• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Nice rant, carry that message to the polls also telling the people that conservatives want to starve kids, kill seniors, and destroy the atmosphere. How long do you think you can perpetuate these lies.

Women have access to healthcare and nothing in this ruling changes that. Women have access to free birth control pills from Planned Parenthood and nothing is going to change that. Keep spouting the lies and distortions which appeal to the low information voters most of whom still believe Obama rhetoric. Your problem is you aren't dealing with low information voters when you post to conservatives. We tried to tell you about Obama and you ignored it, still ignoring it. Says a lot about liberals.
I spoke the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. Too bad you can't say the same.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yes, it was a blatant, deliberate, and hurtful/hateful lie from the get go, and his base continues to defend it. Which is why I think as the great experiment, the USA has now failed. We who love and value liberty were too busy tending to business to notice the enemy within that has now eroded almost all our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities that they make us believe are still ours but which they can now allow or take away with impunity.

The Hobby Lobby case is just the tip of the iceberg as the left will continue to try to tighten the vise until all our rights are assigned to us by somebody else and we will have no right to be who are what we are or any choice in our own destinies.

I'd rather not believe that, but every day that goes by demonstrating obvious citizen indifference to what's been happening and their Government dependence, the more worrisome it becomes.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm questioning his politics and your Hillary-esque analogy.

Really, because it looked more like a fallacious attack on the messenger because you didn't like the message.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Really, because it looked more like a fallacious attack on the messenger because you didn't like the message.

Oh no. Not fallacious. His message is fully in sync with his politics.
This may shock you but there have been Leftist clergy before that guy.
Look up Daniel & Philip Berrigan and fast forward to Jeremiah Wright.
The Huffington Post should have raised a red flag for ya.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

The big problem we have today is the entitlement mentality and lack of respect people have for actual business owners. Ever do any interviewing? Interesting who shows up and how they look. Sometimes you just have to throw in the towel, give it your best shot and if it doesn't work realize that maybe, just maybe they are the problem not the system.

Well, the entitlement mentality and a hollowed out industrial core, etc. If you can't even acknowledge the huge structural issue, there isn't a whole lot of point discussing the big picture. When good jobs open up, they get filled, and could get filled many times over. It's hard when the best work has mostly disappeared and we have entire towns just hollowed out with nothing coming in to replace them except big box stores filled with stuff made overseas in lowest common denominator locations.

I would move out of Tenn to a more aggressive state that is attracting businesses. I have checked all over TX and cannot find a buggy whip manufacture left. You see businesses change and people have to change and adapt to the business. Works all the time to have actual employees show up with an actual professional appearance and positive attitude not demanding to become President of the company day one.

Not any buggy whip makers here either. Also don't have a lot of oil, though, that could be part of it. And not everyone wants to be CEO. In the local car plants, they've got thousands of people dying to take one of the decent jobs.

The problem is too many people judge others by their own standards. Some people are absolutely very happy living the way they do all the time complaining about how they live. Most of what you posted are personal responsibility issues that can easily be corrected. Drive and initiative are traits people have to learn and some refuse to do so.

Well, again, that and no good jobs because we're competing with $1 an hour....

Read some of your posts and tell me that isn't what you are advocating? I did make many times the average income but didn't do it day one. I worked hard, earned everything I got, and get sick and tired of others telling me I should pay more in taxes. Why? I give generously to charities of my choice, why give it to a bureaucrat to waste. Many people here do advocate equal outcome and promote class warfare along with jealousy as to what others have, what others make, and what others pay in taxes. We don't have or shouldn't have a stagnant pie but rather a growing one which allows more people to get a bigger share. I subscribe to that and don't care what someone else makes, someone else pays in taxes, or what someone else has. I control what I have through my own efforts.

No need to read them, I wrote them. I have never expressed any desire or support for 'equal outcomes' or anything remotely close to that. Getting decent healthcare to more Americans isn't hoping for equal outcomes. That's moving the bottom rung of the ladder a few inches off the floor, so Remote Area Medical doesn't have a healthcare event in a big field in the mountains and have people, many of them very hard working, lining up at 1am the night before to get a tooth pulled or basic damn healthcare needs taken care of. That's NOT 'equal outcomes.' Sorry.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I spoke the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God. Too bad you can't say the same.

That statement would cause you to be classified as perjury but then again since it is about sex it really doesn't matter does it? The Bill Clinton defense
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Well, the entitlement mentality and a hollowed out industrial core, etc. If you can't even acknowledge the huge structural issue, there isn't a whole lot of point discussing the big picture. When good jobs open up, they get filled, and could get filled many times over. It's hard when the best work has mostly disappeared and we have entire towns just hollowed out with nothing coming in to replace them except big box stores filled with stuff made overseas in lowest common denominator locations.



Not any buggy whip makers here either. Also don't have a lot of oil, though, that could be part of it. And not everyone wants to be CEO. In the local car plants, they've got thousands of people dying to take one of the decent jobs.



Well, again, that and no good jobs because we're competing with $1 an hour....



No need to read them, I wrote them. I have never expressed any desire or support for 'equal outcomes' or anything remotely close to that. Getting decent healthcare to more Americans isn't hoping for equal outcomes. That's moving the bottom rung of the ladder a few inches off the floor, so Remote Area Medical doesn't have a healthcare event in a big field in the mountains and have people, many of them very hard working, lining up at 1am the night before to get a tooth pulled or basic damn healthcare needs taken care of. That's NOT 'equal outcomes.' Sorry.

Really no sense in carrying this discussion further, you seem to believe that the bureaucrats in D.C. have the answers and look for a one size fits all solution to your local problems. That is never going to happen. Either get involved in local politics, attract new businesses to your area, or simply do what you are doing being part of the victim mentality. Wonder which one will lead to success?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

nope it upholds the law read the RFRA. that was a laws signed 20 years ago.

nope it doesn't apply to a few and the courts issue narrow rulings all the time.

Sure they do. Anytime they want to carve their own laws out of whole cloth.

RFRA, is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of their religion.​

The ACA in no way substantially burdened hobby lobby's executives the free exercise of their religion. If anything, them imposing their religion on their employees is the restrictive force here. The bible says nothing about contraception and in fact, it gives instructions on how to give an abortion when the wife cheats on her husband.

These people are making their religion up as they go and trying to bend laws to them to be applied differently than to everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Sure they do. Anytime they want to carve their own laws out of whole cloth.

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution."
--Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

You asking me who made crap up willy nilly? The conservative morons on the scotus.

Like idiot boy scalia for example... Where in employment division vs smith he wrote his opinion on how natives who use peyote... In a practice far predating Christianity BTW... Can't use religion as an excuse. What a hypocritical dork that guy is.

Face it, the right only likes the ruling because its a sticking of the thumb in Obamas eye. It has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it at all.

So you're smarter than 5 Supreme Court judges? You know more about the Constitution than they do? Curious, what law school did you graduate from?

Face it, you just don't like this ruling. Admit you detest religious people.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution."
--Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes:peace

Yeah... he's wrong. It is the people that decide what the constitution is and we briefly entrust people in robes to attempt to interpret the constitution. Folks like Scalia intend to wield it as a weapon against the people and dictate to them under what restrictions that they must live. And his "narrow" rulings help him carve the constitution to ****.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

So you're smarter than 5 Supreme Court judges? You know more about the Constitution than they do? Curious, what law school did you graduate from?

Face it, you just don't like this ruling. Admit you detest religious people.

I thought you were playing thread nazi to keep this on the topic of the ruling... so why did you all of a sudden make this post about me personally?

btw... you were the first one in this thread to declare what is and isn't constitutional about this ruling. This is a debate forum. I'm putting my 2 cents in here just like you. Are you expecting me to be sorry that you don't like me making points you don't agree with?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

It's not who did. Hopefully no one has taken anything from you yet. But, the danger is now there. Your employer's religion can now be used as an excuse to deny you what you are legally entitled to.

What would be different about a Jehovah's Witness owner making a determination that your heath care which you pay for doesn't cover blood transfusions? Or what about a Scientologist refusing to contribute to mandated prescription drug care? These aren't just hypothetical situations. They're very very real.

If I'm a business owner and I can use my religious beliefs to avoid paying for something, then I'm certainly going to do it. This gives people with "deeply held" religious beliefs a governmentally derived benefit which is a CLEAR violation of the establishment clause.

My employer's religion? They may use it as an excuse to deny me birth control?

Blood transfusions? Scientologist?

Do you just parrot every word that you are fed (in this case, by Ginsburg, who was for the RFRA before she was against it)?

If you're so worried about the pains you imagine you will go through, I suggest you avoid it by opening your own business so you can give your employees all of the blood transfusions and birth control they want and can't live without.

I'm sorry, but the hysterics and the level of paranoia is simply pathetic. This is all coming from the same people who allowed the government to ram the ACA down their throats and didn't question it, but lapped it all up. I'd say it's funny, but it isn't. It's sad and pathetic.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Yeah... he's wrong. It is the people that decide what the constitution is and we briefly entrust people in robes to attempt to interpret the constitution. Folks like Scalia intend to wield it as a weapon against the people and dictate to them under what restrictions that they must live. And his "narrow" rulings help him carve the constitution to ****.

Oddly, I don't find anything similar in the writings of our great jurists. I think you have an obligation to publish your insight.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I thought you were playing thread nazi to keep this on the topic of the ruling... so why did you make this post about me personally?

Because I was responding to your post saying how stupid the conservative judges are. Since you said it, I'd like to see you share your expert opinion on it. Can you?

I don't call any SCOTUS judge any name, whether I agree with the person or not. I respect the bench more than I respect the politicians who have no interest in us. I respect the Constitution. So do those 5 conservative judges.

Knock off the thread Nazi comments. There are 2 moderator warnings about comments like that,
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I thought you were playing thread nazi to keep this on the topic of the ruling... so why did you all of a sudden make this post about me personally?

btw... you were the first one in this thread to declare what is and isn't constitutional about this ruling. This is a debate forum. I'm putting my 2 cents in here just like you. Are you expecting me to be sorry that you don't like me making points you don't agree with?

Your post was filled with insults against the judges..."idiot boy Scalia"? "Conservative morons"?

I challenge you to find one post from me on this thread or any other that disrespects the SCOTUS jurists in that way. Your post was a personal attack on the judges. Show your expertise in the Constitution, or be prepared to have your posts called out as nothing but partisan hackery.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Do you just parrot every word that you are fed (in this case, by Ginsburg, who was for the RFRA before she was against it)?

I just read something related tot his.. I think it's sums it up nicely:

Lena Dunham's tweet:
Women's access to birth control should not be denied because of their employer's religious beliefs.

This is true, in theory. It’s also irrelevant, because that’s not what just happened.
Lena Dunham is very stupid, but perhaps this analogy might find its way through that geologically thick skull:


Read more: Finally: Lena Dunham Expresses Opinion On Hobby Lobby Decision | The Daily Caller

More at the link.. Hard to copy and it's a short read.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I just read something related tot his.. I think it's sums it up nicely:



More at the link.. Hard to copy and it's a short read.

I'm kind of hungry for lunch, but my employer doesn't buy my lunch for me. It gives me cash to buy food. Which means I'm going to starve.

Sheer genius!

Who is that naked person who thankfully is pixeled out in that picture??
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I'm kind of hungry for lunch, but my employer doesn't buy my lunch for me. It gives me cash to buy food. Which means I'm going to starve.

Sheer genius!

Who is that naked person who thankfully is pixeled out in that picture??

Lena Dunham. She has a show on Showtime (I think it was) called "Girls". Sadly she's not pixelated in the show, but it is good, even though it certainly is written by a lefty (her).
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Your post was filled with insults against the judges..."idiot boy Scalia"? "Conservative morons"?

I challenge you to find one post from me on this thread or any other that disrespects the SCOTUS jurists in that way. Your post was a personal attack on the judges. Show your expertise in the Constitution, or be prepared to have your posts called out as nothing but partisan hackery.

You obviously never read the posts from conservatives on Roberts decision after deciding WITH the ACA right?
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Oddly, I don't find anything similar in the writings of our great jurists. I think you have an obligation to publish your insight.:peace

Here's one from Thomas Jefferson as he advocated for rewriting the constitution every 20 years:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."​

Here's a few for Hobby Lobby...

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams​

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789​

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802​

As far as obvious fact... the people elect the government officials other than the federal judiciary which is appointed by the officials elected by the people. We ultimately hold the reigns.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Because I was responding to your post saying how stupid the conservative judges are. Since you said it, I'd like to see you share your expert opinion on it. Can you?

I have been. You are seeking credentials as a personal dig and not to engage in debate. I'm bringing every bit of my Georgia public school education to this thread. Good enough?

tres borrachos said:
I don't call any SCOTUS judge any name, whether I agree with the person or not. I respect the bench more than I respect the politicians who have no interest in us. I respect the Constitution. So do those 5 conservative judges.

Knock off the thread Nazi comments. There are 2 moderator warnings about comments like that,

You are not walking on higher ground in this thread. When quoting me, you constantly post about me and not the topic while blaming me for not being on topic.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Here's one from Thomas Jefferson as he advocated for rewriting the constitution every 20 years:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."​

Here's one for Hobby Lobby...

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789​

As far as obvious fact... the people elect the government officials other than the federal judiciary which is appointed by the officials elected by the people. We ultimately hold the reigns.

Usage note: I assume "reins" was intended, although the irony of "reigns" is not lost on me.
Beyond that, the passages you cite serve just as well to defend the Hobby Lobby decision as to attack it. And they do nothing to support your unique view of the place of the judiciary.:peace
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

I have been. You are seeking credentials as a personal dig and not to engage in debate. I'm bringing every bit of my Georgia public school education to this thread. Good enough?



You are not walking on higher ground in this thread. When quoting me, you constantly post about me and not the topic while blaming me for not being on topic.

So you aren't a lawyer, you aren't a judge, you have no training or education on the subject, but you go ahead and lob personal attacks on the judges who you disagree with?

Let me know when you can be serious and have an honest discussion. I have no interest in showing disrespect to the judges on any side.

Good night.
 
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

Your post was filled with insults against the judges..."idiot boy Scalia"? "Conservative morons"?

I challenge you to find one post from me on this thread or any other that disrespects the SCOTUS jurists in that way. Your post was a personal attack on the judges. Show your expertise in the Constitution, or be prepared to have your posts called out as nothing but partisan hackery.

Have I insulted any other poster on this forum? No?

I believe I do reserve the right to voice my opinion on what I think of public figures in this forum... or do I not?

Now, once again... is the topic me or what?
 
Back
Top Bottom