperation, because otherwise private property rights would be violated. Although today this often results in eminent domain abuse, which is something I’m pretty pissed about. However even these items must be subject to specific use tax. I.e. a gas tax. One which is not (as it is today) raided for funds for other things. And if/when a private market alternative can be found, which does not violate private property rights, it can be used instead.

    Another example is national defense. It requires national and community cooperation in order to field a large enough and effective enough military force to protect the borders from those who would rape, kill, pillage, etc… Since all who live in the country benefit from its use, it can be subject to a more general tax.

    Healthcare fails this test, because it does NOT require national cooperation. An individual doctor may purchase equipment, an education, and open an office to practice his craft. An individual company may open a hospital and staff it with doctors, nurses and the like. In fact, the only element that requires cooperation on a large scale is laws regarding paramedics and ambulances. One must make way for them, and that is both expected and desirable. So some tax money may be used to fund first-responders and/or the system put in place to allow them to do their job. In other words, you getting to the Hospital in a reasonable amount of time cannot be precluded by other people clogging the intersections with their property, or at the very least, it must be mitigated.

    A similar argument is possible for Police functions and Fire Fighting functions. If you own a piece of property and your neighbor’s property is on fire — the Fire Fighter is protecting YOUR property rights from damage instigated by the neighbor’s property. Once again a tax may be instituted for this, or as some communities do, you can simply pay a fee for fire protection. But it is both expected and desirable.

    Once you are in that Hospital, however, you must foot the bill. That or whatever insurance you purchased. If you cannot pay, then yes, it sucks, but you or your family must figure out an alternate method of satisfying the Doctor, who is an individual with his own rights. He is not a slave, to work on you for free. Nor is a random taxpayer a slave, to be expected to pay for you, whom he or she has never met. Nor is the hospital owner a slave, to be expected to bear these costs without compensation. Those in your insurance group have voluntarily elected to pool money to cover you, so that is different. If the Doctor or Owner agrees to help you for free or reduced cost out of charity, that is their voluntary election. If a charity decides to help you ,that is a voluntary election.

    And this circles back to the original issue. If your employer is willing to pay for (X) benefits and not (Z) benefits, then it is your choice whether or not to work for them. And don’t buy this “compromise” hogwash. The Church would have to purchase plans that cover what the government wants, not what they wish to cover. It doesn’t matter if 99% of their employees WANT the coverage, it’s still the Church’s choice. I want my employers to buy me a Ferrari — doesn’t mean I’m going to get it. 99% of people who buy our software would probably want Ferraris too, doesn’t mean they have a right to one.

    And this isn’t about regulating a woman’s vagina or womb. They can continue to do whatever they want — on their own dime. A right to do something doesn’t mean you have a right to expect someone else to pay for you to do it.

  60. 60
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    The government shall NOT create, promote, or support a religion, NOR shall religion become part of the government.

    Oops
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  61. 61
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    What a low opinion of women you have.

    He had an equally low opinion of the frat boys stuffing said women. This is actually a real problem these days, childhood seems to have extended well into the 20s, these days. And irresponsible people who behave in this manner is a big part of the reason we are even having this debate, Deej. How do we handle the irresponsible people who’d rather buy porn than healthcare coverage? How do we handle the ones who prefer the crack pipe to a job? There’s more and more people like this due to, in my opinion, shitty parenting… combined with a social safety net that gives these people a guaranteed way out. I’m not sure what can be done about the parenting problems, but the safety net can be removed.

  62. 62
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    LC Xealot says:

    In fact, I believe if you give the free market a REAL chance, not through crony capitalism or mixed economies, you will see a dramatic reduction of cost and a dramatic increase in availability to most Americans.

    *yawn*

    You do realize that without what the government has already done, you wouldn’t even have that computer you are ham-fisting your comments out on? Do you even think you’d have electricity if it had been up to that “free market” bullshit?

    Most of the stuff you take for granted nowadays was the result of government development. One of the most defining moments in the growth of our nation occurred right after the Second World War with the GI Bill — a HUGE government spending program. Right on its heals came Ike’s interstate highway construction and after that the space program of Kennedy’s. HUGE expenditures that stimulated growth and the economy, and created the world’s largest middle class in history.

    There was no way a “free market” was ever going to be able to throw enough money into R & D to create even a fraction of the stuff you take for granted today. Hell, most people wouldn’t be educated enough to even understand what we take for granted today.

    While fools like you gas on about “free market” fantasies, we are getting our collective asses handed to us by other countries who are investing in their people and infrastructure. We are well on our way to becoming a third world nation with the Right wing fantasies you and others wax on about.

    Get this into your mind: Ayn Rand was a fiction writer. Her characters and plot lines were one-dimensional, and anti-social to boot. I know that she was almost a religious god to many, yet towards the end of her life she had no problem living off the government tit.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  63. 63
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen @ #:

    This is where libtards hid when church and state comes up. Again the Founders did not want and forbid in the Constitution establishment of a particular or state sanctioned religion. The Founders believed that faith must be part of the government for it to function under the Constitution that they created.

  64. 64
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    I thought I said that. The BASIC would be the catastrophic coverage, because as you say, most people could never afford it. Everything else could be provided in modules that the customer could pick and choose from and pay for themselves.

    Im getting nervous here. This is the second (or maybe the third) time this month that DJ and I agree on sumtin. Do I have a fever? Do I need meds? Help me Misha,help me !!

  65. 65
    LC Light29ID growls and barks:

    “Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before this honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court.”

  66. 66
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    LC Xealot says:
    You do realize that without what the government has already done, you wouldn’t even have that computer you are ham-fisting your comments out on? Do you even think you’d have electricity if it had been up to that “free market” bullshit?

    Ayn Rand was a fiction writer. Her characters and plot lines were one-dimensional, and anti-social to boot. I know that she was almost a religious god to many, yet towards the end of her life she had no problem living off the government tit.

    The government gave me electricity? And here I thought it was guys like Edison… the entrepreneurs you seem to hate so much… who found practical methods of distribution.

    I don’t care much for Ayn Rand. Her books were pedantic as all hell, and quite contrived, at times. So good for you. And if the government was willing to hand ME “free” money too, I’d probably take it. After all, I’m paying into it as well — this is less than ideal, however.

    And the first computers came out of military contracts, yes. However, we have established many times that the military is a legitimate function of government (and a lot of technology comes out of it). Even so, it was entrepreneurial inventors who made it practical for home use. Same thing with the Internet. Look at the Homebrew Computer Club in the early days of PC development for just how entrepreneurial efforts can lead to widespread adoption, lower prices and amazing technology growth. In fact, oh wise and benevolent Deej, the computer world is one of the least regulated sectors of the economy in this country — and guess which has proven most recession proof.

    If you want to talk IT, my friend, be careful. I’ve been in the industry for a very very long time.

  67. 67
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    LC Xealot says:

    The government gave me electricity? And here I thought it was guys like Edison… the entrepreneurs you seem to hate so much… who found practical methods of distribution.

    Ever heard of the Rural Electrification Act? Hoover Dam? Any of that? Because there wasn’t enough private money available or because it wasn’t “profitable” for someone to provide electricity outside of most urban areas, the only entity that had money available was the federal government.

    This has been the case for a LOT of our innovations over the past 100 years — the government put up the money and private industry took over from there. Much of our public utilities were started up that way.

    Could you picture any one company just jumping in and building say, our interstate freeway system on spec? It just isn’t going to happen. Neither was the idea of providing electricity outside of major urban areas. Private industry does very little “on spec”, let alone something like this on such a grand scale. Look at our transcontinental rail road after the Civil War. The GOVERNMENT put up that money — private industry wasn’t going to do it on their own. Of course the rail road companies, having puppets in the government, made the government pay for the roads they got to keep. Talk about “crony capitalism”. But then, that is what your “free market” fantasy will always devolve into. ALWAYS.

    LC Xealot says:

    Her books were pedantic as all hell, and quite contrived, at times.

    Goodness, we agree on that much at least.

    LC Xealot says:

    And the first computers came out of military contracts, yes. However, we have established many times that the military is a legitimate function of government (and a lot of technology comes out of it).

    A lot of that research comes out of the colleges, not the military itself. The military is simply the consumer of that research — the grants are given to the schools. This is why schools and later companies are given “grants”
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  68. 68
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    Ah hell, I am about to lose my VPN. No worries, I have a flight to catch out of Houston in three hours anyways. Hopefully I get out before it starts raining.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..Somebody I Used To Know ~ GotyeMy Profile

  69. 69

    Could you picture any one company just jumping in and building say, our interstate freeway system on spec? It just isn’t going to happen.

    Any one company? Probably not. But….ever heard of TOLL ROADS?

    And the government invested in the Interstate Highways with a Constitutional primary purpose, which was not to build them for the sake of putting roads where they didn’t previously exist, but as part of a DEFENSIVE infrastructure.

    As long as I live, I will never understand the midset that relies on the benevolence of government for the sake of benevolence alone.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  70. 70

    The Supreme Court, going back to Reynolds v. United States (1879) on forward have used this concept of a “wall”, because as the Court stated then that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment.” That is 132 years of law and precedent, and you, as an attorney MUST know that it is pretty much settled law.

    This isn’t something that has been pulled from someone’s ass in recent years. This has been consistently settled numerous times over the years by several different incarnations of the Court. Yet it is still being contentiously challenged.

    Of course what you neglect to mention for the class is that in Reynolds, what was at issue was an attempt to use religious ‘duty” as a defense to a criminal charge, not to resist a mandate that would require a church to participate in an activity that it has clearly and consistently stood against for centuries. And it was not “understood” and applied in the manner in which it is today.

    As for it “being pulled from someone’s ass in recent years”, your statement is half correct.
    Starting with the Everson case in the late 1940′s, when Klansman and Anti-Catholic bigot Justice Black resurrected the phrase, starting a jurisprudential spiral of decisions treating it as if it were part and parcel of the Constitution and applying it in ways that are completely inconsistent with the understanding of Jefferson and his contemporaries as displayed in their actions, official activities, and writings.

    But then, anyone who has ever been to the feverswamp on the Potomac and actually LOOKED at the buildings and the words engraved in them, or strolled through the halls of Congress and learned a thing or two about some of the people memorialized in stautues there understands that this “wall” was never meant to be a cudgel to force faith out of politics or the public square.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  71. 71
    LC Xealot growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    Ever heard of the Rural Electrification Act? Hoover Dam? Any of that?

    Much of our public utilities were started up that way.

    Could you picture any one company just jumping in and building say, our interstate freeway system on spec?

    But then, that is what your “free market” fantasy will always devolve into. ALWAYS.

    I’ll address those points:

    First, the distribution system pioneered by Edison was what the government was ALREADY USING at that time. It wouldn’t have existed without the free market. As for the Hoover Dam… I’m not going to sit here and say every public works project is a pile of shit. It’s a magnificent piece of work. And maybe, Deej, we can argue that there is a limited role for government in truly MASSIVE projects of public works. But remember, too, that the Hoover Dam wasn’t just a power plant — you have flood management, water supply and other similar public concerns that are definitely in the Commons.

    Public utilities are another ball of wax. I think our utilities are a farce, particularly in some states like California. Rolling blackouts, pricing screwups… and yes, California tried deregulation… but with a monopoly left in place, and a (government-trained) scam artist (Ken Lay) gaming the system. That was Crony Capitalism at its finest.

    If you care to reread my post, you’ll notice that I specifically mention that the road network is a legitimate government function. Although private toll roads may also exist, and perhaps a more workable free market solution will eventually be found. For now, there isn’t a good way to handle this with the free market, and so government intervention here is justified.

    The free market does not have to become Crony Capitalism. Crony Capitalism results from the Government conspiring with Big Businesses to essentially create cartels, monopolies and price controls. Utilities are a great example of this, but everything from the recording industry and SOPA, to transportation regulations, to insurance regulations, stifle competition and fuck up the market.

    Think of it like this: When you get Government in your Commerce, you get Commerce in your Government.

    Regulation does more harm than good.

  72. 72
    LC Gunsniper growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen @ #:58

    And every last bit of it earned.

    It’s also the same low opinion i have of anyone with so little self respect as to engage in mindless self indulgence at the expense of everything else with genuine value. Y’know marriage was once a grand institution until the interfering self-proclaimed social engineers stepped in and fucked it all up. Now it’s just the butt end of third rate sitcom jokes. Sex and sexuality used to be something beautiful and meaningful until the criminally selfish “if it feels good, do it” crowd turned it into just another drug of choice. Now sex is just glorified masturbation with the threat of venereal disease. I’m not going to bother getting into how the feminist movement royally fucked up Americans in general and women in particular since that’s another rant.

    So now we have the same crowd of social anarchist assholes pretending to fix the mess they created with more government meddling without regard of the law or even consideration of the ramifications of their actions. All in the name of grabbing more power, creating more dependence of the masses on the nanny slave state and diminishing the presence of Christianity as a substantial alternative to the emptiness and waste of secular nihilism.

    How sad it will be when this is the only worthwhile sexual outlet remaining since the left is hellbent on destroying meaningful human interaction.

    Liberal hubris is a motherfucker.

  73. 73
    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    The GOVERNMENT put up that money —

    No, they did not. They stole it from individuals in the private sector.

    One thing you leftist twatwaffles never seem to comprehend is that the government has no money of its own. All value is created by the private sector.

  74. 74
    redc1c4 growls and barks:

    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology says:

    No, they did not. They stole it from individuals in the private sector.

    One thing you leftist twatwaffles never seem to comprehend is that the government has no money of its own. All value is created by the private sector.

    so good it deserves to be said twice.

    (imho, of course %-)

  75. 75
    VonZorch Imperial Researcher growls and barks:

    redc1c4 says:

    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology says:
    No, they did not. They stole it from individuals in the private sector.
    One thing you leftist twatwaffles never seem to comprehend is that the government has no money of its own. All value is created by the private sector.

    so good it deserves to be said twice.
    (imho, of course %-)

    Make that thrice. Yes it’s a real, if archaic, word.

  76. 76
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen growls and barks:

    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology says:

    No, they did not. They stole it from individuals in the private sector.

    Stole? It is called taxation. You may have heard about it — it is in the Constitution. As far as stealing it? We live in a representative Democracy. You elect people to represent your interests. If most of your neighbors choose a person that you don’t agree with, then tough tittie. You have been overruled.

    If the majority of representatives in the government approves of the expenditure, then it becomes the law. That is our system we live under. Don’t like it? Either run yourself or find someone you DO agree with and try to convince the majority of your neighbors to vote for that person. If you can’t convince your neighbors to think the way you do, then perhaps it is YOU who are out of step.

    The fact of the matter is this: way back when, the majority of people in this country decided on how they wanted things to be. They wanted the government to collect taxes. They wanted the government to build up infrastructure, and create a safety net. And they did so well within the guidelines of the Constitution.

    If you want to change it, you will still have to convince the majority of people in this country to think like you do, and vote accordingly.

    Good luck with that.
    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen recently posted..The Chain ~ Fleetwood MacMy Profile

  77. 77

    Which of course ignores the fact that said representatives have created a career out of convincing large swaths of the electorate that goverment will save them by taking more from theirneighbor…because “at some point arbitratily choosen by government, you’ve just made enough.
    Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere recently posted..…Meanwhile, At The Local Level…My Profile

  78. 78
    LC George, Apocryphal Prophet growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    We live in a representative Democracy.

    Fail.
    LC George, Apocryphal Prophet recently posted..Imam Muhammad Al-Kazzab Warns About FishmasonryMy Profile

  79. 79
    LC Getalis, Imperial Czar of Pharmacology growls and barks:

    DJ Allyn, Private Citizen says:

    Stole? It is called taxation. You may have heard about it — it is in the Constitution.

    As are the specific endeavors which may be addressed by the government. A single penny plundered for any unauthorized expenditure is a stolen penny. Mob sentiment matters not; the Constitution was written to prevent mob rule (i.e., “democracy”). It was the progressives Statists who managed to bastardize the “general welfare” clause into “anything anybody wants at any time, ever”, essentially turning public policy over to the will of the mob.

    And none of this changes the fact that the private sector is the source of all value!

  80. 80