How do you edit someoneelse's posts?
|
How do you edit someoneelse's posts?
Clete, that's some really irrelevant non-reality based gobbledygook.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I said without the employer there would be no policy. That's choice, they choose a plan and pay a premium... you choose to accept their offer and work there or not. You are not guaranteed employment somewhere that fills all your wants and needs. What's next, compulsory free employer provided day care, fitness rooms, massagesQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Think what you may speech but there are red herrings a plenty in these debatesQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You can NOT edit someone else's post. Only the OP has that right for a limited time. The only other way is if you're a Super Mod. They are allowed to edit an OP's post for content.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Other then that you can do light editing if it is a quote. But only the quote will be edited and not the Original Post.
Your post wasn't edited, you have a time stamp note because I hit the wrong button.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I actually meant to edit my own post.
They aren't coming from me. But let's break down your post...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Wrong, it is not merely an ethical stance it is a doctrinal stance which the constitution does protect.Quote:
You have this all twisted and so do they. That they want to take an ethical stance is commendable but not constitutional.
No one is saying they are.Quote:
The members of the church are not being forced to use contraceptives and
Wrong, the mandate is against church doctrine and forces it to violate said doctrine if they furnish insurance coverage. If the church cannot stay true to their doctrine that is a violation of the free exercise clause.Quote:
the provision of health care insurance is not a matter covered under the provisions of the constituition relating to the establishment and conduct of a religion. The church is not being forced to violate any standard,
Wrong, the issue is not about forcing anyone to use contraceptives, that's a red herring. The issue is forcing the church to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients against church doctrine - directly or indirectly - and redefining what qualifies as a religious institution with first amendment protection.Quote:
since, as I said before, the use of contraceptives is not forced or enforced by the provisions, the members of the church are simply being placed in the same status as any other human being.
Another red herring. No one is asking the insurer to enforce church doctrine or forcing church members to adhere to church doctrine. The issue is as I stated in the previous paragraph, it is about EMPLOYEES and the benefits they receive. If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.Quote:
We all have to be protected from the thought police and the inquisition in all its forms, this is a case of the inquisition in action, dealing with private communication between a health insurer and its client to enforce a church doctrine.
That's just plain bullsh*t.Quote:
If you allow them to get away with this they will be interrogating the members to determine whether they have used contraceptives next
That's the choice you give? There are other options besides yours. That's what you are mad about because if they look around, they can keep their job and your benefits, and get more choices than you offer, on their own.Quote:
If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.
The churches attempt to limit an individuals choices will fail, but you guys will come up with something else, no doubt.
Hello again, Steve:
If we didn't let black people live in certain neighborhoods, you could answer in the same vein... But, I'll bet you wouldn't, because you can SEE the inherent UNFAIRNESS of THAT position..Quote:
If they don't like the benefits they're free to find employment elsewhere.
Or, maybe you can't.
But, because people like you AREN'T able to discern inherent unfairness, we wrote a Constitutional Amendment about it. Nonetheless, you STILL are UNABLE to grasp the VERY obvious UNFAIRNESS embodied in your position.
That's OK. People like you will NEVER be convinced. That's why my beloved Constitution will prevail.. I thought you LOVED the Constitution... No, huh?
Excon
Uh yeah, it's called freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Dude, all I know is if I own a business I'm the only one that should be calling the shots. That's how it works, but that's what you are mad about, you want to call the shots for someone else's business, soup kitchen and obviously the Church. If you don't like how others do things start your own and do it your way.Quote:
There are other options besides yours. That's what you are mad about because if they look around, they can keep their job and your benefits, and get more choices than you offer, on their own.
Now that's a red herring.Quote:
The churches attempt to limit an individuals choices will fail, but you guys will come up with something else, no doubt.
Life isn't fair, and I'm OK with that. But speaking of meaningless things, it's the liberal use of "fairness." You can't define it, you can't create it and your attempts to make life fair are inherently unfair to those you impose on to create your utopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
As soon as you can show me where free contraceptives are a constitutional right and defend my specifically enumerated first and second amendment rights I'll listen. You haven't and you won't, you don't like those parts of the constitution.Quote:
That's OK. People like you will NEVER be convinced. That's why my beloved Constitution will prevail.. I thought you LOVED the Constitution... No, huh?
Hello again, Steve:
We've been here before, but you don't want to get it.. That's OK. I'm patient... The COOL thing about our wonderful Constitution, is that it's NOT written in legalese.. It uses SIMPLE easily UNDERSTOOD words. Here's the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment: The state may NOT "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That means, if a company is going to cover MENS health needs, it needs to cover Women's health needs.Quote:
As soon as you can show me where free contraceptives are a constitutional right and defend my specifically enumerated first and second amendment rights I'll listen.
Now, you can SAY that if women don't like it, they can seek employment somewhere else... But, that's NOT what our Constitution says... I cannot imagine how your reading of that sentence differs from mine..
Do you think they just wrote those words to take up space? What the hell do you think those words MEAN?? I'm listening.
Excon
Oh I get it, and I've already addressed that. No employer offers men one one policy and women another, they get the same policy. I'm OK with not covering Viagra except for medical necessity, it's used to treat pulmonary hypertension you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
That's because you're under the same mistaken impression as tal, the constitution does not guarantee whatever employer provided benefits you think you deserve. Please, tell me where that's in thereQuote:
Now, you can SAY that if women don't like it, they can seek employment somewhere else... But, that's NOT what our Constitution says... I cannot imagine how your reading of that sentence differs from mine..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofQuote:
Do you think they just wrote those words to take up space? What the hell do you think those words MEAN?? I'm listening.
What the hell do you think that means? It's SIMPLE and EASY to understand.
Even if contraceptives are not a protected right, it doesn't mean they can't be free, or accessible. Now if insurance companies agree to give them out, how is that the business of a church?
They can always stop doing business with them, and go elsewhere. Just because you hate government doesn't mean everyone does, and I believe in government "for the people, by the people", and will resist any effort to subvert it otherwise.
That's not liberal talk, but American talk, and you have a right to disagree of course :)
Hello again, Steve:
This ISN'T about what we WANT, or think we DESERVE. It's about treating people EQUALLY... That's NOT a difficult concept.. If they offer it to ONE sex, they MUST offer it to the OTHER.. I don't know WHY you don't get it. IF they offer (that's a key word) MEN'S health care, then the law says quite CLEARLY, that they MUST offer WOMEN'S health care...Quote:
the constitution does not guarantee whatever employer provided benefits you think you deserve. Please, tell me where that's in there
You talk about Viagra... But, what about treating prostate problems... What about testicle problems? What about urethra problems?? Should men get those services? Should denying women's health care result in THESE mens services being withheld?? Why should MEN have to get a supplemental policy that they PAY for themselves to get THOSE services, and ONLY those services?? I don't even know IF a policy for that exists..
Excon
They ARE accessible, that's the red herring in all of this - the mandate was a cure in search of a disease. There was no problem with access, contraceptive was use was already almost UNIVERSAL in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
In fact... NYC schools hand out 12,721 ‘morning-after’ pills.
I forgot to mention subverting parental authority in my list of things the left has done to create the mess they're whining about now. I mean hey, why should a teenager, dependent on her parents for food, clothing, shelter and protection have to get permission to be administered abortifacients and hormone injections? Parents don't need to know what the government is doing to their children or God forbid, have a CHOICE in how to raise their children. This should pi$$ you off, but I know you'll make excuses.Quote:
New York City schools are offering young girls a full menu of birth control options, free of parental counsel, thanks to an unpublicized project by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s administration.
School nurses handed out 12,721 doses of the Plan B One-Step “morning-after” pill in 2011-12, up from 10,720 in 2010-11 and 5,039 in 2009-10, the New York Post reports.
Mona Davids, president of the NYC Parents Union, was stunned by the report.
“I’m in shock,” she said. “What gives the mayor the right to decide, without adequate notice, to give our children drugs that will impact their bodies and their psyches? He has purposely kept the public and parents in the dark with his agenda.”
Besides “emergency contraception,” about 40 school-based clinics have dispensed prescriptions for contraception, intrauterine devices and hormone-delivering injections, the Post reports. Officials refused to discuss the project.
When women get prostates and testicles we can discuss covering them. Please.
Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly, and engaging in risky behavior,and many of our youth fear there parents when they make mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
But your argument that when woman grow balls and the rest that comes with it then you will cover the maintanance is kind of ridiculous ince God didn't make 'em that way and different does not mean inferior.
Ex is right you do discriminate to make females dependent on men.
Yeah well, nanny Bloomberg is just like Planned Parenthood and many 'educators', they don't care what the parents want, they think they know what's best for your child.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I see the joke went right over your head.Quote:
But your argument that when woman grow balls and the rest that comes with it then you will cover the maintanance is kind of ridiculous ince God didn't make 'em that way and different does not mean inferior.
Are you kidding me? I serve my wife and daughter and their friends, I don't subjugate them as your government polices do. The mandate is a cure in search of a disease and it violates the first amendment. That is no red herring.Quote:
Ex is right you do discriminate to make females dependent on men
Sort of demonstrates what Speech is talking about... the unintended consequences of liberal policies...Quote:
Actually I believe that parents should be the final authority, but sadly many are not there to stop the youth from behaving badly
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nonsense Tom.
The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect and love to chatter in place of exercise. Plato
What liberal policies were evident in ancient Athens that cause this problem?
Tut
Tut I'm sure ancient Greece was decadent in their decline .
I was reminded of this little gem from Obama the candidate in 2008...
Quote:
"Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools, and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it."
That should be your little gem too. Now, let's do something about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You would think the courts would be more proactive with fathers but sorely they are not. They need to stop viewing fathers as walking wallets that are idiots about being able to take care of children.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Someone in the press corpse should stand up and remind him... yea right... likes that's ever going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt that decadence was not and is not the exclusive domain of liberalism. So what are you trying to tell me?
Tut
So, you are saying that Obama is actively working against the family unit?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Tut
Of course it is not the exclusive domain of liberalism .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Decadence is a luxurious self-indulgence. It is often used to describe a decline due to an erosion of moral, ethical, or sexual traditions.
In the United States case it can be traced to the things Speech described .If it makes you feel better.. I'll call it progressive policies.
Hello again, tom:
Your side laments the spread of freedom. You always have. You view it as a LOSS, whereas it's actually a GAIN.Quote:
Decadence is a luxurious self-indulgence. It is often used to describe a decline due to an erosion of moral, ethical, or sexual traditions.
In the United States case it can be traced to the things Speech described. If it makes you feel better.. I'll call it progressive policies.
I'd call it progressive policies, too.
Excon
I like the freedom to decide the size of a drink. Your freedom allows the state to give my daughter unlimited access to abortifacient in school without my permission.
No, I wish he would say such things more often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttyd
Hello again, tom:
What? You don't know how to say give me TWO!Quote:
I like the freedom to decide the size of a drink. Your freedom allows the state to give my daughter unlimited access to abortifacient in school without my permission.
Yes, even your daughter has dominion over her own body.
Excon
I thought you liked the freedom to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So in your world parents have no rights. Yep, you guys keep proving my opinion on liberal policies correct.Quote:
Yes, even your daughter has dominion over her own body.
He did. He chose two, one Cola and one Sprite.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What have the parents been teaching their daughter all those years? Or is she floundering all clueless and looking for love and subject to the whims of her peers and unscrupulous people?Quote:
So in your world parents have no rights.
Hello again, Steve:
If your daughter can screw under your nose, then she can get an abortion under there too.Quote:
So in your world parents have no rights.
After she's pregnant, and you've already FAILED at being a staunch right wing father, you have NO right to inflict yourself into her life at THIS point. This is HER body, and it's HER decision what to do with it.
Excon
So why can't he choose one 32oz?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Personally, I really don't care. That the school would give my minor child abortifacients and hormone injections without my consent is an outrage that should have everyone up in arms.Quote:
What have the parents been teaching their daughter all those years? Or is she floundering all clueless and looking for love and subject to the whims of her peers and unscrupulous people?
Bullsh*t, that's EXACTLY the wrong attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Parents owe it to their kids to bring them up with a healthy knowledge about and respect for their own bodies as well as respect for others'. That's what is missing today.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And the problem is the left feels fine giving birth control and abortions to kids without their parents permission... but let someone in the class hold a paryer and they get their panties in a knot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
What's missing is the support the community gave those parents. Now the community undermines the parents ,and ,the schools the government says to the kids... "it's ok to screw around" .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM. |