Post removed

[Trajan]

1. Bleh ...

Wrong tree ...

[quinnox]

2. Prepare for blowback!

[William769]

16. Un fucking believable!

[redqueen]

17. LOL, as if.

Anyone familiar with the posting histories isn't surprised at all.

[William769]

19. Agreed, but I just had to say something.

I don't like to let anyone get a free pass.

Someone is very lucky we have juries here.

[redqueen]

22. I hear ya.

I was tempted, but then I saw post 5, and I figured I already posted one angry OP about this shit today.

[William769]

36. Well I for one am just as angry as any person would be over this bullshit

Anyone who is not, should not be posting on this site.

There are plenty of sites they would feel right at home at.

But then again I guess a troll isn't a troll unless...

[redqueen]

42. I'm in total agreement here. nt

[BainsBane]

47. +1

[greatauntoftriplets]

49. A musical interlude!

Put another log on the fire.
Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
And go out to the car and change the tyre.
Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
And then go fetch my slippers.
And boil me up another pot of tea.
Then put another log on the fire, babe,
And come and tell me why you're leaving me.

Now don't I let you wash the car on Sunday?
Don't I warn you when you're gettin fat?
Ain't I a-gonna take you fishin' with me someday?
Well, a man can't love a woman more than that.
Ain't I always nice to your kid sister?
Don't I take her driving every night?
So, sit here at my feet 'cos I like you when you're sweet,
And you know it ain't feminine to fight.

So, put another log on the fire.
Cook me up some bacon and some beans.
Go out to the car and lift it up and change the tyre.
Wash my socks and sew my old blue jeans.
Come on, baby, you can fill my pipe,
And then go fetch my slippers.
And boil me up another pot of tea.
Then put another log on the fire, babe,
And come and tell me why you're leaving me.

Read more: Outlaws - Put Another Log On The Fire - Tompall Glaser Lyrics | MetroLyrics

[William769]

59. ...

[greatauntoftriplets]

61. ...

[JustAnotherGen]

66. +2

Thanks William769

Someone who reads here but does not post is sooooo not shocked at what he's seeing. He actually made me send a pm to one of his favorites - seabeyond on this!

[William769]

73. Right is right

And I will stand up and scream from the rooftops to make sure people know of this injustice.

[DonCoquixote]

60. yes, juries

especially Juries that let certain "men's rights advocates post blatant amount of BS that even free Republic wopuld not tolerates. I saw the name, read the response, and was NOT surprised.

[FSogol]

54. +1 n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

86. On the contrary....

Completely believable.

Certainly par for this course, anyway...

[FSogol]

46. You Better Believe It!

[CJCRANE]

3. You forgot to add: "honest question".

You should be able to figure out the answer from the dozens of threads on the subject.

[Harmony Blue]

8. Most of the threads are just posters venting about the decision

but what bewilders me is that so many assumed that this wasn't possible? The Supreme Court is really not predictable when it comes to such hot topic issues in my opinion.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. What are your positions on choice and on Unions? Contraception?

Thanks.

[Harmony Blue]

72. I am pro choice and I am lukewarm towards Unions

I was born into the tail end of when Unions still had sway in American politics (eg Reagan baby). I still feel they are important part of our society when it comes for teachers police, firefighters, but the majority of Americans don't feel as passionate about Unions like they used to.

On contraception, I believe all forms are valid, but I think the focus on women's contraceptive misses the point that men need to become more responsible for contraception as well. I have seen some people disparaging vasectomies but I believe that is a responsible choice to have a vasectomy or tubes tied so I would not ever shame anyone for making such a choice. Just my two cents.

[RobinA]

32. Uh?

This result was utterly predictable from this Court. I expected it the minute I heard of this case. The only way this Court is unpredictable is if you expect them to decide from an underlying and consistent legal philosophy.

[JimDandy]

14. Now, now...

Aw what the hell:

[winter is coming]

4. So if an axe-wielding maniac comes after me I shouldn't be angry because I can see it coming?

I wasn't surprised by the SC decision, but that doesn't make it suck any less.

[tenderfoot]

5. Start your engines!

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:46 PM - Edit history (1)

[House of Roberts]

6. Because Scalia is a fraud. He flip-flopped.

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9004/court.html

In rejecting the men's claim that Oregon's law barring peyote use under all circumstances violates their religious freedom, Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, said that the First Amendment freedom of religion does not allow individuals to break the law: "We have never held that an individual's beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate." He said it would be "courting anarchy" to create exceptions every time a religious group claims that a law infringes on its practices.

[riderinthestorm]

7. I'm not blindsided. I can multi-task: be angry about this ruling and like a lot of the ACA

It doesn't have to be either/or. I'm a liberal progressive Democratic woman. We're flexible like that.

Personally, my "frustration" (putting it mildly) is because the Supreme Court has now officially made it legal for a major corporation to interject itself in between a woman and her doctor and her medical care.

If you also aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention.

[stage left]

11. +1 nt

[mcar]

62. Well said!

[unblock]

9. anger can be caused by many things. being blind-sided is only one of them.

personally i agree, i was not the least bit blind-sided by this eminently predictable outcome.

its predictability doesn't make me any less angry, though.

[LondonReign2]

10. And yet another "Democrat" who is cool with

"laying back and enjoying the inevitable."

[Harmony Blue]

15. I am not a nihilist at heart

because I still have hope for humanity. You can call me naive on that I guess but I believe all people are inherently good until proven otherwise.

[LondonReign2]

18. WTF does that have to do with the Hobby Lobby decision

and counseling people to just accept the constant rightward drift of this country?

And if anyone has "proven otherwise" it Scalia and his gang of co-conspirators.

[DonCoquixote]

70. no, not a nihilst

But for a liberal, you seem to be in agreement whenever the rights of women get attacked.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Enough of this bullshit. You folks need to come up with something better.

nt

[lovemydog]

20. Because the Affordable Care Act is the law

of the land. Carving an exemption for privately held corporations breeds cynicism and disgust. It tampers with fundamental notions of fair play and equal rights under the law. Women are not and should not be treated as second class citizens. I would not turn back the clock on the ACA. I want to improve and strengthen it. And not allow employers to choose which parts of it they decide to follow.

[Quantess]

39. "Women are not and should not be treated as second class citizens"

For example, Hobby Lobby has no problem with Viagra and vasectomies being covered by their insurance policies. This is blatant gender discrimination, in my opinion.

[lovemydog]

56. Most definitely, Quantess, in my opinion

too!

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. And obviously have no problem investing their pension funds with companies who make contraceptives.

This is not & was never about religion. It's always been about "Obama"-Care, and their hatred for any & all things Obama.

[Rex]

21. SSDD?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. yes and SP = SSDDSP

same shit, different day, same poster.

old.

[Rex]

31. It is a sad day when DUers defend the Corporate Surpremes.

And then pretend we are all stupid for being pissed off. Maybe it is impossible for some of us to multitask...but I doubt it.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. sad, yes. but not surprised. I expected such as this from certain corners.

[RobinA]

23. I See This Ruling's

relationship to the ACA as incidental and irrelevant. The problem in my mind is that by carving contraception out of other possibly religiously objectionable medical practices, it is a blatant slap at woman. It can be nothing but a clear statement that while some procedures are important enough to deserve a First Amendment waiver, this one affecting only women, no matter how integral to a woman's well-being, is not. Actually, it's not a slap at women, it's a punch in the face.

[lovemydog]

67. Precisely, RobinA

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I agree with your assessment.

[dawg]

24. I don't think many of us were surprised.

I wasn't surprised.

Pissed me off anyway.

[lostincalifornia]

25. Because this opens the door to all kinds of abuses. 1. It is specifically discriminatory against

women. Birth control is determined by an employer, not blood transfusion of vaccines, or viagra.

2. Not allowing a buffer zone of 35 feet puts WOMEN at risk from strangers who are telling a women what she should do. This is not free speech, this is harassment of WOMEN seeing their healthcare provider. Interestingly enough the SC allows a pretty wide buffer zone for protester access to their court.

From Citizens United to other rulings the court has confirmed that corporations are people, and that is pure bullshit

There are plenty of more reasons to be outraged at this supreme court, not just on this ruling

Remember the court also blocked mandatory expanded Medicaid and thus condemned a whole set of people to being uninsured

[William769]

26. The better question to ask is why are you not angry at this?

So far your reasoning is pure bullshit and shows you for who you really are.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. again.

shows us again.

not the first time.

over and over this one shows us.

[Rex]

37. Years and years of the same old stuff from the OP.

The slam at the ACA is puke worthy and predictable.

[myrna minx]

41. +1

Thank you.

[irisblue]

69. ^^^this^^^

[bemildred]

28. Why not? Are we obligated to approve of their opinions? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. ACA and birth control are only the tip of the iceberg o'crap.

The court has ruled that the government cannot enforce laws which offend the religious sensitivities of corporations. If their religious views dictate that workers should be treated like shit, that's their prerogative.

Setting aside for the moment the question of how a corporation gets religion, it's the logical extension of a fundamentally destructive train of thought; Corporations are people with religious sensitivities for whom spending is speech.

Access to free birth control is only a tiny piece of the issue.

[redqueen]

35. It's not about "free birth control", jeff - it's about fair healthcare coverage for women.

As opposed to unfair restrictions on women's healthcare.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. Since "fair healthcare coverage" = "free birth control (for women)"...

I'd say this is a distinction without a difference.

The tip of the wedge that the chamber of commerce used to drive open this particular four lane loophole in the law's ability to regulate corporations was the ACA's requirement of employers to provide free reproductive healthcare for women (but not men).

I don't think that "unfair" is one of the top 10 problems with the ruling.

I think one of the unspoken objections to the ACA is the fact that there's very little in it for men except higher prices. Were it less obviously one-sided perhaps there'd be less zeal to do stupid shit like this Hobby Lobby ruling.

[redqueen]

63. Gee all this time I thought referring to healthcare coverage as "free" was rightwing spin.

Guess you showed me.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. Is "free" an improper synonym for "shall not impose any cost sharing requirements"?

‘‘
‘SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for—
...
(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.

The HRSA is the only place in which reproductive health care shows up as a free err... "without any cost sharing requirements" health care service.

As written, the ACA guarantees free birth control to women, only. Because of the way the ACA is written, and it's desire to "support women's health" a couple who decides they are done having kids has the choice of a free tubal ligation or a $800 vasectomy. It'll be no surprise when many opt for the invasive, inpatient expensive procedure because it's "without any cost sharing requirements".

If you didn't know this, then yes. I guess I did show you.

[redqueen]

87. Are you saying HL covers 100% of employee healthcare premiums, jeff?

Are you familiar with their plans, and you're telling us employees don't pay any contribution toward their health insurance coverage?

Because otherwise, jeff, they are paying for their coverage, they're just not getting FAIR COVERAGE

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. No, I'm saying that the coverage purchased must deliver a laundry list of freebies to the insured.

... and that the list is much longer for women and includes reproductive healthcare.

[redqueen]

89. "the list is much longer for women and includes reproductive healthcare"

Thanks, once again, jeff, for showing your ass.

[DonCoquixote]

68. so, Viagra is not male reproductive care?

which HB provides?

And of course, as far as "very little in it for men", I am sure you will explain to all the diabetic, high blood pressure and other mALERS that can now GET insurance that there is nothing in it for them, except of couirse, the medicine that keeps them alive. I am sure they will straighten you out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Show me the section of the ACA where it says Viagra is "without cost sharing requirements".

Or in fact any other kind of male reproductive healthcare.

[DonCoquixote]

83. not a tiny piece at all

Because sadly, women and other minroties are the canary on the coal mine. People make laws against them because they know a lot of males will not care. Then the law gets stretched, and so on, and so on. AIDS, the war on Drugs, Internet spying, a sad list of issues that were not important until a bunch of males in the suburbs got hit by them. If you automatically see one person's rights as less, you are telling the GOP "aim here, because by the time suburban males get hit by this, you will have won the war!

[pinboy3niner]

33. That's like saying George Zimmerman's acquittal was predictable, so no reason to be angry about it

[Rex]

43. +1

We can only do one thing at a time...donchanow!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. Are you freaking serious?

Despite protestations by the majority to the contrary, the court today just opened the door to people demanding exemptions from the law for religious purposes. My religion opposes interracial marriages, so I don't have to serve interracial couples. My religion doesn't believe in psychotherapy, so I can deny mental health benefits to my employees. Etc., etc., etc.

What more, the court has allowed an employer to dictate to a 35-year-old married employee how she should engage in coitus with her husband. That's something the court rejected nearly 50 years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut. And if she refuses her employers' directive, she has to pay what amount to a financial penalty by purchasing contraception on her own.

Not to mention the fact that the Court has basically enshrined scientific ignorance into the law be conflating standard contraceptive practice with abortion. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define "conception" as the point at which the fertilized egg is implanted on the uterine wall, and for the past 40-50 years, that's been now law and policy have seen it. Because some asshat who flunked 6th Grade Biology went to court and said, "But my religion tells me that its an abortion" millions of women will have to deal with the consequences.

[stage left]

53. I tried to answer this OP.

But you said it much better than I was able to do. Wish I could rec your response.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

57. I'm pretty sure all my conservative relatives on Facebook have unfriended me in the past 24 hours

[stage left]

74. Wear that as a badge of honor, my friend.

I'm about to go unfriend a few wingers who want George Bush back. I've about had it with stupidity.Luckily, my relatives who count are all liberal. Otherwise, I probably couldn't live in this Christian fundamentalist Tea party hell hole called SC.

[lovemydog]

78. Yeah, I like facebook better with

only a few 'friends'.

Last year I went from around 1,000 to only around 150.

Much happier now.

[LondonReign2]

92. Sounds like a badge of honor

[MohRokTah]

38. DU Unrec. You spew rightwing teabagger bullshit. eom

[Ilsa]

52. +1. Glad you called it first. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. +1. For a moment, I thought it was GG. He always agrees with the conservatives on the court.

[stage left]

44. The reason I'm angry at the Supreme Court.

Once again they have ruled that Corporations are People, people who can have religious convictions. Yet they still have the protections afforded to Corporations. In effect,they have their cake and eat it, too. This started with Citizens United. Citizens United needs to be abolished. So, as it stands, Corporations are people, zygotes(and you can't tell human zygotes from frog zygotes) are people, but women? Not so much. I guess men are still people. I see this as another step toward theocratic rule. Are you happy with the ruling?

[Rex]

45. You rec'ced your own thread lol.

I guess you knew nobody would agree with you...why the slam against the ACA? Just don't like the idea?

[BainsBane]

55. He always does.

[liberal N proud]

91. I never tried that - unaware it was possible.

[DonCoquixote]

48. So why so much frustration?

I suppose if one was trapped on the Titanic, and had been denied a lifeboat, the response would be "we are in the real world" and one would patiently sink.

[BainsBane]

50. Just a minor thing about women's reproductive freedom

vs. corporate control over our bodies. That we care about that is doubtless another example of misandry.

[MohRokTah]

58. Did anybody alert on this thread?

Knowing how the juries have gone lately, I'd almost bet it was allowed to stand on a 4-3 vote.

Skinner needs to add two people to the jury so there can be lots of 5-4 decisions.

[WilliamPitt]

65. Wow.

[stage left]

76. Indeed.

[spanone]

75. you are kidding, right?

[m-lekktor]

77. you and your ilk are just crawling out of the woodwork today i noticed.

and you all are DEMOCRATS? ugh.

[Rider3]

79. Here. This post will help you understand why we are MAD.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1148942?hpt=hp_bn1

[Reter]

82. The way I look at it, the entire ACA was supposed to be struck down

Had Roberts not stunned everyone two years ago, this ruling never would have gone forward.

[GeorgeGist]

84. Reagan still loves you.

[BlindTiresias]

85. Just a neutral interpretation of the law, right?

From the always neutral and never politicized supreme court of the united states. Yes?

[MadrasT]

90. Anger does not require surprise as a prerequisite.

Try harder next time.

[liberal N proud]

93. Doesn't directly effect you so you shouldn't be angry?

For one to not be angered, one either is not paying attention or does not feel the effect.