What is the Democrat Party?

[Night Strike]

Government regulation of birth control is about the civil liberties of the individual and the power of the state to regulate quality of medical services. If the “religious freedom” argument carries the day, millions of American men and women may wake up to find out their health care plans no longer pay for birth-control pills, IUDs, sterilization operations and other methods – and that, essentially, their ability to use birth control hinges on their employers’ religious beliefs.

So it's ok for people to wake up one day to find out the government is forcing their employer to provide all those things (which is what happened) but it's not ok for those same people to wake up and find out that the government is not mandating that those be provided? Sounds more like politics than sound policy.

It sounds that way to you because you want it to sound that way. I know you're ok with religion controlling everything, but not all of us are so sanguine about the idea.

No, it sounds that way because it's exactly what happened. Religion didn't have anything to do with it until the government began handing down mandates.

And what civil liberties are being violated by an employer not providing those things? Are they actively keeping their employees from buying them with their own money? How is something a civil liberty if someone else has to provide it? I thought civil liberties were inherent within each person, not something handed to you (or paid for on your behalf) by someone else.

So you don't believe that the government should have the power to regulate medical care? Because that seems to be what you're arguing against here.

They can't create care in order to mandate it. And they don't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person. These health care mandates are compelling action, not regulating action.

[Woodruff]

Government regulation of birth control is about the civil liberties of the individual and the power of the state to regulate quality of medical services. If the “religious freedom” argument carries the day, millions of American men and women may wake up to find out their health care plans no longer pay for birth-control pills, IUDs, sterilization operations and other methods – and that, essentially, their ability to use birth control hinges on their employers’ religious beliefs.

So it's ok for people to wake up one day to find out the government is forcing their employer to provide all those things (which is what happened) but it's not ok for those same people to wake up and find out that the government is not mandating that those be provided? Sounds more like politics than sound policy.

It sounds that way to you because you want it to sound that way. I know you're ok with religion controlling everything, but not all of us are so sanguine about the idea.

No, it sounds that way because it's exactly what happened. Religion didn't have anything to do with it until the government began handing down mandates.

No, religion STILL DOESN'T have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, some in the religious community want to make it about religion when it is not.

And what civil liberties are being violated by an employer not providing those things? Are they actively keeping their employees from buying them with their own money? How is something a civil liberty if someone else has to provide it? I thought civil liberties were inherent within each person, not something handed to you (or paid for on your behalf) by someone else.

So you don't believe that the government should have the power to regulate medical care? Because that seems to be what you're arguing against here.

They can't create care in order to mandate it. And they don't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person. These health care mandates are compelling action, not regulating action.

The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person?

[Night Strike]

No, religion STILL DOESN'T have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, some in the religious community want to make it about religion when it is not.

The free contraceptives mandate is wrong, no matter whether it's a religious employer or not. It's just magnified by its violations of the First Amendment.

The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person?

Except for serving on a trial jury and a military draft, that is correct.

[Woodruff]

No, religion STILL DOESN'T have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, some in the religious community want to make it about religion when it is not.

The free contraceptives mandate is wrong, no matter whether it's a religious employer or not. It's just magnified by its violations of the First Amendment.

It doesn't violate freedom of religion. Period. Frankly, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you don't like the free contraceptives mandate because you don't like that people are having sex without being punished for it.

The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person?

Except for serving on a trial jury and a military draft, that is correct.

Yeah, I didn't think you had your arguments in order either. So you don't believe that the government can legitimately compel someone to prison?

[Night Strike]

No, religion STILL DOESN'T have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, some in the religious community want to make it about religion when it is not.

The free contraceptives mandate is wrong, no matter whether it's a religious employer or not. It's just magnified by its violations of the First Amendment.

It doesn't violate freedom of religion. Period. Frankly, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you don't like the free contraceptives mandate because you don't like that people are having sex without being punished for it.

So my position has absolutely nothing with the government paying for things it can't afford and doesn't have the authority to pay for? My position has nothing to do with forcing employers to pay for the private actions of the employees? I don't care who has sex with whom: just don't make the rest of us pay for it. It really is that simple.

The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person?

Except for serving on a trial jury and a military draft, that is correct.

Yeah, I didn't think you had your arguments in order either. So you don't believe that the government can legitimately compel someone to prison?

How is my argument not in order? What other things can the government force you to do simply because you take a breath of air. People go to prison because they violate the rights of other people, not because they breathe.

[Woodruff]

No, religion STILL DOESN'T have anything to do with it. Unfortunately, some in the religious community want to make it about religion when it is not.

The free contraceptives mandate is wrong, no matter whether it's a religious employer or not. It's just magnified by its violations of the First Amendment.

It doesn't violate freedom of religion. Period. Frankly, I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you don't like the free contraceptives mandate because you don't like that people are having sex without being punished for it.

So my position has absolutely nothing with the government paying for things it can't afford and doesn't have the authority to pay for? My position has nothing to do with forcing employers to pay for the private actions of the employees? I don't care who has sex with whom: just don't make the rest of us pay for it. It really is that simple.

The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person?

Except for serving on a trial jury and a military draft, that is correct.

Yeah, I didn't think you had your arguments in order either. So you don't believe that the government can legitimately compel someone to prison?

How is my argument not in order? What other things can the government force you to do simply because you take a breath of air. People go to prison because they violate the rights of other people, not because they breathe.

That's not what you said. You stated that the government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to compel action by a person, and then you amended it to add "except for serving on a trial jury and a military draft, that is correct". I'm simply pointing out that you appear to be claiming things that are not reality.

[thegreekdog]

There is, however, a right for religious to practice their religions, whether we like it or not, and that includes religiously-affiliated institutions.

Um...not quite on-board with that last part. The right to run a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

Okay, so what do you do with a Catholic hospital? It's nominally a business in that it has employees and collects some revenues, but it is also a charitable organization. Should it (a) provide health insurance to its employees that pays for birth control or (b) provide for birth control generally, including abortions?

If it is a business, then it must follow the rules assigned to businesses. Do you expect that hospital not to follow medical practices, simply because it's religion-oriented? Rules are in place that are required to be followed.

Again, running a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

Actually, a hospital could very well not follow medical practices if they interfere with religious practices. I cannot think of an example not having to do with Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm fairly sure Jehovah's Witnesses don't run hospitals. I also cannot think of an example of business rules that violate the Catholic religion (despite the use of google in addition to my own brain). However, there are laws requiring equal opportunity for employment, and yet there are no female priests, even when such priests work in hospitals. This is due to freedom of religion.

[

I would note that when the Affordable Care Act was passed and included provisions to require all employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control, the Catholic Church threatened to close its hopsitals (taking the AAFitz approach) and call for volunteers rather than employees at other places.

If they feel it is more important to stand by the idea that birth control is a bad thing, then that is frankly what they should do (it seems to me that they should view birth control and abortion separately).

I agree that is what they should do (or should have done). Won't (and didn't) happen though because Catholic hospitals and charities are too important to lose for an issue like this.

[

That being said, I think there is also a freedom of religion issue in requiring the pro-life guy that runs the ice cream parlor to provide health insurance for his employees that covers birth control. So we can talk about that after we talk about Catholic hospitals and churches and the like.

I think it's precisely the same situation. Freedom of religion has nothing at all to do with running a business, so it cannot be impacted by business requirements.

For a whole lot of people religion has to do with everything, including running a business. Some people, like Joe Biden (and me), can differentiate their religious practices from their jobs. Others cannot. Unfortunately, it is not for you (or Congress) to determine whether religion has anything to do with running a business.

It's not the same thing and I'm not trying to throw a strawman in here, but Quakers get exceptions from military draft. Do you have a problem with that? How is it different?

[Woodruff]

I think it's precisely the same situation. Freedom of religion has nothing at all to do with running a business, so it cannot be impacted by business requirements.

For a whole lot of people religion has to do with everything, including running a business. Some people, like Joe Biden (and me), can differentiate their religious practices from their jobs. Others cannot. Unfortunately, it is not for you (or Congress) to determine whether religion has anything to do with running a business.

If you can show where in the Bible it is required for an individual to run a business in order to conform to the Catholic (or other) religion, then you have a point. This is very basic...it is either a tenet of the religion or it is not. It should be easy to show that it is, if it is.

As well, by that logic, the Baptist Church could open up an automobile repair shop and claim it is a religious business. Yes, that's a bit of an odd example, but the logic remains. And it IS for Congress to determine to a degree whether religion has anything to do with running a business, because businesses are taxes based on religious purposes (or not).

It's not the same thing and I'm not trying to throw a strawman in here, but Quakers get exceptions from military draft. Do you have a problem with that? How is it different?

I do actually have a problem with that (one of my Pennsylvania Dutch grandfathers was a conscientious objector and he still ended up serving as a firefighter in the military) and yet, I do think it's a bit different. Peacefulness is something that can be shown within the religion according to the Bible, and in particular attributable to Jesus, and could certainly be considered fairly basic to the religion. Running a business cannot.

Hell, for that matter, I have a problem with women not being required to be eligible for the draft (certainly a different topic altogether). Though we'll never have a meaningful draft in this country again anyway, so I don't suppose it actually matters.

[thegreekdog]

I think it's precisely the same situation. Freedom of religion has nothing at all to do with running a business, so it cannot be impacted by business requirements.

For a whole lot of people religion has to do with everything, including running a business. Some people, like Joe Biden (and me), can differentiate their religious practices from their jobs. Others cannot. Unfortunately, it is not for you (or Congress) to determine whether religion has anything to do with running a business.

If you can show where in the Bible it is required for an individual to run a business in order to conform to the Catholic (or other) religion, then you have a point. This is very basic...it is either a tenet of the religion or it is not. It should be easy to show that it is, if it is.

As well, by that logic, the Baptist Church could open up an automobile repair shop and claim it is a religious business. Yes, that's a bit of an odd example, but the logic remains. And it IS for Congress to do determine whether religion has anything to do with running a business, because businesses are taxes based on religious purposes (or not).

I cannot show that in the Bible, but again that's not the point. The Bible does urge Christians to practice their religion in their daily lives, so if one chooses to run a business, he or she may take that literally and object to being required to pay for other people to use birth control. Your solution is that the Christian person should not run a business because he or she will be interfering with business laws if he or she invokes his or her religious practices with respect to his or her business. But let's turn that to constitutional principles.

The choices are, as follows:

(a) The business owner continues to run the business and complies with the law that violates his or her religion.
(b) The business owner continues to run the business, but does not comply with the law and is imprisoned or fined.
(c) The business owner stops running the business.
(d) The government does not require the business owner to comply with the law, finding another way to ensure that the employee gets his or her birth control.

Which of those seem the least onerous to everyone involved? A court should look at the least onerous way to accomplish the government objective while not violating the religion of the business owner.

It's not the same thing and I'm not trying to throw a strawman in here, but Quakers get exceptions from military draft. Do you have a problem with that? How is it different?

I do actually have a problem with that (one of my Pennsylvania Dutch grandfathers was a conscientious objector and he still ended up serving as a firefighter in the military) and yet, I do think it's a bit different. Peacefulness is something that can be shown within the religion according to the Bible, and in particular attributable to Jesus, and could certainly be considered fairly basic to the religion. Running a business cannot.

Hell, for that matter, I have a problem with women not being required to be eligible for the draft (certainly a different topic altogether). Though we'll never have a meaningful draft in this country again anyway, so I don't suppose it actually matters.

Running a business is not found in religion, but not supporting birth control can.

[Maugena]

TLDR; NS = Bible Thumping Republican Propaganda Tool
/thread

Also, I'm just wondering what everyone at this site identifies himself/herself as...
I don't dedicate myself to a party, I simply decide on what's more sensical.

[Woodruff]

I cannot show that in the Bible, but again that's not the point.

It really is though.

The Bible does urge Christians to practice their religion in their daily lives, so if one chooses to run a business, he or she may take that literally and object to being required to pay for other people to use birth control.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's (or something like that).

Your solution is that the Christian person should not run a business because he or she will be interfering with business laws if he or she invokes his or her religious practices with respect to his or her business.

Correct. If they object to business laws so stringently because of their religious practices, then they should not run that particular business. They have that choice.

But let's turn that to constitutional principles.
The choices are, as follows:
(a) The business owner continues to run the business and complies with the law that violates his or her religion.
(b) The business owner continues to run the business, but does not comply with the law and is imprisoned or fined.
(c) The business owner stops running the business.
(d) The government does not require the business owner to comply with the law, finding another way to ensure that the employee gets his or her birth control.
Which of those seem the least onerous to everyone involved? A court should look at the least onerous way to accomplish the government objective while not violating the religion of the business owner.

Honestly, option C seems the least onerous. If the owner gets out of that business, but the business fills a need and is profitable, then someone will fill the void of that business (thus the least amount of people are negatively affected).

[thegreekdog]

I cannot show that in the Bible, but again that's not the point.

It really is though.

The Bible does urge Christians to practice their religion in their daily lives, so if one chooses to run a business, he or she may take that literally and object to being required to pay for other people to use birth control.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's (or something like that).

Your solution is that the Christian person should not run a business because he or she will be interfering with business laws if he or she invokes his or her religious practices with respect to his or her business.

Correct. If they object to business laws so stringently because of their religious practices, then they should not run that particular business. They have that choice.

But let's turn that to constitutional principles.
The choices are, as follows:
(a) The business owner continues to run the business and complies with the law that violates his or her religion.
(b) The business owner continues to run the business, but does not comply with the law and is imprisoned or fined.
(c) The business owner stops running the business.
(d) The government does not require the business owner to comply with the law, finding another way to ensure that the employee gets his or her birth control.
Which of those seem the least onerous to everyone involved? A court should look at the least onerous way to accomplish the government objective while not violating the religion of the business owner.

Honestly, option C seems the least onerous. If the owner gets out of that business, but the business fills a need and is profitable, then someone will fill the void of that business (thus the least amount of people are negatively affected).

Okay, well I'm not sure the "render unto Caeser" thing is relevant here. We're going to have to disagree on the less onerous position given that prior to the Affordable Care Act, most employees had no trouble getting birth control and the government could merely pay for birth control through tax dollars.

[PLAYER57832]

There is, however, a right for religious to practice their religions, whether we like it or not, and that includes religiously-affiliated institutions.

Um...not quite on-board with that last part. The right to run a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

Okay, so what do you do with a Catholic hospital? It's nominally a business in that it has employees and collects some revenues, but it is also a charitable organization. Should it (a) provide health insurance to its employees that pays for birth control or (b) provide for birth control generally, including abortions?

If it is a business, then it must follow the rules assigned to businesses. Do you expect that hospital not to follow medical practices, simply because it's religion-oriented? Rules are in place that are required to be followed.

Again, running a business is not a part of religious freedom, nor should it be.

Actually, a hospital could very well not follow medical practices if they interfere with religious practices. I cannot think of an example not having to do with Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm fairly sure Jehovah's Witnesses don't run hospitals.

They don't and with very good reason. IF they did, they could ONLY serve Jehovah's witness and those willing to accept Jehovah's witness standards of care. They would not recieve federal funds or other exemptions. That is their choice. They can have their religion, practice it in their churches, homes, etc.. BUT they do NOT have the right to limit care to anyone else. If they decide to become doctors, then they accept that they are going to have to give blood and follow standard medical practices just like any other doctor must.

There standards all doctors must follow are dictated by medical/scientific evidence and, more and more finances. The exception is the patient's morals. The doctor's morality only comes into play when they are deciding whether to become a doctor or not. If they cannot adhere to standard medical practices, then they can decide not to be doctors. They cannot decide to set up a hospital, a practice and discriminate against anyone not sharing their religious views. That goes whether it is a Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist or Roman Catholic.

.

I also cannot think of an example of business rules that violate the Catholic religion (despite the use of google in addition to my own brain). However, there are laws requiring equal opportunity for employment, and yet there are no female priests, even when such priests work in hospitals. This is due to freedom of religion.

There is a very narrow exception to employment rules allowing religious institutions specifically to adhere to their religions first. In some cases, that can be extended to schools, because many churches view that as a ministry.

Hospitals and medicine differ in that even private hospitals are required, by law to offer their services to everyone. This is for some very good reasons, specifically because people just don't have the time to go searching around for the best hospital in an emergency. Also, virtually every hospital and medical practice recieves tax payer support. So, to say that you have the religious right to deny my care I want because of your religion is saying you have the right to take my money.. and then deny me care based on your religion, not mine. That is just wrong.

I would note that when the Affordable Care Act was passed and included provisions to require all employers to provide health insurance that covered birth control, the Catholic Church threatened to close its hopsitals (taking the AAFitz approach) and call for volunteers rather than employees at other places.

If they feel it is more important to stand by the idea that birth control is a bad thing, then that is frankly what they should do (it seems to me that they should view birth control and abortion separately).

I agree that is what they should do (or should have done). Won't (and didn't) happen though because Catholic hospitals and charities are too important to lose for an issue like this.

The Roman Catholic Church, the current Pope in particular, sees no problem with being a bully. That is it in a nutshell. They feel they should not have to listen to anyone else. That is OK if they are referring specifically to their religion, but when they branch out and decide they have the right to dictate medical care.. well, hospitals are not churches, even if the church decides to sponsor them. If the Roman Catholic church does not wish to adhere to standard medical practices, then they need to do like the other religious institutions that disagree with standard medical practices do.. stay out of medicine, except for narrow care for their own parishoners.

That being said, I think there is also a freedom of religion issue in requiring the pro-life guy that runs the ice cream parlor to provide health insurance for his employees that covers birth control. So we can talk about that after we talk about Catholic hospitals and churches and the like.

I think it's precisely the same situation. Freedom of religion has nothing at all to do with running a business, so it cannot be impacted by business requirements.

[/quote]
Its no different than saying that a confirmed chauvenist has to hire women, or that people have to hire people of other races or any other anti-discrimination measure. Having a business doesn't mean you get to bully everyone in town into your personnal views or religion. It means you run a business, and must adhere to the rules like everyone else. If that is not OK, then your religion prohibits you doing that business, plain and simple.

For a whole lot of people religion has to do with everything, including running a business. Some people, like Joe Biden (and me), can differentiate their religious practices from their jobs. Others cannot. Unfortunately, it is not for you (or Congress) to determine whether religion has anything to do with running a business.

It does when your actions are interfering with other people's right to their religion, or in this case, to reasonable medical care. MY right to reasonable medical care far outweighs your right to run your business.

It's not the same thing and I'm not trying to throw a strawman in here, but Quakers get exceptions from military draft. Do you have a problem with that? How is it different?

[/quote]
It is different because they are not directly impeding anyone else's ability to serve or practice their religion, access needed medical care, food, shelter. Further, its not actually an absolute. In general, Quakers are required to serve, but they can serve in non-military ways. I am not going to detail them all here becuase its off topic, but I can if you truly don't know of them.

The equivalent would be for Quakers or Mennonites or even the Amish to say that WE have no right to a military becuase it violates their beliefs, not to say that they don't have to serve.

No one is forcing any Roman Catholic to sell or give birth control. They are saying that if they wish to be employers, then they must act like any other employer and provide reasonable, modern medical care for men AND women.

[PLAYER57832]

Hell, for that matter, I have a problem with women not being required to be eligible for the draft (certainly a different topic altogether). Though we'll never have a meaningful draft in this country again anyway, so I don't suppose it actually matters.

Running a business is not found in religion, but not supporting birth control can.[/quote]
It is in your religion. It is not, however, in the Bible.. the book upon which your religion is supposed to be based.

That IS a very important distinction, by-the-way. See, freedom of religion is not just for Roman Catholics. It is for everyone, and part of the "everyone" bit means that you get to decide how you live, but not to dictate to everyone else.
... and that very much IS in the Bible, from the bit about "not seeing the log in your eye" to "render onto Caesar" to "judge not". ALL of those are very good Biblical reasons why Roman Catholics should not claim the right to dictate medical care to anyone else.

Beyond that, its part of not living in a theocracy. Once you travel down the path of letting other people's religions decide civil law, civil rules, civil behavior then you begin down the road to repression.. and eventually, that hurts everyone.

[Night Strike]

That IS a very important distinction, by-the-way. See, freedom of religion is not just for Roman Catholics. It is for everyone, and part of the "everyone" bit means that you get to decide how you live, but not to dictate to everyone else.

So how come the government gets to dictate who is allowed to follow their religion? Furthermore, which employer, religious or not, is outright banning employees from purchasing their own contraceptives? Why are employees suddenly incapable of paying for their own contraceptives? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for your contraceptives? What happened to personal responsibility?

[Nobunaga]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

If Romney win this election, he might as well wear a shirt that says “Assassinate Me Bitch”.

- “Yall ready to assasinate romney?”

- “Somebody needs to asassinate This mofo Romney.”

- “Romney make me wanna hop through the tv & just assasinate his ass.”

- “I aint gone lie… Food stamps the shit! I mite assasinate romney my damn self if he get elected!”

- “If romney get elected i hope a nigga assasinate his bitchass.

- “No birth control???? Lol rlly Romney the american population is going to overflow and then we’ll have to resort to murder and you’ll be #1.”

- “At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY MYSELF!”

- “If Romney win, IM GOING TO JAIL FOR MURDER cuz imma whack his bitch ass ASAP.”

- “If Mitt Romney wins, which I doubt, someone should assassinate him before he ruins the lives of our generation & our children.”

- “IF ROMNEY GETS ELECTED AND TAKES AWAY MY FOOD STAMPS IMA SEND SOMEONE TO MURDER HIS ASS.”

[PLAYER57832]

That IS a very important distinction, by-the-way. See, freedom of religion is not just for Roman Catholics. It is for everyone, and part of the "everyone" bit means that you get to decide how you live, but not to dictate to everyone else.

So how come the government gets to dictate who is allowed to follow their religion?

You are allowed to follow your religion as long as it does not harm others and as long as you are not requiring other people to follow your religion against their free will.

That means that you can teach in a public school, but not preach to your students. You can be a doctor, but cannot decide to refuse patients medically valid care they wish to recieve just becuase you don't agree with it. It also means that an employer cannot decide to deny coverage for some conditions and not for others for similar reasons.

Churches are allowed specific exemptions for clergy, specific religious lay positions. They are not allowed to claim religious exemption for every business in which they wish to be involved.

Furthermore, which employer, religious or not, is outright banning employees from purchasing their own contraceptives? Why are employees suddenly incapable of paying for their own contraceptives? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for your contraceptives? What happened to personal responsibility?

Insurance coverage. This is about insurance coverage. That you happen to think birth control is not part of reasonable medical practice means you are claiming to be a medical expert. I believe that decision belongs with the medical establishment, not you.. even you were running a business and hiring me. Your hiring me doesn't give you the right to decide what is valid medical care.

[Nobunaga]

That you happen to think birth control is not part of reasonable medical practice means you are claiming to be a medical expert...

... I think no such claim exists in his post.

... Would you argue that those claiming tax exemptions for school fees, or for medical costs as generally beneficial are claiming themselves to be tax lawyers?

... I'm going to copy that line and stow it away someplace to throw back at you every time you make an argument... about anything.

...

[Woodruff]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

[Night Strike]

Furthermore, which employer, religious or not, is outright banning employees from purchasing their own contraceptives? Why are employees suddenly incapable of paying for their own contraceptives? Why should everyone else be forced to pay for your contraceptives? What happened to personal responsibility?

Insurance coverage. This is about insurance coverage. That you happen to think birth control is not part of reasonable medical practice means you are claiming to be a medical expert. I believe that decision belongs with the medical establishment, not you.. even you were running a business and hiring me. Your hiring me doesn't give you the right to decide what is valid medical care.

If I owned a business, I would have the right to choose which coverage I want to pay for. You don't have the right to dictate that choice to me. Furthermore, there would be nothing denying you from using your own money to purchase anything that's not covered, so I wouldn't be denying you any rights to choose what medical care you want.

[Nobunaga]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

... Thank you for that complimentary observation.

... Alarming though, is it not, that so many folks would so casually discuss murdering Romney in cold blood for the crime of winning an election? Three weeks from now such "it's just Twitter bullshit" remarks would call for security investigations (as all such threats to the President require).

... I guess these Democrats wanted to take advantage of the timing - get the casual assassination pledges in before such threats might get them into a spot of trouble... ?

... Do you think if a bunch of rednecks were tweeting similar threats against Obama it would make the news?.... You bet your ass it would - all major TV networks - a demonstration of the "racist hatred harbored by the far right, tea party extremists".

... Funny how that only works one way, and not the other.

...

[PLAYER57832]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

... Thank you for that complimentary observation.

... Alarming though, is it not, that so many folks would so casually discuss murdering Romney in cold blood for the crime of winning an election? Three weeks from now such "it's just Twitter bullshit" remarks would call for security investigations (as all such threats to the President require).

... I guess these Democrats wanted to take advantage of the timing - get the casual assassination pledges in before such threats might get them into a spot of trouble... ?

... Do you think if a bunch of rednecks were tweeting similar threats against Obama it would make the news?.... You bet your ass it would - all major TV networks - a demonstration of the "racist hatred harbored by the far right, tea party extremists".

... Funny how that only works one way, and not the other.

...

Threatening the president of the US is a more serious issue than threatening a presidential candidate. That said, I suspect the biggest reason this has not gotten more traction is really that they don't want to make too big a deal of it, give cause for more such.

And.. I can almost gaurantee it has not gone unnoticed by security.

[thegreekdog]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

It's funny to read these and think about how the Tea Party folks were labelled as racist and out-of-touch with their Obama signs. Don't get me wrong, the people with those signs were shitty people and should be lambasted, but the lambastation (patent pending) extended to all Tea Party people and all conservatives. Woodruff is suggesting, correctly, that these assassination posts should not extend to all Democrats. Did he suggest the same thing with respect to the Tea Party? I don't know, but I don't see any national pundits talking about how disgusting the Democrats are for typing this kind of thing.

[BigBallinStalin]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

It's funny to read these and think about how the Tea Party folks were labelled as racist and out-of-touch with their Obama signs. Don't get me wrong, the people with those signs were shitty people and should be lambasted, but the lambastation (patent pending) extended to all Tea Party people and all conservatives. Woodruff is suggesting, correctly, that these assassination posts should not extend to all Democrats. Did he suggest the same thing with respect to the Tea Party? I don't know, but I don't see any national pundits talking about how disgusting the Democrats are for typing this kind of thing.

Because they're all a bunch of socialists!

[Woodruff]

... Here's a nice cross-section of Democrats

http://www.infowars.com/threats-to-assa ... er-debate/

Well it's good that you could keep a nice perspective on things and not devolve into utter bullshit.

... Thank you for that complimentary observation.

... Alarming though, is it not, that so many folks would so casually discuss murdering Romney in cold blood for the crime of winning an election?

Oh, I'm not saying those aren't frankly distressing (not in a serious "they might kill him" way but in a serious "I wonder how they manage to breathe without concentrating way). My "utter bullshit" comment was regarding your opening statement. I thought that would've been obvious.

... Do you think if a bunch of rednecks were tweeting similar threats against Obama it would make the news?.... You bet your ass it would - all major TV networks - a demonstration of the "racist hatred harbored by the far right, tea party extremists".

No, I quite honestly don't think it would. I'm even pretty sure of it. The Secret Service would undoubtedly take notice, but I don't really think "all major TV networks" would at all.

... Funny how that only works one way, and not the other.

Except it doesn't.