Re: "No one - not the sworn to some evil Pres. Obama - is
'forcing' anyone to do anything against their own free will or
choice."Except he's forcing those who don't want to
participate in others' birth control or drug-induced abortion to pay for
them.Very much "against their own free will or choice."There appears to be little of open-mindedness about such a disingenuous
If you don't want or believe in birth control - don't ask for it.No one - not the sworn to some evil Pres. Obama - is 'forcing'
anyone to do anything against their own free will or choice.
@lost No i do not think he has violted any of those amendments and if you
believe he has then present evidance to support your claims along with evidance
to support you claims about his position o.n the second amendment which we are
still waiting for. @social modI think you read to much I not
my second post. You are right there are and shod be limits on the powers of all
our elected officials and they should be called to task when they exceed them
however blatantly miss using terms as the posters above indeed did do only
weakens their arguments.
Pagan, the government shouldn't be paying for and providing viagra. The
government must reduce its reach. You made a great point that there are so many
examples of government overreach. I can assure you that most
conservatives are consistent in their vision of government powers and purpose.
A smaller government will greatly benefit our nation.
@George,First, if you read my post, it doesn't say that we have an
authoritarian government. It simply points out the flaw in your previous logic.
That it IS possible to have an Authoritarian government elected to office
through democratic process.Second, By the argument you put forward in your
second post, it would follow that anything a president does is ok, so long as he
wins the election. We have a constitution for a reason. It is to put a
check on the powers we the people lent to our government. When the government
begins to extend itself beyond the powers given it by the Constitution, those
citizens paying attention have a duty to call foul. It doesn't matter if
the majority want something or not, when it violates the rule of law, they
can't have it.
Tolstoy,so you admit, then, he IS after the 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, and maybe
even the 13th?read ANY of his quotes on gun control, and you can see
he abhors the 2nd.Pagan, OK, eliminate coverage for Viagra.
Re: "Btw authoritarian regimes don't typical bother with making
concessions."Exactly.Just as this authoritarian
regime refuses to do.
Viagra is covered by government funded Medicare.If you are upset
about birth control for women being covered by our tax dollars but NOT male
enhancing drugs factually being covered by our tax dollars... you
are a hypocrite.
I really don't get it. Government paid birth control? This is an insult!
@lost "BO wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment."really
please quote and sight the source for us where President Obama has said he wants
a repeal (revoke) of the second amendment.
@social mod fiscal conso the twice elected president that is doing what
the majority of Americans that just reelected him in a free and open election by
a majority vote to do is an authoritarian democracy within himself? sorry still
not buying it. He s doing what the majority of Americans voted for him to do
If someone broke into my house and took all my stereo equipment, is it a
compromise when he offers to give me back one of the speakers?
@GeorgeIt is very possible to have an Autoritarian Democratically elected
government. The two are not mutually exclusive. The first is about how the
govenment governs and who holds the power to do so. The second is about how the
government is put into power.@JoeBlowThere is no connection
between a company not wanting to PAY for a product on moral grounds and your
example of dictating to your employees how many children they can have. The
same lack of logic applies to your example of Smokers, Drinkers and the
Overweight. You might be opposed to their lifestyle, but you are not being
required to act in any moraly repugnant way to support it.
@freedomisgoodWhat about blatantly miss using terms like
"dictator" makes you think gives you a winning argument?
BO offers a compromise to the constitutional rights of those who oppose him. I
did not think the rights guaranteed in the constitution were open to compromise.
But I guess Obamacare trumps the 1st amendment.Affirmative action
trumps the 14th amendmentTSA trumps the 4th and 14th amendmentsthe fairness doctrine promoted by the dems trumps more of the 1st
amendmentthe dems fought a civil war to protect slavery, thereby
gutting the 10th amendmentBO wants to eliminate the 2nd
amendment.Why should we be surprised that he wants to further
eviscerate the 1st amendment? After all, his opponents only have their guns and
religion to cling to, take those away and they will be forced to embrace him -
just like Stalin in the early days of the USSR.Which other
constitutional rights should we compromise away? Think how much safer we'd
all be if the right to not self-incriminate embodied in the 5th amendment only
applied to misdemeanors?Should we compromise away parts of the 13th
amendment, too?Oh, and airnaut,the Everett Herald reported
final assembly of the 787 was done in a WA plant. So much for your claim of NO
I am going to say something which usually makes me cringe when others say it.
But I got this from an Islamic scholar (Islamic studies at Harvard - not jihad
studies in Yemen)."America is a Christian nation." The
scholar then explained that if we make a Venn diagram showing the union between
religion and Christianity, the government has avoided treading into the realm of
Christianity. The problem for Moslems is that the government is not set up to
not intrude into Islam.America is a Christian nation, we need to
stop intruding on Christianity. At the same time, to be accepting of diversity
we need to find how not to intrude on other religious traditions.Steamrolling government intrusion without consideration of freedom of
conscience will make us less diverse. It is as progressive as the redneck who
views Moslems as terrorists and thinks we should "fight them there so that
we don't have to fight them here".
I think overpopulation is a problem. I am morally opposed to large
families.In my company, I want to restrict healthcare coverage to 2
children ONLY. I also refuse to cover Smokers, Drinkers, the Overweight,
all on moral grounds.This could get interesting.
Obama is the worst uncompromising dictator ever. :)
@procoSo by your own admittance the term regime is typically
associated with a authoritarian not a demoratily elected government right? Sorry
but you kind of proved Tolstoys point."Bypassing the elected
officials of the people" you mean like oh maybe the president who is elected
as a representative of the people?Btw authoritarian regimes
don't typical bother with making concessions.
The Obama administration, as David says, doesn't understand "free".
A principle we leaned in high school, TANSTAAFL - There ain't so such
thing as a free lunch, is still true. Free means charging higher premiums to
everyone else. Having "the government" pay for it means having your
friends and neighbors pay for it. Like the ridiculous, politically motivated
bailout of GM started by President Bush and finished by President Obama. Now GM
doesn't want to pay it all back and leave tax payers holding about $40
billion. Nothing is free. And no, viagra and vasectomies shouldn't be
"free" either. GM should pay back every dime and not be able to buy
back it's stock from the Government at less than the Government paid unless
they take whatever loss the Government (agai,n us, the taxpayers)incurs, turn it
into a note payable and pay back every dime. That's why I will never buy
another GM car until they pay back every single penny they took from the tax
payers. No more bailouts, not more Government mandated free stuff.
Re: ". . . every time you use the word regime your arguments lose more
credibility . . . ."Just for the record, a perfectly acceptable
definition of "regime" is "A government, esp. an authoritarian
one."It does, admittedly, connote a certain element of
illegitimacy. But the Obama regime insists on hewing closer to that line every
day -- legislating through unconstitutional executive fiat, for the express
purpose of bypassing the elected representatives of the people.
This is an improvement? Previously, the Catholics and others had
objected, because it requires them to pay for medical procedures they are
morally opposed to. Under the "compromise," these
organizations are...required to pay for medical procedures they are morally
opposed to.Some people hear the word "compromise" and start
slavering like Pavlov's dog, without bothering to drill down into the
@mapledonso he once again offers a compromise and you once again insist he
is inflexible? it is pretty simple to see anyone that does not walk lock step
with you fits into the category of socialistic and evil. sorry that you think
the majority of americans that twice voted him into office are so bad it must be
very difficult to live among us. @procoevery time you use the
word regime your arguments lose more credibility, you may not like that he was
elected twice into office by the majority of americans but it is what it is and
it certainly does not fit the definition of a regime,
Because a large number of women use birth control, the administration has made
it a priority for women to receive free contraceptive coverage. But the
coverage isn't free. Someone has to pay for it. Because of Obamacare this
"free" coverage is paid in the form of taxes by all Americans.
Remember, the Supreme Court said it was a tax and not a fee.I wonder
when the administration will require insurers to cover, "free of
charge", prostate coverage for men. If men live long enough they will all
be at risk of having prostate hypertrophy or prostate cancer.I also
wonder when the administration will require, "free of charge",
immunizations, breast cancer screening, strep throat treatment medications,
Scout camp physicals, etc. I also wonder when free housing,
automobile, clothing, and cosmetics will be provided by the government. Why
stop with universal, "free" coverage of contraceptives?
Re: "Obama has once again offered a 'compromise' . . . ."Good thing you put the word "compromise" in quotes. So we know
you're not seriously suggesting that when this regime gives up nothing, and
demands that everyone else give up their principles to accommodate it, that
action could somehow be characterized as an actual compromise.Nothing proposed by the regime permits people who are morally opposed to its
dictate to avoid participating in it. It merely offers a fig leaf to cover the
naked and unassailable fact that the regime is dictating that people opposed to
birth control must support birth control.What's next?And will liberals agree that the next Republican administration can order them
to contribute to support the goals of religious organizations?This
liberal overreach could easily come around to smack liberals harder than they
anticipate.Their dogma appears on the verge of being run over by
@airnutSo the party that doesn't agree with your progressive,
socialistic vision of America is the party of "No." Thank God for that.
By the way, either the DesNews doesn't find anything wrong with
the Obama Administration or they're not doing their job. Or perhaps they
don't have the courage.Regardless, no one is that good. And
yes, I have to find my news elsewhere, including that evil FoxNews.
There -- Obama has once again offered a "compromise" to keep
moving forward.Let's see if the All-or-Nothing, party of
"No" takes it, or leaves it.