There’s something you don’t see every day, Republicans being bashed on MSNBC!
lmao! 

Link us to the video(s?) where Fox “news” praises Democrats

Not surprising Boxer also gets her news from a liberal comedian!!

And there aren’t any “conservatives” out there with any balls to dispute it. Move along now, Teabagger.

I give her credit at least for quoting someone who is still living. Most Republicans misquote dead Presidents who cannot come back to refute them.

Interesting how no one’s said Sen. Boxer or Jon Stewart was wrong or why 

IF, the Constitution can be construed as requiring medical care, abortion on demand and contraception through an extrapolation of one or more Amendments.  Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the 2nd Amendment’s specificity should require the Government to provide firearms and ammunition to all citizens?

Now that is what I call neutral principle.  Ouch!

Purveyor

The Republicans are self destructing all over the place.  They don’t want Employers to provide the health insurance, the employee should buy their own. Hey, if you can’t afford it, too bad. 

 Yes, I heard from the libs that the GOP was forcing Kroger, Walt-mart,
Sams Club, Walgreens, CVS, RiteAid,  Costo, etc. to shut down. Yeah that
must be true because the libs say the GOP is denying women access to
contraceptives.

And there aren’t any “conservatives” out there with any balls to dispute it.”

 Their balls are in your mouth, skippy.

 You mean how Obama quotes RR?

http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/25/in-debt-speech-obama-quotes-re

Ooh! “Conservative” scum bag internet tough guy! What happened? Did your Zombie Reagan porn VHS tape snap? Tell your uncledad to take his tongue out of your hind parts and fix that joint, Yo!

You’re the one talking about internet tough guy?   lol  

Your VHS tape snapped too? Damn cheap tapes! Google that joint, homie!

She wanted to quote a conservative comedian but…… well you know.

 Liberals don’t quote facts because….. well you know.

Now that you’ve pulled that out of your cuttings bag, No Bits, what about the policy? She’s clearly right.

Most reliable news source in the media.

And usually just one.

yoda, how utterly untrue-be ashamed for posting such falsehoods 

Purvy, it’s not the Constitution, it’s what the Constitution enables: legislation.  

Congress voted for this, the Senate confirmed, the President signed into law – & not just one Congress & one president: the authority to make the rule goes back all the way to the Clinton administration. That’s a total of 3 presidents over 4 terms & 4 Congressional sessions.  

What’s changed? Three things: the ACA; the fact that this president enables women’s right to choose (where the previous did not); & Republicans have somehow concluded it’s good politics to oppose basic human rights & associated gains of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Velvet Revolution, the Enlightenment, the Revolution here, the Bill of Rights, the French Revolution, science, economics, universal suffrage, the Civil Rights Act & the ACA. 

you suppose that’s where she gets her news

If this President, quote: “enables women’s right to choose,” then he should enable my right make somebody else buy me a gun!  Maybe you should buy me a gun?  If the logic applies for one, why not the other?

Do you have any idea how twisted your logic is?  Where in the Constitution does it say or imply that one person or group must pay for the wants, demands and desires of another?

WHAT IS MORE IMMORAL, ME NOT WANTING TO PAY FOR A WOMAN’S HEALTH CARE, OR, YOU FORCING ME TOO?

NOW THAT IS THE CONUNDRUM OF “BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS”  In your ignorance and arrogance you will impose your will on others.  I don’t do that sort of thing.  If you want birth control, go buy some rubbers, but don’t expect me to pay for it.

Purveyor

The Catholic Church believes that a federal requirement to subsidize something that goes against its teaching is an attack on the religious freedom to follow one’s conscience.   I don’t agree.
Quakers and others whose religious beliefs make participating in war morally wrong are not required to fight in a war.  However, they are required to pay federal taxes to support the military, and they must pay employer taxes for those who work for them as well.
A mandate to subsidize contraception certainly does not require those who are morally opposed to contraception to participate in its use, only that the subsidy be provided for those whose beliefs allow it.  As anyone who has followed the news throughout the past years know, the church has other issues to work on if it wishes to acquire a clear conscience.

The Catholic Church’s position is only good for the CHURCH.  If it is conducting a business, it is required to follow the laws of that business.  If the church doesnt like that, they need to get OUT of the business.
Telling employees what to do about contraception based on the employer’s religious beliefs is constitutionally dangerous and un-American.
Catholic organizations enter the business of health care vountarily, and with that decision they must accept that their place of business is NOT a church where their doctrine stands.  The violation of religious freedom here is not in asking Catholic employers to pay for birth control, rather it lies in Catholic employers treating their employees like congregants and imposing their doctrine on them whether they share the faith or not.
If we believe Catholic employers are justified in refusing to pay for contraceptives,. do we also believe they are justified in telling their employees that they are NOT permitted to divorce their spouses, which is also the Catholic doctrine? 

Don’t confuse running a Church with running a Business.

I don’t give a hoot about the Catholic Chuch or whether or not you get knocked up!

All I want to know is who is going to buy me a new gun? I’d like a Browning Hi-Power in 9mm…

Let’s see… THEY ARE WRONG BECAUSE EMPLOYERS SHOULDN’T BE FORCED TO COVER ANYTHING!  If you’re employer doesn’t provide insurance, you don’t have to work there, you can go look somewhere else… THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO FORCE PRIVATE COMPANIES TO COVER SOMETHING AS TRIVIAL AS BIRTH CONTROL!

HOLY CRAP… LIBERALS HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END!  Employers shouldn’t be FORCED to pay for anything… it is THEIR CHOICE if they want to cover employees, and if they do, more people will want to work there

 I agree generally with the gist of your primary argument. However, there are a couple minor issues I think ought to be explored a little…

First, that divorce analogy isn’t quite the same as contraception. Granted, it’s a serious issue for the devout, but I would think you could have used a different example that was a little more of par with the life argument. Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that there’s another example of rule bending going on there…

98% of sexually active Catholic women Barbs. Not “all.”

ROLFLMAO

Priceless!!!!!

What an excellent analogy….LOL.

Allow me to anticipate your retort?

Article 3 of the United States Constitution regards the Power of the Judiciary. Ultimately, many issues become cases that end up in front of the Supreme Court, ergo, the Court is the ultimate arbiter, not the President or Congress in these cases.

The “right to choose” was an odyssey of three cases that went before the Court: Eisenstadt, Griswold and the famous/infamous Roe v. Wade. Without Eisenstadt and Griswold there never would have been a Roe!

Hence I really don’t know what you are referring to in your second (incoherent) paragraph.

As for your third paragraph, you proffer an interesting list of social change, however, the relevance of such eludes me. Perhaps if you would have added the “Magna Carta” I would have found enlightenment? Regardless. all you have presented is a list, which combined makes for ‘non sequitur’.

Anyway, the question I posited in my previous post is salient: Which is the greater immorality, me refusing to provide health care for an indigent woman, or, you forcing me too? A true moral conundrum!

So, when are you going to buy me a gun? I’ll pay your health insurance premium for a month if you buy me a new M-14 Rifle? Note: I have a friend who needs a car?

Purveyor

Ahem…the singularity is that Jon Stewart is being used to bash Republican. Next time try reading. Trust me. The benefits are huge.

A lot people have no choice they just need a job whether it provides health insurance or not.  That is why single payer is the answer.  

It’s sad, but true.  

Okay.  Here’s one for you.

The Watchtower Society, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, believe that it is morally wrong to transfuse blood.

I presume the organization employs people, and probably some who are not of their faith. Are they allowed to exclude from employee health plans the transfusion of blood or blood products?

I have not seen this discussed, but it seems relevant to me.

Blood transfusion is costly, and it is often a matter of life and death. Knowing whether or not a church could exclude it as an mustache benefit would put the Catholic v. Contraceptive debate in perspective.
So, what if it were the Jehovah witnesses running the local hospital? Does this mean that if you had an accident and needed a blood transfusion or you would die, that they could deny you that transfusion?According to the republicans, they should have the right to deny you that care. 
I say that when a religious organization is running a BUSINESS for the public and taking government money and tax exempt, they have an obligation to provide all services whether their religion agrees with it or not – and that goes to their employee insurance as well as their patients

BUT, these AREN’T private companies.  These are government subsidized NON-PROFIT hospitals and charities. 
It is the HOSPITALS primarily that these little-boy loving Catholic priests are so heated up about.

health insurance?  hmmm  I think you’ve got your stories mixed up.  

supplying  birth control pills free is not health insurance.  

Don’t confuse fact with your interpretation of religious rights.  

Who pays for your birth control pills right now?  How is demanding that birth control pills be provided free qualify as health care coverage?  

Here is another like situation.

Quakers and others whose religious beliefs make participating in war morally wrong are not required to fight in a war.  However, they are required to pay federal taxes to support the military, and they must pay employer taxes for those who work for them as well.

A mandate to subsidize contraception certainly does not require those who are morally opposed to contraception to participate in its use, only that the subsidy be provided for those whose beliefs allow it. 

 As anyone who has followed the news throughout the past years know, the church has other issues to work on if it wishes to acquire aclear conscience.

I think, there is a factual problem?  Jehova’s Witness won’t allow themselves to have a transfusion, but, as for others having transfusions.  I don’t know about that.

Christian Scientists often refuse medical care, but will call an ambulance for someone injured in an accident?

Purveyor

I gather you don’t see a problem with the government demanding that you do something you don’t agree with.  Who gave the “government” that right?
Under what law does the government have the right to do so?
Do you think the government should operate under the laws of the land or should they be allowed to change the laws to further their agenda?
Exactly under what conditions do you think the government should be allowed to change the constitution?  Do you think you should have a say, or do you think the guys in the white house know better what is good for you and just change the rules as they see fit?

The problem is Benny, you and I are basing our positions on principle, whereas GORGEGIRL and others are concerned about the issue.

Allow me to reiterate:  Principle versus Issue.

If, procedural due process comes down on either side, I will accept such as that is “neutral principle.”  Many Conservatives and Liberals have abandoned their principles for political power and acquisition.

Purveyor

I think that went way over your head.  Watch out when I throw the heat. I have a mean slider.  

Agreed…

well let’s see why we don’t give Boxer and Stewart the weight you feel their  opinion’s deserve. 

Boxer is an idiot who demanded that she be addressed correctly while denigrating someone who put his life on the line so she could act like a prima donna.  A whacky mouth piece who hasn’t made an intelligent comment in years (if ever). 

Stewart is a comic.  He is not my source of final opinion.  Hell, I don’t even count on him for my laughs since I never watch him except here because to you he seems to be vital to your understanding of issues.  Now, let’s see – a group takes their cue from a comic…  and you think that elevates you and yours? 

To argue either for or against their comments would indicate that they matter.  They don’t.  

you forgot “liberal media”.  He’s not so much reliable to the thinkers.  

while I was telling uncle dad I dropped a line to mediate also.

seek456

First of all, you need to clear your head and get some information.  The “guys” in the white house didn’t make any change.  In fact, the healthcare plan that Mitt Romney put into Massachusetts also MANDATED that all CATHOLIC hospitals and charities provide healthcare coverage for their employees. 

The mandated coverage for the Affordable Health care plan is not new.  It is just that the Republican politicians want to get people like you all riled up.  And, I’m sure the priests at the Catholic Church are just as happy to have attention taken off the recent molestation of yet more little boys.

Are there some things the government does that I don’t agree with?  Sure.  In fact, one of them is giving churches a tax free status.  If we are truly going to have separation of church and state and the idiots in the Catholic Church are going to dictate the healthcare we can and can’t have, then we need to tax all their income and property.

Let’s truly have a separation of church and state.

But the CO’s would still be required to serve. That makes it a little less clear on whether their beliefs absolves them from duty.

Whether one be a combatant or the supporter of a combatant, one is still contributing to the war effort and they are certainly required to register for selective service.

And the idea that the Church has other issues to work out is a straw man. It’s like saying someone who suffers from a list of phobias cannot claim a desirable trait as a strength of character.

It did, did it?  yes, I see the connection – health care, free pills.  Only in a liberal’s mind do we take the leap from health care (which is still to be determined) – but while we wait, let’s hand out some free candy.  

Right over my head…

Now that is some extrapolating!

The US is a strange place. We are spending time talking about contraception. Really?

When I told you that politics in America has entirely become a comedy, you guys didn’t believe me, until you now have and elected Democrat veteran senator using a comedian’s piece to make an argument on a very vital issue of national significance. Yet the Democrats and their loyal friends in the media try to portray the Republicans as clowns or stupid.

The fact the Al Sharpton got his own TV show tells everything you need to know about the media and politics in America today.

By the way, the left-wing lunatics cant have it both ways, and either way they choose to have it, they lose. Stewart says he’s a “comedian” and not a political commentator/pundit, so Boxer should be ashamed of herself.

Where do you liberals find these loony tunes bimbos and why do you vote for them?
Have you no shame at all?
 

SEEK,

Therein lies the rub.  I wrote to Benny, above, that GORGE and her compatriots are trying to justify a position on an issue.  Whereas, we (Conservatives) are predominantly concerned and arguing the PRINCIPLE, which is the core guidance of America’s Constitution.HOWEVER, “wait until your (our) Ox is gored” so to speak?The “separation of church and state” is an issue where the Conservative tends to go astray from “principle.”  Conversely, the Liberal has “principle” on their side on that topic. To a degree.Just how far do we expand and contract the Constitution to make such fit our own desires?Purveyor

GORGEGIRL,

Sincerely, my compliments, you put up a valiant and reasoned set of arguments tonight.

Please, allow me to suggest an actual scenario that demonstrates my philosophy of neutral principle:A court case, Hill v. Colorado, determined that a woman must have “bubble of protection” from being accosted when entering a health clinic.  Free speech is protected as the protestors can still remain across the street, or at least 10 feet away.Also, the woman is reasonably protected as someone standing in front of you and yelling, etc., is arguably, physically intimidating. A “zone,” or, “bubble” provides objective protection. Thus, “Neutral principle” is maintained.What about a man (scab) who crosses a picket line, shouldn’t he too receive a “bubble of protection?”"Principle” has a curious way of making us both happy and sad, doesn’t it?  However, “Principle” and our adherence to such is much of what makes America exceptional.  Our entire Constitution is an expression, a guide toward neutral principle.All to often, our Nation and the courts convolute the law and Constitution so as to achieve a desired result.  Respectfully. in this issue, are you doing such, or, are the Conservatives?

Respectfully, Purveyor

1. I didn’t say i agreed or disagreed with them but if people are going to name call and bash someone they should at least be able to give reasons that are somewhat reasonable and rationale

2. you misplace the person with the argument or statements. I would hope, at least for the sake of being reasonable, that people would have the emotional intelligence that just because the person is not credible in their eyes does not always mean that their logic is faulty 
EX: Rick Santorum, to me, comes across as homophobic and antiwoman in some of his statements but that doesn’t mean I disagree with his work to combat AIDS, everything in total perspective 

1. why are you putting most stuff in caps?

2. the places in question are not private companies, in fact, if my memory serves, most catholic hospitals would be non existent but for government aid so one could make the reasonable argument that if your going to accept gov money you have to abide by their rules

3. as i’m sure your aware now, there is an opt out option attached, so at this point getting fired up just looks theatrical 

YODA,

DON’T presume to be a bastion of intellect, as you are not!  ”YODA” is merely a character in a fantasy movie series.  You hopefully identify with that character’s intellect and wisdom, however, the reality is you are sorely lacking.

Typically, the Socialist-Left (you) are driven by emotion rather than reason.  Your first error, frequently, is you neglect to substantiate and codify a core principle: Meaning, is “health care” a Constitutional right guaranteed by the Constitution,  Furthermore, if that right is to be provided by Government (taxpayers) or forced on other entities to pay for the mandated health care?

The Left, chronically, gets ahead of an issue without asking or answering the fundamental questions first.  Case in point is Rep. Pelosi’s comment “we have to pass it to find out whats in it.”  WHAT?

The intellect that a “YODA” was said to possess, would not do something so illogical.  Neither would Spock!

Purveyor

Purveyor – entering a clinic safely has absolutely nothing to do with the separation of church and state that we are dealing with here.
I suggest you take a look at the 1990 court case, Employment Div Dept of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith.

Didn’t realize there were so many misinformed dits out there.  FYI. This president did NOT just tell women “I hereby declare you have a right to choose”.  That right was always there in the US Constitution as the right to privacy but the US Supreme Court settled any question about it in 1973 ‘Roe v Wade’.
And a woman’s right to contraceptives “Griswold v Connecticut’.

If men can get their fricking viagra paid for by these same child molesters posing as the Catholic priests, surely they can pay the cost of contraceptives for women.

I don’t need birth control pills and if I did, my insurance would pay for them with a $3 co-pay.  However, for the millions of young women out there who do need them, I would think any employer would gladly pay for them – it is much cheaper than paying for unexpected maternity and prenatal care.
And, it is only right if they will pay for viagra, that they pay for contraceptives.

We now know from where she gets her news. What a pathetic figure she is.

You don’t even realize the slight of hand they are pulling (or attempting to pull) do you?

Ahhh well, whatevah!  Seems to work for you.

GORGE,

Congress has the power to regulate commerce.  Question: Is part of that regulatory power the ability to make a private business entity pay for services and items that the Government deems a moral obligation for that type of business to pay for?  That is a stretch for the commerce clause!

Remember my question:  ”What is the greater immorality, me refusing to pay, or you forcing me too?”

Governments throughout history have provided similar and basic services such as police, fire and public works.  However, this venture down the pathway of healthcare is very different and should have been done with caution.  Personally, I don’t trust our current Governments motives as I believe there is more to there intentions than what we see?

Purveyor

This women is a piece of crap!

Yes Yoda he is not.

Question:  Let’s just say that there was no mandate to purchase insurance, but absent any insurance or ability to pay cash for medical services, no doctor or hospital was required to take your sorry ass as a patient.

Now, maybe we are talking sense here.  You either have it or take the chance or dying.  Your choice. 

Your looking for praise of the Democratic Party that is openly trying to make this country dependent of the government?

I think all of these are possible concerns …but to get to the fact of the health care…no one is being forced to use the insurance in its entirety …if you dont’ use birth control then you won’t use that part of the insurance…there is choice as to what you access…but if you refuse to make the insurance available then there is no choice for anyone ..that is not right.  Everyone is being denied health care for a portion of the insurance that some might choose for whatever reasons not to use…I wonder when the Catholic Chruch will realize this is not a country with a church of state…many people in this country are not members of any church or faith group and never plan to be..that is their right..so when the Catholic church on any church group goes into the market sq;uare they need to be aware that they are in a space that is neutral as far as faith beliefs and that the use of insurance is being used by adults who are of age to make decisons without the need of a parent signature or the blessings of a Cathloc priest. And in this country the constittuion was written to establish and protect citizens of this country from this kind of reliigious control..they were wise men…may they increase in number as well as the women of today who know their rights as human beings and equal to any other human being in our world.