I remember when Obama was elected
10 Sep 2012, 5:39 pm
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
10 Sep 2012, 6:33 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
I agree that you believe all of that. Best of luck.
Pyrite
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States
10 Sep 2012, 7:01 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
_________________
AQ 40. EQ 10/SQ 92. AS 184/NT 18. dx.
10 Sep 2012, 7:59 pm
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
That executive order was a farce, fact of the matter is that Democrats were looking for a way to get their collegues to go along with a bad piece of legislation. Face the facts dumping thousands of new regulations frpm Obamacare isn't going to help any business except for Ambulence chasing lawyers.
Pyrite
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States
10 Sep 2012, 8:30 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
That executive order was a farce, fact of the matter is that Democrats were looking for a way to get their collegues to go along with a bad piece of legislation. Face the facts dumping thousands of new regulations frpm Obamacare isn't going to help any business except for Ambulence chasing lawyers.
You're avoiding the point.
Why don't you think getting their concerns addressed changed votes?
t wasn't just their worries on abortion (which were stretch to start with), they also refused to vote for a bill containing a public option, and were willing to support the bill only after that major provision was removed.
If as you claim the DNC could easily coerce them into voting for whatever they wanted, why fundamentally change the bill to appease them?
Do you have any evidence of some secret concerns that were never addressed or is this a conspiracy theory?
_________________
AQ 40. EQ 10/SQ 92. AS 184/NT 18. dx.
10 Sep 2012, 8:36 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
You need to learn the difference between opinions and facts. There are people out there who's lives were literally saved by "Obamacare" because there was no way in hell they were going to get coverage with the status quo. You might want to communicate with one of them and tell them how it is "bad" it is they are alive.
10 Sep 2012, 8:38 pm
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
That executive order was a farce, fact of the matter is that Democrats were looking for a way to get their collegues to go along with a bad piece of legislation. Face the facts dumping thousands of new regulations frpm Obamacare isn't going to help any business except for Ambulence chasing lawyers.
You're avoiding the point.
Why don't you think getting their concerns addressed changed votes?
t wasn't just their worries on abortion (which were stretch to start with), they also refused to vote for a bill containing a public option, and were willing to support the bill only after that major provision was removed.
If as you claim the DNC could easily coerce them into voting for whatever they wanted, why fundamentally change the bill to appease them?
Do you have any evidence of some secret concerns that were never addressed or is this a conspiracy theory?
I'm not avoiding anything, what part of Government controlled healthcare do you not understand, it's something out of the Soviet Union, and we all know how well the Soviets did, last I checked their country imploded in the 1980s.
Pyrite
Veteran
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,247
Location: Mid-Atlantic United States
10 Sep 2012, 8:47 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
That executive order was a farce, fact of the matter is that Democrats were looking for a way to get their collegues to go along with a bad piece of legislation. Face the facts dumping thousands of new regulations frpm Obamacare isn't going to help any business except for Ambulence chasing lawyers.
You're avoiding the point.
Why don't you think getting their concerns addressed changed votes?
t wasn't just their worries on abortion (which were stretch to start with), they also refused to vote for a bill containing a public option, and were willing to support the bill only after that major provision was removed.
If as you claim the DNC could easily coerce them into voting for whatever they wanted, why fundamentally change the bill to appease them?
Do you have any evidence of some secret concerns that were never addressed or is this a conspiracy theory?
I'm not avoiding anything, what part of Government controlled healthcare do you not understand, it's something out of the Soviet Union, and we all know how well the Soviets did, last I checked their country imploded in the 1980s.
I thought we were talking about your claim that conservative democrats thought the final bill was "bad policy" and voted for it only because they were coerced by the DNC, which you have thus far proved completely unable to substantiate.
_________________
AQ 40. EQ 10/SQ 92. AS 184/NT 18. dx.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Sep 2012, 9:11 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
That executive order was a farce, fact of the matter is that Democrats were looking for a way to get their collegues to go along with a bad piece of legislation. Face the facts dumping thousands of new regulations frpm Obamacare isn't going to help any business except for Ambulence chasing lawyers.
You're avoiding the point.
Why don't you think getting their concerns addressed changed votes?
t wasn't just their worries on abortion (which were stretch to start with), they also refused to vote for a bill containing a public option, and were willing to support the bill only after that major provision was removed.
If as you claim the DNC could easily coerce them into voting for whatever they wanted, why fundamentally change the bill to appease them?
Do you have any evidence of some secret concerns that were never addressed or is this a conspiracy theory?
I'm not avoiding anything, what part of Government controlled healthcare do you not understand, it's something out of the Soviet Union, and we all know how well the Soviets did, last I checked their country imploded in the 1980s.
The reason why the Soviet Union collapsed had nothing to do with social services.
And what's possibly wrong with trying to help people in need. and before you bring up private and religious charities, the simple fact of the matter is, they don't have the reach the government does. On top of that, there is no reason why private and religious charities couldn't help people alongside the government.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
10 Sep 2012, 11:45 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
That executive order was a farce, fact of the matter is that Democrats were looking for a way to get their collegues to go along with a bad piece of legislation. Face the facts dumping thousands of new regulations frpm Obamacare isn't going to help any business except for Ambulence chasing lawyers.
You're avoiding the point.
Why don't you think getting their concerns addressed changed votes?
t wasn't just their worries on abortion (which were stretch to start with), they also refused to vote for a bill containing a public option, and were willing to support the bill only after that major provision was removed.
If as you claim the DNC could easily coerce them into voting for whatever they wanted, why fundamentally change the bill to appease them?
Do you have any evidence of some secret concerns that were never addressed or is this a conspiracy theory?
I'm not avoiding anything, what part of Government controlled healthcare do you not understand, it's something out of the Soviet Union, and we all know how well the Soviets did, last I checked their country imploded in the 1980s.
The reason why the Soviet Union collapsed had nothing to do with social services.
And what's possibly wrong with trying to help people in need. and before you bring up private and religious charities, the simple fact of the matter is, they don't have the reach the government does. On top of that, there is no reason why private and religious charities couldn't help people alongside the government.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
No, it was their entire system of government that was flawed, Socialism/Communism does not work in real life. Also, that is unlikely Kraichgauer since Obama has made it quite clear that he will not tolerate religious charities unless they give up their religious beliefs and even then he doesn't like charities. The left wants to make people dependent on government, or did you miss their nice little "We Belong to Government" comments in the opening Democrat Convention Video?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Sep 2012, 11:57 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Pyrite wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Electoral politics are a little more complex.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
One day Inuyasha you'll realize that the internet is not a genie. You can type your s*** as furiously as you want and it still won't make it come true.
Uh considering the fact that the DNC controls a lot of their re-election funds, they wouldn't have been objecting like they were unless the policies were bad.
Fact of the matter is Obama's policies failed because they were bad policies, as much as liberals want to try to blame Republicans, it doesn't change the facts, the only sad thing is that many people buy the lies being spewed from the left wing media.
The DNC controlled just as much of their election funds before they changed their votes too...
Why do you not believe their claims that they changed their votes after obtaining changes that addressed the specific concerns they raised about it, like the ones who refused to vote for it until Obama issued an executive order reassuring them about how it would affect abortion.
Can you show that they viewed it as "simply bad policy" by pointing to some specific statement or other?
That executive order was a farce, fact of the matter is that Democrats were looking for a way to get their collegues to go along with a bad piece of legislation. Face the facts dumping thousands of new regulations frpm Obamacare isn't going to help any business except for Ambulence chasing lawyers.
You're avoiding the point.
Why don't you think getting their concerns addressed changed votes?
t wasn't just their worries on abortion (which were stretch to start with), they also refused to vote for a bill containing a public option, and were willing to support the bill only after that major provision was removed.
If as you claim the DNC could easily coerce them into voting for whatever they wanted, why fundamentally change the bill to appease them?
Do you have any evidence of some secret concerns that were never addressed or is this a conspiracy theory?
I'm not avoiding anything, what part of Government controlled healthcare do you not understand, it's something out of the Soviet Union, and we all know how well the Soviets did, last I checked their country imploded in the 1980s.
The reason why the Soviet Union collapsed had nothing to do with social services.
And what's possibly wrong with trying to help people in need. and before you bring up private and religious charities, the simple fact of the matter is, they don't have the reach the government does. On top of that, there is no reason why private and religious charities couldn't help people alongside the government.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
No, it was their entire system of government that was flawed, Socialism/Communism does not work in real life. Also, that is unlikely Kraichgauer since Obama has made it quite clear that he will not tolerate religious charities unless they give up their religious beliefs and even then he doesn't like charities. The left wants to make people dependent on government, or did you miss their nice little "We Belong to Government" comments in the opening Democrat Convention Video?
I didn't watch either convention religiously, so I really can't comment on the "we belong to government" thing.
As for Obama disliking charities, and wanting religious organizations to alter their belief systems - I seriously doubt the President feels that way. As for the second - if you're referring to the matter of birth control, then I'll counter that with saying that that nonsense only came into vogue when Santorum got that notion underneath his tinfoil hat. And from there it spread like wildfire among Catholic bishops and evangelicals when it otherwise wouldn't have been an issue.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
11 Sep 2012, 12:14 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
I didn't watch either convention religiously, so I really can't comment on the "we belong to government" thing.
As for Obama disliking charities, and wanting religious organizations to alter their belief systems - I seriously doubt the President feels that way. As for the second - if you're referring to the matter of birth control, then I'll counter that with saying that that nonsense only came into vogue when Santorum got that notion underneath his tinfoil hat. And from there it spread like wildfire among Catholic bishops and evangelicals when it otherwise wouldn't have been an issue.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
As for Obama disliking charities, and wanting religious organizations to alter their belief systems - I seriously doubt the President feels that way. As for the second - if you're referring to the matter of birth control, then I'll counter that with saying that that nonsense only came into vogue when Santorum got that notion underneath his tinfoil hat. And from there it spread like wildfire among Catholic bishops and evangelicals when it otherwise wouldn't have been an issue.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
You really have no clue what is going on, that's a statement of fact not a question.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-col ... r-business
Currently the Judge has issued an injunction until the case can be heard...
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; accordingly, the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal,” said the judge. “To meet this burden, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable harm, which (3) outweighs any harm to the non-moving party, and that (4) the injunction would not adversely affect the public interest.”
The judge determined that because the Obama administration had already exempted or waived so many others from complying with Obamacare at this time that giving the Newland family temporary relief from a regulation that would infringe on their religious freedom would not adversely affect the public interest.
“On balance, the threatened harm to Plaintiffs, impingement of their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and the concomitant public interest in that right strongly favor the entry of injunctive relief,” the judge said. “Although the less rigorous standard for preliminary injunctions is not applied when ‘a preliminary injunction seeks to stay governmental action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme,’ the government’s creation of numerous exceptions to the preventive care coverage mandate has undermined this alleged public interest.”
However, the judge clearly left open the possibility that when he decides Newland v. Sebelius on its merits he may decide the administration does have the authority to force a family-owned business to act against the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it.
“The questions [raised by the suit] merit more deliberate investigation,” said the judge.
“Even if, upon further examination, Plaintiffs are able to demonstrate a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion, however, the government may justify its application of its preventive care coverage mandate by demonstrating that application of that mandate to Plaintiffs is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest,” he said.
If the regulation stands, Catholic business owners like the Newlands--and business owners of other denominations who share the Newlands’ moral and religious convictions on sterilization, contraception or abortion—will have no escape from government action forcing them to act against their moral and religious beliefs.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/judge-t ... inst-faith
Kraichgauer you really do have absolutely no idea what has been going on these past 3.5 years.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,152
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
11 Sep 2012, 12:36 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I didn't watch either convention religiously, so I really can't comment on the "we belong to government" thing.
As for Obama disliking charities, and wanting religious organizations to alter their belief systems - I seriously doubt the President feels that way. As for the second - if you're referring to the matter of birth control, then I'll counter that with saying that that nonsense only came into vogue when Santorum got that notion underneath his tinfoil hat. And from there it spread like wildfire among Catholic bishops and evangelicals when it otherwise wouldn't have been an issue.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
As for Obama disliking charities, and wanting religious organizations to alter their belief systems - I seriously doubt the President feels that way. As for the second - if you're referring to the matter of birth control, then I'll counter that with saying that that nonsense only came into vogue when Santorum got that notion underneath his tinfoil hat. And from there it spread like wildfire among Catholic bishops and evangelicals when it otherwise wouldn't have been an issue.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
You really have no clue what is going on, that's a statement of fact not a question.
“Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-col ... r-business
Currently the Judge has issued an injunction until the case can be heard...
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy; accordingly, the right to relief must be clear and unequivocal,” said the judge. “To meet this burden, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a threat of irreparable harm, which (3) outweighs any harm to the non-moving party, and that (4) the injunction would not adversely affect the public interest.”
The judge determined that because the Obama administration had already exempted or waived so many others from complying with Obamacare at this time that giving the Newland family temporary relief from a regulation that would infringe on their religious freedom would not adversely affect the public interest.
“On balance, the threatened harm to Plaintiffs, impingement of their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and the concomitant public interest in that right strongly favor the entry of injunctive relief,” the judge said. “Although the less rigorous standard for preliminary injunctions is not applied when ‘a preliminary injunction seeks to stay governmental action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme,’ the government’s creation of numerous exceptions to the preventive care coverage mandate has undermined this alleged public interest.”
However, the judge clearly left open the possibility that when he decides Newland v. Sebelius on its merits he may decide the administration does have the authority to force a family-owned business to act against the moral and religious beliefs of the family that owns it.
“The questions [raised by the suit] merit more deliberate investigation,” said the judge.
“Even if, upon further examination, Plaintiffs are able to demonstrate a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion, however, the government may justify its application of its preventive care coverage mandate by demonstrating that application of that mandate to Plaintiffs is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest,” he said.
If the regulation stands, Catholic business owners like the Newlands--and business owners of other denominations who share the Newlands’ moral and religious convictions on sterilization, contraception or abortion—will have no escape from government action forcing them to act against their moral and religious beliefs.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/judge-t ... inst-faith
Kraichgauer you really do have absolutely no idea what has been going on these past 3.5 years.
I really have to tell you, I tend to take the side of individuals over that of institutions and businesses. So I don't have a problem with the Obama policy. Beside, a business could take advantage of that line of religious opposition to Obamacare, and deny any and all medical coverage to their workers by claiming that covering everyone is morally wrong!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
11 Sep 2012, 1:19 am
The economic woes created in the last 50 years are going to take a hell of a lot longer than 50 years to alleviate, let alone "fix".
That said, for ANY party or candidate to claim they can really fix ANYTHING in any one-to-several terms - let alone a human lifetime - is complete idiocy. With extremely limited wiggle room, Obama was actually able to make clear some goals that would benefit this nation in the long run, which no one else was stepping up to do. For anyone to take those goals as "bona fide promises with a deadline" was a serious error in reason.
So, is a net job gain of zero since the 2008 downturn a bad thing at all? No. All I can tell you is that I will do what little I can not to allow conservatives into any office ever again. I'd rather be taxed than have base earnings squashed and the rest of my money milked dry by price fixing. Just think for a minute - is tax ever going to "drop" in the long run anyhow? No.
And in my eyes "Obamacare" is a likely-necessary move to prevent people from dying on the streets en masse who will likely never be gainfully employed enough to afford rising healthcare costs, which are courtesy of ________ .
So for all those going on about short term economic "fixes", keep blowing hot air - it won't do you any good.
_________________
AQ: 42
aspie-quiz: 151 / 47
11 Sep 2012, 7:37 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer you really do have absolutely no idea what has been going on these past 3.5 years.
Where has Kraichgauer been?
Did you know that the government passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and that we finally took out Osama bin Laden? You have quite a lot to catch up on.
11 Sep 2012, 12:05 pm
SavageMessiah wrote:
The economic woes created in the last 50 years are going to take a hell of a lot longer than 50 years to alleviate, let alone "fix".
That said, for ANY party or candidate to claim they can really fix ANYTHING in any one-to-several terms - let alone a human lifetime - is complete idiocy. With extremely limited wiggle room, Obama was actually able to make clear some goals that would benefit this nation in the long run, which no one else was stepping up to do. For anyone to take those goals as "bona fide promises with a deadline" was a serious error in reason.
So, is a net job gain of zero since the 2008 downturn a bad thing at all? No. All I can tell you is that I will do what little I can not to allow conservatives into any office ever again. I'd rather be taxed than have base earnings squashed and the rest of my money milked dry by price fixing. Just think for a minute - is tax ever going to "drop" in the long run anyhow? No.
And in my eyes "Obamacare" is a likely-necessary move to prevent people from dying on the streets en masse who will likely never be gainfully employed enough to afford rising healthcare costs, which are courtesy of ________ .
So for all those going on about short term economic "fixes", keep blowing hot air - it won't do you any good.
That said, for ANY party or candidate to claim they can really fix ANYTHING in any one-to-several terms - let alone a human lifetime - is complete idiocy. With extremely limited wiggle room, Obama was actually able to make clear some goals that would benefit this nation in the long run, which no one else was stepping up to do. For anyone to take those goals as "bona fide promises with a deadline" was a serious error in reason.
So, is a net job gain of zero since the 2008 downturn a bad thing at all? No. All I can tell you is that I will do what little I can not to allow conservatives into any office ever again. I'd rather be taxed than have base earnings squashed and the rest of my money milked dry by price fixing. Just think for a minute - is tax ever going to "drop" in the long run anyhow? No.
And in my eyes "Obamacare" is a likely-necessary move to prevent people from dying on the streets en masse who will likely never be gainfully employed enough to afford rising healthcare costs, which are courtesy of ________ .
So for all those going on about short term economic "fixes", keep blowing hot air - it won't do you any good.
And calculating with inflation corrected dollars wages have been flat since 1970 and in some areas even declining.
What saved the American economy following the Great Depression was a World War in which the U.S. did not get bombed or invaded (the Continental U.S.). Hawaii was bombed and some islands near Alaska were invaded. Both by the Japanese.
ruveyn
