Ask Me Help Desk - Birth control pills

I read that thread and the article it relates to - it never said that the government could spy on you through your dishwasher... never. Not even about a general spying on you. It did talk about web connected devices but that's about it.

Agree... however Steve was commenting on Ex's perception and not on the content of the article. .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno WHY you have such a problem with government OBEYING the law. Somehow, you just think they're just not gonna. I have NO idea why you think that..

Let's take Social Security... They WRITE me a check every month. They're NOT in my business. They don't CARE where I spend the money. They don't decide to pay me based on anything OTHER than what the numbers say. They don't care whether I'm white, sick, a homosexual or a raving maniac. They PAY. That's ALL they do, and it works fine.

Why you think they couldn't or WOULDN'T do the same thing with your doctors bills, is beyond me.

excon

So because the feds portion your own money back to you every month they won't be involved in managing health care? Then what the heck is this mandate about? They're not supposed to be involved according to you now. Thank you for agreeing with me, finally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

There will be a slew of private employers who are not affiliated in any way with the Catholic church who will bring this outrageous overstep of executive authority to court over violations of their 1st amendment free exercise of religious conscious rights .

The President stepped into it big time .

Here's the 1st of many to come...

http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rack...ll-mandate.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here's the 1st of many to come .....

http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rack...ll-mandate.pdf

Hi Tom,

Interesting isn't it?

I have said all along you guys have the moral high ground. But will that be enough?

The Obama administration will probably want to argue that this is a economic pursuit as much as it is a religious pursuit. And that, The Free Exercise Clause should be read in conjunction with,The Establishment Clause, or some such related clause.

Whichever way the decision goes I can't wait to read the majority decision handed down.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I read that thread and the article it relates to - it never said that the government could spy on you through your dishwasher...never. Not even about a general spying on you. It did talk about web connected devices but that's about it.

What tom said. Apparently you didn't read ex's title for the thread so I'll quote it for you, "Petraus: I'll spy on you through your DISHWASHER!"

Yea, people have been bemoaning Wired's online articles as of late. They seem to have taken a sensationalistic bent there that happily doesn't exist in their print version. The article title doesn't mesh with the content. It's sad that they have gone this route; at least my print subscription doesn't have that crap.

Why are you worrying about a benign organisation like the CIA? Their focus is supposed to be external anyway. It took them ten years to find OBL how long do you think it will take them to find you?

Lol didn't you just post how one of your moguls thinks the CIA funds Greenpeace ? That is more delusional than thinking that the CIA can spy though electronic devices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

lol didn't you just post how one of your moguls thinks the CIA funds Greenpeace ? That is more delusional than thinking that the CIA can spy though electonic devices.

No, really, the CIA does use electronic devices, and they are not above inserting a bug in your dishwasher, nor are they above funding and infiltrating all sorts of organisations. None of these things are as far fetched as you imagine, you just don't want to believe it. None of these things are delusional, in fact the truth is far beyond what we might imagine

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Here's the 1st of many to come...

http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rack...ll-mandate.pdf

The number of plaintiffs is almost to 60 now. The latest is Wheaton College, which brings the number of Protestant plaintiffs to four because we recognize this is not just an attack on Catholics.

The money quote from Monsignor Michael Boland of Catholic Charities of Chicago:

Quote:

As all of us know, Catholic Charities serves the poor because we are a Catholic organization, not because our clients are Catholic. We strongly believe at Catholic Charities that we witness our faith by our service to the poor. We ask only, “Are you hungry?” “Do you need clothing?” or “Are you homeless?” Under the HHS mandate, to be a “religious employer” we would now have to ask, “Are you Catholic?” This goes against everything that Catholic Charities stands for as an organization. Under the HHS mandate, we are punished for both employing and reaching out to serve non-Catholics, which is an injustice.

Like I've said many times, you're going to miss the church when she can longer carry out it's mission to be our brother's keeper. All so some college student can have free birth control when there was never a problem with access to begin with. I'll be more than happy for you to tell that hungry, homeless guy his shelter and food for the night has closed so Sandra Fluke can have sex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Like I've said many times, you're going to miss the church when she can longer carry out it's mission to be our brother's keeper.

Why do you need some organization to do this for you? Why can;'t people help people and not go through some authoritative socialist organization who wants to redistribute goods and money?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Why do you need some organization to do this for you?

Do you really need me to answer that for you? That's as elementary as it gets, NK. I can't get to my sponsored child in Peru for $35.00, but World Vision can and be remarkably efficient with my $35.00. I mean really, NK, I thought you were smarter than that.

Quote:

Why can;'t people help people and not go through some authoritative socialist organization who wants to redistribute goods and money?

Like a wasteful federal government, I've been asking that question for years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do you really need me to answer that for you? That's as elementary as it gets, NK. I can't get to my sponsored child in Peru for $35.00, but World Vision can and be remarkably efficient with my $35.00. I mean really, NK, I thought you were smarter than that.

So they take funds from you and redistribute it to poor people? Karl Marx would be proud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

So they take funds from you and redistribute it to poor people? Karl Marx would be proud.

That just shows either how ignorant you are or how desperate you are to make me look foolish. Which is it?

Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

That just shows either how ignorant you are or how desperate you are to make me look foolish. Which is it?

Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.

You just posted that it takes 35$ From you was that a lie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Unlike the government World Vision TAKES nothing from me.

Your empathy for disadvantaged kids abroad is admirable. To bad it doesn't extend to the ones here, as you are for the candidate that wants you and the poor kids and their parents to pay for them to get even bigger tax cuts to pee on your head.

What's confusing is that you are against abortions (so am I to be fair), and birth control pills (the best solution to abortions). You were against GWB, but you love his policies, and want more of them.

But of course I can understand it! You would extract money from the economy, hide it, and forget about your own country, and that's okay? Let me know how that voucher works for you in your old age! Maybe your kids will like it too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

you just posted that it takes 35$ From you was that a lie?

You obviously cannot read and/or comprehend. I said no such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Do you really need me to answer that for you? That's as elementary as it gets, NK. I can't get to my sponsored child in Peru for $35.00, but World Vision can and be remarkably efficient with my $35.00. I mean really, NK, I thought you were smarter than that.

Like a wasteful federal government, I've been asking that question for years.

It's probably not quite that straight forward. Entrepreneurs and charitable organizations may well operative from different motives.

This seems to be the case at the moment. Probably worth making this distinction.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

It's probably not quite that straight forward. Entrepreneurs and charitable organizations may well operative from different motives.

This seems to be the case at the moment. Probably worth making this distinction.

Tut

It is that straightforward Tut. I don't know where entrepreneurs came in, the comparison is between charitable organizations and the government. But the question was "Why do you need some organization to do this for you?"

It's obvious, World Vision can do much more with combined resources than I can with $35.00 on my own.