Any Other Dems Slightly Scared Now?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey, Opebo, if 38 percent of Whites support Obama, and only 4 percent of blacks support Romney, does that mean that whites are actually 900 percent less racist?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sig material.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I take it you believe a poll with only a democrats on it tells you the strength of voter preference for Republicans?

C'mon, this is a worthless argument. You can do better.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bullsh**t - racism is racism. You don't believe that hispanics and blacks can be racist to each other?

And yes, the evidence is pretty solidly in favour of whites being the least racist. They are the most likely race to vote for someone not of their race when given a choice between a white person and someone who isn't white.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't regard Obama as my Lord. Perhaps you do. Tell Lord Obama I said hello. He might only Force Choke you for displeasing him.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

900 percent less likely to be racist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure it does. 4 percent of blacks voting for a white candidate over a black candidate vs 36 percent of whites voting for a black candidate over a white candidate, means that the average white person is 9x more likely to vote for a candidate who is not of their race.

Now, you could make the argument that racism!= voting for someone of the same color as you - but that's the argument that opebo is making. If you are a black person voting for Obama over Romney you are a racist.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why if you are equally smart as a black person - that black person is more likely to get into harvard, etc?

Yes, reverse racism does happen. Happens all the time actually. Why doesn't the NBA have a 'white people quota' mandating that at least half of the players be white? After all, that's what Black people demand, quota based hiring.

[Wisconsin+17]

Sibboleth - you agree with Opebo that only white people can be racist?

Isn't that a prima facie racist statement?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about Catholics - who most certainly are a minority in America? Is their faith not under attack with Obamacare forcing them to purchase contraception?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why doesn't Obama give the Catholic church a waiver, like they requested?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution protects freedom of conscience and religion. Those who are Catholic should not be forced to pay for health care that includes contraception and abortion. Would you want to be paying for health insurance that included coverage for Exodus?

[Wisconsin+17]

Hey Sibboleth, you never answered my question - do you agree with Opebo that only white people can be racist?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The constitution is the higher law. We have an obligation to defy laws that are unconstitutional.

Would you have dragged a slave who escaped from his plantation back to his plantation, because that's what the fugitive slave law required?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's an issue because I'm a Catholic school teacher. And yes, I'm going to defy the mandate.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My contract - signed before Obamacare was passed - explicitly states that I am to follow the doctrines of the Catholic church and that my conduct must be in accordance with the teachings of the Church.

Obamacare requires me to fund abortion and contraception - ergo, I cannot participate in Obamacare or any health insurance scheme which provides funding for either of these.

My hands are tied - I have to follow the agreement already signed and I'm not going to violate my employment contract just because Obama says so. Obama can go pound sand.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama has said many things, that did not turn out to be true. This is one of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How magnaminous. Giving us an extra year in order to retain our civil rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why am I, a teacher, being required to pay for contraception and abortion? I should be protected as should all Catholics irrespective of our occupation from being forced to pay for this. Our rights do not vanish just because Obama wishes that they would. We have a right to freedom of conscience and religion, and that includes the right to practice our religion without infringement from the federal government.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is consistant with conscience rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it is in accordance to the protection of freedom of conscience and religion preserved in the constitution of the United States.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, you are aware that Obama has attempted to bar the Church from choosing their own priests? He got slapped down, hard, by the Supreme Court 12-0 over this.

It's not just about the distinction between what goes on inside the church and outside the church. This is about freedom of conscience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense, it's merely the first step to abolish effective practice of Catholicism within the United States. Obama has already tried to take control of the Church via appointing his own ministers (similar to what has been tried in China, and in England and many other countries in the past).

The United States was founded on the principle that Congress should not favor one religion over another and that religious practice was protected in the US - where it was not free elsewhere. In England at the time, the Catholic could not vote, and could not effectively hold public office, while in America they were free to do both.

Obama's edict represents a profound step backwards, farther back than America has ever travelled.

As Justice Roberts said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Church has every right to choose their own servants, not the State, and not Obama.

Going on:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You can read the full opinion here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-553.pdf

Unanimous rejection of Obama's law.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then they are free to seek employment with an employer who does provide these services. That's how the free market works. If an employer wants to provide full contraceptive services to all their employees - I have no problem with that. But an employer should also have the option to provide no contraceptive services too.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a business would refuse service to someone because they were black or white or whatever - they should be required to post that on a sign in front of the door. I have no problem with that, provided that it's put on a sign. Businesses refuse people all the time, if they happen to be carrying, and a business owner does have the right, but they have to inform the public before the person enters the premises.

[Wisconsin+17]

I WROTE 12 - why is that 13?!

Damn fat fingers. Fixed.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typos happen when I don't proof carefully enough. *sigh*.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should, at least in a so-called free country, be able to purchase health care coverage that meets my needs. Why does contraception and abortion coverage have to be bundled in? Why can't I go a-la carte and pick the options that I want and save money?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

His silence is deafening. If he believes this, then he should express his convictions.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then perhaps he should come out from behind the apron strings.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm aware of this. I'm asking why is this the case?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're aware of the fact that women make substantially more use of health care than men? By charging the same for men and women - you're having the men subsidizing the women.

Personally, the only woman's health care that I want to be paying for - is my wife's.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In theory, but in actuality - whenever you disassociate cost from usage - costs will rise. A better way of controlling healthcare costs would be to have health care saving accounts - where there is an incentive for people to only use what they need and to save up. Right now - there's no incentive not to waste scarce resources on unnecessary treatment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Insurance should only cover catastrophic costs and not day to day anticipated expenses.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fine, but you're not giving me the option of saying no. It's my money, I should be allowed to spend whatever I want on health care - even none, if that is what I want.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm amused that you believe I don't believe what I believe.

Have you never encountered a conservative Catholic before? I know they are more common in TX than in MS - but still.