The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Maybe not atheist Christians, though there's probably someone out there that defines themself as such.

Gotta be one. Actually, there gotta be two, since there's someone for everyone.

It reminds me of the Harry Dean Stanton character in some long ago movie, who was a preacher for "The Holy Church of Christ without Christ." (Upon IMDB: "Wise Blood." I recommend it because, hey, HDS, but IIRC it is quite unsettling.)

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Those of us who didn't take a multi-year break have seen this dog and pony show numerous times.

There's a lesson here...

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Then again, he's put me on ignore for an invented slight against his wife that archived evidence proves I never made, so I'm hardly unbiased in believing he has a martyr complex.

At one time or another I have probably been on Ignore for dozens of posters, and at one time or another I have put dozens on Ignore. Everybody writes needlessly inflammatory things in moments of weakness -- on a bad day, having gotten too revved up by an argument, having lost perspective because of a personal connection, or just sometimes out of sheer Calvin-and-Hobbes-esque pissiness.

Without OP and FF and Bob and the rest, this would be a very dull board.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

There are tons of agencies out there that are happy to work with same sex couples. The Christian agencies that would have such a concern are a small minority. Why would you try to force a Catholic agency to work with them against their will? It's not about placing kids in loving homes. It's about forcing a viewpoint on all.

Should an agency be allowed to not place a Caucasian baby in an African American home? I'm sure there are tons of other agencies out there that are happy to work with African American couples.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

The obvious flip side is that the government should force health care coverage to pay for everything for free, as why should your aspirin be free or contraception be free, but my annual physical isn't free, or someone's Viagra, or someone's botox, or whatever.

Because there is a public interest in encouraging the use of basic preventative care services, which have obvious, direct links to reduced future health care costs. Note that the courts did not rule that the government had no legitimate interest in encouraging the use of contraception by making it available with no out-of-pocket cost to the user (I hate the word "free"), just that it needed to achieve that interest via less intrusive means.

Of course using the balanced budget, which virtually nobody really cares about or seriously pursues, is a very poor example. If the budget were ever remotely balanced, all sorts of government goodies would disappear overnight.

I told you right there in black and white to stay with me. The balanced budget is clearly irrelevant to my point, that increased government spending on health care is more intrusive, regardless of the status of the budget.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Should an agency be allowed to not place a Caucasian baby in an African American home? I'm sure there are tons of other agencies out there that are happy to work with African American couples.

I know you're trying to equate gay marriage with race, a common fallacy. Sorry. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not going there, as it's not a valid comparison in my book.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I know you're trying to equate gay marriage with race, a common fallacy. Sorry. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm not going there, as it's not a valid comparison in my book.

Why? Are you saying it's OK to force views about race discrimination on others, but not views about sexual orientation? What makes it different?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why? Are you saying it's OK to force views about race discrimination on others, but not views about sexual orientation? What makes it different?

Forcing views of race discrimination on others? Where'd that come from?

This subject is a big discussion we've tried around here before, never without a number of people going bonkers about it and killing any chance of a decent discussion. I'm sure you know enough about the subject to know the perspectives of both sides though, so I don't see the need to explain it all here.

 

[Priceless]

What did women do before Obamacare? Oh yes, they paid 25 bucks a month at Target. Anyway, that sleazy gambit may have some juice left. Who knows? Jeebus, don't forget racism (not that there's the slightest chance you ladies ever would).

Why should women have to spend the extra money out of pocket when men have their boner pills fully covered by insurance? And why is it you care so much about these women having sex but give the men a free pass? I don't recall anyone even once complaining about the men having sex, just the women.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why should women have to spend the extra money out of pocket when men have their boner pills fully covered by insurance? And why is it you care so much about these women having sex but give the men a free pass? I don't recall anyone even once complaining about the men having sex, just the women.

You've apparently never heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why should women have to spend the extra money out of pocket when men have their boner pills fully covered by insurance? And why is it you care so much about these women having sex but give the men a free pass? I don't recall anyone even once complaining about the men having sex, just the women.

Why are the men's pills mandated as being covered instead of allowing for the decision between the insurer and the insured to have the option for them to be paid for out-of-pocket?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Might be an interesting read. On that note, this is a book I think everyone should read.
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909

I think it is pretty spot on.

Thanks for the suggestion. Looks like a good read.


Unfortunately, those who truly need to read it the most are also those who by far are the most resistant to its message.

 

[Priceless]

You've apparently never heard the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right".

Yes, I've heard it, it just doesn't apply here. Why is it your side has spent so much time and energy telling us that any women who uses birth control is a slut but give men a free pass? Aren't they also having sex? Who is it you think all these sluts are having intercourse with? Each other? They wouldn't need birth control then, would they?

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Why should women have to spend the extra money out of pocket when men have their boner pills fully covered by insurance? And why is it you care so much about these women having sex but give the men a free pass? I don't recall anyone even once complaining about the men having sex, just the women.

Could you link to the clause in the ACA (or follow up HHS mandates) that requires free ED Rx? I seem to have missed that requirement

 

[Priceless]

Why are the men's pills mandated as being covered instead of allowing for the decision between the insurer and the insured to have the option for them to be paid for out-of-pocket?

Are you seriously asking why a Congress comprised mostly of old men would include boner pills in a list of covered "medication"?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I then realize that I have a deeply held, sincere belief that aspirin are against my religion, so I sue to not have to pay for those. Based on this ruling, the government has to say, "Well, crud. We [the government] can't force him to pay for that, so we[the government wi]ll just have to do it ourselves."

um....why can't the people who want aspirin in your analogy just pay for the aspirin themselves? or if people really, truly were suffering due to a lack of aspirin, given how many caring and generous people there are in this county, why can't those caring generous people band together and donate money to provide aspirin to the needy? why does the government "have to" get involved at all?

ESPECIALLY if we have a balanced budget, then there would be so much more economic growth and economic activity, people would have more resources from which to pay for aspirin and make these donations compared to now. if the government paid for a lot less, then there would be much more money to go around for everyone else. Government spending generally has a "negative multiplier" effect in that it not only takes money away from some to redistribute it to others, it also has to support a huge payroll as well. Yet (outside of a few exceptions) none of that payroll contributes any net positive activity to the economy.

 

[busterman62]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

At one time or another I have probably been on Ignore for dozens of posters, and at one time or another I have put dozens on Ignore. Everybody writes needlessly inflammatory things in moments of weakness -- on a bad day, having gotten too revved up by an argument, having lost perspective because of a personal connection, or just sometimes out of sheer Calvin-and-Hobbes-esque pissiness.

Without OP and FF and Bob and the rest, this would be a very dull board.

I can tolerate the religious and political discourse but draw the line when a poster disparages Calvin & Hobbes. You, Sir, are now on ignore.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

If a corporation didn't have "person" status and only existed on paper, how do you redress grievances against it?

If a corporation was no different from a coffee table or a concept (<-- something that only exists on paper) how do you sue it?

"Personhood" is another double-edged sword. There are times corporations would love to not be a "person", like when they're being sued.

Exactly. And right now theyre getting it both ways. They cant be sued as a person but they get religion like one. That's the problem.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I can tolerate the religious and political discourse but draw the line when a poster disparages Calvin & Hobbes. You, Sir, are now on ignore.

C&H would be the first to embrace the adjective.

 

[Priceless]

Could you link to the clause in the ACA (or follow up HHS mandates) that requires free ED Rx? I seem to have missed that requirement

I'm limited on this thing right now and it's too freaking hot to get on my PC. Google "ACA erectile dysfunction" and you'll find lots of links. If you really want me to find you a link I'll do it when I'm at my PC.