For the ladies, why is Santorum TOO conservative?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

More like simplistic. We pay for the elderly already. They take way more out of the system than they paid in. How is that different than Olivia's point. I do not want to pay for the care of folks about to die. It is aganist my conserative religion.

Your 'POV' does not constitute a 'religion'.

Originally Posted by WTF

Yet we do. How is that different that people crying about paying for birth control? I am using my phone btw so take that into consideration

The Roman Catholic Church is a formal, recognized religion with almost 2,000 years of doctrinal precedence on record - the First Amendment explicitly guarantees the rights of those who abide by the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

[CJ7]

and its the Catholics constitutional right to take and refer people to abortion/birth control clinics then bitch because their healthcare covers rubbers

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

and its the Catholics constitutional right to take and refer people to abortion/birth control clinics then bitch because their healthcare covers rubbers

Yesterday, you lied and lied and lied that you were not making this claim. Yet, here you are again equating Planned Parenthood as an abortion only service.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yesterday, you lied and lied and lied that you were not making this claim. Yet, here you are again equating Planned Parenthood as an abortion only service.

EVERYDAY you claim people LIE AND LIE, yet you cant prove they are lying by offering factual documentation

ONLY must be too big of a word for you, strange because itas a 4 letter word ...


once again, (since your so slow) quote me where I said PP was ONLY an abortion clinic ... exact wording, specific.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your 'POV' does not constitute a 'religion'.

.

I would argue that it is my religion. It is my beliefs. Just like any other religion. What about Scientology, don't tell me those crazy fuc'ers are better than my new religion!

I do not believe in their religion. They do not believe in my. We are even there. But I believe in fairness, if you do not have to pay for something because you do not believe in it, nor should I.

That has been my point all along, we all through taxes pay for shit we do not believe in. If that institution does not want Federal Tax dollars, then I can see their point.

The Federal Government did the same shit on the speed limit if I remember correctly.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Roman Catholic Church is a formal, recognized religion with almost 2,000 years of doctrinal precedence on record - the First Amendment explicitly guarantees the rights of those who abide by the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

What difference does it make how long it has been around?

We are in the here and now, things evolve.

Why will the state not reconize my form of religion? It is no different a belief that Catholics. It is just my belief.

I have to tell you from a political standpoint I think the church is on the losing end of this debate. Women are the biggest block of voters and this will peel more off towards the Dems, that might not have done so.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

EVERYDAY you claim people LIE AND LIE,

Mostly it's just you: because you are a liar.

Originally Posted by CJ7

yet you cant prove they are lying by offering factual documentation

ONLY must be too big of a word for you, strange because itas a 4 letter word ...
once again, (since your so slow) quote me where I said PP was ONLY an abortion clinic ... exact wording, specific.

Did that yesterday:

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2203412&postcount=121
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2203640&postcount=137

And you said it again today; you were quoted above:

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207785&postcou nt=152

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

One side has a religious and conscientious freedom objection which is protected under the Frist Ammendment. The other has no such protection.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

(I understand the phone typing problem; alot of my typos are becasue of the same.)

Maybe I am but should it matter?

Should people be able to hide behind religion for a reason to to pay Federal Taxes.

What if that was aganist my religion?

Wait, it is! LOL

My point is that all our Federal dollars go to shit we do not believe in.

Should we all start a religion and then not pay?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I would argue that it is my religion. It is my beliefs. Just like any other religion.

Your 'POV' does not constitute a formal, recognized religion. Take it to the Supreme Court if you feel that strongly about your 'POV'. Until the Court rules in your favor, you do not have a case.

Originally Posted by WTF

What about Scientology, don't tell me those crazy fuc'ers are better than my new religion!

Scientology? Who knows? However, Christian Scientists are siding with Catholics on this issue.

Originally Posted by WTF

I do not believe in their religion. They do not believe in my. We are even there. But I believe in fairness, if you do not have to pay for something because you do not believe in it, nor should I.

That has been my point all along, we all through taxes pay for shit we do not believe in. If that institution does not want Federal Tax dollars, then I can see their point.

The Federal Government did the same shit on the speed limit if I remember correctly.

What difference does it make how long it has been around?

We are in the here and now, things evolve.

Why will the state not reconize my form of religion? It is no different a belief that Catholics. It is just my belief.

I have to tell you from a political standpoint I think the church is on the losing end of this debate. Women are the biggest block of voters and this will peel more off towards the Dems, that might not have done so.

Like Roe v. Wade, it will be settled in the courts - not at the polls. Furthermore, you devalue the 'belief system' of many of the women you 'believe' would vote against the Church.

[CJ7]

the best thing to do is keep the catholic hypocrisy alive and well as long as possible


sort of takes away the focus on the totally inept republican candidates

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Mostly it's just you: because you are a liar.
Did that yesterday:

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2203412&postcount=121
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2203640&postcount=137

And you said it again today; you were quoted above:

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2207785&postcount=152

like I said ... ONLY must be a real difficult word for you

[Guest050715-1]

[quote=Whirlaway;2207464]I don't know WTF your arguing with me about?

Frame your arguement intelligently so I can respond.

Originally Posted by WTF

Whbirlaway wtf do you think the medicare debate is about? Why do you think sara palin cried death panels? We pay for elderly care in this country. I know it is morecoszt effective to pay for birth control than end of life care. What makes your religious beliefs supersede my conserative cost saving beliefs? The First Ammendment you dumb ass.[/quote]

I thought WTF was pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I think if a consumer wants to buy into a premium insurance plan that offers extraordinary coverage for end of life situations, go ahead. It isn't any business of the government's to interfer with those kinds of decisions. Just don't ask me to pay for it.

I agree. If an individual can afford inflated premiums for end of life care or can pay for it out of pocket. Have at it. It’s no one’s business.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Likewise. If a consumer wants to participate in a healthcare/insurance plan that pays for abortions, contraception, etc., go ahead. Be my guest. Just don't ask those who don't agree and don't participate to pay for it.

Different. That decision was made a long time ago. Your side lost. The courts decided that the state cannot limit birth control for any reason. End of life care is only an issue now because it is new technology like the pill was in 1964.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

the best thing to do is keep the catholic hypocrisy alive and well as long as possible

sort of takes away the focus on the totally inept republican candidates

And your ploy to redefine an argument you cannot win reveals your own ineptness.

[Whirlaway]

I don't know what law school you went to but the courts have NOT ruled who has to pay for birth control and other services that Obama is demanding. The courts have NEVER thrown out protection in matters of conscience..as hard as Obama is trying, it hasn't been done to date.

Is the First Ammendment and Conscience Objections under assault by fanatics? Absolutlely, but your blanket assertion of it's settled law is fantasy. Huffing and puffing asserting it is makes you look silly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_clause_(medical)



BTW, I thought you were not going to jump into this discussion any more; but welcome back in anyway.


[quote=OliviaHoward;2208003]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Different. That decision was made a long time ago. Your side lost. The courts decided that the state cannot limit birth control for any reason. End of life care is only an issue now because it is new technology like the pill was in 1964.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

like I said ... ONLY must be a real difficult word for you

Are you still claiming you didn't make those posts? Since you claim you didn't equate PP as 'abortion clinics', feel free to cite 'the other example(s)' where you 'document' Catholics are taking women to abortion clinics.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And your ploy to redefine an argument you cannot win reveals your own ineptness.

please qoute me where I specifically said PP was ONLY an abortion clinic



you insist I said that, so prove ir

or tell everyone youre a LIAR


you decide