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

Maple Heights, OH

#31086 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."
Which means it was null and void before even discussing the First Amendment. However, the SC wouldn't have even heard the case (concerning constitutional violations of religion) if they didn't think there was something that needed to be heard.

Think of it kind of like a baseball game. It's two outs and the game is tied. After the ball is hit, the home team scores the winning run. After a replay challenge is made, they discover that the guy running to second was thrown out before the relay to home which was questionable.

What difference does it make what happened at home? The game is still over so what's the point of reviewing the play at home base?

Either way, this is a point for the good guys. The United States Federal Government is not in charge of telling employers what kind of benefits they have to offer to their employees. Hell, the former Soviet Union probably didn't demand that of their employers.

Under the DumBama administration, our federal government has gotten too strong and too intrusive in our lives. Because if the courts ruled (under any provision) that government has that kind of power to micromanage our personal lives, then we would surly be in a state of tyranny.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31087 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
What's with Topix high lighting certain words & why?
It does on certain words which I seen that too.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31088 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
What's with Topix high lighting certain words & why?
Advertisement. If you click on any of the hyperlinks, it will take you to an ad.

Did you just notice this now? Because at least on my computer, this has been going on since I've been on Topix which is several years.

Topix has way too much advertisement. That's why it takes minutes to load each page.
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31090 Jul 5, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Advertisement. If you click on any of the hyperlinks, it will take you to an ad.
Did you just notice this now? Because at least on my computer, this has been going on since I've been on Topix which is several years.
Topix has way too much advertisement. That's why it takes minutes to load each page.
Nah, I noticed this some time ago but basically ignored it for some time. But NOT years ago & I have been on Topix for some time too.
Now a new question, how in the helll can someone judge my initial post, "disagree, & nuts"?
Activity like that sometimes makes me wonder what the heck sort of people am I communicating with.
Maybe that indicates that I am clueless.(<:
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31091 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
What's with Topix high lighting certain words & why?
It's a very annoying form of advertising. If you would like to avoid seeing it, install Adbock Plus. Works as an add-on to most popular browsers, and filters out stuff like that.

https://adblockplus.org
Old Guy

Mason, OH

#31092 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Now a new question, how in the helll can someone judge my initial post, "disagree, & nuts"?
Activity like that sometimes makes me wonder what the heck sort of people am I communicating with.
Maybe that indicates that I am clueless.(<:
Remember in grade school, when kids would tease each other with sayings that made no sense? "You mother wears army boots" was a popular retort long ago. Some folks can't come up with a witty reply, but they can always punch that "nuts" button.
half breed

Lima, OH

#31093 Jul 5, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Nah, I noticed this some time ago but basically ignored it for some time. But NOT years ago & I have been on Topix for some time too.
Now a new question, how in the helll can someone judge my initial post, "disagree, & nuts"?
Activity like that sometimes makes me wonder what the heck sort of people am I communicating with.
Maybe that indicates that I am clueless.(<:
Welcome to 2014, Pops.
Now if only you could figure out how to make your VCR stop flashing 12:00 all day long...
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31094 Jul 5, 2014
half breed wrote:
<quoted text>Welcome to 2014, Pops.
Now if only you could figure out how to make your VCR stop flashing 12:00 all day long...
I figured that out last week. Is that good?
Pops

Cincinnati, OH

#31095 Jul 5, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember in grade school, when kids would tease each other with sayings that made no sense? "You mother wears army boots" was a popular retort long ago. Some folks can't come up with a witty reply, but they can always punch that "nuts" button.
WOW! You are showing ur age make that statement & I am showing my age to understand.
phil coulsin

Mountain View, CA

#31096 Jul 6, 2014
Donk.cock
phil coulsin

Mountain View, CA

#31097 Jul 6, 2014
I shmash gay dickmmmn
Hobby Lobby

Atlanta, GA

#31098 Jul 6, 2014
Why do havenot people think their right to force certain others to pay for the havenot's stuff supercede certain others right to exist?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31099 Jul 6, 2014
Pops wrote:
<quoted text>Nah, I noticed this some time ago but basically ignored it for some time. But NOT years ago & I have been on Topix for some time too.
Now a new question, how in the helll can someone judge my initial post, "disagree, & nuts"?
Activity like that sometimes makes me wonder what the heck sort of people am I communicating with.
Maybe that indicates that I am clueless.(<:
Nah. This is a political room which means there are basically two sides here. It doesn't matter if you make a comment about politics or the weather, it's that you (on one side) made a comment period.

Then you have kids (like the posts above) that get on the computer and have nothing to do. So they start clicking buttons out of boredom.

This is nothing. I go to topics that have people with six, eight and ten or more judgements. The more people in the forum, the more of them you'll see.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31100 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>True because the RFRA is another means by the Federal Government to restrict the 1st Amendment too if the politicians want too because for years the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution did not pretain to the Citizens of the States only pretained to the Federal Government until the SCOTUS started using the 14th amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights down to state level through a series of SCOTUS cases over the years.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
You are so confused. Incorporation is long establish and was not at issue one little bit in the Hobby Lobby case. The RFRA was passed because Congress thought the SCOTUS First Amendment application was too conservative.

You should really set your agenda down for a little bit and look at this without it. When you stop trying to prove something you will be more open to learning.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Medina, OH

#31101 Jul 6, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means it was null and void before even discussing the First Amendment. However, the SC wouldn't have even heard the case (concerning constitutional violations of religion) if they didn't think there was something that needed to be heard.
Think of it kind of like a baseball game. It's two outs and the game is tied. After the ball is hit, the home team scores the winning run. After a replay challenge is made, they discover that the guy running to second was thrown out before the relay to home which was questionable.
What difference does it make what happened at home? The game is still over so what's the point of reviewing the play at home base?
Either way, this is a point for the good guys. The United States Federal Government is not in charge of telling employers what kind of benefits they have to offer to their employees. Hell, the former Soviet Union probably didn't demand that of their employers.
Under the DumBama administration, our federal government has gotten too strong and too intrusive in our lives. Because if the courts ruled (under any provision) that government has that kind of power to micromanage our personal lives, then we would surly be in a state of tyranny.
So it wasn't a First Amendment case. Why was it so hard for you to admit that?

Two other points. First, you totally misinterpret the scope of that case. The SCOTUS did not say that the Federal Government can't tell employers what kind of benefits they must offer. The decision says nothing of the sort. The decision says that if the government tells employers what kind of benefits they must offer, and if that directive clashes with a close corporation's sincerely held religious belief, then under the RFRA, the religious belief wins. That's it.

Second, under your baseball scenario, the game wouldn't be over because the runner who scored didn't do so before the third out was made at second. Carumba, even baseball is too complicated for you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31102 Jul 6, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so confused. Incorporation is long establish and was not at issue one little bit in the Hobby Lobby case. The RFRA was passed because Congress thought the SCOTUS First Amendment application was too conservative.
You should really set your agenda down for a little bit and look at this without it. When you stop trying to prove something you will be more open to learning.
No you are so confused and do you realize the 2nd Amendment was the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated down the state level in 2010 by the SCOTUS which for years you liberals were restricting people's 2nd Amendment right in liberal places like Chicago, Illinois which the liberals did and proved the are for restricting citizens rights and the problem with the RFRA is if congress wants to alter the RFRA they can since it is Federal Law where as a Constitutional Amendment that requires Constutitional Convention something that Liberal Democrats oppose too and the thing about the RFRA is was proposed & sponsered by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer(D-NY) which that there should be a Red Flag and that there is a Liberal Motive for sure and you yourself made clear that the 1st amendment is too Conservative something Liberals hate like yourself including the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is what you are saying.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31103 Jul 6, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
So it wasn't a First Amendment case. Why was it so hard for you to admit that?
Two other points. First, you totally misinterpret the scope of that case. The SCOTUS did not say that the Federal Government can't tell employers what kind of benefits they must offer. The decision says nothing of the sort. The decision says that if the government tells employers what kind of benefits they must offer, and if that directive clashes with a close corporation's sincerely held religious belief, then under the RFRA, the religious belief wins. That's it.
Second, under your baseball scenario, the game wouldn't be over because the runner who scored didn't do so before the third out was made at second. Carumba, even baseball is too complicated for you.
RFRA is not set in stone and can be amended or repealed by Congress where as a Constitutional Amendment Change requires alot more than just Congress.
Canton

Canton, OH

#31104 Jul 6, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
And do those fundraiser plates come with a free side of Supreme Court Justices? Big Daddy Koch's did. See the difference? Even if you did, you would just twist the words in desperation. Typical rightwing ploy. We see it on here all the time. In fact, when you aren't posting links to the Heritage Foundation, you get busted changing people's words often.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Toledo, OH

#31105 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No you are so confused and do you realize the 2nd Amendment was the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated down the state level in 2010 by the SCOTUS which for years you liberals were restricting people's 2nd Amendment right in liberal places like Chicago, Illinois which the liberals did and proved the are for restricting citizens rights and the problem with the RFRA is if congress wants to alter the RFRA they can since it is Federal Law where as a Constitutional Amendment that requires Constutitional Convention something that Liberal Democrats oppose too and the thing about the RFRA is was proposed & sponsered by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer(D-NY) which that there should be a Red Flag and that there is a Liberal Motive for sure and you yourself made clear that the 1st amendment is too Conservative something Liberals hate like yourself including the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is what you are saying.
Don't go all Unabomber on us, Indy. Holy cow. I haven't made a single political statement on this subject. All I have done was state the simple facts about that case. Your anti-liberal paranoia is making you crazy.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Toledo, OH

#31106 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>RFRA is not set in stone and can be amended or repealed by Congress where as a Constitutional Amendment Change requires alot more than just Congress.
Yeah. What's your point?

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.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 36 min Tpd 21,046
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 1 hr TimeToAct 32,009
The Source of Their Economic Problems Are White... 5 hr Ryan 4
Anyone know Matt Morrow? (Oct '15) Wed yourmom 165
News 18-year-old Arrested After Baby Remains Found Tue bizarre 5
police profiling and illegal procedures (Nov '09) Aug 13 Dkaczmarczyk 50
hamburger wagon (Dec '08) Aug 11 Taint 54

Springboro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springboro Mortgages