published Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

The Culture War

83
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
onetinsoldier said...

No brains were injured in the making of this cartoon.

February 15, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
Salsa said...

There is that one trick pony again.

February 15, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Our President orders a group of us to do and to pay for what that group considers evil, like ordering abolitionists to hand over runaway slaves and pay for slave hunts. That's his side of the culture wars. Let him, not as President but personally with his own millions, start his own insurance company and his own hospitals with his own abortion policies and his own contraceptive giveaways. His job as President is to protect our freedoms, including the freedom to form our own groups with our own policies.

February 15, 2012 at 12:30 a.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "His job as President is to protect our freedoms, including the freedom to form our own groups with our own policies."

Interesting idea you've got there. Are you thinking of re-forming a group of like-minded white men who will don sheets, and who will be seeking the freedom to adopt a policy of hanging black men for fun?

February 15, 2012 at 12:45 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS

Andy, do you really think that birth control pills are lethal weapons?

Will that be a key plank in the GOP 2012 presidential platform?

So republicans, if elected, are promising:

YES to more military spending

YES to tax cuts for billionaires

YES to balancing the federal budget

YES to banning birth control

Here's a bumper sticker for you guys:

VOTE GOP 2012 WE'RE GOING TO LOSE!

February 15, 2012 at 12:45 a.m.
librul said...

Quite the timely cartoon, Clay.

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell celebrates the passage of his state's "personhood" bill today. As a presumed knightly proponent of "getting invasive government out of our lives," it will be interesting to see if the possible Repugnant Vice-Presidential nominee will go along with a bill coming to his desk wherein the government mandates that a woman have a medically unnecessary, government-forced ultrasound involving invasion of her genitals where neither she nor her physician have any right of refusal. There you are, folks. Religio-fascism on the march and a perfect, real-world example of Clay's genius.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/virginia/2012/02/virginia-oks-bill-requiring-ultrasound-abortion/272406

February 15, 2012 at 12:48 a.m.
cactus said...

While Rome burns, the voters in November will choose between a marxist and a religious zealot. Good luck America.

February 15, 2012 at 6:09 a.m.
EaTn said...

The best GOP presidential candidate can only muster about one-third popular support from withing the party. It's going to take a lot of mud-slinging PAC money to beat Obama in November.

February 15, 2012 at 6:22 a.m.
sandyonsignal said...

Keep digging, Republicans, soon you will be six feet under ground. A recent poll by CBS/ New York TImes shows just 1% of voters think abortion and moral values are the most important issue in the Presidential election. It was true in 2008 as it is true today.

Go ahead Republicans, play it again. We already know the GOP is the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Keep ignoring the top issues: the economy, jobs, Medicare and Social Security. Stay fixated on gays and women, the Republican obsession doesn't connect with what the voters. Go Obama-2012! New York Times Poll - click the name to read this poll.

February 15, 2012 at 6:38 a.m.

Andrew is correct, Alprova. The president'duty is to protect our freedoms guaranteed us in our Constitution. Whether he agrees with our views or not. Freedom of speech and choice Onimrod has problems with. He's only interested in protecting those who agree with him and making sure his party gets more powerful.

Obama is a thug like most lefties. Force it if you can't get it voluntarily. Buy insurance or else, take birth control or else, accept illegal aliens or else, eat your veggies or else, only take in so much so salt or else, pack a school lunch for your kids or else, ask me an easy question in new conference or else. Lawless clown.

It's a war against anyone who doesn't believe like he does.

February 15, 2012 at 7:18 a.m.
librul said...

Au contraire, ye with the alphabet soup name, no-one has been tased at any of President Obama's press conferences or forcibly removed for wearing a t-shirt expressing their political views or fenced into a "free speech zone" blocks away from an event.

And Clay, I'm afraid your cartoon has some real competition this morning from Mike Lukovitch - you guys are gems.

http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/martha_in_the_middle_20120214/

February 15, 2012 at 7:39 a.m.
davisss13 said...

I absolutely hate the culture war and will NEVER forgive the Republicans for using it for their political benefit, mind-screwing people with religious manipulation and tossing around code words that elicit rage worthy of any lynch mob.

George H.W. Bush knew the culture war would permanently split this country and he fired the scumbag Karl Rove for trying to use it. Bush the idiot embraced it.

Here we are.

February 15, 2012 at 7:47 a.m.
davisss13 said...

cactus said... While Rome burns, the voters in November will choose between a marxist and a religious zealot. Good luck America.

A Marxist? Jesus. You're as big an idiot as the culture war freaks.

Remember, you can't culture war without 'cult'.

February 15, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.
stanleyyelnats said...

Republican American Theocracy.

February 15, 2012 at 7:51 a.m.
hambone said...

The GOP Knight's tin-foil suit of armor may protect him from the CIA's or the invaders from outer space's thought-control ray. But it doesn't protect him from himself.

Santorum? Really?

February 15, 2012 at 7:55 a.m.
davisss13 said...

It's a war against anyone who doesn't believe like he does.

Does the phrase 'with us or against us 'ring a bell? You Republicans tried to seize the government using 9/11, savaged anyone who disagreed, ran on a platform of an unAmerican, undemocratic 'permanent majority' and you HAVE THE NERVE TO CRITICIZE ANYONE?

How disgusting can you possibly be? How much more hypocritical can you GD clowns be?

February 15, 2012 at 7:58 a.m.
joneses said...

alprova,

You democrats are the party of the white hoods. You continually pass legislation to keep the balck community down by promoting an entitlement mentallity and convincing them they are all victims. This is pathetic. You dummycrats have manof the blacks convinced they cannot grwo financially without you. This is racism at it's worst.

I find it interesting that you liberals are so short sighted you actually think this pathetic president's action dictating church policy is about contrception and abortion. It is not. it is about this fool you worship dictating what churches can and cannot do. Wake up fools! You are always pissing and moaning about separation of church and state so you hypocritical liberals should actually be outraed about this. Are you than short sightedor just plain dumb?

February 15, 2012 at 7:58 a.m.
davisss13 said...

joneses says : bubadabubada! Blah, blah, blah! BLAAAAH!!!!

February 15, 2012 at 8:12 a.m.
joneses said...

More proof of the the democrats being the party of racism.

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement: A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including: - Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia - J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton - Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to the Civil Rights Act. - Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame - Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

  • Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
  • Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
  • Holland and Smathers of Florida
  • Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
  • Ellender and Long of Louisiana
  • Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
  • Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
  • Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
  • Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
  • H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
  • R. Byrd of West Virginia

I am sure you dummycrats are proud of your racist past and future.

February 15, 2012 at 8:16 a.m.
NGAdad said...

WOW, it's getting hot in here. Let's see ... Our grandchildren were FORCED by 'W' to pay for a war based on lies in Iraq. 'W' hired armed thugs to take New Orleans residents' weapons during a crisis - FORCING them to hand over their guns. In GA, our freedom loving R lawmakers FORCE couples to seek counseling before they can divorce. Thanks to stupidity, and political correctness, R's decided to FORCE us to be overly searched before flying - even Grandma's and infants. ... AND still their policy of spying on American's phone and electronic communications is FORCED on companies in the business. Yep, FORCE this... Freedom lovin' conservatives by butt.

February 15, 2012 at 8:22 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Joneses likes to ignore everything that happened after the 1960s. We know who uses the Southern Strategy.

The truth is you're pathetic and just making yourself look very stupid.

Stay the course, wingnut. Make every one of your candidates unelectable.

February 15, 2012 at 8:25 a.m.
NGAdad said...

don't worry daviss13, they'll stay in control here in the South. They have to protect our LAST PLACE status in education, marriage duration, health, income and many other things that really matter. The sooner their base dies out the better.

February 15, 2012 at 8:29 a.m.
MTJohn said...

cactus said...While Rome burns, the voters in November will choose between a marxist and a religious zealot. Good luck America.

What is the factual basis for suggesting that President Obama is a marxist? I know that the conservative talking heads frequently repeat that mantra, but I have yet to hear anyone substantiate that claim with real information.

February 15, 2012 at 8:41 a.m.
joneses said...

davisss13,

You are the fool. After the sixties and well into the 2000s you racist dummycrats were still not denouncing Robert KKK Byrd. You still attacked Herman Cain with lies. You are the fool and you and all these other liberal retards are so stupid you refuse to admit your racism. Did you know that if all the blacks were wealthy they would not vote for your pathetic socialist agenda? So why help them if you will loose their vote? You and the other racist dumycrats are responsible for creating an entitlement mentallity among the black community that keeps them from being productive. How can you deny this when you claim you are for the blacks and this pathetic fool you support as president has not proposed one piece of legislation that will help the blacks? Are all ofyou so stupid that you cannot se this or just to chicken%$#@ to admit it? I believe it is alittle of both. You dummycrats are using the blacks to pursue your socialist agenda and you should be ashamed of yourself.

February 15, 2012 at 8:41 a.m.
MTJohn said...

joneses said...alprova,

You democrats are the party of the white hoods.

That should be stated in the past tense. That sentence would more correctly read, "the dixie-crats are the party of the white hoods." Most dixie-crats denounced the Democrat Party in response to the passage of the voting rights act. A few repented.

joneses said...You and the other racist dumycrats are responsible for creating an entitlement mentallity among the black community that keeps them from being productive.

Slavery persisted in this country through the second world war. As a society, we have yet to acknowledge the multi-generational consequences of our history and we have yet to put in place the systems necessary for the descendents of slaves to meaningfully experience the freedoms that are theirs pursuant to the Constitution.

February 15, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.
davisss13 said...

Take your Dems are the REAL racists and file it.

I would say 'you should be ashamed of yourself' but it's overwhelmingly apparent you have none.

February 15, 2012 at 8:49 a.m.
joneses said...

nagadad,

You are another fine example of the ultimate liberal stupidity. Going to war in Irag and Afganistan was presented to congress by President Bush and congress, Republicans and dummycats voted for the war. What I find sameful is the way you dummycrats, after the dummycrats representivies in congress voted for the war then turned their/your back on the troops and the war effort. That was a despicable show of treason. Deny this and you are a liar. What I find hypocritical is where did all the war protestors go after this fool we have as president got elected? We are still at war. Under this fools presidency 1/3 of the fatalities in Afganistan have occured under his watch in just 3 years compared to 7 years under President Bush. Where is your outrage stupid? If you do not like the Georgia laws then move to San Francisco where the laws there will accomodate you. You see when a certain party gets elected to office they pursue their politial agenda and you have the right to either stay there ot move. That is freedom stupid. But you better hurry because under the dictator obama he could make you get permission from the government to move. If youpathetic liberals are so pissed at what was voted on by dummycrats and Republicans in Congress under President Bush then why are you not sreaming obama reverse these things? I know why because you are hypcritical, racist, idiots.

February 15, 2012 at 8:57 a.m.
NGAdad said...

WOW again. Your President has ended the war on Iraqi oil reserves. He is getting out of Afghanistan's trap of tribal discord.

I'm staying in GA just to watch the Right self-destruct, die of eating too much fried chicken and inbreeding.

BTW, yes, Democrats did vote for things they were lied to about... remember the WMDs? Later, that was funny to 'W' - he thought it was funny that some 5000 of our troops died for his lies. He called the lies 'propaganda', he said it was his job to 'push' it.

Bite me. Push this.

p.s. be careful you could have a stroke drinking so much kool-aide

February 15, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.

Beginning with Clayduh's cartoon and the comments starting at 12:10 AM and ending at 12:48 AM.

Same ol' characters, same ol' worn out arguments.

February 15, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.
joneses said...

nagamoron,

Again you have showed your stupidity by stating lies. Before congress, Republicans and dummycrats, voted for the war they were given the same information President Bush had obtained from President Clinton's CIA. Remember Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi and others saying Sadam Husien had WMD's and needed to be taken out? I remember you stupid liberals saying of course Sadam had WMDs because President Reagan gave them to him (another lie). You see these are the facts. Make up your mind stupid. Bite me, push this? Is that some kind of stupid, North Georgia, liberal white trash booger picking comment? Maybe you should go hang out at your favorite place today, Wal-Mart and ome home and be enlightened by some reality TV since it is obvious you do not work and are mooching from us hard working tax payers. LOL! I have to go make some money now stupid so I can support your lazy ass. I am going aay from this converation with an idiot laughing as I find your stupidity very entertaining. Have fun at Wal-Mart! LOL!

February 15, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

The cartoon actually sums up the view from the left perfectly. Faux intellectualism, condecension, eliteism. Good job TFP.

February 15, 2012 at 9:37 a.m.
NGAdad said...

Jack... yep, we view the Party of Lincoln as completely taken over by Faux intellectualism, condescension, elitism, AND religious hypocritical zealots.

BTW I corrected your spelling, sadly you can't spell. WOW #4.

Oh, joneser... back to blaming Clinton for fooling 'W'. W was a fool I agree. But, it was Lord Reagan who armed the Ayatollah of Iran by paying for hostages, against the Law. Go to your job - at Wal-mart. I haven't been there since they filled the shelves with crap from godless Communist forced-abortionist China.

February 15, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
alprova said...

Joneses wrote: "Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement: A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement."

But of course. Why not rewrite history to suit your argument?

"A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes!"

Unadulterated B.S. Granted, Republicans favored civil rights more often when compared to Southern Democrats, but the Republican's in favor of such legislation never rose to 96%, nor did the number of Democrats who did not favor such legislation rise to 80% either.

The actual percentages were 80% of Republicans for, 20% against. The actual percentage of Democrats for such legislation was 61%, versus 39% against. Both Republicans and Democrats from Southern States opposed civil rights in higher percentages.

"These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons. In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their shameful record during the civil rights movement."

Most of America was wrong at one time in this country, in the way they viewed and treated people of color. Every now and then, even some politicians come to their senses.

February 15, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
alprova said...

Joneses wrote: "You are the fool. After the sixties and well into the 2000s you racist dummycrats were still not denouncing Robert KKK Byrd."

First of all, the man is dead. Second, none of us is responsible for what the man was or did 60 years ago. He made many public statements denouncing his views and actions back then.

"You still attacked Herman Cain with lies."

You're delusional if you think that they were lies.

February 15, 2012 at 10:45 a.m.
chet123 said...

Joneses....I finally caught up with you...FOR A MINUTES I THOUGHT YOU WERE HIDING FROM ME...NOW YOU WOULDNT DO THAT WOULD YOU?????WOULD YOU????Hmmmm?????

SEE YOU ARE UP TO YOUR OLD TRICKS.....

FEB.15, 8:16 AM ..YOU PRESENT A LIST OF 21 DEMOCRATS OPPOSED CIVIL RIGHT ACT.....HEY EISTEIN.....NOTICE ANYTHING ABOUT THE STATES THEY REPRESENTS....SEEM TO ME YOU ARE THE FOOL!!!!...LET ME HELP YOU OUT......THEY ARE DIXIECRATS!!! ALL FROM THE SOUTH....THEY ARE PEOPLE AS YOURSELF......THE DEMOCRATS RAN THEM OUT OF THEIR PARTY.....AND GUESS WHERE THEY WENT.....BINGO!!!!! TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF TODAY.......ALL OF THOSE SOUTHERN STATE ARE REPUBLICANS.....THAT'S A FACT.....SOMETHING THAT YOU CANT DEAL WITH....GLAD PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD CAN SEE YOUR STUPIDITY...AND YOU ARE A BALD-FACE OLD GRUMPY IMPOTENT LIAR....AL GORE SENIOR VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE CIVIL RIGHT ACT DESPITE KNOWING THAT HATER LIKE YOU WOULD END HIS CAREER AS A POLITICIAN.....GET YOU FACT RIGHT YOU MORON!!!

February 15, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
chet123 said...

JONESE....IF ANYBODY ON HERE IS A FOOL ITS YOU......I'M A BLACK MAN....I WOULD DARE ARGUE WITH A JEWISH PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR RELIGION....BUT YOU ARE ON HERE FLAUNTING YOUR IGNORANT HILLBILLY DIRT FARMING ILLITERATE WITHOUT ANY SHAME....IF YOU KNEW HOW THE POSTERS ARE LAUGHING....YOU WOULD HIDE IN A HOLE....SO YOU THINK YOU ARE AN EXPERT ON BLACK PEOPLE HA HA HA

YOU ARE AN OLD FOOL THAT TIME HAVE LEFT BEHIND....I HAVE MANY WHITE FRIENDS.....THEY TELL ME TO LET YOU HAVE IT....

HEY JONESES...I'M WILLING TO BET THAT YOU HAVE A BLACK SON-IN LAW...HA HA HA HA.....MAD????? HA HA

February 15, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
chet123 said...

ARE YOU STILL DEFENDING HERMAN CAIN HA HA HA HA....HEY OLD MAN...YOU HAVE SO MUCH HATE YOU HAVE DONE A 360DEGREE TURNED HA HA HA HA......

YOU HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT JONESES....DO YOUR SELF A FAVOR OLD MAN....LAY OFF FOX NEWS...AND HATE LINKS....THE BOTH OF THEM HAVE DRIVEN YOU CRAZY HA HA HA

February 15, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
chet123 said...

JONESES....YOU LOVE TO ATTACK ROBERT BYRD.....THAT WAS 60 YEARS AGO....ROBERT BYRD CHANGED AND ADMIT HE WAS WRONG....BYRD WAS A GOOD MAN THAT MOST BLACK PEOPLE AS MYSELF LOVE DEARLY.....

BYRD PUT THAT PART OF HIS LIFE BEHIND HIM...BUT I FEEL SORROW FOR HATERS AS YOURSELF WHO STILL HARBOR THAT BIGOTRY, PREJUDICE, HATE AND RACISM...AND IT HAS POISON YOUR SOUL.....AS A BLACK MAN I HEAR IT IN YOUR VOICE EVERYTIME YOU SPEAK.....AND I WILL CONSTANTLY CALL YOU OUT ON IT JONESES.....YOU NEED HELP!

February 15, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.
EaTn said...

Joneses wrote: "Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement: A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting the civil rights movement."

True, but the Eisenhower GOP is gone. With some exceptions, after disillusions with the national democrat trend, the old Dixie-crat party evolved into the now Dixie-repub party with an agenda of its own.

February 15, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
hambone said...

I love it when some fool pulls out that old business about the 1950's and 1960's democrats being racist. Just shows how deperate they are to make a point

The 1950's and 1960's dixie-crats would be the backbone of the GOP today

February 15, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.
BobMKE said...

"Hello, this is the ACLU, how can I help you?" Yes I want to know if you are aware that President Obama is violating the First Amendment and he is spinning it off as a birth control issue. What are you going to do about this? CLICK!!! "Hello, this is the ACLU, how can I help you?" I was just informing you about what Obama just did with the First Amendment issue and you hung up on me. CLICK!!! "Hello, this is the ACLU, how can I help you." Why do you keep hanging up on me you hypocritical, sock puppet socialistic hack orgainization? CLICK!!! I give up. GOD help us.

February 15, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
mtngrl said...

BobMKE, please explain exactly how President Obama is violating the First Amendment.

February 15, 2012 at 3:32 p.m.
BobMKE said...

mtngrl Bill of Rights; First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excerise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" etc. In one of your past posts you were saying that "separation of Church and State." These five words are NOT in the First Amendment. A phase like this was fifteen years later in 1802 when the Danbury Baptists wrote President Jefferson that they did not have any inalienable rights granted to them by the State of Connecticut. They just wanted to worship as they choose. Jefferson responded with the exact words from the Constitution to calm their fears. He mentioned the "establishment clause" created a "wall of separation between the Church and State." Jefferson's clear meaning was that religions were protected from the State, not the other way around. On a side note you will notice that there is no mention of Constitutional protection from being offended by religions. Now Obama is mandating that the Catholic Church do something which is against their religious beliefs. Doesn't Obama have anyone to advise him not to do stupid things, especially which is against the Bill of Rights/Constitution. These documents inform what you can't do. Obama and his ilk want it to say what we can do IF the ilk can gain power. It is all about power. I PRAY that helps you understand my post. Also I would like posters opinion why the ACLU is silent. Just think if a Republican did this. It doesn't make a difference who is right about this issue but what is right.

February 15, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
mtngrl said...
  1. That was not my past post you are referencing

  2. Obama is no longer requiring the Catholic church to pay for any birth control coverage. That was reversed a week ago. That is why your argument does not hold water, since it does not violate the first amendment.

February 15, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
mtngrl said...

If any of you are pro-life (and not Catholic), this contraceptive coverage should make you extremely happy. Unless you can name a more effective prevention of abortions than free and unfettered availability of contraception.

Actually most Catholics also agree with the above

February 15, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BobMKE said: "Now Obama is mandating that the Catholic Church do something which is against their religious beliefs. Doesn't Obama have anyone to advise him not to do stupid things, especially which is against the Bill of Rights/Constitution."

When it comes to protecting the U.S. Constitution, I believe President Obama is doing a good job and he is NOT the one advocating stupid policies, BobMKE. Marci Hamilton at Justia has written an interesting commentary about a 2011 hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives.

Among those testifying was Catholic Bishop William C Lori. In the Justia commentary, Hamilton reviews some of the testimony of Bishop Lori, and I believe it will disturb anyone with even a basic knowledge of the U.S. Constitution:

Bishop Lori's "description of religious liberty, viewed through the Catholic Church’s lens, partook of the current fashion of treating religious believers as though their beliefs should always trump societal interests.

For instance, Lori claimed that “individuals ‘are not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to [their] conscience’ nor ‘restrained from acting in accordance with their conscience.’”

This, however, is an incoherent standard that would forbid the prosecution and punishment of fanatical Islamic terrorists, of the child rapists and polygamists of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and of the “faith-healing” parents who watch their children die of treatable medical ailments."

http://verdict.justia.com/2011/11/03/last-weeks-congressional-hearing-on-religious-liberty

February 15, 2012 at 5:34 p.m.
BobMKE said...

mtngrl

Issue #1: Why was Obama so stupid to even try it in the first place? He was a Constitutional Professor wasn't he? (My opinion is it was for power)

Issue #2: Why did you stick with your claim that the separation of Church and State was in the Bill of Rights (I just proved that it is not)

Issue #3: Why has the ACLU avoided the issue. (Check the National Review site for several articles about this issue with the ACLU)

Issue #4: Why do liberals, when they are caught with their pants down, always say, words to the effect, "Oh that's old news."

Issue #5: Why has everyone, including the sock puppet press make it a birth control issue and spin it for the ignorant people to mean that the GOP was against birth control. (They can add this to their past spins; They want to throw Grannie off of the cliff, Grannie will have to eat dog food. They want to take away their Medicare and Social Security Rights, The GOP is against the safety net Etc)

These are the issues and they should scare the hell out of you that it was even tried in the first place. Get it now?

February 15, 2012 at 5:43 p.m.
alprova said...

BobMKE wrote: "Why has everyone, including the sock puppet press make it a birth control issue and spin it for the ignorant people to mean that the GOP was against birth control."

Perhaps, like is usually the case, this has been yet another polarizing issue that conservatives have falsely embraced for religious reasons.

We already know that conservatives hate abortions, and now apparently, they hate birth control as well. Nothing ever satisfies the lot of you.

"They can add this to their past spins; They want to throw Grannie off of the cliff, Grannie will have to eat dog food. They want to take away their Medicare and Social Security Rights, The GOP is against the safety net Etc"

Oh the shoe fits alright.

"These are the issues and they should scare the hell out of you that it was even tried in the first place."

Allowing women to have free and unfettered access to birth control, in order to prevent STD's and an unwanted embryo is scary to you?

Hype and overkill seems to define the Republican Conservatives these days. They are desperately searching for some cultural issue to go to war with this year, but it's not going to happen. People are tired of that crap.

96% of Catholics admit to having used birth control in their own lives. The church is out of touch with it's own members on that issue and they always have been.

There is no Biblical backing for any prohibition against using modern day birth control methods.

February 15, 2012 at 6:15 p.m.
alprova said...

tu_quoque wrote: "perfect example of ... If you equipt an idiot with nothing but a hammer then everything that he encounters will present itself as a nail."

I merely asked a question based on the statement he wrote. The fact that he has failed to clarify what it is that he meant, speaks volumes in my opinion.

Perhaps it is a nail that I hit squarely on the head after all.

Your track record in this forum does not tend to give you credence when referring to others as "idiots."

February 15, 2012 at 6:20 p.m.
fairmon said...

mtngrl said... If any of you are pro-life (and not Catholic), this contraceptive coverage should make you extremely happy. Unless you can name a more effective prevention of abortions than free and unfettered availability of contraception.

You should be more credible than to say to people that birth control is "FREE" and that Obama is providing it. It is a play on words because they don't have to pay for them unless there is a deductible or co-pay which I assume may still be applicable.you keep saying "FREE" birth control and you know that is not true. None of these are free regardless of the source. Insurers will adjust the premium for every subscriber enough to provide every female free birth control. You know the companies producing them are not going to give them away without recovering their cost with increased prices on other products. I agree every woman should have free and easy access to the birth control method of her choice and encouraged to use them faithfully. They should have access to adoption assistance or a free abortion. The truth is birth control or abortion is much cheaper than prenatal care, the cost of the birth and treatment that may be called for at birth, follow up care for mom and kid then insure and educate them through college.

Give Obama credit, he got it right. He knows educating women and making sure they have what is needed to stop the proliferation of those that cannot provide for themselves. That is not a racist statement there are more caucasian women government/tax payer dependent than any minority group.

February 15, 2012 at 6:46 p.m.
MTJohn said...

mtngrl said...If any of you are pro-life (and not Catholic), this contraceptive coverage should make you extremely happy. Unless you can name a more effective prevention of abortions than free and unfettered availability of contraception.

I'm pro-life, in the broadest sense of that term - which also means that I think a woman's reproductive decisions are matters best left to her, her spouse (when appropriate) and her physician. I'm not Catholic, but I am a practicing Christian, affiliated with a mainline denomination.

More than either a first amendment question or an abortion question, I see it as a matter of fairness. I also see it as a matter of consistency. The government is involved in all sorts of regulations of non-religious church functions, e.g. standards of care in church sponsored hospitals, accreditation standards for church sponsored schools etc. etc. Yet, only standards for health insurance policies have been singled out for the first amendment argument - something doesn't compute except that it's all about politics and spin!

Now, to the obvious answer to your question, even though I do not qualify to respond. What about abstinence??

February 15, 2012 at 6:53 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

MTJohn said: “Yet, only standards for health insurance policies have been singled out for the first amendment argument - something doesn't compute except that it's all about politics and spin!”

I agree that "spin and politics" are a big part of this, but I also think it involves money and our tax dollars. Earlier I mentioned a commentary at the Justia web site, which discusses some of the testimony provided by Catholic Bishop William Lori at a hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives. Columnist Marci Hamilton mentions some of Bishop Lori's complaints:

“[Bishop] Lori actually complained that the State Department is not willing to fund private agencies engaging in AIDS prevention unless those agencies provide comprehensive prevention programs. For example, the State Department prefers to fund organizations that will distribute condoms and provide birth control, rather than funding those that refuse to do so.

In this era of government deficits that are threatening the very fiber of our society, it is truly remarkable that any religious organization could demand the “right” to receive government funds to address the international disaster that is AIDS, despite the fact that their beliefs prohibit them from employing what scientists have determined are the best means of preventing the spread of the disease.”

http://verdict.justia.com/2011/11/03/last-weeks-congressional-hearing-on-religious-liberty

February 15, 2012 at 7:13 p.m.
MTJohn said...

tu_quoque said...The odd thing is that you as a Libtard are questioning this action while humping the greatest invasion of our healthcare decisions possible.

tq - I can understand the personal health benefits that might accrue from a single payer system of health insurance. Please explain the health benefit that would result from mandatory ultrasound.

February 15, 2012 at 7:52 p.m.
dude_abides said...

joneses wins today's "I Wanna Be The Star Of The Cartoon" contest. Maced and Confused. lol

February 15, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.
BobMKE said...

Al,

What part of, it is a First Amendment issue that you do not understand? It is the spin doctors that are turning this, and you have fallen for it, along with the Grannie spins. I really don't care what people do or don't do for birth control, so why are we talking about that issue? Al, you claim to be a Christian and I know that I am one. If a woman chooses to have an abortion the Lord will be the judge of her and no one else. Al, I'm a sinner like everyone else, but I am not an al la cart Christian like you are.

February 15, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BobMKE asked Alprova: "Al. . . What part of, it is a First Amendment issue that you do not understand?"

Nice try, BobMKE. Hypocritical, but what's new among Republicans?

"Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.

In six states, including Arkansas, those contraceptive mandates were signed by GOP governors. In Massachusetts in 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed a healthcare overhaul that kept in place a contraceptive mandate signed by his Republican predecessor. Now the GOP presidential candidate is calling the Obama rule an "assault on religion."

At the federal level,President George W. Bush never challenged a similar federal mandate imposed in 2000. . .

. . . When Republicans took control of Washington after Bush won the 2000 presidential election, his administration could have challenged that requirement, as it did other mandates.

In 2000, when Iowa became one of the first states to enact a contraceptive mandate, the Republican Legislature overwhelmingly backed the bill, which has no exemption for religious employers of any kind. . .

. . . In New York, a similar law also won GOP support in the Legislature. It was signed in 2001 by Gov. George E. Pataki, another Republican.

Four years later, the Arkansas law easily cleared that state's Legislature, with help from Republican lawmakers, including two GOP cosponsors. Huckabee signed it in April 2005.

He defended the law in a statement. "Religious employers are not required to comply with this policy," he said. "My position is, and always has been, that religious entities shouldn't be forced to pay for contraception."

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-gop-contraceptives-20120216,0,3392996.story

February 15, 2012 at 9:25 p.m.
News_Junkie said...

BobMKE:

You are the person that Mark Twain was referring to when he said "It is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Your argument that the birth control rule violates the First Amendment is, without a doubt, the dumbest thing ever posted on this website, and that says a lot. No less an authority than the arch-conservative, and devoutly Catholic, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia penned a majority opinion saying that churches can be required to conform to generally applicable laws, which appeared in the case of Employment Division v. Smith.

I want to remind you that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nor is arrant stupidity.

February 15, 2012 at 10:25 p.m.

"Culture war" is so 1994. I want to read about the "theocracy" lurking behind every public acknowledgement of the One who endows us with inalienable rights.

February 15, 2012 at 10:28 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Alprova said: “Hype and overkill seems to define the Republican Conservatives these days. They are desperately searching for some cultural issue to go to war with this year. . . people are tired of that crap.”

It's so good to see your posts again, Alprova. You were missed and I hope things are going well with you. As to this year's Republican cultural war, I agree. It is tiring in a number of ways. I also believe that Andrew Sullivan has posted some darn good questions in his recent commentary - “The Bishops Obsession with the Sex Lives of Others:”

“They've been dominating the news, haven't they? . . Letters were read recently in every parish. They planned a campaign against any compromise for months.

But ask yourself: where were they on a much more fundamental cause for Catholics: universal healthcare? Were they anything like as vocal?

Where were they when the Bush administration was practizing and authorizing the torture and abuse and robbing of human dignity of terror suspects? The Pope never obliquely mentioned these categorical evils when visiting the US and cozying up to the war criminals in the Bush administration?

Where have they been on tackling climate change - a sacred obligation for Catholics according to the Pope they follow so fanatically?

Why so utterly fixated on sex, especially the sex lives of women and gay men? Why so utterly indifferent to the whole range of public policies which Catholic orthodoxy has strong views on? . . .

. . . They have become the Pharisees. And we need Jesus."

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/the-priorities-of-the-catholic-bishops.html

February 15, 2012 at 10:59 p.m.
BobMKE said...

News Junkie & Mtn.

No you do not get it. The Government can not mandate/force its will on a religion and their beliefs. That doesn't mean the churches can disobey our laws. Read my posts. You two are as sharp as a marble.

February 15, 2012 at 11:37 p.m.
fairmon said...

I would like to see a candidate from either party with Ron Paul's social and fiscal positions and Hillary Clinton's foreign relations and military/defense positions. Romney, Santorum or Gingrich all have a better foreign policy platform than Obama. He is like a chicken waking up to a new world every day with no firm long term plan, at least not that he has revealed.

Everything but the most critical issue is getting a cartoon. The best strategy for the puking pubs would be to pass the budget as proposed and force the senate to have a yes or no vote as the non-binding resolution suggest. It must only be a suggestion since it is non binding and is not a law. The sooner we hit the approaching wall the sooner people will realize what is being done to them. The budget provides for a 62% increase in spending over the next ten years with a whopping 400 billion dollar reduction in the deficits in that time frame due to "projected increases" in revenue. That means a debt of only 26 TRILLION with interest at the current rates of only 40 billion per day. unemployment is projected to go up again in the short run but there are promises of better days.

Those gullible enough to think any tax on businesses as proposed won't result in higher prices on their goods or services are to be pitied. Who will suffer most with that result along with gas likely to go over $4.00 a gallon, the wealthy or those with low incomes? When the budget passes people need to keep score on the number of companies leaving the U.S. and establishing their HQ some place other than the U.S.

February 15, 2012 at 11:45 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said...

"Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support, a review of state records shows.

All the examples are states which is where this issue and many others the federal government has involved themselves in belongs. I find it interesting that you use states exercising their rights to support your centralized big government do all for all belief. You agree with states that are doing what you think they should and use them as examples but want the federal government step in and dictate to all states when some don't. You should run for office. Politicians can't dazzle people with their brilliance but they can cover them in B.S. BumblerBama is a master at it. Romney doesn't have a chance, he can do neither.

February 16, 2012 at 12:02 a.m.
alprova said...

BobMKE wrote: "What part of, it is a First Amendment issue that you do not understand?"

What part of churches being directly exempted from the requirements, from day one back in August, 2011, do you not understand?

"It is the spin doctors that are turning this, and you have fallen for it, along with the Grannie spins."

You Sir, have fallen for the religious spin being put on an issue that had nothing at all to do with religion to begin with, and the charge that the President's position on women having access to birth control is akin to attacking religion.

"I really don't care what people do or don't do for birth control, so why are we talking about that issue?"

What issue would you like to discuss? The First Amendment? You have yet to demonstrate how it is that the President is denying anyone their First Amendment rights.

"Al, you claim to be a Christian and I know that I am one. If a woman chooses to have an abortion the Lord will be the judge of her and no one else. Al, I'm a sinner like everyone else, but I am not an al la cart Christian like you are."

Sir, with what little respect you are now due, screw you and the high horse of judgment you are riding upon.

Birth control is an acceptable method to prevent abortions. I'm sure that the President's controversial intention is to provide access to birth control by all women, in order to prevent an even more controversial decision to abort an unwanted fetus. As a Christian, I find the proposal most appealing and a solution to the age-old quandary that a woman faces once conception has taken place.

I sure wish some of you would make up your minds as to what exactly it is that you are for and what you are opposed to at any given time. Because right now, the lines are more blurred than ever.

February 16, 2012 at 2:12 a.m.
fairmon said...

alpro said....

I sure wish some of you would make up your minds as to what exactly it is that you are for and what you are opposed to at any given time. Because right now, the lines are more blurred than ever.

alpro. Is this clear, it doesn't change where I ahve stood. I left out what I think should be a condition of a free abortion since I would help pay for them without it for the ROI. You should be more credible than to say to people that birth control is "FREE". It is a play on words because they don't have to pay for them unless there is a deductible or co-pay which I assume may still be applicable. You keep saying "FREE" birth control and you know that is not true. None of the options are free regardless of the source. Insurers will adjust the premium for every subscriber enough to provide every female free birth control. You know the companies producing them are not going to give them away without recovering their cost with increased prices on other products. I agree every woman should have free and easy access to the birth control method of her choice and encouraged to use them faithfully. They should have access to adoption assistance or a free abortion. The truth is birth control or abortion is much cheaper than prenatal care, the cost of the birth and treatment that may be called for at birth, follow up care for mom and kid then insure the kid to age 26 and educate them through college.

Give Obama credit, he got it right. He knows educating women and making sure they have what is needed to stop the proliferation of those that cannot provide for themselves. That is not a racist statement there are more caucasian women government/tax payer dependent than any minority with some popping kids out like a pez machine.

February 16, 2012 at 2:57 a.m.
fairmon said...

BobMKE's post said...

"Al, you claim to be a Christian and I know that I am one. If a woman chooses to have an abortion the Lord will be the judge of her and no one else. Al, I'm a sinner like everyone else, but I am not an al la cart Christian like you are."

alpro's devout christian response was....

Sir, with what little respect you are now due, screw you and the high horse of judgment you are riding upon.

Who is being judgemental? Will we not all be judged and held accountable for our decisions but not by each other? If by each other independents may be in trouble since the first question would likely be which party did you belong to and the second who did you vote for.

February 16, 2012 at 3:11 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Thank you harp,

I really enjoy your posts on here.

February 16, 2012 at 8:24 a.m.
chet123 said...

Harp3339...i'm very sensitive about encroaching on the Church beliefs.....However;It amazes me how you are so anti-woman.....you dont give a rat butt about the church....you think you have found a wedge-issue....the republican have nothing else..They have no back-bone when human rights are at stake nor will you speak up when corporations, rich and greedy are strampling on the middle -class families of America..you are silence on issue such as usuary(a grave sin in the bible)..you are pro-war(as long as you dont have to go but aggressive in sending someone else to died)..the true base of your party consist of grumpy old rich and greedy men...a few hater like yourself just coat-tail behind the rich and greedy eventhough most republican policies are to your disadvantage...MAYBE YOU NEED TO CHECK THE LOST AND FOUND OFFICE.....BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR PARTY HAVE LOST ALL CREDIBILTY!!!!..YOUR PARTY STINK SO BAD YOU CANT BET A POOR BLACK-MAN WHO HAVE ONLY ABOUT 6% BLACK VOTERS TO ELECT HIM...THIS IS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF WHITE AMERICANS ARE PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL....AND THEY HAVE A DISDAIN FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY POLITICS... HA HA HA..MAYBE ONE DAY YOU MAY RECOVER OR FIND YOUR CREDIBILTY BUT THAT DAY IS NOT TODAY...!!!

February 16, 2012 at 8:41 a.m.
chet123 said...

BOBMIKE AND HARP.....YOUR PROBLEMS IS YOU ARE SOUTHERN BAPTIST....THE DENOMINATION THAT WAS CONCEIVED IN HATE!!!...YOU CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS...HA HA HA....BUT YOU ARE NOT DISCIPLES OF CHRIST...LISTENING TO YOU IS SOLID EVIDENCE... YOU DONT FOLLOW CHRIST TEACHING....YOU AND YOUR CHURCH ARE CONFUSED.....

AND FOR YOU TWO HYPOCRITE TO JUDGE AL REALLY TAKE BRASS BALLS ARROGANCE!....YOU CANT SEE YOURSELF BECAUSE YOU ARE BLIND WITH HATERED...AL IS MORE SPIRTUAL THAN EITHER ONE OF YOU RIGHT-WING PROTECTOR OF THE RICH AND GREEDY(GET MONEY AT ANY COST)....GREED IS NOT THE TE4ACHING OF CHRIST YOU BOZOS..THAT PHONY PASTOR OF YOURS SHOULD TEACH THAT...BUT HE CANT BECAUSE HE IS A SELL-OUT!.....SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU!

February 16, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.
chet123 said...

THIS IS HOW YOU SOUNDS....(BOBMIKE)THANKS YOU HARP!I REALLY ENJOYED YOUR POST!....HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

February 16, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
fairmon said...

chet123...

What the hell are you talking about. You have never seen where I posted anything where I claim to be a christian or that I attended any church. I have no use for those cathredial building or some preacher lives off of the fruits of the labor others.

February 16, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
mtngrl said...

harp said: "Give Obama credit, he got it right. He knows educating women and making sure they have what is needed to stop the proliferation of those that cannot provide for themselves"

For "those that cannot provide for themselves" the contraception really is free. Sure, the rest of us will cover it one way or another, but that is true even without the Affordable Health Care act in place at all.

BobMKE said...

mtngrl Issue #1: Why was Obama so stupid to even try it in the first place? He was a Constitutional Professor wasn't he? (My opinion is it was for power)

I was not privy to the behind the scenes discussions here so why ask me? But anyway, his attempt in the first place was not a violation of the first amendment either as Alprova already showed. Churches were exempt. The only discussion for the compromise was regarding institutions run by the church which served and employed non-church members.

Issue #2: Why did you stick with your claim that the separation of Church and State was in the Bill of Rights (I just proved that it is not)

When did I originally state that or stick with it? You keep making that claim. I simply said that was not me so quit lying. You on the other hand still have not backed up your claim that President Obama actually violated the First Ammendment, even as you posted it

February 16, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
fairmon said...

chet123....

Your reading skills are weak and comprehension appears non existent. You think anyone critical of Obama or that don't agree with him must support the other party. I don't like any of the current candidates. Several posting here would swear Obama's farts smelled like honey suckles. How does this post cause you to conclude I am not for Women's rights? Do you recall any post that I didn't defend women's rights?

alpro. Is this clear, it doesn't change where I ahve stood. I left out what I think should be a condition of a free abortion since I would help pay for them without it for the ROI. You should be more credible than to say to people that birth control is "FREE". It is a play on words because they don't have to pay for them unless there is a deductible or co-pay which I assume may still be applicable. You keep saying "FREE" birth control and you know that is not true. None of the options are free regardless of the source. Insurers will adjust the premium for every subscriber enough to provide every female free birth control. You know the companies producing them are not going to give them away without recovering their cost with increased prices on other products. I agree every woman should have free and easy access to the birth control method of her choice and encouraged to use them faithfully. They should have access to adoption assistance or a free abortion. The truth is birth control or abortion is much cheaper than prenatal care, the cost of the birth and treatment that may be called for at birth, follow up care for mom and kid then insure the kid to age 26 and educate them through college.

Give Obama credit, he got it right. He knows educating women and making sure they have what is needed to stop the proliferation of those that cannot provide for themselves. That is not a racist statement there are more caucasian women government/tax payer dependent than any minority with some popping kids out like a pez machine.

February 16, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
chet123 said...

HARP....YOU AND BOBMIKE ARE CONNECTED AT THE HIP.....MAYBE I SHOULDNT HAVE INCLUDED YOUR NAME....BUT I WAS SO DARN MAD TO HEAR BOBMIKE SAY HE KNEW HE WAS A CHRISTAIN.....SORRY YOU GOT CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE....

February 16, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “All the examples are states which is where this issue and many others the federal government has involved themselves in belongs.” You agree with states that are doing what you think they should and use them as examples but want the federal government step in and dictate to all states when some don't.

I posted the link listing the states and the previous Republican support for birth control policies for a totally different reason, Harp3339. My point was to show one minute the Republicans supported it, but the next minute they didn’t. The issue that you’re addressing is different. Birth control became a national issue because of the discrimination factor.

The reality is that many insurers have discriminated against and continue to discriminate against women when it comes to health care services. As I’m sure you know, when Viagra initially hit the market, it only took a few weeks for the majority of health insurers to provide coverage for Viagra prescriptions, but many of these same carriers refused to provide coverage for birth control. Another example, are insurance carriers that have refused to provide coverage to women who have been physically abused by their husbands - claiming it’s a pre-existing condition. This kind of discrimination may be OK by you, but not by me.

The bottom line is some of these States have not been doing a very good job when it comes to issues involving discrimination. In this case, if each State had acted responsibly and had taken steps to eliminate discrimination against women within the healthcare industry, there wouldn’t have been a need for the federal government to become involved.

February 16, 2012 at 10:23 a.m.
chet123 said...

BOBMIKE RESPONSE TO FEB 15 5 43PM

1). a mistake was made....staff members are mostlt female....the president backed off...republican party who said corporation are people saw an opportunity...but democrats can do something the republican party cant do...thats to admit they are in error...also the democrats didnt GOOSESTEP IN LINE LIKE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOES......CORPORATION ARE PEOPLE HA HA HA

2) BOBMIKE THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION WAS A FLAWED DOCUMENTATION.... BLACK WAS 3/5 HUMANS..WOMEN HAD NO RIGHTS..DRED SCOTT RULINGS.....IT WAS ADVANTAGE TO LAND OWNING WHITE MALE...SO MANY WHITE MALE WERE ALSO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST....TO CONSERVATIVE LOVE TO CONSERVE THIS PART OF HISTORY....THATS WHY THEY ARE CONSREVATIVE.....LIBERALS FOUGHT TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY A MORE PERFECT UNION. AS FAR AS THE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE....I DONT THINK THE STATE PONDER ON WHTHER THE CHURCH WILL INFRINGE...SINCE THE CHURCH HAVE LOST IT SALT

3)WHY WOULD THE ACUL INTERFER SINCE THERE ISNT A BILL....AND WHY WOULD YOU REFER TO ACLU SINCE YOU CLAIM THEY ARE SOCIALIST Hmmmm?

4)WHY DO CONSERVATIVE DOUBLE DOWN ON LOSING ISSUES...AND WHY DO THEY GIVE SO MUCH LIPS SERVICE EVENTHOUGH THEY HAVE MADE NO CONTRIBUTIONS AND I MEAN NO CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS COUNTRY BUT HATERED

5)WHY DO THE RICH AND GREEDY BUTT KISSING PRESS AS FIX NEWS CONTINUE TO DUMB DOWN THE ALREADY DUMMIES REPUBLICANS WITH LIES.....EVENTHOUGH THE WHOLE WORLD IS LAUGHING AT THEM....FIX NEWS IS THE BUTT OF JOKES ON NITE TIME TELEVISION

BOBMIKE! ANYTIME YOU NEED MY ANSWERS PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!

February 16, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
chet123 said...

HEY...REMOVE THE BOLD PRINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

February 16, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Chet, As I informed you before, I am from Wisconsin and my family and I belong a Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) church. Our Church has 1,200 members, I have served on numerous Church Boards since 1982 and I was honored to serve as the Church President from 2007 to 2010. My wife is a Stephan Minister. I will pray for our Lord to calm your hatred and anger to your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

February 16, 2012 at 12:47 p.m.
fairmon said...

mtngrl said... harp said: "Give Obama credit, he got it right. He knows educating women and making sure they have what is needed to stop the proliferation of those that cannot provide for themselves"

For "those that cannot provide for themselves" the contraception really is free. Sure, the rest of us will cover it one way or another, but that is true even without the Affordable Health Care act in place at all.

Therefore to state birth care is "FREE" is a misleading statement and the administration or congress did not make the qualifying statement for those that cannot afford it but for every female since the insurers would be providing it free. When can you tell a politician is lying? Anytime they are talking. It may be part of the party orientation after an election. I like the position on birth control for the reasons stated earlier that could result in a lower net cost and I didn't mention the AHCA or the Pelosi we will just have to pass it to know what is in it bill. It is evident no one here and many in congress still haven't read it. So let it play out and let people learn what is in the poorly written, hard to read bill. I can afford it if you can.

It is well known in the industry that women have more health care needs and claims than males. The causes of the differences should be covered and the cost included in every family policy. There is no valid justification for a single male paying the same rate as a single female but they will. Men might as well accept that in return for the pleasure and support women provide. I certainly have no objection to paying the same rate as a single female but I do have a problem with a family and a house full of kids paying a lower rate per insured than a single therefore shifting the cost to those that, due to preference or other factors, are single.

February 16, 2012 at 5 p.m.
fairmon said...

chet123 said... HARP....YOU AND BOBMIKE ARE CONNECTED AT THE HIP.....MAYBE I SHOULDNT HAVE INCLUDED YOUR NAME....BUT I WAS SO DARN MAD TO HEAR BOBMIKE SAY HE KNEW HE WAS A CHRISTAIN.....SORRY YOU GOT CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE....

I see you have now appointed your self the judge to decide who is christian who is not. Your name calling and your evaluation of other peoples intellect after which a tirade of doing that in CAPS and butchered grammar does not seem a christian thing to do and certainly not a good influence on others.

If I were choosing the one that is a christian between you, alpo and MTJohn he would win hands down. He states his well thought out position and never calls anyone names, never uses profanity and never insist that anyone doesn't have a right to have the opinion they hold on an issue, unlike you and others that conclude anyone not worshiping the Bama or disagreeing them must be stupid. You could learn a lot from him but it is hard for you to hear when you are incessantly talking and giggling.

February 16, 2012 at 8:37 p.m.
Rebus said...

Affordable Health Care Act...is this a joke?

January 13, 2013 at 1:16 a.m.
caddy said...

Ah yes: Progressives would have our Progress look like this ...

http://www.gocomics.com/chuckasay/2013/01/11

January 30, 2013 at 4:35 p.m.
please login to post a comment

Other National Articles

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.