|
42188. vonKreedon - 1/28/2012 12:13:16 AM Jen - Get what? Who, besides you, has said that Republicans are evil and stupid? Are you responding to any actual points raised? 42189. arkymalarky - 1/28/2012 3:41:54 AM The GOP should have done what Dems did before '08--influence at least one credible candidate to run. In '04 Dems should've defeated Bush. They had a weak candidate and lost. They had a much better slate of candidates in '08. 42190. thoughtful - 1/28/2012 5:35:58 AM Can we bring back Bill Clinton?
He was on the daily show awhile back and it was such a pleasant relief to hear someone intelligently and seriously discuss economic policy issues.
I'd love to bring back his 4% unemployment rate and balanced budget too! 42191. Wombat - 1/28/2012 6:45:39 PM Bill Clinton, as much as we all love him, accomplished much less in his presidency than President Obama. 42192. arkymalarky - 1/28/2012 8:59:54 PM I don't miss the drama. Even now, great as he is, it always seems he's conscious of a camera or mike on him. If Obama is reelected I think we'll majorly miss Hillary Clinton.
42193. judithathome - 1/28/2012 9:53:58 PM Newt keeps trying to tar Obama with the S A word Saul Alinsky but frankly, he should be worried about his own S A word Sheldon Adelson.
This guy is flat out buying Newt. Period. 42194. judithathome - 2/2/2012 11:02:22 PM Hope some of you watched Rachel Maddow's show tonight and saw the exposure of Mitt's "self-deporation" goof up...the guy is amazing in his lack of awareness.
You'd think he or at the very least, someone on his team, would have vetted an idea like that and had they, they would have discovered the phrase "self-deportation" as a concept was the meat of an excellent satirical spoof done by a poltical cartoonist...he did ads and interviews under the name Daniel D. Portado in California in the early 90s and evidently, Mitt's sense of humor has a few cogs missing...he took it seriously.
Sort of like Tom DeLay thinking Stephen Colbert was a great conservative entertainer.
42195. judithathome - 2/2/2012 11:04:44 PM Okay, more on this "self-deportation" spoof...now they have spoofs OF the spoof...be sure to read the "recent posts" of Daniel D. Portado...it's first on the list.
Patriots FOR Self-Deportation 42196. judithathome - 2/2/2012 11:06:06 PM And more on the genius behind "self-deportation"...I think Romney should ask him for an endorsement.
Daniel D. Portado 42197. OhioSTOPAS - 2/7/2012 8:47:44 PM "CINCINNATI (AP) — Newt Gingrich thrust the reproductive rights issue into the GOP campaign spotlight today, criticizing both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama’s records on requiring Catholic organizations to provide contraceptive aids in some circumstances. . . .
"Gingrich, a Catholic, told GOP voters in swing-state Ohio that Obama had declared war on the Catholic Church. He and his GOP rivals have blasted the administration’s new regulation requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control for their workers. Some Catholics say the rule would force Catholic institutions to violate their religious convictions."
Just wondering if the oh-so-Catholic Mr. Gingrich HIMSELF obeys his Church's rules regarding birth control. Given that the landscape isn't strewn with little Newts fathered by this philandering horndog, I suspect not.
Now it's true Newt has only been a Catholic for a few years, but his current wife and former "other woman" Callista has always been Catholic. Do you think that when Newt began having sexual congress - pun intended - with the then-single Callista he respected her religious conviction (if any) that they not use birth control??
42198. vonKreedon - 2/7/2012 10:04:31 PM The rebuttal to that would be that at least he wasn't insisting that the church pay for their contraceptives. 42199. OhioSTOPAS - 2/7/2012 10:28:58 PM Neither is the Obama administration.
The requirement is that the church purchase an insurance policy. 42200. vonKreedon - 2/7/2012 10:46:54 PM And that the insurance policy cover contraception, so the church is required to support contraception despite its religious objection to contraception. 42201. OhioSTOPAS - 2/7/2012 10:56:01 PM That is still several steps removed from an individual Catholic being required to participate in something that violates his or her conscience (which I would oppose). To use a ridiculous example, no one is requiring a priest to personally dispense contraceptive pills.
Your argument is very close to saying, say, that pacifists shouldn't have to pay taxes because some tax money goes to buy guns and bullets.
I think the Obama administration is drawing the line in the right place. If a church engages in secular employment activity, it's going to have to live with the fact that its employees who are not members of the church will not be compelled to follow the dictates of the church. 42202. OhioSTOPAS - 2/7/2012 11:00:34 PM I admit that my views on this specific issue are affected by the fact that the Catholic Church has been unsuccessful in persuading its own adherents to follow the no-birth-control edict. (I read that 98% of Catholics have used birth control at some time, although I'm skeptical the number is that high.) It seems unjust to me that a church should be able to compel non-members, by way of its economic clout as an employer, to follow a rule that it can't persuade its actual members to follow. 42203. vonKreedon - 2/7/2012 11:08:08 PM The rational conservative argument, IMO, is that the rule does compel the church to pay for contraception and that is against the First Amendment. It's not the same thing as individual Catholics using their own money to buy contraceptives. The precedent set then leads to Catholic institutions having to provide abortion coverage, coverage to same sex spouses, etc. Eventually these institutions simply stop providing insurance rather than violate their religious beliefs.
Myself, I'm conflicted. If a church institution hires non-believers, then what compelling interest does the state have in compelling the institution to provide benefits that are antithetical to the church's teaching? I'm not sure, I'd rather we had single-payer insurance so that we could avoid the whole issue. 42204. OhioSTOPAS - 2/7/2012 11:33:01 PM It's not a First Amendment violation. Courts in New York and California have upheld state laws virtually identical to the Obama administration rule against claims that they violated the free exercise rights of the religiously affiliated employer. There's a discussion of this in a post today at "Hullabaloo" (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com).
That's another factor affecting my thinking on this specific issue. For some years now, religiously affiliated organizations have been buying insurance policies that include contraceptive coverage in at least several states. But now, it's supposed to be a big new issue. 42205. vonKreedon - 2/7/2012 11:35:12 PM Not all, perhaps few, religious institutions have the same doctrinal teaching on contraception as the Catholics.
And just because courts have ruled in favor of similar rules does not mean it's not a First Amendment issue. 42206. Wombat - 2/7/2012 11:36:48 PM Agreed on single payer.
You should note that many Catholic institutions that hire and serve the general public (universities/hospitals) are already required by the states in which they are located to purchase insurance plans that include contraception (without all the politicized breast-beating that is going on).
I suggest that this has far more to do with the reactionary US Catholic leadership (which is not particularly in touch with those whom it is supposed to serve) attempting to insert themselves in electoral politics. 42207. OhioSTOPAS - 2/8/2012 1:25:19 AM I agree with Wombat. More politics than principle here.
|
