I liked it.DaGip wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nice dig, Symm!
Moderator: Community Team
I liked it.DaGip wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nice dig, Symm!
Phatty's favorite TV show:Symmetry wrote:I liked it.DaGip wrote:Symmetry wrote:Nice dig, Symm!
Army of GOD wrote:This thread is now about my large penis

a6mzero wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the biggest question, why are corporations forced to provide healthcare anyway? I always thought this was offered to employees as a "benefit" now it is a mandate. And why is there so much regulation around what should be forced into the plan that they choose to offer?
Jesus u should be a lobbyist for the poor suffering Koch brothers. Always enjoy hearing from the average American joe about how much they enjoy getting screwed by corporations.Hell why force them to pay min. wage we could all work for $2/hr and apply for Medicaid for our health insurance.
And you call other people wingnuts? Whatever man, do what you do.a6mzero wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the biggest question, why are corporations forced to provide healthcare anyway?
Jesus u should be a lobbyist for the poor suffering Koch brothers.
It was just another angle at a law that was deemed constitutional. They only challenged a statute. Lets face it , if it was about dentures it never would have made the news. What HOBBY LOBBY doesnt offer the bestest porcelain teeth, porcelain so good i can flush on it forever. I have an example thats very close to home,first off my wife holds a high position in a company that administers health plan coverage ( example blue cross blue shield of minnesota ,if you have it your speaking to her peoples , our health insurance premiums will make you cry for a family of four). my wife has psoriasis, enbrel is one of the most promising drugs to date, although there is no cure for psoriasis, enbrel, builds and maintains a level in your body to combat flare up. It has been around for quite a few years and is still discussed as being in the clinical stage ( are promising abortion meds classified in this manner?) Its delivered in weekly doses that she must inject herself ( cost 400 dollars per injection Thats 20k a year ) Our insurance pays for half that and we are gratefulWoodruff wrote:Actually, you do bring up a good point in my wording...My problem isn't actually the RULING ITSELF - rather, it is Hobby Lobby's position that led to the ruling.danfrank666 wrote:I support the ruling and I`m pro choice. The Kermit Gosnells of the world will be dealt with accordingly. Increase future abortions for Hobby Lobby Employees ?. Hobby Lobby is one of the highest paying entry level retailers . I believe their diligent when hiring .In the end, It all comes down to personal responsibility. What they cover is sufficient . The gov`t doesn`t cover allWoodruff wrote:Did you feel any of this actually counters what I said? Because it doesn't, at all. Did you have a response to my point?danfrank666 wrote:When your interviewed by hobby lobby they explain that they are deeply rooted in the catholic community and if you dont like it , you can get the f*ck out. A win for religious LIBERTY.Woodruff wrote:Anyone who supports the recent Supreme Court ruling AND feels that abortion should be illegal really needs to take a serious look at their values. The ability for a woman to have easy access to contraceptives helps to prevent unwanted pregnancies which LITERALLY helps to keep down the need for abortions. Thus, this ruling actually acts to INCREASE future abortions due to unwanted pregnancies.. Politically , it`s another scheme to divide and conquer.
Just because i quoted you doesn`t mean i disagree . I support the ruling , If your logical you should too.
Wow, you finally said something i may agree with, women should be paid for a said period of time to nurture a newborn child. Yet again an outline needs to be established so that career babymakers cannot exploit. And that my friend is why a statute doesnt already exist. Where do you draw the fuckn line with you race and gender baiters. I have a great idea , you can become me , hell send me to the gasser to avenge WWII deaths and then you can take whats mine without a trace. A6mzero ( eightysixemzero is that what that means ? we should 86 you)a6mzero wrote: the scope of family leave laws. This assault on women should come as no surprise,.
I suppose you believe that corporations actually pay the corporate tax and that it isn't just passed onto the consumer. Higher minimum wages just mean higher prices for you at the cash register. i.e. Legislated Inflation.a6mzero wrote:Jesus u should be a lobbyist for the poor suffering Koch brothers. Always enjoy hearing from the average American joe about how much they enjoy getting screwed by corporations.Hell why force them to pay min. wage we could all work for $2/hr and apply for Medicaid for our health insurance.patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the biggest question, why are corporations forced to provide healthcare anyway? I always thought this was offered to employees as a "benefit" now it is a mandate. And why is there so much regulation around what should be forced into the plan that they choose to offer?
danfrank666 wrote:a6mzero wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the biggest question, why are corporations forced to provide healthcare anyway? I always thought this was offered to employees as a "benefit" now it is a mandate. And why is there so much regulation around what should be forced into the plan that they choose to offer?
Jesus u should be a lobbyist for the poor suffering Koch brothers. Always enjoy hearing from the average American joe about how much they enjoy getting screwed by corporations.Hell why force them to pay min. wage we could all work for $2/hr and apply for Medicaid for our health insurance.
its obvious you dont understand the term of investment( one with no capital always will , you penniless fool) , its more than having babies and getting YOUR taxes back.
Phatscotty wrote:And you call other people wingnuts? Whatever man, do what you do.a6mzero wrote:patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the biggest question, why are corporations forced to provide healthcare anyway?
Jesus u should be a lobbyist for the poor suffering Koch brothers.
not to mention; the Koch brothers do not even come close to spending as much as 1/10th of what your average public unions spends. Just more conspiracies from the guy calling other people wingnuts.patrickaa317 wrote:I suppose you believe that corporations actually pay the corporate tax and that it isn't just passed onto the consumer. Higher minimum wages just mean higher prices for you at the cash register. i.e. Legislated Inflation.a6mzero wrote:Jesus u should be a lobbyist for the poor suffering Koch brothers. Always enjoy hearing from the average American joe about how much they enjoy getting screwed by corporations.Hell why force them to pay min. wage we could all work for $2/hr and apply for Medicaid for our health insurance.patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the biggest question, why are corporations forced to provide healthcare anyway? I always thought this was offered to employees as a "benefit" now it is a mandate. And why is there so much regulation around what should be forced into the plan that they choose to offer?
$2/hour is more than the record 92 MILLION people out of the labor force currently make when they are NOT going to work... Then again there is a record 14 MILLION people getting a disability check.
Meanwhile, Koch Industries only employs 60,000 people. 1.4 Million people work at the evil world of WalMart. For all the people who bitch about how walmart treats its employees, there are about 10 times more people that collect disability checks from the government than that work at WalMart. If you know only one person who works at Walmart, odds are you still know 10 people who collect a disability check from the government.
Have a great day!
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
The difference is that Hobby Lobby went about it as if religion was the issue. If they had simply stated that their insurance would not pay for those four birth control methods, there likely would never have been an outcry. Their mistake was in making it a religious issue unnecessarily and frankly stupidly. Religion didn't have a place in it because they're a business, not a religious organization.danfrank666 wrote:It was just another angle at a law that was deemed constitutional. They only challenged a statute. Lets face it , if it was about dentures it never would have made the news.Woodruff wrote: Actually, you do bring up a good point in my wording...My problem isn't actually the RULING ITSELF - rather, it is Hobby Lobby's position that led to the ruling.
Not if they're going to claim to be against abortion, it isn't...no. Then it's not only logical, but practical.danfrank666 wrote:Walk into your place of employment tomorrow and say they should give me rubbers for free , hell hand`em out with each paycheck. isnt that rediculous
Career babymakers? Where do you people get these stupid ideas?danfrank666 wrote:Wow, you finally said something i may agree with, women should be paid for a said period of time to nurture a newborn child. Yet again an outline needs to be established so that career babymakers cannot exploit.a6mzero wrote: the scope of family leave laws. This assault on women should come as no surprise,.
You might be an idiot if you think very many liberals actually think that.jay_a2j wrote:1. You might be a liberal if you think that the Supreme Court just banned use of all birth control.
You might be an idiot if you think very many liberals actually think that.jay_a2j wrote:2. You might be a liberal if you think logic and reason are gender biased.
You might be an idiot if you think a company isn't hypocritical for not claiming to dislike abortion while simultaneously denying their workers easier access to methods by which they can avoid being in a position where they may feel the need for one.jay_a2j wrote:3. You might be a liberal if you think the Hobby Lobby case is NOT about abortion.
You might be an idiot if you think very many liberals actually think that.jay_a2j wrote:4. You might be a liberal if you think all women just lost access to affordable contraception.
You might be an idiot if you think very many liberals actually think that.jay_a2j wrote:5. You might be a liberal if you think your boss will now make birth-control decisions for you.
You might be an idiot if you don't even have the very basic understanding of what global warming is about.jay_a2j wrote:FACT: The hottest month on record was July 1936, but liberals are still trying to shove man-made global warming down your throat.
You might be an idiot if you think that conservatives like yourself are that interested in it.jay_a2j wrote:7. You might be a liberal if you accuse conservatives of not being able to read the First Amendment.
If they had only stated their insurance wouldn't pay for those birth control methods, the government would have simply said "screw you, we mandated it be covered so cover it now". And since they can apparently mandate that we buy anything, the government would have won the case. However, since a person doesn't lose their first amendment rights, including the freedom of religion, simply because they run a business, the people sued the government for infringing on their religious freedoms. Just because you don't believe in the religion doesn't mean religious beliefs stop as soon as a person enters the public sphere.Woodruff wrote:The difference is that Hobby Lobby went about it as if religion was the issue. If they had simply stated that their insurance would not pay for those four birth control methods, there likely would never have been an outcry. Their mistake was in making it a religious issue unnecessarily and frankly stupidly. Religion didn't have a place in it because they're a business, not a religious organization.danfrank666 wrote:It was just another angle at a law that was deemed constitutional. They only challenged a statute. Lets face it , if it was about dentures it never would have made the news.Woodruff wrote: Actually, you do bring up a good point in my wording...My problem isn't actually the RULING ITSELF - rather, it is Hobby Lobby's position that led to the ruling.
The republicans could give a ratsass about the 1st and 4th amendments.All they really care about is POWER.jay_a2j wrote:1. You might be a liberal if you think that the Supreme Court just banned use of all birth control.
FACT: SCOTUS based its ruling on the law, which is what good judges always do.
So according to John Roberts and the 4 corporist's the previous 200 years worth of rulings on the matter of corporations being able to claim
exemptions from the law based on religion are now all null and void.
7. You might be a liberal if you accuse conservatives of not being able to read the First Amendment.
a6mzero wrote:
The republicans could give a ratsass about the 1st and 4th amendments.All they really care about is POWER.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
a6mzero wrote: The republicans could give a ratsass about the 1st and 4th amendments.All they really care about is POWER.
JESUS SAVES!!!PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.
Supreme Court already held up the insurance mandate. The government can already tell citizens how they have to spend their income. But you are ok with that because democrat = good, right?a6mzero wrote:Now that John Roberts and the 4 corporist's have ruled your employer not your doctor will be making your health care decisions they will next rule employer's can tell employees how to spend their money.
It's probably not free though, unlike the birth control mandate for women's contraceptives.AndyDufresne wrote:I'm still glad my vasectomies are covered though.
So why is the employer paying for the health care if they can't make decisions? By the way, your entire premise is completely flawed: there are exactly zero health insurance policies that cover every single health care procedure that exists. That means that employers are already involved in making health care decisions because they have decided not to buy health insurance that covers everything.a6mzero wrote:Now that John Roberts and the 4 corporist's have ruled your employer not your doctor will be making your health care decisions they will next rule employer's can tell employees how to spend their money.