Obama Unites Catholics

[woodchip]

So in one fell swoop the stupendously idiotic, Dumbo eared leader loosely called the President of the now not so United States, alienates 70 million American Catholics by mandating all Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion inducing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employee's. So much for understanding what the Catholic religion is all about. So much for the much vaunted separation of church and state some of you so vigorously support. So much for princess Nancy's "We have to pass Obama Care before we know what's in it". I know Slick thinks Obama is the smartest person around but between Pelosi, Reid,Biden and Obama I should think their combined I.Q. is on par to that of a fruit fly.

[vision]

Get over it.

[Top Gun]

Y'know, I completely agree with the underlying point here, but I still feel massively dumber for having read that post. Dear lord woodchip, just how long is your secret hardon for Obama?

[Tunnelcat]

Let's see. Catholic hospitals are providing health care to everyone in their publicly accessed hospitals, not just by Catholics. Catholic hospitals are taking federal dollars to provide for some of that health care to anyone who wants or needs it. Not all tax dollars come from Catholics in this country, yet Catholics don't want to provide services, ie., contraceptive services, that non-Catholics want. They can't have it both ways. Either serve ONLY Catholics in their hospitals to stay true to their religion, but lose those convenient federal dollars, or give the required treatments and services that non-Catholics want in their hospitals and keep their federal dollars. Simple.

The religions in this country are claiming an attack on their religious freedom by Obama. I say from a non-religious point of view that it's really religion that's attacking everyone else's secular freedom in this country by bringing back the repressive power of the church that was effectively neutered during the 1960's. First it's abortion, now it's contraception. Back to the early twentieth century for women's rights we go.

[callmeslick]

So in one fell swoop the stupendously idiotic, Dumbo eared leader loosely called the President of the now not so United States

seriously, dude, take your meds. Your blind hatred is showing, and while I find it enormously amusing, you look like an ass when you start a post like this.

,

alienates 70 million American Catholics by mandating all Catholic schools, hospitals and charities to buy birth control pills, abortion inducing drugs and sterilization coverage for their employee's

so buying coverage for employees who may or may not be Catholic themselves is forcing them into sin? Odd. By the way, are you a Catholic? If not, what the heck does it matter to you? At any rate, what they want to set up is a rider availability so that the Church institutions can get a waiver, and those that choose, can buy the coverage cheaply. Otherwise, the law would violate Supreme Court rulings on access. That will require Congressional action, and since the Tea Party loons took their seats, Congress and Action are two words seldom seen together.
.
snipped the rest as it is just hyperbolic drivel. My best advice, Woodchip is to avoid speculating on the IQ of others. It invites comparison to your own brainpower, and trust me, dude, that ain't going to be pretty.......

[Foil]

[Mod hat] Keep it professional, folks. [/Mod hat]

To me, it makes sense. If Catholic institutions are getting federal tax dollars, they need to play by federal rules.

Am I missing something?

[Top Gun]

I think what you're missing is that there are already any number of "conscience exemptions" for various institutions, yet this particular stipulation conveys incredibly narrow restrictions on how that exemption can be used, i.e. only for institutions dealing with purely-religious business. As far as I know, this is fairly unprecedented; the vast majority of states that have similar coverage laws offer much more reasonable exemptions that allow institutions like Catholic hospitals to continue to operate according to their beliefs. The bottom line for me is that there are other venues that offer services like contraception and sterilization coverage, often for cheap/free, so why should these institutions be forced into paying for services that go against their fundamental beliefs? As I saw someone put it, "Why would I walk into a Jewish deli and expect to buy a roast pork sandwich?"

[Spidey]

Personally I can’t see how the government has the right to require any insurance company to cover birth control, let alone a religious organization.

Birth control is a personal choice…period. (yea yea, there are health benefits to eating cheese too)

[callmeslick]

[Mod hat] Keep it professional, folks. [/Mod hat]

To me, it makes sense. If Catholic institutions are getting federal tax dollars, they need to play by federal rules.

Am I missing something?

no

[callmeslick]

[Mod hat] Keep it professional, folks. [/Mod hat]

apologies for any role of mine, but you might end up with issues whenever a poster starts with childish gibberish such as:

"..... the stupendously idiotic, Dumbo eared leader loosely called the President ......"

this doesn't exactly cry out for a 'professional' response.

[Spidey]

If taking money from the devil means you have to sell your soul to the devil, I would tell the devil where to put his money.

[Ferno]

oh no, a pragmatic decision to give people a choice.

hilarious first post.

[woodchip]

So in one fell swoop the stupendously idiotic, Dumbo eared leader loosely called the President of the now not so United States

seriously, dude, take your meds. Your blind hatred is showing, and while I find it enormously amusing, you look like an ass when you start a post like this.


snipped the rest as it is just hyperbolic drivel. My best advice, Woodchip is to avoid speculating on the IQ of others. It invites comparison to your own brainpower, and trust me, dude, that ain't going to be pretty.......

And your IQ should be measured how by your recent statement,"Of recent years, as the GOP has gotten loonier and loonier," ? A intellectually superior turn of phrase? Perhaps the old adage about living in a glass house applies here. Anytime you want to demonstrate cranial superiority please do so. BTW it may surprise you but I don't hate Obama, just what he is doing to the country.

[woodchip]

[Mod hat] Keep it professional, folks. [/Mod hat]

apologies for any role of mine, but you might end up with issues whenever a poster starts with childish gibberish such as:

"..... the stupendously idiotic, Dumbo eared leader loosely called the President ......"

this doesn't exactly cry out for a 'professional' response.

And his ears don't remind you of Dumbo?

[woodchip]

that's attacking everyone else's secular freedom in this country by bringing back the repressive power of the church that was effectively neutered during the 1960's. First it's abortion, now it's contraception. Back to the early twentieth century for women's rights we go.

You approve of the modern way where:

"Girls as young as 13 have been fitted with contraceptive implants at school without their parents knowing. The procedure was carried out in Southampton, Hants, as part of a government initiative to drive down teenage pregnancies. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... chool.html

You want that here TC? You want schools tacitly saying pedophilia is ok? There is something sick with a school administration in league with the govt. say it is ok to bang a thirteen year old because now she is protected. Who knows maybe in a few years teachers will get a gold star and a warm fuzzy for popping a young girls cherry. Better a teacher does it and gives a sex ed. demonstration at the same time. \o/ a two fer. So where do you draw the line TC ?

[woodchip]

Dear lord woodchip, just how long is your secret hardon for Obama?

At least I can still get a hard-on. And hopefully come November I'll find someone else to get erect over.

[woodchip]

[Mod hat] Keep it professional, folks. [/Mod hat]

To me, it makes sense. If Catholic institutions are getting federal tax dollars, they need to play by federal rules.

Am I missing something?

Yes, the part about separation of religion and the Govt. Just because a entity receives money does not mean the feds have a right to usurp the religions core doctrine. We are narrowly walking the line where our federal govt. is becoming the arbiter of what religions may or may not do just because the govt. grants them money to use. I suppose though Foil, if you don't mind us going down the atheist road and the Govt. becomes the new Messiah then keep thinking that any rules the Govt. deigns to issue are good and just.

[Burlyman]

Birth control is a personal choice…period. (yea yea, there are health benefits to eating cheese too)

Murder is a personal choice too Just sayin' On the other hand, it's not like most pro-lifers really care about life either. They're real content with paying their taxes and sending their children off to be human targets overseas.

Personally I can’t see how the government has the right to require any insurance company to cover birth control, let alone a religious organization.

Yeah

Hey, it's not like Catholicism is all about purity either 9_9
I don't think the government cares about religion or stepping over lines... that's how many people think though; you have a point there, woody. Out of fear and irresponsibility arises the human god, and the public demand is high. So, the politician meets incredibility with incredibility, hypocrisy with hypocrisy.

And why do republicans always seem to act like none of their precedents are ever stupid? What about Bush Jr.?

[Foil]

...there are already any number of "conscience exemptions" for various institutions...

Ah, now that's something I wasn't aware of. Any specific examples similar to the topic at hand?

[Tunnelcat]

Personally I can’t see how the government has the right to require any insurance company to cover birth control, let alone a religious organization.

Birth control is a personal choice…period. (yea yea, there are health benefits to eating cheese too)

It's an awful BIG personal choice that has years long consequences, including health consequences, especially for the woman. It also has negative social consequences, like abortions or sudden family preparedness issues. Babies should always be wanted and planned for, not end up as one night stand accidents. Preventing the later is far better for society as a whole, not just for Catholics. If they don't want to bend their rules for those who are non-Catholic when they're serving the public at large in their hospitals, they shouldn't take federal funds or represent federal healthcare coverage, period.

Besides, 58% of American Catholics believe that an employer should provide health care plans that include contraception coverage and 98% actually use those contraceptives. A lot of American Catholics aren't following their own church's dogma.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/N ... |FRONTPAGE


Edit for Foil from the above link.

The Jan. 20 decision allows an exemption for religious groups such as churches. So a Catholic parish, for example, does not have to provide contraception in its health care plans. But the decision also says that religiously-affiliated institutions that serve people outside its religious groups -- such as a Catholic hospital that treats patients of different backgrounds -- are not exempt and must include contraception in its health plans for employees. The decision would affect metro Detroit institutions like St. John Providence Health System, which currently does not provide contraception coverage for its employees.

[callmeslick]

And your IQ should be measured how by your recent statement,"Of recent years, as the GOP has gotten loonier and loonier," ?

I'll stand by it, gladly. I'm not assailing someone on their ears or being disrespectful of an elected leader, at the very least.

A intellectually superior turn of phrase?

compared to your post, sure it is.

Perhaps the old adage about living in a glass house applies here. Anytime you want to demonstrate cranial superiority please do so. BTW it may surprise you but I don't hate Obama, just what he is doing to the country.

which would be?


Oh, and this divisive President is now ahead of any potential GOP candidate in Virginia and North Carolina in several reliable polls. Now mind you, these are merely polls and as such merely general indicators. If that holds up, game over, get used to a two term Obama presidency.

[flip]

Elected representative. Calling him a leader is incorrect and laughable all at the same time.

[callmeslick]

...oh, and back onto the core topic. One misconception in this matter that I've heard repeated a lot is about Catholic Hospitals serving all religions. That, while true, is completely impertinent. This is about insurance for employees, and the freedom of religion of those employees. Note that all the right-wing blather centers on the religious view of the EMPLOYER, but that employer has utterly no right to trample the choices and beliefs of the employees. Several here have pointed out the silliness of the initial assertion that this will upset all Catholics, far from it. As stated, over 90% of Catholic women under 45 have used contraception and around 60% strongly support the position of the administration. At the same time, the issue serves to galvanize activist women's groups(a core constituency that works like hell for the Dems), and the more the right wingnuts go on about it as a religious based campaign issue, folks who oppose Church involvement in politics(prime example: my father, a 91 year old, very conservative Freemason) are cutting checks to the Obama campaign. Sometimes, stuff that strikes folks like Woodchip as being stupid sort of turn out to be quite savvy, because, thankfully, only a small percentage of the US population thinks like him......

[callmeslick]

Elected representative. Calling him a leader is incorrect and laughable all at the same time.

every bit as much as writing the above about the elected head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces?
Actually, calling the chief Executive an elected representative is erroneous. My wording was correct. Your Congressional delegation are your representatives, the President is an administrator and yes, a leader. Oddly, over 1.6 million of your fellow citizens have donated their hard-earned money to his re-election effort already. Apparently, they view him as a leader.

[Top Gun]

...there are already any number of "conscience exemptions" for various institutions...

Ah, now that's something I wasn't aware of. Any specific examples similar to the topic at hand?

I wasn't really thinking of specific examples similar to these exact circumstances, but more along the lines of something like "conscientious objector" status for military conscription, which I view along the same lines. I did see a reference somewhere that Amish-owned businesses are exempt from having to provide health insurance in the first place, but I haven't found anything to back that up. In general, what gets me the most about this decision is that a number of states have similar coverage provisions, but with exceptions that allow Catholic employers to not provide such coverage. I generally view Obama as a reasonable guy, so why he would support such a narrow definition of exemptions is rather beyond me.

...oh, and back onto the core topic. One misconception in this matter that I've heard repeated a lot is about Catholic Hospitals serving all religions. That, while true, is completely impertinent. This is about insurance for employees, and the freedom of religion of those employees. Note that all the right-wing blather centers on the religious view of the EMPLOYER, but that employer has utterly no right to trample the choices and beliefs of the employees. Several here have pointed out the silliness of the initial assertion that this will upset all Catholics, far from it. As stated, over 90% of Catholic women under 45 have used contraception and around 60% strongly support the position of the administration. At the same time, the issue serves to galvanize activist women's groups(a core constituency that works like hell for the Dems), and the more the right wingnuts go on about it as a religious based campaign issue, folks who oppose Church involvement in politics(prime example: my father, a 91 year old, very conservative Freemason) are cutting checks to the Obama campaign. Sometimes, stuff that strikes folks like Woodchip as being stupid sort of turn out to be quite savvy, because, thankfully, only a small percentage of the US population thinks like him......

Even looking beyond my amusement at the concept of contraception coverage as some sort of universal right, there's the basic fact that it's no big secret that the Catholic Church doesn't approve of contraception. If someone felt the desire to work for an employer that covered contraception/sterlization, why would they seek out a job from a Church employer in the first place? There's certainly no one forcing them to seek employment there, and it seems to me extremely disingenuous that someone would get a job somewhere and then demand a coverage provision that their employer is morally opposed to. It's like my deli example: you presumably wouldn't expect one run by Orthodox Jews to have a ham sandwich on the menu, would you? Again, employer-based coverage is hardly the only place to obtain affordable birth control, and that's ignoring whether said birth control should be construed as a regular medical expense in the first place.

And honestly, as far as those polls go, there are a hell of a lot of people out there who call themselves "Catholic" yet attend Mass maybe twice a year, if that. I'm not claiming to be perfect myself (far from it), but I don't put much stock in the opinions of people like that on this matter. If you're legitimately practicing the Catholic faith, you acknowledge the Church's moral authority, which includes opposing artificial birth control.

[woodchip]

And your IQ should be measured how by your recent statement,"Of recent years, as the GOP has gotten loonier and loonier," ?

I'll stand by it, gladly. I'm not assailing someone on their ears or being disrespectful of an elected leader, at the very least.

And during Bush's 8 years in office you never disparaged him?

Oh, and this divisive President is now ahead of any potential GOP candidate in Virginia and North Carolina in several reliable polls. Now mind you, these are merely polls and as such merely general indicators. If that holds up, game over, get used to a two term Obama presidency.

Wow, Dufus is ahead in 2 whole states....guess we should all stay away from the voting booths as there is no point in voting. And yeah, the only poll that means anything is in November.

[callmeslick]

And during Bush's 8 years in office you never disparaged him?

nope. I certainly didn't agree with many of his decisions, and the collective decision(far from his blame alone) to go into Iraq was the dumbest decision I've ever seen by the US government in my life, but no, I never resorted to cheap name calling or mockery because he was my duly elected President. Was I glad to see him go? Sure. At no time did I resort to, or refrain from criticiing those that did attempt to diminish the man himself. Some of the stuff that the right has said and supported regarding Obama
(birth certificate stuff, Muslim inferences, links to various radical ideologies, etc) are, to my mind, both disgraceful and un-American, not to mention patently childish.

Wow, Dufus is ahead in 2 whole states....guess we should all stay away from the voting booths as there is no point in voting. And yeah, the only poll that means anything is in November.

true enough, the last part, and attaboy for completely failing to grasp the first part. If Obama carries Virginia and North Carolina, I can guarantee you that he is re-elected. Hell, he wouldn't need more than one state out of Florida, PA and Ohio, given the demographics and tendencies of the rest of the nation, to win. If you don't get that point, then perhaps discussions of American politics and elections aren't for you.

[woodchip]

Your assumptions that Obama will carry all the blue states is akin to thinking Carter had a chance against Reagan. If the unemployment figure doesn't come down I can assure you Bilbo Baggins would beat Obama. If you don't understand basic human needs (read jobs) then perhaps you should stay away from political punditry.

As to your politeness to Bush, I'll let Cuda verify that.

[callmeslick]

I'm quite sure that CUDA will vouch for that. Oh, and the unemployment number isn't EVER the real issue in an election. It is the direction that number is headed in the months leading up to November. So far, that number is dropping. Another point for the person you childishly refer to as Dufus. He is YOUR President, too, you know that, right?

And trust me one this one, no one in the clown car that is full of GOP candidates has a prayer, even under current conditions, of beating Obama. None of them. Why? Because the electorate might be angry at the status quo, but they are not so foolish as to
back a rich guy who dabbles in venture capital, a blowhard career politician who wants to colonize the moon or a hardcore social conservative who thinks we ought to invade Iran. Maybe, just maybe, the GOP will wake up and find someone else(note, I don't give Ron Paul a chance at the nomination because he has none) to emerge from a brokered convention, but this bunch is and has been the pits.

[woodchip]

. Several here have pointed out the silliness of the initial assertion that this will upset all Catholics, far from it. As stated, over 90% of Catholic women under 45 have used contraception and around 60% strongly support the position of the administration.

Giving this some thought, what is overlooked here is, while many Catholic women use contraception many of them will also view Obama as trashing their religion. Knowing they are going against church doctrine by using birth control women may in fact vote against Obama as a salve on their conscience. Obama would of been far wiser to waive the Obama care requirements (You know...like he did for his union thug contributors) and not risk loosing the votes. Women could still go elsewhere for their contraceptive needs and not feel as though their church is threatened. Even Joe "Gaffer" Biden counseled Obama to remove the requirement so go figure.

[woodchip]

I'm quite sure that CUDA will vouch for that. Oh, and the unemployment number isn't EVER the real issue in an election. It is the direction that number is headed in the months leading up to November. So far, that number is dropping.

Is it dropping or is the figure being massaged?

Another point for the person you childishly refer to as Dufus. He is YOUR President, too, you know that, right?

No, I voted for McCain.

And trust me one this one, no one in the clown car that is full of GOP candidates has a prayer, even under current conditions, of beating Obama. None of them. Why? Because the electorate might be angry at the status quo, but they are not so foolish as to
back a rich guy who dabbles in venture capital, a blowhard career politician who wants to colonize the moon or a hardcore social conservative who thinks we ought to invade Iran.

And yet they were foolish enough to vote for a Chicago street organizer whose claim to fame while a senator was to vote present 147 times. I think a lot of voters will prefer a man who actually was a success running corporations and turning failing business's around than a man whose vision for the country is to drive it so deep into crippling debt that the Chinese are jumping for joy. Of course if you think the Greek model is good then you will vote for Obama. And no, I don't trust you.

[flip]

See, that's where we differ Slick. You see them as leaders. A leader pulls people in the direction he sees fit and they follow. The incorrect use of that word and the subsequent belief is what caused this imbalance. Granted, mainly from a lazy and uninvolved constituency that actually wanted someone else to make all the decisions for them. A representative does not vote his personal ideals or beliefs, religious, social or political. He gets a general consensus from the majority and votes that direction, even if it is in deep conflict with his personal beliefs. That's what our problem is. Everyone wants a free society but they don't want to get involved and the ones who they elect are all too eager to be in charge. Honestly, you may be right, if the GOP doesn't learn from the past election and actually put in a real contender, I will feel they are throwing it to him for their "common resolve" they so frequently and ambiguously refer too. That's why I said Guiliani. He doesn't appear to be much different from Obama, but he is.

[Tunnelcat]

You approve of the modern way where:

"Girls as young as 13 have been fitted with contraceptive implants at school without their parents knowing. The procedure was carried out in Southampton, Hants, as part of a government initiative to drive down teenage pregnancies. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... chool.html

You want that here TC? You want schools tacitly saying pedophilia is ok? There is something sick with a school administration in league with the govt. say it is ok to bang a thirteen year old because now she is protected. Who knows maybe in a few years teachers will get a gold star and a warm fuzzy for popping a young girls cherry. Better a teacher does it and gives a sex ed. demonstration at the same time. \o/ a two fer. So where do you draw the line TC ?

How'd you get all that claptrap out of my position woody? I, in no way, approve of schools going behind the parent's back, in secret, to provide contraception to underage minor girls. The parents must have final say as to what goes on in their minor child's lives. Secular does NOT mean the government can, or should, bypass parental rights and control over their children. How we treat the problem of teen pregnancies is a whole different animal, and that should be addressed to both the parents and the children together. Since schools have the teens as a captive audience, both parents and schools need to work together to educate teens about sex and pregnancy. Schools should not, however, be in the business of providing contraceptive services without parental consent or knowledge and our governments and school officials need to watch out on how far they can usurp parental rights.

Secondly, how would you address the fact teens will always want to have sex? Personally, any girl under the age of 18 should wait to have sex, period. They are not old enough, independent enough or mature enough to have babies. But in the real world, that's not what happens. We're fighting biology. Society wants girls to wait until age of consent and teens' hormones start to flow well before that age, sometimes as early as age 10. Parents want their kids to wait and teens want to do whatever they want behind their parent's backs because they're driven by chemistry, desires and lack of inhibition. So, what is the answer? Go back to the days that the church banned contraception for everyone? That didn't stop teen pregnancies back then, which STILL occurred in spades. But the difference back then was that it was always hidden and buried as a secret shame (the girl always got blamed and stigmatized and was usually sent off somewhere secret to have the baby or worse have an abortion). What kind of society is that?

On Santorum, contraception and the Catholic Church, what I vehemently object to is any church telling adult women that they cannot use contraceptives because they believe it's a sin, or as Santorum believes, unhealthy. Tough tooties the Pope's pawn, I don't hold those beliefs. I also object to the church telling parents what they can or can't allow their teens to do in the privacy of their own lives either. The Church can be just as, or even more oppressive, than any secular government. I remember back when the country worried that JFK would run the Presidency with the Pope as his silent partner. Well, we need to worry about it coming back again, because power always corrupts, even those who profess Godliness.

[Aggressor Prime]

Unfortunately, Obama's move really only offends the Church's leaders and its conservative members. Most Catholics actually support what Obama is doing. Now while the Catholic Church defines itself based on the whole of its members, its viewpoint remains grounded in its leaders whether or not some or even most of its members disagree with it. Still, what Obama is doing is wrong as the United States ought to protect not just the populist side of religions (Catholics, by accidence, participating in the virtue of being people), but also the core of religions by which they have their identity (people, by choice, participating in the virtue of being Catholic). Anyone can be a Catholic and not be offended by this, but to be a good Catholic (good meaning abiding to that which you align yourself with) would imply being offended by this and forced by this to either break the law or violate one's conscience. The government has no right to define what an appropriate version of Catholicism is. That type of control over someone's religion is one of the evils our founding fathers fled from.

[CUDA]

and to piggyback on this issue, since they are related. It has to make one wonder what the motivations are behind this call.

another Violation of the 1st amendment. Military Chaplains have been forbidden to discuss this issue during mass.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

it would seem to me that the Government telling a chaplain what he can and cannot preach during a service is the highest form of a 1st amendment violation

[woodchip]

Cuda, I would have to wonder if the Govt. made some onerous edict affecting Muslims in a unfavorable way, would the military prevent Imams from talking about it? Getting to your post lets recap. Bibles are sent to troops in Afghanistan, they are collected and burned. Not sent back or donated to some stateside christian group...but burned. Now Catholic priests cannot talk to their member troops about laws affecting their religion. I see the new atheist state in the making much like you saw in the old USSR. Didn't work there, won't work here.

[callmeslick]

Is it dropping or is the figure being massaged?

I love this chestnut, which seems to have emanated directly from Faux News. I suppose the independent analysts and payroll companies, looking at different data, yet agreeing that hiring is on the rise(actually more agressive in their predictions than the government agencies) are massaging, too? How low will the right stoop to talk the nation into failure?

No, I voted for McCain.

sorry, but it doesn't matter WHO you voted for, or even if you voted. If you are an American citizen, Barack H. Obama is your
duly elected President. Just as I viewed Bush.

]

And yet they were foolish enough to vote for a Chicago street organizer whose claim to fame while a senator was to vote present 147 times. I think a lot of voters will prefer a man who actually was a success running corporations and turning failing business's around than a man whose vision for the country is to drive it so deep into crippling debt that the Chinese are jumping for joy. Of course if you think the Greek model is good then you will vote for Obama. And no, I don't trust you.

once again, just make up stuff about Obama and think it will stick. Continue on, if it amuses you, but most folks with functional grey matter realize that the debt path wasn't chosen by him, or Democrats at all. Hell, Clinton had a balanced budget, it was the GOP who thought that slashing revenue was a bright idea. I always chuckle at the folks that want to compare the government budget to a household budget. One seldom hears the analogy of a family willingly slashing their income. That is what we did, and then we went on a spending spree(Iraq, Afghanistan) on top of it. Now, the GOP tries to blame Obama for deficit spending after putting him into a national economic hole which every economist worth squat will tell you requires sizeable deficit spending to avoid catastrophe.

[callmeslick]

That's why I said Guiliani. He doesn't appear to be much different from Obama, but he is.

of course he is.....Rudy is a demonstrable crook, for starters, not to mention a self-aggrandizing blowhard.

[flip]

I guess your love and affection for elected officials only carries so far as glorious leader.

[woodchip]

You approve of the modern way where:

"Girls as young as 13 have been fitted with contraceptive implants at school without their parents knowing. The procedure was carried out in Southampton, Hants, as part of a government initiative to drive down teenage pregnancies. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... chool.html

You want that here TC? You want schools tacitly saying pedophilia is ok? There is something sick with a school administration in league with the govt. say it is ok to bang a thirteen year old because now she is protected. Who knows maybe in a few years teachers will get a gold star and a warm fuzzy for popping a young girls cherry. Better a teacher does it and gives a sex ed. demonstration at the same time. \o/ a two fer. So where do you draw the line TC ?

How'd you get all that claptrap out of my position woody?

TC, do not take umbrage. I was merely comparing the horrid old days of yesteryear to what is happening now. Not that I thought you would approve.

Secondly, how would you address the fact teens will always want to have sex? Personally, any girl under the age of 18 should wait to have sex, period. They are not old enough, independent enough or mature enough to have babies. But in the real world, that's not what happens. We're fighting biology. Society wants girls to wait until age of consent and teens' hormones start to flow well before that age, sometimes as early as age 10. Parents want their kids to wait and teens want to do whatever they want behind their parent's backs because they're driven by chemistry, desires and lack of inhibition. So, what is the answer? Go back to the days that the church banned contraception for everyone? That didn't stop teen pregnancies back then, which STILL occurred in spades. But the difference back then was that it was always hidden and buried as a secret shame (the girl always got blamed and stigmatized and was usually sent off somewhere secret to have the baby or worse have an abortion). What kind of society is that?

And what kind of society allows schools to give contraceptive methods to 13 year olds?

I remember back when the country worried that JFK would run the Presidency with the Pope as his silent partner. Well, we need to worry about it coming back again, because power always corrupts, even those who profess Godliness.

Well, reading some excerpts of JFK's sexual exploits with a 18 year old intern leads me to believe there was never any need to be concerned that JFK would be controlled by the Pope.