feelings hurt? dont worry obama will call you and make it all better

jetsjets1028 · 03-03-12, 02:05 AM

what night for umass hockey saw great win on my final hockey game as student senior night clinching spot in hockey east tourney score 4 3rd period goals after blowing lead early 3rd saw moore in game for last minute and half or so great night at umass and mullins center!!

durito · 03-03-12, 02:09 AM

Too bad he doest call ******* retards.

Plus573 · 03-03-12, 02:18 AM

But Ms Fluke eventually testified on 23 February in support of Mr Obama's ruling that religiously affiliated institutions such as universities and hospitals should provide insurance plans that cover all costs for medicinal contraceptives.
-BBC
She backed his policy. He won't be making many calls.

baskets · 03-03-12, 02:20 AM

uh, can't you get that shit for free at your local clinic?

wtf · 03-03-12, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by durito

Too bad he doest call ******* retards.

yea too bad, guess you wont that call then

ProfaneReality · 03-03-12, 02:33 AM

Obama also called the principal of the school that had the 3 students die in a shooting this week, he's such a liberal fayg

wtf · 03-03-12, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by ProfaneReality

Obama also called the principal of the school that had the 3 students die in a shooting this week, he's such a liberal fayg

so you do not see the difference?

you think he would have called her if she disagreed with his policies ?

ProfaneReality · 03-03-12, 02:40 AM

was not implying there isnt a difference

Shaudius · 03-03-12, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by wtf

so you do not see the difference?

you think he would have called her if she disagreed with his policies ?

In case you missed it this has nothing to do with whether or not she agrees with Obama's policies. If you noticed John Boehner also criticized Limbugh's remarks because Limbaugh is a hatemonger who adds basically nothing to the public discourse but vitriol and lies(Boehner won't go so far as to condemn the man completely because he serves a useful albeit it evil purpose for his base). He is one of the main reasons that public discourse in this country has taken such a nasty turn. Rush made this not about agreeing with the policy or not and instead made it a personal attack on the purveyor of the message. The Georgetown law student deserves better, and I anyone who isn't brainwashed by the vitriol that spews out of Limbugh and his kind on the both the left and right should be able to see that.

baskets · 03-03-12, 03:48 AM

who has more money?

wtf or durito?

Waterstpub87 · 03-03-12, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by baskets

uh, can't you get that shit for free at your local clinic?

Either she couldn't, or Ms. Georgetown law is too good to go to a free clinic. 20$ a month or so is just too burdensome to pay. Instead we should force a religion to pay for it against their beliefs. Bet she gets a nice job after graduation with one of the liberal groups or the government, always a kickback for helping to attack anyone who disagrees with King Obama.

Shaudius · 03-03-12, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

Either she couldn't, or Ms. Georgetown law is too good to go to a free clinic. 20$ a month or so is just too burdensome to pay. Instead we should force a religion to pay for it against their beliefs. Bet she gets a nice job after graduation with one of the liberal groups or the government, always a kickback for helping to attack anyone who disagrees with King Obama.

First year law students(I realize she is now in her third year) are prohibited from working by law school rules, so anything she had to pay out of pocket during that time had to come from savings or from student loans, so it ends up being a lot more than $20/month if she didn't already have it saved up before going to law school(which not a lot of law students have much of a saving before law school).

My issue with all of this is where do you draw the line, what is a firmly held religious belief that would allow employers to opt out of coverage. My religion doesn't believe in anything but the power of prayer, should I be able to deny all coverage for everything to my employees? My religion says that cancer is brought about by sins, I refuse to have my health plan cover chemotherapy.

Furthermore, these hospitals that are trying to opt out of covering their employees, a) accept government funds, and b) employee people who are not members of their religion. They are religious organizations in name only for the most part. They are also required already in at least a strong plurality of states already to provide this coverage, where as the outrage over this issue then?

Mr KLC · 03-03-12, 10:35 AM

If she's that hard up for cash, can't she just tell her boyfriend to wear a rubber, or he doesn't get any?

Waterstpub87 · 03-03-12, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Shaudius

First year law students(I realize she is now in her third year) are prohibited from working by law school rules, so anything she had to pay out of pocket during that time had to come from savings or from student loans, so it ends up being a lot more than $20/month if she didn't already have it saved up before going to law school(which not a lot of law students have much of a saving before law school).

My issue with all of this is where do you draw the line, what is a firmly held religious belief that would allow employers to opt out of coverage. My religion doesn't believe in anything but the power of prayer, should I be able to deny all coverage for everything to my employees? My religion says that cancer is brought about by sins, I refuse to have my health plan cover chemotherapy.

Furthermore, these hospitals that are trying to opt out of covering their employees, a) accept government funds, and b) employee people who are not members of their religion. They are religious organizations in name only for the most part. They are also required already in at least a strong plurality of states already to provide this coverage, where as the outrage over this issue then?

A. So when you take government money you lose the right to have any beliefs? Sounds like a bit of a dictatorship. B. Organizations that don't believe in medicine would likely not have hospitals or schools, so it is a poorly attempted point. And even if that was the case, people would not work there then. C. No one forced her to attend a catholic college. If you attend or work at a religious organization, you take the good and the bad. You know what your getting into if you work at a catholic hospital. She is lucky the catholic church is tolerant and allowed her to participate in the reproductive rights club, or whatever it is. There are plenty of ways to obtain no cost, or low cost birth control. Forcing a religious organization to pay for it in direct conflict with their religious beliefs is anti-American, whether done by the state or the federal government.

rkelly110 · 03-03-12, 02:38 PM

Typical repuke responses. Can't discuss a subject w/o attacking the person.

I agree with limp balls on not having the tax payer pay for your fornication. If the slit
is going to spread her legs, SHE should have the protection available. We already pay
for the slits who can't keep their legs closed.

Back in my day, the only way to buy a rubber discreetly was in the gas station bathroom.

There are other ways to NOT get pregnant. Don't want to get graphic. Figure it out.

DwightShrute · 03-03-12, 05:22 PM

just another example of a dictator at work. King Obama is the most dangerous ruler the USA has known. Entitlements and class warfare.

DwightShrute · 03-03-12, 05:53 PM

Chi_archie · 03-03-12, 06:07 PM

remember he had a beer with that Nigerian Professor that got arrested for breaking into his own home?

Emily_Haines · 03-03-12, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by rkelly110

Typical repuke responses. Can't discuss a subject w/o attacking the person.

I agree with limp balls on not having the tax payer pay for your fornication. If the slit
is going to spread her legs, SHE should have the protection available. We already pay
for the slits who can't keep their legs closed.

Back in my day, the only way to buy a rubber discreetly was in the gas station bathroom.

There are other ways to NOT get pregnant. Don't want to get graphic. Figure it out.

anal???

TheMoneyShot · 03-03-12, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by ProfaneReality

Obama also called the principal of the school that had the 3 students die in a shooting this week, he's such a liberal fayg

I wish Obama would call me up... I'd like to have a word with him.

baskets · 03-03-12, 09:42 PM

"Yo, Money, wazzup my bitch. This is yaw muddafuckking prezzi-dent. Watch you got goin', baby? Gnome what I'm saying?"

And tell me WHY you would like to have that convo?

tblues2005 · 03-03-12, 09:48 PM

I am glad the President called her up and talked about this. Limbaugh is an idiot for saying things like this and he should be held accountable for his actions on this one. When you have the Speaker of the House saying that it was wrong for Limbaugh it must have been real bad.

Shaudius · 03-03-12, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

A. So when you take government money you lose the right to have any beliefs? Sounds like a bit of a dictatorship. B. Organizations that don't believe in medicine would likely not have hospitals or schools, so it is a poorly attempted point. And even if that was the case, people would not work there then. C. No one forced her to attend a catholic college. If you attend or work at a religious organization, you take the good and the bad. You know what your getting into if you work at a catholic hospital. She is lucky the catholic church is tolerant and allowed her to participate in the reproductive rights club, or whatever it is. There are plenty of ways to obtain no cost, or low cost birth control. Forcing a religious organization to pay for it in direct conflict with their religious beliefs is anti-American, whether done by the state or the federal government.

To your A point, no when you take government money you lose to the right to tell your employees, who you do not require to be a member of your religion, to receive coverage for care based on your religious beliefs, these are not catholic churches they are hospitals that are affiliated with the catholic church, they don't have priests they have DOCTORS and NURSES. Your right to have beliefs ends when there is a strong government interest that outweighs your beliefs. This is well settled law. Public health concerns and safety outweigh freedom of religion, freedom of religion is not absolute. See a lot of Sheikhs allowed to carry swords into federal buildings? Lets be honest with ourselves though, this is only an issue because Catholicism is a religion people in this country accept as good, whereas other belief structures less so. You know how I know? Look how the religious right reacted when someone wanted to build a Muslim community center near 9/11 ground zero. Even though it was a private land transaction that didn't involve the government in any way(outside the normal building permit approval to make sure the structure was sound and met codes).

B, no but they might, and just because they don't believe in certain medicine doesn't mean they don't believe that certain medications or ailments go against God. They could make the claim that cancer is God's will and therefore won't treat cancer. What about an organization that doesn't believe that peoples guns are evil and so won't treat any emergency patients with gunshot wounds. Jehovah's Witnesses for instance do not believe in medication. Remember this doesn't apply just to hospitals, but also to schools and other religious based organizations. Do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses should all be exempt from providing any medical care to their employees at all? Maybe you do, but is it because you don't believe in the individual or employer mandate or because you believe that business owners religious beliefs should trump rights of their employees? You are perfectly within your right to disagree with the individual mandate and employer mandate but this issue isn't about that, it presupposes that the individual/employer mandate exists and goes from there.

C. I'm sick and tired of hearing the "no one forced you to go work or go to a religious organization." This presupposes that people have real choices about where they work. So you're telling me that if I apply for jobs at hospitals throughout the country that if the only one that offers me a job is a catholic hospital that since I am a nurse or a doctor I should just say, "Oh well I don't want to work for a religiously affiliated hospital because they won't provide me a benefit which amounts to $20 a month, I'd rather stay on unemployment or go on welfare." That sounds perfectly reasonable... As far as the schools are concerned, Catholic schools are some of the cheapest and most affordable(a lot of that had to do with the free labor they get from nuns in the past), Georgetown is the best law school in the DC area. So you're saying that in order to go to the best school in the region someone should just have to suck it up and have that school's religion forced on them(which btw they don't require law students to do anything of a religious nature at all, so this would be the only issue). I could understand your point if these organizations were acting as religious in anyway except for being funding partially through the catholic church, they don't only accept catholic people, and they don't force anyone who attends them or goes there for treatment to receive any sort of religious education or treatment.

Waterstpub87 · 03-03-12, 10:30 PM

To point A: They don't tell their employees what care they will receive, they tell them what they will pay for. You are free to go out and buy your own. It is a strong difference. If they were prohibiting women who work there from receiving birth control I could see the argument, it is the forcing the org to pay for it that is the real issue. Federal building regulations are completely different from the case at hand. There is a strong case history of the government making exceptions to public statues in order to not infringe on religion, see the Amish children not having to go to school past 8th grade, kashrut slaughter laws ect. Religious objections are always given a pass, because it is in the constitution. I'm sorry you don't feel that the mosque got a fair shake, but that was a highly publicized monster. It doesn't matter if it is a "good" religion or not. They have a right to their beliefs, and the government should not force them to pay for things they find to be reprehensible.

B. Anything could happen anywhere, it doesn't make it a valid point. Jehovah's Witnesses have a much more complicated set of beliefs then just not believing in medication. But the government shouldn't legislate to make them violate those either. As different as I find their beliefs, they have the right to practice them. Religious freedom was a cornerstone of the founding of our country. When the government starts to erode that freedom, America will become a different country.

C. Your free to do what you want. If you don't want to work their, don't. Its more absurd that you think religious organizations should cater to individuals. If one person refuses to work there because they won't pay for birth control, an entire religion should change it's beliefs. and YES, if you want to go to Georgetown law, you should suck it up. People should be grateful that the catholic church has founded so many great colleges and hospitals. If they wanted to, they could mandate people be catholic to attend, or make it somewhat of an unwritten rule (see Moorhouse and other historically black colleges). They don't, because of an openness and acceptance of other people because of the way Catholics were treated in this country. No one forced her to attend Georgetown. If you want to go to the best law school in the region, and its Georgetown, you suck it up and figure out a way to get your birth control on your own.

I would have less of an issue if the government just mandated that all birth control would be free from any pharmacy without a prescription. The issue is not with birth control, the issue is with freedom. If the government mandated that atheist children pray in school, I would be protesting with you.

Points for a well written counter arguement though Shaudias

Mr KLC · 03-03-12, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Emily_Haines

anal???

That's right. If all women would let their man go the direction of the "hoo hoo" we could stop this out of wedlock pregnancy problem all at once.

PickWinnerAllDay · 03-03-12, 11:42 PM

Remember that time he made fun of mentally challenged individuals in reference to his bowling? He's so elegant. At least he's a bears fan although I doubt he knows a thing about the team. He claims to be a white sox fan too but couldn't name any players.

Shaudius · 03-04-12, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

To point A: They don't tell their employees what care they will receive, they tell them what they will pay for. You are free to go out and buy your own. It is a strong difference. If they were prohibiting women who work there from receiving birth control I could see the argument, it is the forcing the org to pay for it that is the real issue. Federal building regulations are completely different from the case at hand. There is a strong case history of the government making exceptions to public statues in order to not infringe on religion, see the Amish children not having to go to school past 8th grade, kashrut slaughter laws ect. Religious objections are always given a pass, because it is in the constitution. I'm sorry you don't feel that the mosque got a fair shake, but that was a highly publicized monster. It doesn't matter if it is a "good" religion or not. They have a right to their beliefs, and the government should not force them to pay for things they find to be reprehensible.

The ultimate issue is that its the same thing to most people. In this country with the exemption of care for the very poor(Medicaid) and elderly and disabled(Medicare) the majority of people get their health care coverage through their employers. So in effect by dictating what you will cover you are dictating the care that someone will receive because a) most people cannot afford to pay out of pocket for care that their insurance doesn't cover, b) most people cannot afford premiums for supplemental insurance. Yes, I realize this is a small issue for something like birth control which has pretty universal availability and is relatively cheap, but the debate extends beyond birth control, because if it didn't then why would the debate be crouched in religious freedom and not birth control itself, and could potentially affect things where out of pocket expenses for non-coverage are extensive.

Beyond that, if this was the case why is there still such uproar with the compromise that Obama proposed regarding mandating the insurance companies provide the birth control at no cost. People make the argument that nothing is free and therefore religious organizations are still bearing the cost of something they don't believe in through increased premium costs, but I fail to see how this is any different than someone who is anti-war not being able to not pay their taxes, sometimes people have to bear some of the cost for things they don't believe in that are distributed throughout a larger group. Now you could logically make the argument because that's the government and this is a public company, but the way that health insurance works in this country its basically a public monopoly, so that distinction doesn't really hold much weight with me.

As for the mosque analogy, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of a large number of people on this issue who when the issue was Muslim's freedom of religion didn't seem to have any sort of righteous indignation. Are there civil libertarians that did? Sure. But that's not the majority of people who are on your side of this issue.

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

B. Anything could happen anywhere, it doesn't make it a valid point. Jehovah's Witnesses have a much more complicated set of beliefs then just not believing in medication. But the government shouldn't legislate to make them violate those either. As different as I find their beliefs, they have the right to practice them. Religious freedom was a cornerstone of the founding of our country. When the government starts to erode that freedom, America will become a different country.

People have a wide variety of beliefs, but being part of an organized society means that sometimes those beliefs are outweighed by government interest. Again, the freedom of religion is not absolute, and I don't believe in some sort of slippery slope. Public officials are for the most part rational actors, who don't just proceed down a path without being able to draw lines and distinctions. Neither are courts, there are some things where the government interest will trump the freedom of religion. This is akin to the war funding analogy. There are many pacifists whose belief in pacifism is akin to a firmly held religious belief, that doesn't mean that the government forcing them pay taxes, some of which goes toward wars, is a violation of their free exercise of religion, even though they have to pay for a cause that is against their religion. Also see the rejection of the compromise as an example of this.

As far as your point that anything could happen anywhere not making something a valid point, the point is that things can and do happen, and just because the incident circumstance doesn't indite a particular set of a facts, doesn't mean that those sets of facts could not exist, or will not occur as an unintended consequence of a particular action.

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

C. Your free to do what you want. If you don't want to work their, don't. Its more absurd that you think religious organizations should cater to individuals. If one person refuses to work there because they won't pay for birth control, an entire religion should change it's beliefs. and YES, if you want to go to Georgetown law, you should suck it up. People should be grateful that the catholic church has founded so many great colleges and hospitals. If they wanted to, they could mandate people be catholic to attend, or make it somewhat of an unwritten rule (see Moorhouse and other historically black colleges). They don't, because of an openness and acceptance of other people because of the way Catholics were treated in this country. No one forced her to attend Georgetown. If you want to go to the best law school in the region, and its Georgetown, you suck it up and figure out a way to get your birth control on your own.

No one is suggesting that the religion change its religious beliefs, or even provide the birth control themselves, the issue is with coverage, meaning that the plan that they are required to provide to their employees provides certain benefits which are deemed to be important for health by the government(promulgated through regulations that can be overturned by acts of congress, see the recent issue with the tomato sauce on pizza as a vegetable issue) if they are not a church. That's the issue, these are not churches, they are run by religion organizations but they are not proselytizing, they are a business. Businesses that have employees, not clergy.

Your point doesn't refute my argument that people don't always have choices about where they work, especially school teachers and nurses(despite the desperate need for the latter). So what do you say to someone facing the situation of working for a place that doesn't provide the coverage they need(remember birth control has other uses besides contraception) and being unemployed?

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

I would have less of an issue if the government just mandated that all birth control would be free from any pharmacy without a prescription. The issue is not with birth control, the issue is with freedom. If the government mandated that atheist children pray in school, I would be protesting with you.

My ultimate issue is less with your stance on this issue than it is with the hypocrisy of many on the right. The same people who decry this as a violation of freedom of religion are the same people are, a) as above were up in arms about the Muslim community center at ground zero and b) think the government is out of bounds for outlaying prayer in public schools. Especially those who are still up in arms even after the compromise, people like Rush Limbugh to bring this whole thing full circle.

wtf · 03-04-12, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by baskets

who has more money?

wtf or durito?

will let you decide

I own my successful business in one of the world most technically advanced, prosperous societies

he is a paid five dimes shill and lives in a crime riddle columbian shit hole

he will deny he is a shill

it is a lie

note his posts, he will encourage everyone to continue to gamble , well beyond their means so you can live large like him
he will take shots at ALL other books, outside of five crimes-and he licks the scrotum of tony

Sunde91 · 03-04-12, 01:17 AM

lets get wanitall in here cause we dont have enough walls of texts

800 words in this one

[QUOTE]

Originally posted by Shaudius

The ultimate issue is that its the same thing to most people. In this country with the exemption of care for the very poor(Medicaid) and elderly and disabled(Medicare) the majority of people get their health care coverage through their employers. So in effect by dictating what you will cover you are dictating the care that someone will receive because a) most people cannot afford to pay out of pocket for care that their insurance doesn't cover, b) most people cannot afford premiums for supplemental insurance. Yes, I realize this is a small issue for something like birth control which has pretty universal availability and is relatively cheap, but the debate extends beyond birth control, because if it didn't then why would the debate be crouched in religious freedom and not birth control itself, and could potentially affect things where out of pocket expenses for non-coverage are extensive.

Beyond that, if this was the case why is there still such uproar with the compromise that Obama proposed regarding mandating the insurance companies provide the birth control at no cost. People make the argument that nothing is free and therefore religious organizations are still bearing the cost of something they don't believe in through increased premium costs, but I fail to see how this is any different than someone who is anti-war not being able to not pay their taxes, sometimes people have to bear some of the cost for things they don't believe in that are distributed throughout a larger group. Now you could logically make the argument because that's the government and this is a public company, but the way that health insurance works in this country its basically a public monopoly, so that distinction doesn't really hold much weight with me.

As for the mosque analogy, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of a large number of people on this issue who when the issue was Muslim's freedom of religion didn't seem to have any sort of righteous indignation. Are there civil libertarians that did? Sure. But that's not the majority of people who are on your side of this issue.

[/COLOR]

People have a wide variety of beliefs, but being part of an organized society means that sometimes those beliefs are outweighed by government interest. Again, the freedom of religion is not absolute, and I don't believe in some sort of slippery slope. Public officials are for the most part rational actors, who don't just proceed down a path without being able to draw lines and distinctions. Neither are courts, there are some things where the government interest will trump the freedom of religion. This is akin to the war funding analogy. There are many pacifists whose belief in pacifism is akin to a firmly held religious belief, that doesn't mean that the government forcing them pay taxes, some of which goes toward wars, is a violation of their free exercise of religion, even though they have to pay for a cause that is against their religion. Also see the rejection of the compromise as an example of this.

As far as your point that anything could happen anywhere not making something a valid point, the point is that things can and do happen, and just because the incident circumstance doesn't indite a particular set of a facts, doesn't mean that those sets of facts could not exist, or will not occur as an unintended consequence of a particular action.

[/COLOR]

No one is suggesting that the religion change its religious beliefs, or even provide the birth control themselves, the issue is with coverage, meaning that the plan that they are required to provide to their employees provides certain benefits which are deemed to be important for health by the government(promulgated through regulations that can be overturned by acts of congress, see the recent issue with the tomato sauce on pizza as a vegetable issue) if they are not a church. That's the issue, these are not churches, they are run by religion organizations but they are not proselytizing, they are a business. Businesses that have employees, not clergy.

Your point doesn't refute my argument that people don't always have choices about where they work, especially school teachers and nurses(despite the desperate need for the latter). So what do you say to someone facing the situation of working for a place that doesn't provide the coverage they need(remember birth control has other uses besides contraception) and being unemployed?

King Mayan · 03-04-12, 01:19 AM

WTF, go fukk some lil boy body chinagirls.. That lil 2 inch pecker of yours, must look like a horse rooster to them..

And it's none of your repubes business who obama calls... You crybaby bit*hes..

icancount2one · 03-04-12, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Waterstpub87

Either she couldn't, or Ms. Georgetown law is too good to go to a free clinic. 20$ a month or so is just too burdensome to pay. Instead we should force a religion to pay for it against their beliefs. Bet she gets a nice job after graduation with one of the liberal groups or the government, always a kickback for helping to attack anyone who disagrees with King Obama.

Try $100/mo. I dated a girl who was prescribed birth control for her anemia and other issues (preventing pregancy was a nice effect as well), and when she changed employers she was suddenly looking at $80 more a month, and paying hundreds monthly to cover meds for her co-workers her employers deemed more "moral" or whatever, like viagra.

So far the BS in this thread and from Rush: $20/mo pills, birth control is free at the clinic, and the more you have sex the more it costs, so wanting birth control covered alongside other meds makes you a "whore".

Maybe you should leave the thinking about this stuff to women, and guys who actually have sex with them.

Balco10 · 03-04-12, 02:59 AM

You go to an high end school! Don't complain about your sexual habits. You should pay for your own health issues. If you dont want kids, then don't have sex! Simple!

Shaudius · 03-04-12, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Sunde91

lets get wanitall in here cause we dont have enough walls of texts

800 words in this one

[/COLOR]

I'm so sorry, let me not make an argument because you don't wanna read it. Would you prefer I make an argument in sound bites and misinformation? That seems to be the MO of most ignorant posters on the internet, especially on SBR.

Shaudius · 03-04-12, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Balco10

You go to an high end school! Don't complain about your sexual habits. You should pay for your own health issues. If you dont want kids, then don't have sex! Simple!

What part of contraceptive pills are used for things besides having sex without risk of getting pregnant don't you understand? So what about cancer? Or if she wants to get wood as a 70-year-old man, should she pay for those issues out of pocket too, or should they be covered by health insurance? Should we not have health insurance at all because people who go to high end schools should just pay for their own health issues.