2012.02.09
Bumper sticker sighting on the Thursday OPEN thread
Shot by Dan along Grandin Road
“A lot of people don’t like bumper stickers. I don’t mind bumper stickers. To me a bumper sticker is a shortcut. It’s like a little sign that says ‘Hey, let’s never hang out.’ “
Demetri Martin
I agree with that sentiment completely. When you see a bumper sticker, you either say “Hey, cool” and know you could probably hang out with them or “Oh good grief” and know that you would not. It is a great shortcut IMO. If nothing else, it proves we like to communicate, even in traffic.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 10:44 am
By the time the fruitcakes show up after they awake
a few words will be blacked out in their world..
..”like” and “ever” will be stricken in that damaged area
of the frontal lobe..
To them it reads…” Get real, Jesus would own a gun and vote Republican.
They miss a few words..but kinda important ones.
Comment by Joe — February 9, 2012 @ 11:37 am
I’ve never said Jesus would own a gun and vote Republican, just like you’ve never said Jesus would abort a fetus and vote Dem.
Comment by Elliot — February 9, 2012 @ 11:43 am
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Comment by Uptheriver — February 9, 2012 @ 11:56 am
I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads, “Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church.”
I enjoy watching the reactions of drivers who pull up behind me and read it. I’ve seen smiles and chuckles and also those who just maintain a serious expression as they lean back in their seat. I think some don’t really know what to think.
I had one person roll down their window and ask where I got it — at 55 mph on 220, no less! And then there is the note I found on my windshield after coming out of the Cave Spring Kroger which read, “Thank GOD you don’t run our country.”
I’m just happy whenever I see people actually thinking about what it means. And, rarely, happy when I see the light bulb go off in their head.
Comment by Saintbridge — February 9, 2012 @ 11:57 am
Earth-shaking
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rasmussen-santorum-leads-obama-1-point-romney-trails-obama-4-points_620975.html
Obviously all threee GOP candidates would beat 0bama. But for a polling group to come out and admit Santorum leads Idiot Boy is incredible.
Keep praying, y’all.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
I notice we aren’t getting any comments about Rick Santorum’s miraculous rise. I’m guessing the libs here haven’t received their talking points yet, so they don’t know what to say. Rick’s surge sure caught them by surprise. They were all geared for Romney. Spent millions creating and funding the phony OWS specifically to counter Romneyt’s financial success. Now the dirty-tricks machine will have to retool.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 12:08 pm
@ oh well played Elliot!
Comment by Uptheriver — February 9, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
With all the talk about religion and the Pope and Catholic Bishops pitching a fit…let us return to yesteryear when this same type of “conversation” went on… Sept. 12, 1960
During John F. Kennedy’s run for president, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church – “WILL YOU BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR WILL THE POPE?” Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following are excerpts from Kennedy’s speech [my capitalization]:
“While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: […]the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools… These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.”
“I BELIEVE IN AN AMERICA WHERE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS ABSOLUTE, WHERE NO CATHOLIC PRELATE WOULD TELL THE PRESIDENT (SHOULD HE BE CATHOLIC) HOW TO ACT, AND NO PROTESTANT MINISTER WOULD TELL HIS PARISHIONERS FOR WHOM TO VOTE; WHERE NO CHURCH OR CHURCH SCHOOL IS GRANTED ANY PUBLIC FUNDS OR POLITICAL PREFERENCE…”
“I BELIEVE IN AN AMERICA THAT IS OFFICIALLY NEITHER CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT NOR JEWISH; WHERE NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL EITHER REQUESTS OR ACCEPTS INSTRUCTIONS ON PUBLIC POLICY FROM THE POPE, THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OR ANY OTHER ECCLESIASTICAL SOURCE; WHERE NO RELIGIOUS BODY SEEKS TO IMPOSE ITS WILL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY UPON THE GENERAL POPULACE OR THE PUBLIC ACTS OF ITS OFFICIALS…”
Full transcript is here http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
Sorry to say, Mr. President, that ship has sailed…
Comment by Hillary — February 9, 2012 @ 1:28 pm
I have a bumper sticker on my car that reads, “Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church……I’m just happy whenever I see people actually thinking about what it means.
So you’re the one with the ’81 Chevy Citation. Actually what I was thinking was “How is that piece of junk still running?”
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 1:36 pm
Not that abortion and owning a gun are on the same plane, but how on earth could Jesus carry a fetus? Oh well, what is one more miracle.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 1:40 pm
It’s odd how how acceptable Hate has become in bumper stickers.
“Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church.”
So you think people in black churches don’t think?
Comment by Henry — February 9, 2012 @ 1:46 pm
Those kind of bumper stickers and the note Saintbridge describes above are exactly the reasons I will never adorn my car with any kind of pro-anything paraphenalia. Because it’s always bound to piss someone off, and then you get your car keyed.
Even if it’s as simple as a UVA logo in Blacksburg or vice versa.
Comment by scott — February 9, 2012 @ 1:50 pm
Interesting article from Mother Jones (liberal, I know).
Apparently, in December 2000, the EEOC issued a ruling that if employers were going to offer insurance with prescription drug coverage, they had to cover birth control because doing otherwise violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The ruling was not appealed by the Bush administration when it took office in January 2001. The EEOC ruling applied to employers with more than 15 employees. President Obama’s rule differs in that it applies to all employers and mandates no copay.
Additionally, the EEOC ruling applied to religious employers, because while Title VII “allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn’t allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling. DePaul University, the largest Roman Catholic university in America, added birth control coverage to its plans after receiving an EEOC complaint several years ago.”
So the basic tenets of Obama’s rule have been in place for more than 10 years, but because it’s not widely known people are freaking out thinking that this is part of Obama’s alleged war on religion.
Here’s the article: http://tinyurl.com/7cqpoug
Here’s the EEOC ruling from December 2000: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html
Comment by Lori — February 9, 2012 @ 2:16 pm
Lori, the Catholic Church already has admitted that it’s birth control they’re going after, rather than a widening of faith-based exemptions for birth control in the ACA.
The GOP politicians that follow them down this wormhole will suffer political doom.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 9, 2012 @ 2:40 pm
#13 Scott, I’m with you there. Anyone wants my opinion they can ask. I don’t advertise my politics, religion, favorite football team (GO HOKIES!!), whatever. I choose not to be a billboard in anyway. Last car I bought I removed the dealership’s sticker (that was mostly b/c I thought they were inept). I really don’t like driving down the road and drawing lines in the blacktop at the same time. Blogs are a good place for that! But that’s me. I especially cannot stand logo wear. Nike should pay me to wear their stuff, not the other way around! Have been to different countries in Europe within the last 10 years and saw very few stickers and no vanity plates. We are very good at advertising in this country, for sure. And for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would pay money to put her initials on their car or tell us he is driving a Ford when we can already see he is driving a Ford. Sad to say, the last sentence references two of my family members…
Comment by scott whitaker — February 9, 2012 @ 3:08 pm
@ #10: Wrong again.
@ #12: Henry, what hate? Show me where anything about that is hateful. And what in the heck kind of leap makes race matter?
@ #13: Now a physical assault on person or property is hateful. Hope you continue to steer clear — as it were — of trouble.
For the record, it is my opinion (read that again: my opinion) that in order to keep our happy republic going strong and using all cylinders, we must keep religion and governance separate.
Religion is a powerful force in may people’s lives and I am so glad to live in a nation where we are free to believe what we believe. No one can ever take that away from us.
But when we begin to say that government decides on a course of action because of one group’s religious beliefs, then we are in grave danger of becoming a theocracy.
Have your beliefs. Be beholden to them. Celebrate them. Just don’t expect me to join you.
Comment by Saintbridge — February 9, 2012 @ 3:23 pm
Sandi, I don’t think the comment was that Jesus would carry a fetus it was Jesus wouldn’t abort a fetus. A woman who decides to get an abortion doesn’t abort the fetus herself, someone else does that.
Comment by PeterJ — February 9, 2012 @ 3:30 pm
#12 Henry, why are you bringing race up? Following in racist troll suzie’s footsteps?
Comment by gdad — February 9, 2012 @ 4:07 pm
#15 This is what a good number of right-wing evangelicals (and suzie) are after. Some want to ban contraceptives all together. People need to realize this.
Comment by gdad — February 9, 2012 @ 4:08 pm
So Jesus would have been a doctor. Gotcha!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 4:12 pm
BTW, if my ‘how dare you call yourself a Christian’ memory serves, Jesus pardoned a thief, forgave a prostitute and traded places with a murderer. I doubt he would condemn the woman or the doctor who had to make a Solomon size choice. If you can find where he said “never sin”, you knock yourself out, otherwise, your cheap shot would fall under “Go, and sin no more”, and Jesus would remain a liberal.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 4:46 pm
Dan – then why didn’t they piss and moan about this 12 years ago? The new rule is obviously just an expansion of an old one that had been on the books for 12 years. And it’s another failure of the Obama Administration to effectively communicate – if they had made note of the EEOC’s ruling in 2000 when announcing the expansion of coverage, they possibly could have come out looking better in all of this.
Comment by Lori — February 9, 2012 @ 4:58 pm
Lori,
It’s because that wasn’t controversial then. It is now because many conservatives have gone so far off the deep end — and, there’s a presidential election, and because the Catholic Church sees an opening.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 9, 2012 @ 5:34 pm
I agree Lori, I think they lost the communications end of this before the issue could be explained outside of the heated rhetoric, religious passion and flat out lies circus it has become. NOTHING in the legislation makes the Church liable for their congregants decision to use the offending products and services that was not already in practice and I have yet to see one person say that it will cost them anything to add this (as in, it is some added burden). Does it REALLY protect your precious religious doctrine if they pay a co-pay or out of pocket for the “service”? Really?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 5:38 pm
Given the results acquired when you Google ‘Santorum’, does anyone else think it’s hilarious that Screwzie used the words ‘surge’ and ‘retool’ when posting about him? LOL!
News headline: Santorum Surges From Behind
Comment by Contrasuzie — February 9, 2012 @ 5:39 pm
Must Employers Who Cover Prescription Drugs Cover Contraception?
The EEOC’s Position, the Courts’ Recent Rulings, States’ Limited Coverage, and the Need for a New Federal Statute
By JOANNA GROSSMAN
Tuesday, Apr. 17, 2007
Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that an employer need not provide insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives – which are only used by women — in order to comply with Title VII’s guarantee of sex equality.
Comment by Ron — February 9, 2012 @ 5:58 pm
Good article on the issue:
“…Likewise, the US Supreme court has dismissed the opinion that the free exercise clause alone can exempt one from neutral, generally applicable laws. In 1982’s United States v. Lee, the US Supreme Court decided that an Amish employer was not constitutionally exempt from paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds because the tax system is a neutral, generally applicable regulatory law. Subsequently, in 1990’s Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, the Court ruled that unemployment benefits in Oregon could be denied to a fired employee who violated a state prohibition of peyote, despite its use in a religious ritual…”
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/09/30/religious-exemptions-contraceptive-coverage-denial-still-constitutional
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 6:27 pm
I asked an honest question the other day on the gun rights thread and now I’d like to ask one (okay, several) concerning Catholicism and birth control. Again, I’m not trying to start any arguments; I’m just hoping for some clarification on a couple of things. IS artificial birth control condemned by the Church utterly and completely? If so, why is the rhythm method okay? If the purpose of sex is to procreate, and you knowingly avoid the days when the possibility is vastly greater of becoming pregnant, why is that okay, but not artificial means? The hoped-for result is the same, that is, to not become pregnant. Are vasectomies acceptable? Conversely, if a couple is having trouble conceiving children, are artificial means of becoming pregnant allowed by the Church? Are fertility drugs acceptable? Artificial insemination? If it is due to a physical inadequacy on the man’s part, are erectile dysfunction drugs allowed? Is it acceptable for the man to use one of those vacuum pumps?
Please, if you’re going to answer, refrain from any sarcastic, snarky comments. Thanks!
Comment by 13 Suns — February 9, 2012 @ 6:31 pm
I believe this is the link for Ron’s post above:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20070417.html
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 6:38 pm
I just do not get how they can keep this paper tiger in the fight? This defies logic much more than faith IMO.
“While some religious employers take advantage of loopholes or religious exemptions, the fact remains that dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities currently offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance packages.
“We’ve always had contraceptive birth control included in our health care benefits,” said Michelle Michaud, a labor and delivery nurse at Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, Calif. “It’s something that we’ve come to expect for ourselves and our family.”
Dominican is part of the Catholic Healthcare West System. A spokeswoman for the 40-hospital chain confirmed that it has offered the benefits since 1997.
Michaud, who was raised Catholic but doesn’t practice now, says she doesn’t see any problem for a Catholic hospital to provide a benefit that conflicts with the religion’s teachings.
“Oh no, because they don’t just employ Catholics,” she said. “They may be Catholic, but who they employ are not necessarily Catholic.” At the same time, said Michaud, “even practicing Catholics would want to have birth control options.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/02/143022996/catholic-groups-fight-contraceptive-rule-but-many-already-offer-coverage
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 9, 2012 @ 7:02 pm
As recognized pacifists should Quakers be exempt from the portion of their taxes that goes toward military operations in Afghanistan or any military expense?
The Catholic church does not permit nuns and priests to marry…should we all suffer under that prohibition” or is that just their specific religious tenets?
Just thinking aloud…about hypocrisy…religion…
Comment by Hillary — February 9, 2012 @ 7:27 pm
Some want to ban contraceptives all together. People need to realize this.
Yes. Abortifacients should be banned altogether. But right now the issue is the government forcing Catholics to pay for these tools of the devil, and that’s plainly not right. Even many liberals agree with me.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 8:28 pm
Not many of you, my fellow bloggers, are old enough to remember this time in our musical history, but below is a link to a classical rock group from the 1950s and the same group doing the same number 45+ years later. Relax and enjoy.
http://www.flixxy.com/the-diamonds-little-darlin-1957-2004.htm
Comment by Ron — February 9, 2012 @ 8:39 pm
Dan – then why didn’t they piss and moan about this 12 years ago? The new rule is obviously just an expansion of an old one that had been on the books for 12 years.
That is incorrect. Religious organizations have always been allowed an exemption. Under 0bamacare that’s been changed. Thus, the firestorm. You people all read the same Mother Jones crap.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 8:39 pm
and because the Catholic Church sees an opening.
Wrong again. 0bama lied to the bishops last fall. He led them to believe they would get an exemption. He reneged. BIG mistake. I can’t imagine that he thought they’d sit there an be quiet about it.
It sounds like a number of leftwingers here don’t have the facts. Perhaps if you did, you would agree with a growing number of liberals who say “Today, we are ALL Cathollics”.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 8:44 pm
I’m just wondering what’s next from the regime. Are they going to send me a yellow “C” I have to wear whenever I go out?
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 8:46 pm
Given the results acquired when you Google ‘Santorum’, does anyone else think it’s hilarious that Screwzie used the words ‘surge’ and ‘retool’ when posting about him? LOL!
Nice try at revisionism, Contra, but I think everybody knows I have been talking about Santorum and prayer and miracles for several weeks now, long before any of this was on the horizon. In fact, Gdad, Steve C, and others made fun of it.
Notice they’re not laughing now.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 8:54 pm
27
Ron, THANK YOU for disproving this Mother Jones crap that the law was the same under Bush. So much disinformation out there.
BTW, welcome to our side on this.
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 8:58 pm
Churches still get the exemption.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 9, 2012 @ 10:22 pm
Suzie Q,
George Bush had nothing to do with the 8th Circuit’s ruling in 2007. That case had been underway since the original ruling by the EEOC that Lori referred to in her post. It just took 7 years to wind its way through the courts.
13 Suns,
I would not pretend to speak for the church, but I can tell you that none of the medications, procedures or devices you mention are covered in the health plan offered by my institution.
I realize that for many of you this issue is about women’s health. I respectfully disagree. To me it is about religious liberty and conscious protection. Should ultimately, the federal department of Health & Human Services successfully prevail over the Catholic Church and its affiliated institutions in this matter, it can also require other denominations and their affiliated institutions to take steps or actions contrary to their basic beliefs and tenents. It’s a slippery slope.
Comment by Ron — February 9, 2012 @ 10:45 pm
“Nice try at revisionism, Contra, but I think everybody knows I have been talking about Santorum and prayer and miracles for several weeks now, long before any of this was on the horizon. In fact, Gdad, Steve C, and others made fun of it.”
Comedy is definitely not your strong suit, is it? Obviously not, as evidenced by your comment over on the Pick A Winner thread. Are you not aware of the most famous result that occurs when you Google Santorum? The one with the word ‘frothy’ in it? I was making extremely off-color double entendres using the words ‘surge’ and ‘reTOOL’. Rather junior highschool-ish, admittedly, but pretty funny, nonetheless. But now you’ve gone and ruined it by making me have to explain it to you. You’re no fun at all. Frowny face!
Comment by Contrasuzie — February 9, 2012 @ 11:17 pm
So this is what we decide elections on. We get split once again on silly wedge issues. Churches are exempt, that’s not the issues. However, Catholic schools and institutions that hire non Catholics ARE infringing on women’s civil rights by denying coverage granted to the general population. It in no way means they have to use the coverage, it just means they can. Ron, are you seriously saying your institution hires right down to the janitor and cook on religious beliefs? Say it ain’t so. ‘Cause that’s what is sounds like.
Comment by Cold n P — February 10, 2012 @ 12:02 am
Ron, Suzie:
“Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is great! If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!” … is that about the size of it?
Comment by Saintbridge — February 10, 2012 @ 12:08 am
Contrasuzie
I love a good joke, double entendre and all that. And heaven knows I have no use for Rick Santorum. But I find it a bit disgusting that some yokel was able to get that definition accepted in the “Urban Dictionary” which just about anybody can use to make up a new word if they get enough people to go online and support them. Santorum is a zealot, a hypocrite, a guy who likes govt. control as long as it supports his social agenda
but is against it if he happens not to like the topic, and says outrageous and unsupported things about the President and anything scientific. But I found the “frothy” mix to be over the top and uncalled for.
Comment by dave — February 10, 2012 @ 1:19 am
I’m with dave on the web redefinition of “Santorum.”
Comment by Dan Casey — February 10, 2012 @ 1:43 am
Ron, Suzie:
“Every sperm is sacred, Every sperm is great! If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!” … is that about the size of it?
No, it’s the zygote; the human being.
But even so, what on earth does this birth control crap have to do with ‘women’s health’? That term is another smokescreen designed to sanitize something ungodly. If you notice, liberal lexicon is filled with these kinds of words and phrases. We could make a whole dictionary of them.
‘women’s health’ = abortion, birth control
(abortion) “procedure” = ripping a baby’s guts out
“pro-choice” = it’s OK to kill little babies in the womb
“revenues” = tax you out the ass
“public investment” = tax you out the ass
“public option” = forced-acceptance of government health care, tax you out the ass
“immigration” = illegal immigration, buying of votes, tax you out the ass
“cap-and-trade”= anti-oil. “Green’ giveaways to political cronies, tax you out the ass
‘fairness” = tax you out the ass and give that money to those who don’t work
“social justice’ = tax you out the ass and give that money to those who don’t work
“progressive” = stinking liberal
“children’s nutrition” = free lunch, buy lazy parents’ votes, tax you out the ass
“climate change” = made-up stuff designed to — you guessed it — tax you out the ass
As you can see, most of the prettified words and phrases end up meaning the same thing.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 4:39 am
George Bush had nothing to do with the 8th Circuit’s ruling in 2007. That case had been underway since the original ruling by the EEOC that Lori referred to in her post. It just took 7 years to wind its way through the courts.
Ron,
Lori said Catholic bishops were silent with the same law under the Bush administration, implying (as did Dan) they’re playing politics, a charge that’s utterly ridiculous since they msiguidedly supported much of 0bamacare. I simply debunked that claim, as did you. No need to try to backtrack by soft-pedaling the truth, Ron. You’re on the right side of this issue. Be proud of it, and welcome aboard!
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 4:55 am
Just thinking aloud…about hypocrisy…religion…
But Hillary claims she is a devout Catholic, people. So much so that she feels she represents the church’s teaching in her comments.
And yet she hates her church so much. I don’t get it.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 4:58 am
I am sorry to disagree with you Ron, even as I see your point but the Catholic Church Hierarchy and the “body of Christ” are at absolute cross purposes and one of them is a total hypocrite. 98% of Catholics practice some form of family planning and there are ALREADY institutions under their banner that offer the coverage for women…because it is the right thing to do.
The Circuit court was not only wrong and will likely be overturned were it to be appealed, the company is not taking away the benefit those women won originally.
If the Catholic Church, or any other, wants to be a hypocrite, that is their choice, but do not make this an issue of the government versus the church when only one of them is not serving the people on this issue. The “sanctity” of your religious rule should not apply to non-Catholic and non-church employees and punishing people you employ for a religious principle you KNOW is being ignored is pretty petty.
NOTHING forces people to use the coverage and the Church can easily work out a plan to “not pay for it” within their own organizations. This is religious belligerence and political demagoguery at their worst.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 7:59 am
I think that “urban dictionary” is an awful invention and I find the whole thing disgusting. I despise Santorum but that is just nasty.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 8:06 am
Saintbridge,
As I mentioned, my position on this issue is not about sperm cells or eggs. It’s about the government requiring a religious institution to provide a service or benefit that violates the basic tenents of its religious foundation.
Cold n P,
Approximately 70% of our employees are practicing Catholics. We have no religious test to attend the college or to be employed by the college.
Comment by Ron — February 10, 2012 @ 8:32 am
98% of Catholics practice some form of family planning
This 98% figure pops up a lot in Guttmacher (aka PP), and implies 98% artificial birth control use. But a lot of Catholics use natural family planning. But all that is irrelevant. The Church isn’t a democracy. It doesn’t care what you think. That’s how values are supposed to be. The CC is a beacon, a stalwart of consistency, and that’s why people are drawn to it. Nobody ever said it would be easy.
It doesn’t care that so many drop out of it because they can’t hack the rules.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 9:36 am
I believe Columnist Dan Savage is the one who came up with the alternate definition of Santorum after Rick started making assumptions that if the US were to allow gay marriage, soon they’d have to allow marriage to animals, children, etc…
It’s nasty, but I’d argue that so is Rick Santorum.
Comment by scott — February 10, 2012 @ 9:41 am
This is religious belligerence and political demagoguery at their worst.
The notion that the Catholic Church is playing politics is a total lie. This is the second time I’ve seen it put forth on this blog and I will shoot it down every time. As I said, many of the bishops were big supporters of 0bamacare. It was their support that helped get Idiot Boy elected. They WANTED to be believers.
The fact is 0bama promised them exemptions, then reneged, plain and simple. The bishops made the miscalculation that socialist or communist regimes tell the truth. They might have done well to consult with their counterparts in former Soviet bloc countries. They didn’t understand regimes consider themselves the religion, and they NEVER allow competition.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 9:46 am
@51 – agreed!
@52 – agreed! If you replace Catholics with Muslims, I find the reaction to the objection would be different.
Comment by Uptheriver — February 10, 2012 @ 9:50 am
Churches are exempt from the birth control aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 10, 2012 @ 9:52 am
So if you cannot win an argument on the merits you just make things up. Quite a tactic, you must be a big hit at game night Suzie.
The exemption for Churches and active faith associations is still in place and protects all religions – Jews-Muslims-and Christians. What it does not do and cannot if it is to be fair and Constitutional is give a free pass to employers who are corollary to the Church but not “of” the Church. How exactly does the Church explain those organizations already offering the coverage on their insurance? How is that compromise worked out? The Church is not interested in a compromise that fully the vast majority of them (at least 98%) practice and some of their organizations already do? How is that NOT hypocrisy and political?
You are simply making stuff up to push your anti-Obama as well as your Dems are Socialists meme. Nothing more. Stop wasting bandwidth.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 10:46 am
Do physicians at Catholic-affiliated hospitals/clinics write prescriptions for birth control? Or does the Catholic Church prohibit it?
Also, here’s NPR’s story from Morning Edition today about the EEOC ruling:
http://tinyurl.com/6tyeudf
The story states that more than half of states (26 to be exact) have birth control laws on the books, with religious exemptions similar to the HHS ruling.
Comment by Lori — February 10, 2012 @ 10:47 am
UTR @ 56 – Muslims do not object to birth control.
Comment by Lori — February 10, 2012 @ 10:50 am
#53 “The CC is a beacon, a stalwart of consistency, and that’s why people are drawn to it.”
yes a “beacon” for pedophiles who are “drawn to it” – just a few examples:
The Catholic Church’s pedophilia investigator, in charge of child protection and interviewing adults who as children had been victims of pedophile priests, today was jailed on pedophilia charges in England. 49-year old Christopher Jarvis, a married man with four children of his own, began serving his 12-month sentence after serving the Catholic Church for nine years in a dioscese that included 120 Catholic Churches. Jarvis admitted to the charges, which included possession of 4000 images of pre-pubescent boys, including several depicting sadism, child rape, and torture.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/catholic-churchs-pedophilia-investigator-in-charge-of-child-protection-jailed-for-pedophilia/news/2011/11/14/30172
Cardinal Law apologized for failing to take action against abuse. The Church paid over $40 million in settlements to victims in the Boston Archdiocese. A Connecticut priest committed suicide after being accused. Retired priest, Paul Shanley, was returned to face charges he raped boys in the 1970s – 80s.
A report by state Attorney General Thomas Reilly estimated more than 1,000 children were abused by priests in the Boston archdiocese in the last 60 years. The Boston Archdiocese has offered $65 million to settle cases filed by more than 540 alleged victims.
14 more accuse priest — The latest claims bring to 39 the number of men who have filed suit against the Archdiocese of Portland OR’s Maurice Grammond
Tired of playing games with the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Hamilton County Prosecutor, Mike Allen, warned church officials to cooperate with an investigation into whether church employees physically and sexually abused children.
http://karisable.com/catholic.htm
None are so blind then those who will not see…
The Catholic church is no “beacon” for morality… but is has “stalwart consistency” for the abuse of children – physically, mentally and sexually.
Most ill-informed – by the way if you haven’t attended Catholic school, – I dare say you should not comment, or as you told me, just “shut up”.
Comment by Hillary — February 10, 2012 @ 10:55 am
#49 most ill-informed [should I also add most lying?]
“But Hillary claims she is a devout Catholic” – really? where did I say that? I am a Catholic by denomination, went to Catholic school, along with every relative of mine, as well as my own children…devout? never said it.
“she feels she represents the church’s teaching”- lying again. Never said I represent the church, although I have studied religion as well as having been “indoctrinated” throughout my childhood regarding Catholicism – but I do not speak for the church…they do a poor enough job on their own.
“And yet she hates her church so much. I don’t get it” – again, you don’t know me, and I don’t give a rat’s behind if you “don’t get it” – you seem not to get a whole lot anyway…
Comment by Hillary — February 10, 2012 @ 11:17 am
Hillary, you left out “the hell”! Right on and keep it coming. People who fly in the face of reality, honesty and decency can only be beaten into submission they do not have the capacity for understanding. I am past the point of caring what she “gets”, only that she does not keep poisoning the issue with her lies.
The Catholic Church is like any other organization. Corruption, hubris, vice and sin are not uncommon and acting like they are, only invites the criticism and ire of people who know better.
I hate to tell some of you, but the Body of Christ is the actual church, the actual worshipers, not the big hats in the Vatican. And as I have repeatedly said, the Church has spoken and is not just blowing smoke. That is not sacrament, that is blasphemy. The compromise here needs to be from them. A Church who proclaims their mission is to serve God and help mankind cannot be hypocritical on helping women. One word from the Pope can fix this whole issue and alleviate suffering ALL OVER THE WORLD. Do the right thing. Your Body of Christ already did.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 11:25 am
Oh Yeah Uptheriver, it is widely known how this nation welcomes and caters to Muslims and their faith. Pitiful.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 11:26 am
The Catholic church knows that what they are ranting against is a bogus claim. Many Catholic institutions in New York — and in more than two dozen other states — already are complying with similar state mandates that the Catholic church is fighting:
.
New York began requiring prescription contraception coverage in 2002, over the objections of Catholic groups, which sued and lost in the state’s highest court.
In Western New York, that means prominent Catholic institutions such as Baker Victory Services, Catholic Charities of Buffalo and St. Bonaventure University have been providing prescription birth control coverage for employees for nearly a decade. http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article727121.ece
Boston College the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, and other Catholic organizations that are located in one of the 28 states that already require employers to provide contraception benefits could have self-insured or stopped offering prescription drug coverage to avoid the mandate — but didn’t do so. Instead, they — like many Catholic hospitals and health care insurers around the country — chose to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of Catholic women and offer these much needed services. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/07/420114/many-catholic-universities-hospitals-already-offer-contraception-as-part-of-their-health-insurance-plans/?mobile=nc
So who thinks this isn’t political theater?
Comment by Hillary — February 10, 2012 @ 11:55 am
@64 I disagree.
Comment by Uptheriver — February 10, 2012 @ 12:04 pm
Dan and Sandi split hairs. We all know we’re talking about religious-affiliated institutions. They always do this when they CANNOT argue their case.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 12:12 pm
63
Notice how Sandi’s abortion blather NEVER focuses on the most critical part; the life of the human being that is extinguished. Leftwingers have to dehumanize abortion, although Sandi has admitted in an earlier thread that she knows it’s human life and doesn’t care. So basically she admitted she’s a monster. When you’re dealing with monsters, their arguments aren’t worth listening to. Might as well debate Charles Manson.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 12:18 pm
I am a Catholic
Nope. You aren’t.. Unless you’re willing to say you are a lapsed Catholic. That’s the only case in which I’ll let it stand. Fortunately for you, the Church is always forgiving, and will always allow people back in no matter how far they’ve fallen.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 12:22 pm
As it so happens I am writing a new song called, What would Jesus drive? After getting almost run down by someone I guess being late to church.
As to the photo, no Jesus would never have a gun or be with any of those folks from the GOP. My guess is if he was alive today he would be in hot water with the police, religion type folks, and those in power.
Comment by billhudson — February 10, 2012 @ 12:36 pm
“Suzie says:
I’m just wondering what’s next from the regime. Are they going to send me a yellow “C” I have to wear whenever I go out?”
Hon, if they send you a yellow ‘C’, it won’t be because it stands for ‘Catholic’.
Comment by Contrasuzie — February 10, 2012 @ 12:53 pm
According to CNN: “President Obama today announced a compromise in the dispute over whether to require full contraception insurance coverage for female employees at religiously affiliated institutions.
Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.
Female employees at churches themselves will have no guarantee of any contraception coverage — a continuation of current law.”
I knew this could be worked out. Now, if the Church can manage some humility, this is all over.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 12:58 pm
“UTR @ 56 – Muslims do not object to birth control.
Comment by Lori — February 10, 2012 @ 10:50 am”
neither do they object to freely slicing off of heads or bombing wtc
Comment by pammala — February 10, 2012 @ 1:33 pm
“I’m just wondering what’s next from the regime. Are they going to send me a yellow “C” I have to wear whenever I go out?
Comment by Suzie — February 9, 2012 @ 8:46 pm”
no no Suzie, you will be tatted with their bar code, lets keep up with fashion now
Comment by pammala — February 10, 2012 @ 1:35 pm
“Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions.”
The church seems to be lauding this compromise. But I wonder if certain RWers will be peeved that they can’t keep these women who work at church-related institutions from getting access to birth control.
I also believe that the whole issue of “forcing the church to pay” for such coverage is completely bogus. It’s much more likely that the government was in a position of forcing the church to save money by providing coverage that is less costly, overall.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 10, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
For someone who does such a pity poor job of speaking for themselves, you would think you would not try to speak for others.
Actually, my “abortion blather” COMPLETELY “focuses on the most critical part”. The life of the human being already alive and in this world is the life that most concerns me and most deserves for me to stay out of the decision. I do not have to like it, I do not even need to support it, I just need to stay the hell out of the decision unless it is my womb. So do you.
How dare you speak of people, children, the disabled and minorities the way you do and then presume to call anyone else a “monster”. You are not fit to judge the sanctity of a ham sandwich much less the worth or value of a woman in need or a life that needs protection.
Your foul mouth is the one that “dehumanizes” people on a daily basis and brags about your wealth while whining about safety net programs to help women and children so maybe you should take your own advise and STHU on yet another subject your hypocrisy crows louder than you do on.
I have never said I did not care, but I will believe you do when you stop trying to denigrate and punish women and start supporting the programs that make it possible for them to “choose life”. Funny thing is, I watched a Charles Manson interview once and talking with you is a very similar experience. He listens only to himself because he believes he knows it all, just like you do.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
Reality check…the Catholic church would have lost on the so called infringement of their free exercise clause:
Justice Scalia explained in the five justice majority decision in {Employment Division v Smith} – the issue of when a person could exempt himself from a generally-applicable law
“WE HAVE NEVER HELD THAT AN INDIVIDUAL’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS EXCUSE HIM FROM COMPLIANCE WITH AN OTHERWISE VALID LAW PROHIBITING CONDUCT THAT THE STATE IS FREE TO REGULATE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE RECORD OF MORE THAN A CENTURY OF OUR FREE EXERCISE JURISPRUDENCE CONTRADICTS THAT PROPOSITION.”
“TO PERMIT THIS WOULD BE TO MAKE THE PROFESSED DOCTRINES OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF SUPERIOR TO THE LAW OF THE LAND, AND IN EFFECT TO PERMIT EVERY CITIZEN TO BECOME A LAW UNTO HIMSELF,” wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how-scalia-helped-obama-defend-the-birth-control-rule.php?ref=fpa
In {United States v Lee}, Amish plaintiffs protested having to collect taxes for Social Security, since they didn’t believe in government support programs as a matter of conscience. In that case, Chief Justice Burger explained for a unanimous Court:
The obligation to pay the social security tax initially is not fundamentally different from the obligation to pay income taxes; the difference — in theory at least — is that the social security tax revenues are segregated for use only in furtherance of the statutory program. There is no principled way, however, for purposes of this case, to distinguish between general taxes and those imposed under the Social Security Act. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, A RELIGIOUS ADHERENT BELIEVES WAR IS A SIN, AND IF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS DEVOTED TO WAR-RELATED ACTIVITIES, SUCH INDIVIDUALS WOULD HAVE A SIMILARLY VALID CLAIM TO BE EXEMPT FROM PAYING THAT PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME TAX. THE TAX SYSTEM COULD NOT FUNCTION IF DENOMINATIONS WERE ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE THE TAX SYSTEM BECAUSE TAX PAYMENTS WERE SPENT IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATES THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but EVERY PERSON CANNOT BE SHIELDED FROM ALL THE BURDENS INCIDENT TO EXERCISING EVERY ASPECT OF THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. WHEN FOLLOWERS OF A PARTICULAR SECT ENTER INTO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AS A MATTER OF CHOICE, THE LIMITS THEY ACCEPT ON THEIR OWN CONDUCT AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE AND FAITH ARE NOT TO BE SUPERIMPOSED ON THE STATUTORY SCHEMES WHICH ARE BINDING ON OTHERS IN THAT ACTIVITY.
Comment by Hillary — February 10, 2012 @ 2:02 pm
Shades of Lake Claytor, lecturing someone on why they are not a Christian. Suzie, there may well be those on this earth who can tell someone they are not a Catholic, with some level of credibility, but they ain’t you.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 2:02 pm
Well pammala at least the Christians have never bombed or beheaded anyone…
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 2:05 pm
#73 I had dinner with a very nice Muslim family here in Roanoke and left with my head intact. So besides the chicken losing his head all went well.
Comment by billhudson — February 10, 2012 @ 2:20 pm
Speaking of Lake Claytor, where’s he been? I had lunch with him last week (you might be happy to know that I presented him with a copy of “Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinksy”) and we haven’t heard a peep out of him since!
And where has Kristen been?
Comment by Dan Casey — February 10, 2012 @ 2:27 pm
#81 How about Art Hill?
Comment by scott whitaker — February 10, 2012 @ 2:37 pm
Dan,
No worries.
As I mentioned last week over lunch (which I enjoyed btw), this place is toxic, the wailing and gnashing gets old.
I’ll still check in once in a while.
——
In response to my mention above…
If someone openly denies the exclusivity of Christ, I have to question what they are basing their “Christianity” on.
Comment by Lake Claytor — February 10, 2012 @ 3:12 pm
Welcome back, LC!
Comment by Dan Casey — February 10, 2012 @ 3:49 pm
The church seems to be lauding this compromise. But I wonder if certain RWers will be peeved that they can’t keep these women who work at church-related institutions from getting access to birth control.
This is just an end run. Everyone is still forced to pay for state-mandated abortion insurance through higher premiums. It’s not a compromise. But it does put the lie to the leftwing claim that the bishops were playing politics. I think the churches should stand their ground and flat-out refuse to allow affiliated institutions participate in anything where abortion-inducing pills are offered. Period.
But I do think the left’s pro-death agenda has been sufficiently highlighted for Catholic voters to see. Big damage has been done.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 3:52 pm
But I do think the left’s pro-death agenda has been sufficiently highlighted for Catholic voters to see. Big damage has been done.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 3:52 pm
Suzie Q,
What’s your position on the death penalty?
Comment by Ron — February 10, 2012 @ 3:58 pm
I do not have to like it, I do not even need to support it, I just need to stay the hell out of the decision unless it is my womb. So do you.
If you saw someone being attacked, would you summon help, or would you walk on past saying “It’s not my business; I’m staying out of it”? Well, this is far more dire. It’s life and death for a human, and you’re damn straight I’m getting involved in rescuing that baby.
It’s hard to believe how anyone, especially a woman, could be such a callous monster as to encourage the attacker.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 4:00 pm
What’s your position on the death penalty?
Most people here know I oppose the death penalty except for the most extreme cases, as when more people are at risk if that person should live, even if he were incarcerated.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 4:02 pm
Jesus rocks!!! He was afraid of guns.
Comment by PU — February 10, 2012 @ 4:04 pm
I think the Komen thing and this latest stand by the administration will only hasten the demise of Roe and ultimately make all abortions and abortion-inducing pills illegal. Once the guys in the white hats return to power, I think a number of these things will be turned back.
America is undergoing a spiritual revival. The young people are tossing the putrid values of the 60′s and 70′s in the trash heap where they belong. I’ve been to Virginia Tech recently. The students are far more serious-minded than when I was a student 30 years ago. I realize no libs in here know much about Tech students, but it’s those kinds of young people who embrace their faith that are going to lead the way in ridding us of the barbaric practice of destroying children in the womb.
I’m very optimistic.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 4:15 pm
#88 Waffler. Lapsed Catholic.
Comment by gdad — February 10, 2012 @ 4:26 pm
#88 most ill-informed posted “I oppose the death penalty except for the most extreme cases…”
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are not a “good” Catholic…
The Catholic bishops of the United States have provided careful guidance about this difficult issue, applying the teaching of the universal Church to our American culture. Along with the leadership assemblies of many Churches (for example. American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians), the U.S. bishops have expressed their opposition to the death penalty
And so they affirm: “We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0195.asp
You can’t be sometimes for and sometimes against what the Church preaches…no half a virgin argument works, but,
don’t worry, as you stated [#69] “the Church is always forgiving, and will always allow people back in no matter how far they’ve fallen.”
So you are no Catholic, but if you call yourself a “lapsed Catholic”,well…[#69] “That’s the only case in which I’ll let it stand.”
Don’t you just hate it when your hypocrisy is in black and white for all to see?
Comment by Hillary — February 10, 2012 @ 4:34 pm
Lake Claytor, my concern for what you have the authority to question is non-existent.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel,
for it is the power of God for salvation
to everyone who believes,
to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
Romans 1:16
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 5:05 pm
Laugh of the day! Thanks Suzie. There is no question that before encountering you, I to might have wondered “how anyone, especially a woman, could be such a callous monster”, but you sure proved how ably you fill the bill.
You are the worst woman basher on this blog and anyone who might think your motive is “rescuing that baby” will very quickly be disabused of that notion. You are doubtless a descendant of the evil crone who screeched “Witch!” if your gnarled toothless old fart looked at a pretty young girl back in the day, when such wretches got young girls burned alive because of their festering hate. You support babies like Jerry Sandusky coaches kids.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 10, 2012 @ 5:14 pm
“this place is toxic, the wailing and gnashing gets old.”
I agree.
Adios folks
Comment by Debbie — February 10, 2012 @ 5:37 pm
Pammala,
Bar code? What the hell are you smoking now? Everybody knows we’re gonna’ tattoo you idiots with a “666” on your foreheads.
Comment by Steve C — February 10, 2012 @ 5:57 pm
“America is undergoing a spiritual revival. The young people are tossing the putrid values of the 60′s and 70′s in the trash heap where they belong. I’ve been to Virginia Tech recently. The students are far more serious-minded than when I was a student 30 years ago”
Suzie’s never been down college ave in Blacksburg on a Friday night. Or Tailgate before kickoff in the fall. I can guarantee the kids are the same as they’ve also been.
I would bet on it, but you can’t bet with a lying welcher.
Comment by Cold n P — February 10, 2012 @ 6:18 pm
#88 Waffler. Lapsed Catholic.
By extreme cases, for the morons in the room, I’m talking about those which can issue orders from prison or their very presence endangers lives because of their nutty following. Such as OBL. I was glad Bush’s special forces put a bullet between his eyes because of the millions who were endangered had he merely been incarcerated.
But I know, you liberals don’t think we should ever protect ourselves even in the face of attacks. That’s what Algore would have done had he been president during 9-11. As a result of his weakness, we would have been hit again and again.
Comment by Suzie — February 10, 2012 @ 10:11 pm
“But I know, you liberals don’t think we should ever protect ourselves even in the face of attacks. That’s what Algore would have done had he been president during 9-11. As a result of his weakness, we would have been hit again and again.”
This is what I mean by “making it up.”
(And actually, this is precisely what happened on 911 under Bush. We were hit again and again.)
Comment by Dan Casey — February 10, 2012 @ 10:54 pm
#97 Right you are, CNP. In fact, things are much wilder there and much drunker than when I was in college. And if she thinks kids aren’t having sex… Yeah, right.
Comment by gdad — February 10, 2012 @ 11:18 pm
#98 Seems to me your pope has said that exceptions to the no death penalty position of the church are pretty much non-existent now. But I guess you know better than him.
Comment by gdad — February 10, 2012 @ 11:22 pm
@98. I don’t know whether to laugh at your absurdity or puke at the evil it took to type that crap.
Comment by Cold n P — February 10, 2012 @ 11:34 pm
Your compulsive need for attention is just getting sad. Poor little rich girl delusions. Too bad “Bush’s special forces” were off duty from January 20 thru September 11, 2001, a lot of Americans would have appreciated there service.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 11, 2012 @ 12:33 am
yeh sure sandi blame Bush for 911, that shows how extremely stupid you are. you call people poor liottle rich girl,..what if we called you a fat little lady that knows nothing…would you like that
Comment by pammala — February 11, 2012 @ 7:23 am
And actually, this is precisely what happened on 911 under Bush. We were hit again and again.)
Really? How many times were we hit on American soil after 9-11 under Bush? Speaking of making stuff up.
Uh oh. Making Dan look silly again. Get ready for more retaliation.
Comment by Suzie — February 11, 2012 @ 9:15 am
I call them Bush’s special forces because they would have been gutted had Idiot Boy gotten his way. He wanted to defund them. In addition, he opposed the enhanced interrogation techniques that led to 0BL’s capture. In short, Idiot boy had ZERO to do with the capture of Bin Laden. But that didn’t keep the pathetic SOB from making it all about him.
Comment by Suzie — February 11, 2012 @ 9:22 am
Suzie’s never been down college ave in Blacksburg on a Friday night. Or Tailgate before kickoff in the fall. I can guarantee the kids are the same as they’ve also been.
Sure, there will always be non-serious students as long as there are non-serious majors. Get rid of the worthless cake POS majors and you will eliminate a bunch of students with excess time on their hands spent partying. But even so, the environment at these schools is a lot more serious than it was 30 years ago. One reason is the standards have risen so much. These schools are harder to get into now. But the other thing is the more austere serious nature of the times. After what 0bama has put the country through, the brightest young people know THEY have to be the leaders to get us out of this long-term morass.
Comment by Suzie — February 11, 2012 @ 9:28 am
Notice, folks, that most of suzie’c comments on birth control etc. come down to little more than a desire to force everybody the U.S. to follow the tenets of her religion. Scary.
Comment by gdad — February 11, 2012 @ 9:56 am
(And actually, this is precisely what happened on 911 under Bush. We were hit again and again.)
This statement is true. We were hit in Tower 1, then Tower 2, then at the Pentagon, then by a plane on it’s way to the Pentagon.
That is again, and again and again.
Comment by Dan Casey — February 11, 2012 @ 10:42 am
Suz,
Unless “OBL” stands for Obese Blathering Loudmouth, you really need to stop droning on about topics that you clearly know nothing about.
Of course President Obama didn’t have anything to do with the capture of Osama bin Laden; he was killed, not captured, you dolt.
The goggle is your friend; use it.
Comment by Steve C — February 11, 2012 @ 2:40 pm
This statement is true. We were hit in Tower 1, then Tower 2, then at the Pentagon, then by a plane on it’s way to the Pentagon.
That is again, and again and again.
These all happened on the same day, Dan. They were part of 9-11. I was obviously talking about after 9-11. No attacks under Bush. But OBL surely would have hit us repeatedly under Algore, sensing his weakness and lack of resolve.
Comment by Suzie — February 12, 2012 @ 10:28 am