Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31054 Jul 5, 2014
Canton wrote:
Funny how every other company that tried to play religious patty cake games with heir customers all ended up making public apologies after the will of the American people boycotted them into a panic. Dear Hobby Lobby, when you apologize to everyone, be sure to act like you mean it, or it's bankruptcy for you.
Absolutely. Just ask the owners of Chick-Fil-A and what happened to their sales after the media reported they were against SSM.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31055 Jul 5, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Just another conniving cry baby tactic of the right wing nutballs when they don't get their way. Once it sinks in what a horrible decision it was, we'll look forward to you guys rewriting history to distance yourselves from it.
Absolutely. In fact, our founders designed our system of government so they could force employers to do as they say. In the future, look for our government legislating employers to pay for all our insurances: house insurance, rental insurance, car insurance, life insurance.

These evil employers have been getting away with too much for too long.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31056 Jul 5, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Such a gullible little man. Drink your kool aid, rubber ducky. Scalia and Thomas only attend those Koch Brother events for the smashing finger foods...right? Pay real close attention to how many times they side with big daddy Koch. Cha-Ching! Bought and sold like a cheap floozie.
Oh, I didn't know that. And didn't the Koch brothers buy those $20,000 Obama fundraising dinner tickets when he ran for reelection?

Oh, that's right, it wasn't the Koch brothers, it was those poor and middle-class people that attended those dinners.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31057 Jul 5, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
So "he started it" is what you are going with. Ever the high road.
Also, why do you call your boss "Dumbama"? How long do you suggest we listen to you cry about the big raise you never earned or your personal irresponsibility of buying cigarettes instead of easily affordable healthcare?
Finally, why did you guys forget to thank the American hero president who gave you a big tax break? Why didn't Fox News blow trumpets from the roof of the broadcasting center when Obama gave the Tea Baggers EXACTLY what they were crying for, in the form of a tax cut? It just doesn't seem very "fair and balanced". Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Just saying fair and balanced next to Fox News is so absurd it's funny.
Yeah, a tax break, huh?

You mean lowering our contributions to Social Security which is now broke and will be in the hole real soon? Those tax breaks? Thanks DumBama, we really appreciate you sinking SS even faster than it was sinking before.

Of course if we look at all the expenses cast onto the working citizens and deduct that from what we gained through those temporary tax breaks, we find we are in the hole. In fact, the median family income is down like $7,000 per year than before DumBama took office.
bunch of queers

Mountain View, CA

#31058 Jul 5, 2014
This is over 4 years old so stop posting on it retard.
You are making a idiot out off your self.gov erment retatds if u post on this old thred one more time u r queer and stupid.burn n hell
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31059 Jul 5, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think the Supreme Court is for? They are there TO judge issues based on the Constitution.
You seem to have clammed up on this one, Ray. What's the matter, you can't admit when you were wrong?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31060 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong? That was a direct quote from the majority opinion. You are so deluded and in love with your media cites, that you have just declared that the media knows more about what a Supreme Court decision is about than the justice who wrote that opinion.
This has been a very interesting exercise.
Wrong and its you that is so delunded and in love with bigtotry that Liberalism advocates and that was the SCOTUS's website I Posted that wrote the majority opinion.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31061 Jul 5, 2014
Politics have gotten into SCOTUS nominations when our 'reps' started asking questions at the hearings other than the nominees knowledge of the Constitution & vetting them on their record of such knowledge.
For good or bad, we have to trust that the judges will separate their personal or religious feelings from any & all lawful feelings/knowledge.
Generally, our 'reps' already know their answers to their questions from each judges history.
The hearings are all too often a shameful political circus. But too many of our reps have no shame since they run the circus..
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31063 Jul 5, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong and its you that is so delunded and in love with bigtotry that Liberalism advocates and that was the SCOTUS's website I Posted that wrote the majority opinion.
Dude, you are so confused. What you posted from the Supreme Court website explains that the difference between the First Amendment and the statute the Supreme Court applied in the Hobby Lobby case.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31065 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text> You & others have made that point a number of times. Some people can't comprehend what they read or hear & others are in denial of what they don't want to read or hear. Sad that too many people are that way.
Liberals today and Liberals like FDR were that way since the SCOTUS kept ruling Liberalism as FDR called it along with his New Deal unconstitutional which is why FDR proposed the court-packing plan which FDR knew the had to undermine the US Constitution for Liberalism to survive the Constitutional Test before the justices on the SCOTUS who knew his Liberalism was unconstitutional just as it is today.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1](frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedu...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31066 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
My God, why do you insist on remaining willfully wrong?
"The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely heldcorporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
What do you think the words, "unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim" mean?
we know its a first amendment issue and if it wasnt Hobby Lobby would have lost before the SCOTUS which is clearly stated as I posted yesterday from the SCOTUS website.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31067 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you are so confused. What you posted from the Supreme Court website explains that the difference between the First Amendment and the statute the Supreme Court applied in the Hobby Lobby case.
dude your confused because if it wasnt at issue Hobby Lobby would have lost their SCOTUS case which Hobby Lobby didnt.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31069 Jul 5, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>dude your confused because if it wasnt at issue Hobby Lobby would have lost their SCOTUS case which Hobby Lobby didnt.
Why did the majority write this, "Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."?
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31070 Jul 5, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>dude your confused because if it wasnt at issue Hobby Lobby would have lost their SCOTUS case which Hobby Lobby didnt.
Actually, if it was a First Amendment case, Hobby Lobby would have lost. The Court held that the RFRA provides more protection than the First Amendment does.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31071 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have clammed up on this one, Ray. What's the matter, you can't admit when you were wrong?
Well I'm a little busy right now since it's global warming and I do have a lot of work around here to do outside. Trying to pull apart sentences and words is just very time consuming.

But what I will say is Indy is doing a fine job of carrying on the fight for our side.:-)

You can claim it had nothing to do with freedom of religion, but that was the suit brought on by the Hobby Lobby people. They sued right up to the SC because they felt their constitutional rights were being violated, and the SC agreed to hear the case based on those grounds.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#31072 Jul 5, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm a little busy right now since it's global warming and I do have a lot of work around here to do outside. Trying to pull apart sentences and words is just very time consuming.
But what I will say is Indy is doing a fine job of carrying on the fight for our side.:-)
You can claim it had nothing to do with freedom of religion, but that was the suit brought on by the Hobby Lobby people. They sued right up to the SC because they felt their constitutional rights were being violated, and the SC agreed to hear the case based on those grounds.
The wingnut go to. Try to change what I said. I never said it wasn't a religion case. I said it wasn't decided on First Amendment grounds. The wingnut ability to continue to insist that something is so when it obviously isn't is incredible.
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31073 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
Why did the majority write this, "Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."?
Thanks for a bit of education. Adding the sentence just before makes it even clearer: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31074 Jul 5, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for a bit of education. Adding the sentence just before makes it even clearer: "The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns."
It does, but I tried that originally with them and it didn't seem to work. I was trying to break it down to as few as words possible for them this time.
woo-boy

Van Wert, OH

#31075 Jul 5, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
It does, but I tried that originally with them and it didn't seem to work. I was trying to break it down to as few as words possible for them this time.
They don't care, they just deflect.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#31076 Jul 5, 2014
woo-boy wrote:
<quoted text>They don't care, they just deflect.
It's fun to watch. Especially from the faux intellectual Indy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Fairborn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where is Nikki Lieb Jun '16 Hitler 1
News UC, DuBose Family Reach Settlement (Jan '16) Apr '16 Pops 33
News WOOLUM, Jesse Mar '16 Judy Jones 1
Joseph Jenkins Feb '16 Shame 1
News TCN considering Beavercreek expansion Feb '16 Fiona 1
anyone know gary or louie hicks (Jan '16) Jan '16 right to know 1
News Community reacts to grand jury's decision not t... (Sep '14) Jan '16 Normal 7

Fairborn Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Fairborn Mortgages