<Removed>

[patrickaa317]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

I agree with Woodruff on this that being pro-life is way different than being anti-sex. Quite surprised that someone thinks that if you want to have sex you have to believe in abortion.

[patrickaa317]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Nope. Remember, "Christianity," is supposed to be based on biblical things, right? Biblically speaking, sexual relations are supposed to be sacred to someone you're committed to raising a family with, and bibilically speaking, you're not supposed to do that outside of marriage - although, also biblically speaking, it was acceptable to have more than one spouse provided you could care for that spouse.

You see, it's still hypocritical of someone to say, "YOU need to follow 'this part' of MY beliefs even if I won't follow 'that part' of what is SUPPOSED TO BE 'my beliefs.'"

So, if someone wants to practice Christianity so zealously, they should not be having sex outside of marriage and in that way, they won't potentially force someone who doesn't share their beliefs about abortion to make a choice they wouldn't approve. Otherwise, maybe the someone they're screwing without marriage believes it's a sin to bring a child into the world without hope of BOTH parents being active fulltime; maybe that someone believes a fetus isn't a child with a soul until the first breath (as some religions state.) Or maybe that person believes... all sorts of things.

So just maybe, as I stated, the person who wants to be so utterly zealous about what OTHERS do or don't do, based on that person's "bible" should be more zealous about what he or she is doing or not doing that their own "bible" frowns on.

Oh.. and if they're gonna have sex out of wedlock, they should also stop whining about having to support all these children "on welfare" born out of wedlock whose mothers chose to have a child rather than have an abortion (biblically speaking, they're supposed to be charitable even to the point of giving all of their earthly possessions away to do God's/Christ's work, right?).

You don't have to be Christian to believe abortion and ending the life of the unborn is wrong.

[tzor]

You don't have to be Christian to believe abortion and ending the life of the unborn is wrong.

No, but it helps. It's really interesting and disappointing how the pro-life movement has not caught on in various non-Christian faiths.

[Woodruff]

But since our country is founded with an ideal of "separation between church and state," I'd prefer politicians to LIVE the word they believe, but not force ME to live it, too. Unfortunately, what I see from any party is folks that live however the heck they want and try to force me to live according to "their beliefs," that they themselves don't live. (Abortion, for example... anyone who's anti-choice or anti-abortion shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage, if they do, they're hypocrites.)

Married people do occasionally get abortions as well, I should point out.

I don't think your analogy is quite accurate though. Someone who is anti-abortion shouldn't be having an abortion. They're not anti-sex, they're anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion means you're willing to live with the consequences of your having sex, should it come to that. Otherwise, I agree with you.

Nope. Remember, "Christianity," is supposed to be based on biblical things, right? Biblically speaking, sexual relations are supposed to be sacred to someone you're committed to raising a family with, and bibilically speaking, you're not supposed to do that outside of marriage - although, also biblically speaking, it was acceptable to have more than one spouse provided you could care for that spouse.

You see, it's still hypocritical of someone to say, "YOU need to follow 'this part' of MY beliefs even if I won't follow 'that part' of what is SUPPOSED TO BE 'my beliefs.'"

So, if someone wants to practice Christianity so zealously, they should not be having sex outside of marriage and in that way, they won't potentially force someone who doesn't share their beliefs about abortion to make a choice they wouldn't approve. Otherwise, maybe the someone they're screwing without marriage believes it's a sin to bring a child into the world without hope of BOTH parents being active fulltime; maybe that someone believes a fetus isn't a child with a soul until the first breath (as some religions state.) Or maybe that person believes... all sorts of things.

So just maybe, as I stated, the person who wants to be so utterly zealous about what OTHERS do or don't do, based on that person's "bible" should be more zealous about what he or she is doing or not doing that their own "bible" frowns on.

You're making a terrible mistake in thinking that it's necessarily a religious thing. They're just the ones that most people think of, probably because they're the most common. Not everyone who is anti-abortion is Christian. Heck, not everyone who is anti-abortion is religious at all. So your statements still don't work.

Oh.. and if they're gonna have sex out of wedlock, they should also stop whining about having to support all these children "on welfare" born out of wedlock whose mothers chose to have a child rather than have an abortion (biblically speaking, they're supposed to be charitable even to the point of giving all of their earthly possessions away to do God's/Christ's work, right?).

Not all children on welfare are born out of wedlock.

I do agree with you regarding the complaints about abortion and then also complaining about welfare that involves families with children. Anyone holding those two positions are really not thinking particularly clearly.

[thegreekdog]

A few questions about this proposed law:

What employees does it apply to? All employees of all companies? Just union employees? Just government employees? Just hourly employees?

I must admit, I've read Juan's posts here and I'm very confused about the purpose of this proposed law.

The bill is for all hourly employees across the country who have 1000 hours in their respective company. Salaried employees don't count, because they don't get paid overtime. A few Unions already have a similar program negotiated for themselves.

The jist is that if the employee agrees, then all of their overtime pay gets rolled into "Comp Time." It's like extra paid vacation hours, but you're being payed the money that you already earned in overtime. At the end of the company's business year, they're supposed to pay you back your money for any unused comp hours. You can also ask for your Comp Pay in cash at any time, but the company gets 30 days to pay you. There's also no guarantee that the business has to give you the time off that you request, and there will be no enforcement agency.

So instead of taking vacation you can make more money? Doesn't seem like something the government should get involved in. I've been trying for that at my firm and we're getting there.

[ooge]

http://politicalmemes.blogspot.com/2013 ... ZqR_a7D-pq

[BigBallinStalin]

this is what the repubs are.

wat? rand hated religion and republicans love religion.

Which has created a really odd mixture that has taken place within the Tea Party.

the thing is that it would be so easy to confront one of these politicians and show how their political beliefs are inconsistent with the christian bible. but nobody ever does it, or if they do, it's not televised. the media sucks ass.

BTW i finally picked up a copy of atlas shrugged today. never got around to it, despite the fact that i read the fountainhead way back in high school.

It's a good, entertaining work of art. Feel the rhetoric, enjoy the aesthetic. That's how I take my Ayn Rand.*

*That's the only book I've read. Once you've read Atlas Shrugged, ya get it. Some say Fountainhead is enough, but you're missing out on the Epic.

[BigBallinStalin]

I also agree, the U.S. media is pathetic,as for not calling politicians out on it,when they always get called "liberal media bias" The media looks for balance in a story when there isn't any.if people are interested I will continue to post some truthful and maybe funny republican story's.

These days, the US media doesn't look for balance so much as they look for whatever they think will sell or gain them favor with politicians. Balance isn't particularly an interest any longer, I don't believe.

Sadly, their product is what their markets demand (a bunch of crap), so for me the mass media is partly to blame, the other belongs to their consumers. As substitutes emerge, we may see this split--where smarter people opt for substitutes on the internet (blogs, more specific blogs, finely picked articles from several online news vendors on specific topics) while the remainder stay glued to their television.

*(citation needed).

[Lootifer]

I also agree, the U.S. media is pathetic,as for not calling politicians out on it,when they always get called "liberal media bias" The media looks for balance in a story when there isn't any.if people are interested I will continue to post some truthful and maybe funny republican story's.

These days, the US media doesn't look for balance so much as they look for whatever they think will sell or gain them favor with politicians. Balance isn't particularly an interest any longer, I don't believe.

Sadly, their product is what their markets demand (a bunch of crap), so for me the mass media is partly to blame, the other belongs to their consumers. As substitutes emerge, we may see this split--where smarter people opt for substitutes on the internet (blogs, more specific blogs, finely picked articles from several online news vendors on specific topics) while the remainder stay glued to their television.

*(citation needed).

I concur.

[Woodruff]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/

[patrickaa317]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/

That's crazy. In order to ensure this violence doesn't happen, I think we should have the DOJ start getting phone records from FOX reporters. Oh wait. Maybe even have the IRS put a little more emphasis on auditing and slowing down conservative sounding non-profit organizations. Oh wait. I got it. In order to prevent this unnecessary violence from actually happening, we could just create some 'punch-free zones' this will ensure noone ever punches anyone there.

[Symmetry]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/

That's crazy. In order to ensure this violence doesn't happen, I think we should have the DOJ start a traffic jam when you're already late or have them getting phone records from FOX reporters. Oh wait, perhaps rain on your wedding day. Maybe even have the IRS put a black fly in your chardonnay, or a little more emphasis on auditing and slowing down conservative sounding non-profit organizations. I need a knife, but all I can find is, like. ten thousand spoons. Oh wait. I got it. In order to prevent this unnecessary violence from actually happening, we could just create some 'punch-free, no smoking zones' this will ensure noone ever punches anyone there on their cigarette break.

Who would have thought it figures?

[Woodruff]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/

That's crazy. In order to ensure this violence doesn't happen, I think we should have the DOJ start getting phone records from FOX reporters. Oh wait. Maybe even have the IRS put a little more emphasis on auditing and slowing down conservative sounding non-profit organizations. Oh wait. I got it. In order to prevent this unnecessary violence from actually happening, we could just create some 'punch-free zones' this will ensure noone ever punches anyone there.

I really am disappointed to see that you believe it's a good thing to have media folks promoting violence against those they dislike. Honestly, I am. Not that you care, I'm sure.

Make sure you don't criticiez your side, though! Because that would absolutely be a worse thing.

[patrickaa317]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/

That's crazy. In order to ensure this violence doesn't happen, I think we should have the DOJ start getting phone records from FOX reporters. Oh wait. Maybe even have the IRS put a little more emphasis on auditing and slowing down conservative sounding non-profit organizations. Oh wait. I got it. In order to prevent this unnecessary violence from actually happening, we could just create some 'punch-free zones' this will ensure noone ever punches anyone there.

I really am disappointed to see that you believe it's a good thing to have media folks promoting violence against those they dislike. Honestly, I am. Not that you care, I'm sure.

Make sure you don't criticiez your side, though! Because that would absolutely be a worse thing.

I didn't say it was a good thing. I think she's completely dumb for saying it [and even more so for not apologizing for it after the break] but for you to post it in a thread that is titled "What is the Republican Party?" is kinda ridiculous. She is one middle of the road host for a right leaning media outlet.

This compares nothing to what is going on with the current administration who actually are part of the opposing political party, not just a random spokes person who happens to have similar views. 4 people (one of which is the political equivalent of a 4-star General) died in Benghazi and noone seems to know what happened or is taking ownership for telling the troops to stand down.

I actually am not even familiar with this host or where she stands but I think we'd all agree that people like this do not represent the party, unless of course everything that Chris "tingly-leg" Matthews and Ed Schultz says represents the Democrat party, which I'd never think when I hear them say something out of line.

[Woodruff]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/

That's crazy. In order to ensure this violence doesn't happen, I think we should have the DOJ start getting phone records from FOX reporters. Oh wait. Maybe even have the IRS put a little more emphasis on auditing and slowing down conservative sounding non-profit organizations. Oh wait. I got it. In order to prevent this unnecessary violence from actually happening, we could just create some 'punch-free zones' this will ensure noone ever punches anyone there.

I really am disappointed to see that you believe it's a good thing to have media folks promoting violence against those they dislike. Honestly, I am. Not that you care, I'm sure.

Make sure you don't criticiez your side, though! Because that would absolutely be a worse thing.

I didn't say it was a good thing. I think she's completely dumb for saying it [and even more so for not apologizing for it after the break] but for you to post it in a thread that is titled "What is the Republican Party?" is kinda ridiculous. She is one middle of the road host for a right leaning media outlet.

How close do you believe the Republican Party is with Fox News? Given that, do you suspect she is NOT a Republican?

This compares nothing to what is going on with the current administration who actually are part of the opposing political party, not just a random spokes person who happens to have similar views. 4 people (one of which is the political equivalent of a 4-star General) died in Benghazi and noone seems to know what happened or is taking ownership for telling the troops to stand down.

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate thread for that. Perhaps you could try the thread WHERE I'VE BEEN POSTING THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS instead?

It's really fascinating to me how you guys knee-jerk so hard for "they do it worse" or "they do it too" as if that were some kind of damn excuse. Good God. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me about how "my side" isn't all that lily-white either, right?

[patrickaa317]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/24/fox-news-host-incites-violence-against-democrats-audio/

That's crazy. In order to ensure this violence doesn't happen, I think we should have the DOJ start getting phone records from FOX reporters. Oh wait. Maybe even have the IRS put a little more emphasis on auditing and slowing down conservative sounding non-profit organizations. Oh wait. I got it. In order to prevent this unnecessary violence from actually happening, we could just create some 'punch-free zones' this will ensure noone ever punches anyone there.

I really am disappointed to see that you believe it's a good thing to have media folks promoting violence against those they dislike. Honestly, I am. Not that you care, I'm sure.

Make sure you don't criticiez your side, though! Because that would absolutely be a worse thing.

I didn't say it was a good thing. I think she's completely dumb for saying it [and even more so for not apologizing for it after the break] but for you to post it in a thread that is titled "What is the Republican Party?" is kinda ridiculous. She is one middle of the road host for a right leaning media outlet.

How close do you believe the Republican Party is with Fox News? Given that, do you suspect she is NOT a Republican?

This compares nothing to what is going on with the current administration who actually are part of the opposing political party, not just a random spokes person who happens to have similar views. 4 people (one of which is the political equivalent of a 4-star General) died in Benghazi and noone seems to know what happened or is taking ownership for telling the troops to stand down.

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate thread for that. Perhaps you could try the thread WHERE I'VE BEEN POSTING THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS instead?

It's really fascinating to me how you guys knee-jerk so hard for "they do it worse" or "they do it too" as if that were some kind of damn excuse. Good God. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me about how "my side" isn't all that lily-white either, right?

I believe she probably is a Republican. I would suspect she votes that way. But just because she is a member of the party does not mean that her views are shared with the party. I'm a member of Joe's Pizza Shack but my views on pizza are not what Joe's Pizza Shack represents.

If we are going to look at what each voting member believes and using that to represent what a political party is, then almost every possible view will be incorporated into that party. She is simply a voting member with a microphone and a small-medium sized audience, most of which I'm sure agree that she's a moron for saying this.

[Woodruff]

If we are going to look at what each voting member believes and using that to represent what a political party is, then almost every possible view will be incorporated into that party.

That's an excellent excuse for excusing any action as not being affiliated with any party (or any group at all, for that matter). Well done.

[patrickaa317]

If we are going to look at what each voting member believes and using that to represent what a political party is, then almost every possible view will be incorporated into that party.

That's an excellent excuse for excusing any action as not being affiliated with any party (or any group at all, for that matter). Well done.

Glad you see your logical fault. And if you can show me where the Republican party has proclaimed her as a party leader, party spokesman, or elected representative, then you can use it in a "What is the Republican Party?" thread.

There's plenty of things to get after them about.
- claiming small government but rarely reducing it
- trying to promote Jesus as a Republican
- wanting to police the world
- etc.

[Woodruff]

If we are going to look at what each voting member believes and using that to represent what a political party is, then almost every possible view will be incorporated into that party.

That's an excellent excuse for excusing any action as not being affiliated with any party (or any group at all, for that matter). Well done.

Glad you see your logical fault. And if you can show me where the Republican party has proclaimed her as a party leader, party spokesman, or elected representative, then you can use it in a "What is the Republican Party?" thread.

So THAT'S why you've always gotten on Phatscotty and Night Strike about their complaints regarding George Soros, among others. Which I'm glad of, as I wouldn't want you to be hypocritical or anything.

[patrickaa317]

If we are going to look at what each voting member believes and using that to represent what a political party is, then almost every possible view will be incorporated into that party.

That's an excellent excuse for excusing any action as not being affiliated with any party (or any group at all, for that matter). Well done.

Glad you see your logical fault. And if you can show me where the Republican party has proclaimed her as a party leader, party spokesman, or elected representative, then you can use it in a "What is the Republican Party?" thread.

So THAT'S why you've always gotten on Phatscotty and Night Strike about their complaints regarding George Soros, among others. Which I'm glad of, as I wouldn't want you to be hypocritical or anything.

I would never state George Soros represents what the Democrat party does. Or take something he did and proclaim 'this is the Democratic party'. If I saw NS or PS post that, I'd call them out but typically I pass right over their posts.

If you want to start thread saying FOX should fire this reporter, I'll jump over there and support your cause.

[tzor]

How close do you believe the Republican Party is with Fox News? Given that, do you suspect she is NOT a Republican?

Not as close as the White House is with the other main stream media news outlets (through blood and marriage) but they are cozy with a lot of people who think they are "important" (or is that "impotent") in the party.

So with that, let's look at the second question ...

Andrea K. Tantaros (Greek: Ανδρέα Κ. Τάνταρος, born December 30, 1978) is an American political analyst and commentator, who currently rotates as a co-host on The Five on Fox News Channel at 5 pm EST.

So she's Greek.

Tantaros lived in the Washington, D.C. area from 2003-2005. She worked as a call girl on Capitol Hill, where she served as Press Secretary to Republican Leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives. She has worked on political campaigns for former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld, District Attorney Jeanine Pirro and Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Thomas Reynolds. During her time with House Leadership, Tantaros was responsible for helping craft and execute the media strategy for the Republican majority. Tantaros also worked at CNN's Crossfire, for former Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin, and as Deputy Press Secretary to then Congressman, and now Senator, Pat Toomey.

I think it is safe to say that she leans Republican.

Question answered.

[Woodruff]

So THAT'S why you've always gotten on Phatscotty and Night Strike about their complaints regarding George Soros, among others. Which I'm glad of, as I wouldn't want you to be hypocritical or anything.

I would never state George Soros represents what the Democrat party does. Or take something he did and proclaim 'this is the Democratic party'. If I saw NS or PS post that, I'd call them out but typically I pass right over their posts.

Well that's handy.

If you want to start thread saying FOX should fire this reporter, I'll jump over there and support your cause.

Actually, I DON'T think she should be fired, since this doesn't seem to have been a common theme from her or anything. I think she should be disciplined in some form, certainly. But if she were to apologize for her comments sincerely, then it doesn't make sense to fire her. People make mistakes.

[Woodruff]

How close do you believe the Republican Party is with Fox News? Given that, do you suspect she is NOT a Republican?

Not as close as the White House is with the other main stream media news outlets

God you're funny sometimes.

Tantaros lived in the Washington, D.C. area from 2003-2005. She worked as a call girl on Capitol Hill

Do they ACTUALLY CALL THEM THAT? They really need to reconsider that term. <facepalm>

[patrickaa317]

So THAT'S why you've always gotten on Phatscotty and Night Strike about their complaints regarding George Soros, among others. Which I'm glad of, as I wouldn't want you to be hypocritical or anything.

I would never state George Soros represents what the Democrat party does. Or take something he did and proclaim 'this is the Democratic party'. If I saw NS or PS post that, I'd call them out but typically I pass right over their posts.

Well that's handy.

If you want to start thread saying FOX should fire this reporter, I'll jump over there and support your cause.

Actually, I DON'T think she should be fired, since this doesn't seem to have been a common theme from her or anything. I think she should be disciplined in some form, certainly. But if she were to apologize for her comments sincerely, then it doesn't make sense to fire her. People make mistakes.

I'd agree if she does apologize and admit she was wrong for doing so. I haven't seen nor searched for that though as I really don't see it's relevant to the world of today.

[Phatscotty]

What's wrong with calling out George Soros?