Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You keep getting that backwards. The Constitution specifically tells the government that everyone is free to believe whatever they want, and that the government cannot interfere with those beliefs for any reason. Obama wants to impose his belief system on everyone, and the only way to fight back is by carving out exceptions on a piecemeal basis. Unless, that is, you know a way to go back in time and to slap some sense into Roberts.
I couldn't disagree more. Equal protection and rule of law are the foundations of egalitarian government. Exceptions and carve-outs are how they divide and conquer.
You still don't get it, do you? Our government is not egalitarian, and the tax code is deliberately designed not to treat people equally. We lost that battle when Roberts argued that Obamacare is a tax, complaining about that now is stupid, the only option we have left is destroying it by demanding that the government live with the fact that individuals who are smart enough to use the system against the government get their exemptions.
If I was a woman who worked for a company that wanted to deny coverage for birth control I would be finding out real quick if they were covering other gender specific medication.
Like breast cancer meds?
Is breast cancer gender specific?
Don't think so bud.
They have never been tax exempt, and the judge still ruled in their favor.
Did you miss the part where I said the government shouldn't make them?
You obviously have no concept of sarcasm either.
I am saying women should sue their employer, with no connection to Obamacare.
That was even dumber than I expected.
I couldn't disagree more. Equal protection and rule of law are the foundations of egalitarian government. Exceptions and carve-outs are how they divide and conquer.
You still don't get it, do you? Our government is not egalitarian, and the tax code is deliberately designed not to treat people equally. We lost that battle when Roberts argued that Obamacare is a tax, complaining about that now is stupid, the only option we have left is destroying it by demanding that the government live with the fact that individuals who are smart enough to use the system against the government get their exemptions.
That's exactly how they want it.
Anyway, if you've just given up, then it's another discussion entirely. But even then, there are probably more effective ways to bring things to halt - ways that don't keep us pitted against each other in the struggle to curry favor with the state.
You still don't get it, do you? Our government is not egalitarian, and the tax code is deliberately designed not to treat people equally. We lost that battle when Roberts argued that Obamacare is a tax, complaining about that now is stupid, the only option we have left is destroying it by demanding that the government live with the fact that individuals who are smart enough to use the system against the government get their exemptions.
That's exactly how they want it.
Anyway, if you've just given up, then it's another discussion entirely. But even then, there are probably more effective ways to bring things to halt - ways that don't keep us pitted against each other in the struggle to curry favor with the state.
Demanding my rights as an individual is not currying favor with anyone.
That's exactly how they want it.
Anyway, if you've just given up, then it's another discussion entirely. But even then, there are probably more effective ways to bring things to halt - ways that don't keep us pitted against each other in the struggle to curry favor with the state.
Demanding my rights as an individual is not currying favor with anyone.
But you think it is dumb for a woman to sue over wanting her birth control covered? Especially when they pay premiums, the same premiums as men.
What other people? Your employer?Demanding my rights as an individual is not currying favor with anyone.
But you think it is dumb for a woman to sue over wanting her birth control covered? Especially when they pay premiums, the same premiums as men.
Damn straight I do. Making other people pay for things you want is not a right.
What other people? Your employer?But you think it is dumb for a woman to sue over wanting her birth control covered? Especially when they pay premiums, the same premiums as men.
Damn straight I do. Making other people pay for things you want is not a right.
And sometimes you don't just want birth control, sometimes you need it.
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. Granting special legal exemptions to religious groups does nothing to protect health care freedom. In fact, this kind of policy is the meat and potatoes of the corporatist state, where government is a game of handing out such favors ad-hoc fashion to address the political clout of special interest groups.
It's a mistake to see the injustice of these mandates as a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom issue, and applies to all of us equally - not just religious groups.
What other people? Your employer?Damn straight I do. Making other people pay for things you want is not a right.
And sometimes you don't just want birth control, sometimes you need it.
If you want it, pay for it.
If you need it, pay for it.
See a trend yet?
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. Granting special legal exemptions to religious groups does nothing to protect health care freedom. In fact, this kind of policy is the meat and potatoes of the corporatist state, where government is a game of handing out such favors ad-hoc fashion to address the political clout of special interest groups.
It's a mistake to see the injustice of these mandates as a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom issue, and applies to all of us equally - not just religious groups.
For someone who claims to be a "Browncoat" you sure suck up to the "Alliance".
What other people? Your employer?
And sometimes you don't just want birth control, sometimes you need it.
If you want it, pay for it.
If you need it, pay for it.
See a trend yet?
I pay for Health insurance every month for a reason. And you didn't answer my question.
And with your logic I can say the same thing about many things that health insurance covers.
I have a hard time seeing this as good news. Granting special legal exemptions to religious groups does nothing to protect health care freedom. In fact, this kind of policy is the meat and potatoes of the corporatist state, where government is a game of handing out such favors ad-hoc fashion to address the political clout of special interest groups.
It's a mistake to see the injustice of these mandates as a freedom of religion issue. It's a freedom issue, and applies to all of us equally - not just religious groups.
For someone who claims to be a "Browncoat" you sure suck up to the "Alliance".
How so? What do you mean?
For someone who claims to be a "Browncoat" you sure suck up to the "Alliance".
How so? What do you mean?
What makes you think a freedom of religion issue doesn't apply to everyone equally? Is it because you don't claim to be part of a religion?
How so? What do you mean?
What makes you think a freedom of religion issue doesn't apply to everyone equally? Is it because you don't claim to be part of a religion?
It's because this isn't a freedom of religion issue. Freedom of religion was instituted to keep government out of religion and vice versa. It wasn't meant to be a free pass for religious people to be excused from any laws that don't match their religious values.
That said, the law is a gross violation of individual liberty. But it's not freedom of religion that's threatened, it's much more fundamental. Laws like this threaten every individual's right to think for themselves. The government has no business telling us how to manage our health care, regardless of our religion.
What makes you think a freedom of religion issue doesn't apply to everyone equally? Is it because you don't claim to be part of a religion?
It's because this isn't a freedom of religion issue. Freedom of religion was instituted to keep government out of religion and vice versa. It wasn't meant to be a free pass for religious people to be excused from any laws that don't match their religious values.
That said, the law is a gross violation of individual liberty. But it's not freedom of religion that's threatened, it's much more fundamental. Laws like this threaten every individual's right to think for themselves. The government has no business telling us how to manage our health care, regardless of our religion.
Sorry I missed this earlier.
Religion is one small area of freedom, bit that does not mean everyone should not support anyone fighting for it. If everyone always fought for freedom all the time, even if it means carving out special exemptions for small groups that don't accept modern technology, we wouldn't be arguing with a bunch of idiots that think it is perfectly acceptable for the government to infringe on freedom in large areas, would we?
It's because this isn't a freedom of religion issue. Freedom of religion was instituted to keep government out of religion and vice versa. It wasn't meant to be a free pass for religious people to be excused from any laws that don't match their religious values.
That said, the law is a gross violation of individual liberty. But it's not freedom of religion that's threatened, it's much more fundamental. Laws like this threaten every individual's right to think for themselves. The government has no business telling us how to manage our health care, regardless of our religion.
Sorry I missed this earlier.
Religion is one small area of freedom, bit that does not mean everyone should not support anyone fighting for it. If everyone always fought for freedom all the time, even if it means carving out special exemptions for small groups that don't accept modern technology, we wouldn't be arguing with a bunch of idiots that think it is perfectly acceptable for the government to infringe on freedom in large areas, would we?
Yeah I get what you're saying, I just think its counter-productive. What you're describing isn't fighting for our rights. It's groveling for privilege. And I think it undermines the freedom movement by dividing and conquering those who would otherwise be demanding it.
We, those of us fighting for freedom as a general principle, need the religious folks on our side. They should have solid incentive to join libertarians in keeping government from dictating behavior in this way. If they get out of following the rules imposed on the rest of with a special exemption, many of them won't care that the rest of us are losing the freedom they might still enjoy.
The equate IUDs and Plan B with abortion? Is that what I am reading?
The government should stay out of it, but their females employees should sue them, especially if they cover such things as Viagra.
If I was a woman who worked for a company that wanted to deny coverage for birth control I would be finding out real quick if they were covering other gender specific medication.
If I was a woman who worked for a company that wanted to deny coverage for birth control I would be finding out real quick if they were covering other gender specific medication.
Apples and oranges. Viagra which you are referring to has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy or destroying a fertilized egg. In fact it AIDS in the act of impregnation by allowing the man to consummate the act.
Your argument is a failure.
