 |
Hello:
It wasn't long ago that I was looking at a resounding defeat for Obama and the Democrats. It looks like the right wingers agreed with me, too, and thought even dufuses could beat him... Plus, that was BEFORE it became known what Republicans actually DO when they take over, as in the states where they have BIG majorities.
So, I think Obama WILL survive, the Dems will recapture the House, and those radical right wing states will be brought back to the center.
No?
excon
They are certainly shooting themselves in the foot with their in-fighting and "interesting" quotes from the campaigns.
Too early to predict . Neither side has done anything to help their cause.
There is tremendous advantages in the power of incumbency . But in my opinion the President is still very weak.
I am not that concerned about the Republic circular firing squad unless Newt or Paul is the nominee. Romney running the gauntlet is making him a stronger candidate .
Not only will the Dems not retake the House ;but they will lose the Senate .
As a side note /// Peyton Manning to the Seahawks?? Sounds like a perfect match .
Manning would have a nice corps of receivers with the Cowboys. Yeah, I'm about ready to dump Romo.
Hello tom:
The firing squad will continue.. Either Newt OR Paul will run as a third party candidate, and keep on firing... Newt and Romney really DO hate each other.
excon
PS> Just what we need - a quarterback who can't feel his fingers.. We already got one of them.. Although Jackson tore it up the last few games.
You know that isn't going to happen ;even though it should be obvious that with the skill players they have ;the Cowboys should rock the league .
P.S. Obama is doing his best job of alienating Catholics and other people of faith by compelling religious health care entities to provide insurance coverage for sterilization, contraceptives and abortifacients against their beliefs. Damn shame this president has no respect for the constitution and our religious rights.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What about the rights of the employees? If the Catholic church doesn't want to behave like an ordinary American employer (which they ARE), they can certainly give up their tax exemption.
excon
And so they should because it is outrageous that Obama would place such conditions .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Outrageous?? Can the church REFUSE to hire a black person?? A woman? What's outrageous is that the Catholic church thinks it can pick which employment law it should obey.
excon
Are they refusing to hire women and Blacks ? No .They are objecting to being forced to provide in their medical coverage things ,devices ,procedures they consider morally objectionable .
Very easy solution . Give them a waiver like Obama gives to all his cronies .
If there was a demand for such particular style of service shouldn't the free market come up with an HMO to cater to that market?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes... and the Catholics in a free market would have the choice if the insurance they provide has that option.
The problem with this government control is that they are forcing people into coverage they don't want .
So such an HMO already exists? What company is that?
Dude, they don't have to work there. They know going in it is a non-profit religious organization. You do know that historically, hospitals were typically founded and funded by religious groups. You'd apparently rather have the unfeeling, unsympathetic corporate types running the health care industry than allow the church to continue exercising its first amendment rights and do what it has done for ages in caring for the health of people, often the poorest among us.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Clearly this is so because the Catholic Church was able to get acceptable coverage for their employees before Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So an HMO exists that they were using that met their moral requirements and they are being forced to switch from that? Or is the HMO being forced to offer "new" services?
Do you have a link that describes this forcing of the issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
"houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt"
Any Catholic in a job with another employer doesn't have to use those services. In the same way that I don't use a whole bunch of services available to me in my health plan.
"that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith."
How many hospitals do you know that serve only patients of the same religion?
In another Orwellian twist, Obama claims he pushed Obamacare because of Christ.
Obama: I Pushed Dodd-Frank And Health Care Reform Because Of Christ
Apparently Obama thinks Christ was pro-abortion.
It's a no brainer.. it violates the actual and historical definition of the 'free exercise clause' of the 1st amendment .
He was pro-choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Its my understanding and from what is being reported the churches get a pass on this but the hospitals do not. So those of religious origin will now have to perform abortions and give out contreception as the law reads. They MUST now offer these services that they had not before offered.
Churches cannot/do not accept federal/state funding. Do hospitals associated with religious bodies receive such funding?
Nope, he, like myself, is a fan of the Golden rule:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Quote:
"I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato," Obama added.
Im not sure types of funding they get. I am also not sure if that includes or not monies paid for services rendered to the poor or those on Medicaid as being government funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Here is an article from 2010. Just to give you an idea of what is going on.
Obama continues his project of dismantling Catholic health care CatholicVoteAction.org
If a hospital or church accepts any government funding, it should pay taxes.
Not in the sense it's used today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Babies want to be torn apart and ripped from their mother's womb?
If they were babies that'd be bad... but they are not.
Quit interfering in people's lives, let them make their own choices.
Bet you're glad you weren't snuffed that way .
No, of course not. Let's prevent them from coming into existence in the first place (i.e. abstinence). And if they exist, let's make sure they grow up and are fed and clothed and have health care and a comfortable old age.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello Carol:
WG, you're so - so, uhhh, European...
excon
Carol,
I'm OK with that. But I still will not stop fighting for the unborn child's right to life either.
Mark Steyn had a nice suggestion for the president for something he said during his speech claiming Jesus made him do it.
But of course that's not at all what Obama means by being your brother's keeper, he means the government should be your brother's keeper... on my dime.Quote:
On Thursday, President Barack Obama delivered remarks to the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton and said, “Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper, caring for the poor and those in need.”
But according to National Review columnist Mark Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” Obama’s comments leave much to be desired, particularly when it comes to the president’s own brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama who lives on $12 a year in Kenya.
“Oh give me a break,” Steyn said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show on Thursday night. “For a start, when he says, ‘I am my brother’s keeper,’ his brother is back in Kenya living on $12 a year. That’s what he was living on at the time of the 2008 election. So all the president has to do in terms of shared responsibility is put a $10 bill in an envelope and mail it to Nairobi or Mombasa or wherever and he will double his brother’s salary.”
Quote:
At issue is the Obama administration’s effort to require Catholic institutions to provide contraception. Steyn explained this is part of “big government” trying to supplant the church as a source of “moral authority.”
“This version of shared responsibility means the state should be your ‘brother’s keeper,’” he said. “And this is the point for the Catholic Church. Separation of church and state is one thing, but big government means the state as church, the sole legitimate source of moral authority whether it’s on contraception or gay marriage or abortion or any of the rest. And that’s what you see in Europe. Big government drives out other sources of moral authority.”
He never said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
A very stupid person wrote that.Quote:
but big government means the state as church
I thought you are Republican.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I asked my very conservative Republican husband if there should be good union pensions for teachers and government help for families with autistic kids, and he said, "Heck, no!" Then I asked him, if I had continued as a teacher in Chicago, joined the union, and now got a nice pension, and we got government help for our autistic son, would he be okay with that?" and he said, "Heck, yes!"
Guess it depends on whose pocket the money goes into...
Well those ideas run contrary to some in this place. You mean you don't want people to be thrown on the scrapheap of capitalism and heddonism, how unamericanQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 PM. |