[talaniman]

Cojones and Dr. Suess, that's a winner. He is still squealing repeal and that's NOT a winner, neither is shutting down the government. He did make himself TParty guy #1, and that's probably his whole point in all this.

I have stated that I will live with whatever comes from the court ruling, and my question was will you? Neither of us has much choice.

Just for the record, the nuns buy nothing, the corporation is what must obey the law, and that's what they signed up for when the did it, knowing full well they had other options to protect themselves for liabilities.

I take a dim view of the church lying to me.

[smoothy]

The republicans wouldn't be shutting down the government... face it... the choice to shut it down is in the hands of the democrats... and they would be doing it out of spite, since most of the American population want nothing to do with Obamacare in the fiorst place.

[talaniman]

The public will love it after they find out republicans have been lying through there teeth about it. They love what they have seen implemented so far.

[excon]

Hello again, smoothy:

and they would be doing it out of spite, since most of the American population want nothing to do with Obamacare in the fiorst place.

Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST, and he lost BIG!

Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:
Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST, and he lost BIG!

Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Reality check here...

ALL current and valid polls show overwelmining desire to dump Obamacare.

The House is who controls the purse... not the senate... not the White house.

They create, write and pass the spending bill... if the Democrat controlled senate or the Bozo controlled White house refuse to sign it... THEY are the ones shutting down the Government by putting their petty partisan politics above what's good for the country.

But then trying to talk to a democrat about what they are doing wrong is like trying to talk with a cannible about what's wrong with eating people. They don't get it because they've always been doing the wrong thing.

They feel the constitution and Bill of rights are obsticals to circumvent... instead of something to aspire to embrace.


Incidentally... Not even Liberalland loves it... according to the 9-26-2013 Express (a Washington comPost publication)... in 2010 Washington DC had 918 active primary care physicians reporting to the board... today there are only 453 that even spend more than 20 hours a week seeing patients at all.

They don't have it in their online version to link but its in their print copy today. Good luck finding a doctor.

[tomder55]

Hello again, smoothy:
Here's a touch of reality, which seems to escape you most of the time...

Not 6 months ago we had a NATIONAL poll. It was called an election. One guy said his FIRST priority would be to repeal Obamacare.

He LOST, and he lost BIG!

Now, I know you don't BELIEVE that poll. You think the Democrats CHEATED...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Now you sound like McLame . We had 8 years of Bush and never once did I hear the Dems say that elections have consequences so they should stop fighting for what they believe in ,or stop opposing the President's agenda . I never heard Shmucky say that the Dems should "respect outcomes of election " .

[talaniman]

Enough of this rabble shut the sucker down and see.

[speechlesstx]

Cojones and Dr. Suess, that's a winner. He is still squealing repeal and that's NOT a winner, neither is shutting down the government. He did make himself TParty guy #1, and that's probably his whole point in all this.

LOL, you guys are scared of him.

I have stated that I will live with whatever comes from the court ruling, and my question was will you? Neither of us has much choice.

And so far Hobby Lobby has the court on their side.

Just for the record, the nuns buy nothing, the corporation is what must obey the law, and that's what they signed up for when the did it, knowing full well they had other options to protect themselves for liabilities.

The corporation is non-profit. Tax exempt but not contraceptive exempt? Really, arguing with you is surreal.

I take a dim view of the church lying to me.

As would I, but the only one lying about it here is you in trying to define the church as some for profit business - while endorsing a forced violation of their protected beliefs. And that my friend is as insensitive as it gets, picking on nuns who've taken a vow of chastity and penalizing them for refusing to violate their protected beliefs while they're only trying to help the poor.

Dude, that's cold blooded.

[smoothy]

Incidentally... Not even Liberalland loves it... according to the 9-26-2013 Express, lower right, page 15 (a Washington comPost publication)... in 2010 Washington DC had 918 active primary care physicians reporting to the board... today there are only 453 that even spend more than 20 hours a week seeing patients at all.

For a population of a bit over 632,000

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html

They don't have it in their online version to link but its in their print copy today. Good luck finding a doctor.

[talaniman]

As would I, but the only one lying about it here is you in trying to define the church as some for profit business - while endorsing a forced violation of their protected beliefs. And that my friend is as insensitive as it gets, picking on nuns who've taken a vow of chastity and penalizing them for refusing to violate their protected beliefs while they're only trying to help the poor.

Dude, that's cold blooded.

They are a multinational corporation with offices all over the world. You may feature the charity the nuns do, and not only are they tax exempt, but receive government payments through Medicare and Medicaid.

What part of waiting for the final court ruling are you not understanding here guy? I just know that before I give a multimillion dollar corporation my money, or time, I check them out whether a nun, is the CEO, or NOT.

And yes they are a conglomerate of multimillion dollar corporations, with an IRS 501(c) 3 exemption in the US.

So buying a required by law policy, in no way forces nuns to buy contraceptives. And its not for the nuns, its for employees. It doesn't save any money for insurances for sure, or the church. But for a young female, nurse or accountant it maybe gender discriminatory. But that's for the employee to decide.

In any case we await a ruling.

[speechlesstx]

They are a multinational corporation with offices all over the world. You may feature the charity the nuns do, and not only are they tax exempt, but receive government payments through Medicare and Medicaid.

What part of waiting for the final court ruling are you not understanding here guy? I just know that before I give a multimillion dollar corporation my money, or time, I check them out whether a nun, is the CEO, or NOT.

And yes they are a conglomerate of multimillion dollar corporations, with an IRS 501(c) 3 exemption in the US.

So buying a required by law policy, in no way forces nuns to buy contraceptives. And its not for the nuns, its for employees. It doesn't save any money for insurances for sure, or the church. But for a young female, nurse or accountant it maybe gender discriminatory. But that's for the employee to decide.

In any case we await a ruling.

What part of it's freakin' ridiculous to force anyone to buy contraceptive coverage do you not get? But the church? Really? It should have NEVER happened and you're guy who waives and weaves through his own law could make it all go away with the stroke of a pen.

This is your evil "multinational corporation":

The first group of Little Sisters destined for America left the motherhouse on August 28, 1868. After a long journey by boat they set foot on American soil in Brooklyn, New York, on September 13, 1868. The Little Sisters were faced with a cultural barrier, as no one traveling over spoke English.

Soon after arriving in Brooklyn the Little Sisters received their first donation, a gift of $20, from Rev. Isaac Hecker, founder of the Paulists. After welcoming their first Residents, the Sisters wrote back to the motherhouse: “The public appear delighted to see that we are willing to work for the poor; that we ask no endowment; that we desire to trust in Providence and in the generosity of the public.” A second group of Sisters arrived in Cincinnati on October 14, 1868. The arrangements for the home were facilitated by Sarah Worthington Peter, a convert to Catholicism and daughter of an Ohio senator. Six days before Christmas a third group of Little Sisters arrive in New Orleans. The house was offered to them by a group of charitable ladies who already named the house “Home of St. Joseph.” As a show of support, the municipal government paved the street in front of the home and approved an allowance of $1,000 to pay for repairs to the building.

On April 6, 1869, the Little Sisters establish their work in Baltimore. The seminary, staffed by French Sulpicians, offers donations of food and their moral support. Bishop Martin John Spalding states, “The Little Sisters of the Poor are called to do a great deal of good in America, not only among the poor, but also among the rich; for words no longer suffice — works are necessary.” From Baltimore the Little Sisters head west, establishing a house in Saint Louis on May 3, 1869. People would ask, “What are you going to do in a house where there is nothing?” “Wait a few days,” the Little Sisters replied.

Observing the Little Sisters, Bishop Patrick J. Ryan said, “If one builds on holy poverty, Providence cements the building.” Shortly after, the Sisters established a relationship with a steamboat company on the Mississippi who would solicit donations from their passengers and would set aside leftovers from the dining room, all to the benefit of the aged poor of Saint Louis. Philadelphia opened its doors to the Little Sisters on August 24, 1869. In an act of generosity on the part of a young Philadelphian, Mary Twibill, asked for her estate to be left to the Little Sisters.

Just one month later Louisville welcomed the Little Sisters. Bishop William George MacCloskey provided his assistance by lending the Sisters an estate that was intended for a seminary. The Little Sisters write back to the motherhouse, “Divine Providence provided according to our needs; within a few days, our house was found furnished with beds, tables, chairs, kitchen utensils and provisions of all kinds. We were quite overcome with gratitude towards the good God, who disposed so well people’s hearts in our favor.” The Little Sisters arrived in Boston on April 19, 1870. The Superior of the local Jesuit community remarked, “What I admire is that these Sisters are such as people describe them. One sees that they not only have confidence in Providence, but that they have not a doubt of its protection. One sees that they do not calculate, they do not reckon, they do not ask what people will give them for the needs of their poor.”

In the spring of 1870, the Little Sisters also opened a home in Cleveland. With help from a local German family the Sisters were provided with linens, mattresses and other sorts of necessary items, while the bishop, along with a wealthy Protestant, contributed toward the purchase of a suitable property. The tenth home was established in our Nation’s Capital on February 2, 1871. Together with the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Father Walter, parish priest of St. Patrick’s Church, Washington, D.C. provided the Sisters with a house with carpeted rooms, numerous fire places, plenty of furniture and a well-stocked kitchen. The home gained considerable political support and the Little Sisters were authorized to beg for donations in Federal government buildings — an unprecedented privilege that continued uninterrupted until the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

When you express your disdain for corporate interests I had no idea that carried over to nuns who beg for donations to help the poor.

[talaniman]

Why does my disdain for the corporate structure mean disdain for the good work of the nuns?

Two different areas of discussion to me. Seems you cannot separate the differences. And I have proved that in addition to donations and fund raisers the federal government also subsidizes their efforts with tax status, and direct payments.

No doubt the nuns will do good work no matter what insurance the corporation buys. And to be clear, many religious charities do indeed buy health insurance that covers contraceptives. Not just contraceptives, but a full range of family planning and female reproductive heath services. Again, lets be clear, the whole conversation isn't about the works, but the benefits of EMPLOYEES.

[speechlesstx]

Why does my disdain for the corporate structure mean disdain for the good work of the nuns?

Everything, duh. You're the one using the "corporate" label to justify the mandate and call the church a liar. Get real, Tal, you think I was born yesterday?

Two different areas of discussion to me. Seems you cannot separate the differences. And I have proved that in addition to donations and fund raisers the federal government also subsidizes their efforts with tax status, and direct payments.

Which means exactly nothing, it's a non-profit charitable religious organization and the mandate violates their first amendment rights.

No doubt the nuns will do good work no matter what insurance the corporation buys. And to be clear, many religious charities do indeed buy health insurance that covers contraceptives. Not just contraceptives, but a full range of family planning and female reproductive heath services. Again, lets be clear, the whole conversation isn't about the works, but the benefits of EMPLOYEES.

Drop the corporate crap, the nuns are the corporation. Geez, you're being totally ridiculous about this.

[NeedKarma]

the nuns are the corporation

No they aren't. The hospital is full of employees who aren't nuns, or even female. You're being totally ridiculous about this.

[speechlesstx]

No they aren't. The hospital is full of employees who aren't nuns, or even female. You're being totally ridiculous about this.

You don't even know what you're talking about, the Little Sisters of the Poor is not a hospital. They are nuns who help the poor. Try and keep up all that information was right in front of you.

[talaniman]

Catholic bishops urge US to oppose food stamp cuts

Why are you not so outraged by the food stamp cuts?

[NeedKarma]

Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
That's their business operations then.

Anyway they have " have no plans to close any of our homes, nor to leave the United States, as a result of the HHS Mandate."

[speechlesstx]

Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
That's their business operations then.

Anyway they have " have no plans to close any of our homes, nor to leave the United States, as a result of the HHS Mandate."

What part of charity do you not get? It is not a business.

[speechlesstx]

Catholic bishops urge US to oppose food stamp cuts

Why are you not so outraged by the food stamp cuts?

Been there, done that. Even the CBO supports the cut in food stamps. If you want more food stamps take out of Obama's crony corporate charity fund, you'd think that would be an area of agreement.

And P.S. there is no constitutional right to food stamps and you want to punish those whose ministry is to feed the hungry and turn that over to a wasteful federal nanny.

[Tuttyd]

Ah, I see: "Little Sisters of the Poor operate a home for the elderly in San Pedro."
That's their business operations then.

I would imagine that under corporate personhood you would be correct.The sisters aren't the corporation the corporation is the person.