“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3282 Jan 26, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely untrue and has been for decades. The federal government gives Planned Parenthood half a billion a year, I believe. 82% is providing abortions. The other 8% is adoption referrals and birth control.
I feel like writing in red across my 1040 I DON'T PAY FOR ABORTIONS'
You see, junior. There are many of us, and we are not fanatics, that know it is murder and think if you're going to be pro-choice....make the choice before you climb in bed....or the back of truck or wherever.
So when you begin having intimate relations, if it is with a woman, use protection so they won't be killing your child.
I believe that your numbers may be off. I believe that 8-9% of Planned Parenthood's activities are abortion--with the rest being birth control, routine gynecological care, education, breast screenings and the like.

Not that it matters, because Federal dollars exclusively fund the non-abortion activities. Abortions are funded through other sourcesp--with some pretty stringent financial firewalls.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3283 Jan 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are forcing a religious institution to include them in its coverage, you are forcing them to buy the drugs.
It's no different than forcing Jews to sell pork, even though it isn't kosher.
Are you suggesting that Jews should get a rebate on any portion of taxes that they pay every buy pork? The US actually buys a lot of agricultural products, one way and another.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#3284 Jan 26, 2013
Clint Northwood wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe the 2nd Amendement needs Revised? It's been almost 250 years.
and so is the 1st amendment

maybe you need silenced?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#3285 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't understand how taxes work.
neither do you

you don't pay any
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3286 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It's not my thumbs I am worried about. It's the coloring book you use for your history lessons. You do not have an accurate grasp on it.
Then prove me wrong with something other than a childish retort.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3287 Jan 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully this begins an era of rollback of the imperial presidency.
Where should the rollback and judicial review of appointments and decisions made by those appointees stop ? With the 105 recess appointments made during the Bush Administration? How about back to the 243 made by Reagan?

Or should the electorate, and the President simply remain satisfied with purposeful obstruction in the legislature through devious procedural ploys as the status quo ?

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3288 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
what's so complicated about it? It's an enumeration of a pre-existing individual right, which the government is forbidden from infringing upon.
Its much more than that Tony.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3289 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
And your side tries to make complicated things that aren't.
"shall not be infringed".
Making things that take actual facts, thought, and analysis "simple" produces inaccurate conclusions Tony.

woof
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#3290 Jan 26, 2013
Seriouslady wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly my point. We cannot afford it. That it kills self respect and ambition and breeds another generation of the same are side issues.
And let me further add to this, from my personal knowledge, the live in baby-poppa, or whoever, is usually working 'under the table', and often collecting unemployment at the same time. Then when he files his return, because he gets a 1099 for the unemployment, he gets a $800.00 'make work' credit for COLLECTING unemployment.
I look at the children in these households, and KNOW that they are doomed.
I'll tell you, they all have the latest, greatest cellphones and great fake nail manicures.
We cannot afford it. Leave SS and medicare alone!
Ahhh, and there the truth is in the response...'they have the latest, greatest cellphones and great fake nail manicures'. Oh, poor me! Why do 'they' get to live like a human being and have stuff? They should be eating gruel and bread with water, instead of driving a Lexus and wearing fur coats. Oh, poor me.
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#3291 Jan 26, 2013
-The-Artist- wrote:
<quoted text>
And you side with Mohammed Morsi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Khamenei, Mahmoud Abbas, Hassan Nassarallah, Enzyte Bob, Bashar Assad and Vladimir Putin.
See how that works
Will Obama have a beer and a laugh with those guys? Excluding Enzyte, of course.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3292 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then prove me wrong with something other than a childish retort.
woof
It's quite easy, all you have to do is post the link or reference you are using. I see that after asking for it, instead of doing something that would be simple for you, all you have posted is rhetoric and nothing resembling it.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3293 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Where should the rollback and judicial review of appointments and decisions made by those appointees stop ? With the 105 recess appointments made during the Bush Administration? How about back to the 243 made by Reagan?
Or should the electorate, and the President simply remain satisfied with purposeful obstruction in the legislature through devious procedural ploys as the status quo ?
woof
You do understand that the problem with Obama's recess appointments is that congress was in fact, not on recess and open for business the very days he made the appointments right? The act of a recess appointment in and of itself is not a bad thing (although it is typically used to put someone in place temporarily without congressional approval), it's just that the rules set out in the constitution actually need to be followed. I've seen no indication that any of Bush's appointments failed to follow constitutional muster.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3294 Jan 26, 2013
WiseAmerican wrote:
<quoted text> Ahhh, and there the truth is in the response...'they have the latest, greatest cellphones and great fake nail manicures'. Oh, poor me! Why do 'they' get to live like a human being and have stuff? They should be eating gruel and bread with water, instead of driving a Lexus and wearing fur coats. Oh, poor me.
Actually, unemployed people getting money from the government for the support of their existence should be living a lifestyle that is less than people who are working and providing for their own existence. To do otherwise due to government hand outs encourages both that they stay on the government teat and be forever a ward of the state as well as enrage the population that is trying to do it on their own.

Do you think it is odd that welfare recipients think they will take a pay cut if they get a real job?
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3295 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It's quite easy, all you have to do is post the link or reference you are using. I see that after asking for it, instead of doing something that would be simple for you, all you have posted is rhetoric and nothing resembling it.
I already did. Here you go again:

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/BogusChicago.ht...

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3296 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You do understand that the problem with Obama's recess appointments is that congress was in fact, not on recess and open for business the very days he made the appointments right? The act of a recess appointment in and of itself is not a bad thing (although it is typically used to put someone in place temporarily without congressional approval), it's just that the rules set out in the constitution actually need to be followed. I've seen no indication that any of Bush's appointments failed to follow constitutional muster.
Maybe you should look a little deeper into the real issues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-...

woof
WiseAmerican

Columbus, OH

#3297 Jan 26, 2013
This BS is nothing more than sour grapes and political grandstanding.

History proves:

The White House criticized the court ruling.“The decision is novel and unprecedented, and it contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Friday.“We respectfully but strongly disagree with the ruling.”

Presidents from both parties have made hundreds of recess appointments when the Senate has failed to act on nominations. Ronald Reagan holds the record with 243. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, made 105, and it was during his term that Senate Democrats began holding pro-forma sessions, some lasting less than a minute, when the Senate went on break. They contended that that kept the Senate in session and did not allow Bush to make recess appointments.

Republicans took up the practice when Obama was elected. But Obama decided to challenge it in January 2012, when the Senate was on a 20-day holiday but holding pro-forma sessions every three business days to block presidential action.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3298 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should look a little deeper into the real issues.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/court-...
woof
You mean to look into it deep enough to know that the senate was in fact in session when Obama made these recess appointments and that the judges involved in fact did say this was fact comparing it to making recess appointments when the senate is on a lunch break? The article you linked to goes as far as explaining that but perhaps you can explain why keeping the senate open for business during Bush's administration was enough to stop recess appointments (a senate that Obama was in fact part of) but all the sudden when it is inconvenient for Obama, it is meaningless.

Yes, perhaps looking into it will shed some light. The only thing is, you would need to open your eyes in order to notice it.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3299 Jan 26, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
And your side tries to make complicated things that aren't.
"shall not be infringed".
Why aren't you so absolutist about the phrase "A well regulated militia?"
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3300 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>The big difference there would be Jewish employer verses government mandating the payment. If a Jewish employer decides he is willing to pay, it is completely different then a Jewish employer being forced to pay by the government who is bared from making any law respecting the freedom of religion or prohibition of the free exercise thereof.
To put this into something you might be able to understand, imagine if you decided to have a party for your kid or a kid you know. Now imagine the government dictating you throw a party for someone.
If that is your complaint, than there is no relevance as to what types of procedures are covered under the service. The offending action was mandating the insurance itself and the argument ends there.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3301 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
Yeah, I didn't think you had much. Two articles by the same person who does a lot of inferring in his presentation of history. This is also the same guy who wrote that lawsuits were good for America. I doubt this shrill should be taken at face value other then to create controversy in order for his ilk to maintain job security.

It's sort of like all those idiots who claim Christmas is a pagan holiday. True, it has cooped a lot of pagan customs due primarily to the fact that the newly converted roman emperor did away with pagan holidays and instituted what he deemed as christian holidays, it doesn't make it a pagan holiday as the express intent was to remove the pagan association in the first place.

Bogus cites the federalist papers. It is interesting because the federalist papers argue that the bill of rights (the 12 original proposed amendments to the US constitution) were not necessary because the US federal government only has the ability to do what is expressly authorized in the constitution therefore couldn't take the rights away in the first place. It is argued that te placement of a bill of rights would be construed as the only rights and the federal government would pervert itself into taking more then it is capable of under the constitution. Regardless of any inference he reads into the developing situation of the second amendment (the forth originally-), the thought on the subject was always that the federal government could not take the right to keep and use arms from the citizens in the first place.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." Alexander Hamilton, federalist #84 discussing the bill of rights.

Your source is discredited by obvious interpretations of the work he cites.

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.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What ails the black family? Hard realities! 2 hr BacGameon 29
America needs Jesus Christ and the Word of God 4 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 7
Ohio charter schools identified as among worst ... 4 hr Big Johnson 5
INJUSTICE….for sure! 4 hr now hey 29
School Funding Facts 4 hr Big Johnson 2
Every state has ISIS recruits 5 hr They cannot kill ... 124
Scotty Walker: Sarah Palin Version 2.0 8 hr RU_Kiddingme 21
Columbus Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:48 pm PST

Yahoo! Sports 3:48PM
Josh McCown decides to sign with the Cleveland Browns
Yahoo! Sports 4:05 PM
Browns agree to terms with QB McCown
CBS Sports 4:56 PM
QB Josh McCown agrees to terms with the Browns: Three things to know
Bleacher Report 5:19 PM
McCown Signing Doesn't Improve Brutal QB Situation
NFL 8:50 AM
Josh McCown: I want to help Manziel as much as I can