http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/16/426850/democratic-women-boycott-issas-contraception-hearing-for-preventing-women-from-testifying/

Quote :

"This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administration’s rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women. Ranking committee member Elijah Cummings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.” And so Cummings, along with the Democratic women on the panel, took their request to the hearing room, demanding that Issa consider the testimony of a female college student. But the California congressman insisted that the hearing should focus on the rules’ alleged infringement on “religious liberty,” not contraception coverage, and denied the request. Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) walked out of the hearing in protest of his decision, citing frustration over the fact that the first panel of witnesses consisted only of male religious leaders against the rule. Holmes Norton said she will not return, calling Issa’s chairmanship an “autocratic regime.”"

2/16/2012 3:19:15 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-13-2012/the-vagina-ideologues

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 3:37 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

2/16/2012 3:35:25 PM

there really a number of different threads that you could've posted this in.

2/16/2012 3:36:15 PM

OH NO God has succesfully found out our evil sick twisted plot to provide total autonomy from abusive government systems and moderation in social protection and defense platforms!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!





serious question though for God: are you the failed underwear bomber from a few years back?


[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ,]

2/16/2012 3:58:40 PM

pack bryan is starting to show signs of cracks

now we get to see if any intelligence shines through or not

move leftward young son; all intelligent people were uninformed libertarians at some point or other

2/16/2012 4:59:59 PM

I love the name of the hearing:

Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?

2/16/2012 5:10:11 PM

Quote :

"Republicans oppose the administration’s rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women."

Allowing employers not to be forced to fund something they find religiously objectionable is NOT the same as allowing employers to prevent their employees from engaging in that action. Way to go, liberals, in engaging in sensationalist and dishonest rhetoric.

2/16/2012 5:29:35 PM

aaronburro how the fuck could you identify something honest unless you were simply pointing to the words flowing from your own mouth

2/16/2012 6:18:32 PM

Quote :

"Allowing employers not to be forced to fund something they find religiously objectionable is NOT the same as allowing employers to prevent their employees from engaging in that action. Way to go, liberals, in engaging in sensationalist and dishonest rhetoric."

Except religious organizations aren't required to pay at all. Oh drat, those pesky facts getting in the way again.

2/16/2012 7:47:17 PM

Do these religious organization have to pay for the employee's insurance?

2/16/2012 11:15:48 PM

minus the cost of contraception, which has to be covered by the insurers without raising the cost of the premium.

2/16/2012 11:27:22 PM

It's dumb to be against birth control.

I don't like being forced to pay for wars, to support the oil industry, to provide tax breaks for some religious groups, to provide welfare checks to some of the scum on welfare, and tons of other things the gov does.

It's in the catholic's leadership's rights to whine about it, but they are just helping to point out how out of touch they are with reality.

This isn't an issue of rights or morality, this is an issue of separation of church and state. We don't tailor our laws to cater to the backwards beliefs of a religion. If the muslims were making ridiculous demands who would have sympathy? No one. It's the catholics and they somehow think they're entitled to special treatment? LOL...

2/16/2012 11:30:13 PM

Quote :

"minus the cost of contraception, which has to be covered by the insurers without raising the cost of the premium."

But it's covered by the insurer, and the church has to pay for the insurance?

I have a problem with the fact that insurance is even covering things like birth control since it ultimately serves to drive up costs, but why are we forcing people to pay for things they find morally objectionable?

Quote :

"It's dumb to be against birth control. "

I'm not against birth control. I'm against the federal government requiring that insurance cover birth control.

Quote :

"I don't like being forced to pay for wars, to support the oil industry, to provide tax breaks for some religious groups, to provide welfare checks to some of the scum on welfare, and tons of other things the gov does."

Me either. So why should we be forced to pay for those things?

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

2/17/2012 12:11:39 AM

Obama says obamacare health insurance mandate is not a tax.

When his admin goes to court to fight for this mandate, they say it is constitutional because it is a tax.


Obama says it's not right that those with insurance must bear the burden of those without insurance.

Obama says it's not right for those with money to not bear the burden of those without money.

2/17/2012 12:14:02 AM

Quote :

"But it's covered by the insurer, and the church has to pay for the insurance? I have a problem with the fact that insurance is even covering things like birth control since it ultimately serves to drive up costs, but why are we forcing people to pay for things they find morally objectionable? "

A)Contraception lowers the cost of insurance.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/10/us-usa-contraceptives-factsheet-idUSTRE81919J20120210
B)No part of the cost of the insurance that the church has to pay for goes toward contraception. It has nothing to do with paying for what they find morally objectionable anymore. It only has to do with them wanting to limit their employees from getting what they find morally objectionable. Payment has been removed from the equation. It's only about control.

2/17/2012 12:21:47 AM

So you're saying that the insurance company does not pay for birth control? Are funds within an insurance company not fungible?

2/17/2012 12:43:40 AM

Sigh.

Can we just skip to the point where you call taxation evil?

2/17/2012 12:47:38 AM

Quote :

"minus the cost of contraception, which has to be covered by the insurers without raising the cost of the premium."

did you really say that with a straight face?

Quote :

"We don't tailor our laws to cater to the backwards beliefs of a religion."

Oh. So there's no problem, then, saying that people can't go to church on Sunday. No need to "cater to them", right?

2/17/2012 12:47:53 AM

remember when the US didn't invade every single form of privacy and aspect of life and yet somehow we thrived beyond belief



oh wait it's because we weren't 100% lazy asshole motherfuckers who felt entitled to everything everybody else has


how the fuck did we survive without uncle sam bailing us out 10's of trillions every couple years? anybody???

2/17/2012 12:47:54 AM

I don't think it should be up to each employer to determine what qualifies as "health-care"; what you should be allowed to spend your FSA on.

2/17/2012 12:54:07 AM

Quote :

"did you really say that with a straight face?"

So you're saying that this, precisely the "compromise" outlined directly by the President, is false?

Quote :

"remember when the US didn't invade every single form of privacy and aspect of life and yet somehow we thrived beyond belief"

LOL, providing avenues for women to get contraceptives is "an invasion of privacy."

The answer to your question is, we survived like shit. Women, children, and black people were treated even worse than they are today. Average life expectancy was pathetic, standard of living pathetic. But you're right, I'm not sure why we ever gave up tribal hunter-gatherer behavior and tethered ourselves to societies.

2/17/2012 12:55:13 AM

Quote :

"So you're saying that this, precisely the "compromise" outlined directly by the President, is false?"

yes, because, as someone else said, the money spent by insurance companies is fungible. They "lower" the cost by 5 bux for the contraceptives and increase the price of everything else by 5 bux. Ergo, people who have a religious objection to contraceptives are still paying for contraceptives, as mandated by the federal gov't and in direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

2/17/2012 12:59:01 AM

Well that too would be in direct opposition to the stated compromise of "without raising premiums."

So, unless the President is a explicit liar about this topic, I'm not sure wehre you're coming from.

2/17/2012 1:15:47 AM

The OP misused "literally": https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/wiki/literal#Etymology

I see no mustache here.

2/17/2012 2:13:52 AM

the republicans became the 'party of faith' back in the 80's





and now the democrats have become the party of "anti-faith / anti-religion" and it's working brilliantly

2/17/2012 8:55:02 AM

Quote :

"but why are we forcing people to pay for things they find morally objectionable?"

I'm sure every person in the country could name something that they find morally objectionable and is being supported by tax dollars. The catholic church is not being uniquely oppressed, they're simply finding out what happens when you're in the minority opinion.

2/17/2012 9:29:08 AM

^^lol, there is no anti-religion party in this country.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2012 9:29:31 AM

^^^^



What party appeals to the most atheists? And how many people do not vote for the GOP because they feel that their policies are motivated by religion? Just because it's not black and white and well defined doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm not saying the GOP is a good representation of a faith party either, but it comes off as one. Though whenever Obama uses the Bible to justify higher taxes I cringe a little.



[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM. Reason : lol]

2/17/2012 9:30:30 AM

So this is where repubs sack up to defend the constitution? Absolutely astounding

2/17/2012 10:32:53 AM

Quote :

"What party appeals to the most atheists? And how many people do not vote for the GOP because they feel that their policies are motivated by religion? Just because it's not black and white and well defined doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm not saying the GOP is a good representation of a faith party either, but it comes off as one. Though whenever Obama uses the Bible to justify higher taxes I cringe a little. "

"appeals most to the most atheists" does not equal "anti-religion" by a fucking country mile.

Keeping religion out of the government is not "anti-religion" either. That Democrats generally do a better job of this (they still do a really shitty job) is the only reason they would appeal to an atheist.

You're overlooking the fact that rationalists tend to be liberals aside from their beliefs on gods. The only thing my atheism says about me is that I don't believe in gods. It doesn't inform any of my other beliefs; in actually it's a consequence of my other beliefs.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

2/17/2012 10:35:52 AM

anti-constitution too

just admit it liberals. you hate that document. you believe it should have about 1000000x more information to clearly define how govt needs to control every aspect and opinion of your unmotivated lives.

you have every reason to believe 'society' should make every decision for you and take care of you. like somehow by making the rule book thicker you can force the principles of the golden rule down societies collective (and broke might i add) throat.


so yeh, let's fund everything, lets fucking print money until it means nothing! yay! and pretend that it takes care of us all! that -15trillion balance on the bank account. just ignore that. dont worry about it. and when it hits -25 trillion when obama leaves office, keep ignoring it.

and keep ignoring the wars obama continues to fight in

and keep ignoring obamas silence on social issues. (good for him. govt can get the fuck out my social life)

but yeh... the GOP is the mustache-twirling villian. keep thinking that

2/17/2012 11:19:07 AM

Quote :

"I'm sure every person in the country could name something that they find morally objectionable and is being supported by tax dollars. The catholic church is not being uniquely oppressed, they're simply finding out what happens when you're in the minority opinion."

so, fuck the Constitution, you know, the document that was supposed to protect rights and shit. don't EVER complain about anything being unConstitutional again. ever. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

2/17/2012 11:22:46 AM

california votes by popular vote to ban gay marriage

might i include that latino and black vote was heavily anti-gay.

the white vote was the reason it was a respectable turnout pro-gay


and a judge overturns it all. yep so much for "popular opinion" theory. we don't have that type of society. we have a bunch of legislatures and judges that think they know whats best for society making societies rules.

2/17/2012 11:31:01 AM

exactly. some people are happy to hide behind popular opinion when it suits them, but then when it doesn't, they go crying about the Constitution.

2/17/2012 11:32:31 AM

obama doesnt have a mustache

2/17/2012 11:32:44 AM

i wish everything was popular opinion


half this shit would be thrown squarely in their faces. it would be beautiful. no hiding behind the phoney media pretending everybody has that certain opinion.

2/17/2012 11:34:40 AM

Quote :

"anti-constitution too"

lol, ill bet you can type that with a straight face after all the collective shits your conservative brethren have taken of the document. I actually agree with them on the church contraceptive issue, but to act like they're champions of the constitution is laughable.

2/17/2012 12:26:27 PM

inorite? patriot act, what?

2/17/2012 12:28:08 PM

Quote :

"exactly. some people are happy to hide behind popular opinion when it suits them, but then when it doesn't, they go crying about the Constitution."

Isn't that exactly what the church is doing right now?

Quote :

"i wish everything was popular opinion half this shit would be thrown squarely in their faces. it would be beautiful. no hiding behind the phoney media pretending everybody has that certain opinion. "

Yeah, because fuck women and fuck black people, and fuck homosexuals, and fuck atheists.

I can't believe grown people actually think this way.

2/17/2012 2:24:22 PM

LITERALLY

2/17/2012 2:29:00 PM

Quote :

"That Democrats generally do a better job of this (they still do a really shitty job) is the only reason they would appeal to an atheist."

That's what I was saying. I wasn't trying to imply that Democrats or atheists are anti-religion. GOP social issues are more based on faith values, so it would make sense that these would polarize atheists against the GOP. Of course why everyone (politicians included) is so focused on social issues like abortion and gay marriage in the current state of the world is beyond me.

2/17/2012 2:32:44 PM

I absolutely love that this is the social issue the GOP has decided to rally around for 2012, now that they can no longer win on the economy/taxes. 100% of women are going to be against them. Most Independents regardless of sex will be against them. If they keep this up, not only will Obama easily win reelection, but Nancy Pelosi is going to be laughing all the way to Boehner's chair.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM. Reason : :]

2/17/2012 3:01:37 PM

ITT we find out that God literally doesn't know how to use the word literally

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 3:04 PM. Reason : d]

2/17/2012 3:03:31 PM

Quote :

"oh wait it's because we weren't 100% lazy asshole motherfuckers who felt entitled to everything everybody else has how the fuck did we survive without uncle sam bailing us out 10's of trillions every couple years? anybody???"

If only I could find an easy to access, accurate source of information against which I could check my claims and answer my questions

Time to grow up and be a mental adult. Do some research and answer this question for yourself, see how well "we" survived, and what happened. I suggest looking at measures of inflation.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2012 3:15:38 PM

measures of inflation? you mean, like the ones that show the dollar has lost something like 95% of its value this century under the perfect, watchful eye of the fed? or the fact that the silver content of a quarter from 1975 still buys the same amount of stuff now as it did then, while the quarter, itself, buys so much less?

2/17/2012 3:18:11 PM

Does someone have to hold a gun to aaronburro's head to make him open up google.com just once in his life? There are ways to actually get information without consulting your intuition or some factoid you read on a popsicle stick.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2012 3:37:53 PM

Government interference in the realm of money and banking did not start in 1913. I have educated you on this before, and you didn't listen. I'm not going to rehash what I've already said, but the 1800s is full of examples of banks issuing notes, and when they were called upon to redeem specie (gold and silver on which the money was backed), the government gave them permission to renege on their commitments and issue notes without hard backing.

2/17/2012 3:43:34 PM

So please, do point us to a time in history when our money was truly sound. As always I'm anxious to see if your beliefs are based on anything aside from idealized a priori fantasies.

2/17/2012 3:51:40 PM

After a severe period of inflation spurred by the Second Bank of the United States, we had the Panic of 1837 - a period of severe deflation. After that, banks went back to only accepting specie for notes. For the following 4 years, most of the bad debt was liquidated, unsound banks were eliminated. However, consumption actually increases substantially during the same period, moving into the early 1840s. For the decades following, we had relatively sound currency.

Of course, there's nothing saying that currency has to be gold or silver. That's just what was used. The only thing to take away is that it should be backed by something, because when it isn't, banks and the government create money at the expense of others.

[Edited on February 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2012 4:33:11 PM

Quote :

"However, consumption actually increases substantially during the same period, moving into the early 1840s."

Source? Seems odd for consumption to rise during a depression marked by record high unemployment.

2/17/2012 4:43:26 PM