It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EWTN (Catholic TV Network) Sues Obama Admin Over Mandate

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


My point is, you can invent any sort of reply to prior events without worrying that anyone can actually check you on it. This is the internet after all, and there are no laws requiring one to tell the truth.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by beezzer

When did Bush violate the 1st Ammendment?


I love it when you play dumb!

For the Nth time -

motherjones.com...


In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.


Bush could have stopped this, but according to YOUR logic, he also violated the 1st Amendment.

Okay, nasty-boy, does this mean that catholic hospitals were providing birth control and abortions then as well?

I think not, but continue clutching at straws, it's fun to watch.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by beezzer
 


My point is, you can invent any sort of reply to prior events without worrying that anyone can actually check you on it. This is the internet after all, and there are no laws requiring one to tell the truth.

There's also no reason to lie.

Try ranting some more.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, would the entire staff of the hospital be "sinners" or is it just the CEO?

I have no idea. My GUESS would be that whoever made it so that the hospital participated in the 'sin'. You'd have to ask a theologian. I can only quote you what the Church rule is.

I still don't buy that "the hospital" is sinning.

Of course not. If you did believe that .. you'd be Catholic.
Do you believe that the USA would be guilty if it paid Israel to bomb Iran?
That's the same line of their thinking.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It would be a lot easier for me to accept this from you...

I don't care what you (or anyone else) accepts from me or not ....
That's their belief. I gave it to you straight from their catechism.
If you don't think they really believe it ... take it up with their Church.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
why aren't the Catholic Bishops in Massachusettes outraged over Romney mandateing them to do the same thing???

That's why people call Romney 'the white Obama'. Not much daylight between them.
Romney did to Mass. what Obama is trying to do to the whole country.
I don't know if any of the Catholic Bishops in Mass were actually forced to go against the Church.


Originally posted by negativenihil
Because there was a Republican President at the time! A white one at that!

OH GAWD ... someone played the race card. :shk:



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Okay, nasty-boy,


Oh my. That really cuts to the bone.



does this mean that catholic hospitals were providing birth control and abortions then as well?


Bush had the means to stop this, but chose not to. His inaction is just as bad as any actual action being taken to enforce this decade-old ruling.

This is only an issue now because the right wing Presidential nominees have decided to make it an issue to harm the President.

Where was THEIR outrage 10 years ago? 5?

You serve your masters well.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

There's also no reason to lie.


So...? Were you outraged when Bush allowed this to go on, or were you simply and blissfully ignorant of the topic back in 2000?

you've had plenty of time to think of an answer, out with it already!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Done..Obama just shifted the mandate to the insurance companies rather than the Catholic organizations.

So now Catholics have nothing to complain about.


Point: Obama.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Well I don't think the Catholics should be in business with non-catholics then.

The catholics are blocking the first amendment right of non-catholics that they hire. They had no problem hiring non-catholic "sinners" because it benefited them, but now they want to force those "sinners" to survive as a catholic, contraceptively. What will be next?

I think this is just more right wing histerics, just like the JCPenny moms.

Hopefully the new healthcare will cover chill pills.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by beezzer

There's also no reason to lie.


So...? Were you outraged when Bush allowed this to go on, or were you simply and blissfully ignorant of the topic back in 2000?

you've had plenty of time to think of an answer, out with it already!

Yes ma'am!
I can honestly say that I did not know, nor did I care.
But to get back on topic (you know what a topic is, don't you?) I do pay attention now, and I do care now.

My outrages with Bush are well documented on other sites. But that is a moot point because I'm here now.
Or do you need a fracking resume'?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
So obama just came on ... looking none too happy .... said 'he directed' .. (so he could look presidential)
... and said that some people were using this issue as a poltiical wedge (trying to look like it wasn't him who was really the guy playing politics to gain votes )
... and then said that the insurance companies would have to pay for the birth control.

i'm wondering if the insurance companies will like this?

At any rate ... the Catholic church will supposedly NOT have to provide anything now.
Definately good news for those who believe in the Constitution and Religious freedom in the USA.

The EWTN law suit was a shot heard round the world.
I can't stress how BIG in Catholic circles it was to have them say they were sueing.
Obama had no choice .. he had to follow the Constitution.
(poor fella didn't look very happy about it)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Done..Obama just shifted the mandate to the insurance companies rather than the Catholic organizations.

So now Catholics have nothing to complain about.


Point: Obama.

Again, coming from a Constitutional scholar, this isn't a point as much as a massive back-peddle

In my humble opinion, of course.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Yes ma'am!


Cute! When your ignorance is exposed... just call the other party a woman! Bravo beezer, bravo.



I can honestly say that I did not know, nor did I care.


Well now you know. Deny Ignorance.



I do pay attention now, and I do care now.


How convenient!



My outrages with Bush are well documented on other sites. But that is a moot point because I'm here now.
Or do you need a fracking resume'?


Sure. Why don't you PM me a few links to your outrage? I mean as you said.. there's no reason to lie.


edit on 10-2-2012 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2012 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Done..Obama just shifted the mandate to the insurance companies rather than the Catholic organizations.

So now Catholics have nothing to complain about.


Point: Obama.

Again, coming from a Constitutional scholar, this isn't a point as much as a massive back-peddle

In my humble opinion, of course.


It's a point because it accomplishes the same goal while completely deflating the main argument that people had against it.

If you honestly think Obama's main goal was to force Catholic organizations to do something rather than his main goal being to provide free and equal access to birth control to all women...then I have to say that your biased is clouding your judgement.

The fact is that his original mandate for ALL employers to provide contraception coverage WAS the most logical and efficient. Note that I said ALL employers...not that he singled out one group...but wanted it equal for ALL.

He is still accomplishing his goal...but he is forced to use a less efficient and illogical solution because he was met with an illogical opposition that Obama haters jumped onto because their hate does not care for logic.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 
Actually, this soluion works "within" the Constitution (marginally, don't get me started on his healthcare law).

His previous attempt didn't.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Done..Obama just shifted the mandate to the insurance companies rather than the Catholic organizations.

So now Catholics have nothing to complain about.


Point: Obama.

Again, coming from a Constitutional scholar, this isn't a point as much as a massive back-peddle

In my humble opinion, of course.


Who's backpeddliing? The President mandated something that was not well-received, and then doing right by his constituents(read constitution), he reworked the mandate to make everyone's needs met.People may not like our President, but they could be adult enough to not attack his every position, based on feelings.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 
Thanks.



And, um, no. I don't think I will. Not because I didn't write especially well, but I wrote under my actual name and the link provides an email and I'd rather you not have that info.

I don't trust, you.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
.People may not like our President, but they could be adult enough to not attack his every position, based on feelings.


But this is ATS - best/fastest way to net a load of S&F - post an anti-Obama thread and ignore facts.

We can't be having rational thought here. And we certainly cannot be Denying Ignorance.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Done..Obama just shifted the mandate to the insurance companies rather than the Catholic organizations.

So now Catholics have nothing to complain about.


Point: Obama.

Again, coming from a Constitutional scholar, this isn't a point as much as a massive back-peddle

In my humble opinion, of course.


Who's backpeddliing? The President mandated something that was not well-received, and then doing right by his constituents(read constitution), he reworked the mandate to make everyone's needs met.People may not like our President, but they could be adult enough to not attack his every position, based on feelings.


The president mandated something that was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, not just "not well received".



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 



Actually, this soluion works


Yes it does...that is all that needs to be said.

Hence....point for Obama.


I'm listening to multiple conservative talk shows right now just tripping over themselves just trying their hardest to come up with some negative on this...it's hilarious. They can't just say "good job Obama...thanks for listening".

You can't even say that...can you?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Who's backpeddliing?

Obama. He would have continued to push his unconstitutional position (he was very clear that he would) but members of his own party said that it was unconstitutional AND the Church groups got together to expose this mandate for what it was. If he could have gotten away with it .. he would have ... Constitution or not.

He REALLY didn't look happy.


Anyways, thankfully this got chopped off at the roots.

It's how it should have gone down to begin with.
A supposed 'constitutional scholar' should have known better.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join