Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

ABC: Obama to Announce Contraception Rule ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

Rick

ABC: Obama to Announce Contraception Rule ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/

Rick

Getting bored in the echo chamber? At least make it a new thread.

Getting bored in the echo chamber? At least make it a new thread.

Although I agree with 90 that it's the economy that will most affect the election, I also believe its the current administrations' policies that will, also. And their announcement this week in regards to forcing religious groups to participate in something that stands against their core values is one of those policies. And now they are trying to skirt around it and make changes?

This is the perfect thread for that report.

Rick

Rick

Rick

Rick

Rick

Rick

Edited February 10, 2012 by FirefightnRick

Although I agree with 90 that it's the economy that will most affect the election, I also believe its the current administrations' policies that will, also. And their announcement this week in regards to forcing religious groups to participate in something that stands against their core values is one of those policies. And now they are trying to skirt around it and make changes?

This is the perfect thread for that report.

Rick

Rick

Rick

Rick

Rick

Rick

With commentary, yes it was. Good job and glad you're back! It was like Footprints over here for awhile.

A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walk into a bar.

The bartender says "Hi, Mitt."

Edited February 12, 2012 by UNT90

ABC: Obama to Announce Contraception Rule 'Accommodation' for Religious Organizations

http://abcnews.go.co...raception-rule/

Rick

Yep. And all the "compromise" does is shift the burden from the church to the insurance company. So, even though the Catholic Church is principly opposed to birth control, the insurance that is offered to their employees will include birth control.

Because the government says so.

Come on, all you libs that scream improperly about seperation of church and state. Where the hell are you now? Is it OK for the Government to impose their obvious political will on a religious institution? What's next? The Catholic Church forced to have insurance that includes abortion coverage?

This is just one of the problems when government overreaches into the lives of the people they govern. You will see more and more of these types of issues come forward if this monstrosity of universal health care isn't discarded.

This also shows the lengths this administration will go to forward their political agenda.

Edited February 12, 2012 by UNT90

Santorum does a good job with David Gregory on Meet the Press. Typically, Gregory tried to mischaracterize comments made by Santorum. Santorum calmly corrected Gregory and continued on with his message. One of his best lines was on the gay marriage issue "It's comical for the 9th curcuit court of appeals to rule that an amendment to the California State Constitution that was voted on and approved by the people of California is unconstitutional."

And he is right.

The Supreme Court may come back 9-0 in reversal of that decision (if they follow the law).

Just a question here. What would you think if there was a hospital associated with the islamic faith, and at this hospital they forced all the women that worked there or were treated there to wear head covers, or what if a church was run by the Jehovas wintness' and they refused to offer blood transfusions? Then what if the government stepped in and said that these places aren't allowed to make those rules. Would there be this uproar about religious freedom then? Just curious.

I think that as soon as these religious entities go out into the world and start employing people that are non church personnel, then they have to offer the same type of insurance that everyone else does. Not everyone that works in a catholic hospital is a catholic, why should someone who doesn't share those religious beliefs be forced to share them?

Just a question here. What would you think if there was a hospital associated with the islamic faith, and at this hospital they forced all the women that worked there or were treated there to wear head covers, or what if a church was run by the Jehovas wintness' and they refused to offer blood transfusions? Then what if the government stepped in and said that these places aren't allowed to make those rules. Would there be this uproar about religious freedom then? Just curious.

I think that as soon as these religious entities go out into the world and start employing people that are non church personnel, then they have to offer the same type of insurance that everyone else does. Not everyone that works in a catholic hospital is a catholic, why should someone who doesn't share those religious beliefs be forced to share them?

Well, for one, these entities are not "public", they are private entities. No one is forced to work at these places...if they do, they adhere to the rules.

As far as you comments regarding an Islamic hospital...it it were 100% private, then OK with me. I can go elsewhere if I so desire. If it were "public" and accepted public funds, then that's another story...same would go for the Jehovah's Witnesses in your example as far as I would be concerned.

Let's ask this question...who is doing who the favor here? Is the employee doing the faith based entity a favor in working there or is the entity doing the employee a favor by hiring them? The choice to hire or not lies with the employer here...the choice to accept the position and follow the established rules or not accept the offer of employment lies with the employee. No one is forcing anyone in this private scenario to do anything...seems to me to be a free will choice.

And, by the way...I did not imply an answer to the "who is doing who a favor" question...seems to be an interesting philosophical question....

Just a question here. What would you think if there was a hospital associated with the islamic faith, and at this hospital they forced all the women that worked there or were treated there to wear head covers, or what if a church was run by the Jehovas wintness' and they refused to offer blood transfusions? Then what if the government stepped in and said that these places aren't allowed to make those rules. Would there be this uproar about religious freedom then? Just curious.

I think that as soon as these religious entities go out into the world and start employing people that are non church personnel, then they have to offer the same type of insurance that everyone else does. Not everyone that works in a catholic hospital is a catholic, why should someone who doesn't share those religious beliefs be forced to share them?

Typical.

They aren't forced to share them. The employee makes a choice to be employed at that Islamic hospital. If an Islamic hospital wants to require their female employees to wear hijabs, and they think they can be prosperous in a hospital environment requiring the hijabs, more power to them.

If Jehova Witnesses think they can successfully operate a hospital without giving blood transfusions, have at it.

Thats what is caled the free market, even for religions that choose to branch out into medical services.

Who knows, maybe the Catholic Church's refusal to provide contraceptives to employees would cost them enough valuable employees that they would eventually make the decision on their own to change the policy. BUT THAT WOULD BE THEIR DECISION, NOT SOMETHING IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Amazing.

Tip of the Iceberg when government starts trying to mandate things it has no business mandating.

Edited February 12, 2012 by UNT90

Nope. You just have to pay for your contraception yourself.

Or get another job whose benefits will pay for it.

Not shocking you don't get this.

Typical.

They aren't forced to share them. The employee makes a choice to be employed at that Islamic hospital. If an Islamic hospital wants to require their female employees to wear hijabs, and they think they can be prosperous in a hospital environment requiring the hijabs, more power to them.

If Jehova Witnesses think they can successfully operate a hospital without giving blood transfusions, have at it.

Thats what is caled the free market, even for religions that choose to branch out into medical services.

Who knows, maybe the Catholic Church's refusal to provide contraceptives to employees would cost them enough valuable employees that they would eventually make the decision on their own to change the policy. BUT THAT WOULD BE THEIR DECISION, NOT SOMETHING IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Amazing.

Tip of the Iceberg when government starts trying to mandate things it has no business mandating.

---You are thinking in terms of a very large city.... there are many places that there is no other real option.... One large community hopital... example... Lubbock has Methodist Hospital (huge) with 3000 employees.... . People in Lubbock really have few other choices with to find something with good modern equiptment.... What if it happened to be Catholic instead. Some places that is the case.... As for schools .. people really do have a choice usually, because public schools and other options exist. ... not so for medical places that serve the public .. and not just members of their church. Besides churches do not completely underwrite the cost of their their hospitals... fees and grants do.

---When churches own property such as a business or apartment complex (some do) they have to pay property taxes and their income is taxed.... but not the church or parsonage. I look at medical facilities the same way.... follow the rules that everyone has to follow... because the public uses them.

This is not war on religion or any particualr religion.

..

Edited February 13, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

Not shocking you don't get this.

Judging by the 90 in your name, you sure are hitting your cranky old man years a little early.

Judging by the 90 in your name, you sure are hitting your cranky old man years a little early.

Or, perhaps speaking from a position of some experience....

Or, perhaps speaking from a position of some experience....

Or maybe I "get it", but I just have a different view on things.

CRAZY I KNOW!

Edited February 13, 2012 by Coffee and TV

Guys last warning...let's cool things down in here or I will have to shut down an overall very interesting and useful thread...let's move away from personal and focus on the issues...GMG

Fun sponge.

Fun sponge.

I know but believe me its not a role I relish...GMG

Guys last warning...let's cool things down in here or I will have to shut down an overall very interesting and useful thread...let's move away from personal and focus on the issues...GMG

Touchy today Harry are we? I have not taken any offense from Coffee & Tea's bantering back and forth...it's called opinions...but if you say so.....Lots of monitoring needed if this is what qualifies for "personal" these days....sigh...oh, well, your rules..OK by me.

EDIT: Wow...tough crowd today....touchy feely...let's all just hold hands and sing Kum By Ya or something....

Edited February 14, 2012 by KRAM1

Santorum accuses the Romney campaign of working CPAC.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/romney-worked-the-cpac-straw-poll-114267.html

A Republican source confirms to me that Romney's camp bought registrations at CPAC to ensure their victory at the straw poll. There was also a more visible presence. Two young men, one who identified himself as a staffer but declined to talk and another who said he was a volunteer, held up Romney signs Saturday morning near the entrance to the ballroom and urged attendees to vote for the former Massachusetts governor.

Romney's effort to win the vote was first reported by Jeff Zeleny, who wrote in the NYT Saturday that the campaign was "busing students from colleges along the Eastern Seaboard to show their support."

Rick

Edited February 14, 2012 by FirefightnRick

Predictions model on chances of election. Adjust for GDP, forecasted GDP, & Obama approval rating.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/15/magazine/what-are-the-chances-for-republicans.html?ref=magazine

Predictions model on chances of election. Adjust for GDP, forecasted GDP, & Obama approval rating.

http://www.nytimes.c...ml?ref=magazine

One big problem here...the presidential election is not won on the "popular vote". It's the electoral college that actually elects the president of the United States....one can lose the popular vote and still win the presidency. I am sure you know that,but it still makes these predictions nothing more than entertainment value.

One big problem here...the presidential election is not won on the "popular vote". It's the electoral college that actually elects the president of the United States....one can lose the popular vote and still win the presidency. I am sure you know that,but it still makes these predictions nothing more than entertainment value.

Predictions model on chances of election. Adjust for GDP, forecasted GDP, & Obama approval rating.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/15/magazine/what-are-the-chances-for-republicans.html?ref=magazine

I believe that NYTimes poll about as much as I believe David Axelrod touting another poll this morning on CBS that claimed 62% of Catholics support the Contraception mandate.

How stupid do they think their viewers are?

Rick

Edited February 15, 2012 by FirefightnRick