# Hobby Lobby Politics



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.

Anyone else feeling that way?


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

There have been numerous postings with people weighing in on both sides of the argument, but I agree with you. It's unfortunate, because apparently they sell a nice cotton yarn, but I'm not going to give them any of my money.


----------



## seamer45 (Jan 18, 2011)

This is a hot subject here and elsewhere, just before the Supreme Court ruling there were only pro and con postings on their Facebook page. Try searching Hobby Lobby for postings here.


----------



## cathy47 (Jun 6, 2011)

The way I see it I don't tell anyone what to do with their bodies and money I expect the same respect. And that includes employers. They need to stay out of everyone's home business period. I would never work for such employers.


----------



## Dawne27 (Sep 10, 2013)

I feel very sorry for the employees that have had decisions made about a private issue by their employers. I would not be able to work under those circumstances. I think it is a shame. It definitely helps me make a decision about where I shop.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Nov 30, 2011)

This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

I do not shop there either. We just had a new Hobby Lobby open up where I live, but we have Michaels and Joanns and I order most of my yarn on line so they won't get any of my money. They should not be able to put their beliefs onto their employees. The supreme court should not let their religion into their decisions. There is suppose to be separation of church and state.


----------



## glofish (Nov 19, 2012)

CarolfromTX said:


> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


I agree. And I do not think that this forum is the place to air political views.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

CarolfromTX said:


> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


No. Anyone interested may comment. We do have the freedom to do that if we wish and you have the freedom to go away. Your choice.


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

This has been a topic in my family lately, since a new HL opened in our town a few months ago. My son and his family will not shop there any more. I go in when I can't get what I want anywhere else. Our Joanne's is a long drive from me, and Michael's does not carry fabric. While I prefer to support local businesses, I am uncomfortable with their politics, but find myself swayed by their proximity to me.


----------



## maleknitter (Jun 19, 2013)

Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


----------



## baygirl22657 (May 8, 2012)

They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

glofish said:


> I agree. And I do not think that this forum is the place to air political views.


Your opinion is just that, your opinion. The rest of us have opinions too. These comments against anything political have been made thousands of times and has changed nothing. We will keep voicing our opinion wherever and whenever we want. That is our choice. We won't go away.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


Then they shouldn't have one. The pills in question have been proven to not cause an abortion, only prevent fertilization. The SCOTUS obviously never investigated this at all. They suddenly become smarter than scientist, just like all the climate change deniers that think they know more than the scientists. They just took the opinion of the Green's that they caused abortion.


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

For some of us, yes, it has been done to death. But there are always people for whom the subject is a new one, and it is beneficial for them to be informed. Personally, I still am making up my mind.


----------



## lneighbors3 (Oct 19, 2011)

Hobby Lobby has not said that their employees cannot practice birth control - not once, not ever. Here is what is impacted by their suit and the Supreme Court decision:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/

The owners believe (to the best of my knowledge, which could be very limited) that life begins at conception. Preventing conception is acceptable.

Lynne


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

glofish said:


> I agree. And I do not think that this forum is the place to air political views.


Actually, this IS the place to discuss it based on the rules for "General Chit-Chat". If you are not interested, don't click into the topic. There are plenty of topics I am not interested in and I don't feel the need to tell everyone they're wrong to want to discuss something.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> Hobby Lobby has not said that their employees cannot practice birth control - not once, not ever. Here is what is impacted by their suit and the Supreme Court decision:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/
> 
> ...


I totally get that. But birth control pills prevent ovulation, thereby preventing conception. So, by that logic...what's their objection to them??


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SherrySherry said:


> This has been a topic in my family lately, since a new HL opened in our town a few months ago. My son and his family will not shop there any more. I go in when I can't get what I want anywhere else. Our Joanne's is a long drive from me, and Michael's does not carry fabric. While I prefer to support local businesses, I am uncomfortable with their politics, but find myself swayed by their proximity to me.


Yes, sometimes we don't have a choice.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

cathy47 said:


> The way I see it I don't tell anyone what to do with their bodies and money I expect the same respect. And that includes employers. They need to stay out of everyone's home business period. I would never work for such employers.


Too bad the government would not subscribe to that sentiment. 
My take is, if you do not like them do not work there, do not shop there, do not let them change your way of thinking. But as I do not know them and the hype has been tremendous, almost making it impossible to search out the facts and I personally have no vested interest in their itemized beliefs or need their birth control coverage, I leave the judgement up to the people it physically affects and shop there if I am in an area where there is a store. If I quit all retailers that I might have an ethical or moral issue with I would be back walking behind that covered wagon ( which on some days I think I must have done in the past!!!). Boycotting only works for a short while, cannot get everyone on board when it is a gender/age issue, to make a lasting impression on their pocketbook and life goes back to status quo for various reasons. In a lot of cases that is just having a job! If they go under so be it, I will shop elsewhere. But we all must do as our conscience dictates, as I understand they are.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


This issue was not about abortion on any level. It was about medications designed to prevent pregnancy and they say they should have the right to deny their employees these medications.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> Too bad the government would not subscribe to that sentiment.
> My take is, if you do not like them do not work there, do not shop there, do not let them change your way of thinking. But as I do not know them and the hype has been tremendous, almost making it impossible to search out the facts and I personally have no vested interest in their itemized beliefs or need their birth control coverage, I leave the judgement up to the people it physically affects and shop there if I am in an area where there is a store. If I quit all retailers that I might have an ethical or moral issue with I would be back walking behind that covered wagon ( which on some days I think I must have done in the past!!!). Boycotting only works for a short while, cannot get everyone on board when it is a gender/age issue, to make a lasting impression on their pocketbook and life goes back to status quo for various reasons. In a lot of cases that is just having a job! If they go under so be it, I will shop elsewhere. But we all must do as our conscience dictates, as I understand they are.


You're absolutely right. I was only wondering if others shared my feelings about not feeling right to shop there.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

cattdages said:


> I totally get that. But birth control pills prevent ovulation, thereby preventing conception. So, by that logic...what's their objection to them??


I am not a pro Hobby Lobby person, but, my understanding is that they are only opposed to birth control such as the morning after pill. In fact their health plan does provide for birth control options, just nothing that is "after conception" such as the morning after pill.

As an aside, their company does not oppose to investing in companies that research and provide birth control such as the morning after pill.....kinda hypocritical if you as me.


----------



## Eos632 (Mar 4, 2014)

I agree. No Hobby Lobby for me. I feel sorry for women that must work there.


----------



## knitter360 (Apr 10, 2011)

I stand with Hobby Lobby! It is their right as an American Company!


----------



## Sedona (Oct 3, 2011)

I agree. Why should Hobby Lobby be expected to respect someone's choice but the other side NOT be expected to respect Hobby Lobby's choice?


maleknitter said:
 

> Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

Thank you for posting the link; the information there helps clarify the issue for me. I understand that the company supports Viagra for men, enabling them to better cause fertilization. Is there an implied prejudice against women? 
Some people think so. So, should corporations be able to pick and choose what their health care should cover? I am thankful my health insurance covered my insulin (not the same kind of issue, I know, but maybe an extreme example).


----------



## countryknitwit (Nov 13, 2011)

Personally, I have more of an issue with Walmart and have found I can easily exist without supporting them. I buy most of my yarns from LYS' s, but I do purchase items at Hobby Lobby.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> Too bad the government would not subscribe to that sentiment.
> My take is, if you do not like them do not work there, do not shop there, do not let them change your way of thinking. But as I do not know them and the hype has been tremendous, almost making it impossible to search out the facts and I personally have no vested interest in their itemized beliefs or need their birth control coverage, I leave the judgement up to the people it physically affects and shop there if I am in an area where there is a store. If I quit all retailers that I might have an ethical or moral issue with I would be back walking behind that covered wagon ( which on some days I think I must have done in the past!!!). Boycotting only works for a short while, cannot get everyone on board when it is a gender/age issue, to make a lasting impression on their pocketbook and life goes back to status quo for various reasons. In a lot of cases that is just having a job! If they go under so be it, I will shop elsewhere. But we all must do as our conscience dictates, as I understand they are.


We the people can make a difference. Walgreens was going to move their headquarters to another country to avoid paying taxes till "we the people" got involved and now they changed their mind. Deciding where we shop is about the only thing we can do. Also there have been lots of people coming down hard on companies that support Rush Limbaugh's program with their advertising. He has lost many of those companies and that fight continues. One person alone can't do much, but together we can.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Sedona said:


> I agree. Why should Hobby Lobby be expected to respect someone's choice but the other side NOT be expected to respect Hobby Lobby's choice?


Hobby Lobby's choice should cover just them. They decide what type of birth control they themselves want to use. Their employees should be able, along with their Dr to decide what is right for them. Hobby Lobby's religion is theirs, and should not be pushed onto their employees. You pay your insurance premiums in order to have the coverage you want and need, not to have your employer say you can't have that.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> You're absolutely right. I was only wondering if others shared my feelings about not feeling right to shop there.


I know what you mean , only in the opposite vein. Eons ago when we lived in the Twin Cities, Mn. I saw people who do not just sleep on their sheets shopping in my favourite summertime store, knew the owner well. Only reason I knew was that they had had a rally and were on the news and later found out lived close to us. Now that bothered me in so many ways, being the banty hen I can become I knew I had to keep my emotions in check and pick different hours to shop. It is a reversal for this store owner, was she going to close and lose her livelihood because of the patrons? Life gives us tremendous opportunities to be our best, knowing what someone or something is and ignoring them says a lot too. Each side is willing to spend millions to protect what they think is right and not very often in the end does the kingdom crumble.


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

I just looked up info on the morning after pill. it does not cause an abortion. Rather, it prevents the sperm that can live in a women's reproductive system (for up to 5 days) from fertilizing the egg. Maybe the HL powers-that-be have not educated themselves on this topic.


----------



## cathy47 (Jun 6, 2011)

CarolfromTX said:


> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


have to agree, but then so many other issues have been drained to death also..


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitter360 said:


> I stand with Hobby Lobby! It is their right as an American Company!


So the company has rights, but what about the employees? Do they loose their rights because they work there. I know, the same old line is "work someplace else," but jobs are not that easy to find and they shouldn't have to change jobs. President Obama is trying to fix it, but how much you want to bet, the republicans in congress won't allow it. That is their job you know---obstruct.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SherrySherry said:


> I just looked up info on the morning after pill. it does not cause an abortion. Rather, it prevents the sperm that can live in a women's reproductive system (for up to 5 days) from fertilizing the egg. Maybe the HL powers-that-be have not educated themselves on this topic.


Only because they don't want to. The supreme court didn't educate themselves either. That is where you would expect the education to be, but religion got involved where it shouldn't be.


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

But the morning after pill does prevent conception after unprotected sex. And I see that it can be available over the counter now, which makes it a moot point.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I have the opposite belief. I went out of my way to drive to a Hobby Lobby to shop and spend money to support them as the lawsuit involving them was argued in front of the Supreme Court.

I believe every privately owned company like HL should have the right to their own beliefs and business practices without government interference. The SCOTUS decided as I do.

Also, HL never has disallowed birth control coverage for their employees, they only refused to pay for four medical scripts they didn't wish to pay for as it is against the owners' beliefs. Their employees could still buy those scripts and use them and the employees employment would not be affected.

I respect that HL stood firm on their beliefs.


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

People are very passionate about this topic. I seem to be a waffler with no concrete decision. I kind of agree with all of the comments I've seen posted. So I think I will take myself out of the conversation.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> We the people can make a difference. Walgreens was going to move their headquarters to another country to avoid paying taxes till "we the people" got involved and now they changed their mind. Deciding where we shop is about the only thing we can do. Also there have been lots of people coming down hard on companies that support Rush Limbaugh's program with their advertising. He has lost many of those companies and that fight continues. One person alone can't do much, but together we can.


Your statement about Walgreens is not factual nor was it resolved to suit what you said was because of "we the people."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SherrySherry said:


> But the morning after pill does prevent conception after unprotected sex. And I see that it can be available over the counter now, which makes it a moot point.


The issue is that they pay their insurance premiums, but then have to come up with more money to but things that are covered for everyone else. Why is it that the men don't seem to take any responsibility for this and it is all up to the woman. Why are women again fighting for rights that we use to have, and why again is it mostly men wanting to take them away from us. That one old geezer said women use to put an aspirin between their knees. Well that would take us back to the dark ages wouldn't it. Why is sex something men enjoy and women are not suppose to. Rush Limbaugh says women only need the pill because they do this one thing, so they don't have to do it. Well maybe he needs to tell that to all the men. The only time you do "it" is when you want to procreate and the rest of the time it is a no no.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

I do speak with my pocketbook I don't shop at Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby any more. I do miss Hobby Lobby I thought they have a nice store and I do like their yarns. 

I think the people should have the right to choose not the company that you work for. God our Creator gives us the Freedom to choose who am I to judge others. I don't believe in abortion but that's my Freedom to choose.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your statement about Walgreens is not factual nor was it resolved to suit what you said was because of "we the people."


I disagree. They did buy Alliance Boots, so I doubt this is the end of it though.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-29/business/ct-walgreen-headquarters-taxes-0629-biz-20140629_1_walgreen-co-tax-loophole-alliance-boots

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/26/walgreens-inversion-tax-taxes/13090921/

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/walgreens-wont-move-overseas-to-reduce-taxes/


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


An IUD is not an abortion it is a type of contraception and the IUD was included in the refuse to include in health benefits.


----------



## Casey47 (Feb 5, 2014)

First of all, this thread was started in the "non knitting" category and was clearly labeled as to content. If you don't think it should be discussed on this forum or if you think it's been discussed too much then why join in?

As to the subject matter: It is my understanding that Hobby Lobby opposed specific types of birth control, based on religious values and wanted exceptions to the law because of these beliefs.

A super simple way around all this would be for the law to read that all companies needs to provide (for example) any 6 out of a list of 10 birth control possibilities. That would take care of any exceptions to the type of birth control but at the same time provide coverage for birth control. This is probably way too simple and direct for the government and the corporate mind set.

For me the issue is not birth control. It is religion being mixed up in government in general. For Hobby Lobby specifically it is the fact that they blow the righteous trumpets about certain birth control methods. At the same time the trumpets are sounding off loud and clear, they're buying merchandise from countries that defy most of the religious tenets that Hobby Lobby claims. They don't want to pay for birth control X but they'll pay for merchandise that comes from a place where children are worked to death and women are little more than livestock. They shouldn't expect to have it both ways. I hate hypocrisy.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

NJG said:


> So the company has rights, but what about the employees? Do they loose their rights because they work there. I know, the same old line is "work someplace else," but jobs are not that easy to find and they shouldn't have to change jobs. President Obama is trying to fix it, but how much you want to bet, the republicans in congress won't allow it. That is their job you know---obstruct.


The employees can work elsewhere if it bothers them. I talked about this with the employees at our local Hobby Lobby- none of them had issues - there are family planning clinics all over the place to get birth control including the morning after pill at very low prices. My insurance does not cover certain drugs - I retired from a large corporation. You can find issues to argue about anywhere.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have the opposite belief. I went out of my way to drive to a Hobby Lobby to shop and spend money to support them as the lawsuit involving them was argued in front of the Supreme Court.
> 
> I believe every privately owned company like HL should have the right to their own beliefs and business practices without government interference. The SCOTUS decided as I do.
> 
> ...


Part of the issue is the income inequality that is very very evident in this country and those on the right who believe it is a simple matter to just go buy them yourself. Every privately owned company does have the right to their own beliefs, but they should not have the right to influence their employees beliefs. Hobby Lobby is even trying to get a mandatory public school bible curriculum into schools in Oklahoma. It would start as a elective course and then because they have the help of the supreme court, push to make it mandatory and push it all across the country. Now it has been postponed because of the backlash, but don't worry. Backed by the SCOTUS, there is no telling what they will do.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> people who do not just sleep on their sheets


I am not familiar with this reference. I do not just "sleep on my sheets" either as often my husband and I engage in other...er...activities.

What sorts of people did you not want to associate with?


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SherrySherry said:


> People are very passionate about this topic. I seem to be a waffler with no concrete decision. I kind of agree with all of the comments I've seen posted. So I think I will take myself out of the conversation.


I see both sides of this issue also which is kind of why I opened the discussion. As a woman who chose not to have children I just feel pretty strongly about reproductive rights. I know that in my younger days had my employer not contributed to the cost of birth control it would have been very hard to live the life I chose.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> The employees can work elsewhere if it bothers them. I talked about this with the employees at our local Hobby Lobby- none of them had issues - there are family planning clinics all over the place to get birth control including the morning after pill at very low prices. My insurance does not cover certain drugs - I retired from a large corporation. You can find issues to argue about anywhere.


Yes, just go get another job someplace else. Take a cut in pay, no problem, drive an extra mile, no problem. You do miss the point when you say things like this. So corporations are people with feelings, rights, and religions, but don't you wonder what is next? With 5 catholic men on the court, who knows. There is a big assault on our public schools already with financing. What will follow that? Like I said, you really miss the point.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

NJG said:


> The issue is that they pay their insurance premiums, but then have to come up with more money to but things that are covered for everyone else. Why is it that the men don't seem to take any responsibility for this and it is all up to the woman. Why are women again fighting for rights that we use to have, and why again is it mostly men wanting to take them away from us. That one old geezer said women use to put an aspirin between their knees. Well that would take us back to the dark ages wouldn't it. Why is sex something men enjoy and women are not suppose to. Rush Limbaugh says women only need the pill because they do this one thing, so they don't have to do it. Well maybe he needs to tell that to all the men. The only time you do "it" is when you want to procreate and the rest of the time it is a no no.


Oh do NOT get me started on Rush Limbaugh!!! LOL


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Casey47 said:


> For me the issue is not birth control. It is religion being mixed up in government in general. For Hobby Lobby specifically it is the fact that they blow the righteous trumpets about certain birth control methods. At the same time the trumpets are sounding off loud and clear, they're buying merchandise from countries that defy most of the religious tenets that Hobby Lobby claims. They don't want to pay for birth control X but they'll pay for merchandise that comes from a place where children are worked to death and women are little more than livestock. They shouldn't expect to have it both ways. I hate hypocrisy.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Sedona said:


> I agree. Why should Hobby Lobby be expected to respect someone's choice but the other side NOT be expected to respect Hobby Lobby's choice?


Because Hobby Lobby if forcing "their" choice onto their employees. Hobby Lobby can choose not to use these pills and IUD's. That is their personal choice.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Oh do NOT get me started on Rush Limbaugh!!! LOL


Yes, he is a separate issue for sure. 4 wives and he thinks he has the right to judge other peoples morality.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> Part of the issue is the income inequality that is very very evident in this country and those on the right who believe it is a simple matter to just go buy them yourself. Every privately owned company does have the right to their own beliefs, but they should not have the right to influence their employees beliefs. Hobby Lobby is even trying to get a mandatory public school bible curriculum into schools in Oklahoma. It would start as a elective course and then because they have the help of the supreme court, push to make it mandatory and push it all across the country. Now it has been postponed because of the backlash, but don't worry. Backed by the SCOTUS, there is no telling what they will do.


Employee compensation and income equality had zero to do with the Hobby Lobby case. You cannot make the case about that which you wish. The entire case was whether or not the SCOTUS would require HL to provide/pay for the four drugs/procedures the owners did not wish to pay. Had the SCOTUS decided against HL, everyone would have lost their jobs across the country as the owners said they would close their business in its entirety.

To your other point, HL never attempted to influence their employees' beliefs and still do not. The employees ALWAYS and STILL have the right to make their own choices in their lives and for their health care, insurance and needs.

I'll also state to your first point which has no relevance, HL has been paying more than minimum wage even though income, wages, and pay had zero to do with the HL case.


----------



## jbandsma (Mar 6, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


They're a business, not a religion. I'm with you about voting with my pocketbook. I don't support WalMart or Sam's and only patronize a big box store when there's no local option (even if the local option costs more).

And it opens up the way for any business owner to say that they won't allow coverage to be provided for ANYTHING that they think is contrary to their religion.

The really horrendous part of this is that the Supreme Court, contrary to the constitution, allowed this to stand. At first they said that it would only apply to 4 types of birth control and only to "closely held" companies. The very next day they came back and said, "no, it actually applies to ALL forms of birth control". And the day after THAT, they declared that it applied to all companies.

But viagra and penis pumps are still covered.


----------



## mopgenorth (Nov 20, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


Absolutely. I won't give them one penny of my money.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Employee compensation and income equality had zero to do with the Hobby Lobby case. You cannot make the case about that which you wish. The entire case was whether or not the SCOTUS would require HL to provide/pay for the four drugs/procedures the owners did not wish to pay. Had the SCOTUS decided against HL, everyone would have lost their jobs across the country as the owners said they would close their business in its entirety.
> 
> To your other point, HL never attempted to influence their employees' beliefs and still do not. The employees ALWAYS and STILL have the right to make their own choices in their lives and for their health care, insurance and needs.
> 
> I'll also state to your first point which has no relevance, HL has been paying more than minimum wage even though income, wages, and pay had zero to do with the HL case.


You do seem to have a hard time reading and understanding what is written. You always seem to interpret other peoples comments to mean something they didn't even say. I will not waste my time on you.


----------



## diamondbelle (Sep 10, 2011)

maleknitter said:


> Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


The employment dilemma isn't that simple. If someone needs a job and there are very few jobs available within reasonable commuting distance, sometimes that person has to take a job whether they like it or not.

If it's a matter of losing one's house or not being able to pay the rent, and accepting the employer's religious beliefs, then I think most of us would choose to take the job.

You can't feed your family on principles.


----------



## lneighbors3 (Oct 19, 2011)

Let's reason together on this. We do not all have to believe the same; and, in fact, it would be really boring if we did. But, we are all - on both sides of any issue - entitled to our viewpoint. If you wish your point of view to be treated with respect, then we have to treat the other side's point of view the same way.

I have no stake in the Hobby Lobby decision in any way. I have never worked there nor will I ever. I know no one who has, does, or will work there. I seldom shop there simply because I am not in need of any of their products. 

That said, I do believe a privately held company such as Hobby Lobby should have the right to set the rules for their property in any way they see fit. It is their company, their property, their hard work and money put into it. This is true or should be for every privately held company in the United States. I worked for a privately held corporation that set the rules for us. We knew going in what they were. We had the right to accept a job offer or pass on it. The owners' of the company provide health insurance for their employees and subsidize the premiums for those employees. This is true of every large corporation, and this is why we now have to declare insurance premiums on our tax forms. 

Should any company or individual have to pay for something that is against all their deeply held beliefs (either religious or not, we all have beliefs)? If you believe they should have to pay, then why?

Lynne


----------



## Bombshellknits (Feb 2, 2013)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I refuse to shop there. There are several people in lots of other states that say if you ask for Jewish items they tell you that they are Christians. Apparently they do not carry things for "those people", or I believe the person was called "you people". Like I gotta be Jewish to buy Jewish items. People can't have friends who are different? I have no time for their nonsense. Their religious views are legal, and theirs. But, they are not mine, and neither are Hobby Lobby's prejudices. The birth control issue is nonsense. Not to give TMI, but, I'm 56 now. Hubby and I had 2 kids. After #2 we were debating if I went back on the pill or not. Or did we do something permanent. I'm allergic to latex. So, condoms were not an option. Lucky for us, sort of, we are self employed and buy our own health insurance. The costs were ours, as were our choices. And one choice was that we could comfortably afford only 2 children.

If Hobby Lobby were giving yarn away i would take it, and then I would donate it. I want nothing from a group like that. Ever.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> Let's reason together on this. We do not all have to believe the same; and, in fact, it would be really boring if we did. But, we are all - on both sides of any issue - entitled to our viewpoint. If you wish your point of view to be treated with respect, then we have to treat the other side's point of view the same way.
> 
> I have no stake in the Hobby Lobby decision in any way. I have never worked there nor will I ever. I know no one who has, does, or will work there. I seldom shop there simply because I am not in need of any of their products.
> 
> ...


Because their beliefs should not interfere with their employees rights and beliefs. Their religious beliefs should not be forced upon their employees. Just because I give you a job does not mean I have any control of your private life. The year is 2014, not 1950. Your religion is your religion. I do not have to believe the same as you do. If it is so against their beliefs, then why to they invest in companies that make these contraceptives they are so against? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me, which is a whole other discussion, but I find some of those on the right to be very hypocritical people.

In addition, if a privately held company should be able to set the rules for their property in any way they see fit, as you stated, should they be able to keep African Americans from shopping in their stores? Should they be able to keep gay people from shopping in their stores? Should the little neighborhood restaurant down the street from me be able to exclude white people? Is this the direction you want this country to go? Remember Hobby Lobby is wanting to put a religious curriculum in the public schools. Should all students in public schools be converted to become Christians?


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

lneighbors3, she might tell you that you are missing the point, although you are correct and stated it much better than I did. In my eyes. this was not a benefit the employees lost- this was one they never had, and were fully aware of it when they went to work there.
let me add- Hobby Lobby is not against all contraceptives, just that morning after pill and those like it that would kill a fertilized egg. I understand both sides but have to support the right of Hobby Lobby.


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> I am not familiar with this reference. I do not just "sleep on my sheets" either as often my husband and I engage in other...er...activities.
> 
> What sorts of people did you not want to associate with?


White sheets, KKK.


----------



## lneighbors3 (Oct 19, 2011)

NJG said:


> Because their beliefs should not interfere with their employees rights and beliefs. Their religious beliefs should not be forced upon their employees. Just because I give you a job does not mean I have any control of your private life. The year is 2014, not 1950. Your religion is your religion. I do not have to believe the same as you do. If it is so against their beliefs, then why to they invest in companies that make these contraceptives they are so against? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me, which is a whole other discussion, but I find some of those on the right to be very hypocritical people.


Aaaah, but many organizations have control over the private lives of their employees - schools, charities, and even the federal government. It may not have to do with their reproductive systems, but they do control their behavior both in public and in private. The company I worked for was an extremely large corporation that was privately held - all stock is in the hands of current or former employees only. It is a company in the financial sector. Every year, I had to submit a statement as to my financial life with regard to any business outside of my employment. The company decided whether or not I could have a private business or not. The company decided about who I made my investments with. Yes, it is 2014; but every business has rules for their employees.

Lynne


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

CarolfromTX said:
 

> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


Yes!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> Aaaah, but many organizations have control over the private lives of their employees - schools, charities, and even the federal government. It may not have to do with their reproductive systems, but they do control their behavior both in public and in private. The company I worked for was an extremely large corporation that was privately held - all stock is in the hands of current or former employees only. It is a company in the financial sector. Every year, I had to submit a statement as to my financial life with regard to any business outside of my employment. The company decided whether or not I could have a private business or not. The company decided about who I made my investments with. Yes, it is 2014; but every business has rules for their employees.
> 
> Lynne


So they evidently didn't tell you what contraceptives they thought you should use.


----------



## lneighbors3 (Oct 19, 2011)

I have no idea as I have not needed contraceptives since I was 25 years old. My comment in response to your last comment dealt with companies controlling employees private lives and behaviors. 

You know, this correlates to other areas of business group health insurance. I have fibromyalgia along with many other things, but let's just deal with this one disease. My doctor told me that the best medicine for my fibro is Savella. The formulary for my company's group insurance did not cover Savella. So, at this point I have a choice. Do I pay for it out of my own pocket, or do I ask my doctor to prescribe something on the formulary? Is this really any different?

Lynne


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> White sheets, KKK.


Thanks for clearing that up! I get you now.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> I have no idea as I have not needed contraceptives since I was 25 years old. My comment in response to your last comment dealt with companies controlling employees private lives and behaviors.
> 
> You know, this correlates to other areas of business group health insurance. I have fibromyalgia along with many other things, but let's just deal with this one disease. My doctor told me that the best medicine for my fibro is Savella. The formulary for my company's group insurance did not cover Savella. So, at this point I have a choice. Do I pay for it out of my own pocket, or do I ask my doctor to prescribe something on the formulary? Is this really any different?
> 
> Lynne


Birth control is recognized as basic preventive health care and has been mandated to be part of insurance coverage. In 1978, the U.S. Congress made it clear that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was discrimination on the basis of sex. Has Savella been mandated to be part of everyone's insurance coverage."


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> I have no idea as I have not needed contraceptives since I was 25 years old. My comment in response to your last comment dealt with companies controlling employees private lives and behaviors.
> 
> You know, this correlates to other areas of business group health insurance. I have fibromyalgia along with many other things, but let's just deal with this one disease. My doctor told me that the best medicine for my fibro is Savella. The formulary for my company's group insurance did not cover Savella. So, at this point I have a choice. Do I pay for it out of my own pocket, or do I ask my doctor to prescribe something on the formulary? Is this really any different?
> 
> Lynne


It is different, only because of the purpose. The purpose of having a formulary is financial. The purpose of not providing birth control is religious or moral.

As far as I am concerned neither is ethical. An employer should provide the best possible healthcare, and should not be allowed to make those choices on behalf of their employees.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cattdages said:


> It is different, only because of the purpose. The purpose of having a formulary is financial. The purpose of not providing birth control is religious or moral.
> 
> As far as I am concerned neither is ethical. An employer should provide the best possible healthcare, and should not be allowed to make those choices on behalf of their employees.


I agree. It should be the Dr who decides what medications we should get, not the insurance company or the employer. It is between me and my Dr.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> lneighbors3, she might tell you that you are missing the point, although you are correct and stated it much better than I did. In my eyes. this was not a benefit the employees lost- this was one they never had, and were fully aware of it when they went to work there.
> let me add- Hobby Lobby is not against all contraceptives, just that morning after pill and those like it that would kill a fertilized egg. I understand both sides but have to support the right of Hobby Lobby.


I agree. HL has never interfered with the rights of its employees. The employees kept their jobs and their insurance and benefits. Employment is a two-way street - no one is forced to work and the employer isn't forced to hire. The employer is making the offer and the employee can not apply or refuse if they don't like the offer. I believe she missed the point entirely and the fact I addressed and spoke to only what she mentioned is rather amusing.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> So they evidently didn't tell you what contraceptives they thought you should use.


HL doesn't either.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cattdages said:


> It is different, only because of the purpose. The purpose of having a formulary is financial. The purpose of not providing birth control is religious or moral.
> 
> As far as I am concerned neither is ethical. An employer should provide the best possible healthcare, and should not be allowed to make those choices on behalf of their employees.


So you believe you have the right to tell an employer how to operate his business, but the employer doesn't have that same right?

That's crazy. What risks - financial, moral, environmental, initiative, responsibility, physical, time, government rules & regulations, personal, enterprenurship, business mgmt, educational, tax understanding, etc., has the employee accepted and taken on as compared to the employer?

With that logic, you should demand every employee become an employer so that they can no longer have any decision making authority over any part of their business if you want them to call the shots.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I agree. HL has never interfered with the rights of its employees. The employees kept their jobs and their insurance and benefits. Employment is a two-way street - no one is forced to work and the employer isn't forced to hire. The employer is making the offer and the employee can not apply or refuse if they don't like the offer. I believe she missed the point entirely and the fact I addressed and spoke to only what she mentioned is rather amusing.


I believe you missed the point entirely, and yes you are very amusing. I always get a good laugh after you post something, as you try to sound as intelligent, as you have told me that you are, but you just don't quite pull it off. Those who brag about how intelligent they are, usually aren't. No you don't speak to what was mentioned. You always speak to what your interpretation, of what was mentioned, and 99% of the time you are off the mark.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> HL doesn't either.


OK, let me state that another way. HL tells you what contraceptives you can't have. That should be a decision between a woman and her Dr, not her employer.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> I believe you missed the point entirely, and yes you are very amusing. I always get a good laugh after you post something, as you try to sound as intelligent, as you have told me that you are, but you just don't quite pull it off. Those who brag about how intelligent they are, usually aren't. No you don't speak to what was mentioned. You always speak to what your interpretation, of what was mentioned, and 99% of the time you are off the mark.


I thought you weren't going to waste your time with me? BTW: you missed your own points and justifications entirely. I've never said anything of the kind about myself and please stay on topic and stop with the personal attacks.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> OK, let me state that another way. HL tells you what contraceptives you can't have. That should be a decision between a woman and her Dr, not her employer.


No they do not. It is a decision between the employee and the doctor. HL has never interfered with those decisions. Please state the facts.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> So you believe you have the right to tell an employer how to operate his business, but the employer doesn't have that same right?
> 
> That's crazy. What risks - financial, moral, environmental, initiative, responsibility, physical, time, government rules & regulations, personal, enterprenurship, business mgmt, educational, tax understanding, etc., has the employee accepted and taken on as compared to the employer?
> 
> With that logic, you should demand every employee become an employer so that they can no longer have any decision making authority over any part of their business if you want them to call the shots.


I am not telling any employer how to operate their business. The ACA has a mandate that this contraception coverage was included. As I said before you interpret things that were not even said. This is a perfect example. It is next to impossible to have a conversation with you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> I am not telling any employer how to operate their business. The ACA has a mandate that this contraception coverage was included. As I said before you interpret things that were not even said. This is a perfect example. It is next to impossible to have a conversation with you.


My response and question were addressed to cattdages, not you, so get off your insult train and stop talking to me please as you said you would.


----------



## azmoonbugs (Dec 2, 2011)

jumbleburt said:


> There have been numerous postings with people weighing in on both sides of the argument, but I agree with you. It's unfortunate, because apparently they sell a nice cotton yarn, but I'm not going to give them any of my money.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No they do not. It is a decision between the employee and the doctor. HL has never interfered with those decisions. Please state the facts.


 You are part of those on the right that think everyone has plenty of money to just go buy any thing their insurance doesn't cover. Not everyone can do that. HL has taken that decision away from the Dr and has refused to pay for it as the mandate said they should. It is very hypocritical to profit from the manufacture of those drugs, but then not pay for them for their employees. It is not right for them to try to force their religious beliefs on their employees.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> My response and question were addressed to cattdages, not you, so get off your insult train and stop talking to me please as you said you would.


So then why can you not address your comment to whomever it is for, so I don't make such an awful terrible and dreadful mistake. I am so very very sorry. Excuse me, but I believe you started talking to me back on page 3.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I thought you weren't going to waste your time with me? BTW: you missed your own points and justifications entirely. I've never said anything of the kind about myself and please stay on topic and stop with the personal attacks.


Oh, please. You did tell me how smart you were with your college education and the fact that you were a business owner and la te da. Don't try to deny it now. You have been told before, what you dish out, you get back. You have been kicked off of KP before, because of what you dish out, so just chill out.


----------



## LindaLu (Mar 9, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


That is my understanding of it also. There is a big difference between birth control and abortion.


----------



## Jean Large (Nov 29, 2013)

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby pays there employees above minimum wage and they can purchase insurance from another source if they do not agree with the insurance provide by the employer. The employee has the choice to take the company offered insurance or not take it. Of course, we all have that option. Hobby Lobby is a privately held, family owned company.


----------



## lneighbors3 (Oct 19, 2011)

This is very long so you might wish to just skip/delete.

I think there is a misconception about Hobby Lobby's stance on birth control. They filed the suit because of specific drugs being mandated by the ACA to be provided on corporate insurance policies. If you go to:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp 
you will see that the suit does not cover all forms of birth control. Only drugs which can be considered to cause abortions are in contention. Yes, I do see that IUDs are on there, too. I do not know why Hobby Lobby believes them to cause abortions, but they do believe that.

There also seems to be a difference of opinion about the reported facts on Hobby Lobby investing in the very products they do not wish to provide to their female employees. You can see info about it here:
http://www.snopes.com/info/news/hobbylobby.asp

Is Hobby Lobby telling their women employees they have to be celibate and Christian? I have never seen that anywhere. Are they asking these same women employees to be responsible for their own procreative health? Yes, they are as they are asking them to be preventative in birth control. As should every woman who does not wish to bear a child.

There are many, many different types of birth control pills out there. It is not that difficult to take them. The problem comes in that some do not wish to take that responsibility. They wish to have unprotected sex and then worry about the results later. And the results are an innocent child who loses its life before it really begins.

I do believe in a woman's right to choose her form of birth control. I do not believe, though, that she should expect someone else to foot the bill for her choices. Back when I was on birth control, I paid for them out of my own pocket because my husband and I did not want any children. I made a choice, and I accepted my own responsibility in the matter.

I believe that all the government mandates are the prime reason that so many companies are pulling offshore - along with the cheap labor. Even very small businesses are finding it almost impossible to keep up with all the federal rules and regulations.

I somehow do not believe that we can come to any meeting of the minds on this issue. I am very much a "small government" believer, and I think from your statements that your are the opposite. If this is the case, we are never going to be able to agree on this decision. I do respect your viewpoint, but it is not mine.


----------



## granker (Apr 3, 2012)

Worse part is that they own stock in company that make birth control pills. Talk about 2 faced.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

granker said:


> Worse part is that they own stock in company that make birth control pills. Talk about 2 faced.


Their retirement plan investment portfolio has investments in companies making and providing the very birth control options they object to (not just birth control pills).....moral of story, it is okay to make money off those products, but not to use them.


----------



## Jean Large (Nov 29, 2013)

I believe the initial author just wanted to tell us she is not shopping at HL. To each their own. My opinion will not change your mind and your opinion will not change my mind. This debate could go on for 100 pages and still come to the same conclusion: Follow your own conscience, shop where you choose.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> This is very long so you might wish to just skip/delete.
> 
> I think there is a misconception about Hobby Lobby's stance on birth control. They filed the suit because of specific drugs being mandated by the ACA to be provided on corporate insurance policies. If you go to:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp
> ...


If HL owners do not want people to have abortions, then they should not have one, but let others make that decision for themselves. Scientist have proven that the pills in question do not cause an abortion. They stop the egg from being fertilized. There is no embryo to abort.

As far as their investments, they can not claim we didn't know because there are to many to keep track of. You pay someone to take care of it.

HL is telling their employees, because of my religion, I prefer you don't use certain birth control. It is mandated that I provide it for you, but because I don't believe in it I won't provide it. It is my decision, not yours or your Drs.

Yes every woman and man should be responsible, but will that ever happen? This is human nature we are talking about here. Accidents do happen.

No the problems come from the coverage being mandated and HL refusing to provide them because of their own religious beliefs. That is the problem. It is their beliefs, not their employees.

i don't understand the "small government" comment. I hear that all the time. I want smaller government, unless it is something I don't like, then I want the big government to put their big foot in it and stop it. Then big government is ok.

Not sure who you are addressing this to, but I answered anyway.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

LindaLu said:


> That is my understanding of it also. There is a big difference between birth control and abortion.


The pills they oppose do not cause abortion. They stop the egg from being fertilized. If there is a fertilized egg, it does no harm, so it is not guaranteed to work. But oh, those scientist, they don't know what they are talking about. Lets believe the Green family instead.


----------



## Cimmanon (Oct 10, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I agree with you. HL is finally opening some stores in my area, but I won't be patronizing them. HL's owners have both forced their religious beliefs on their employees (some freedom of religion that is) and had human rights granted to the legal entity they created to buffer themselves from taxes and other laws. I abhor both actions and won't put a dime in their pockets.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

HL. Owned by a cult.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> HL. Owned by a cult.


Sounds about right. Now they are trying to get into the public schools.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

LindaLu said:


> That is my understanding of it also. There is a big difference between birth control and abortion.


That is exactly the case. HL doesn't interfere with the decision of their employees and their doctors and decisions regarding birth control.

As a matter of fact, HL pays for, I believe, 16 different types of birth control! So, no, they are not hypocritical paying for birth control as the owners believe in and are willing and have paid for birth controls for their employees.

Most posts I've read so far by those who do not wish to support HL, don't understand the facts of the case or the lawsuit settled by the Supreme Court.

Of course, anyone can choose what they wish to believe. That's the beauty of the Capitalistic system of America!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Yes there is a lot of misunderstanding going on here. HL can pay for 50 forms of birth control if they want to, as it make no difference. They are choosing to not pay for the ones that were mandated to be covered by the ACA. They believe their religious beliefs trump what an employee is entitled to under their insurance plan. They believe they are smarter than the scientist who invented those pills. Yes there was a big threat that they would close down if they didn't get their way. Well I for one am tired of big corporations telling the little guy when to jump and how high. I hope they suffer because of people boycotting their store. I also hope they try to continue to push their religion on the public schools and find out what it really means to meet up with we the people. We will not have 5 catholic men on the court forever. What goes around, comes around. They will get theirs some day soon.


----------



## Revan (Jun 29, 2011)

NJG said:


> I do not shop there either. We just had a new Hobby Lobby open up where I live, but we have Michaels and Joanns and I order most of my yarn on line so they won't get any of my money. They should not be able to put their beliefs onto their employees. The supreme court should not let their religion into their decisions. There is suppose to be separation of church and state.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## paljoey46 (Nov 20, 2011)

Out of 20 methods of birth control, Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for abortafacients (those birth control methods that produce abortions). They are providing coverage for all other methods.


----------



## tamy04951 (May 16, 2014)

What someone believes or doesn't believe in should not be a factor in purchasing a product. If someone wants a certain form of healthcare offered they need to shop around, it is between the employer and the employee, none of my business since I do not work for HL. If they start telling the general public they will not sell products to them because they use certain birth control, it should become an issue of concern.


----------



## kestrelz (Nov 29, 2011)

lI went in once 't and find what I was looking for there. However, since their decision to not offer birth control to women I have purposed in my heart to never shop there.


----------



## samdog13 (May 24, 2014)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I totally agree. There is one locally on the main drag and I go past it all the time, but I would rather not support this company because of their position on health care. There are many other vendors who can get my hard-earned dollars.

I know this site is not really for heated political discussions but just had to put in my opinion. I hope we do not get into it here.


----------



## Muffin lady (Mar 31, 2013)

I agree with maleknitter, if you don't agree with an employer's policies, don't go to work there!!


----------



## gaye43 (May 31, 2012)

As I am English and have lived in the UK for all my life I never cease to be surprised at the different attitudes of the USA an UK.

The action of this store would never happen here, they leave the NHS to that, but we do not have to pay for such things uou do.

I have never had or wanted children so made sure that I never had any, am now 70, all my relatives are dead but do not regret my decision which was decided on at 12. 

I wanted independance and a career children would have spoiled that. I also believe that the world is overpopulated and that is the reason for so much strife.

Am not passing judgement on anyone my policy has always been 'everyone is entitled to go to Hell there own way'.

I would never boycot an organization over such a subject, the staff are not forced to work there and no doubt some of them find it very convient for the pill to be supplied free. It ia their decision and they should be free to make it. Hope that this does not give offence non was intended.


----------



## God's Girl (Jan 29, 2013)

I honestly don't understand the anger about it. If that is their religious conviction so be it. We are suppose to live in a country that offers religious freedom are we not? We do not condemn the Amish for their beliefs and purchase from their shops, so why is this any different?


----------



## flhusker (Feb 17, 2011)

There are several birth controls pills on the market. Of these there are 4 that are also used fof abortions. The only birth control pills Hobby Lobby won't pay for are the ones that cause an abortion. Get your facts straight.

I'd rather shop where the owners have a morale conviction and live by it than someplace who has none.


----------



## samdog13 (May 24, 2014)

God's Girl said:


> I honestly don't understand the anger about it. If that is their religious conviction so be it. We are suppose to live in a country that offers religious freedom are we not? We do not condemn the Amish for their beliefs and purchase from their shops, so why is this any different?


Last word on this - I don't think your comments about the Amish is apt, since to my knowledge they do not have large corporations or employ non-Amish in their businesses.

This matter is a classic case if religious freedom v. A fundamental right of a woman to control her own body. We are not going to change each other's minds on this sensitive topic.


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

I like hobby lobby and will keep shopping there. If employees don't like it go work somewhere else.


----------



## lenorehf (Apr 2, 2011)

Amazing...8 pages of comments so far. I'll add my 2cents...I won't shop at HL. I won't give them my precious dollars. That's my right. Each to his/her own. End of story.


----------



## mahalo (Jun 25, 2013)

I will not shop at Hobby Lobby. Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion.


----------



## Adelaide (Aug 29, 2011)

what an awful phrase to use in this discussion" Done to death" perhaps you are referring to the old coat hanger solutions when there was no birth control available to middle class women - don't really care what side you are on but please let's not be disrespectful and cruel, adelaide


----------



## Charli Payne (Mar 20, 2014)

Glad you do not support them, neither do I. Who will care for all the babies left at the fire department or at a church because these women couldn't get birth control. Women will still get pregnant ( by choice or not) many will go back to the underground backstreet abortionist and end up dead or never being able to have children. I wish the very worst for Hobby Lobby. They have no right to push their religious preference on anyone. I was raised in church but I do not feel it is right to force anyone to accept my views. Many people came to this country for religious freedom and now more and more is being taken away every day.

Charli of NC


----------



## tweeter (Dec 22, 2012)

I was at Hobby Lobby and I got what I wanted. The sale people are very friendly and helpful.. I think the court should leave them alone. I don't believe in abortion but if you aren't going to take care of the kids just take birth control.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

CarolfromTX said:


> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


 For you maybe, but as long as people who work at HL can't get coverage for this basic health issue, the discussion isn't settled.


----------



## Susanc241 (Nov 13, 2013)

This is new to me being in the UK. What exactly are they providing? A birth control service for those that want it, i.e. convenience for their employees to save them having to go elsewhere, or encouraging/enforcing contraception as a condition of employment?


----------



## Medieval Reenactor (Sep 3, 2013)

I would never shop there, even though a new one opened quite near us. In fact, I've been thinking of picketing them.

As for the objection that this is too political a topic, the thread title clearly states what it is about so it's easy to avoid if one wishes.


----------



## Medieval Reenactor (Sep 3, 2013)

Susanc241 said:


> This is new to me being in the UK. What exactly are they providing? A birth control service for those that want it, i.e. convenience for their employees to save them having to go elsewhere, or encouraging/enforcing contraception as a condition of employment?


They are refusing to provide health insurance for certain types of contraceptives.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

tweeter said:


> I was at Hobby Lobby and I got what I wanted. The sale people are very friendly and helpful.. I think the court should leave them alone. I don't believe in abortion but if you aren't going to take care of the kids just take birth control.


 The question isn't HL covering abortion, it's whether HL on its own and in contradiction of the best knowledge of scientists, can decide that certain types of birth control are abortifacients and impose that unsubstantiated decision on its employees, regardless of their desire to use their choice of birth control. The Court has decided to leave HL's owner alone, which means to leave them alone to decide what those friendly and helpful sales people can do in regard to birth control.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

flhusker said:


> There are several birth controls pills on the market. Of these there are 4 that are also used fof abortions. The only birth control pills Hobby Lobby won't pay for are the ones that cause an abortion. Get your facts straight.
> 
> I'd rather shop where the owners have a morale conviction and live by it than someplace who has none.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

Susanc241 said:


> This is new to me being in the UK. What exactly are they providing? A birth control service for those that want it, i.e. convenience for their employees to save them having to go elsewhere, or encouraging/enforcing contraception as a condition of employment?


HL has gone to the Supreme Court to be exempted from the provision of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that requires employers to include birth control in their health coverage for employees. The Supreme Court decided, in effect, that the Hobby Lobby corporation was capable of having religious beliefs that forbade the corporation from enabling abortion, without deciding whether or not the specific types of birth control they objected to actually caused abortion of a fertilized egg. HL does not insist on birth control...they refuse to cover it.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

Adelaide said:


> what an awful phrase to use in this discussion" Done to death" perhaps you are referring to the old coat hanger solutions when there was no birth control available to middle class women - don't really care what side you are on but please let's not be disrespectful and cruel, adelaide


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Susanc241 said:


> This is new to me being in the UK. What exactly are they providing? A birth control service for those that want it, i.e. convenience for their employees to save them having to go elsewhere, or encouraging/enforcing contraception as a condition of employment?


The privately owned company is a self insurer. They have always paid for 16 different types of birth control for their employees. They didn't wish to pay for four abortifacient drugs the owners believed to be against their Faith beliefs. Our Congress passed a law without the support of a single Republican vote (one of our two party system) which mandated that all companies provide all pills (in this regard) to all employees (including men, btw).

Hobby Lobby sued and said if they were mandated by the government to provide the four drugs they don't support, they would go out of business by choice. The case was heard by our highest court (the Supreme Court of the USA), and the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Therefore, the company still continues to pay/insure the 16 forms of birth control as they had prior but are not mandated by the government to pay for the four abortifacients.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

flhusker said:


> There are several birth controls pills on the market. Of these there are 4 that are also used fof abortions. The only birth control pills Hobby Lobby won't pay for are the ones that cause an abortion. Get your facts straight.
> 
> I'd rather shop where the owners have a morale conviction and live by it than someplace who has none.


 Do you think that I don't have moral conviction or do you believe that only people who think as you do have moral conviction?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Medieval Reenactor said:


> They are refusing to provide health insurance for certain types of contraceptives.


The Supreme Court has ruled on this case. Hobby Lobby is allowed, by law, to not pay for the abortifacients they do not wish to pay for.


----------



## Czar-knitter (Aug 25, 2012)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they should also take the time to learn the facts before spouting off.


----------



## talbotsetters (Dec 21, 2013)

gaye43 said:


> As I am English and have lived in the UK for all my life I never cease to be surprised at the different attitudes of the USA an UK.
> 
> The action of this store would never happen here, they leave the NHS to that, but we do not have to pay for such things uou do.
> 
> ...


I am in the UK too and am amazed that any employer pays for ANY medication - insurance or not! If we are working, we HAVE to contribute to the NHS and we get free treatment but have to pay for prescriptions for medication (£7+ per item). Those who have never worked and so never contributed still get free treatment and prescriptions on the NHS which often causes friction over here! If we choose to pay private medical insurance, we would still have to contribute to the NHS as well but the private insurance wouldn't pay for contraception and prescriptions from the private insurance would be considerably more expensive than those from an NHS doctor). Obviously this business with HL is all new to us and so we don't know all the ins and outs. But surely an employer who is willing to pay for most medication (which might run into huge amounts) is worth their weight in gold? If you don't want them to know about something you've made your own choice about (say the morning after pill) because you know their take on it, why would you even tell them? If I worked for an employer who held strong views about contraception, I wouldn't tell them, let alone expect them to pay for it. Why would I? It doesn't make sense. Now, if the HL employees contribute to this insurance and some are experiencing discrimination, then that's a different thing altogether. Are they?


----------



## Susanc241 (Nov 13, 2013)

I made a post but then decided to remove it but seems I can't just delete - am I right?


----------



## Muffin lady (Mar 31, 2013)

Right on God's Girl!!!!!


----------



## amberdragon (Dec 12, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


i agree with their stand...they are not telling people not to use birth control or abortion...only that they won't pay for it.
Blessings


----------



## cathy73 (Apr 8, 2013)

Some research might be in order. As I understand it the company's insurance supplies birth control in several forms, but the issue is birth control that acts as abortion, drugs that abort a very young fetus. The media doesn't always give accurate accounts and often is biased or looking for sensationalism.


----------



## Jewls (Apr 25, 2014)

I agree with you. Have only been in HL once and only there to compare their own yarn to Red Heart which I use a lot of for charity. I live 77 miles from a JoAnn's, HL, and my favorite, A C Moore. Can order from JoAnn's. I don't go into any store or not go in because of their Politics or religion. If they have the yarn I need it doesn't matter which store. I also buy RH yarn at WalMart and Michael's.

I don't discuss religion or politics on any group I'm a member of. but I'm not saying other members shouldn't
bring forth their view point on the subject brought up.


----------



## tamy04951 (May 16, 2014)

God's Girl said:


> I honestly don't understand the anger about it. If that is their religious conviction so be it. We are suppose to live in a country that offers religious freedom are we not? We do not condemn the Amish for their beliefs and purchase from their shops, so why is this any different?


AMEN!


----------



## Woodsywife (Mar 9, 2014)

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. Also if employees don't like it they don't have to work there. It's not like hobby lobby doesn't offer any at all. It's the same concept of smoking in casinos or restaurants. Employees complained. No one forced them to work in those places. Yet for people who do smoke, their rights were taken away from them. You can't bring peanut butter sandwiches to school because another child might have an allergy. Where does it end?


----------



## dijewe (Mar 1, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The Supreme Court has ruled on this case. Hobby Lobby is allowed, by law, to not pay for the abortifacients they do not wish to pay for.


Thank you for your posts. I appreciate that you have stayed with the facts and not resorted to any emotional outbursts or personal attacks on anybody. Your posts gave me enough clarity so that I could research further on this case.

In the end I think those who are opposed to HL are reacting from emotions because they are uniformed. 
It's silly to boycott any store without knowing all the facts plus most people cave on their principles after a while anyway.


----------



## dragonswing (Feb 18, 2014)

I am pro-choice, but I respect the beliefs of any business to conduct their business according to their beliefs. I think the government should stay out of things. I am tired of everything having to be "politically correct". If you don't like their ideas, don't work there. You can always find something about a company that you would disagree with. I don't like the fact that they get all their merchandise from China. But I shop there for scrapbooking supplies and some yarn. I don't like certain companies because they use animals to test their products and so I avoid those companies and their products. Long gone are the days when a company could conduct their business as they pleased, hire people they wanted.


----------



## .79315 (Dec 5, 2012)

In the USA religion is still a personal choice. In this state, the management of 2 companies still stick their religious beliefs and in spite of the modern trend, do NOT open for business on Sundays, Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby. They do not consider an employees religion when they hire. When one accepts a position of employment with any company they agree to work in accordance with the regulations and established benefits of that company. They do not get to accept some conditions of employment and reject others. If they cannot tolerate the conditions, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. I live within 20 miles of JoAnn's, Michaels and Hobby Lobby. I shop all three stores. I see no sense in boycotting one store because they do not believe in birth control pills or another because they do not serve beef.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

dwernars said:


> Thank you for your posts. I appreciate that you have stayed with the facts and not resorted to any emotional outbursts or personal attacks on anybody. Your posts gave me enough clarity so that I could research further on this case.
> 
> In the end I think those who are opposed to HL are reacting from emotions because they are uniformed.
> It's silly to boycott any store without knowing all the facts plus most people cave on their principles after a while anyway.


Thank you and you're welcome! I agree also with you. She who attacked me repeatedly and most of those who are complaining about the company don't understand the facts of the case. The case is available online to read if you are so inclined.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Carol,
This section of the forum IS the place designed for any subject as long as forum rules and courtesy are maintained.



glofish said:


> I agree. And I do not think that this forum is the place to air political views.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Great precis of the issue. Thanks for posting it.



knitpresentgifts said:


> The privately owned company is a self insurer. They have always paid for 16 different types of birth control for their employees. They didn't wish to pay for four abortifacient drugs the owners believed to be against their Faith beliefs. Our Congress passed a law without the support of a single Republican vote (one of our two party system) which mandated that all companies provide all pills (in this regard) to all employees (including men, btw).
> 
> Hobby Lobby sued and said if they were mandated by the government to provide the four drugs they don't support, they would go out of business by choice. The case was heard by our highest court (the Supreme Court of the USA), and the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.
> 
> Therefore, the company still continues to pay/insure the 16 forms of birth control as they had prior but are not mandated by the government to pay for the four abortifacients.


----------



## siouxann (Mar 5, 2011)

maleknitter said:


> Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


 :thumbup:


----------



## clickerMLL (Aug 14, 2013)

Absolutely YES, I have a problem with any corporation imposing the personal opinions of its majority shareholders on its employees via violation of applicable laws, and then demanding that the courts allow that to continue! The Hobby Lobby owners (majority shareholders) are enjoying the legal benefits and tax benefits of a corporation but also imposing personal and religious beliefs as though they are a sole proprietorship ("mom and pop" store). Sadly, the Supreme Court went along with it. I vote with my pocketbook and my feet, too.


----------



## StellasKnits (Apr 10, 2011)

Well, honestly, I can't say it's much of a difference from my health insurance company refusing to pay for an X-ray that my oral surgeon insists that he needs to perform a dental implant. I have had to pay $175.00 TWICE out of my own pocket so far because the oral surgeon insists he HAS to have the 3D xray and the insurance company says it's not a covered service. 

So, what's the difference really between the situation outlined above and HL's position? I personally don't see any.


----------



## tieman7 (Jan 18, 2013)

My bottom line opinion..... no matter what side issue your on is..... This is another reason why healthcare should not be on the backs of employers. We should all be able to find health care coverage just like we do coverage for homes and automobiles. It is a personal choice that is no one else's business or concern.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Charli,
You are posing a false argument--that without Hobby Lobby proving abortifacient birth control there will be abandoned babies. Life is much more complex than that and there is no good science to support your claim of more abandoned babies without that kind of coverage.

This issue is NOT about availability of birth control or abortions. Women can still go to places such as Planned Parenthood for an abortion (as well as birth control pills) but I'm sure they would rather not have to go through that and just take a 'morning after' pill.

So, you do have a right to withhold your business from HL or any other company you chose, but your defense of your choice does not meet the criteria of logic. Nor does it have to, you are free to make the decision on any basis you choose, but just know that it does not.

Also, you see the situation as HL pushing their religion on others. There is NO coercion in the issue. People choose to work there of their own free will. It really is the same as if you had a business and your employees who did not believe in it sued you BECAUSE you supplied birth control. I know that is not the law of the land but it is the LOGIC of your claim.



Charli Payne said:


> Glad you do not support them, neither do I. Who will care for all the babies left at the fire department or at a church because these women couldn't get birth control. Women will still get pregnant ( by choice or not) many will go back to the underground backstreet abortionist and end up dead or never being able to have children. I wish the very worst for Hobby Lobby. They have no right to push their religious preference on anyone. I was raised in church but I do not feel it is right to force anyone to accept my views. Many people came to this country for religious freedom and now more and more is being taken away every day.
> 
> Charli of NC


----------



## gigi 722 (Oct 25, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Madison123 (Apr 6, 2012)

Here in Canada, birth control pills are always covered as part of the prescription drug coverage in any employer sponsored health care plan.

It is up to the individual to decide whether to take them or not.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

H L does NOT tell anyone which contraceptives they can have, they only say which ones they will pay for. The two are not the same thing. IT is a decision between the woman and her Dr--H L is in no way preventing anyone from the birth control of her choice. And BTW, it is not birth control that is really the issue here but abortifacients--something available at any Planned Parenthood with cost based on income. So, any claims about preventing access to needed 'healthcare' do not stand up to scrutiny in the light of facts.



NJG said:


> OK, let me state that another way. HL tells you what contraceptives you can't have. That should be a decision between a woman and her Dr, not her employer.


----------



## Sedona (Oct 3, 2011)

You have a very good point!


knitpresentgifts said:


> I have the opposite belief. I went out of my way to drive to a Hobby Lobby to shop and spend money to support them as the lawsuit involving them was argued in front of the Supreme Court.
> 
> I believe every privately owned company like HL should have the right to their own beliefs and business practices without government interference. The SCOTUS decided as I do.
> 
> ...


----------



## agnescr (Aug 14, 2011)

Surely birth control is the responsibility of the individual,and not the employer?


----------



## Sedona (Oct 3, 2011)

You say "who am I to judge others" but in the sentence before that you are judging WalMart and Hobby Lobby by not shopping there.


grandmann said:


> I do speak with my pocketbook I don't shop at Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby any more. I do miss Hobby Lobby I thought they have a nice store and I do like their yarns.
> 
> I think the people should have the right to choose not the company that you work for. God our Creator gives us the Freedom to choose who am I to judge others. I don't believe in abortion but that's my Freedom to choose.


----------



## Sedona (Oct 3, 2011)

Me too!


Donsdotter said:


> I like hobby lobby and will keep shopping there. If employees don't like it go work somewhere else.


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

maleknitter said:


> Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## gigi 722 (Oct 25, 2011)

lneighbors3 said:


> This is very long so you might wish to just skip/delete.
> 
> I think there is a misconception about Hobby Lobby's stance on birth control. They filed the suit because of specific drugs being mandated by the ACA to be provided on corporate insurance policies. If you go to:
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Yes, and not only B C but all healthcare. It is just that politics have messed up the whole issue. We have the government to thank for this whole mess. Fearing soaring wages after WWII, they froze wages. Since employers could not reward or attract good employees with higher wages they started supplying other 'benefits,' most often by supplying medical 'insurance.' And, as they say, the rest is history. Now we have the government and insurance companies making decisions that should be between the patient and the medical professional.



agnescr said:


> Surely birth control is the responsibility of the individual,and not the employer?


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

maleknitter said:


> Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


Not so simple in this economy with jobs scarce.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Please, if you are going to invoke Christ's directions for our behavior, do so accurately:

Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 *For with what judgment ye judge,* ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

As you can see, the directive was not against judgement but false judgement. The modern equivalent would be to take a stand without knowing all the facts--such as is often the case regarding this issue.



grandmann said:


> I do speak with my pocketbook I don't shop at Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby any more. I do miss Hobby Lobby I thought they have a nice store and I do like their yarns.
> 
> I think the people should have the right to choose not the company that you work for. God our Creator gives us the Freedom to choose who am I to judge others. I don't believe in abortion but that's my Freedom to choose.


----------



## bcconnor (Feb 18, 2014)

The pills in question may prevent conception, but they may also prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. If one believes that a human life begins at conception and science certainly backs this up, then one must in conscience oppose the use of that drug. Since those drugs are legal, one can't forbid one's employees from using them. But the Supreme Court ruled that Family owned companies do not have to pay for them in a health plan. Hobby Lobby's health plan covers all form of contraception except for the 4 that cause abortion.


----------



## loreg (Oct 19, 2013)

Hobby Lobby is not dictating or trying to control the birth control issue or what women do with their bodies. There are MANY different kinds of birth control. The pills they object to, based on their conscience, are the pills that do not allow the fertilized egg to implant into the uterine wall and thus causes the fetus to be expelled or aborted. These birth control pills are called abortifacients. There are other birth control pills that do not cause this and Hobby Lobby is only about not allowing coverage for the ones that do. I might add that caution should be exercised with birth control pills as I have had several friends who had developed blood clots as a result of exposure to the synthetic hormones contained within them. My cousin and a dear college friend were among those who died from blood clots. Read with caution the flyer that comes with any medication you take.


----------



## Longtimer (May 23, 2013)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


It always helps to be informed. Hobby Lobby does provide birth control. They only object to the morning after pill which they feel is abortion. The abortion people try to hide this fact and want the world to feel that Hobby Lobby is against birth control. A decision based on truth is always best.


----------



## Rita in Raleigh (Aug 20, 2011)

Hobby Lobby is not denying their employees those medications. Hobby Lobby is just refusing to pay for those medications. Any employee can use part of her/his paycheck to buy those medications.

Some employers provide free coffee for their employees, some don't. Are those who don't provide it free denying employees from buying coffee on their own time with their own money?



cattdages said:


> This issue was not about abortion on any level. It was about medications designed to prevent pregnancy and they say they should have the right to deny their employees these medications.


----------



## Meyow (May 2, 2013)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I could not agree more.

:thumbup:


----------



## Krwabby (Aug 18, 2011)

tieman7 said:


> My bottom line opinion..... no matter what side issue your on is..... This is another reason why healthcare should not be on the backs of employers. We should all be able to find health care coverage just like we do coverage for homes and automobiles. It is a personal choice that is no one else's business or concern.


AMEN! Employers offering health insurance started out as a BENEFIT which enticed people to want to work for a company. The government has now mandated employers provide health insurance as a right...never mind, the law is passed, then government executives change it as they will without legislative approval. Most of the comments regarding this issue just make me want to shop at HL more!


----------



## augiesouth (Sep 14, 2013)

I think that it is un-American to single out Hobby Lobby as they do have many good benefits for the full & part-time employees. There are only 4 birth control items they do not cover but they cover many others. If you want to use the methods not covered then find another place to work. Why is it lately people target other people for their religious beliefs. I bet if the Muslims said they like Hobby Lobby's practice there would be a lot of people saying how wonderful they were...what is it with Christians? Why can they not practice what they believe...do you think that HL should be forced against their belief to be open on Sundays?


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

One thing I have always been grateful for is that it is not my job to judge anyone about anything. That is such an overwhelming job only God can handle it....and I bet it gets hard for Him at times, too.

There are times I have attempted to judge someone, got really worked about it, in fact. It was so frustrating! Then I remembered it wasn't *my* job, at all.

What a relief!


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

augiesouth said:


> I think that it is un-American to single out Hobby Lobby as they do have many good benefits for the full & part-time employees. There are only 4 birth control items they do not cover but they cover many others. If you want to use the methods not covered then find another place to work. Why is it lately people target other people for their religious beliefs. I bet if the Muslims said they like Hobby Lobby's practice there would be a lot of people saying how wonderful they were...what is it with Christians? Why can they not practice what they believe...do you think that HL should be forced against their belief to be open on Sundays?


No


----------



## lkb850 (Dec 30, 2012)

I will continue to shop a Hobby Lobby. They have some really NICE yarn. 
I wish the government would get OUT of our lives. Why should I pay for YOUR abortion that I consider HIGHLY IMMORAL. I shouldn't have to pay taxes for that procedure. When abortion became legal, I was told by my government that I would NEVER have to pay for someone else' abortion. What happened to that promise??? 
Because all of the companies now have to pay for drugs or procedures that I find HIGHLY IMMORAL, should I refuse to shop there??? 
Why can't the companies just pay for your work, and YOU decide where to put your money? If you want an abortion, go have the procedure. You can pay for and live with your decision, but why should I have to pay for it?
If these companies didn't have to supply your insurance, they could charge less for what they sell. Every time I buy a product, I am paying for YOUR government mandated health care. If you would listen to your self-righteous opinions about Hobby Lobby, you would figure that out. I don't have a choice when I go to the grocery store or any place else. I have to pay for YOUR insurance which includes abortion. 
If this were truly a capitalistic society, YOU would pay for your own heath care; you would also be responsible for the choices you make. 
As I see it, you would have the government AND Hobby Lobby pay for your livelihood and your choices. This is absurd. It all boils down to responsibility.


----------



## pjcoldren (Dec 20, 2011)

Yes. I will not shop there any more because one of the FEW ways I can effect change IS by voting with my purse, and because I believe that women should have the right to birth control. Not just women who work for people who believe as I do but ALL women. I realize other people do not share my believe - and they can NOT use all the birth control they want, and shop at Hobby Lobby to their heart's desire. This is MY stance, and I own it.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Yes, and not only B C but all healthcare. It is just that politics have messed up the whole issue. We have the government to thank for this whole mess. Fearing soaring wages after WWII, they froze wages. Since employers could not reward or attract good employees with higher wages they started supplying other 'benefits,' most often by supplying medical 'insurance.' And, as they say, the rest is history. Now we have the government and insurance companies making decisions that should be between the patient and the medical professional.


I could not agree with you more. Government is taking more and more control of our freedoms. I wonder why women who say the goverment should stay out of their bodies yet insist a business should offer free all birth control products. That is what the government is doing and saying that they will have to do( meaning business). The Surpereme Court has said no to at least this one.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


 :thumbup:


----------



## reneesoloway (May 23, 2014)

Definitely, hobby lobby has no right to withhold birth control pills no matter what their beliefs are. Do they plan to pay for all the unwanted babies that are born?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

peacegoddess said:


> An IUD is not an abortion it is a type of contraception and the IUD was included in the refuse to include in health benefits.


Yes it is.


----------



## augiesouth (Sep 14, 2013)

Thanks, Pat lamb...I think both issues are kind of on the same plane...both deal with religious belief...just because "mom & pop" became huge does not mean they have to abandon their way of thinking...and people can choose with whom they work...no one is forcing a woman to go to HL and work..if she wants those particular drugs go to work where they have them...kind of like the mess trying to find medicare coverage that my friend is experiencing...which plan has what she needs ...


----------



## nevadalynn (Apr 27, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


 Yes, I agree with you. I shopped there until I found out what their politics are.


----------



## pattibe (Feb 2, 2012)

The bottom line is Hobby Lobby is a Corporation, in business for one reason, to make money. Corporations by definition are not individuals. They have no right to dictate a woman's personal and private choice. The Surpreme Court was totally off on this one - as they are on 90% of their old man, right wing decisions. I wouldn't set foot in a Hobby Lobby if they were giving it away. When they set up free nurseries, day care, college funds, etc. to take care of these women and the children they didn't want or could not afford, then maybe I will reconsider. NOT!


----------



## ani31 (Feb 4, 2014)

-- as I understand it, the pills were mandated by Obamacare and if HL did not comply they were to be fined many hundreds of thousands of dollars ----- they did agree to supply pills that prevented fertilization, but did not approve pills that cause abortion, and went to court to uphold this section. 16 birth control pills are approved, IF YOU WANT TO USE THEM, and 4 anti-abortion pills are not covered. HL won their case in the Supreme Court decision.
So, birth control is available IF you want it, a personal decision, but abortion pills not available.
Are you protesting HL because they do not provide abortion ?


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> So you believe you have the right to tell an employer how to operate his business, but the employer doesn't have that same right?
> 
> That's crazy. What risks - financial, moral, environmental, initiative, responsibility, physical, time, government rules & regulations, personal, enterprenurship, business mgmt, educational, tax understanding, etc., has the employee accepted and taken on as compared to the employer?
> 
> With that logic, you should demand every employee become an employer so that they can no longer have any decision making authority over any part of their business if you want them to call the shots.


Now you're being reactionary. 
***I'm talking about healthcare decisions.*** 
The employer subsidizes the employee's healthcare through insurance, but has no business deciding how that care is administered. Those decisions belong to the employee and their doctor.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

flhusker said:


> There are several birth controls pills on the market. Of these there are 4 that are also used fof abortions. The only birth control pills Hobby Lobby won't pay for are the ones that cause an abortion. Get your facts straight.
> 
> I'd rather shop where the owners have a morale conviction and live by it than someplace who has none.


 :thumbup:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I believe every privately owned company like HL should have the right to their own beliefs and business practices without government interference. The SCOTUS decided as I do.
> 
> Yes, they have the right to their own beliefs but do they have the right to make their employees follow them, too? Or suffer the effects of such? What if Hobby Lobby believed that all people should be Christians? Can they limit their hiring practices? What if they believed that blood transfusions are taboo? Does that mean their employees shouldn't be allowed to have them? What if they believe that they should not serve African-Americans? Can they kick them out of their stores? Have you ever heard of civil rights? Yes, we know you believe as SCOTUS on this one, but guess what? Sometimes they err!


----------



## Hazel Blumberg - McKee (Sep 9, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


Yes. I used to shop at Hobby Lobby, but I no longer do so.

Hazel


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Now you're being reactionary.
> ***I'm talking about healthcare decisions.***
> The employer subsidizes the employee's healthcare through insurance, but has no business deciding how that care is administered. Those decisions belong to the employee and their doctor.


News flash! She is reactionary!


----------



## Rita in Raleigh (Aug 20, 2011)

I think they should pay for all the unwanted babies that are born.....just as soon as the company forces the woman to have sex. Most of the time the woman has control of whether she will have intercourse which results in pregnancy. Not all unwanted babies born within marriage end up unwanted. Adoption agencies do still exist.

Sex without taking responsibility for its outcome is not a right guaranteed in the constitution.....That is not what is meant by "pursuit of happiness."


reneesoloway said:


> Definitely, hobby lobby Inhas no right to withhold birth control pills no matter what their beliefs are. Do they plan to pay for all the unwanted babies that are born?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I could not agree with you more. Government is taking more and more control of our freedoms. I wonder why women who say the goverment should stay out of their bodies yet insist a business should offer free all birth control products. That is what the government is doing and saying that they will have to do( meaning business). The Surpereme Court has said no to at least this one.


The government should stay out of our bodies and so should Hobby Lobby!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

tamy04951 said:


> What someone believes or doesn't believe in should not be a factor in purchasing a product. If someone wants a certain form of healthcare offered they need to shop around, it is between the employer and the employee, none of my business since I do not work for HL. If they start telling the general public they will not sell products to them because they use certain birth control, it should become an issue of concern.


The question I was asking is, if we disagree with the way that they do business, should we support them by patronizing their stores? What is OUR moral or ethical obligation when we choose where we spend our money? Do we have one? Are we only hurting ourselves?


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Charli Payne said:


> Glad you do not support them, neither do I. Who will care for all the babies left at the fire department or at a church because these women couldn't get birth control. Women will still get pregnant ( by choice or not) many will go back to the underground backstreet abortionist and end up dead or never being able to have children. I wish the very worst for Hobby Lobby. They have no right to push their religious preference on anyone. I was raised in church but I do not feel it is right to force anyone to accept my views. Many people came to this country for religious freedom and now more and more is being taken away every day.
> 
> Charli of NC


Thanks for seeing the other side of religious freedom - the choice to NOT be religious.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Rita in Raleigh said:


> I think they should pay for all the unwanted babies that are born.....just as soon as the company forces the woman to have sex. Most of the time the woman has control of whether she will have intercourse which results in pregnancy. Not all unwanted babies born within marriage end up unwanted. Adoption agencies do still exist.
> 
> Sex without taking responsibility for its outcome is not a right guaranteed in the constitution.....That is not what is meant by "pursuit of happiness."


I envy you your life that has allowed you to see only choice and none of the desperation many women face.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


Thank you for saying the truth about what Hobby Lobby opposes! Most people don't want to hear the truth--they just want to "hammer" their warped minds on the rest of us!

I am proud they stuck up for their religious beliefs. They are also closed on Sunday as that should be a day of prayer & rest!

I will continue to shop there as I love what they stand for & love their products!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The Supreme Court has ruled on this case. Hobby Lobby is allowed, by law, to not pay for the abortifacients they do not wish to pay for.


Yes, and that's a travesty.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

agnescr said:


> Surely birth control is the responsibility of the individual,and not the employer?


The employer supplies the health insurance. The Affordable Care Act passed recently says that health insurance includes birth control. This employer is picking and choosing which methods of birth control will be available to their employees under the insurance they provide.


----------



## Pattez (Feb 21, 2014)

I agree about being informed & making a choice ( democracy anyone?) the I pill was taken by my mother for a syndrome that killed her 3 months after diagnosis. I read recently that 9 out of 10 died then ( almost 20 years ago) where 9 out of 10 survive today. She was 75 & would kid about taking her " abortion pill" ( she was Catholic, pro life)


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Thank you for saying the truth about what Hobby Lobby opposes! Most people don't want to hear the truth--they just want to "hammer" their warped minds on the rest of us!
> 
> I am proud they stuck up for their religious beliefs. They are also closed on Sunday as that should be a day of prayer & rest!
> 
> I will continue to shop there as I love what they stand for & love their products!


I'm pretty insulted about the "warped" comment, but I'm going to take the high road because you're obviously unable to see past the mythology ingrained in you in your youth. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Meyow (May 2, 2013)

pattibe said:


> The bottom line is Hobby Lobby is a Corporation, in business for one reason, to make money. Corporations by definition are not individuals. They have no right to dictate a woman's personal and private choice. The Surpreme Court was totally off on this one - as they are on 90% of their old man, right wing decisions. I wouldn't set foot in a Hobby Lobby if they were giving it away. When they set up free nurseries, day care, college funds, etc. to take care of these women and the children they didn't want or could not afford, then maybe I will reconsider. NOT!


Couldn't have said it better myself!!


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

IF she does not recognize the mythology ingrained in her in her youth what does that say about your position? If that comment were to be true for her it is also likely to be true for you.



cattdages said:


> I'm pretty insulted about the "warped" comment, but I'm going to take the high road because you're obviously unable to see past the mythology ingrained in you in your youth. I feel sorry for you.


----------



## JCF (Aug 3, 2012)

cathy47 said:


> The way I see it I don't tell anyone what to do with their bodies and money I expect the same respect. And that includes employers. They need to stay out of everyone's home business period. I would never work for such employers.


Agree with you, Cathy.


----------



## John's old lady (Jul 14, 2012)

jumbleburt said:


> There have been numerous postings with people weighing in on both sides of the argument, but I agree with you. It's unfortunate, because apparently they sell a nice cotton yarn, but I'm not going to give them any of my money.


Ditto. And for those saying if the employees don't like the health insurance coverages policies, they can work elsewhere-well, that's too simplistic an answer. In today's economy some people cannot pick and choose where they work. Two income families have become one from time to time, and everyone needs some kind of medical insurance.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> IF she does not recognize the mythology ingrained in her in her youth what does that say about your position? If that comment were to be true for her it is also likely to be true for you.


I never judged her for her beliefs or decided she was "warped" because she disagreed. I simply think she has a closed mind - on purpose. And I think that's sad.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

It is all a matter of perspective. Some would say that you are trying to involve yourself in THEIR affairs.



JCF said:


> Agree with you, Cathy.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

H L is NOT in our bodies. That is what they are fight to do--stay out of them.



cookiequeen said:


> The government should stay out of our bodies and so should Hobby Lobby!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cattdages said:


> Now you're being reactionary.
> ***I'm talking about healthcare decisions.***
> The employer subsidizes the employee's healthcare through insurance, but has no business deciding how that care is administered. Those decisions belong to the employee and their doctor.


I haven't been reactionary at all. I addressed and outlined the facts, you voiced your opinion and biases and didn't introduce the facts of the case nor refuted those I spoke about because they ARE the facts and not my opinions.

HL never has and still does not decide how their employees care for or manage their health. Those decisions are the employees as they always have been.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

That is exactly what HL does not have if they are mandated by the gov't to pay for ALL options.



cattdages said:


> Thanks for seeing the other side of religious freedom - the choice to NOT be religious.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> Great precis of the issue. Thanks for posting it.


You're welcome.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> Please, if you are going to invoke Christ's directions for our behavior, do so accurately:
> 
> Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: So many don't understand these verses much like they don't understand the facts of this case. Thank you for posting Elyse.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Please, H L IS NOT withholding B C pills. If you want to choose to avoid giving them your business that is your right (at least right now) but please be sure you are walking the path you want to follow all the way to the end.

The flip side of this whole claim that H L owes their employees any B C they want because the government says they have to supply them has a very dark side. That same government could come knocking on your door and take away ALL B C and forcibly inseminate whomever they decide they want to.

Some might say that would never happen here. Maybe, maybe not BUT it is the SAME issue--Government control of conception and procreation. Beware of what you ask for!!!



reneesoloway said:


> Definitely, hobby lobby has no right to withhold birth control pills no matter what their beliefs are. Do they plan to pay for all the unwanted babies that are born?


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I haven't been reactionary at all. I addressed and outlined the facts, you voiced your opinion and biases and didn't introduce the facts of the case nor refuted those I spoke about because they ARE the facts and not my opinions.
> 
> HL never has and still does not decide how their employees care for or manage their health. Those decisions are the employees as they always have been.


When they remove those choices from their insurance, they put them out of reach of many of their largely rather low-paid workforce.

This is not directed at you, but I am really surprised at how little empathy or understanding being expressed for people whose lives are not as "together".

"Just get another job"...have you looked for a job lately? It's not that easy. 
"They can just pay for it themselves"...I guess if they don't want to pay one of their utility bills this month.

It's kind of like some are blaming women living less affluent lives for "getting themselves into that situation". I'm the wrong person to say this for sure, but it seems decidedly un-Christian to me.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

You DO pay for NHS services--or at least somebody does. NO government produces income, all they do is get it from producers; either by the producers willingly paying taxes for the greater good or by confiscation. Please don't believe they lie that the government "pays" for anything.



gaye43 said:


> As I am English and have lived in the UK for all my life I never cease to be surprised at the different attitudes of the USA an UK.
> 
> The action of this store would never happen here, they leave the NHS to that, but we do not have to pay for such things uou do.
> 
> ...


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

You think she has a closed mind. How about others thinking you have a closed mind, is there any difference?



cattdages said:


> I never judged her for her beliefs or decided she was "warped" because she disagreed. I simply think she has a closed mind - on purpose. And I think that's sad.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cattdages said:


> Yes, and that's a travesty.


The law of the land has been in place for a long time that the state cannot interfere on religious freedoms. Also, the law is still on the books that American taxpayers' revenues will not support (be used to pay for) abortions.

The SCOTUS upheld both of those laws. I'm surprised you refuse to understand or acknowledge their legal standing decision.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

talbotsetters said:


> I am in the UK too and am amazed that any employer pays for ANY medication - insurance or not! If we are working, we HAVE to contribute to the NHS and we get free treatment but have to pay for prescriptions for medication (£7+ per item). Those who have never worked and so never contributed still get free treatment and prescriptions on the NHS which often causes friction over here! If we choose to pay private medical insurance, we would still have to contribute to the NHS as well but the private insurance wouldn't pay for contraception and prescriptions from the private insurance would be considerably more expensive than those from an NHS doctor). Obviously this business with HL is all new to us and so we don't know all the ins and outs. But surely an employer who is willing to pay for most medication (which might run into huge amounts) is worth their weight in gold? If you don't want them to know about something you've made your own choice about (say the morning after pill) because you know their take on it, why would you even tell them? If I worked for an employer who held strong views about contraception, I wouldn't tell them, let alone expect them to pay for it. Why would I? It doesn't make sense. Now, if the HL employees contribute to this insurance and some are experiencing discrimination, then that's a different thing altogether. Are they?


Same in Australia.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Janeway said:


> Thank you for saying the truth about what Hobby Lobby opposes! Most people don't want to hear the truth--they just want to "hammer" their warped minds on the rest of us!


Yeah, just like you do.


----------



## igott153 (Feb 1, 2012)

I won't support them either. Not only that they won't provide certain types of birth control because of religious beliefs, they don't treat or pay their female employees fairly. I also don't support any company that moves offshore to evade paying taxes to the U.S. where they are making money. Not that I was a customer of Burger King but they just made my list for moving their corporate office to Canada.


----------



## korteruckmar (Dec 2, 2011)

No problem with Hobby Lobby.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

cookiequeen said:


> News flash! She is reactionary!


No, she's a reactionist.


----------



## JLEIGH (Apr 1, 2011)

Politics aside, I love Hobby Lobby and wish we had one near!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> You think she has a closed mind. How about others thinking you have a closed mind, is there any difference?


They can think what they want. They would be wrong.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The law of the land has been in place for a long time that the state cannot interfere on religious freedoms. Also, the law is still on the books that American taxpayers' revenues will not support (be used to pay for) abortions.
> 
> The SCOTUS upheld both of those laws. I'm surprised you refuse to understand or acknowledge their legal standing decision.


I both understand and acknowledge their decision. I just think that history will show the error in this decision.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> No, she's a reactionist.


I'm actually starting to think it's funny. People get so wound up!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

cattdages said:


> When they remove those choices from their insurance, they put them out of reach of many of their largely rather low-paid workforce.
> 
> This is not directed at you, but I am really surprised at how little empathy or understanding being expressed for people whose lives are not as "together".
> 
> "Just get another job"...have you looked for a job lately? It's not that easy.


To me that argument with one of the most irritating in the Hobby Lobby debate. 19th century business used that same justification for the abominable working conditions found in their mills and factories. Requiring folks to work 12, 14, or 16 hour shifts for a dollar or two a week...beating children who couldn't keep up the pace..dismissing workers on the spot when they lost fingers and hands to the machinery and could no longer labor--horrors such as these were dismissed with that selfsame argument that "no one is forced to work for us".


----------



## Montana Gramma (Dec 19, 2012)

samdog13 said:


> Last word on this - I don't think your comments about the Amish is apt, since to my knowledge they do not have large corporations or employ non-Amish in their businesses.
> 
> This matter is a classic case if religious freedom v. A fundamental right of a woman to control her own body. We are not going to change each other's minds on this sensitive topic.


They may not employ non- Amish but they have huge business concerns. I want to go to the Amannas some day. They also break with their tradition of no electricity or English ways to have shops, so is that not a business decision of what is good for the gander is not for the goose? I do not care how they justify it to themselves because I am buying a product I want, is likely not available anywhere else and their convictions or business practices do not unsettle mine. I do not think the intent here is to change anyone's mind, I agree you are right about that no one will, but to put forth opinions. Because some get so angry I feel they have strong, strong beliefs and I listen to theirs hope they listen to mine without judgement. The world is so full of hypocritical practices. Does not mean we ourselves have to become that.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> To me that argument with one of the most irritating in the Hobby Lobby debate. 19th century business used that same justification for the abominable working conditions found in their mills and factories. Requiring folks to work 12, 14, or 16 hour shifts for a dollar or two a week...beating children who couldn't keep up the pace..dismissing workers on the spot when they lost fingers and hands to the machinery and could no longer labor--horrors such as these were dismissed with that selfsame argument that "no one is forced to work for us".


 :thumbup:


----------



## gina (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm more concerned about older people who have huge co-pays for medicines they need to live. Some live on SS, and pay fo supplemental insurance, and still have co-pays for medicine and doctor's visits.

And back in their child bearing years had to pay for their own birth control. It was not a right.

Don't take the job, knowing the rules, then try to make the company bow to your wishes.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

They same way you are wrong thinking SHE has a closed mind?



cattdages said:


> They can think what they want. They would be wrong.


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Thank you for saying the truth about what Hobby Lobby opposes! Most people don't want to hear the truth--they just want to "hammer" their warped minds on the rest of us!
> 
> I am proud they stuck up for their religious beliefs. They are also closed on Sunday as that should be a day of prayer & rest!
> 
> I will continue to shop there as I love what they stand for & love their products!


Me too!


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

This is starting to border on ugly. It may be time to bow out.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

There CAN be misuse of power, and there always has been when there is power. Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

But, to draw an equivalence between those who used their power to force child labor and H L is hardly a good debating point or accurate.



susanmos2000 said:


> To me that argument with one of the most irritating in the Hobby Lobby debate. 19th century business used that same justification for the abominable working conditions found in their mills and factories. Requiring folks to work 12, 14, or 16 hour shifts for a dollar or two a week...beating children who couldn't keep up the pace..dismissing workers on the spot when they lost fingers and hands to the machinery and could no longer labor--horrors such as these were dismissed with that selfsame argument that "no one is forced to work for us".


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cattdages said:


> I both understand and acknowledge their decision. I just think that history will show the error in this decision.


Your prior posts show you actually don't understand the case. That's OK, I only chose to answer your initial question and am not trying to oppose your beliefs.

I like your avatar. :-D


----------



## Dish Cloth Diva (Mar 31, 2012)

ani31 said:


> -- as I understand it, the pills were mandated by Obamacare and if HL did not comply they were to be fined many hundreds of thousands of dollars ----- they did agree to supply pills that prevented fertilization, but did not approve pills that cause abortion, and went to court to uphold this section. 16 birth control pills are approved, IF YOU WANT TO USE THEM, and 4 anti-abortion pills are not covered. HL won their case in the Supreme Court decision.
> So, birth control is available IF you want it, a personal decision, but abortion pills not available.
> Are you protesting HL because they do not provide abortion ?


I, for one will continue to shop at HL. Several birth controls ARE COVERED, 4 anti abortion pills are not. If the one you use that are not covered, either you switch your brand to one that is covered or go to planned parenthood, you can get them for free there, so I have been told. One does not have to work at HL if you do not like their policies or politics, go find a place to work at that lines up with your believe system.... Every new Doctor or nurse that I see, the first question I ask is, do you provide abortions, if they did, I will leave and they will not get my business. It's my choice not to have a Dr touch me who's hands killed innocent babies. I make no big deal out of, I tell them why they will not get my business and leave. No confrontation, no drama. Just a peaceful exit. And they get to keep my Co pay.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


There are other quality cotton yarns available at such places as WEBS, Patternworks, Noble Knits, KnitPicks, etc. I won't even enter the parking lot at Hobby Lobby given their current attempts to alter school curriculum nationwide to push their religions beliefs. That's just as bad, or worse, than the failure to provide birth control coverage. I have no clue what makes corporations think they can be dictators; perhaps they need to move to some other country where that is more acceptable.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The one thing I have noticed in the 15 pages of comments is that no one mentioned what is really in the ACA. The law passed by the Democrats in Congress makes no mention of required drugs. It was in a rule decided by Sibelius and enforced by Obama. I believe Obama wanted this rule to divide the country over Christian beliefs. (it is working)
> 
> There is no reason for requiring an employer or an insurance company to provide anything "free." Obama has been freely providing exemptions for many employers and unions, from many parts of the law. Why didn't he do it here? As a matter of fact, very little of the original law has been enforced. Why is Obama so insistent on this particular rule, other than to divide the country? He even has his attorneys working on an executive order to counter this decision by the Supreme Court.


 :thumbup: It seems the facts are not to be considered when discussing this case particularly by those opposed to HL and the SCOTUS' decision.


----------



## FrannyGrace (Dec 25, 2011)

My thoughts exactly!


maleknitter said:


> Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


----------



## Knitnutty (Feb 9, 2011)

I quit shopping there when the politics started. I never thought their yarn was good at all. Many say "I Love This Yarn" is good but I didn't like it at all. It felt awful to me. There was no reason to go there when there is Michaels and Joann's.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> There CAN be misuse of power, and there always has been when there is power. Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
> 
> But, to draw an equivalence between those who used their power to force child labor and H L is hardly a good debating point or accurate.


Of course it's relevant. The real issue here isn't what kinds of birth control HL will or will not provide--it's whether companies have a right, as so many have argued, to treat their employees as they please on the grounds that "no one is forced to work for us".


----------



## dshorty57 (Apr 18, 2011)

They don't want to pay for birth control because they believe in not using it-to each his own- I'll buy my own with my own money and if I couldn't there are other organizations that will provide to you and oh yes there are condoms...now let it rest---love me some hobby lobby


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Your prior posts show you don't actually don't understand the case. That's OK, I only chose to answer your initial question and am not trying to oppose your beliefs.
> 
> I like your avatar. :-D


I understand that this for-profit corporation sued for the right to go against the law of the land based on their religious beliefs. And the results of the supreme court decision in their favor is that their employees will now not enjoy some of the benefits guaranteed by that law. 
Is that incorrect?

Don't tell me I'm an idiot and then tell me "cute dog". That's just passive-aggressive.


----------



## Czar-knitter (Aug 25, 2012)

dshorty57 said:


> They don't want to pay for birth control because they believe in not using it-to each his own- I'll buy my own with my own money and if I couldn't there are other organizations that will provide to you and oh yes there are condoms...now let it rest---love me some hobby lobby


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cattdages said:


> I understand that this for-profit corporation sued for the right to go against the law of the land based on their religious beliefs. And the results of the supreme court decision in their favor is that their employees will now not enjoy some of the benefits guaranteed by that law.
> Is that incorrect?
> 
> Don't tell me I'm an idiot and then tell me "cute dog". That's just passive-aggressive.


Yes, incorrect.

The for-profit corp sued for the right to have their religious freedoms recognized as the present LAW allows AND to have the law that American taxpayers are NOT to have their funds pay for abortions upheld. That is precisely what happened; both laws were upheld.

I didn't say anything of the kind. It is you, not me, that used a passive-agressive tone to speak to me without speaking to me. Remember?

I speak the truth and say what I mean and stand by it. I also didn't say, 'cute dog' or that 'you are an idiot.'


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> There are other quality cotton yarns available at such places as WEBS, Patternworks, Noble Knits, KnitPicks, etc. I won't even enter the parking lot at Hobby Lobby given their current attempts to alter school curriculum nationwide to push their religions beliefs. That's just as bad, or worse, than the failure to provide birth control coverage. I have no clue what makes corporations think they can be dictators; perhaps they need to move to some other country where that is more acceptable.


What gets me is HL's rank hypocrisy. Much talk from them of "honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles", but those cheap imports from China show what their bottom line truly is.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Yes, incorrect.
> 
> I didn't say anything of the kind. The for-profit corp sued for the right to have their religious freedoms recognized as the present LAW allows AND to have the law that American taxpayers are NOT to have their funds pay for abortions upheld. That is precisely what happened.
> 
> ...


I guess we're seeing this issue from two different perspectives so we have two different truths. You're seeing a fight for religious freedom and I'm seeing a religious organization trying to impose morality. With those competing perspectives we're not ever going to agree. I will continue to feel that I should not give that organization my business, and you can continue to support them if you choose.

Ultimately history will prove one of us right.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Madelyn said:


> Isn't freedom wonderful?
> 
> You have the freedom to shop or not shop, talk about it or not, work there or not, offer employees benefits or not AND learn the facts or not.


;~D!


----------



## jangmb (Oct 27, 2011)

cattdages said:


> This issue was not about abortion on any level. It was about medications designed to prevent pregnancy and they say they should have the right to deny their employees these medications.


You need to check the facts, not the hype you have heard and read.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cattdages said:


> I guess we're seeing this issue from two different perspectives so we have two different truths. You're seeing a fight for religious freedom and I'm seeing a religious organization trying to impose morality. With those competing perspectives we're not ever going to agree. I will continue to feel that I should not give that organization my business, and you can continue to support them if you choose.
> 
> Ultimately history will prove one of us right.


The truth and facts always prevail; I'll stick with those and continue to support Hobby Lobby as it is my decision.


----------



## Pope (Jul 25, 2011)

Yes, I feel the same way. I refuse to shop there.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

glofish said:


> I agree. And I do not think that this forum is the place to air political views.


This is General Chit Chat and there are topics where people have aired not only political views but moral perspectives and religious viewpoints.

As far as Hobby Lobby, one opened in my general area, about as convenient as A.C. Moore (not very) and I have a Michaels quite nearby.

I will not shop at Hobby Lobby because of the way they have tried to use legal means to deny their employees full health care benefits that should rightfully be theirs.

I do not believe medical issues should be politicized nor should they be used as weapons to promote a particular viewpoint. I believe reproductive health care issues should be a private matter between the person and his or her physician. It is slave owner mentality for an employer to try to dictate personal issues of this nature to employees.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

NJG said:


> No. Anyone interested may comment. We do have the freedom to do that if we wish and you have the freedom to go away. Your choice.


Nice to see you here, and I applaud your viewpoint.


----------



## antiquelilgal43 (Jun 29, 2014)

I so agree...personally I am tired of it. We just had a Hobby Lobby open here in Reno and I love it as we no longer have Ben Franklins!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The truth and facts always prevail; I'll stick with those and continue to support Hobby Lobby as it is my decision.


I respect your decision and your views, and I respect your passion. I'm sorry you can't do the same for me. This is why I talked about closed minds earlier. No recognition that there are other viewpoints that may have some merit. Truth is not an absolute, and facts are open to interpretation.


----------



## stitchntime (Apr 27, 2013)

Freedom is the basic issue. Hobby Lobby is free to exercise their rights, we are free to exercise ours. I will continue to shop at HL and respect their rights. I too 'vote' with my $--I shop and use products that support American freedom. You are FREE to do the same...


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> What gets me is HL's rank hypocrisy. Much talk from them of "honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles", but those cheap imports from China show what their bottom line truly is.


When one picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe and which to ignore, it's not rocket science that they screw it up. My biggest beef with "Christianity" is its failure to recognize that the New Testament was supposed to have been the new covenant between God and man, leaving the Old Testament as a history book of sorts and not something anyone should live by. Every time someone starts preaching the Old Testament at me, I want to retch. Add to that the fact that the majority of "Christians" I know worship money rather than following the words of Christ regarding that state of affairs. I finally decided to cross them off my list of people who know what they're talking about instead of parroting what the former generations and clergy people have said in order to advance their own agendas. I'm too tired to try to cope with it any more, especially since the more I tried, the louder they screamed Old Testament scripture at me.

The other ideas that bug me to death are that this is a Christian nation, the forefathers were Christians, Christianity exclusively is a guaranteed right in the Constitution, etc., etc. Does no one do their research? Some of the Constitutional writers were atheists, many were not Christians and had extremely strong beliefs in separation of church and state in an attempt to avoid exactly what Hobby Lobby is currently trying to do "in the name of God." That would be their idea of God and has nothing to do with patriotism or the freedom of all religions. How does all of this get so convoluted into what people want to believe in such a relatively short period of time historically? I think it's mind boggling in a time when we have access to all the historical documents online and no one is interested enough to check them out.


----------



## Betsy's World (Mar 21, 2014)

I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face - if a business has a product I want, I will buy it, and be grateful that I can.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

paljoey46 said:


> Out of 20 methods of birth control, Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for abortafacients (those birth control methods that produce abortions). They are providing coverage for all other methods.


The truth is and has been proven by scientists they do not cause abortions. They stop the egg from being fertilized. There is no embryo or fetus to abort. It seems people do not want to understand that.


----------



## Chemchic (Dec 16, 2012)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


Yes, I am...and there are a few yarns there that I just LOVE. But I won't go in there or order from them online..just because of their politics..but that's my prerogative, right?


----------



## London1 (Jan 26, 2014)

You know when you start working at hobby lobby what they believe you do not have to take the job , I for one support hobby lobby for standing behind what they believe


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> When one picks and chooses which parts of the Bible to believe and which to ignore, it's not rocket science that they screw it up. My biggest beef with "Christianity" is its failure to recognize that the New Testament was supposed to have been the new covenant between God and man, leaving the Old Testament as a history book of sorts and not something anyone should live by. Every time someone starts preaching the Old Testament at me, I want to retch. Add to that the fact that the majority of "Christians" I know worship money rather than following the words of Christ regarding that state of affairs. I finally decided to cross them off my list of people who know what they're talking about instead of parroting what the former generations and clergy people have said in order to advance their own agendas. I'm too tired to try to cope with it any more, especially since the more I tried, the louder they screamed Old Testament scripture at me.
> 
> The other ideas that bug me to death are that this is a Christian nation, the forefathers were Christians, Christianity exclusively is a guaranteed right in the Constitution, etc., etc. Does no one do their research? Some of the Constitutional writers were atheists, many were not Christians and had extremely strong beliefs in separation of church and state in an attempt to avoid exactly what Hobby Lobby is currently trying to do "in the name of God." That would be their idea of God and has nothing to do with patriotism or the freedom of all religions. How does all of this get so convoluted into what people want to believe in such a relatively short period of time historically? I think it's mind boggling in a time when we have access to all the historical documents online and no one is interested enough to check them out.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You are so right. Those so called Christians are the ones who go to church on Sunday and then think they have been saved and then sin the rest of the week.They are the ones who talk about the poor and minorities as if they have no rights at all and don't deserve any. They are the ones who are racists, but believe if they just deny it, no one will know. They are the ones who think voter ID is necessary because of all the voter fraud, when actually it will restrict minorities from voting so the right has a better chance to win. They do know the truth, they just won't admit it. I think those kind of Christians are very hypocritical.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Thank you for saying it so well!


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Medical issues ARE politicized -- from the very beginning. "Healthcare" was integrated into employee pay BECAUSE of politics. The government froze wages at the end of WWII and the employers used paying for medical coverage to "differentiate" themselves. To think that this issue is about anything other than politics is to ignore both the history and the motivations of how we got to where we are today.



MarilynKnits said:


> This is General Chit Chat and there are topics where people have aired not only political views but moral perspectives and religious viewpoints.
> 
> As far as Hobby Lobby, one opened in my general area, about as convenient as A.C. Moore (not very) and I have a Michaels quite nearby.
> 
> ...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

London1 said:


> You know when you start working at hobby lobby what they believe you do not have to take the job , I for one support hobby lobby for standing behind what they believe


When someone needs a job, and needs is the key word there, I doubt they take into consideration weather HL is a Christian company or not. The main thing though is HL can believe anything they want, but don't push those beliefs off on to your employees. That is the point many people want to overlook.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Nobody is taking exception to your right to purchase yarn from whomever and for what ever reason. But others also have the right to point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies when you quote REASONS for doing so that do not hold up to scrutiny.



Chemchic said:


> Yes, I am...and there are a few yarns there that I just LOVE. But I won't go in there or order from them online..just because of their politics..but that's my prerogative, right?


----------



## Grandma M (Nov 18, 2011)

This conversation I feel is not appropriate for the Forum
It is highly controversial and uplifts no one but stirs up anger. Lets not go there


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Chemchic said:


> Yes, I am...and there are a few yarns there that I just LOVE. But I won't go in there or order from them online..just because of their politics..but that's my prerogative, right?


Mine as well. I don't shop where I don't consider myself to be respected.

We vote with our wallets in this country. And with our internal integrity.

Just as it is the prerogative of people who shop there to do so. But I don't need anything badly enough to shop there or support their position by my patronage.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

NJG said:


> They do know the truth, they just won't admit it. I think those kind of Christians are very hypocritical.


I feel like I have to be very clear on my feelings about Christians and Christianity. I feel like Christians are misguided, but for the most part (ALL politicians EXCLUDED) they are well meaning and truly believe in what they preach. They are just so entrenched and so CERTAIN they can't even see how small they make their world and their world-view. I find it kind of sad that as a species we STILL need to look for explanations for our creation etc in mythology. Sad, sad, sad. As SAMkewel said, many sadly misconstrue the goals and beliefs of our founding fathers to support their personal agendas. And so many believe the talking heads that create hype and fear. Sad, sad, sad.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

NOBODY is overlooking that. This IS politics, always has been, always will be. Yes, people need jobs. But when you use the power of the government to force me to pay for your abortion, or even your 'healthcare' just know that that same power can be used in contravention to your beliefs, just as you want it used against the beliefs of others.



NJG said:


> When someone needs a job, and needs is the key word there, I doubt they take into consideration weather HL is a Christian company or not. The main thing though is HL can believe anything they want, but don't push those beliefs off on to your employees. That is the point many people want to overlook.


----------



## Judy Temple (Sep 12, 2012)

What gets me is: they are only required to offer it. It is the individuals choice whether to use it.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Others see your world view as being just as narrow and constricted. Just because one points to a real problem does not mean the solution they propose to 'fix' it is the best one or even will come close to fixing it.



cattdages said:


> I feel like I have to be very clear on my feelings about Christians and Christianity. I feel like Christians are misguided, but for the most part (ALL politicians EXCLUDED) they are well meaning and truly believe in what they preach. They are just so entrenched and so CERTAIN they can't even see how small they make their world and their world-view. I find it kind of sad that as a species we STILL need to look for explanations for our creation etc in mythology. Sad, sad, sad. As SAMkewel said, many sadly misconstrue the goals and beliefs of our founding fathers to support their personal agendas. And so many believe the talking heads that create hype and fear. Sad, sad, sad.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It is NOT in the law. It is a rule, a rule that denied religious freedom. The Supreme Court did not decide it on a freedom of religion issue. It was decided on a law signed by Clinton.


It was decided by 5 catholic judges and had nothing to do with law. The employees of HL should have religious freedom too.


----------



## mzmom1 (Mar 4, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


It isn't pre- pregnancy birth control they object to, they will pay for that. It's the morning-after pill, "abortion in a bottle" that is against their beliefs.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Nobody is taking exception to your right to purchase yarn from whomever and for what ever reason. But others also have the right to point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies when you quote REASONS for doing so that do not hold up to scrutiny.


And the same goes for you.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Grandma M said:


> This conversation I feel is not appropriate for the Forum
> It is highly controversial and uplifts no one but stirs up anger. Lets not go there


When Knitting Paradise changed ownership some time ago, the rules against this type of subject matter were dropped. It is your option to refrain from reading it, but not to try to censor it. It is posted in the Chit-Chat section as a tip-off that it is not knitting related, so you need to be careful in this section if you don't want to be exposed to this type of interchange of ideas.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

mzmom1 said:


> It isn't pre- pregnancy birth control they object to, they will pay for that. It's the morning-after pill, "abortion in a bottle" that is against their beliefs.


The "abortion in a bottle" that is not an abortion at all. It stops the egg from being fertilized. There is no fetus or embryo. Another inconsistency that people just won't let go of or even try to understand.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Others see your world view as being just as narrow and constricted. Just because one points to a real problem does not mean the solution they propose to 'fix' it is the best one or even will come close to fixing it.


so true!


----------



## JusNeedles (Nov 20, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


Years back I worked for a very large Atl law firm with great insurance benefits; our benefits didn't include birth control but did include maternity benefits; I never questioned it whatsoever. Just paid for my own birth control and went about my business. Never made sense but that was how it was. I WILL not boycott HL because of this because if that is their belief so be it.

I also worked many years for a very large quick serve restaurant that chooses to close on Sunday which didn't bother me; didn't mean I didn't have to work on Sundays in order to fly out of town for meetings; my three teen aged daughters worked there as they were growing up and they often had to work on Sunday to tear down and clean equipment, but the company stills "touts" themselves as not being open on Sunday, AND they are not, they just don't sell product on Sunday !


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

NJG said:


> The truth is and has been proven by scientists they do not cause abortions. They stop the egg from being fertilized. There is no embryo or fetus to abort. It seems people do not want to understand that.


Although I support HL's right on this topic - you are correct - many people think eggs are fertilized immediately when it really takes from 8 to 72 hours for this to happen. However the morning after pill can, in fact, keep a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus and this is the part that HL and others might have the problem with, I don't know. That could be a whole other discussion (or argument) on when someone thinks life starts- I don't even want to go there. 
But no - bottom line, it does not abort a pregnancy, it prevents one.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

cattdages said:


> I feel like I have to be very clear on my feelings about Christians and Christianity. I feel like Christians are misguided, but for the most part (ALL politicians EXCLUDED) they are well meaning and truly believe in what they preach. They are just so entrenched and so CERTAIN they can't even see how small they make their world and their world-view. I find it kind of sad that as a species we STILL need to look for explanations for our creation etc in mythology. Sad, sad, sad. As SAMkewel said, many sadly misconstrue the goals and beliefs of our founding fathers to support their personal agendas. And so many believe the talking heads that create hype and fear. Sad, sad, sad.


Because I have seen so many televangelists and similar "clergy" locally whose number one goal is to amass money, I can't agree that even most Christians are well meaning. As the parent of a now-deceased gay son, I can guarantee you that not one member of my former church was well meaning in his/her attitude, including the clergy who felt it necessary to seek me out and inform me that they "don't like" gays, and this in a supposedly liberal denomination. The fact that the light of my life was dying cut no ice with them, nor were they supportive of me at any point during his long dying process, during which time his step-father, my spouse, was also dying and received no support after 20 years of membership. You might call that the frosting on the cake of my growing desire to disassociate from the sins of organized religion in favor of dealing with the sins of the rest of us who are at least honest and open about them. I don't see myself as bitter so much as enlightened about what the current reality of organized religion has become, and I find that I function better without it. Sad, indeed.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

ani31 said:


> -- as I understand it, the pills were mandated by Obamacare and if HL did not comply they were to be fined many hundreds of thousands of dollars ----- they did agree to supply pills that prevented fertilization, but did not approve pills that cause abortion, and went to court to uphold this section. 16 birth control pills are approved, IF YOU WANT TO USE THEM, and 4 anti-abortion pills are not covered. HL won their case in the Supreme Court decision.
> So, birth control is available IF you want it, a personal decision, but abortion pills not available.
> Are you protesting HL because they do not provide abortion ?


The protest is because they are pushing their religious beliefs off on their employees. And by the way, the pills in question stop the egg from being fertilized, there is no abortion as there is no fetus or embryo.


----------



## Adelaide (Aug 29, 2011)

this might be a radical idea, but if you don't believe in birth control or the right to an abortion don't do it!!! seems to me it's really a private choice, does anybody dare to discuss the fact that Burger King is going to Canada to save on their tax bill- they use the services, that we pay for like roads, public education etc. etc., and then decide they don't want to pay the bill (we should!) doesn't this seem like a topic we could discuss rationally- let's own our private choices and think about how we are allowing corporations to exploit our system, just a thought!!!!!!!! adelaide


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

Sorry, but I totally disagree with most of you. A private company should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs. I hate the fact that my tax dollars are going to fund abortions thru government funding. This is America, founded on freedom, freedom of religion without government interference! That is why many of the Pilgrims came here in the first place! I don't want to live in a country where the government can dictate what I believe. If you own a business you should have the right to refuse doing business with those who's actions go against your faith.


----------



## Jae (Mar 20, 2012)

Birth Control is a private and personal matter and we the people should not have to pay for it with our tax dollars.

That is what is wrong with this country today, too many freebees and you the taxpayer should be outraged. I am not against anyone that needs a hand up for a short time but our government has made it an occupation.

Look at your own situation and then really think about the road others have taken at your expense and they don't even use it responsibly.


----------



## wlk4fun647 (Apr 17, 2011)

I have been shopping at this Christian store for many years, and respected that they are closed on Sundays, so employees may share time to worship and be with their families (a sign on their door states this)... However, I do NOT agree with their stand on denying employees the right to have birth control covered under their company insurance.
I thought Church and State were to be kept seperate under the Constitution... If you are not a Christian or religious, who's right is it to tell you what you can or cannot do in your private life, if it does not pertain to your employment or how you do your job? I thought the AIDS issue showed that you could not deny employees health benefits based on "reasons" ... I just wonder if men are denied "the little blue pill" or other such medications?


----------



## Adelaide (Aug 29, 2011)

great, so glad that you have this position so can you tell me how you feel about american corporations, like Burger King, deciding to not pay their tax load but still using the the services that our taxes fund, like public education (for their employees), libraries, roads etc. etc., or maybe the idea is that if you want it you pay for it- sounds great to me since I don't drive, don't even have a license so would be so thrilled to not have my tax$ go to roads, hghway upkeep, etc., is that the world that you are wishing to create- it's all quite intersting and I'd happy to hear your ideas about how we negotiate the future, with or without religious statements, adelaide


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Sorry, but I totally disagree with most of you. A private company should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs. I hate the fact that my tax dollars are going to fund abortions thru government funding. This is America, founded on freedom, freedom of religion without government interference! That is why many of the Pilgrims came here in the first place! I don't want to live in a country where the government can dictate what I believe. If you own a business you should have the right to refuse doing business with those who's actions go against your faith.


A company and the owners of a company are not identical in my opinion. One is an entity, and the other is made of individual human beings. I have a pet sitting company. I do not require any of my clients to hear about or have to make choices regarding my religion or lack thereof, nor should they be put in that position. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to cram ones' personal beliefs down the throats of others, it includes freedom FROM religion if that what others want.

EDIT: What do you mean by "private company?"


----------



## Munchn (Mar 3, 2013)

It should not be forced to provide birth control with its health care. It is part of freedom of religion. You are not forced to vote. What's the difference.... That's where I stand. Gotta be honest with you.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Munchn said:


> It should not be forced to provide birth control with its health care. It is part of freedom of religion. You are not forced to vote. What's the difference.... That's where I stand. Gotta be honest with you.


Actually, depending upon your race and area, you're lucky if you're allowed to vote..... I'd bet that things would be hugely different if we WERE forced to vote.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

augiesouth said:


> I think that it is un-American to single out Hobby Lobby as they do have many good benefits for the full & part-time employees. There are only 4 birth control items they do not cover but they cover many others. If you want to use the methods not covered then find another place to work. Why is it lately people target other people for their religious beliefs. I bet if the Muslims said they like Hobby Lobby's practice there would be a lot of people saying how wonderful they were...what is it with Christians? Why can they not practice what they believe...do you think that HL should be forced against their belief to be open on Sundays?


Hobby Lobby singled themselves out. No one asked them to get between their employees and their employees Drs. Kind of a snide remark about Muslims there wasn't it? Christians can practice anything they want, as long as they don't try to make others do the same. This supreme court decision is just the first step in Hobby Lobby's plan. The next part of their plan is to introduce religion classes into the public schools. They are working on that in Oklahoma right now. Last thing I read it was delayed because of the back lash they was getting from the public, but I'm sure they won't give up. As far as I know there is still suppose to be separation of church and state. If they want their kids to go to a religious school, they can send them to one, but they don't have the right to force that onto everyone else. How would you feel if that started to happen?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I could not agree with you more. Government is taking more and more control of our freedoms. I wonder why women who say the goverment should stay out of their bodies yet insist a business should offer free all birth control products. That is what the government is doing and saying that they will have to do( meaning business). The Surpereme Court has said no to at least this one.


The ACA was designed to provide healthcare for everyone. You obviously have healthcare so you are not one of the people who was very grateful the government stepped in and tried to solve the healthcare issue. The parents who have a child with a pre existing condition are grateful the government stepped in. The people who had no healthcare are grateful they are now able to go to the Dr, except those republican controlled states that didn't except the medicaid expansion, because my God, if Obama likes it, we certainly can't. So our poor people don't have insurance. Who cares, we are Christians in name only anyway.


----------



## Rutherford Roe (Apr 16, 2014)

that's the answer in a nutshell... no one forces anyone to work anywhere...


----------



## KnitGma (Apr 10, 2013)

cathy47 said:


> The way I see it I don't tell anyone what to do with their bodies and money I expect the same respect. And that includes employers. They need to stay out of everyone's home business period. I would never work for such employers.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

They are also antisemitic, I will never shop there.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Because I have seen so many televangelists and similar "clergy" locally whose number one goal is to amass money, I can't agree that even most Christians are well meaning. As the parent of a now-deceased gay son, I can guarantee you that not one member of my former church was well meaning in his/her attitude, including the clergy who felt it necessary to seek me out and inform me that they "don't like" gays, and this in a supposedly liberal denomination. The fact that the light of my life was dying cut no ice with them, nor were they supportive of me at any point during his long dying process, during which time his step-father, my spouse, was also dying and received no support after 20 years of membership. You might call that the frosting on the cake of my growing desire to disassociate from the sins of organized religion in favor of dealing with the sins of the rest of us who are at least honest and open about them. I don't see myself as bitter so much as enlightened about what the current reality of organized religion has become, and I find that I function better without it. Sad, indeed.


I'm very sorry for your loss.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Maat said:


> But if you want to utilize the benefits of being part of the general community, you forfeit the ability to impose your religious views on others. Especially when it comes to people's livlihoods, healthcare and personal lives.


Well said!

And welcome to the forum! We mostly talk about knitting...I promise!


----------



## gjz (Dec 2, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> There are other quality cotton yarns available at such places as WEBS, Patternworks, Noble Knits, KnitPicks, etc. I won't even enter the parking lot at Hobby Lobby given their current attempts to alter school curriculum nationwide to push their religions beliefs. That's just as bad, or worse, than the failure to provide birth control coverage. I have no clue what makes corporations think they can be dictators; perhaps they need to move to some other country where that is more acceptable.


From my understanding the curriculum Steve Green has developed is an elective course. It will take a look at the bible in an academic way. Since it is an elective course, no one will be forced to take it. If no one signs up, it will go away.

I wish people would realize...they PROVIDE BIRTH CONTROL. (Sorry for shouting). They objected to some pills that prevent eggs from being fertilized and/or being able to attach to the uterus. Last I heard, abortion isn't/shouldn't be a type of birth control. Which is what it sounds like some of you are saying.

No one has lost anything...HL hasn't taken anything away from women. They didn't have it before, they don't have it now. And BTW, I have a couple of friends that work at a HL. They say they are paid well, and seem to be happy working there.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Please, H L IS NOT withholding B C pills. If you want to choose to avoid giving them your business that is your right (at least right now) but please be sure you are walking the path you want to follow all the way to the end.
> 
> The flip side of this whole claim that H L owes their employees any B C they want because the government says they have to supply them has a very dark side. That same government could come knocking on your door and take away ALL B C and forcibly inseminate whomever they decide they want to.
> 
> Some might say that would never happen here. Maybe, maybe not BUT it is the SAME issue--Government control of conception and procreation. Beware of what you ask for!!!


If the government comes knocking, it would be a republican controlled government. That does worry me. If republicans ever gain complete control the country as we know it will be gone. No minimum wage, no Obamacare, no right to vote, no environmental regulations, no unions to protect the blue collar worker, no NLRB, no discrimination laws, etc. etc.
Is that how you would like to live?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Still no scientific proof? Here is the proof that Life begins at fertilization:
> 
> Definition of Abortifacient (the ones Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for)
> 
> ...


www.lifenews.com has taken a right to life position; therefore, I don't consider them to be an unbiased source of information. I'm sure you wouldn't consider a liberal-minded publication to be unbiased, either.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Still no scientific proof? Here is the proof that Life begins at fertilization:
> 
> Definition of Abortifacient (the ones Hobby Lobby refuses to pay for)
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Sorry, but I totally disagree with most of you. A private company should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs. I hate the fact that my tax dollars are going to fund abortions thru government funding. This is America, founded on freedom, freedom of religion without government interference! That is why many of the Pilgrims came here in the first place!


Sorry, but this is a myth. The Pilgrims and the Puritans believed in freedom of religion for one group: their own. Colonists who chose not to observe the Sabbath were forcibly dragged to the church--others saw their Christmas meals and gifts confiscated as the religious authorities viewed such things are irreverent.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Then can you provide another (liberal) source that provides the scientific proof of when life begins? Real science is neither right or left, it is SCIENCE.
> 
> If you read the article it provided foot notes for every statement they made. It is NOT their opinion!


No, I'm not the one trying to prove a point here. When I do research, I research both sides in order to form my opinion. Since I'm well past childbearing age, this point is somewhat moot for me. SCIENCE can and is being corrupted by biased opinions on an hourly basis in the USA and elsewhere in order to try to prove points because it has been invaded by politics, as has religion and most everything else. I'm just pointing out that you need to carefully choose your sources, or choose sources from all sides of an issue, if you don't want to appear to be biased.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry, but this is a myth. The Pilgrims and the Puritans believed in freedom of religion for one group: their own. Colonists who chose not to observe the Sabbath were forcibly dragged to the church--others saw their Christmas meals and gifts confiscated as the religious authorities viewed such things are irreverent.


While that may be historically true, that's not what the documentation says. Nowhere have I read "Puritan" in front of religion.....


----------



## gjc1212 (Nov 7, 2013)

I understand (but don't agree with) a religious belief that prohibits birth control, but Hobby Lobby is NOT a church or a church ministry. Will they be entitled to a religious organization's tax-exempt status, next????


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry, but this is a myth. The Pilgrims and the Puritans believed in freedom of religion for one group: their own. Colonists who chose not to observe the Sabbath were forcibly dragged to the church--others saw their Christmas meals and gifts confiscated as the religious authorities viewed such things are irreverent.


Where are the stories of signers of the US Constitution being dragged to church printed? I thought I was fairly well-read until I saw this.....


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> www.lifenews.com has taken a right to life position; therefore, I don't consider them to be an unbiased source of information. I'm sure you wouldn't consider a liberal-minded publication to be unbiased, either.


It is pretty much impossible to BE unbiased. The best we can be is tolerant. You make your decisions based on your values or whatever and allow me to make mine. That's still my argument. You can think whatever you like about conception, in fact I agree that life starts at fertilization (although many, many pregnancies don't succeed for natural reasons so...who's to say?) and that still doesn't give you the right to make choices for me about how I live my life. An employer has no business making those decisions for their employees and that is what the owners of Hobby Lobby are trying to do.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The ACA was designed for the government to take control of health care. More people have lost health insurance than gained it. What happened to the statements "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it!" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep him!" and the cost will go down by $2500? All lies!


Our state (Michigan) had a number of TV ads to this effect. It turned out that they were untrue, and that the cancer survivor in question had been paid by the Tea Party to make those ads with the approval of her ex-husband, a current Republican in the Michigan legislature. It also was brought to light that her insurance now costs her considerably less than it did prior to ACA. Apparently truth is extremely hard to come by these days, and it isn't limited to one party or another.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Where are the stories of signers of the US Constitution being dragged to church printed? I thought I was fairly well-read until I saw this.....


I would bet money they pretended to ascribe to beliefs they did not actually hold in order to fit in and get things done as every politician since has done.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> While that may be historically true, that's not what the documentation says. Nowhere have I read "Puritan" in front of religion.....


Interestingly enough, the label "Puritan" was considered derogatory and slapped on by those who thought the group was too extreme. The so-called Puritans considered themselves members of the Church of England--the genuine article, they believed.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


Having Christian owners, Hobby Lobby has no problem at all with "birth control" as long as "abortions" are not included in the birth control they would be paying for. They won their case, by the way. What Hobby Lobby is not paying for is birth control that causes the killing of a baby before it is born. Birth control that prevents conception from happening is no problem at all and they are willing to pay for that. I applaud them for sticking to their convictions. They will continue to get my support and I absolutely love shopping there.


----------



## dragonswing (Feb 18, 2014)

tieman7 said:


> My bottom line opinion..... no matter what side issue your on is..... This is another reason why healthcare should not be on the backs of employers. We should all be able to find health care coverage just like we do coverage for homes and automobiles. It is a personal choice that is no one else's business or concern.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

cattdages said:


> It is pretty much impossible to BE unbiased. The best we can be is tolerant. You make your decisions based on your values or whatever and allow me to make mine. That's still my argument. You can think whatever you like about conception, in fact I agree that life starts at fertilization (although many, many pregnancies don't succeed for natural reasons so...who's to say?) and that still doesn't give you the right to make choices for me about how I live my life. An employer has no business making those decisions for their employees and that is what the owners of Hobby Lobby are trying to do.


I agree with you, however, this doesn't excuse us from trying to make the attempt to expose ourselves to all sides of an issue. There is now, and never was, any love lost between me and Hobby Lobby. I quit shopping there many years ago when I read the sign in the store that said they do not do business on Sundays and then I was able to go home and buy from their website--on Sunday. Should we call that a lie, a half-truth, or what? In my opinion, it was misleading and I elect not to do business with folks who go out of their way to pretend to be something they aren't. I don't care whether they do business on any given day or not, I only care that they weren't being honest. If they do it there, where else do they do it? That's how I make MY choices, others are free to do make theirs however they wish, right? I may not be a Christian, but I don't like lying :~).


----------



## mmorris (Sep 5, 2013)

I really feel sorry for the HL employees. Few people can quit jobs and simply have to keep working. Haven't shopped there in a long time (JoAnn's is only a mile away); Am sure the morale is very very low. :-(


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interestingly enough, the label "Puritan" was considered derogatory and slapped on by those who thought the group was too extreme. The so-called Puritans considered themselves members of the Church of England--the genuine article, they believed.


I understand that. I had relatives who, while not technically "Puritans," were for all practical purposes when it came to everyone else. Of course, those same judgements did not apply to their own ways of doing :~).


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Maat said:


> There IS no "scientific" proof when life begins. And any site, liberal OR conservative, that claims there is self-evidently biased.
> 
> When life begins is a philosophical question much more than it is scientific.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> It is pretty much impossible to BE unbiased. The best we can be is tolerant. You make your decisions based on your values or whatever and allow me to make mine. That's still my argument. You can think whatever you like about conception, in fact I agree that life starts at fertilization (although many, many pregnancies don't succeed for natural reasons so...who's to say?) and that still doesn't give you the right to make choices for me about how I live my life. An employer has no business making those decisions for their employees and that is what the owners of Hobby Lobby are trying to do.


No "decisions" are being made for employees of Hobby Lobby. If an employee of Hobby Lobby wants to make the "decision" to have an abortion, then that is their decision and they are welcome to it. Hobby Lobby is not going to fire them for making that decision. Hobby Lobby just does not want to pay for an employee's abortion which would go against their beliefs. They are willing to pay for contraception that prevents the conception of a baby.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Where are the stories of signers of the US Constitution being dragged to church printed? I thought I was fairly well-read until I saw this.....


Fortunately for them, colonial American society had developed some religious tolerance by the time they came along--their free thinking deist-type beliefs would not have gone down well a hundred years before. In fact, Ben Franklin was a member of the Hellsfire Club, which made a sport of mocking traditional religious practices and conducted orgies. Cotton Mather might have hung him as a wizard had he had the opportunity, as said club was rumored to hold satanic rituals from time to time.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I understand that. I had relatives who, while not technically "Puritans," were for all practical purposes when it came to everyone else. Of course, those same judgements did not apply to their own ways of doing :~).


Sounds like they were hypocrites.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Montana Gramma said:


> They may not employ non- Amish but they have huge business concerns. I want to go to the Amannas some day. They also break with their tradition of no electricity or English ways to have shops, so is that not a business decision of what is good for the gander is not for the goose? I do not care how they justify it to themselves because I am buying a product I want, is likely not available anywhere else and their convictions or business practices do not unsettle mine. I do not think the intent here is to change anyone's mind, I agree you are right about that no one will, but to put forth opinions. Because some get so angry I feel they have strong, strong beliefs and I listen to theirs hope they listen to mine without judgement. The world is so full of hypocritical practices. Does not mean we ourselves have to become that.


If you are talking about the Amana Colonies when you say the Amannas, they and the Amish are two entirely different things. I have been to the Amanas many times, as I live about 10 miles away, and they are not Amish. There are quite a few Amish communities in Iowa such as at Kalona. There they work in the shops and have shops of their own.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I understand that. I had relatives who, while not technically "Puritans," were for all practical purposes when it came to everyone else. Of course, those same judgements did not apply to their own ways of doing :~).


Oh, but of course!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Maat said:


> There IS no "scientific" proof when life begins. And any site, liberal OR conservative, that claims there is self-evidently biased.
> 
> When life begins is a philosophical question much more than it is scientific.
> 
> ...


Hobby Lobby is not "forcing" their beliefs on anyone. They are just "upholding" their own religious beliefs. If the employee wants to have an abortion, Hobby Lobby's owners do not try to force their belief on that employee at all. What they are unwilling to do is pay for the abortion which would go against their own religious beliefs.


----------



## Ask4j (May 21, 2011)

> CarolfromTX wrote:
> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> If you are talking about the Amana Colonies when you say the Amannas, they and the Amish are two entirely different things. I have been to the Amanas many times, as I live about 10 miles away, and they are not Amish. There are quite a few Amish communities in Iowa such as at Kalona. There they work in the shops and have shops of their own.


That's interesting--I traveled through parts of Colorado and Wyoming this summer by train, and I was surprised by the number of Amish folks who were fellow passengers. I was surprised too to see some bright colors--shades of orange, yellow, and even red--on the women. I always thought they favored more somber hues, but I guess it depends on the sect.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Maat said:


> That is not true. MOST scientists say they are not abortifacients.
> 
> At the very least, there is debate on what is, and what isn't an abortifacient. And Hobby Lobby should not be able to deny _ANY_ option to a woman especially when their claims are not true or there is no general scientific consensus.


The key word you have used is "most". Hobby Lobby's employees are able to choose any birth control method that "prevents" conception as long as there is no possibility of "abortion" of a conceived baby and Hobby Lobby will pay for that. I applaud them for following their own religious beliefs against abortion. They also follow their own religious beliefs by being closed on Sunday.


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

I was recently involved in a protest out in front of our HL. We had men, women, some in their early 80's, on one of the hottest days in July. We had some yell out of their windows at us. We had a young man, maybe 19, stop and ask us to explain exactly what we were protesting. So, we told him, he was clueless as to what had been going on in the Supreme Court. So a little educating was done.
The company's views,on birth control & religion make a certainty that they don't support gays rights to marry. They are paying for a bible class to be taught in a public school in Oklahoma City. 
As a Jew and the mother of a brilliant PHD candidate who is lesbian, Oklahoma can often feel very oppressive. I doubt that she will move back here, not a good place for a Jewish lesbian.
I too choose not to spend my money at HL, I have become a Michael's customer. Hobby Lobby doesn't support me so I don't support them.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Maat said:


> That's only your religious/philosophical belief.
> 
> There are many, if not MOST physicians and scientists that don't agree with you that life begins at conception.
> 
> ...


If the egg does not get fertilized, there will be no baby. A baby's life begins when the egg is fertilized. Life begins at conception.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

mmorris said:


> I really feel sorry for the HL employees. Few people can quit jobs and simply have to keep working. Haven't shopped there in a long time (JoAnn's is only a mile away); Am sure the morale is very very low. :-(


Why would the morale be low? The Hobby Lobby where I shop has wonderful, courteous and friendly people working there. They all are very happy and they always have Sunday off.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> There are other quality cotton yarns available at such places as WEBS, Patternworks, Noble Knits, KnitPicks, etc. I won't even enter the parking lot at Hobby Lobby given their current attempts to alter school curriculum nationwide to push their religions beliefs. That's just as bad, or worse, than the failure to provide birth control coverage. I have no clue what makes corporations think they can be dictators; perhaps they need to move to some other country where that is more acceptable.


Correct. I have a feeling HL will continue to push their agenda.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

tired n' cranky said:


> I was recently involved in a protest out in front of our HL. We had men, women, some in their early 80's, on one of the hottest days in July. We had some yell out of their windows at us. We had a young man, maybe 19, stop and ask us to explain exactly what we were protesting. So, we told him, he was clueless as to what had been going on in the Supreme Court. So a little educating was done.
> The company's views,on birth control & religion make a certainty that they don't support gays rights to marry. They are paying for a bible class to be taught in a public school in Oklahoma City.
> As a Jew and the mother of a brilliant PHD candidate who is lesbian, Oklahoma can often feel very oppressive. I doubt that she will move back here, not a good place for a Jewish lesbian.
> I too choose not to spend my money at HL, I have become a Michael's customer. Hobby Lobby doesn't support me so I don't support them.


Is Oklahoma a good place for anyone? (kidding!) (sort of  )


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Will you believe WebMD?
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-conception


Well, obviously you yourself don't consider it a reliable source. WebMD states that copper IUDs work by preventing sperm from reaching the egg:

"It contains copper, which is slowly released into the uterine cavity. The copper stops the sperm from making it through the vagina and uterus to reach the egg, thus preventing fertilization. There is one copper IUD available, the ParaGard T380A, which can be kept in place for up to 10 years."

So why would you back HL's boycott of copper IUD's?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Maat said:


> But if they and their doctor feel that the other methods are better for her, then they're making it more difficult for her to get the care she needs. If she needs an IUD, she needs an IUD. Throwing pills at her and telling her that should be "good enough" is discriminatory and you and Hobby Lobby are "playing doctor" by doing so. You are not that woman's doctor and they should not be in the business of making that medical choice.
> 
> And doing so based on an UNTRUTH that those other methods are abortifacients. When they are not.
> 
> ...


----------



## tamy04951 (May 16, 2014)

So a little educating was done.
The company's views,on birth control & religion make a certainty that they don't support gays rights to marry. They are paying for a bible class to be taught in a public school in Oklahoma City. 
As a Jew and the mother of a brilliant PHD candidate who is lesbian, Oklahoma can often feel very oppressive. I doubt that she will move back here, not a good place for a Jewish lesbian.
I too choose not to spend my money at HL, I have become a Michael's customer. Hobby Lobby doesn't support me so I don't support them.[/quote]
Not a valid rebuttal, being Jewish religion feels lesbians are an abomination http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality.shtml
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/judaism.htm


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Of course it's relevant. The real issue here isn't what kinds of birth control HL will or will not provide--it's whether companies have a right, as so many have argued, to treat their employees as they please on the grounds that "no one is forced to work for us".


And one abuse of power that is gotten away with will lead to more, like putting bible study in all the public schools and then planning on making it mandatory. That is their plan.


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Will you believe WebMD?
> 
> http://www.webmd.com/baby/ss/slideshow-conception
> 
> They are not FORCING BELIEFS on their employees.


They may not be forcing in their beliefs on their employees, but they are not going to support the employees right to choose by paying a portion of the morning after pill.


----------



## Lynda-Lee (Jun 16, 2012)

NJG said:


> No. Anyone interested may comment. We do have the freedom to do that if we wish and you have the freedom to go away. Your choice.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Well said!!! Thank you so much! You made my day!!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Please provide a source where a real medical doctor does not believe life begins at conception.


That's not really the issue is it. The issue is whether it is the employer's right to choose treatment options for the employee. Our current (catholic) supreme court feels it is. I disagree with them.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

gjc1212 said:


> I understand (but don't agree with) a religious belief that prohibits birth control, but Hobby Lobby is NOT a church or a church ministry. Will they be entitled to a religious organization's tax-exempt status, next????


Christians pay taxes. It is not against their belief to pay taxes. Hobby Lobby will pay for "birth control." They will not pay for "abortions". They also uphold the Christian belief of being closed on Sunday. Do you have a problem with that belief, too?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> And one abuse of power that is gotten away with will lead to more, like putting bible study in all the public schools and then planning on making it mandatory. That is their plan.


I never attended a public school that had bible study included in the curriculum anywhere. I think you are way out of line here. They are not trying to do that.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> And one abuse of power that is gotten away with will lead to more, like putting bible study in all the public schools and then planning on making it mandatory. That is their plan.


Exactly. The slippery slope maneuver. Sadly, it often works like a charm.


----------



## Carolt01 (Oct 29, 2013)

NJG said:


> Then they shouldn't have one. The pills in question have been proven to not cause an abortion, only prevent fertilization. The SCOTUS obviously never investigated this at all. They suddenly become smarter than scientist, just like all the climate change deniers that think they know more than the scientists. They just took the opinion of the Green's that they caused abortion.


Thank you, NJG, for expressing my exact thoughts. My family is appalled by the apparent ignorance of SCOTUS! And we do not shop at Hobby Lobby. It is important to do what we can to oppose something so wrong and unsubstantiated. No matter how small!


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> And one abuse of power that is gotten away with will lead to more, like putting bible study in all the public schools and then planning on making it mandatory. That is their plan.


They are paying for a bible class in a public school in OKC this year. I'm sure they will add more schools next year. It makes those of us who are not Christian feel uncomfortable and not always welcome.


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

My father used to tell us....'If someone is putting money in your hand, you are his slave, and your whole life is affected by that person!'


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I never attended a public school that had bible study included in the curriculum anywhere. I think you are way out of line here. They are not trying to do that.


I did--in high school we studied Bible as literature.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I agree with you, however, this doesn't excuse us from trying to make the attempt to expose ourselves to all sides of an issue. There is now, and never was, any love lost between me and Hobby Lobby. I quit shopping there many years ago when I read the sign in the store that said they do not do business on Sundays and then I was able to go home and buy from their website--on Sunday. Should we call that a lie, a half-truth, or what? In my opinion, it was misleading and I elect not to do business with folks who go out of their way to pretend to be something they aren't. I don't care whether they do business on any given day or not, I only care that they weren't being honest. If they do it there, where else do they do it? That's how I make MY choices, others are free to do make theirs however they wish, right? I may not be a Christian, but I don't like lying :~).


I'll bet they didn't get your order until Monday and didn't process any orders on Sunday nor did they ship anything on Sunday. Good for them for upholding their Christian beliefs. It is too bad that more Christians don't follow what their religion teaches.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Grandma M said:


> This conversation I feel is not appropriate for the Forum
> It is highly controversial and uplifts no one but stirs up anger. Lets not go there


Why do people keep saying this over and over and over? Does it ever stop anyone? If you don't like it, don't read it.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Fortunately for them, colonial American society had developed some religious tolerance by the time they came along--their free thinking deist-type beliefs would not have gone down well a hundred years before. In fact, Ben Franklin was a member of the Hellsfire Club, which made a sport of mocking traditional religious practices and conducted orgies. Cotton Mather might have hung him as a wizard had he had the opportunity, as said club was rumored to hold satanic rituals from time to time.


What "interesting" forbears we have, eh? Life, the people in it, and the way original truths get lost never fail to amaze me. I suppose most of us think history is unchangeable, yet it takes only a bit of research to know how wrong that is :~).


----------



## Brenda Verner (Aug 6, 2012)

I don't mind that a private company does not want to pay for particular birth control methods, but when that same company invests their 401 funds in the companies that make those methods ....they lose credibility. Not paying because of their beliefs should have been proceeded by not profiting. That they do not extend their beliefs to their wallets is a true measure of the belief. This is why I do not shop Hobby Lobby. Of course, my decision is made easy because I have many other choices.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


They oppose women making their own decisions about their lives and health. Those of us who believe in corporations staying out of personal decision making are horrified at this nonsense. Not only would I not shop at HL, but I don't actually know anyone who would. There are to many other places to shop where they keep their noses out of peoples personal lives.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SherrySherry said:


> This has been a topic in my family lately, since a new HL opened in our town a few months ago. My son and his family will not shop there any more. I go in when I can't get what I want anywhere else. Our Joanne's is a long drive from me, and Michael's does not carry fabric. While I prefer to support local businesses, I am uncomfortable with their politics, but find myself swayed by their proximity to me.


Not really political. Just upholding their own religious beliefs for themselves. They don't force people who work for them to be Christians. They don't force people to not get birth control. They don't force people not to get abortions. They just uphold their own religious convictions that abortion (the killing of a baby) is wrong and they are not willing to pay for the killing of a baby. They are willing to pay for prevention of the conception of a baby. It is the employees choice of what they want to do. It is Hobby Lobby's choice on what they are willing or not willing to pay for depending on what their religion teaches--like being closed on Sunday.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> Why do people keep saying this over and over and over? Does it ever stop anyone? If you don't like it, don't read it.


Hope springs eternal? Seriously, I think many are uncomfortable outside their usual surroundings; they don't stop to think that differs from one person to another. It is they who are venturing onto new ground, not those of us who are more accustomed to a "bigger" world, yet it doesn't seem to occur to them that the simplest solution is to leave rather than try to change the many who are already involved here. I used to be uncomfortable, too, until I finally accepted the fact that I do tend to have very strong feelings about some things :~). And I've decided there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> So the company has rights, but what about the employees? Do they loose their rights because they work there. I know, the same old line is "work someplace else," but jobs are not that easy to find and they shouldn't have to change jobs. President Obama is trying to fix it, but how much you want to bet, the republicans in congress won't allow it. That is their job you know---obstruct.


Hobby Lobby's employees do not lose their rights. They have the right of choice and they have the right to believe however they want and attend or not attend church wherever they want. If they employee wants to make the choice to have an abortion, that is their right. Hobby Lobby has no problem with their right to choose. Hobby Lobby just does not want to go against their belief that abortion is wrong by paying for it and I totally agree.


----------



## Marcia1767 (May 2, 2011)

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby does provide for birth control. There were 21 ways mentioned and they pay for 16 of the 21. I think that if you work there and want birth control, out of the 16 pills etc you should be able to find one that works for you. The other thing is no one makes a person work for Hobby Lobby. If they don't like their policies they can go find another job.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Sorry, but I totally disagree with most of you. A private company should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs. I hate the fact that my tax dollars are going to fund abortions thru government funding. This is America, founded on freedom, freedom of religion without government interference! That is why many of the Pilgrims came here in the first place! I don't want to live in a country where the government can dictate what I believe. If you own a business you should have the right to refuse doing business with those who's actions go against your faith.


So do you believe a business should be able to discriminate against gays and against minorities. The government is the one allowing you to believe as you wish and HL went to the scotus to force their beliefs on their employees. As HL continues to push to get bible study into public schools and make it mandatory, will that be ok with you. Just so you understand, that is HL trying to dictate what your kids believe.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

grandmann said:


> I do speak with my pocketbook I don't shop at Wal-Mart or Hobby Lobby any more. I do miss Hobby Lobby I thought they have a nice store and I do like their yarns.
> 
> I think the people should have the right to choose not the company that you work for. God our Creator gives us the Freedom to choose who am I to judge others. I don't believe in abortion but that's my Freedom to choose.


Hobby Lobby's employees absolutely do have the right to choose. They can choose any form of birth control that they want.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

tamy04951 said:


> So a little educating was done.
> The company's views,on birth control & religion make a certainty that they don't support gays rights to marry. They are paying for a bible class to be taught in a public school in Oklahoma City.
> As a Jew and the mother of a brilliant PHD candidate who is lesbian, Oklahoma can often feel very oppressive. I doubt that she will move back here, not a good place for a Jewish lesbian.
> I too choose not to spend my money at HL, I have become a Michael's customer. Hobby Lobby doesn't support me so I don't support them.


Not a valid rebuttal, being Jewish religion feels lesbians are an abomination http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality.shtml
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/judaism.htm[/quote]

On the other hand, nothing remains the same forever, and it's well past time for some beliefs to change. I am aware of knowing only one lesbian; I didn't catch on until the fifth or sixth time she told me she wasn't one, and that's sad, too. Since then, she has learned to accept herself just as the rest of us in the group had, whether we knew or not :~).

I can well imagine that life in Oklahoma City for GLBT folks isn't much different from life in Iowa, Utah, Arizona, Michigan, or Ohio cities in particular, and probably others than I'm not so familiar with. I wish her well wherever she goes. I wish I knew where to tell her was a good place to go.....


----------



## Ask4j (May 21, 2011)

tired n' cranky said:


> I was recently involved in a protest out in front of our HL. We had men, women, some in their early 80's, on one of the hottest days in July. We had some yell out of their windows at us. We had a young man, maybe 19, stop and ask us to explain exactly what we were protesting. So, we told him, he was clueless as to what had been going on in the Supreme Court. So a little educating was done.
> The company's views,on birth control & religion make a certainty that they don't support gays rights to marry. They are paying for a bible class to be taught in a public school in Oklahoma City.
> As a Jew and the mother of a brilliant PHD candidate who is lesbian, Oklahoma can often feel very oppressive. I doubt that she will move back here, not a good place for a Jewish lesbian.
> I too choose not to spend my money at HL, I have become a Michael's customer. Hobby Lobby doesn't support me so I don't support them.


Customer feelings are so important. Michaels employees are unionized, at least here in MN, so wages always meet minimum or more with good benefits. (I offered to give knitting lessons in one store until I found out I had to become an employee and union member.) Retail employment can come close to poverty wages so even if a store isn't unionized, it is affected by competing for employees with those that are. I am sure that HL would not or at least make it impossible for a union because of their special interests but I have not heard anything bad about their employment standards. It's the religious thing applied to a business that can make one uneasy. Changes happen, sometimes it feels like over night and it's not always a good thing.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Sounds like they were hypocrites.


Bingo!!!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> I see both sides of this issue also which is kind of why I opened the discussion. As a woman who chose not to have children I just feel pretty strongly about reproductive rights. I know that in my younger days had my employer not contributed to the cost of birth control it would have been very hard to live the life I chose.


When I first got married, we did not want children right away and I went on birth control pills to prevent conception and I paid for them. We waited a year and then I quit taking them as we wanted to start a family. After our daughter was born, I didn't go back to work, but I did take birth control pills that we paid for and that was for about a year and then we decided we wanted a second child, so I quit them. After our son was born, we decided that we did not want any more children, so my husband went to the doctor's office for a vasectomy that we also paid for. Hobby Lobby does have the right to follow their own religious beliefs for themselves. It would be hypocritical of them to say that abortion is wrong and then go right ahead and pay for the abortion of an employee. I applaud them for holding true to their religious convictions which also include being closed on Sunday.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Maat said:


> The whole point of insurance is to help people pay for the costs of their healthcare. Refusing to pay for a healthcare choice is self-evidently discriminatory and a self-evident effort to make it more difficult or impossible for a woman to make the healthcare choice she needs, which in turn puts her health and possibly even life at risk.


Greetings, I notice that you are a new user. Welcome to the passionate side of KP :~)!! I will speak for myself and say that I always enjoy a new voice on topics of interest. Carry on!


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I never attended a public school that had bible study included in the curriculum anywhere. I think you are way out of line here. They are not trying to do that.


I believe that the class that Hobby Lobby is paying for is in the Putnam City schools in Oklahoma City. Yes, it is in the public schools.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Jae said:


> Birth Control is a private and personal matter and we the people should not have to pay for it with our tax dollars.
> 
> That is what is wrong with this country today, too many freebees and you the taxpayer should be outraged. I am not against anyone that needs a hand up for a short time but our government has made it an occupation.
> 
> Look at your own situation and then really think about the road others have taken at your expense and they don't even use it responsibly.


I think the problem is too many people group all the poor in one bunch and consider them all to be on welfare for life. Not the case as everyone has their own story about how they got to where they are. A single mother on welfare working a minimum wage job can not support a family. How did she get to that point you ask? You can't assume that you know and consider her a bad person, because you really don't know.
A young lady, on welfare, got some free glasses in the Drs office where I worked and she was totally embarrassed and felt everyone was looking at her. After she left a person in the waiting room made a nasty comment about paying for her glasses. I told her she had been very ill and her Dr would not let her go back to work yet and how bad she felt about the glasses. I then told her I thought she should be ashamed of herself. As far as I am concerned anyone on welfare or not on welfare in need of birth control should have it whether they pay for it or not. The right is so concerned about abortion, but God forbid they should have to help someone avoid the abortion by giving them the pill. Kind of hypocritical.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Maat said:


> They loose their right to be treated equally.
> 
> So if you make "Christian" medical choices... they'll help you out. But if you make "non-Christian" choices, you're denied that help.
> 
> ...


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> When I first got married, we did not want children right away and I went on birth control pills to prevent conception and I paid for them. We waited a year and then I quit taking them as we wanted to start a family. After our daughter was born, I didn't go back to work, but I did take birth control pills that we paid for and that was for about a year and then we decided we wanted a second child, so I quit them. After our son was born, we decided that we did not want any more children, so my husband went to the doctor's office for a vasectomy that we also paid for. Hobby Lobby does have the right to follow their own religious beliefs for themselves. It would be hypocritical of them to say that abortion is wrong and then go right ahead and pay for the abortion of an employee. I applaud them for holding true to their religious convictions which also include being closed on Sunday.


I do need to reiterate that if they are closed on Sundays, what are they doing keeping their website up on Sundays? Must be they shoved their religious convictions in the drawer on that one (a bit hypocritical?). As people who are making a lot of noise about their religious convictions, it seems a bit, um, inappropriate to try to have it both ways.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> I think the problem is too many people group all the poor in one bunch and consider them all to be on welfare for life. Not the case as everyone has their own story about how they got to where they are. A single mother on welfare working a minimum wage job can not support a family. How did she get to that point you ask? You can't assume that you know and consider her a bad person, because you really don't know.
> A young lady, on welfare, got some free glasses in the Drs office where I worked and she was totally embarrassed and felt everyone was looking at her. After she left a person in the waiting room made a nasty comment about paying for her glasses. I told her she had been very ill and her Dr would not let her go back to work yet and how bad she felt about the glasses. I then told her I thought she should be ashamed of herself. As far as I am concerned anyone on welfare or not on welfare in need of birth control should have it whether they pay for it or not. The right is so concerned about abortion, but God forbid they should have to help someone avoid the abortion by giving them the pill. Kind of hypocritical.


Hobby Lobby will pay for them to "get the pill" to prevent conception.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The Supreme Court did not make the decision based on religious freedom of the first Amendment. But on a law signed by Bill Clinton that was upheld by the Supreme Court. I found the exact name of the law, *Religious Freedom Restoration Act*
> 
> http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/RFRA1993.html
> 
> The Supreme changed no freedoms of the Hobby Lobby employees. Only that Hobby Lobby did not have to pay for all of their freedoms.


You really think the 5 male catholic judges didn't let their religion come into play on that decision. Hey Joey, I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

This isn't just about what Hobby Lobby will or will not pay for in the area of women's health. In my opinion, it's about a corporation being able to put its "rights" above those of its employees. In this case, it happens to be about birth control and abortion, which are legal in this country. I know I'm repeating myself, but what other beliefs of Hobby Lobby or any other employer will be placed above the rights of its employees? Could an employer decide that African Americans can't use the drinking fountain? Could an employer decide that Muslim women wearing a burqa have to leave it at the door? Could an employer decide that all chemo is contrary to the will of God as they see it? Or that only women under 25 will be hired? This sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Americans have certain rights, and a corporation should not be able to trump the rights of an individual. SCOTUS made the wrong decision.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> I think the problem is too many people group all the poor in one bunch and consider them all to be on welfare for life. Not the case as everyone has their own story about how they got to where they are. A single mother on welfare working a minimum wage job can not support a family. How did she get to that point you ask? You can't assume that you know and consider her a bad person, because you really don't know.
> A young lady, on welfare, got some free glasses in the Drs office where I worked and she was totally embarrassed and felt everyone was looking at her. After she left a person in the waiting room made a nasty comment about paying for her glasses. I told her she had been very ill and her Dr would not let her go back to work yet and how bad she felt about the glasses. I then told her I thought she should be ashamed of herself. As far as I am concerned anyone on welfare or not on welfare in need of birth control should have it whether they pay for it or not. The right is so concerned about abortion, but God forbid they should have to help someone avoid the abortion by giving them the pill. Kind of hypocritical.


Thank you for that, NJG. As a former ADC, Medicaid, Food Stamp caseworker, I learned that each client has his/her own story and almost none of them resemble general public opinion about people on assistance.


----------



## Ask4j (May 21, 2011)

Life was much "easier" when I started my first job back in 1963--the year of the Beetle invasion. There was medical insurance but not for pregnancies nor child care/prenatal/or after. "The pill" had just come out and, of course, was not covered--insurance basically was for men because the work place was still their domain. Before I was hired by a larger corporation, I had to have a physical to make sure I wasn't pregnant--I was 18 and the possibility was zero. Also after I married two years later, I had to leave my job when I became six months pregnant (it was considered "unsightly" for the men who worked there and I had to wear tent-like garments).


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I do need to reiterate that if they are closed on Sundays, what are they doing keeping their website up on Sundays? Must be they shoved their religious convictions in the drawer on that one (a bit hypocritical?). As people who are making a lot of noise about their religious convictions, it seems a bit, um, inappropriate to try to have it both ways.


It is not both ways. They are not open for business on Sunday. No orders are looked at until Monday nor processed until Monday nor shipped until Monday. They do not transact business on Sunday. If you want to "order" on a Sunday, that is your choice. But, Hobby Lobby will not process your order until Monday because they are closed on Sunday.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Maat said:


> That's a shame that you were denied medical insurance for something that any woman should be able to obtain.
> 
> You were denied equal treatment under the law.
> 
> And that you seem to not care about that or even know that you were discriminated against, does not make it right for Hobby Lobby to deny women insurance coverage because they don't make the correct Christian choices.


thank you for replying. I didn't have the heart.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> When I first got married, we did not want children right away and I went on birth control pills to prevent conception and I paid for them. We waited a year and then I quit taking them as we wanted to start a family. After our daughter was born, I didn't go back to work, but I did take birth control pills that we paid for and that was for about a year and then we decided we wanted a second child, so I quit them. After our son was born, we decided that we did not want any more children, so my husband went to the doctor's office for a vasectomy that we also paid for. Hobby Lobby does have the right to follow their own religious beliefs for themselves. It would be hypocritical of them to say that abortion is wrong and then go right ahead and pay for the abortion of an employee. I applaud them for holding true to their religious convictions which also include being closed on Sunday.


How nice for you that you were able to plan your pregnancies and stay home with your children. This is not an option for most women.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Maat said:


> If life began at conception, all abortion would be "murder" and therefore illegal.
> 
> The mere fact that it's not illegal means that it's not universally considered a life by a variety of professions.


The egg is fertilized by the sperm. What will the result be? If everyone were jumping off the cliff to their deaths and they told you to do it because it was OK, would you do it?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Ask4j said:


> Life was much "easier" when I started my first job back in 1963--the year of the Beetle invasion. There was medical insurance but not for pregnancies nor child care/prenatal/or after. "The pill" had just come out and, of course, was not covered--insurance basically was for men because the work place was still their domain. Before I was hired by a larger corporation, I had to have a physical to make sure I wasn't pregnant--I was 18 and the possibility was zero. Also after I married two years later, I had to leave my job when I became six months pregnant (it was considered "unsightly" for the men who worked there and I had to wear tent-like garments).


Hmm...I was pregnant almost forty years later and the situation wasn't much better. Fortunately my pregnancy didn't really show until I was eight months along, but in the office I covered up with a blazer ("Gosh, it's always so chilly in here" ) day in and day out, and when we searched for a larger apartment I had to wear a heavy coat. The telltale bulge can be the kiss of death as far as bosses and landlords go.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

CarolfromTX said:


> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


Who knew there would be 27 pages by the time I scrolled back to you? Apparently the topic has not been done to death.....


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Maat said:


> That's your philosophical belief.
> 
> I don't believe it's a life, especially at that point, it's nothing more than goo, IMO.
> 
> ...


My "religious" belief is that life begins at conception. It is life whether it can survive on it's own or not. If you had a child who had some kind of immune disorder and could not survive on its own without being in a "bubble" that would prevent any infections entering its system, so under your theory, ending this child's life would be OK because it cannot survive on its own without the protection of the "bubble." With the child after conception, its protection is the womb.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> My "religious" belief is that life begins at conception. It is life whether it can survive on it's own or not. If you had a child who had some kind of immune disorder and could not survive on its own without being in a "bubble" that would prevent any infections entering its system, so under your theory, ending this child's life would be OK because it cannot survive on its own without the protection of the "bubble." With the child after conception, its protection is the womb.


True enough...but that womb is part of someone else's body.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

gjz said:


> From my understanding the curriculum Steve Green has developed is an elective course. It will take a look at the bible in an academic way. Since it is an elective course, no one will be forced to take it. If no one signs up, it will go away.
> 
> I wish people would realize...they PROVIDE BIRTH CONTROL. (Sorry for shouting). They objected to some pills that prevent eggs from being fertilized and/or being able to attach to the uterus. Last I heard, abortion isn't/shouldn't be a type of birth control. Which is what it sounds like some of you are saying.
> 
> No one has lost anything...HL hasn't taken anything away from women. They didn't have it before, they don't have it now. And BTW, I have a couple of friends that work at a HL. They say they are paid well, and seem to be happy working there.


Green will start his bible class as an elective course and has said himself that he wants it to become mandatory. His words--"Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated." Don't kid yourself, he is not done.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Ask4j said:


> Life was much "easier" when I started my first job back in 1963--the year of the Beetle invasion. There was medical insurance but not for pregnancies nor child care/prenatal/or after. "The pill" had just come out and, of course, was not covered--insurance basically was for men because the work place was still their domain. Before I was hired by a larger corporation, I had to have a physical to make sure I wasn't pregnant--I was 18 and the possibility was zero. Also after I married two years later, I had to leave my job when I became six months pregnant (it was considered "unsightly" for the men who worked there and I had to wear tent-like garments).


The men who worked there should have been required to wear signs that stated, "I will never participate in the activity that causes female unsightliness." Yeah, right!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> Green will start his bible class as an elective course and has said himself that he wants it to become mandatory. His words--"Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated." Don't kid yourself, he is not done.


No, he isn't done. He thinks he is just getting started.....


----------



## Ask4j (May 21, 2011)

Brenda Verner said:


> I don't mind that a private company does not want to pay for particular birth control methods, but when that same company invests their 401 funds in the companies that make those methods ....they lose credibility. Not paying because of their beliefs should have been proceeded by not profiting. That they do not extend their beliefs to their wallets is a true *measure of the belief. This is why I do not shop Hobby Lobby. Of course, my decision is made easy because I have many other choices.*


remember there is always "the Web"--most stores have Web sites where they sell most of and sometimes more than what their brick&mortar stores have--plus many times shipping is included or "free". Retail stores have much "overhead" in that they need costly displays, equipment, monitor devices and utilities in buildings that are maintained and have laws requiring certain access, etc. Then add all the employees needed to sell, stock, clean and more--plus, and this can be a nasty bill, insurance to cover all kinds of security as well as health benefits and unemployment insurance, along with competitive wages. That's why merchandise is marked up 100% and more--it's far more expensive than manufacturing. Do I feel guilty buying on line....no.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The ACA was designed for the government to take control of health care. More people have lost health insurance than gained it. What happened to the statements "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it!" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep him!" and the cost will go down by $2500? All lies!


Yes, some plans were cancelled and Fox News has all kinds of horror stories on tv about those poor people. One guy got his family on a new insurance, but they wouldn't cover his young daughter, oh poor me. Well, when it was investigated, he hadn't entered her as a dependent, just forgot her. I haven't heard a horror story in a long time now and the republicans have kind of stopped talking about it, cause guess what, it is working. Time to move on.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I never attended a public school that had bible study included in the curriculum anywhere. I think you are way out of line here. They are not trying to do that.


When I was a child many years ago, school was not a comfort zone at Christmas. There were trees in the classrooms. There were trees in the main lobby. The school music program consisted of Christmas carols. We were outsiders and our oursiderness was reinforced by this.

If families want religious schools, send children to religious schools; don't make the public school a religious school. Same with business. I don't shop at Christian book stores as there is nothing there for me. I don't expect non Jewish people to shop at a Judaica store either.

I oppose Sunday blue laws because that forces observant Jewish business owners to close on a day not their Sabbath as well as their own. Observant Christians are free to close on Sunday without losing Saturday business.

In general I agree with the deists and others who created the structure of this country that there need be a separation between church and state.


----------



## Ask4j (May 21, 2011)

joeysomma wrote:
The ACA was designed for the government to take control of health care. More people have lost health insurance than gained it. What happened to the statements "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it!" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep him!" and the cost will go down by $2500? All lies!



NJG said:


> Yes, some plans were cancelled and Fox News has all kinds of horror stories on tv about those poor people. One guy got his family on a new insurance, but they wouldn't cover his young daughter, oh poor me. Well, when it was investigated, he hadn't entered her as a dependent, just forgot her. I haven't heard a horror story in a long time now and the republicans have kind of stopped talking about it, cause guess what, it is working. Time to move on.


Fox news is just another Hobby Lobby with very slanted views--it is a politically run media.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> The men who worked there should have been required to wear signs that stated, "I will never participate in the activity that causes female unsightliness." Yeah, right!


 :lol:


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> Green will start his bible class as an elective course and has said himself that he wants it to become mandatory. His words--"Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated." Don't kid yourself, he is not done.


What is wrong with looking at the Bible in a literary course? There were many books that I had to read as part of my school education. They were mandatory. I think a "rounded" education is great. I took a course in college called "Great Religions of the World." It started with primitive man and went through the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and the religions of Budda and Shintoism and many, many others. It was fascinating and I enjoyed this course very much. In fact, I kept the book and have it to this day. Why are you so against reading the Bible? After all, it is a book filled with historical information. Of course, the Bible for Christians means more that just the history behind it. The non-Christian--can read it and get an understanding of why Christians believe the way that they do. Just broaden your horizons. I find it fascinating here on KP to read all the views of people all over the world. I feel it enriches my perspective of life to see how other people view things. In school they teach evolution as the beginning of life. As a Christian, I believe in the "creation" of life. So, it is my choice to either accept what is taught in school about evolution or go along with what my Christian religion teaches about creation.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Ask4j said:


> We're up to page 22 so this is an ongoing hot topic--just skip it if this bores you but for many it is a subject that needs discussing so discuss away.
> 
> My gripe: What I really dislike is that we are in the midst of another election and the emails and "crap" in my mail box as well as television commercials using children to tell lies has become overbearing--I have decided how I'm going to vote way before it all began so I just wish they would stop squandering and solicited fundings from the public and leave us alone!


I agree. I doubt at this point that their tv adds are changing anyone's mind, only making them mad. Some of them have some new information I haven't heard before so I go on line to verify, but usually find it a half truth being really stretched.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> No, he isn't done. He thinks he is just getting started.....


So true. I read somewhere that he plans to open a museum in Washington DC and fill it with religious artifacts. I'll cry if this comes to pass--it's easy for me to boycott Hobby Lobby as there isn't one within fifty miles and I'm not the least bit interested in their products, but I'd give my eyeteeth to see fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls and whatever else he has. Can't give his museum my money, of course, but it'll be a sacrifice.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> That's interesting--I traveled through parts of Colorado and Wyoming this summer by train, and I was surprised by the number of Amish folks who were fellow passengers. I was surprised too to see some bright colors--shades of orange, yellow, and even red--on the women. I always thought they favored more somber hues, but I guess it depends on the sect.


I am sure there are many changing but also those that adhere to the more strict rules.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Ask4j said:


> Life was much "easier" when I started my first job back in 1963--the year of the Beetle invasion. There was medical insurance but not for pregnancies nor child care/prenatal/or after. "The pill" had just come out and, of course, was not covered--insurance basically was for men because the work place was still their domain. Before I was hired by a larger corporation, I had to have a physical to make sure I wasn't pregnant--I was 18 and the possibility was zero. Also after I married two years later, I had to leave my job when I became six months pregnant (it was considered "unsightly" for the men who worked there and I had to wear tent-like garments).


In 1963 I was teaching and after four years of marriage we were starting a family. When I was 3 months pregnant the school year started. I told the superintendent of schools (it was a small district and everybody knew everybody; I had been teaching there 4 years and was tenured) that I would be leaving the end of the first semester. He asked when we were expecting the baby. I told him April; the semester ended the end of January. I was supposed to have stopped work the end of the third month and twiddle my thumbs and lose half our income for the next six. He just rolled his eyes and told me to do my best not to have the baby in school. Most of my students, by the way, were elder siblings and a pregnant woman was not a horror to be avoided. Those were the days, huh?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> How nice for you that you were able to plan your pregnancies and stay home with your children. This is not an option for most women.


I worked for 42 years from the age of 19. I had my daughter and son during a period of 4 years that I did not work. I went back to work when my daughter was 3 and my son was a year old and worked until I retired in 2009. I did plan my pregnancies by using birth control that I paid for. Why should the company that I worked for pay for my birth control?


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> The men who worked there should have been required to wear signs that stated, "I will never participate in the activity that causes female unsightliness." Yeah, right!


Good comment, oh Cool One!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

tamy04951 said:


> So a little educating was done.
> The company's views,on birth control & religion make a certainty that they don't support gays rights to marry. They are paying for a bible class to be taught in a public school in Oklahoma City.
> As a Jew and the mother of a brilliant PHD candidate who is lesbian, Oklahoma can often feel very oppressive. I doubt that she will move back here, not a good place for a Jewish lesbian.
> I too choose not to spend my money at HL, I have become a Michael's customer. Hobby Lobby doesn't support me so I don't support them.


Not a valid rebuttal, being Jewish religion feels lesbians are an abomination http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality.shtml
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/judaism.htm[/quote]

Well, aren't you just the kindest person ever. NOT :thumbdown:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> What is wrong with looking at the Bible in a literary course? There were many books that I had to read as part of my school education. They were mandatory. I think a "rounded" education is great. I took a course in college called "Great Religions of the World." It started with primitive man and went through the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and the religions of Budda and Shintoism and many, many others. It was fascinating and I enjoyed this course very much. In fact, I kept the book and have it to this day. Why are you so against reading the Bible? After all, it is a book filled with historical information. Of course, the Bible for Christians means more that just the history behind it. The non-Christian--can read it and get an understanding of why Christians believe the way that they do. Just broaden your horizons. I find it fascinating here on KP to read all the views of people all over the world. I feel it enriches my perspective of life to see how other people view things. In school they teach evolution as the beginning of life. As a Christian, I believe in the "creation" of life. So, it is my choice to either accept what is taught in school about evolution or go along with what my Christian religion teaches about creation.


I actually have problem with older children studying the Bible as literature--I did that in high school, and I believe we all learned something from the class.

But Steve Green's program is something else again. Apparently the problem lies with the textbook, which has been revised multiple times.

In its current form, sectarian bias, including the principle that the Bible is inerrant, is built into the structure, said Mark Chancey, a religion professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

It's not just non-Christians who are upset about this, obviously.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> Well, aren't you just the kindest person ever. NOT :thumbdown:


Why so much hate?


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

tamy04951 said:


> So a little educating was done.
> The company's views,on birth control & religion make a certainty that they don't support gays rights to marry. They are paying for a bible class to be taught in a public school in Oklahoma City.
> As a Jew and the mother of a brilliant PHD candidate who is lesbian, Oklahoma can often feel very oppressive. I doubt that she will move back here, not a good place for a Jewish lesbian.
> I too choose not to spend my money at HL, I have become a Michael's customer. Hobby Lobby doesn't support me so I don't support them.


Not a valid rebuttal, being Jewish religion feels lesbians are an abomination http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Sex_and_Sexuality/Homosexuality.sht
http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/judaism.htm[/quote]m

Yes, that's true, but I am not a robot and think for myself. We suspected that our daughter was gay at the age of five. What would you have us do, stone her to death?! She is very aware of how she is viewed by her faith and others. Valid or not, I choose not to spend my money at HL, I also choose not to get in to a shouting match of sorts with anybody about homosexuality.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> What is wrong with looking at the Bible in a literary course? There were many books that I had to read as part of my school education. They were mandatory. I think a "rounded" education is great. I took a course in college called "Great Religions of the World." It started with primitive man and went through the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and the religions of Budda and Shintoism and many, many others. It was fascinating and I enjoyed this course very much. In fact, I kept the book and have it to this day. Why are you so against reading the Bible? After all, it is a book filled with historical information. Of course, the Bible for Christians means more that just the history behind it. The non-Christian--can read it and get an understanding of why Christians believe the way that they do. Just broaden your horizons. I find it fascinating here on KP to read all the views of people all over the world. I feel it enriches my perspective of life to see how other people view things. In school they teach evolution as the beginning of life. As a Christian, I believe in the "creation" of life. So, it is my choice to either accept what is taught in school about evolution or go along with what my Christian religion teaches about creation.


Sorry, there's no understanding why people believe what they do. Faith is a complete mystery.

It's just plain NOT OKAY to teach any one religion in public school. If people want their children indoctrinated they should send them to private school. Public school is for science and logic.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

NJG said:


> Well, aren't you just the kindest person ever. NOT :thumbdown:


Are you bagging on her for loving and supporting her daughter? I don't understand your point.


----------



## SGale (Dec 30, 2011)

Nope, no problem, possibly because I agree with them and feel the Supreme Court made the right ruling.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Hobby Lobby is in the news again today. The issue is not resolved. The Supreme Court gave one ruling and HL crowed success. However, the Court told the Exec to reword the policy which they did. Then the Court changed its mind after saying their decision was definitive and final. Now the Exec will go back with another wording. It is critical to know that HL does oppose abortion and the birth control issue is a smoke screen. HL, working with other right wing religious fundamentalists instigated this case as the beginning of their program to turn this country into a theocracy--this coming from their own mouths, not suppostion!

Further, HL is very 2-faced as they paid for years for the very forms of b.c. that they now oppose. They also do business with China which has strong birth control programs to limit the population growth. We are not dealing with a simple issue but a political agenda with far reaching goals.

I boycott HL and encourage others to do so. Of course people can make their own choice, but I certainly can encourage people to vote with their purse!


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> What is wrong with looking at the Bible in a literary course? There were many books that I had to read as part of my school education. They were mandatory. I think a "rounded" education is great. I took a course in college called "Great Religions of the World." It started with primitive man and went through the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and the religions of Budda and Shintoism and many, many others. It was fascinating and I enjoyed this course very much. In fact, I kept the book and have it to this day. Why are you so against reading the Bible? After all, it is a book filled with historical information. Of course, the Bible for Christians means more that just the history behind it. The non-Christian--can read it and get an understanding of why Christians believe the way that they do. Just broaden your horizons. I find it fascinating here on KP to read all the views of people all over the world. I feel it enriches my perspective of life to see how other people view things. In school they teach evolution as the beginning of life. As a Christian, I believe in the "creation" of life. So, it is my choice to either accept what is taught in school about evolution or go along with what my Christian religion teaches about creation.


Okay, which Bible will it be? The Torah? A Catholic Bible? A Protestant Bible? The Koran? One acceptable to Mormons? To Jehovah's Witnesses? Something Atheists consider a book of fairy tales?

This country has a very diverse population. We are not a melting pot where we will all end up a lovely shade of beige and all end up with one religious perspective. We are a pot of stew with many veggies keeping their discernible identity and unique characteristics. And I don't want my lima beans to be forced into being carrots.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Greetings, I notice that you are a new user. Welcome to the passionate side of KP :~)!! I will speak for myself and say that I always enjoy a new voice on topics of interest. Carry on!


You're kidding, correct? Everyone knows who the 'new' user is and she's on her at minimum 150th name.


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Because I have seen so many televangelists and similar "clergy" locally whose number one goal is to amass money, I can't agree that even most Christians are well meaning. As the parent of a now-deceased gay son, I can guarantee you that not one member of my former church was well meaning in his/her attitude, including the clergy who felt it necessary to seek me out and inform me that they "don't like" gays, and this in a supposedly liberal denomination. The fact that the light of my life was dying cut no ice with them, nor were they supportive of me at any point during his long dying process, during which time his step-father, my spouse, was also dying and received no support after 20 years of membership. You might call that the frosting on the cake of my growing desire to disassociate from the sins of organized religion in favor of dealing with the sins of the rest of us who are at least honest and open about them. I don't see myself as bitter so much as enlightened about what the current reality of organized religion has become, and I find that I function better without it. Sad, indeed.


I am so sorry. I also have a gay son and it hurts to know that many who do not know him would put a label on him and go no further.

I wish all the gay people in the world would turn purple....just for 10 minutes. Then everyone could see who "they" are...they are your brother, your sister, your favorite aunt or uncle, that teacher you so admire, your pastor, your best friend's dad........

It's pretty hard to hate someone you already love so perhaps this might open some eyes and many closed minds.


----------



## elfiestouch (Aug 31, 2011)

CarolfromTX said:


> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


 :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I never attended a public school that had bible study included in the curriculum anywhere. I think you are way out of line here. They are not trying to do that.


Well, Hobby Lobby is trying to change that, starting in Oklahoma. If this doesn't give you enough to read, let me know as there is more. There is suppose to be separation of church and state and the bible can be discussed in public school, but it is the courts requirement that the public school treatment of the Bible be taught in a secular, academic fashion. That is not what this class would be. I have read somewhere that he is backing off a bit because of objections from the public, but couldn't find that story again.

Quote: For at least the first semester of the 2014-15 year, Mustang [Oklahoma] alone will employ the program, said Jerry Pattengale, head of the Green Scholars Initiative, which is overseeing its development. In September 2016, he hopes to place it in at least 100 high schools; by the following year, thousands.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/hobby-lobbys-steve-green-launches-a-new-project-a-public-school-bible-curriculum/2014/04/15/e26a1176-c4d1-11e3-9ee7-02c1e10a03f0_story.html

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/15/hobby-lobbys-steve-green-another-project-public-school-bible-curriculum/

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/10/1313048/--Hobby-Lobby-long-term-goal-Mandate-4-Year-Bible-Curriculum-that-HL-writes-in-Public-Schools?detail=facebook

http://www.christianpost.com/news/hobby-lobbys-steve-green-pushing-to-add-constitutionally-sound-bible-curriculum-in-high-schools-across-the-us-119455/

http://www.ibtimes.com/bible-class-ambitions-hobby-lobbys-evangelical-green-family-raises-skeptical-eyebrows-1603672


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Hobby Lobby is in the news again today. The issue is not resolved. The Supreme Court gave one ruling and HL crowed success. However, the Court told the Exec to reword the policy which they did. Then the Court changed its mind after saying their decision was definitive and final. Now the Exec will go back with another wording. It is critical to know that HL does oppose abortion and the birth control issue is a smoke screen. HL, working with other right wing religious fundamentalists instigated this case as the beginning of their program to turn this country into a theocracy--this coming from their own mouths, not suppostion!
> 
> Further, HL is very 2-faced as they paid for years for the very forms of b.c. that they now oppose. They also do business with China which has strong birth control programs to limit the population growth. We are not dealing with a simple issue but a political agenda with far reaching goals.
> 
> I boycott HL and encourage others to do so. Of course people can make their own choice, but I certainly can encourage people to vote with their purse!


Thank you, I was not aware of this in today's news.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

tired n' cranky said:


> They are paying for a bible class in a public school in OKC this year. I'm sure they will add more schools next year. It makes those of us who are not Christian feel uncomfortable and not always welcome.


It will not be mandatory, yet, but that is their plan.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> Well, Hobby Lobby is trying to change that, starting in Oklahoma. If this doesn't give you enough to read, let me know as there is more. There is suppose to be separation of church and state and the bible can be discussed in public school, but it is the courts requirement that the public school treatment of the Bible be taught in a secular, academic fashion. That is not what this class would be. I have read somewhere that he is backing off a bit because of objections from the public, but couldn't find that story again.


Thanks for the links, NJG. Do you happen to have any that give excerpts from Green's textbook(s) and other teaching materials?


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

tired n' cranky said:


> m
> 
> Yes, that's true, but I am not a robot and think for myself. We suspected that our daughter was gay at the age of five. What would you have us do, stone her to death?! She is very aware of how she is viewed by her faith and others. Valid or not, I choose not to spend my money at HL, I also choose not to get in to a shouting match of sorts with anybody about homosexuality.


Some of these fools think people choose to be homosexual or transgender. Who would choose a life of being discriminated against or in danger of physical assault?

If one believes in G-d, one has to believe G-d loves all his/her children, including the ones who are homosexual, transgender, or a member of any other group which has suffered discrimination. So if one professes a belief in G-d and proclaims against homosexuals, one is criticizing G-d. And being a major sanctimonious hypocrite.

Decent people love their children and try to raise them to be honest decent people. I hope your daughter finds a life filled with love and happiness. She has a good start with a parent who loves her as she is.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Hobby Lobby is in the news again today. The issue is not resolved. The Supreme Court gave one ruling and HL crowed success. However, the Court told the Exec to reword the policy which they did. Then the Court changed its mind after saying their decision was definitive and final. Now the Exec will go back with another wording. It is critical to know that HL does oppose abortion and the birth control issue is a smoke screen. HL, working with other right wing religious fundamentalists instigated this case as the beginning of their program to turn this country into a theocracy--this coming from their own mouths, not suppostion!
> 
> Further, HL is very 2-faced as they paid for years for the very forms of b.c. that they now oppose. They also do business with China which has strong birth control programs to limit the population growth. We are not dealing with a simple issue but a political agenda with far reaching goals.
> 
> I boycott HL and encourage others to do so. Of course people can make their own choice, but I certainly can encourage people to vote with their purse!


Not only that, Tamarque, but they have also owned stock for years in companies that manufacture various forms of birth control. How's that for bizarre? I'm not sure their game has a name.....


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Ann DeGray said:


> I am so sorry. I also have a gay son and it hurts to know that many who do not know him would put a label on him and go no further.
> 
> I wish all the gay people in the world would turn purple....just for 10 minutes. Then everyone could see who "they" are...they are your brother, your sister, your favorite aunt or uncle, that teacher you so admire, your pastor, your best friend's dad........
> 
> It's pretty hard to hate someone you already love so perhaps this might open some eyes and many closed minds.


I love my good friend's wonderful son. I loved him when he was her very troubled and unhappy daughter. I am proud of him for finding who he really is and is working to make a life for himself. My friend is worried for him, and I reminded her that most 21 year old men have learned to be men for 21 years. Her son is still learning after 3 years and has a way to go to be fully sure of himself. And he has the support of parents and other relatives and school friends who realized he was a boy before he was ready to.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

elfiestouch said:


> :thumbup:


Nobody is forcing anybody to continue to follow this topic. We all have freedom of choice, and anyone who thinks it has "been done to death" has the freedom to unwatch.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You have a very closed mind. Very good at giving opinions and not good at answering questions. I guess your opinion is the only one that counts. But no proof to support your opinions.
> 
> FYI: Hobby Lobby has paid for the hormones for one of their employees to change sexes. But they have refused to pay for the actual surgery. They are very generous to pay for the drugs. If changing sexes is so important to this person, he/she should pay for that him/herself.


Well, someone paid for it as 16-year Hobby Lobby employee Meggan Sommerville had her surgery back in 2010. According to the _The Nation_, Sommerville is suing because the store is still forcing her to use the men's room.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/180633/hobby-lobby-now-discriminating-against-transgender-employee#

IMHO the store is being really dumb about this. Ms. Sommerville is legally recognized as a woman, she looks like a woman, and I can only imagine the confusion and embarrassment for everyone concerned when she walks into the men's room.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Some of these fools think people choose to be homosexual or transgender. Who would choose a life of being discriminated against or in danger of physical assault?
> 
> If one believes in G-d, one has to believe G-d loves all his/her children, including the ones who are homosexual, transgender, or a member of any other group which has suffered discrimination. So if one professes a belief in G-d and proclaims against homosexuals, one is criticizing G-d. And being a major sanctimonious hypocrite.
> 
> Decent people love their children and try to raise them to be honest decent people. I hope your daughter finds a life filled with love and happiness. She has a good start with a parent who loves her as she is.


You'll get no argument from me on your points. We have a local retired nun who should be nominated for the GLBTQ hater of the years for her endless letters to the editor of our conservative newspaper in our conservative city, along with a few area small town folks, male and female, who egg her on in her diatribes. Fortunately we have a UU minister who routinely, and without rancor, takes them all on verbally. I wonder how he does it, and I REALLY wonder how it is that the extremely conservative editor prints everything the minister sends in. It's a little like watching a bull fight (which I wouldn't really want to do) except that there's no blood--yet.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

tired n' cranky said:


> I believe that the class that Hobby Lobby is paying for is in the Putnam City schools in Oklahoma City. Yes, it is in the public schools.


Your right and it is the public school. The HL folks evidently think they could have done a better job with the constitution than our founding fathers. And, of course, its just christianity they want taught. No other religion is valid. The folks who own these stores are about power, right wing politics and control.!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Not only that, Tamarque, but they have also owned stock for years in companies that manufacture various forms of birth control. How's that for bizarre? I'm not sure their game has a name.....


Sure it does. 

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> You'll get no argument from me on your points. We have a local retired nun who should be nominated for the GLBTQ hater of the years for her endless letters to the editor of our conservative newspaper in our conservative city, along with a few area small town folks, male and female, who egg her on in her diatribes. Fortunately we have a UU minister who routinely, and without rancor, takes them all on verbally. I wonder how he does it, and I REALLY wonder how it is that the extremely conservative editor prints everything the minister sends in. It's a little like watching a bull fight (which I wouldn't really want to do) except that there's no blood--yet.


There is something appealing about UU. The local congregation has attracted many kind, intelligent, compassionate people who are positive influences in the community. The philosophy of the movement appears to encourage thoughtfulness and "walking the high road".


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

glofish said:


> I agree. And I do not think that this forum is the place to air political views.


You are wrong this is absolutely the place. You can reach a lot of people. If it is OK to foster your religion it is also alright to promote your politics.


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

maleknitter said:


> Just think, as American's, we have the right NOT to have to go to work for a company that does not support what we believe in. If you don't like the policies of the company, don't become an employee. Now, isn't that a simple solution?


it is not that simple in some places in America there are not a lot of options as to where you can find a job. Some times you have to work for a jerk because you have to feed your family.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Hobby Lobby is in the news again today. The issue is not resolved. The Supreme Court gave one ruling and HL crowed success. However, the Court told the Exec to reword the policy which they did. Then the Court changed its mind after saying their decision was definitive and final. Now the Exec will go back with another wording. It is critical to know that HL does oppose abortion and the birth control issue is a smoke screen. HL, working with other right wing religious fundamentalists instigated this case as the beginning of their program to turn this country into a theocracy--this coming from their own mouths, not suppostion!
> 
> Further, HL is very 2-faced as they paid for years for the very forms of b.c. that they now oppose. They also do business with China which has strong birth control programs to limit the population growth. We are not dealing with a simple issue but a political agenda with far reaching goals.
> 
> I boycott HL and encourage others to do so. Of course people can make their own choice, but I certainly can encourage people to vote with their purse!


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


Not true they oppose many types of birth control. It has nothing to do with abortion. And they support and invest in the very companys that they won't let their employees use of the products.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> What is wrong with looking at the Bible in a literary course? There were many books that I had to read as part of my school education. They were mandatory. I think a "rounded" education is great. I took a course in college called "Great Religions of the World." It started with primitive man and went through the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and the religions of Budda and Shintoism and many, many others. It was fascinating and I enjoyed this course very much. In fact, I kept the book and have it to this day. Why are you so against reading the Bible? After all, it is a book filled with historical information. Of course, the Bible for Christians means more that just the history behind it. The non-Christian--can read it and get an understanding of why Christians believe the way that they do. Just broaden your horizons. I find it fascinating here on KP to read all the views of people all over the world. I feel it enriches my perspective of life to see how other people view things. In school they teach evolution as the beginning of life. As a Christian, I believe in the "creation" of life. So, it is my choice to either accept what is taught in school about evolution or go along with what my Christian religion teaches about creation.


I am a Christian that does not ever try to push my beliefs onto anyone else. I am not against reading the bible, and I am not against discussing the bible in public school in a literary course, but that is not what Green is trying to put into public schools. While some topics may be about the influence of religion on art, it also talks about the consequences of people deciding to disobey God. Because of the beliefs Green has, he will cross the line and want those students to believe as he does. That is not allowed in public school. This country is more diverse than ever before, and even though a lot of people don't like that diversity, it is what it is. You have to consider what is right for all the kids, not just christian kids.


----------



## Woodsywife (Mar 9, 2014)

Wow. I been off line for only a few hours looks how this has grown. And now gender change? Think I'm burned out on this. Night all.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

onegrannygoose said:


> You are wrong this is absolutely the place. You can reach a lot of people. If it is OK to foster your religion it is also alright to promote your politics.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Ann DeGray said:


> I am so sorry. I also have a gay son and it hurts to know that many who do not know him would put a label on him and go no further.
> 
> I wish all the gay people in the world would turn purple....just for 10 minutes. Then everyone could see who "they" are...they are your brother, your sister, your favorite aunt or uncle, that teacher you so admire, your pastor, your best friend's dad........
> 
> It's pretty hard to hate someone you already love so perhaps this might open some eyes and many closed minds.


My gay son, I learned from emails on his computer after his death, spent hours and hours counseling suicidal, mostly younger men and women in gay chat rooms and helping them come to terms with rejecting churches, parents and family. I keep in touch with a few of the friends who were unknown to me up until that point--I'm currently knitting some balaclavas for one who lives in upstate New York where it was so horribly windy and cold last winter. It seems like the least I can do. I wish I could reach out to some of the others who knew him, but I'm told they have a strict rule against allowing non-gay participants. That's a real bummer for me since I worked for the county Health Department on the AIDS Task Force educating the community (spoke at many churches, including my own, very uncomfortably), and also spent a great deal of time with the AIDS Support Group which included people with AIDS from surrounding communities. No doubt it's a good thing that those services seem to be no longer needed, I surely miss all of those non-judgmental people, most of whom are no longer with us.

I agree with you about having them all turn purple for a brief time, and we need to pick another color for those of us who support them. No doubt I'd chose to remain that color for the rest of my days.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

elfiestouch said:


> :thumbup:


And yet, you are still here.....


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> So true. I read somewhere that he plans to open a museum in Washington DC and fill it with religious artifacts. I'll cry if this comes to pass--it's easy for me to boycott Hobby Lobby as there isn't one within fifty miles and I'm not the least bit interested in their products, but I'd give my eyeteeth to see fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls and whatever else he has. Can't give his museum my money, of course, but it'll be a sacrifice.


The museum is coming.

If all goes according to plan, the museum will open in 2017, just two blocks from the National Mall, in the former Washington Design Museum building. Hobby Lobby president Steve Green bought the 400,000-square-foot property in 2012 for $50 million.

The museum will primarily house Greens collection of historic Bibles and Torahs, which he has been amassing since 2009, spending more than $30 million. Among his holdings are a Torah from the Spanish Inquisition, a nearly complete Book of Psalms written on papyrus, and the earliest known bible in Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke during his lifetime.

http://news.artnet.com/art-world/hobby-lobby-tycoon-to-build-bible-museum-in-washington-dc-63700


----------



## maur1011 (Jul 25, 2011)

CarolfromTX said:


> This topic has been done to death, don't you think?


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You're kidding, correct? Everyone knows who the 'new' user is and she's on her at minimum 150th name.


No, I'm not kidding. I'm generally too busy to keep track of such things and take it mostly at face value unless I have some reason to do otherwise.


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have the opposite belief. I went out of my way to drive to a Hobby Lobby to shop and spend money to support them as the lawsuit involving them was argued in front of the Supreme Court.
> 
> I believe every privately owned company like HL should have the right to their own beliefs and business practices without government interference. The SCOTUS decided as I do.
> 
> ...


Your support of HL is interesting according to the supreme court If you are Jehovah Witness owned company Then you don't believe in blood transfusions There you can disallow your employees from having transfusions when they need it. Because it disagrees with your religious beliefs. Would you consider that OK? The supreme court opened a slippery slope with this decision


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> The museum is coming.
> 
> If all goes according to plan, the museum will open in 2017, just two blocks from the National Mall, in the former Washington Design Museum building. Hobby Lobby president Steve Green bought the 400,000-square-foot property in 2012 for $50 million.
> 
> ...


Such tempting bait! (groan)


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I worked for 42 years from the age of 19. I had my daughter and son during a period of 4 years that I did not work. I went back to work when my daughter was 3 and my son was a year old and worked until I retired in 2009. I did plan my pregnancies by using birth control that I paid for. Why should the company that I worked for pay for my birth control?


Because this is 2014 and thank God, things have changed.


----------



## StitchDesigner (Jan 24, 2011)

Just to be clear: It was abortions on demand that HL objects to. They provide the birth control.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Your absolutely correct. This is a political agenda. They use women and religion to further their disgusting reach for power and control. They are in lock step with the far right. It seems to me like some of these ladies are quite happy to get their info from Fox News rather than do the research necessary to determine what these disgusting people are really doing. Unless, of course, they believe women shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions re their bodies and health and that religion should be taught in public schools - excuse me, just christianity, because according to HL, no other religion but theirs counts.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You had a well rounded education. I don't know why so many are afraid of the Bible. If you are not a Christian it is just a book. It is a history, poetry, literature, science and romance book. Then it is also a religious book. Is Roman and Greek Mythology studied? If you didn't have some knowledge of various religions, how would you ever complete a crossword puzzle?


What makes you think anyone is afraid of the Bible? I'm quite familiar with it, I just don't see it in the same light as you do. I do know a lot of folks who try to instill fear with its contents, however, and I do have a problem with that. I'm sure you're aware of that drill--if you don't do exactly what it says (don't ask on which page or in which book because it varies) you are doomed to you-know-where.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Are you bagging on her for loving and supporting her daughter? I don't understand your point.


It was a reply to the person who wrote the post, tamy, and made the comment about the Jewish religion. Maybe you could read it again please.


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

If you believe a privately owned company can make any rule. What about the civil rights movement of the 60's after all those diners that were privately owned company's did not want to serve black according to the HL side this was OK. This decision has moved the country backward at least 50 years. So sad.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

cbethea said:


> Your absolutely correct. This is a political agenda. They use women and religion to further their disgusting reach for power and control. They are in lock step with the far right. It seems to me like some of these ladies are quite happy to get their info from Fox News rather than do the research necessary to determine what these disgusting people are really doing. Unless, of course, they believe women shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions re their bodies and health and that religion should be taught in public schools - excuse me, just christianity, because according to HL, no other religion but theirs counts.


We do have to admit that their message is perfectly clear, do we not? Scary, but clear, thereby enabling us to make our decisions and preparations in whichever direction we wish to move.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Okay, which Bible will it be? The Torah? A Catholic Bible? A Protestant Bible? The Koran? One acceptable to Mormons? To Jehovah's Witnesses? Something Atheists consider a book of fairy tales?
> 
> This country has a very diverse population. We are not a melting pot where we will all end up a lovely shade of beige and all end up with one religious perspective. We are a pot of stew with many veggies keeping their discernible identity and unique characteristics. And I don't want my lima beans to be forced into being carrots.


Well stated. :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Ann DeGray said:


> I am so sorry. I also have a gay son and it hurts to know that many who do not know him would put a label on him and go no further.
> 
> I wish all the gay people in the world would turn purple....just for 10 minutes. Then everyone could see who "they" are...they are your brother, your sister, your favorite aunt or uncle, that teacher you so admire, your pastor, your best friend's dad........
> 
> It's pretty hard to hate someone you already love so perhaps this might open some eyes and many closed minds.


My thoughts exactly. I have always said for all the people out there with bad things to say about gay people, remember if you have children and grandchildren, you may have to eat those words.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Thanks for the links, NJG. Do you happen to have any that give excerpts from Green's textbook(s) and other teaching materials?


No I don't and I am not sure that has been made public yet. It wasn't the last time I read about it.


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

God's Girl said:


> I honestly don't understand the anger about it. If that is their religious conviction so be it. We are suppose to live in a country that offers religious freedom are we not? We do not condemn the Amish for their beliefs and purchase from their shops, so why is this any different?


This is so different the Amish are not trying to convert you to live the way they do.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It would be nice if the public school really taught science and logic.


At least the public schools know what science and logic are.....


----------



## Ligtstar (Jun 30, 2014)

I agree with you. I use to shop there all the time. I loved their products but I always felt a bit uncomfortable there. Then when they began overtly infusing personal beliefs into their company policy against employees who may not share their religious views, I stopped shopping there. I miss the great deals and stuff I use to get there, but I feel better not giving them my money.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

NJG said:


> No I don't and I am not sure that has been made public yet. It wasn't the last time I read about it.


The last thing I read on this was that Green's version of the bible is continuing to be revised. That sort of automatically makes it suspect in my mind. The curriculum is apparently also continuing to be revised. Most accredited schools don't allow lay people to do such things. I really don't understand where the educational state authorities are in this, I suppose if you have a large enough pile of money, anyone can be bought off. The "open" meetings for the public ended up being unannounced and/or cancelled; not exactly an above-board way to handle such things.


----------



## lfitzie (Apr 4, 2011)

They offer scores of birth control products for their employees. There are 2 they don't offer and that is because they are abortion products and they are religiously opposed to abortion. They have a right to their religious beliefs and if employees don't like that they can go and work somewhere where their abortion products are part of the medical plan. Just like you can go to a different cake company if the one you talk to doesn't bake wedding cakes for same sex marriages due to their religious beliefs. But of course, the same sex fanatics want the cause not the cake.


----------



## Ligtstar (Jun 30, 2014)

I agree completely with Smartmouthwoman. I think to write something but see you have already done it. Thumbs up!


----------



## gjz (Dec 2, 2013)

NJG said:


> You really think the 5 male catholic judges didn't let their religion come into play on that decision.


Well, actually there are 6 Catholic judges. 3 are Jewish. Don't you think that possibly the female judge could be influenced by her religion? Only men are influenced?

5 were appointed by Reagan and Bush. 4 appointed by Clinton and Obama-- which one is Catholic, the other Jewish.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

onegrannygoose said:


> Your support of HL is interesting according to the supreme court If you are Jehovah Witness owned company Then you don't believe in blood transfusions There you can disallow your employees from having transfusions when they need it. Because it disagrees with your religious beliefs. Would you consider that OK? The supreme court opened a slippery slope with this decision


Now you are saying that Hobby Lobby is disallowing their employees from having birth control. That is not true. If Johovah Witness owned a company and they did not believe in transfusions, they would not disallow employees from having transfusions, they would just not pay for them. Big difference. Please get your facts straight.


----------



## gjz (Dec 2, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> What is wrong with looking at the Bible in a literary course? There were many books that I had to read as part of my school education. They were mandatory. I think a "rounded" education is great. I took a course in college called "Great Religions of the World." It started with primitive man and went through the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses and the religions of Budda and Shintoism and many, many others. It was fascinating and I enjoyed this course very much. In fact, I kept the book and have it to this day. Why are you so against reading the Bible? After all, it is a book filled with historical information. Of course, the Bible for Christians means more that just the history behind it. The non-Christian--can read it and get an understanding of why Christians believe the way that they do. Just broaden your horizons. I find it fascinating here on KP to read all the views of people all over the world. I feel it enriches my perspective of life to see how other people view things. In school they teach evolution as the beginning of life. As a Christian, I believe in the "creation" of life. So, it is my choice to either accept what is taught in school about evolution or go along with what my Christian religion teaches about creation.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> I believe you missed the point entirely, and yes you are very amusing. I always get a good laugh after you post something, as you try to sound as intelligent, as you have told me that you are, but you just don't quite pull it off. Those who brag about how intelligent they are, usually aren't. No you don't speak to what was mentioned. You always speak to what your interpretation, of what was mentioned, and 99% of the time you are off the mark.


All I can say is WOW. It's too bad that you can't voice your opinion without attacking others that don't agree with you. We all should respect others opinions, not insult them!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

NJG said:


> Because this is 2014 and thank God, things have changed.


Some things have changed for the better and some for the worse. I repeat, why should a company have to pay for abortions for their employees?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

onegrannygoose said:


> This is so different the Amish are not trying to convert you to live the way they do.


Neither is Hobby Lobby.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> In the article you referred to it states: _ According to the complaint, Hobby Lobbys management states that unless she would undergo genital reconstructive surgery she would not receive equal treatment as a female employee._
> 
> So as long as he/she has male genitals he/she is a man. No discrimination. Hobby Lobby has rules, he/she needs to follow them. If he/she wants to use the ladies rest room he/she needs to have the surgery. Then no problem.


Well, here we are again. The government legally recognizes Ms. Sommerville as a woman, but HL has placed itself above the law by making its own rules and regulations concerning her. Why should they have the right to do that?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Smartmouthwoman said:


> And because it's basic medical care. The real question is, is why should some women's medical care be cherry-picked and denied coverage. Medical insurance pays for all kinds of prophylactic medical prescriptions. Why should the pill that prevents pregnancy be signaled out and women pay out of pocket for it?
> 
> Why should have they pay for flu shots just because someone decides to have children and they're little germ machines? Why should they have to pay for blood pressure pills for someone who is black? (they my have a genetic predisposition). Why should I they have to pay for cancer treatment for anyone that carries the BRCA2, they "should've" have their breasts removed.
> 
> ...


I had great insurance always and I always worked for a large corporation and never was discriminated against. Everyone paid for their own birth control. Why should a company have to?


----------



## CarolBest (Sep 14, 2011)

Hobby Lobby has their politics and I have mine. They probably don't miss me in their store, but I have to take a stand somewhere.


----------



## CarolBest (Sep 14, 2011)

NJG said:


> Your opinion is just that, your opinion. The rest of us have opinions too. These comments against anything political have been made thousands of times and has changed nothing. We will keep voicing our opinion wherever and whenever we want. That is our choice. We won't go away.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> Okay, which Bible will it be? The Torah? A Catholic Bible? A Protestant Bible? The Koran? One acceptable to Mormons? To Jehovah's Witnesses? Something Atheists consider a book of fairy tales?
> 
> This country has a very diverse population. We are not a melting pot where we will all end up a lovely shade of beige and all end up with one religious perspective. We are a pot of stew with many veggies keeping their discernible identity and unique characteristics. And I don't want my lima beans to be forced into being carrots.


The Catholic Bible is the Christian Bible plus an extra that it has the Apocrapha included that the Protestant Bible doesn't. The Jewish Bible is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The New Testament covers the life and teachings of Jesus who the Jewish believe existed but not as the savior that the Christian Bible teaches He is. The Mormons have the Christian Bible, but they also in addition to the Bible have the Book of Mormon with teachings by their founder, Joseph Smith and Jehovah's Witnesses also have the Christian Bible.


----------



## Dori Sage (Feb 7, 2011)

Casey47 said:


> First of all, this thread was started in the "non knitting" category and was clearly labeled as to content. If you don't think it should be discussed on this forum or if you think it's been discussed too much then why join in?
> 
> As to the subject matter: It is my understanding that Hobby Lobby opposed specific types of birth control, based on religious values and wanted exceptions to the law because of these beliefs.
> 
> ...


I understand that Hobby Lobby invests in companies that manufacture the birth control pills that they won't provide for their employees. Talk about hypocrisy.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

HL starts their employee meetings with prayers of their religion and they pipe in gospel music on the musak loop in the store. I've heard it myself when I used to go there.


knitpresentgifts said:


> Employee compensation and income equality had zero to do with the Hobby Lobby case. You cannot make the case about that which you wish. The entire case was whether or not the SCOTUS would require HL to provide/pay for the four drugs/procedures the owners did not wish to pay. Had the SCOTUS decided against HL, everyone would have lost their jobs across the country as the owners said they would close their business in its entirety.
> 
> To your other point, HL never attempted to influence their employees' beliefs and still do not. The employees ALWAYS and STILL have the right to make their own choices in their lives and for their health care, insurance and needs.
> 
> I'll also state to your first point which has no relevance, HL has been paying more than minimum wage even though income, wages, and pay had zero to do with the HL case.


----------



## sundrop016 (Mar 19, 2013)

I've been to Hobby Lobby and I just don't like them. If they don't carry something and I ask them if they will order it, I'm told no, that's not policy. That is the only thing I hold against them I don't like that they don't listen to their customers. In our store which is in a predominately Jewish area, they refuse to order Chanukah items, only Christmas items are there because they are a Christian store. JESUS WAS JEWISH! As far as the birth control thing goes, they are a company like any other, they can do what they like. Their employees don't have to work there if it bothers them. My daughter works for a Catholic Hospital and they don't cover birth control either.


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> Christians pay taxes. It is not against their belief to pay taxes. Hobby Lobby will pay for "birth control." They will not pay for "abortions". They also uphold the Christian belief of being closed on Sunday. Do you have a problem with that belief, too?


Thank you Evie. Freedom of religion in our country is that. HL should have the right to not fund abortions and be closed on Sunday. They aren't hurting anyone by practicing Christian belief. I'm not sure when we sank to having to pay for everyone's abortion--not taking the right away, just don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Loves2Knit (Feb 21, 2011)

Even on page 33 I'll say that I shop Hobby Lobby. It's a nice clean store with reasonable prices and the yarn AND fabric that they sell are of good quality. I haven't found anywhere in the good old USA where people are forced to work or shop there! We all have our own opinions about almost everything and should not be put down, if we agree with something or not.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

kestrelz said:


> lI went in once 't and find what I was looking for there. However, since their decision to not offer birth control to women I have purposed in my heart to never shop there.


They DO offer birth control!!


----------



## SherrySherry (Mar 1, 2014)

Sorry not only for the loss of your son and husband, but also for the loss of your faith. Please remember that Christians are human beings. "Christians aren't perfect; just forgiven."


----------



## Revan (Jun 29, 2011)

NJG said:


> If HL owners do not want people to have abortions, then they should not have one, but let others make that decision for themselves. Scientist have proven that the pills in question do not cause an abortion. They stop the egg from being fertilized. There is no embryo to abort.
> 
> As far as their investments, they can not claim we didn't know because there are to many to keep track of. You pay someone to take care of it.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

gjz said:


> Well, actually there are 6 Catholic judges. 3 are Jewish. Don't you think that possibly the female judge could be influenced by her religion? Only men are influenced?
> 
> 5 were appointed by Reagan and Bush. 4 appointed by Clinton and Obama-- which one is Catholic, the other Jewish.


Personally, I think that they are more influenced by being women or men than their religion.


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> Some things have changed for the better and some for the worse. I repeat, why should a company have to pay for abortions for their employees?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: I agree!


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Neither is Hobby Lobby.


Pardon me but that's exactly what Green is trying to do. He has stated it is his goal to eventually make the teaching of christianity MANDATORY in public schools! These are his words. This guy is a real piece of work.


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

Sorry folks but I don't see the issue of not paying for birth control pills any different than not paying for dental or vision care. I don't agree with the government dictating that it is required by law. I also do not agree with a single male having to choose from and pay for a medical policy that covers obstetrics when he does not need or want it, and that the law requires too. It's silly, unreasonable, and intrusive on the part of the government.

Hobby Lobby isn't preventing it's female employees from getting birth control all together if they want it, it's just telling them to use their salary to buy it. Same for dental or vision insurance. It's a choice of the employer to provide that or not. If they have an ethical or religious objection to providing such a thing, then let's respect their choice and the courts ruling and move on.

Yes, you can express your opinion with your wallet but depriving the store of your business only hurts the employees that may get laid off because business is poor and you for not being able to take advantage of a good sale or product.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Smartmouthwoman said:


> 1) What good does "other" birth control products do if it's not the product that the doctor and the woman believes is the best HEALTH CARE choice for her? For goodness sakes, birth control is not not Bayer Aspirin.
> 
> 2) Those products are NOT abortions.


Actually, Bayer Aspirin (or any brand) isn't 100% safe, either. I absolutely agree that the doctor should be in charge with the input of the woman taken into consideration. I'm glad I'm beyond the age of having to worry about some corporation usurping those particular choices; however, I realize it isn't too late for some of them to get involved in health care choices of the elderly and their doctors. Yikes!


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

JuneS said:


> Sorry folks but I don't see the issue of not paying for birth control pills any different than not paying for dental or vision care. I don't agree with the government dictating that it is required by law. I also do not agree with a single male having to choose from and pay for a medical policy that covers obstetrics when he does not need or want it, and that the law requires too. It's silly, unreasonable, and intrusive on the part of the government.
> 
> Hobby Lobby isn't preventing it's female employees from getting birth control all together if they want it, it's just telling them to use their salary to buy it. Same for dental or vision insurance. It's a choice of the employer to provide that or not. If they have an ethical or religious objection to providing such a thing, then let's respect their choice and the courts ruling and move on.
> 
> Yes, you can express your opinion with your wallet but depriving the store of your business only hurts the employees that may get laid off because business is poor and you for not being able to take advantage of a good sale or product.


Well said!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

JuneS said:


> Sorry folks but I don't see the issue of not paying for birth control pills any different than not paying for dental or vision care. I don't agree with the government dictating that it is required by law. I also do not agree with a single male having to choose from and pay for a medical policy that covers obstetrics when he does not need or want it, and that the law requires too. It's silly, unreasonable, and intrusive on the part of the government.
> 
> Hobby Lobby isn't preventing it's female employees from getting birth control all together if they want it, it's just telling them to use their salary to buy it. Same for dental or vision insurance. It's a choice of the employer to provide that or not. If they have an ethical or religious objection to providing such a thing, then let's respect their choice and the courts ruling and move on.
> 
> Yes, you can express your opinion with your wallet but depriving the store of your business only hurts the employees that may get laid off because business is poor and you for not being able to take advantage of a good sale or product.


Once again, my biggest personal issue with HL is their insistence that they don't do business in their stores on Sundays because they're such devout Christians, but haven't proven that doing business ONLINE on Sundays is somehow an exception. So far no one has tried to explain away that particular exception in their "policy." As far as I'm concerned, I consider them a seven-day-a week business despite their prominent store signs to the contrary. I'd call it trying to trade on their "Christianity" in a manner that isn't quite honest, and I prefer not to do business with people who knowingly misrepresent themselves.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Donsdotter said:


> Thank you Evie. Freedom of religion in our country is that. HL should have the right to not fund abortions and be closed on Sunday. They aren't hurting anyone by practicing Christian belief. I'm not sure when we sank to having to pay for everyone's abortion--not taking the right away, just don't want to pay for it.


Its perfectly ok to practice religious beliefs - its not ok to cram them down the throats of children in public schools. Which is his stated goal! Oh yeah - I forgot - it has to be christian beliefs.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> HL starts their employee meetings with prayers of their religion and they pipe in gospel music on the musak loop in the store. I've heard it myself when I used to go there.


I have seen prayers said before football games on public TV. If you don't believe, don't listen or participate. Gospel music is very pretty and easy to listen to. Better than the rap type music they play now on the radios. The Hobby Lobby store where I shop does not play any music at all. The employees are very courteous and friendly and seem to be happy. Guess each store is different. I really love the selection of merchandise at Hobby Lobby and will continue to shop there.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> Once again, my biggest personal issue with HL is their insistence that they don't do business in their stores on Sundays because they're such devout Christians, but haven't proven that doing business ONLINE on Sundays is somehow an exception. So far no one has tried to explain away that particular exception in their "policy." As far as I'm concerned, I consider them a seven-day-a week business despite their prominent store signs to the contrary. I'd call it trying to trade on their "Christianity" in a manner that isn't quite honest, and I prefer not to do business with people who knowingly misrepresent themselves.


Good. There a lot of places to spend ones money other than stores owned by hypocrites.


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

cbethea said:


> Its perfectly ok to practice religious beliefs - its not ok to cram them down the throats of children in public schools. Which is his stated goal! Oh yeah - I forgot - it has to be christian beliefs.


I didn't address that topic. I'm solely interested in Sundays off and not paying for abortions. My kids learned about the Jewish faith and the Islam faith. Not sure why kids can't learn about Christian faith too, but again that wasn't my topic choice.


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

Evie RM said:


> I have seen prayers said before football games on public TV. If you don't believe, don't listen or participate. Gospel music is very pretty and easy to listen to. Better than the rap type music they play now on the radios. The Hobby Lobby store where I shop does not play any music at all. The employees are very courteous and friendly and seem to be happy. Guess each store is different. I really love the selection of merchandise at Hobby Lobby and will continue to shop there.


I will continue shopping there too.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Wow, even the Pope refuses to shop there (lol)!


Pope said:


> Yes, I feel the same way. I refuse to shop there.


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Once again, my biggest personal issue with HL is their insistence that they don't do business in their stores on Sundays because they're such devout Christians, but haven't proven that doing business ONLINE on Sundays is somehow an exception. So far no one has tried to explain away that particular exception in their "policy." As far as I'm concerned, I consider them a seven-day-a week business despite their prominent store signs to the contrary. I'd call it trying to trade on their "Christianity" in a manner that isn't quite honest, and I prefer not to do business with people who knowingly misrepresent themselves.


HL's choice to not open their brick and mortar stores is to give the employees a guaranteed day off to spend with their families and friends, honor religious obligations if they want, or just to be able to rest and enjoy their home. I don't believe it is just because they want to honor the Sabbath which the Christians recognize on a Sunday. And it's given without regard to the employees faith of choice. it is just a day of rest and for families.

Just because a website is open and running on Sunday does not mean that an actual live person is on the other end processing the orders that come in on Sundays. I would not be surprised if those just sat on the computer waiting for Monday.

I doubt computers need a day of rest once a week, but people sure do appreciate it.


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

JuneS said:


> HL's choice to not open their brick and mortar stores is to give the employees a guaranteed day off to spend with their families and friends, honor religious obligations if they want, or just to be able to rest and enjoy their home. I don't believe it is just because they want to honor the Sabbath which the Christians recognize on a Sunday.
> 
> Just because a website is open and running on Sunday does not mean that an actual live person is on the other end processing the orders that come in on Sundays. I would not be surprised if those just sat on the computer waiting for Monday.
> 
> I doubt computers need a day of rest once a week, but people sure do appreciate it.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

JuneS said:


> HL's choice to not open their brick and mortar stores is to give the employees a guaranteed day off to spend with their families and friends, honor religious obligations if they want, or just to be able to rest and enjoy their home. I don't believe it is just because they want to honor the Sabbath which the Christians recognize on a Sunday.
> 
> Just because a website is open and running on Sunday does not mean that an actual live person is on the other end processing the orders that come in on Sundays. I would not be surprised if those just sat on the computer waiting for Monday.
> 
> I doubt computers need a day of rest once a week, but people sure do appreciate it.


Does this mean that you believe the orders and messages, phone calls, etc., are all handled by robots? In an international center? Will wonders never cease! Seriously, I don't believe HL is going to run a business on a Sunday (websites aren't cheap) unless it pays them well, and obviously, the Green's are multimillionaires. I don't think most people would believe that they pay anyone to just sit on Sundays. That would hardly be worth throwing their reputation into question, would it?


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Donsdotter said:


> I didn't address that topic. I'm solely interested in Sundays off and not paying for abortions. My kids learned about the Jewish faith and the Islam faith. Not sure why kids can't learn about Christian faith too, but again that wasn't my topic choice.


They can - in church.


----------



## SarahRussell (Jun 14, 2011)

They'll never get any business from me ever again, and they are 2 blocks from me.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cbethea said:


> Good. There a lot of places to spend ones money other than stores owned by hypocrites.


You must not have seen my post regarding Sunday. Hobby Lobby does not do business on Sunday. Website orders are not processed until Monday. There are no transactions on Sunday and shipping doesn't take place until Monday. So, they are keeping to their religion to be closed on Sunday. It is your choice if you want to place an order on Sunday, but it will not be seen by Hobby Lobby until Monday.


----------



## missylam (Aug 27, 2011)

They were never against providing birth control to their employees, just the morning after pill that could abort an unborn child. They DO provide birth control. I will continue to shop at Hobby Lobby.


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Some of these fools think people choose to be homosexual or transgender. Who would choose a life of being discriminated against or in danger of physical assault?
> 
> If one believes in G-d, one has to believe G-d loves all his/her children, including the ones who are homosexual, transgender, or a member of any other group which has suffered discrimination. So if one professes a belief in G-d and proclaims against homosexuals, one is criticizing G-d. And being a major sanctimonious hypocrite.
> 
> Decent people love their children and try to raise them to be honest decent people. I hope your daughter finds a life filled with love and happiness. She has a good start with a parent who loves her as she is.


I think most of us were raised with the idea that we were created by God. Statistics show that 1 out of 8 people are homosexual. It is not a choice. Do you recall the day you *chose* to be heterosexual? No? I don't either. I didn't chose to be short, to have hazel eyes and straight-as-a-string brown hair.

I am what God made me. And I do not believe God created little babies, held them in His arms and said, 
"I created you. I love you. But don't expect others to love you because you are to be despised by many of the other babies I have created."

Would your God do this? My God would not.


----------



## mirium (May 14, 2013)

I must admit I'm annoyed with Hobby Lobby, and not because of their beliefs. There are two reasons.

The first is the history of "incorporation." It's a legal fiction, invented so the owners of a company won't lose all their personal property if someone sues the company and wins big time -- only the company's assets are at stake, not the owners' houses, for example. ("Incorporate" means "give it a body" from the Latin "corpus" -- for all you trivia buffs.) By making a company a "person" it also has the legal ability to sign contracts, which was the original reason for inventing the idea. My gripe is that the Hobby Lobby owners are taking the protection of being a corporation but ignoring one of the costs of it, which is that _the corporation is a different "person" than the owners._

My second problem is -- what if a company is owned by Christian Scientists? Do they have the right to refuse to provide medical insurance at all?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Ann DeGray said:


> I think most of us were raised with the idea that we were created by God. Statistics show that 1 out of 8 people are homosexual. It is not a choice. Do you recall the day you *chose* to be heterosexual? No? I don't either. I didn't chose to be short, to have hazel eyes and straight-as-a-string brown hair.
> 
> I am what God made me. And I do not believe God created little babies, held them in His arms and said< "I created you. I love you. But don't expect others to love you because you are to be despised by many of the other babies I have created."
> 
> Would your God do this? My God would not.


My Christian God wouldn't either. He said we should "love one another." "Love your neighbor." He is a God of mercy and Love. We are all sinners. You should hate the sin and not the sinner. If we all followed what God taught us, we would not hate any person. Unfortunately, we have freedom of choice and some choose to hate rather than love as God has taught us to do.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

The people who came here called themselves Separatists because they felt The Church of England wasn't "pure enough". They had to separate themselves from that church that was falling away from their fundamental beliefs. That is my memory of early American history. Not sure if I am accurate (too tired to look it up right now), but that is what I seem to remember.


susanmos2000 said:


> Interestingly enough, the label "Puritan" was considered derogatory and slapped on by those who thought the group was too extreme. The so-called Puritans considered themselves members of the Church of England--the genuine article, they believed.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

They may have been Mennonite. They are much more tolerant of modern ways. The Amish are allowed to use public transportation.


susanmos2000 said:


> That's interesting--I traveled through parts of Colorado and Wyoming this summer by train, and I was surprised by the number of Amish folks who were fellow passengers. I was surprised too to see some bright colors--shades of orange, yellow, and even red--on the women. I always thought they favored more somber hues, but I guess it depends on the sect.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> You must not have seen my post regarding Sunday. Hobby Lobby does not do business on Sunday. Website orders are not processed until Monday. There are no transactions on Sunday and shipping doesn't take place until Monday. So, they are keeping to their religion to be closed on Sunday. It is your choice if you want to place an order on Sunday, but it will not be seen by Hobby Lobby until Monday.


If the web siteis accessable on Sundays then they ARE doing business on Sunday.


----------



## gjz (Dec 2, 2013)

knovice knitter said:


> They may have been Mennonite. They are much more tolerant of modern ways. The Amish are allowed to use public transportation.


Or possibly Hutterites.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

cattdages said:


> I'm pretty insulted about the "warped" comment, but I'm going to take the high road because you're obviously unable to see past the mythology ingrained in you in your youth. I feel sorry for you.


Wow, you can have your opinion, but I'm not allowed to have mine--according to you?

It seems you have not out grown the ability to "bully" from your youth. Get a life as mine is wonderful!


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

mirium said:


> I must admit I'm annoyed with Hobby Lobby, and not because of their beliefs. There are two reasons.
> 
> The first is the history of "incorporation." It's a legal fiction, invented so the owners of a company won't lose all their personal property if someone sues the company and wins big time -- only the company's assets are at stake, not the owners' houses, for example. ("Incorporate" means "give it a body" from the Latin "corpus" -- for all you trivia buffs.) By making a company a "person" it also has the legal ability to sign contracts, which was the original reason for inventing the idea. My gripe is that the Hobby Lobby owners are taking the protection of being a corporation but ignoring one of the costs of it, which is that _the corporation is a different "person" than the owners._
> 
> My second problem is -- what if a company is owned by Christian Scientists? Do they have the right to refuse to provide medical insurance at all?


Incorporation was created by the government exactly to protect the owners and investors of a corporation from losing their home and other necessities of life, just as you say. Maybe the idea came from legislators who had a self interest to protect themselves in running their own businesses but as such it benefits the whole of the country's commerce and the resulting employment by encouraging people to have businesses and be protected.

Why do you have an issue with Hobby Lobby incorporating when there are millions of privately held companies that are incorporated? They are not the only one and they are not doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical by incorporating. There are laws that have to be obeyed to maintain incorporation. The officers are held liable if the laws are broken and investors/owners lose the capital that they invested if the company goes belly up. Do you have the same issue with Schnuck's, or Chic Filet, or your doctor, because they all are incorporated? Would you personally start and run a business in this economic environment without incorporating? I doubt it.

And yes, before the ACA a company owned by a Christian Scientist could choose to not offer health insurance, in fact even with the ACA if they meet the regulations in the law they may be currently exempted from having to do so. In fact up until these past couple of years health insurance was a VOLUNTARY benefit same as a 401K, Pension, Vision or Dental insurance, tuition reimbursement; and the such still are. Many corporations, the smaller ones, currently don't offer medical coverage because the law exempts them and they can't afford to pay for it. The only LEGALLY REQUIRED benefits for employed persons are Social Security and Medicare matching, unemployment, and now medical. Remember, before any of these laws were passed in the 20th century none of these benefits were required or a right. All people were paid was a wage.

As an individual, when you look for employment you look at the salary, job requirements, hours, and benefits. If any of these are unacceptable for you, you look for a different job that offers you what you want. They way it works is that the employer says this is what I am willing to give you for performing this function and you say yes, that compensates me enough or no thank you, if you can't provide more I'll look elsewhere. If the benefit you want is not offered, then you find a way to pay for it out of your salary, or go to another employer who does offer it. The employees of Hobby Lobby know the terms of their employment when they accepted their jobs and are free to seek employment elsewhere when that becomes inadequate for them.

As for medical care, even with the ACA, if it is not offered to you through your employer (and some small employers are exempt from the law requiring them to provide it) then you can purchase a policy through the exchange for yourself. It has always been that way. Medical insurance is still a choice and not a right. There are still many people who do not qualify for Medicaid who have chosen NOT to purchase a policy and remain self pay even with the law requiring them to have it. I work the price line for a hospital and get several calls from them every day.

I believe if you think really hard about it, Hobby Lobby is just a business trying to provide a service to the community by offering the products it chooses to offer and employing people to work in the stores. They aren't and shouldn't be trying to do all and be all to everybody. Sears tried that and look where they are financially.

If Hobby Lobby does not give you the products you want, when you want under the terms you want, you are free to seek out another store that does. They aren't the only show in town. But trying to do harm to the business when it is not doing any harm to you or it's employees, or the community you live in is unfair and mean and I don't think you want to be considered that.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

JuneS said:


> Incorporation was created by the government exactly to protect the owners and investors of a corporation from losing their home and other necessities of life, just as you say. Maybe the idea came from legislators who had a self interest to protect themselves in running their own businesses but as such it benefits the whole of the country's commerce and the resulting employment by encouraging people to have businesses and be protected.
> 
> Why do you have an issue with Hobby Lobby incorporating when there are millions of privately held companies that are incorporated? They are not the only one and they are not doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical by incorporating. There are laws that have to be obeyed to maintain incorporation. The officers are held liable if the laws are broken and investors/owners lose the capital that they invested if the company goes belly up. Do you have the same issue with Schnuck's, or Chic Filet, or your doctor, because they all are incorporated? Would you personally start and run a business in this economic environment without incorporating? I doubt it.
> 
> ...


Well this is a nice long speech and all that but in my opinion any company that denies needed benefits to its female employees under the guise of religious beliefs is doing harm - not only to its employees but the community at large. Refusing to contribute to such behavior is not mean - it is how I have chosen, az a citizen of this country,


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

cbethea said:


> If the web siteis accessable on Sundays then they ARE doing business on Sunday.


Please see my post earlier about why Hobby Lobby is closed on Sunday. They aren't hypocrites if a computer is left running on a day when their employees are guaranteed a day off to spend with family or on personal activities. As I said, people benefit from a day off, a computer could care less. If you think the stores are closed on Sundays because of the Sabbath, that may be true for the owners personally, but it is not the full reason - they are giving the employees a guaranteed day off for whatever the employees want to do. And the employees are not expected to worship on that day off, it is not required of them.

In fact, having the website available on Sunday benefits the employees by allowing additional sales to be made on their day off, providing work for them to do the following week and income for the corporation that pays for their salaries and benefits.

Are you angry because the store is closed on a day when you want to shop there?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cbethea said:


> If the web siteis accessable on Sundays then they ARE doing business on Sunday.


Not really. The person who is ordering is doing business on Sunday. Hobby Lobby is actually doing business on Monday.


----------



## khmullins (Apr 11, 2011)

I did not read all the responses, but those I did read don't know the facts. Hobby Lobby does supply birth control through their medical program. They do not support the types that allow babies to be aborted. 
Where does personal responsibility come into the play. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex!! If you do have sex then just as you buy other personal supplies, feminine pads, deodorant, toothpaste, etc. buy your own preventatives. It is not the responsibility of the employer to provide for your entertainment.
Too bad more people don't heed the words of Jack Kennedy - "Don't ask what America can do for you. Ask what you can do for America." Do for yourself and get off expecting others to pay for your risky way of life. If you can't pay the piper don't dance!!


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

cbethea said:


> Well this is a nice long speech and all that but in my opinion any company that denies needed benefits to its female employees under the guise of religious beliefs is doing harm - not only to its employees but the community at large. Refusing to contribute to such behavior is not mean - it is how I have chosen, az a citizen of this country,


They are not denying the benefits. They have a right to follow their beliefs and not finance this particular item and the employees are free to purchase what they want with their salary. Besides, There are other ways to access that benefit without going through an employer. Do you feel the same way about cosmetic surgery that is not medically necessary? No insurance policy pays for that - it is always 100% out of pocket.

And, I am being silly here, but there are two methods of birth control that are simple and affordable by everyone, in fact perfectly free: Keep a sheet of paper caught between your knees, and the word NO.

Have you considered how you would feel if you were in their shoes and you were being required to do something that you strongly felt you should not have to do? Or maybe you are like the sheep and just go along with whatever and have no strong feelings, and always do what you are told you have to do.


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

khmullins said:


> I did not read all the responses, but those I did read don't know the facts. Hobby Lobby does supply birth control through their medical program. They do not support the types that allow babies to be aborted.
> Where does personal responsibility come into the play. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex!! If you do have sex then just as you buy other personal supplies, feminine pads, deodorant, toothpaste, etc. buy your own preventatives. It is not the responsibility of the employer to provide for your entertainment.
> Too bad more people don't heed the words of Jack Kennedy - "Don't ask what America can do for you. Ask what you can do for America." Do for yourself and get off expecting others to pay for your risky way of life. If you can't pay the piper don't dance!!


AMEN!!!


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Not really. The person who is ordering is doing business on Sunday. Hobby Lobby is actually doing business on Monday.


I agree.


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

khmullins said:


> I did not read all the responses, but those I did read don't know the facts. Hobby Lobby does supply birth control through their medical program. They do not support the types that allow babies to be aborted.
> Where does personal responsibility come into the play. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex!! If you do have sex then just as you buy other personal supplies, feminine pads, deodorant, toothpaste, etc. buy your own preventatives. It is not the responsibility of the employer to provide for your entertainment.
> Too bad more people don't heed the words of Jack Kennedy - "Don't ask what America can do for you. Ask what you can do for America." Do for yourself and get off expecting others to pay for your risky way of life. If you can't pay the piper don't dance!!


Awesome! I was thinking this the entire time.

:thumbup:


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I have seen a group of players gather in prayer before a game, but it is voluntary. The idea of someone praying for a touchdown seems a bit off to me. But that is their business. I doubt that it is a requirement of the entire team to participate in prayer before the game, in the locker room or at a team/management meeting.


Evie RM said:


> I have seen prayers said before football games on public TV. If you don't believe, don't listen or participate. Gospel music is very pretty and easy to listen to. Better than the rap type music they play now on the radios. The Hobby Lobby store where I shop does not play any music at all. The employees are very courteous and friendly and seem to be happy. Guess each store is different. I really love the selection of merchandise at Hobby Lobby and will continue to shop there.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Oh and yes, the melody of the gospel songs are pleasant enough...it is the subliminal message they are drilling that is the problem. It isn't for the customer. I believe it is for the employee to "get the message". I've never been in a store where rap or head banger music is piped in. It is usually something neutral and usually instrumental.


knovice knitter said:


> HL starts their employee meetings with prayers of their religion and they pipe in gospel music on the musak loop in the store. I've heard it myself when I used to go there.


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Does this mean that you believe the orders and messages, phone calls, etc., are all handled by robots? In an international center? Will wonders never cease! Seriously, I don't believe HL is going to run a business on a Sunday (websites aren't cheap) unless it pays them well, and obviously, the Green's are multimillionaires. I don't think most people would believe that they pay anyone to just sit on Sundays. That would hardly be worth throwing their reputation into question, would it?


I just checked their website and the call center is only open from 8-5 on weekdays. Otherwise if you need to contact them you can send an e-mail and that will be handled on a business day. Orders and e-mails sit on the computer and wait for business the next day. No there are no robots but I bet if you try to call customer service on a Sunday you'll be told they are closed and to call on Monday after 8.

Also, can you think of the cost and trouble to take down a website one day every week, or for that matter every evening when the Brick and mortar stores are closed? Yeah! does anybody who has a problem with them running their website when they are closed on Sunday have a problem with the website running overnight when the stores are closed?


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Oh and yes, the melody of the gospel songs are pleasant enough...it is the subliminal message they are drilling that is the problem. It isn't for the customer. I believe it is for the employee to "get the message". I've never been in a store where rap or head banger music is piped in. It is usually something neutral and usually instrumental.


The United States Congress and Senate both convene their sessions with a prayer. I see nothing wrong with that. if you don't want to participate, tune it out. As for music, that again is a choice that the owners are entitled to make for their stores.

If the environment bothers you, don't work there or patronize the store. If you choose to work or shop there when they are playing Christian music it's no different that having to deal with a store floor that is colored pea soup green. Not everybody likes that either but you can find a way to ignore it for the short while you are in the store. And most employees are busy concentrating on the work they have to do or interacting with each other and customers. I doubt they have much time to stand around and contemplate the music. I bet after a while they are so used to it, they don't even notice it unless it stops playing.


----------



## Damama (Oct 2, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I do!


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I don't work there, but my niece did at one time and I no longer shop there. I don't understand why people are even arguing the abortion thing. It, to me, is an even bigger picture. You asked a recent poster if and why they objected to HL incorporating. I don't think anyone objects to that. It is the trying to "have their cake and eat it too" that people are objecting to. HL is either a corporation or a religious "person". If they want to pick and choose what benefits should be in their mandated insurance, they should just apply for non-profit status. But then they would have to stop making a profit on the blood and sweat of Chinese children. I wish I could pick and choose where my taxes go. I would have opted out on a war based on unfounded fears of weapons of mass destruction. The Green's pushed their agenda on the Supreme Court. How they got what they wanted is beyond me. The avalanche will soon follow. It is already starting with this public school teaching Christianity (under the guise of history, pleeeeeeeeeeeeese). First they got their foot in the door, now the knee. Pretty soon, the whole RIGHT leg will be in there. Ex-patriotism will look very attractive if that happens.


JuneS said:


> The United States Congress and Senate both convene their sessions with a prayer. I see nothing wrong with that. if you don't want to participate, tune it out. As for music, that again is a choice that the owners are entitled to make for their stores.
> 
> If the environment bothers you, don't work there or patronize the store. If you choose to work or shop there when they are playing Christian music it's no different that having to deal with a store floor that is colored pea soup green. Not everybody likes that either but you can find a way to ignore it for the short while you are in the store. And most employees are busy concentrating on the work they have to do or interacting with each other and customers. I doubt they have much time to stand around and contemplate the music. I bet after a while they are so used to it, they don't even notice it unless it stops playing.


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

And yes, this discussion has gotten under my skin enough to post several times. I usually try to stay out of political discussions because I am not political person. I just think that rather than get up into somebody else's business we all should be worrying about the cobwebs in our own closets and let everyone else be responsible for theirs. People have the right to make choices and run their lives and businesses they way they see fit. I respect that and leave well enough alone until it starts infringing on my own personal well being or that of the people I am responsible for.

What Hobby Lobby chooses to do or not do has no impact on my life. If they have a product that I need or want I will go there to buy it. If they don't I'll find another place to get it. I don't feel entitled to have anyone pay for my way, I have to earn that myself. If I agree to perform a function for an employer for an agreed upon salary and benefit package, then that is what I expect and am entitled to if I keep my end of the bargain, and nothing more. I trust that the employees of Hobby Lobby are not indentured servants who are being forced to work for HL. If they are not getting what they need from their employment they have the free will to leave to earn something better somewhere else.

If I am uncomfortable with the environment in a place of business, a friends home, or elsewhere, I can choose to deal with it the best I can or remove myself, but I can't expect the world around me to change just to suit me. If I see something dangerous, unhealthy, or illegal I will speak up about it, but if I have no control over or responsibility for the situation I have to leave the resolution to the people who are, else I make it worse.

You can choose to seek the best of what is available to you and look for ways to earn/get what else you want or you can gripe and complain about what is not there or what people around you are not doing and be miserable. When did the words tolerance and respect leave our vocabulary? We sure always expect that for ourselves but we don't always give it. And as an earlier post said, when did we stop being responsible for ourselves?

I'm done posting now and moving on, now that I've said my piece I feel better. Thanks for listening.


----------



## EZ2 (Aug 11, 2011)

They do provide birth control. They do not provide "morning after" pillls or abortions on the insurance. Several other forms are covered. It is best to do your research and not rely on the one-sided media propaganda.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

JuneS said:


> And yes, this discussion has gotten under my skin enough to post several times. I usually try to stay out of political discussions because I am not political person. I just think that rather than get up into somebody else's business we all should be worrying about the cobwebs in our own closets and let everyone else be responsible for theirs. People have the right to make choices and run their lives and businesses they way they see fit. I respect that and leave well enough alone until it starts infringing on my own personal well being or that of the people I am responsible for.
> 
> What Hobby Lobby chooses to do or not do has no impact on my life. If they have a product that I need or want I will go there to buy it. If they don't I'll find another place to get it. I don't feel entitled to have anyone pay for my way, I have to earn that myself. If I agree to perform a function for an employer for an agreed upon salary and benefit package, then that is what I expect and am entitled to if I keep my end of the bargain, and nothing more. I trust that the employees of Hobby Lobby are not indentured servants and are being forced to work for HL. If they are not getting what they need from their employment they have the free will to leave to earn something better somewhere else.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> I don't work there, but my niece did at one time and I no longer shop there. I don't understand why people are even arguing the abortion thing. It, to me, is an even bigger picture. You asked a recent poster if and why they objected to HL incorporating. I don't think anyone objects to that. It is the trying to "have their cake and eat it too" that people are objecting to. HL is either a corporation or a religious "person". If they want to pick and choose what benefits should be in their mandated insurance, they should just apply for non-profit status. But then they would have to stop making a profit on the blood and sweat of Chinese children. I wish I could pick and choose where my taxes go. I would have opted out on a war based on unfounded fears of weapons of mass destruction. The Green's pushed their agenda on the Supreme Court. How they got what they wanted is beyond me. The avalanche will soon follow. It is already starting with this public school teaching Christianity (under the guise of history, pleeeeeeeeeeeeese). First they got their foot in the door, now the knee. Pretty soon, the whole RIGHT leg will be in there. Ex-patriotism will look very attractive if that happens.


OK one more post. I didn't realize that a "religious" person and a Not-for-profit was the same thing and that a "religious" person could not be a corporation. I happen to work for a Catholic institution that is a corporation AND a not-for profit. And being a not-for-profit status does not give you any an automatic authorization to exempt yourself from the law. That exemption is granted by the court and falls within the court's interpretation of other laws and the constitution that are in place. By the way, not for profit does not mean that no profits are made, it means that no profits are paid out to stockholders or owners as income on investment. Hospitals are not-for-profit but they wouldn't be able to keep operating if they did not earn a profit. Their profit is invested back into the corporation in the form of technology, equipment, plant and professionally trained employees.

I don't see HL as wanting their cake and eating it too. If you believe they are forcing their religion on you, don't shop there, in fact pretend they do not exist. they do not need your business. But the reasons you are criticizing them for are unfair and unreasonable.

If you object to corporations making a profit off of the labor of Chinese children, or other third world countries for that matter, then you must have very limited places to shop. WalMart, KMart, Target, Kohl's, the dollar stores, Marshall's, Ross, etc. are full of products imported from countries where cheap labor is found. If you drive a car that has imported parts, or was assembled in Mexico, then you are using a product produced on very low wages.

And how do you go from HL and it's desire to not pay for Plan B, to profits off of Chinese products, to taxes for the war, to teaching Christianity in school? Sort of irrational and unrelated. The Consititution states that government should not be involved in establishing a religion, not that we all should be free from exposure to religion. If the school is teaching about Christianity from a history standpoint, I would hope they are also teaching about the other religions of the world too.

And Christianity is the strong basis for forming our country and the formation of it's laws that it's difficult to explain what America is without understanding Christianity. I doubt you should have any worries about the children being converted, the schools can't go into that kind of depth to accomplish conversion. I studied about the Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu religions in school, Catholic school no less, and I don't think I or any of my classmates were tempted to convert. But I do have an understanding and respect for those other faiths that I probably would not have had, if I hadn't studied about them.

OK done now, not reading any more posts.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

JuneS said:


> I just checked their website and the call center is only open from 8-5 on weekdays. Otherwise if you need to contact them you can send an e-mail and that will be handled on a business day. Orders and e-mails sit on the computer and wait for business the next day. No there are no robots but I bet if you try to call customer service on a Sunday you'll be told they are closed and to call on Monday after 8.
> 
> Also, can you think of the cost and trouble to take down a website one day every week, or for that matter every evening when the Brick and mortar stores are closed? Yeah! does anybody who has a problem with them running their website when they are closed on Sunday have a problem with the website running overnight when the stores are closed?


I will never know personally whether they do as you say they do or not since I stopped doing business with them a few years back for a number of reasons. I am a bit curious as to how you have answers for each and every issue in regard to HL. Do you work for them, are you related to them, or do you just spend a lot of time researching them?

Are you going to be as accepting of non-Christian religions setting up a curriculum in public schools or would you feel suspect of their motives for doing so? I'm suspect of any religion that attempts to set up a curriculum in a public school since I believe parents, if anyone, should be in control of the choice of religious training for their children. Even churches are not at liberty to do that in public schools; they are required to set up private schools for that purpose, so once again, I think HL is asking for special privileges with no explanation of their agenda. What will then be the option for parents who wish to have their children delay religious training until they are adults? Or those who do not believe in any religious training? Or those who have beliefs contrary to HL's? I'm certainly concerned about the loss of choice for Americans when a corporation takes over functions that have always been part of the family domain without any explanation or plan voted upon; it seems alarming in many ways. I don't take the loss of freedom of choice lightly in any area. There's lots of food for thought here; research is being met with resistance on the part of the school in question and on the part of the Greens. Perhaps they think we're not paying attention?


----------



## JuneS (Nov 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I will never know personally whether they do as you say they do or not since I stopped doing business with them a few years back for a number of reasons. I am a bit curious as to how you have answers for each and every issue in regard to HL. Do you work for them, are you related to them, or do you just spend a lot of time researching them?
> 
> Are you going to be as accepting of non-Christian religions setting up a curriculum in public schools or would you feel suspect of their motives for doing so? I'm suspect of any religion that attempts to set up a curriculum in a public school since I believe parents, if anyone, should be in control of the choice of religious training for their children. Even churches are not at liberty to do that in public schools; they are required to set up private schools for that purpose, so once again, I think HL is asking for special privileges with no explanation of their agenda. What will then be the option for parents who wish to have their children delay religious training until they are adults? Or those who do not believe in any religious training? Or those who have beliefs contrary to HL's? I'm certainly concerned about the loss of choice for Americans when a corporation takes over functions that have always been part of the family domain without any explanation or plan voted upon; it seems alarming in many ways. I don't take the loss of freedom of choice lightly in any area. There's lots of food for thought here; research is being met with resistance on the part of the school in question and on the part of the Greens. Perhaps they think we're not paying attention?


One LAST post. I have an MBA, and have worked in retail, manufacturing, government, and health care for the last 42 years. I am a reimbursement analyst and cost accountant for a hospital. I report to the CFO. I have seen and learned a lot about the business world. My arguments come from common sense and a business woman's point of view. And I read from many different sources.

As for a special agenda, I don't think that not wanting to pay for Plan B or making their employees work on a Sunday is the tip of any iceberg. My own employer has gotten a ruling not only to not pay for birth control or Plan B, but we also do not provide abortion or sterilization services or cover that in the employees medical coverage. My employer does not say you can't work here if you use those services, you just can't get them from here and you have your salary to seek them out elsewhere, as there are plenty of other sources. It's no different than them not providing a gym for the employees that want to work out. Not all employees want or need that service and you have a salary to get that service elsewhere.

As for teaching about religions in school, I agree with it totally as I studied about religions of the world both in Catholic Grammar school and in College (I attended a Lutheran college). The knowledge I gained about each of the religions I studied has helped me to understand, respect, and get along with my neighbors and to understand the world events. I rather enjoy seeing a Menorah, or a Buddah, or the architecture of a Mosque because I understand what they stand for. I don't feel threatened by that at all. Extremists do scare me because they use force and threaten death if you don't go along. I doubt schools are going to that extreme . If the curriculum is too concentrated like a catechism class, then no, that is not appropriate at all. And a parent should be aware of the curriculum and request that their student be excused and given something else to work on if they feel very strongly about it being taught. As far as I know, churches have never been able to use public school or government facilities for religious classes. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with this restriction.

I think what we should be more worried about is the new Common Core curriculum and the move away from traditional education and teaching the basics. Teaching to the test has been prevalent, math has been made ridiculously complicated, and they don't even teach cursive in some states! They teach reading though memorization rather than through phoenetics. The old systems worked and I never understood why anyone felt they had become inadequate. My best friend's daughter is in her last year of college studying to be a teacher and she is struggling to learn how to teach the Common Core, she says it is so foreign. If the teachers can't get it how can the kids?

I'm going to bed and putting my soap box in the basement. I've allowed myself to get too wrapped up in this topic. I respect everyone's opinions and concerns and I thank you for letting me voice mine. I don't expect that anyone changed their mind based on what I said and that was not my goal. Just wanted to put out my point of view. Some of us are very disturbed by what Hobby Lobby is doing and I don't mean to criticize you for that, I just wanted to interject why I am not that bothered and offer some different thoughts for consideration. My experience in business is much deeper than many of you and my point of view is from a different angle.

Believe me, Hobby Lobby is just trying to do business the way it seems fit and is not trying to do harm to anyone, or get away with anything that they shouldn't. No employee is being deprived of accessing Plan B, or losing pay for not working on a Sunday. They have other options if they really want to fill that gap in their benefits. Besides, aren't businesses primarily established to make money for the owners and investors? Think about the services, products, and jobs they provide in the process that make your life easier.


----------



## Revan (Jun 29, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I will never know personally whether they do as you say they do or not since I stopped doing business with them a few years back for a number of reasons. I am a bit curious as to how you have answers for each and every issue in regard to HL. Do you work for them, are you related to them, or do you just spend a lot of time researching them?
> 
> Are you going to be as accepting of non-Christian religions setting up a curriculum in public schools or would you feel suspect of their motives for doing so? I'm suspect of any religion that attempts to set up a curriculum in a public school since I believe parents, if anyone, should be in control of the choice of religious training for their children. Even churches are not at liberty to do that in public schools; they are required to set up private schools for that purpose, so once again, I think HL is asking for special privileges with no explanation of their agenda. What will then be the option for parents who wish to have their children delay religious training until they are adults? Or those who do not believe in any religious training? Or those who have beliefs contrary to HL's? I'm certainly concerned about the loss of choice for Americans when a corporation takes over functions that have always been part of the family domain without any explanation or plan voted upon; it seems alarming in many ways. I don't take the loss of freedom of choice lightly in any area. There's lots of food for thought here; research is being met with resistance on the part of the school in question and on the part of the Greens. Perhaps they think we're not paying attention?


Totally agree! :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The truth and facts always prevail; I'll stick with those and continue to support Hobby Lobby as it is my decision.


Then you should leave this discussion. Now.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

cattdages said:


> I respect your decision and your views, and I respect your passion. I'm sorry you can't do the same for me. This is why I talked about closed minds earlier. No recognition that there are other viewpoints that may have some merit. Truth is not an absolute, and facts are open to interpretation.


She won't understand that, because she's ALWAYS RIGHT! AND RIGHT!


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Your scientific proof please.


When have you ever provided 'scientific proof?'


----------



## KateLyn11 (Jul 19, 2014)

My politics are very different from those of the owners of Hobby Lobby, but they own the business and I support their right to stay true to their own beliefs. I am old enough (age 60) to remember when virtually NO insurance company paid for birth control, if you wanted it, you paid for it. My current employer has drastically cut their mental health coverage due to cost, that is a problem for some people. A prospective employee needs to decide where their priorities are, as no insurance coverage meets everyone's needs.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

cattdages said:


> I respect your decision and your views, and I respect your passion. I'm sorry you can't do the same for me. This is why I talked about closed minds earlier. No recognition that there are other viewpoints that may have some merit. Truth is not an absolute, and facts are open to interpretation.


Quite the contrary, cattdages, truth IS absolute.

However in this current PC 'eveything is relative' world that we live in today it is very convenient to believe that there are no absolutes. If everything is relative to something else then there are no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding right or wrong and we have only situational ethics. A 'whatever feels good' society ultimately destroys itself.

Its a mistake to think that there are no absolutes...death being one of them...truth being another!


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> Then you should leave this discussion. Now.


Wombat...I see that you have designated yourself as "keeper of the shoulds" and you spend a lot of time going around the threads passing them out hither thither and yon. How are you getting any knitting done?

:lol:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Boy it there a bunch of confounding realities here. First, HL is a for-profit corporation. In this country if you chose to work in the public sphere, you are required to follow the general guidelines for such functioning. What HL is doing, at a minimum, is saying they are a standard for profit corporation but then they want dispensation because the owners have a religious agenda to push.

Second, as noted several times, they have supported birth control and abortion in the countries they do business with, countries that pay miniscule wages under rotten work conditions and demand limitations to family size. There is a contradiction here.

but most importantly is the deceit of this whole lawsuit. HL did not bring this suit on its own behalf. They are part of a group of right wing fundamentalists who seek to create a christian theocracy in the US. They are no different than fundamentalists of any religion and they are all fascistic and repressive. HL and its cohorts have been quoted in the press and documents of their meetings have clearly stated this is their goal. This case was just the getting the foot in the legal door. The Supreme Court renegged its own decision within a few days despite stating that their decision was narrow and specific. They lie because the majority of those judges were place on the Court to do a specific job of undoing civil liberties, social entitlements and to support the growing power of the 1%. 

So with all due respect for people's right to their own opinion, I have no respect for opinions based on lack of information, refusal to take in information that is contradictory to personal belief systems and denial of personal responsibility for what happens in the world around us.

This is one of the biggest forms of repression in this county--creating the idea that people can live their lives free from politics. Every one of us are political from birth. That is what it means to live in society. It is all about how we live together and what kind of governance is created. You can take responsibility for being an active participant, or live in the land of denial and pretend that you have no interest. Then you wake up one day confused about how got to where we got. Ignorance really is not bliss.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Quite the contrary, cattdages, truth IS absolute.
> 
> However in this current PC 'eveything is relative' world that we live in today it is very convenient to believe that there are no absolutes. If everything is relative to something else then there are no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding right or wrong and we have only situational ethics. A 'whatever feels good' society ultimately destroys itself.
> 
> Its a mistake to think that there are no absolutes...death being one of them...truth being another!


Sorry Gerslay...truth may be absolute, but it takes the powers of a god to divine it with 100% certainty. None of us is is qualified in that respect, I'm afraid.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry Gerslay...truth may be absolute, but it takes the powers of a god to divine it with 100% certainty. None of us is is qualified in that respect, I'm afraid.


Don't be afraid, Susan! Death and taxes are absolutes without question. Truth can be scrambled, fried, and boiled, but it is always absolute.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Don't be afraid, Susan! Death and taxes are absolutes without question. Truth can be scrambled, fried, and boiled, but it is always absolute.


Please drop the cliches, Gerslay--they get us absolutely no where.

Again, God is perfect and infallible but we are not. We're human. We make mistakes. Individuals and groups that claim to have a monopoly on God's word are bad news--one only has to look to the Middle East and to the evil machinations of groups like ISIS to see how dangerous this claim is. Christians too have made mistakes in interpreting His word--hence the Conquistadors and their forcible conversion/slaughter of the Native Americans, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Please drop the cliches, Gerslay--they get us *absolutely* no where.
> 
> Again, God is perfect and infallible but we are not. We're human. We make mistakes. Individuals and groups that claim to have a monopoly on God's word are bad news--one only has to look to the Middle East and to the evil machinations of groups like ISIS to see how dangerous this claim is. Christians too have made mistakes in interpreting His word--hence the Conquistadors and their forcible conversion/slaughter of the Native Americans, the Inquisition, and the Salem witch trials.


Couldn't resist! 
;-)


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You're kidding, correct? Everyone knows who the 'new' user is and she's on her at minimum 150th name.


You don't know that and you're being nasty. Surely you have something better to do?


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I agree with you about having them all turn purple for a brief time, and we need to pick another color for those of us who support them. No doubt I'd chose to remain that color for the rest of my days.


Great idea!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

onegrannygoose said:


> Your support of HL is interesting according to the supreme court If you are Jehovah Witness owned company Then you don't believe in blood transfusions There you can disallow your employees from having transfusions when they need it. Because it disagrees with your religious beliefs. Would you consider that OK? The supreme court opened a slippery slope with this decision


Wow! That's the best argument so far!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> 50 years? The insurance for Hobby Lobby is no different now, than it was before Sibelius wrote the rule that said all types of birth control and abortifacient were to be free. All of this division is solely on Sibelius and Obama. What a price our country is paying for their persecution of Christians. But hold on, we haven't seen nothin' yet.


You need to back away from the Fox News. Christians are not persecuted in this country. In this country Christians persecute and marginalize every other religion and in fact anyone who does not believe in their particular mythology.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> What makes you think anyone is afraid of the Bible? I'm quite familiar with it, I just don't see it in the same light as you do. I do know a lot of folks who try to instill fear with its contents, however, and I do have a problem with that. I'm sure you're aware of that drill--if you don't do exactly what it says (don't ask on which page or in which book because it varies) you are doomed to you-know-where.


I contend that the only truly moral people in this world are atheists. If we are good, we are good without the threat of hell or the promise of heaven.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SherrySherry said:


> Sorry not only for the loss of your son and husband, but also for the loss of your faith. Please remember that Christians are human beings. "Christians aren't perfect; just forgiven."


Unfortunately a lot of Christians think this gives them license to show the worst sorts of human traits.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Ann DeGray said:


> I think most of us were raised with the idea that we were created by God. Statistics show that 1 out of 8 people are homosexual. It is not a choice. Do you recall the day you *chose* to be heterosexual? No? I don't either. I didn't chose to be short, to have hazel eyes and straight-as-a-string brown hair.
> 
> I am what God made me. And I do not believe God created little babies, held them in His arms and said,
> "I created you. I love you. But don't expect others to love you because you are to be despised by many of the other babies I have created."
> ...


Well said!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Boy it there a bunch of confounding realities here. First, HL is a for-profit corporation. In this country if you chose to work in the public sphere, you are required to follow the general guidelines for such functioning. What HL is doing, at a minimum, is saying they are a standard for profit corporation but then they want dispensation because the owners have a religious agenda to push.
> 
> Second, as noted several times, they have supported birth control and abortion in the countries they do business with, countries that pay miniscule wages under rotten work conditions and demand limitations to family size. There is a contradiction here.
> 
> ...


YOU ROCK!!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

khmullins said:


> I did not read all the responses, but those I did read don't know the facts. Hobby Lobby does supply birth control through their medical program. They do not support the types that allow babies to be aborted.
> Where does personal responsibility come into the play. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex!! If you do have sex then just as you buy other personal supplies, feminine pads, deodorant, toothpaste, etc. buy your own preventatives. It is not the responsibility of the employer to provide for your entertainment.
> Too bad more people don't heed the words of Jack Kennedy - "Don't ask what America can do for you. Ask what you can do for America." Do for yourself and get off expecting others to pay for your risky way of life. If you can't pay the piper don't dance!!


So everyone who wants to have sex is promiscuous? No one should have sex unless they want to procreate? Married people who want a space between their children? People with health problems that make pregnancy dangerous? People who want to make sure they can afford children before they have them?

You are oversimplifying.


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

37 pages? I think it's time to move on, everyone is entitled to their own opinions as long as it's done without being nasty. After a few pages of the same comments it's ugly


----------



## Adelaide (Aug 29, 2011)

I have a radical idea- let's not continue this discussion, if you don't believe in a womans right to choose- abortion birth control etc. don't do it - those of us who do believe this is a fundamental human right can express our position in many ways including boycotting etc. etc., can we all at least agree that Burger King moving it's headquarters to Canada to avoid taxes here is disgusting and let's all boyott their places of business- how utterly shameful to let US tax dollars pay for services from which they benefit but opt out of contributing to the common good- for all of you who might question what exactly they are getting for OUR money, it's roads, public schools, public libraries etc. etc. perhaps the execs can afford these services through private means but I feel quite certain that the people they employ depend on the public (tax)funds, go in peace, adelaide


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Adelaide said:


> I have a radical idea- let's not continue this discussion, if you don't believe in a womans right to choose- abortion birth control etc. don't do it - those of us who do believe this is a fundamental human right can express our position in many ways including boycotting etc. etc., can we all at least agree that Burger King moving it's headquarters to Canada to avoid taxes here is disgusting and let's all boyott their places of business- how utterly shameful to let US tax dollars pay for services from which they benefit but opt out of contributing to the common good- for all of you who might question what exactly they are getting for OUR money, it's roads, public schools, public libraries etc. etc. perhaps the execs can afford these services through private means but I feel quite certain that the people they employ depend on the public (tax)funds, go in peace, adelaide


I have an even more radical idea. Let's leave it up to each individual as to whether they want to continue this discussion; those who don't want to are free to leave it, those who do want to are free to continue it. I'm always curious about those few who decide it's time to shut it down for everyone because they're ready to leave for whatever reason...that doesn't compute for me.


----------



## igott153 (Feb 1, 2012)

I already decide to boycott Burger King as soon as I learned they were moving to Canada to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. I was already set to boycott Walgreen's because they were moving their corporation to Switzerland but then they decided against it.
I am boycotting Sears because of patent infringement. There was a U.S. manufacturer of an adjustable wrench. Sears wanted to be the only distributor. Manufacturer agreed. The next year Sears never ordered but instead had the wrench made in China and charged the same price. Manufacturer had to lay off employees until it made the news on channel 7 "Made in America" segment. Manufacturer is suing Sears for patent infringement now.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

Pat lamb said:


> 37 pages? I think it's time to move on, everyone is entitled to their own opinions as long as it's done without being nasty. After a few pages of the same comments it's ugly


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

igott153 said:


> I already decide to boycott Burger King as soon as I learned they were moving to Canada to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. I was already set to boycott Walgreen's because they were moving their corporation to Switzerland but then they decided against it.
> I am boycotting Sears because of patent infringement. There was a U.S. manufacturer of an adjustable wrench. Sears wanted to be the only distributor. Manufacturer agreed. The next year Sears never ordered but instead had the wrench made in China and charged the same price. Manufacturer had to lay off employees until it made the news on channel 7 "Made in America" segment. Manufacturer is suing Sears for patent infringement now.


Keep boycotting and soon you will be making everything you need yourself and unless you grow your own food, you will starve to death.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> FYI: The new users, Maat and Smartmouthwoman, have been deleted by Admin. They are aliases of a troll first known (to me) as Vocal Lisa. I know of over 100 names she has used. Check their names under "User List." You will see the number of posts is 0.


Apparently you played a role in this or you wouldn't know about it. What is your point?


----------



## Betsy's World (Mar 21, 2014)

Am I missing something here? I thought the issue was that employers do not want the government telling them that they have to provide birth control or abortions to their employees. 

So what's the problem? Personally, I believe that is a private issue between a patient and medical provider. The cost is nominal compared to major health problems. :?:


----------



## Betsy's World (Mar 21, 2014)

Judyh said:


> Keep boycotting and soon you will be making everything you need yourself and unless you grow your own food, you will starve to death.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It started with your statement. I'm observant most of the time.


I guess I need to be more precise when addressing you. I certainly didn't suggest that you report anyone to Admin as being a troll so that that person could be removed from the forum, so I disavow any knowledge or responsibility for what happened with that. I did say that you wouldn't know about the removal of said person unless you had something to do with it. I then asked what your point was (in making this particular announcement). Your answer does not address anything that I said. So be it.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

God's Girl said:


> I honestly don't understand the anger about it. If that is their religious conviction so be it. We are suppose to live in a country that offers religious freedom are we not? We do not condemn the Amish for their beliefs and purchase from their shops, so why is this any different?


The Amish are "real".


----------



## Adelaide (Aug 29, 2011)

I don't get your point at all- i admit that I can be dense about these things but exactly what are you saying- indeed we should boycott vendors that don't represent our ideas etc. isn't that what freedom is about???? don't at all think that expressing our views means that we will have to grow our food or any other silly notions you are exprssing- when one lives in the land of money talks, we can decide to voice displeasure with our meagre pocketbooks, goodluck to you, don't think you need to plant your victory garden quite yet, adelaide


----------



## JeanetteD (Jul 22, 2014)

I would say that the owners of this business have the RIGHT to express their believes -- if they feel it is morally wrong they have the RIGHT to not include this in their health insurance--isn't this AMERICA home of the free?? Even if it is not politically correct. I applaud them standing for what they believe in. People have the right to shop there and/or work there - or - not...as the owners have the right to stand firm on their believes.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

JeanetteD said:


> I would say that the owners of this business have the RIGHT to express their believes -- if they feel it is morally wrong they have the RIGHT to not include this in their health insurance--isn't this AMERICA home of the free?? Even if it is not politically correct. I applaud them standing for what they believe in. People have the right to shop there and/or work there - or - not...as the owners have the right to stand firm on their believes.


*sigh* The problem with that line of reasoning should be obvious: just thirty years ago Southern business owners had the "right" not to serve African-Americans. Would you have condoned such a practice on the grounds that America is "home of the free"?


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It started with your statement. I'm observant most of the time.


Actually, I had greeted her earlier after her first post, you missed that one in your crusade to make your point. I would call it childish to call someone a "troll" because they disagree with you, but that's just my opinion and I'm sure you'll disagree with that one too.


----------



## Adelaide (Aug 29, 2011)

what are you talking about and what are you curious about- abortion, birth control, womens rights? these are issues not discussed in our knitting forum so exactly what is your problem with my suggestion that we all live our lives as best that can and not judge etc. but that we try to move on to another topic less contentious - if you are simply so narrow focused or into indoctronaire issues i sugest that you be "brave" and say that, but don't question other peoples ideas that this is not the place to discuss god and morality,thanks and good-luck pointing fingers at a voice that is trying to be rational- adelaide


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

JuneS said:


> Incorporation was created by the government exactly to protect the owners and investors of a corporation from losing their home and other necessities of life, just as you say. Maybe the idea came from legislators who had a self interest to protect themselves in running their own businesses but as such it benefits the whole of the country's commerce and the resulting employment by encouraging people to have businesses and be protected.
> 
> Why do you have an issue with Hobby Lobby incorporating when there are millions of privately held companies that are incorporated? They are not the only one and they are not doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical by incorporating. There are laws that have to be obeyed to maintain incorporation. The officers are held liable if the laws are broken and investors/owners lose the capital that they invested if the company goes belly up. Do you have the same issue with Schnuck's, or Chic Filet, or your doctor, because they all are incorporated? Would you personally start and run a business in this economic environment without incorporating? I doubt it.
> 
> ...


A voice of reason. Thank you.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Wombat...I see that you have designated yourself as "keeper of the shoulds" and you spend a lot of time going around the threads passing them out hither thither and yon. How are you getting any knitting done?
> 
> :lol:


My word! Will be posting pics over next few days. Glad to see you had a great trip and your photographs are wonderful. :-D


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> I have seen a group of players gather in prayer before a game, but it is voluntary. The idea of someone praying for a touchdown seems a bit off to me. But that is their business. I doubt that it is a requirement of the entire team to participate in prayer before the game, in the locker room or at a team/management meeting.


If you were listening to the prayer, they were not praying for a touchdown.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Were you in the prayer huddle?


Evie RM said:


> If you were listening to the prayer, they were not praying for a touchdown.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Boy it there a bunch of confounding realities here. First, HL is a for-profit corporation. In this country if you chose to work in the public sphere, you are required to follow the general guidelines for such functioning. What HL is doing, at a minimum, is saying they are a standard for profit corporation but then they want dispensation because the owners have a religious agenda to push.
> 
> Second, as noted several times, they have supported birth control and abortion in the countries they do business with, countries that pay miniscule wages under rotten work conditions and demand limitations to family size. There is a contradiction here.
> 
> ...


Well written. Maybe the 'truth' lies somewhere in between, I really don't know, but I agree with you that everyone is political at birth and throughout their lives and it behoves everyone to inform themselves of all aspects of what is happening in their own lives and the lives of those around the world.

I know people who never watch the news, never read the news paper or internet. Unfathomable.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

cattdages said:


> I contend that the only truly moral people in this world are atheists. If we are good, we are good without the threat of hell or the promise of heaven.


Exactly. I think it's frightening that people live their lives according to an edict by people or persons unknown to them. Everyone has the right to worship whom ever but carrying around the guilt of sin and the hope of eternal glory must be exhausting.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> You need to back away from the Fox News. Christians are not persecuted in this country. In this country Christians persecute and marginalize every other religion and in fact anyone who does not believe in their particular mythology.


No ----- It is the Muslims who do that.


----------



## Ask4j (May 21, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Okay, which Bible will it be? The Torah? A Catholic Bible? A Protestant Bible? The Koran? One acceptable to Mormons? To Jehovah's Witnesses? Something Atheists consider a book of fairy tales?
> 
> This country has a very diverse population. We are not a melting pot where we will all end up a lovely shade of beige and all end up with one religious perspective. We are a pot of stew with many veggies keeping their discernible identity and unique characteristics. And I don't want my lima beans to be forced into being carrots.


Cute, you are right on and the bible is being rewritten, interpreted, made clearer, etc., as we speak. I did extensive study of the bible starting with the old testament, which is similar, I think. to the Jewish version, and then the new testament. The old testament is very violent and if anything sick in view of women and their role--something that children should not be exposed to. There are many good things as well but keep in mind it was written by men for men and all about men and their world.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> Unfortunately a lot of Christians think this gives them license to show the worst sorts of human traits.


A true Christian walks the walk. The "people" who don't can call themselves Christians, but that does not make them Christians. I can call myself purple, but that does not make me purple. Going to a Christian church on Saturday or Sunday does not make you a Christian.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> *sigh* The problem with that line of reasoning should be obvious: just thirty years ago Southern business owners had the "right" not to serve African-Americans. Would you have condoned such a practice on the grounds that America is "home of the free"?


This is such a good point. It's lateral thinking. It's looking at the wider issues and always trying to find some balance. Now that entities are successful at changing the law because of their belief systems, there is no longer a safe place for anyone anymore. If legal systems no longer value the individual, think about what could happen next.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> Wow! That's the best argument so far!


If a person needs a blood transfusion, then it is because they are in a life threatening situation without it. That is not the same thing as having an abortion. Jehovah's Witnesses should have to pay for insurance to cover blood transfusions. But, if they believed that abortion is wrong, they should not have to pay for a person's preference to abort a pregnancy.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

One of my favorite conversation was held with born again christian type. We were at a pool so he did not know/could not see that I really was not of his style. So we got into it--respectfully. When he got to his religion as the essential guide to morality, I smilingly told him that no organized religion could tell me what was ethical or moral behavior. As we talked he was flabbergast at the idea that people could have a strong personal and social sense of ethics outside of organized religion, and a rigid one to boot. It was a major revelation to him. But the conversation remained respectful and I think he learned something from me. 

This conversation about HL falters because some people refuse to do the research and hear facts that contradict their belief systems. I have been involved in a bizarre discussion with a group of white, middle aged and older jewish men who all are zionists except the one Israeli man who invited me to join. These guys were so virulent towards me, twisting my words, reading my comments inside out if you can imagine. But a steady flow of writings by many notable Jewish writers and the horrific live videos finally has begun to get thru to some of them. The idea that Zionism is racist was something they could not accept but I see that even that is changing. Of course as privileged white men they really haven't a clue about racism and how it works. 

HL is dangerous as a precedent and that is what we need to focus on I think. Also, the idea that there is no fence sitting on most issues of importance. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution and that is what makes a person political whether they want to be or not. The birth control issue is really a smoke screen for the ultimate goal of creating a theocracy by these radical religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is always dangerous and always results in fascistic control. Don't you think?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> I contend that the only truly moral people in this world are atheists. If we are good, we are good without the threat of hell or the promise of heaven.


And that is your choice. However, I would rather believe there is a God and die and find out there isn't one than not believe there is a God and die and find out there is one.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> Unfortunately a lot of Christians think this gives them license to show the worst sorts of human traits.


Unfortunately, this is quite true. But then they are not really Christians are they?


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> A true Christian walks the walk. The "people" who don't can call themselves Christians, but that does not make them Christians. I can call myself purple, but that does not make me purple. Going to a Christian church on Saturday or Sunday does not make you a Christian.


It has been my observation that people who call themselves "godly" most generally are not.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Ann DeGray said:


> It has been my observation that people who call themselves "godly" most generally are not.


So true Ann, thanks for saying it


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> Were you in the prayer huddle?


No. The prayer wasn't said in the "huddle." It was said over a speaker to everyone.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> If a person needs a blood transfusion, then it is because they are in a life threatening situation without it. That is not the same thing as having an abortion. Jehovah's Witnesses should have to pay for insurance to cover blood transfusions. But, if they believed that abortion is wrong, they should not have to pay for a person's preference to abort a pregnancy.


For some women pregnancy _is_ a life-threatening situation and they simply can't risk it. Women with a history of cardiovascular disease cannot take birth control pills--condoms, sponges, and foam have a fairly high failure. In such cases an IUD might be the only alternative besides 20+ years of celibacy. Why would anyone want to take the most reasonable and humane option away from her?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Adelaide said:


> what are you talking about and what are you curious about- abortion, birth control, womens rights? these are issues not discussed in our knitting forum so exactly what is your problem with my suggestion that we all live our lives as best that can and not judge etc. but that we try to move on to another topic less contentious - if you are simply so narrow focused or into indoctronaire issues i sugest that you be "brave" and say that, but don't question other peoples ideas that this is not the place to discuss god and morality,thanks and good-luck pointing fingers at a voice that is trying to be rational- adelaide


Adelaide, is this your opinion? Are you aware that the Chit-Chat section of the forum is here for non-knitting discussions? When the KP forum first started, there were rules against these kinds of discussions (politics, religion), but when the ownership of the forum changed hands a couple of years ago, those rules were deleted, so it is now acceptable to discuss any subject as long as we don't curse, call people names, and remain civil. The rule changes weren't generally announced, but it does pay to reread them from time to time so you can avoid those areas of the forum you don't want to see. If you inadvertently open a thread you don't like, you can click on the unwatch box and you won't receive any more emails from that particular thread.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

tamarque said:


> One of my favorite conversation was held with born again christian type. We were at a pool so he did not know/could not see that I really was not of his style. So we got into it--respectfully. When he got to his religion as the essential guide to morality, I smilingly told him that no organized religion could tell me what was ethical or moral behavior. As we talked he was flabbergast at the idea that people could have a strong personal and social sense of ethics outside of organized religion, and a rigid one to boot. It was a major revelation to him. But the conversation remained respectful and I think he learned something from me.
> 
> This conversation about HL falters because some people refuse to do the research and hear facts that contradict their belief systems. I have been involved in a bizarre discussion with a group of white, middle aged and older jewish men who all are zionists except the one Israeli man who invited me to join. These guys were so virulent towards me, twisting my words, reading my comments inside out if you can imagine. But a steady flow of writings by many notable Jewish writers and the horrific live videos finally has begun to get thru to some of them. The idea that Zionism is racist was something they could not accept but I see that even that is changing. Of course as privileged white men they really haven't a clue about racism and how it works.
> 
> HL is dangerous as a precedent and that is what we need to focus on I think. Also, the idea that there is no fence sitting on most issues of importance. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution and that is what makes a person political whether they want to be or not. The birth control issue is really a smoke screen for the ultimate goal of creating a theocracy by these radical religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is always dangerous and always results in fascistic control. Don't you think?


Was he living in the dark ages? How could he not know there is good and bad in "all" people, no matter what they profess to be. So, you are saying that he lived his entire life without knowing any non-Christians who were good people.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> My word! Will be posting pics over next few days. Glad to see you had a great trip and your photographs are wonderful. :-D


Thanks! Looking forward to your pics; always interested in seeing what you're up to lately...and don't say 5'2!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Wombatnomore said:


> This is such a good point. It's lateral thinking. It's looking at the wider issues and always trying to find some balance. Now that entities are successful at changing the law because of their belief systems, there is no longer a safe place for anyone anymore. If legal systems no longer value the individual, think about what could happen next.


You are right. There is no safe place for anyone anymore-----not even in the womb.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Ann DeGray said:


> It has been my observation that people who call themselves "godly" most generally are not.


I am sorry you have not met the ones that truly are. Like in anything, it is always the sour apples that spoil the bunch. I know a lot of "godly" people who are true Christians who walk the walk of a true Christian life. I am not saying they are sin free as no one is free of sin. A true Christian walks the walk of their faith. A person who calls themselves a Christian and who is not walking the walk of the Christian faith is not truly a Christian, no matter what they call themselves.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> A voice of reason. Thank you.


This post was reasonable insofar as it expressed this person's point of view. There can be many reasonable opinions that don't necessarily agree with one another because we all have our own life experiences and perspectives. I have not had a career working for a Catholic employer, so I tend to have a number of perspectives that are different from someone who has, like this poster did. I'm not accustomed to the Catholic point of view because I wasn't raised with it nor did I spend any time working for any specific religion. Therefor, I'm not going to be capable of seeing things in the same perspective that she does. That doesn't necessarily make her wrong or me right, but it does open the door for productive discussion. We Americans seem to have an expectation of everyone agreeing on any given subject. It ain't gonna happen in the real world. If we all agreed on everything, we wouldn't need laws, governments, etc. I enjoy learning about how others see the world. Apparently some don't like to have anyone disagree with them on any subject, and that's sad. How else can we learn?


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> For some women pregnancy _is_ a life-threatening situation and they simply can't risk it. Women with a history of cardiovascular disease cannot take birth control pills--condoms, sponges, and foam have a fairly high failure. In such cases an IUD might be the only alternative besides 20+ years of celibacy. Why would anyone want to take the most reasonable and humane option away from her?


IUD's are not always safe. I know of one case where the IUD slipped out of place and after the baby was born, it had to be removed by a D&C. I know of another where the fetus was badly damaged by the IUD. Look at the lawsuits out there (you see on TV) against companies who supplied IUD's that caused problems.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> No ----- It is the Muslims who do that.


I really disagree with that. I'm nearly 76 years old, and the most painful experiences of my life have come from the "Christian" community including four different denominations and several different churches within them. There are very few people nowadays who are born into a specific church and never leave that exact building, but sometimes I think that's what would be required in order to be acceptable to many church members. That isn't even humanistic, let alone Christian. God forbid that you and yours not be a cookie-cutter version of everyone else there, because you WILL become a target if you aren't.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> This post was reasonable insofar as it expressed this person's point of view. There can be many reasonable opinions that don't necessarily agree with one another because we all have our own life experiences and perspectives. I have not had a career working for a Catholic employer, so I tend to have a number of perspectives that are different from someone who has, like this poster did. I'm not accustomed to the Catholic point of view because I wasn't raised with it nor did I spend any time working for any specific religion. Therefor, I'm not going to be capable of seeing things in the same perspective that she does. That doesn't necessarily make her wrong or me right, but it does open the door for productive discussion. We Americans seem to have an expectation of everyone agreeing on any given subject. It ain't gonna happen in the real world. If we all agreed on everything, we wouldn't need laws, governments, etc. I enjoy learning about how others see the world. Apparently some don't like to have anyone disagree with them on any subject, and that's sad. How else can we learn?


You are so right. And if everyone on this thread believed that, we wouldn't have to read some of the nasty narrow minded comments.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

tamarque said:


> One of my favorite conversation was held with born again christian type. We were at a pool so he did not know/could not see that I really was not of his style. So we got into it--respectfully. When he got to his religion as the essential guide to morality, I smilingly told him that no organized religion could tell me what was ethical or moral behavior. As we talked he was flabbergast at the idea that people could have a strong personal and social sense of ethics outside of organized religion, and a rigid one to boot. It was a major revelation to him. But the conversation remained respectful and I think he learned something from me.
> 
> This conversation about HL falters because some people refuse to do the research and hear facts that contradict their belief systems. I have been involved in a bizarre discussion with a group of white, middle aged and older jewish men who all are zionists except the one Israeli man who invited me to join. These guys were so virulent towards me, twisting my words, reading my comments inside out if you can imagine. But a steady flow of writings by many notable Jewish writers and the horrific live videos finally has begun to get thru to some of them. The idea that Zionism is racist was something they could not accept but I see that even that is changing. Of course as privileged white men they really haven't a clue about racism and how it works.
> 
> HL is dangerous as a precedent and that is what we need to focus on I think. Also, the idea that there is no fence sitting on most issues of importance. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution and that is what makes a person political whether they want to be or not. The birth control issue is really a smoke screen for the ultimate goal of creating a theocracy by these radical religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is always dangerous and always results in fascistic control. Don't you think?


Maybe. I endured 13 years of Christian education through the Methodist church as a child. Attending church and Sunday school was non negotiable according to my mother which was very strange because she was not a Christian herself.

I was never comfortable with it. I dreaded going and felt, what I recognize now, very anxious while there. I couldn't understand why we were being fed fire and brimstone when it was at total odds with life at the time. So many negatives and very few positives were bandied about it seemed to me.

I didn't recognize it at the time but later, as a young adult, it occurred to me during a conversation I was having with a patient who was a pastor, that the religious education I received was at it's heart, a form of social control. The pastor lamented this and said that the focus of religion, in his view, should be to empower people to live their lives, not through the 'written word' but through self examination and contemplation of their own sense of what is good and what is right. He said that if a person is genuinely conducting themselves through their own set of truths and beliefs, then they are a truly divine example to themselves and others and thus, pay it forward.

I think it's convenient to rely on formalized religion for a lot of people because it means they don't have to think for themselves. With that in mind, it's no surprise that HL won their case. It's all about social control.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Judyh said:


> All I can say is WOW. It's too bad that you can't voice your opinion without attacking others that don't agree with you. We all should respect others opinions, not insult them!


If you knew the history of the commenter from other topics, you could understand NJG's response in context. There are some opinions that are iterated and reiterated ad nauseum by the same person who has been told innumerable times that her opinions are not making a dent in most other people's opinions. And NJG is a moderate thoughtful voice in the controversies she addresses.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

tamarque said:


> One of my favorite conversation was held with born again christian type. We were at a pool so he did not know/could not see that I really was not of his style. So we got into it--respectfully. When he got to his religion as the essential guide to morality, I smilingly told him that no organized religion could tell me what was ethical or moral behavior. As we talked he was flabbergast at the idea that people could have a strong personal and social sense of ethics outside of organized religion, and a rigid one to boot. It was a major revelation to him. But the conversation remained respectful and I think he learned something from me.
> 
> This conversation about HL falters because some people refuse to do the research and hear facts that contradict their belief systems. I have been involved in a bizarre discussion with a group of white, middle aged and older jewish men who all are zionists except the one Israeli man who invited me to join. These guys were so virulent towards me, twisting my words, reading my comments inside out if you can imagine. But a steady flow of writings by many notable Jewish writers and the horrific live videos finally has begun to get thru to some of them. The idea that Zionism is racist was something they could not accept but I see that even that is changing. Of course as privileged white men they really haven't a clue about racism and how it works.
> 
> HL is dangerous as a precedent and that is what we need to focus on I think. Also, the idea that there is no fence sitting on most issues of importance. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution and that is what makes a person political whether they want to be or not. The birth control issue is really a smoke screen for the ultimate goal of creating a theocracy by these radical religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is always dangerous and always results in fascistic control. Don't you think?


That's exactly what I think.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> And that is your choice. However, I would rather believe there is a God and die and find out there isn't one than not believe there is a God and die and find out there is one.


Then you must have a very punitive idea of who and what your god is.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Gerslay said:


> Thanks! Looking forward to your pics; always interested in seeing what you're up to lately...and don't say 5'2!


 :thumbup:


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> Then you must have a very punitive idea of who and what your god is.


Not at all. I believe in God (as it is my choice to do). I believe in God as the creator and everything my Christian religion has taught me. I would rather believe in Him and when I die find out that truly there is a God than not believe and when I die find out that I truly should have been believing everything my Christian religion has taught about the God I believe does exist.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> IUD's are not always safe. I know of one case where the IUD slipped out of place and after the baby was born, it had to be removed by a D&C. I know of another where the fetus was badly damaged by the IUD. Look at the lawsuits out there (you see on TV) against companies who supplied IUD's that caused problems.


According to the UN and many other sources, modern IUD's are a safe method of birth control, and they're among the most reliable--less than a 1% chance of failure.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Donsdotter said:


> I didn't address that topic. I'm solely interested in Sundays off and not paying for abortions. My kids learned about the Jewish faith and the Islam faith. Not sure why kids can't learn about Christian faith too, but again that wasn't my topic choice.


Learning about any faith is not an issue. It is probably a very sound subject so people can understand what their friends and neighbors believe and how they observe their major Holy Days. It is the proselytization that the owner of Hobby Lobby is promoting that is offensive to people who do not share his beliefs. There is a huge difference between teaching about a faith and teaching a faith.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> No ----- It is the Muslims who do that.


that is a pretty inflammatory remark.........you paint all Muslims with the same brush, and yet it is people like you who complain that others paint all Christians with the same brush. There are good and bad people in both of those religions, but it should not be necessary to make inflammatory remarks such as yours. JMO


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

There you go again, Tamarque, saying exactly what I think, but so much better. Thank you.


tamarque said:


> One of my favorite conversation was held with born again christian type. We were at a pool so he did not know/could not see that I really was not of his style. So we got into it--respectfully. When he got to his religion as the essential guide to morality, I smilingly told him that no organized religion could tell me what was ethical or moral behavior. As we talked he was flabbergast at the idea that people could have a strong personal and social sense of ethics outside of organized religion, and a rigid one to boot. It was a major revelation to him. But the conversation remained respectful and I think he learned something from me.
> 
> This conversation about HL falters because some people refuse to do the research and hear facts that contradict their belief systems. I have been involved in a bizarre discussion with a group of white, middle aged and older jewish men who all are zionists except the one Israeli man who invited me to join. These guys were so virulent towards me, twisting my words, reading my comments inside out if you can imagine. But a steady flow of writings by many notable Jewish writers and the horrific live videos finally has begun to get thru to some of them. The idea that Zionism is racist was something they could not accept but I see that even that is changing. Of course as privileged white men they really haven't a clue about racism and how it works.
> 
> HL is dangerous as a precedent and that is what we need to focus on I think. Also, the idea that there is no fence sitting on most issues of importance. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution and that is what makes a person political whether they want to be or not. The birth control issue is really a smoke screen for the ultimate goal of creating a theocracy by these radical religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is always dangerous and always results in fascistic control. Don't you think?


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I guess I don't know what game you are talking about.]


Evie RM said:


> No. The prayer wasn't said in the "huddle." It was said over a speaker to everyone.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Is Adelaide suggesting we all pretend none of this is happening? Does she think burying our heads in the sand is the best way to deal with contention?


SAMkewel said:


> Adelaide, is this your opinion? Are you aware that the Chit-Chat section of the forum is here for non-knitting discussions? When the KP forum first started, there were rules against these kinds of discussions (politics, religion), but when the ownership of the forum changed hands a couple of years ago, those rules were deleted, so it is now acceptable to discuss any subject as long as we don't curse, call people names, and remain civil. The rule changes weren't generally announced, but it does pay to reread them from time to time so you can avoid those areas of the forum you don't want to see. If you inadvertently open a thread you don't like, you can click on the unwatch box and you won't receive any more emails from that particular thread.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Cindy S said:


> that is a pretty inflammatory remark.........you paint all Muslims with the same brush, and yet it is people like you who complain that others paint all Christians with the same brush. There are good and bad people in both of those religions, but it should not be necessary to make inflammatory remarks such as yours. JMO


It is what "their Bible" teaches them. If you do not believe as they do, then you are an infidel and all infidels should be killed. I have a problem with a religion that wants to kill me because I do not believe the way they do. My religion teaches love and mercy.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> You are right. There is no safe place for anyone anymore-----not even in the womb.


That is not what I meant.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> I guess I don't know what game you are talking about.]


It was at the beginning of a football game in Oregon a few weeks ago. I am not an avid football watcher. My husband was going to watch the game on TV and I happened to catch the beginning where the prayer was said over the microphone to everyone.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Wombatnomore said:


> That is not what I meant.


But, it is so true.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> It is what "their Bible" teaches them. If you do not believe as they do, then you are an infidel and all infidels should be killed. I have a problem with a religion that wants to kill me because I do not believe the way they do.


So do I...but Christian history isn't exactly free of the "convert or die" philosophy: the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, the subjugation of the New World by the Conquistadors, the Inquisition...


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> It is what "their Bible" teaches them. If you do not believe as they do, then you are an infidel and all infidels should be killed. I have a problem with a religion that wants to kill me because I do not believe the way they do. My religion teaches love and mercy.


I have known many Muslims and not once have I met one who called me an infidel and thought I should be dead. I have found them to have good moral values with great families. In fact, a Muslim family lives 2 doors away from me and I certainly don't waste any time staying vigilant waiting for them to attack me or my family.

You say "My religion teaches love and mercy", if so you fail to display it as you hold the thoughts you have about Muslims.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> It is what "their Bible" teaches them. If you do not believe as they do, then you are an infidel and all infidels should be killed. I have a problem with a religion that wants to kill me because I do not believe the way they do. My religion teaches love and mercy.


It might be productive for you to learn a bit about Islam. The Koran does not advocate gratuitously killing anyone.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Gerslay said:


> Don't be afraid, Susan! Death and taxes are absolutes without question. Truth can be scrambled, fried, and boiled, but it is always absolute.


Whose truth? You and I may disagree on issues where one of us sees
truth and the other sees opinion.

I agree that eventual death is an absolute. Taxes? Too many people are exempt from too many taxes. Not an absolute. And truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I guess you could argue it is a personal absolute.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Adelaide said:


> what are you talking about and what are you curious about- abortion, birth control, womens rights? these are issues not discussed in our knitting forum so exactly what is your problem with my suggestion that we all live our lives as best that can and not judge etc. but that we try to move on to another topic less contentious - if you are simply so narrow focused or into indoctronaire issues i sugest that you be "brave" and say that, but don't question other peoples ideas that this is not the place to discuss god and morality,thanks and good-luck pointing fingers at a voice that is trying to be rational- adelaide


And you are free to move on just as others are free to continue the conversation.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Not at all. I believe in God (as it is my choice to do). I believe in God as the creator and everything my Christian religion has taught me. I would rather believe in Him and when I die find out that truly there is a God than not believe and when I die find out that I truly should have been believing everything my Christian religion has taught about the God I believe does exist.


I do not question that you have that choice. I'm more likely to question your emphasis on God rather than on Christ, who is supposed to be the way to God according to the Bible. To be totally honest, this is one of the major issues I have had with Christianity in the USA. So many seem to be looking for a father to take care of them rather than realizing that it is up to the individual to do the work, with the life of Christ being the model of how to go about that. I finally threw up my hands and walked away from organized religion as being something that people reinvent to suit their needs rather than understanding that nothing is free from an effort point of view. Sitting reading one's Bible or testifying about our own godliness while doing nothing for one's fellow human beings just doesn't make any sense to me. Neither does sitting in judgment on any who aren't exactly like everyone else. I think too many major points have been totally missed or disregarded for whatever reason. You have your beliefs and I have mine. This is not meant to be a personal attack, only words of total frustration as to why the message I see is so different from what the majority seems to see. So, rather than attend (any) church and be miserable, I stay away. I'm not sure what that makes me, but certainly not a "Christian" as it is generally defined in this part of the world.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> Whose truth? You and I may disagree on issues where one of us sees
> truth and the other sees opinion.
> 
> I agree that eventual death is an absolute. Taxes? Too many people are exempt from too many taxes. Not an absolute. And truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I guess you could argue it is a personal absolute.


Agreed. No two people have the same exact concept of truth, because your truth and mine may be totally different due to our different experiences in life.


----------



## JeanetteD (Jul 22, 2014)

No--but this is a moral issue-- what your saying is discrimination against a person's race--this is not saying they will not serve anyone or hire anyone--they are saying they do not want to pay for something that goes against their moral believes--which they have the right to state--just as others are saying they will not shop at Hobby Lobby--so would they also not go into a business owned by someone of another race?????? Just saying---


----------



## JeanetteD (Jul 22, 2014)

SAMkewel said:


> Agreed. No two people have the same exact concept of truth, because your truth and mine may be totally different due to our different experiences in life.


If one is truth the other is not--there is only one truth--there cannot be more then one.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

JeanetteD said:


> No--but this is a moral issue-- what your saying is discrimination against a person's race--this is not saying they will not serve anyone or hire anyone--they are saying they do not want to pay for something that goes against their moral believes--which they have the right to state--just as others are saying they will not shop at Hobby Lobby--so would they also not go into a business owned by someone of another race?????? Just saying---


Well, but many segregationists thought it was morally wrong for blacks and whites to sleep in the same hotel--or to use the same water fountain--or to handle the same books. Sadly, people's morals can be wrong, or at least lead them in the wrong direction.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> Maybe. I endured 13 years of Christian education through the Methodist church as a child. Attending church and Sunday school was non negotiable according to my mother which was very strange because she was not a Christian herself.
> 
> I was never comfortable with it. I dreaded going and felt, what I recognize now, very anxious while there. I couldn't understand why we were being fed fire and brimstone when it was at total odds with life at the time. So many negatives and very few positives were bandied about it seemed to me.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you've related here. I was "brought up" in what is now the United Methodist Church, which was certainly better than what I had at home, but was often used by my non-attending mother to "buy" her way with the church since she didn't attend, either. For instance, I was hired by the church to play the organ there; my mother promptly called the minister to tell him I would not be accepting any salary for my services--without consulting me. I remain the only free organist in the entire history of that particular church. That wasn't what I had in mind since I was not allowed to accept any other employment, not even babysitting. No wonder I left home at 17, eh? But I digress. My question regards whether you encountered the hellfire and brimstone message through the same church or through one of the other Methodist denominations, since I was spared most of that sort of thing where I attended.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

JeanetteD said:


> If one is truth the other is not--there is only one truth--there cannot be more then one.


If the truth is that I was raped and you were not, there is more than one truth, no?


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

JeanetteD said:


> If one is truth the other is not--there is only one truth--there cannot be more then one.


But what if the concept A considers truth is not acknowledged by B as truth? And vice versa?

We each see "truth" from our own perspective, our upbringing, the faith or non faith in which we were raised, our experiences with others. Most people get strength of purpose and inspiration from their faith in their truth.

Forcing the truth of the guy with the most money or the biggest gun on others is a fascist concept. It is the antitheses of what a free country like the US or Canada among a number of others is about.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Cindy S said:


> I have known many Muslims and not once have I met one who called me an infidel and thought I should be dead. I have found them to have good moral values with great families. In fact, a Muslim family lives 2 doors away from me and I certainly don't waste any time staying vigilant waiting for them to attack me or my family.
> 
> You say "My religion teaches love and mercy", if so you fail to display it as you hold the thoughts you have about Muslims.


Sorry if you feel that way. Have you read the Koran? It might open your eyes.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

JeanetteD said:


> No--but this is a moral issue-- what your saying is discrimination against a person's race--this is not saying they will not serve anyone or hire anyone--they are saying they do not want to pay for something that goes against their moral believes--which they have the right to state--just as others are saying they will not shop at Hobby Lobby--so would they also not go into a business owned by someone of another race?????? Just saying---


Hobby Lobby used the birth control issue to open the door legally for a corporation to have morals as if they are an individual. The intention is to further use that crack in the door to start their own brand of religious training in a public school in Oklahoma in order to expand that in time to the entire USA, this is according to Mr. Green, the CEO and owner of Hobby Lobby. I don't believe he thought anyone was paying that much attention to what his intentions are, but having gotten over one hurdle, he now intends to clear several others in order to further his agenda for the entire country. A little online research will confirm what he has said and done so far as well as what his ultimate intentions are. I believe what he is trying to do is immoral because he has lied about having open meetings with the public school board and parents at the school where he is currently in the process of refining the curriculum which is to be introduced as an elective but ultimately will be required. His brand of religion is far right Christianity according to his interpretation of the Bible, an undertaking for which he is not professionally trained and which disregards any other religious choices, and therefore I believe that is also immoral. His reasoning is that the USA was intended to be a Christian nation and he is going to see that it becomes one. If one reads the beliefs and intentions of the founding fathers from the various sources available to us, one will find that while this has become a popular belief bordering on myth, it certainly wasn't what the founding fathers had in mind, and freedom of religion has become in his mind something entirely different. He believes in his freedom to switch everyone's religion to his, apparently having delusions that he is a savior of sorts for the rest of us. And therein lies my total refusal to support the man in any way, shape, or form. I do not know whether he has an official name for his brand of religion. Power takeovers in the name of God are still power takeovers, and this is certainly not the first time in the history of "Christianity" that this has been attempted.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Sorry if you feel that way. Have you read the Koran?


I guess we can assume that you have. And I'm sure too you're familiar with Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". These words don't exactly express the so-called Christian values of love and charity, do they?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Sorry if you feel that way. Have you read the Koran? It might open your eyes.


I have read some of it, have not seen violence in what I read, I would agree with Wombat, you would do well to learn about Islam. And meet some Muslims. Oh wait, you can't do that because they want to see you dead.

You and I will have to agree to disagree, the likelihood of there being a meeting of the minds is beyond dismal


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> I do not question that you have that choice. I'm more likely to question your emphasis on God rather than on Christ, who is supposed to be the way to God according to the Bible. To be totally honest, this is one of the major issues I have had with Christianity in the USA. So many seem to be looking for a father to take care of them rather than realizing that it is up to the individual to do the work, with the life of Christ being the model of how to go about that. I finally threw up my hands and walked away from organized religion as being something that people reinvent to suit their needs rather than understanding that nothing is free from an effort point of view. Sitting reading one's Bible or testifying about our own godliness while doing nothing for one's fellow human beings just doesn't make any sense to me. Neither does sitting in judgment on any who aren't exactly like everyone else. I think too many major points have been totally missed or disregarded for whatever reason. You have your beliefs and I have mine. This is not meant to be a personal attack, only words of total frustration as to why the message I see is so different from what the majority seems to see. So, rather than attend (any) church and be miserable, I stay away. I'm not sure what that makes me, but certainly not a "Christian" as it is generally defined in this part of the world.


The only one who can sit in judgment is our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. He is the way. It is through His grace that we get to heaven. Not through good works as some believe. We do not do good works because it gets us to heaven. We do good works because we are Christians. I am so sorry that the church you attended was so frustrating to you. The church I attend reaches out to the community. We help with food and clothing. We help serve meals to the homeless. We just had a "community" baby shower for low income mothers who cannot afford the things that we provided. We are starting a knitting ministry in September. We provided 500 meals last Thanksgiving for people who needed the help. We have provided "house" care for people in need by members of our church going to the homes and doing landscaping, and house repairs, painting or whatever needed to be done. We are currently donating school supplies for the children that need them. In October we have provided a safe environment for children to "truck or treat" by having cars in our parking lot with open, decorated trunks where children could go to collect candy and have fun where games were provided for them to play. How, then, are we not reaching out to others? I am so sorry for your disillusionment with Christianity because you attended a church that didn't "reach out." Please don't judge "all" by your experience.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

Cindy S said:


> I have read some of it, have not seen violence in what I read, I would agree with Wombat, you would do well to learn about Islam. And meet some Muslims. Oh wait, you can't do that because they want to see you dead.
> 
> You and I will have to agree to disagree, the likelihood of there being a meeting of the minds is beyond dismal


Then we will have to disagree. Please read the Koran.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Is Adelaide suggesting we all pretend none of this is happening? Does she think burying our heads in the sand is the best way to deal with contention?


I don't know what her thinking is, I just know that she is obviously uncomfortable with this particular discussion. Some people react to finding themselves in a situation like this by trying to shut it down, and Adelaide is not the first one to attempt that on this discussion. My point is that no one is required to participate. It's a good solution to simply leave it, thereby exercising one's power to choose without imposing on anyone else's power to choose.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I guess we can assume that you have. And I'm sure too you're familiar with Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". These words don't exactly express the so-called Christian values of love and charity, do they?


Still not telling me to go out and kill somebody. "Thou shalt not kill." That is what my Bible teaches. Also in the Book of Psalms - Psalm 33.12: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> It is what "their Bible" teaches them. If you do not believe as they do, then you are an infidel and all infidels should be killed. I have a problem with a religion that wants to kill me because I do not believe the way they do. My religion teaches love and mercy.


How much study of their "Bible" have you done? Enough to cite specific passages? Be aware that the media love to stir the pot and don't think it's necessary to print/broadcast only the truth. That doesn't sell too well.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Evie RM said:


> Still not telling me to go out and kill somebody. "Thou shalt not kill." That is what my Bible teaches. Also in the Book of Psalms - Psalm 33.12: "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."


"Still not telling me to go out and kill somebody"....please explain what you think that passage does mean. Thank you.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> How much study of their "Bible" have you done? Enough to cite specific passages? Be aware that the media love to stir the pot and don't think it's necessary to print/broadcast only the truth. That doesn't sell too well.


I never totally believe what the media is selling as factual. I have had personal experience to the contrary.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Still not telling me to go out and kill somebody. "Thou shalt not kill."


Actually, that's exactly what it's saying to do. This from answers.com:

"Exodus 22:18: (KJV) "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (NIV) "Do not allow a sorceress to live." This is one of a long list of ancient commandments listed in Exodus after the more famous Ten Commandments. The word 'witch' was a seventeenth century choice, made at the time when pogroms against so-called witches were still in force, but the NIV translation is closer to the original, which was intended to authorising the killing of those who continued to teach the animist rites."

My point is that the Bible, like the Koran, gives a lot of commands and orders that don't exactly fit how we in modern-day America tend to conduct our lives, and how we deal with non-Christians. You seem like a sensible good-hearted woman, and I'm sure any Wiccan on your block is aware of this and doesn't expect to find you waiting in the front yards with a rope and a flaming torch. So why is it so difficult to credit those who are not ISIS wackos--meaning: the vast majority of Muslims--with the same amount of common sense and human decency?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> The only one who can sit in judgment is our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. He is the way. It is through His grace that we get to heaven. Not through good works as some believe. We do not do good works because it gets us to heaven. We do good works because we are Christians. I am so sorry that the church you attended was so frustrating to you. The church I attend reaches out to the community. We help with food and clothing. We help serve meals to the homeless. We just had a "community" baby shower for low income mothers who cannot afford the things that we provided. We are starting a knitting ministry in September. We provided 500 meals last Thanksgiving for people who needed the help. We have provided "house" care for people in need by members of our church going to the homes and doing landscaping, and house repairs, painting or whatever needed to be done. We are currently donating school supplies for the children that need them. In October we have provided a safe environment for children to "truck or treat" by having cars in our parking lot with open, decorated trunks where children could go to collect candy and have fun where games were provided for them to play. How, then, are we not reaching out to others? I am so sorry for your disillusionment with Christianity because you attended a church that didn't "reach out." Please don't judge "all" by your experience.


The churches I have been involved with have also done what I call "public works" for others less fortunate. I have always suspected they were for the community to see what good "Christians" they are. What I'm talking about is the internal, within the membership, backbiting, judging, and condemnation of all members who do not toe the mark in every possible way. If my experience had been with only one denomination, or only one church within that denomination, or in only one geographical part of the USA, no doubt I would feel differently, but such is not my experience. If I spoke from a single incidence of the sort of behavior I'm talking about, I would have brushed it off as not being representative, but I'm talking about a 70 year history in various churches, denominations, and locations within the USA. Obviously, I moved on in hopes of finding a situation that tolerable, not perfect. I don't believe I'm so "special" that my experience is unique. I think my refusal to deny my gay son and my love for him had a great deal to do with it; I was 18 when he was born and I have to say that he has been, to date, the best part of my life. As someone else said, what was I supposed to do, stone him to death because ignorant people, including clergy, "don't like gay people?" I was literally told by three different churches in three different denominations that I would have to handle it alone. And I did. And in doing that over the 44 years of his life, I decided ultimately that I do better without organized religion.

You are, of course, free to think whatever you wish. I'm not saying there is anything inherently bad about serving the community as a church, only that there is something inherently bad about rejecting your own members for reasons beyond their control and beyond the experience and understanding of other members.


----------



## JeanetteD (Jul 22, 2014)

SAMkewel said:


> If the truth is that I was raped and you were not, there is more than one truth, no?


If you say you are raped and I say you were not raped (one is true one is not true)--that is comparing apples with applies-===you are comparing apples with oranges-===one is an apple == one is not an apple -- both saying the SAME thing in a different way still ONE truth....


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> Was he living in the dark ages? How could he not know there is good and bad in "all" people, no matter what they profess to be. So, you are saying that he lived his entire life without knowing any non-Christians who were good people.


Yes that is what he was saying. It was inconceivable to him that someone could have a high ethical standard in life outside a fundamentalist church! And that is not uncommon. My chimney guy is like that. He tries to be a good Christian, he really does, but he also has a strong belief system that limits his trust and opinions of those who do not share his beliefs. It is a strange relationship I have with him. I give him work as he is a great worker but we do disagree on core things in life. But he has done incredible favors for me as my income has crashed. Building his good karma for the future.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

JeanetteD said:


> If you say you are raped and I say you were not raped (one is true one is not true)--that is comparing apples with applies-===you are comparing apples with oranges-===one is an apple == one is not an apple -- both saying the SAME thing in a different way still ONE truth....


The post to which you refer does not say 'If I was raped and you said I was not...'

It states "If the truth is I was raped and you were not..."


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> I agree with what you've related here. I was "brought up" in what is now the United Methodist Church, which was certainly better than what I had at home, but was often used by my non-attending mother to "buy" her way with the church since she didn't attend, either. For instance, I was hired by the church to play the organ there; my mother promptly called the minister to tell him I would not be accepting any salary for my services--without consulting me. I remain the only free organist in the entire history of that particular church. That wasn't what I had in mind since I was not allowed to accept any other employment, not even babysitting. No wonder I left home at 17, eh? But I digress. My question regards whether you encountered the hellfire and brimstone message through the same church or through one of the other Methodist denominations, since I was spared most of that sort of thing where I attended.


The church I attended was Methodist only. It changed to Uniting Methodist some years after I left. Also, our minister was a rather benign individual outside of the pulpit but a fulminate malignancy while standing in it. Saliva sprays and all.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Wombatnomore said:


> The church I attended was Methodist only. It changed to Uniting Methodist some years after I left. Also, our minister was a rather benign individual outside of the pulpit but a fulminate malignancy while standing in it. Saliva sprays and all.


Oh my, I just had a visual of your minister and the flying saliva!!!!!


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Religious organizations have served to provide community for many people. The many social events help people gain entrance into new communities and meet others. And there are many good deeds organized by these organizations. However, many people participate to prove they are good people and then go out and judge others in condescending manner. I have a problem trusting such good works unquestioningly.

The fact is that ALL religions have a few things in common. They are all based on love, a universal love. They all support a standard of ethics that defines humanistic values for people to live by. That is why arguing betw different spiritual paths seems so inane to me.

As for the Koran and Islam, it promotes peace and love as do other spiritual venues. The fact that some people get into fanatical and fundamentalist states is what people chose to do with the teachings. Right now in Israel we see how nationalism, racism and growing fascism are supported by the right wing fundamentalist who have gained almost total control of that State. You have political leaders speaking in public, in the press and in the Knesset calling for raw genocide of Palestinians. Americans have no clue for the most part what is going on in Gaza unless they go out of their way to get information from independent journalists and people working over their to help Palestinians. This is just a modern example of how religion is used to maim and destroy. Islamic fundamentalists are doing the same in other parts of the Mid-East, compliments of the US.

Belief systems are hard to argue because they are not factual for the most part. It is why racism and other forms of prejudice are to hard to eradicate. But facts are there. What it takes is the courage to look at them and change your beliefs when they are pointed out. The murder of Michael Brown this past month is another case in point. Online the rage against this young man is vile. He was murdered in cold blood and is being victimized and blamed for his own death. And this all goes under the state of racist belief systems which refuse to accept the reality of the murder. And here the State is totally complicit. However, the state makes laws that make it almost impossible to prosecute.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> Oh my, I just had a visual of your minister and the flying saliva!!!!!


 :XD:

Learned early on to select a pew at the rear of the church. Man, that saliva had velocity greater than sea spray!


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Wombatnomore said:


> :XD:
> 
> Learned early on to select a pew at the rear of the church. Man, that saliva had velocity greater than sea spray!


Stop please!! Laughing over these visuals is killing me!!!


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> Stop please!! Laughing over these visuals is killing me!!!


It's great to have a laugh amidst these serious discussions. Nearly every day on KP, someone, somewhere makes me laugh out loud, literally. I love laughing, beats any sort of mind altering substance!


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

My ribs hurt and I think I just sprayed my self. Sure glad I'm not drinking coffee at the moment.


Cindy S said:


> Stop please!! Laughing over these visuals is killing me!!!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I never totally believe what the media is selling as factual. I have had personal experience to the contrary.


I'll bet you do; don't we all :~).


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

JeanetteD said:


> If you say you are raped and I say you were not raped (one is true one is not true)--that is comparing apples with applies-===you are comparing apples with oranges-===one is an apple == one is not an apple -- both saying the SAME thing in a different way still ONE truth....


No, what I said was, "If the truth is that I was raped and you were not.....", my truth is that I was, your truth is that you were not. The two truths are not the same because the perspectives and experiences are different. That's why there can't be only one truth in every instance. Obviously our perspectives on this question are also different.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> The churches I have been involved with have also done what I call "public works" for others less fortunate. I have always suspected they were for the community to see what good "Christians" they are. What I'm talking about is the internal, within the membership, backbiting, judging, and condemnation of all members who do not toe the mark in every possible way. If my experience had been with only one denomination, or only one church within that denomination, or in only one geographical part of the USA, no doubt I would feel differently, but such is not my experience. If I spoke from a single incidence of the sort of behavior I'm talking about, I would have brushed it off as not being representative, but I'm talking about a 70 year history in various churches, denominations, and locations within the USA. Obviously, I moved on in hopes of finding a situation that tolerable, not perfect. I don't believe I'm so "special" that my experience is unique. I think my refusal to deny my gay son and my love for him had a great deal to do with it; I was 18 when he was born and I have to say that he has been, to date, the best part of my life. As someone else said, what was I supposed to do, stone him to death because ignorant people, including clergy, "don't like gay people?" I was literally told by three different churches in three different denominations that I would have to handle it alone. And I did. And in doing that over the 44 years of his life, I decided ultimately that I do better without organized religion.
> 
> You are, of course, free to think whatever you wish. I'm not saying there is anything inherently bad about serving the community as a church, only that there is something inherently bad about rejecting your own members for reasons beyond their control and beyond the experience and understanding of other members.


I am so very sorry that happened to you. My heart absolutely goes out to you. What I have been taught is that you hate the sin and not the sinner. We all fall short of the mark and only Jesus Christ can judge us. We are not to judge anyone. It was Jesus who said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." We are to love every person. I attended the Episcopal church when I was young. My mother was raised in the Catholic church, but left it because of some of the hypocrisy she encountered among other things. A little over twenty years ago my husband and I started attending the Assembly of God church. We really liked the church and the various pastors they had over the years. In June of 2013 we switched to a different church because of the loudness of the music that was being played. They used to have two services where the first service was more for the older crowd with a lower volume of music and the second service was definitely for the young. Then they changed and both services had the same music, which was really, really loud. The church we now attend is Baptist, but the structure of the service is identical to the Assembly of God church we had been attending. Our new church is larger than the old one, but the people are just as friendly and they have many outreach programs similar to the ones at our former church. Maybe I have been just lucky to not have experienced what you did. I have never seen the back biting and condemnation that you experienced. There are greeters that wave to you from the parking lot. There are two greeters at the outer door and another one at the inner door who hands out the program. At the beginning of the service we greet those around us. The sermons are not condemning but very uplifting. You should have had the help you needed from your church. It is such a shame that they were not forthcoming with that help like they are supposed to do. Shame on them. I would have left a church like that, too.

God bless you and I sincerely mean that.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I am so very sorry that happened to you. My heart absolutely goes out to you. What I have been taught is that you hate the sin and not the sinner. We all fall short of the mark and only Jesus Christ can judge us. We are not to judge anyone. It was Jesus who said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." We are to love every person. I attended the Episcopal church when I was young. My mother was raised in the Catholic church, but left it because of some of the hypocrisy she encountered among other things. A little over twenty years ago my husband and I started attending the Assembly of God church. We really liked the church and the various pastors they had over the years. In June of 2013 we switched to a different church because of the loudness of the music that was being played. They used to have two services where the first service was more for the older crowd with a lower volume of music and the second service was definitely for the young. Then they changed and both services had the same music, which was really, really loud. The church we now attend is Baptist, but the structure of the service is identical to the Assembly of God church we had been attending. Our new church is larger than the old one, but the people are just as friendly and they have many outreach programs similar to the ones at our former church. Maybe I have been just lucky to not have experienced what you did. I have never seen the back biting and condemnation that you experienced. There are greeters that wave to you from the parking lot. There are two greeters at the outer door and another one at the inner door who hands out the program. At the beginning of the service we greet those around us. The sermons are not condemning but very uplifting. You should have had the help you needed from your church. It is such a shame that they were not forthcoming with that help like they are supposed to do. Shame on them. I would have left a church like that, too.
> 
> God bless you and I sincerely mean that.


I truly appreciate your understanding. Logic tells me that all churches are not (cannot possible be?) as uncaring as these.....


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Personally, having rejected all organized religion when very young, my path took me to a place of understanding that teaches the goal of spirituality is universal connection; empathy on a very huge level. It is about learning about love on the general and the specific level. Many people have gotten to this same place. Wica has had a serious resurgence because of this. A nature based spirituality that is open and all embracing. The Baha'i try to do this but I find them a very bigoted group despite their efforts for universality. The model for many is Native American spirituality which is nature based and not deity centered. It is non-hierarchical and does not demand adherence to a particular format. I think a major attraction is the fact that people don't have to prove their devotion by competing in more holier-than-thou battles.


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

NJG said:


> Then they shouldn't have one. The pills in question have been proven to not cause an abortion, only prevent fertilization. The SCOTUS obviously never investigated this at all. They suddenly become smarter than scientist, just like all the climate change deniers that think they know more than the scientists. They just took the opinion of the Green's that they caused abortion.


I believe the pills prevent IMPLANTATION of a fertilized egg.... They do not prevent fertilization. Most believe that life begins at fertilization... And if that egg if prevented from implanting and is expelled from the body... Life has been destroyed... ENDED!


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

Dawne27 said:


> I feel very sorry for the employees that have had decisions made about a private issue by their employers. I would not be able to work under those circumstances. I think it is a shame. It definitely helps me make a decision about where I shop.


It is not all birth control pills that they will not allow to be provided by their insurance..... Only the ones that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the wall of the uterus ... Therefore it is expelled from the body and the life is destroyed. They do provide most forms of birth control to their employees!


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

cattdages said:


> This issue was not about abortion on any level. It was about medications designed to prevent pregnancy and they say they should have the right to deny their employees these medications.


The way I understand it.... They object to the BC meds that allow ovulation, allow fertilization, but prevent the now fertilized egg from implanting in the wall of the uterus and therefore being expelled from the body ..... Thus ending life! In most eyes....abortion! These are the only Drugs they object to. Not other forms that simply prevalent ovulation!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

slapshotma said:


> I believe the pills prevent IMPLANTATION of a fertilized egg.... They do not prevent fertilization. Most believe that life begins at fertilization... And if that egg if prevented from implanting and is expelled from the body... Life has been destroyed... ENDED!


A bit of a stretch, isn't it? In my mind's eye I can see the militant "pro-lifers" holding serial funeral services and/or memorials for all their fertilized eggs (probably dozens during a woman's reproductive lifespan) that just didn't implant. It's laughable.


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

peacegoddess said:


> An IUD is not an abortion it is a type of contraception and the IUD was included in the refuse to include in health benefits.


I think you are incorrect.. An IuD prevents implantation....if the egg is fertilized (as it is in the Fallopian tube) the IUD prevents that fertilized egg from implanting and then it is expelled from the body... Ending life!


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> A bit of a stretch, isn't it? In my mind's eye I can see the militant "pro-lifers" holding serial funeral services and/or memorials for all their fertilized eggs (probably dozens during a woman's reproductive lifespan) that just didn't implant. It's laughable.


Not a stretch at all... That is the exact issue of hobby lobby.... Some (few) fertilized eggs naturally do not implant.... If it occurs without human intervention, so be it ( I question your estimate of dozens... But be that as it may) but these few, particular methods of BC... IUD and some oral BC are DESIGNED to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and that IS Hobby Lobby's issue. But I'm glad you had a good laugh!
So is it still a stretch?


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

SherrySherry said:


> I just looked up info on the morning after pill. it does not cause an abortion. Rather, it prevents the sperm that can live in a women's reproductive system (for up to 5 days) from fertilizing the egg. Maybe the HL powers-that-be have not educated themselves on this topic.


Is this the particular Morning after pill that HL will not cover or another morning after pill..... You need to be VERY specific.... They only object to forms of BC that do not allow fertilized eggs from implanting.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

slapshotma said:


> Not a stretch at all... That is the exact issue of hobby lobby.... Some (few) fertilized eggs naturally do not implant.... If it occurs without human intervention, so be it ( I question your estimate of dozens... But be that as it may) but these few, particular methods of BC... IUD and some oral BC are DESIGNED to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg and that IS Hobby Lobby's issue. But I'm glad you had a good laugh!
> So is it still a stretch?


No--because you obviously haven't checked the facts, particularly those concerning copper IUDs. Copper is toxic to sperm, and that kind of IUD was DESIGNED (emphasis yours) to destroy the sperm before it ever reached the egg.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

tamarque said:


> One of my favorite conversation was held with born again christian type. We were at a pool so he did not know/could not see that I really was not of his style. So we got into it--respectfully. When he got to his religion as the essential guide to morality, I smilingly told him that no organized religion could tell me what was ethical or moral behavior. As we talked he was flabbergast at the idea that people could have a strong personal and social sense of ethics outside of organized religion, and a rigid one to boot. It was a major revelation to him. But the conversation remained respectful and I think he learned something from me.
> 
> This conversation about HL falters because some people refuse to do the research and hear facts that contradict their belief systems. I have been involved in a bizarre discussion with a group of white, middle aged and older jewish men who all are zionists except the one Israeli man who invited me to join. These guys were so virulent towards me, twisting my words, reading my comments inside out if you can imagine. But a steady flow of writings by many notable Jewish writers and the horrific live videos finally has begun to get thru to some of them. The idea that Zionism is racist was something they could not accept but I see that even that is changing. Of course as privileged white men they really haven't a clue about racism and how it works.
> 
> HL is dangerous as a precedent and that is what we need to focus on I think. Also, the idea that there is no fence sitting on most issues of importance. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution and that is what makes a person political whether they want to be or not. The birth control issue is really a smoke screen for the ultimate goal of creating a theocracy by these radical religious fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is always dangerous and always results in fascistic control. Don't you think?


Yes, I agree.

I once had a conversation with a Christian who told me my values were all given to me by god whether I believed it or not.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> And that is your choice. However, I would rather believe there is a God and die and find out there isn't one than not believe there is a God and die and find out there is one.


It is far easier to lean on religion than it is to stand without it believe me. I don't understand how you can say you would "rather believe". How do you choose to believe? You can't make yourself believe something.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I am sorry you have not met the ones that truly are. Like in anything, it is always the sour apples that spoil the bunch. I know a lot of "godly" people who are true Christians who walk the walk of a true Christian life. I am not saying they are sin free as no one is free of sin. A true Christian walks the walk of their faith. A person who calls themselves a Christian and who is not walking the walk of the Christian faith is not truly a Christian, no matter what they call themselves.


And like you, most would judge and persecute me for not believing as they do.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> This post was reasonable insofar as it expressed this person's point of view. There can be many reasonable opinions that don't necessarily agree with one another because we all have our own life experiences and perspectives. I have not had a career working for a Catholic employer, so I tend to have a number of perspectives that are different from someone who has, like this poster did. I'm not accustomed to the Catholic point of view because I wasn't raised with it nor did I spend any time working for any specific religion. Therefor, I'm not going to be capable of seeing things in the same perspective that she does. That doesn't necessarily make her wrong or me right, but it does open the door for productive discussion. We Americans seem to have an expectation of everyone agreeing on any given subject. It ain't gonna happen in the real world. If we all agreed on everything, we wouldn't need laws, governments, etc. I enjoy learning about how others see the world. Apparently some don't like to have anyone disagree with them on any subject, and that's sad. How else can we learn?


I'm really glad you've been in this discussion with me.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> Maybe. I endured 13 years of Christian education through the Methodist church as a child. Attending church and Sunday school was non negotiable according to my mother which was very strange because she was not a Christian herself.
> 
> I was never comfortable with it. I dreaded going and felt, what I recognize now, very anxious while there. I couldn't understand why we were being fed fire and brimstone when it was at total odds with life at the time. So many negatives and very few positives were bandied about it seemed to me.
> 
> ...


You are so right!


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I am sorry you have not met the ones that truly are. Like in anything, it is always the sour apples that spoil the bunch. I know a lot of "godly" people who are true Christians who walk the walk of a true Christian life. I am not saying they are sin free as no one is free of sin. A true Christian walks the walk of their faith. A person who calls themselves a Christian and who is not walking the walk of the Christian faith is not truly a Christian, no matter what they call themselves.


Please read my post again. I also know people whom I feel walk the walk of efaith. Whjat I said was "It has been my observation that people who *call* themselves godly most generally are not".

As the song goes, "They will know we are Christians by our *love*. Not because we say so. Not by a neon sign over the door. Not by *professing* we are.

By our love. That says it all.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> So do I...but Christian history isn't exactly free of the "convert or die" philosophy: the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, the subjugation of the New World by the Conquistadors, the Inquisition...


Thanks for making this point!


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> No--because you obviously haven't checked the facts, particularly those concerning copper IUDs. Copper is toxic to sperm, and that kind of IUD was DESIGNED (emphasis yours) to destroy the sperm before it ever reached the egg.


You are correct that copper is toxic to sperm... But continue reading from this article 
How does an intrauterine device (IUD) work?

It is not fully understood how IUDs work. They are thought to prevent conception by causing a brief localized inflammation that begins about 24 hours after insertion. This causes an inflammatory reaction inside the uterus that attracts white blood cells. The white blood cells produce substances that are toxic or poisonous to sperm. The progesterone-releasing IUDs also cause a subtle change in the endometrial environment that impairs the implantation of the egg in the uterine wall. This type of IUD also alters the cervical mucus, which, in turn, inhibits sperm from passing through the cervix.

So the copper( your chosen IUD)IUD kills sperm!
The hormonal ( my chosen IUD) IUD prevents implantation!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I am so sorry for your disillusionment with Christianity because you attended a church that didn't "reach out." Please don't judge "all" by your experience.


Evie,

I'm sure you're feeling pretty persecuted right now. Please understand, we do not disagree with you because of your faith. We respect and support your right to believe as you choose. We disagree with you because of your absolute refusal to accept that yours is not the only "right" way and yours is the only "right" opinion. We are not disillusioned, we are not backslidden, we just don't believe as you do and that does not make us wrong.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> I am so very sorry that happened to you. My heart absolutely goes out to you. What I have been taught is that you hate the sin and not the sinner. We all fall short of the mark and only Jesus Christ can judge us. We are not to judge anyone. It was Jesus who said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." We are to love every person. I attended the Episcopal church when I was young. My mother was raised in the Catholic church, but left it because of some of the hypocrisy she encountered among other things. A little over twenty years ago my husband and I started attending the Assembly of God church. We really liked the church and the various pastors they had over the years. In June of 2013 we switched to a different church because of the loudness of the music that was being played. They used to have two services where the first service was more for the older crowd with a lower volume of music and the second service was definitely for the young. Then they changed and both services had the same music, which was really, really loud. The church we now attend is Baptist, but the structure of the service is identical to the Assembly of God church we had been attending. Our new church is larger than the old one, but the people are just as friendly and they have many outreach programs similar to the ones at our former church. Maybe I have been just lucky to not have experienced what you did. I have never seen the back biting and condemnation that you experienced. There are greeters that wave to you from the parking lot. There are two greeters at the outer door and another one at the inner door who hands out the program. At the beginning of the service we greet those around us. The sermons are not condemning but very uplifting. You should have had the help you needed from your church. It is such a shame that they were not forthcoming with that help like they are supposed to do. Shame on them. I would have left a church like that, too.
> 
> God bless you and I sincerely mean that.


It is clear that you try very hard to live what you preach, but I would bet money some those "friendly" greeters who are so nice on Sunday are absolute horrors on Monday. And it is possible that the reason you do not see the gossip and back-biting is because you put yourself above it and do not participate in it so you are not in the know. Human nature...


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> A bit of a stretch, isn't it? In my mind's eye I can see the militant "pro-lifers" holding serial funeral services and/or memorials for all their fertilized eggs (probably dozens during a woman's reproductive lifespan) that just didn't implant. It's laughable.


An I the only one hearing a Monty Python song in my head?? LOL


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

these are the BC methods Hobby Lobby Includes
Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants


----------



## mmorris (Sep 5, 2013)

My sympathy is with the employees. They're the true loser! :thumbdown:


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

quote from Hobby Lobby Web Site

The Food and Drug Administration says that two types of IUDs and two emergency contraceptives (Plan B and ella) can prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterusin other words, they can terminate a life at its earliest stages. The Governments opening brief in the case references:

A copper IUD is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by interfering with sperm transport and fertilization of an egg and possibly by preventing implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus). An IUD with progestin is a device inserted into the uterus by a healthcare provider that works by thickening cervical mucus preventing passage of sperm into the uterus, inhibiting sperm capacitation or survival, and altering the endometrium.

Plan B is an emergency contraceptive in pill form  it may inhibit implantation (of a fertilized egg in the uterus) by altering the endometrium  Ella is a pill that works by inhibiting or delaying ovulation and may also work by altering the endometrium in a way that may affect implantation (of the fertilized egg in the uterus).


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

JuneS said:


> And yes, this discussion has gotten under my skin enough to post several times. I usually try to stay out of political discussions because I am not political person. I just think that rather than get up into somebody else's business we all should be worrying about the cobwebs in our own closets and let everyone else be responsible for theirs. People have the right to make choices and run their lives and businesses they way they see fit. I respect that and leave well enough alone until it starts infringing on my own personal well being or that of the people I am responsible for.
> 
> What Hobby Lobby chooses to do or not do has no impact on my life. If they have a product that I need or want I will go there to buy it. If they don't I'll find another place to get it. I don't feel entitled to have anyone pay for my way, I have to earn that myself. If I agree to perform a function for an employer for an agreed upon salary and benefit package, then that is what I expect and am entitled to if I keep my end of the bargain, and nothing more. I trust that the employees of Hobby Lobby are not indentured servants who are being forced to work for HL. If they are not getting what they need from their employment they have the free will to leave to earn something better somewhere else.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for all of your truthful postings that most others here have their heads in the sand & don't want to know the truth.

I support HL & shop there & will continue to do so as long as they are open.

Did you see where because of my "opinion" one poster said I have not left my youth because she disagreed with me? Shame, shame, what is this population thinking?

Thanking you again for your input & yes, I too am moving on from those who don't want to know the truth only their warped minds & ugly words!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Personally, having rejected all organized religion when very young, my path took me to a place of understanding that teaches the goal of spirituality is universal connection; empathy on a very huge level. It is about learning about love on the general and the specific level. Many people have gotten to this same place. Wica has had a serious resurgence because of this. A nature based spirituality that is open and all embracing. The Baha'i try to do this but I find them a very bigoted group despite their efforts for universality. The model for many is Native American spirituality which is nature based and not deity centered. It is non-hierarchical and does not demand adherence to a particular format. I think a major attraction is the fact that people don't have to prove their devotion by competing in more holier-than-thou battles.


Please don't take this as a criticism; it's simply me trying to understand. You appear to have done a great deal of research into various religions (more than I at this point). Do you not consider them to be organized religions, since you say you rejected such at a very young age? Do you look at them as a means of understanding others? I'm trying to determine motivation for spending a considerable amount of time on this, probably because I'm not in a comfortable place with it for me, to the point of having abandoned seeking efforts. Perhaps I'm afraid of being drawn in again at some point and don't want to deal with the consequences of that.

We have a very active Universal Unitarian group here that does a great deal of work in areas that have high appeal for me; however, I don't seem to be able to bring myself to attend even one meeting. I have spoken with the minister there and feel that we've both been very open and honest, but still something holds me back. I understand from him that all of the religions you mention in your post are represented within the UU group locally; in Michigan we have a large Native American presence, and because of the presence of Dow Chemical and Dow Corning headquarters, we have a large presence of most other religions from other parts of the world. I think I'm a case of 20 times burned, 100 times shy. Since I admire your thinking and knowledge, I would appreciate any input you might have regarding building a workable spirituality that includes some type of active involvement :~).


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

cattdages said:


> It is far easier to lean on religion than it is to stand without it believe me. I don't understand how you can say you would "rather believe". How do you choose to believe? You can't make yourself believe something.


I agree that believing is not a choice; either belief springs forth or it doesn't. It can also be irreparably destroyed in some of us.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Pat lamb said:


> 37 pages? I think it's time to move on, everyone is entitled to their own opinions as long as it's done without being nasty. After a few pages of the same comments it's ugly


Thank you as I'm going to knit! :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

cattdages said:


> I'm really glad you've been in this discussion with me.


Thank you. I've really enjoyed your contributions, too.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

igott153 said:


> I already decide to boycott Burger King as soon as I learned they were moving to Canada to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. I was already set to boycott Walgreen's because they were moving their corporation to Switzerland but then they decided against it.
> I am boycotting Sears because of patent infringement. There was a U.S. manufacturer of an adjustable wrench. Sears wanted to be the only distributor. Manufacturer agreed. The next year Sears never ordered but instead had the wrench made in China and charged the same price. Manufacturer had to lay off employees until it made the news on channel 7 "Made in America" segment. Manufacturer is suing Sears for patent infringement now.


Plus, it is my understanding that K-Mart filed for Chapter 13 reorganized & bought Sears! I don't shop at either place! I don't believe in Bankruptcy to avoid paying your debts.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Apparently you played a role in this or you wouldn't know about it. What is your point?


No, Joey didn't play a part in the hatefulness of Vocal Lisa & her many names on KP.

This person (Vocal Lisa) has threatened, harassed & has been one of the most vile people ever to post on KP. She doesn't do any crafts but has found this site & continues to post but KP's Admin is on to her & deletes her after she posts & kicks her off KP. She returns under another name.

Why did you say this to Joey anyway as you didn't know the truth about Vocal Lisa until now? What was your point?


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

Nope, not the only one. I am also irresistibly reminded of the final scene in Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to KNow About Sex" where he plays a sperm cell.

His face when he says, "What if it's a homosexual encounter?"



cattdages said:


> An I the only one hearing a Monty Python song in my head?? LOL


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Janeway said:


> No, Joey didn't play a part in the hatefulness of Vocal Lisa & her many names on KP.
> 
> This person (Vocal Lisa) has threatened, harassed & has been one of the most vile people ever to post on KP. She doesn't do any crafts but has found this site & continues to post but KP's Admin is on to her & deletes her after she posts & kicks her off KP. She returns under another name.
> 
> Why did you say this to Joey anyway as you didn't know the truth about Vocal Lisa until now? What was your point?


My point was that it seemed a bit bizarre to make an announcement (victory cry?) in the middle of a thread about someone who apparently was just banned from said thread/forum. Apparently Joey thought that was of greater interest than the subject matter of the thread, and I had to wonder how she would immediately have knowledge of such an event unless she was involved with that event. I'm sure that most of us don't go over user lists to see who may have just disappeared from them. If you think that's usual behavior, your experiences are certainly different from mine.

Additionally, I never really appreciate anyone else playing watchdog over who I do or don't choose to associate with. I've been on my own pretty much since I was nine years old and can handle whatever I need to without interference.

EDIT: You say I didn't know the truth about Lisa until now. I still don't know the truth about Lisa, I only know the truth about what you say about her. I have a lifelong habit of forming my own opinions about people based on my own experience with them regardless of what other people say.


----------



## Shelknit (Oct 31, 2012)

baygirl22657 said:


> They don't oppose birth control, they oppose abortion.


There are many contraceptive they do provide. just not the ones that destroy what has already been conceived.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

SAMkewel said:


> My point was that it seemed a bit bizarre to make an announcement (victory cry?) in the middle of a thread about someone who apparently was just banned from said thread/forum. Apparently Joey thought that was of greater interest than the subject matter of the thread, and I had to wonder how she would immediately have knowledge of such an event unless she was involved with that event. I'm sure that most of us don't go over user lists to see who may have just disappeared from them. If you think that's usual behavior, your experiences are certainly different from mine.
> 
> Additionally, I never really appreciate anyone else playing watchdog over who I do or don't choose to associate with. I've been on my own pretty much since I was nine years old and can handle whatever I need to without interference.
> 
> EDIT: You say I didn't know the truth about Lisa until now. I still don't know the truth about Lisa, I only know the truth about what you say about her. I have a lifelong habit of forming my own opinions about people based on my own experience with them regardless of what other people say.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Plus, it is my understanding that K-Mart filed for Chapter 13 reorganized & bought Sears! I don't shop at either place! I don't believe in Bankruptcy to avoid paying your debts.


Sears Holding Corporation owns Sears and K-Mart.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> Additionally, I never really appreciate anyone else playing watchdog over who I do or don't choose to associate with. I've been on my own pretty much since I was nine years old and can handle whatever I need to without interference.
> 
> EDIT: You say I didn't know the truth about Lisa until now. I still don't know the truth about Lisa, I only know the truth about what you say about her. I have a lifelong habit of forming my own opinions about people based on my own experience with them regardless of what other people say.


Yes! 
:thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

slapshotma said:


> You are correct that copper is toxic to sperm... But continue reading from this article
> How does an intrauterine device (IUD) work?
> 
> It is not fully understood how IUDs work. They are thought to prevent conception by causing a brief localized inflammation that begins about 24 hours after insertion. This causes an inflammatory reaction inside the uterus that attracts white blood cells. The white blood cells produce substances that are toxic or poisonous to sperm. The progesterone-releasing IUDs also cause a subtle change in the endometrial environment that impairs the implantation of the egg in the uterine wall. This type of IUD also alters the cervical mucus, which, in turn, inhibits sperm from passing through the cervix.
> ...


Yes, and Hobby Lobby has chosen to boycott the copper as well as the hormonal. If they truly believe that life begins at conception, this makes no sense. There is no "life" to destroy because the sperm never reaches the egg.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

cattdages said:


> An I the only one hearing a Monty Python song in my head?? LOL


  What went through my mind was a scene from Attwood's _The Handmaiden's Tale_, where an elaborate funeral procession was held for an miscarried embryo in a bottle.

Now militant pro-lifers are prepared to grant expelled fertilized eggs this status... One can only imagine the scene at the funeral home--a microscope with a glass slide placed front and center, and mourners lining up before it to view the "corpse".


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, and Hobby Lobby has chosen to boycott the copper as well as the hormonal. If they truly believe that life begins at conception, this makes no sense. There is no "life" to destroy because the sperm never reaches the egg.


But the little swimmers move, so they must be "alive". And they are the male part, so they must be sacrosanct to those people.


----------



## bevqual (May 9, 2011)

Oddly enough, NO ONE paid for our birth control and we barely had money to make ends meet, but we survived. And there is a TON to be said for someone who stands up for their personal beliefs.

I shop there every chance I get. They also are closed on Sundays to enable their workers to go to Church and to spend time with their families. I love them!


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> It is far easier to lean on religion than it is to stand without it believe me. I don't understand how you can say you would "rather believe". How do you choose to believe? You can't make yourself believe something.


I believe through faith. Your really have to understand the leap of faith or any faith based belief.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> But the little swimmers move, so they must be "alive". And they are the male part, so they must be sacrosanct to those people.


I suppose so. *sigh* Well, I suppose the ultras won't mind forking over the cash to pay for facilities to care for all those sperm with no place to go--or for fostering eggs that have been heartlessly cast out by their biological moms.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

cattdages said:


> And like you, most would judge and persecute me for not believing as they do.


I do not judge or persecute anyone. If you think that my expressing an opinion is judging or persecuting anyone, you couldn't be more wrong.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bevqual said:


> Oddly enough, NO ONE paid for our birth control and we barely had money to make ends meet, but we survived. And there is a TON to be said for someone who stands up for their personal beliefs.
> 
> I shop there every chance I get. They also are closed on Sundays to enable their workers to go to Church and to spend time with their families. I love them!


There is a TON to be said for someone who stands up for their personal beliefs, but does not try to force those beliefs onto others. The key word there is personal.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> My point was that it seemed a bit bizarre to make an announcement (victory cry?) in the middle of a thread about someone who apparently was just banned from said thread/forum. Apparently Joey thought that was of greater interest than the subject matter of the thread, and I had to wonder how she would immediately have knowledge of such an event unless she was involved with that event. I'm sure that most of us don't go over user lists to see who may have just disappeared from them. If you think that's usual behavior, your experiences are certainly different from mine.
> 
> Additionally, I never really appreciate anyone else playing watchdog over who I do or don't choose to associate with. I've been on my own pretty much since I was nine years old and can handle whatever I need to without interference.
> 
> EDIT: You say I didn't know the truth about Lisa until now. I still don't know the truth about Lisa, I only know the truth about what you say about her. I have a lifelong habit of forming my own opinions about people based on my own experience with them regardless of what other people say.


In my opinion, Joey was just informing that person who we have learned to be 
VL, had been removed again by the Admin of KP. It was not a victory cry.

I was trying to inform you that VL has had several names, but we have learned her messages as they are all the same--hateful--then that name is gone even when you search for her under the last name she used. She is not of any importance to me, but why did you think I or Joey was wrong for trying to inform others about VL?

VL told another person that she would be waiting for her at her craft shop on Monday morning so watch out because she wouldn't know her, but she would know her by her Avatar picture! That is why a lot of us do not use our pictures anymore as VL is crazy & could hurt us if she is near where we live. That was the first time she was banned from KP. VL returns under a new name & searches some of us out on KP then she is banned again, again & again!

I don't understand why you bothered to reply about VL as it didn't involve you, but some of us knew who she was & why she had been deleted.

I'm sorry you have been on your own since you were 9 years old. What happened to your parents? You weren't old enough to work & earn enough money to live on your own so please explain this oddity.

You may form your own opinions, but remember I really don't care what you think about me or Joey as we both know VL. End of subject!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janeway said:


> In my opinion, Joey was just informing that person who we have learned to be
> VL, had been removed again by the Admin of KP. It was not a victory cry.
> 
> I was trying to inform you that VL has had several names, but we have learned her messages as they are all the same--hateful--then that name is gone even when you search for her under the last name she used. She is not of any importance to me, but why did you think I or Joey was wrong for trying to inform others about VL?
> ...


Don't know why you think it is such an oddity for a child to be on their own. A child can be living with two parents and basically be on there own, no supervision or guidance, just a place to sleep and eat but having no one really interested in what you do. It happens all the time.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Thank you very much for all of your truthful postings that most others here have their heads in the sand & don't want to know the truth.
> 
> I support HL & shop there & will continue to do so as long as they are open.
> 
> ...


Just because someone has a different opinion than yours does not mean they have warped minds. What an awful thing to say. Yes, what is this population thinking?


----------



## Betsy's World (Mar 21, 2014)

bevqual said:


> Oddly enough, NO ONE paid for our birth control and we barely had money to make ends meet, but we survived. And there is a TON to be said for someone who stands up for their personal beliefs.
> 
> I shop there every chance I get. They also are closed on Sundays to enable their workers to go to Church and to spend time with their families. I love them!


I agree with you completely. :thumbup:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Janeway said:


> In my opinion, Joey was just informing that person who we have learned to be
> VL, had been removed again by the Admin of KP. It was not a victory cry.
> 
> I was trying to inform you that VL has had several names, but we have learned her messages as they are all the same--hateful--then that name is gone even when you search for her under the last name she used. She is not of any importance to me, but why did you think I or Joey was wrong for trying to inform others about VL?
> ...


My question was why Joey would know that "VL" had been shown the door when no one else did. My statement was that it seemed unusual to me that Joey was more interested in announcing the departure under fire of "VL" than in the thread she announced it on. It appears that you and she have a great deal of interest in "VL" in order to constantly know what is going on with her. If you're not interested, why make an announcement about it? Or pay any attention to her whatsoever? And why tell everyone how "evil" you think she is? All of that behavior doesn't fit with your disclaimers about your interest in her situation, whatever that may be. Once again you have just registered complaints against her, which doesn't fit with the rest of your story, which seems to bounce around like a rubber ball. If you post statements about someone who is active on the same thread I'm active on, why doesn't it involve me and what's wrong with my responding to it? On the other hand, if it doesn't involve me, why post it on a public forum? I'm almost dizzy from answering your questions.

My parents were mentally ill; my father, although living in the same house, turned over the care and responsibility of my mother and the household to me when I was nine. He earned the living and the townspeople were under the impression that we were wealthy, but they did not watch my mother begging, pleading and crying to get money for shoes for me and my older brother, whose favorite activity was beating up on me for no apparent reason other than that he could because no one was paying any attention. I therefore decided that since there was no adult in that household, I would do as requested until I graduated from high school, which I did and left at 17. I guess that about covers it. It may have been an oddity, but I'd guess it happens more often than you might think. I got that idea from working as an ADC, Medicaid, Food Stamp caseworker for the State of Michigan, a Crisis Telephone Worker for the Mental Health Department, a Stephen Minister in my former church, etc.

One final question for you. If you don't care what I think of you and Joey, or "VL," and I don't really know any of you, why did you take the time to ask all these questions?

My suggestion to you would be, if you truly believe someone is dangerous, to call the authorities and let them handle it instead of playing games with her. Obviously, I have never had my picture in an avatar, or had an avatar of any kind. That way I don't invite more problems than I want to handle. You need to remember that you are on a worldwide forum, of course there are dangers out there.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> You need to remember that you are on a worldwide forum, of course there are dangers out there.


I guess even a worldwide forum can be a spiteful gossipy small town.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> What went through my mind was a scene from Attwood's _The Handmaiden's Tale_, where an elaborate funeral procession was held for an miscarried embryo in a bottle.
> 
> Now militant pro-lifers are prepared to grant expelled fertilized eggs this status... One can only imagine the scene at the funeral home--a microscope with a glass slide placed front and center, and mourners lining up before it to view the "corpse".


 :XD: Ah, the wonders of the FERTILE mind!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> My question was why Joey would know that "VL" had been shown the door when no one else did. My statement was that it seemed unusual to me that Joey was more interested in announcing the departure under fire of "VL" than in the thread she announced it on. It appears that you and she have a great deal of interest in "VL" in order to constantly know what is going on with her. If you're not interested, why make an announcement about it? Or pay any attention to her whatsoever? And why tell everyone how "evil" you think she is? All of that behavior doesn't fit with your disclaimers about your interest in her situation, whatever that may be. Once again you have just registered complaints against her, which doesn't fit with the rest of your story, which seems to bounce around like a rubber ball. If you post statements about someone who is active on the same thread I'm active on, why doesn't it involve me and what's wrong with my responding to it? On the other hand, if it doesn't involve me, why post it on a public forum? I'm almost dizzy from answering your questions.
> 
> My parents were mentally ill; my father, although living in the same house, turned over the care and responsibility of my mother and the household to me when I was nine. He earned the living and the townspeople were under the impression that we were wealthy, but they did not watch my mother begging, pleading and crying to get money for shoes for me and my older brother, whose favorite activity was beating up on me for no apparent reason other than that he could because no one was paying any attention. I therefore decided that since there was no adult in that household, I would do as requested until I graduated from high school, which I did and left at 17. I guess that about covers it. It may have been an oddity, but I'd guess it happens more often than you might think. I got that idea from working as an ADC, Medicaid, Food Stamp caseworker for the State of Michigan, a Crisis Telephone Worker for the Mental Health Department, a Stephen Minister in my former church, etc.
> 
> ...


I'm going go ignore everything in your post except I'm truly you had such a difficult time while you were growing into manhood!

Why don't we become better acquainted by posting some of your crafts? I knit/crochet for our local breast cancer center.

I was informed the last time I delivered shawls that they wanted a pretty blue one as they had a male who was taking chemo because of breast cancer so men do have this horrible disease.

My sister had BC but so far is cancer free after 10 years ago of being diagnosed! Yea, yea!


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Janeway said:


> I'm going go ignore everything in your post except I'm truly you had such a difficult time while you were growing into manhood!
> 
> Why don't we become better acquainted by posting some of your crafts? I knit/crochet for our local breast cancer center.
> 
> ...


I hate to burst your bubble, but I will never grow into manhood. I am woman, hear me roar! SAM happens to be my initials, not my name.....


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

NJG said:


> Just because someone has a different opinion than yours does not mean they have warped minds. What an awful thing to say. Yes, what is this population thinking?


Couldn't be referring to the warped minds or warped ideas of those who think everybody should think the way they think?

Those of us who think for ourselves and don't walk unthinkingly in lockstep with self proclaimed gurus have the clear minds. After all, one person's truth may be somebody else's fairy tale - or horror story.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> My question was why Joey would know that "VL" had been shown the door when no one else did. My statement was that it seemed unusual to me that Joey was more interested in announcing the departure under fire of "VL" than in the thread she announced it on. It appears that you and she have a great deal of interest in "VL" in order to constantly know what is going on with her. If you're not interested, why make an announcement about it? Or pay any attention to her whatsoever? And why tell everyone how "evil" you think she is? All of that behavior doesn't fit with your disclaimers about your interest in her situation, whatever that may be. Once again you have just registered complaints against her, which doesn't fit with the rest of your story, which seems to bounce around like a rubber ball. If you post statements about someone who is active on the same thread I'm active on, why doesn't it involve me and what's wrong with my responding to it? On the other hand, if it doesn't involve me, why post it on a public forum? I'm almost dizzy from answering your questions.
> 
> My parents were mentally ill; my father, although living in the same house, turned over the care and responsibility of my mother and the household to me when I was nine. He earned the living and the townspeople were under the impression that we were wealthy, but they did not watch my mother begging, pleading and crying to get money for shoes for me and my older brother, whose favorite activity was beating up on me for no apparent reason other than that he could because no one was paying any attention. I therefore decided that since there was no adult in that household, I would do as requested until I graduated from high school, which I did and left at 17. I guess that about covers it. It may have been an oddity, but I'd guess it happens more often than you might think. I got that idea from working as an ADC, Medicaid, Food Stamp caseworker for the State of Michigan, a Crisis Telephone Worker for the Mental Health Department, a Stephen Minister in my former church, etc.
> 
> ...


I was a teacher for several years, and I met a number of emancipated children who believed they would fare better on their own than in homes where parents were alcoholics, drug addicts, or abusers. Fortunately for a few of them they had friends whose parents looked out for them and helped them get the legal aspects straightened out, helped them stay in school, and were true friends. The community was small enough that "the village" was there for children who needed support.


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

Evie RM said:


> If a person needs a blood transfusion, then it is because they are in a life threatening situation without it. That is not the same thing as having an abortion. Jehovah's Witnesses should have to pay for insurance to cover blood transfusions. But, if they believed that abortion is wrong, they should not have to pay for a person's preference to abort a pregnancy.


According to you a company may pick and choose what they wish to cover. By the way you should read the supreme court decision before you state what should and should not be covered and why.


----------



## onegrannygoose (May 13, 2011)

slapshotma said:


> these are the BC methods Hobby Lobby Includes
> Male condoms
> Female condoms
> Diaphragms with spermicide
> ...


So whats your point?


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> I was a teacher for several years, and I met a number of emancipated children who believed they would fare better on their own than in homes where parents were alcoholics, drug addicts, or abusers. Fortunately for a few of them they had friends whose parents looked out for them and helped them get the legal aspects straightened out, helped them stay in school, and were true friends. The community was small enough that "the village" was there for children who needed support.


I'm sure that as a teacher, you've seen it many times. While I grew up in a very small town, my father was a dentist and no one would have believed what went on behind closed doors. My brother and I were under strict orders NEVER to tell anyone what went on at home. I used to daydream occasionally about my mother actually getting a divorce so I could go into foster care like one of my friends in school; while I was aware that her situation was problematical, it was better than mine where I was the youngest and the other three family members were all abusive. The townspeople preferred to believe what they were comfortable with rather than look too closely. My brother managed to spend considerable time away from home with older friends; his behavior was that of an outrageously spoiled brat due to his favored status by my mother, whereas I was painfully shy and frightened. I was not allowed to have friends outside of school and was severely warned about staying away from other people, especially teachers and others with whom I had regular contact in spite of the ban on relationships. I think my parents were afraid someone might become suspicious. It caused me to decide very early in life to be as different from my family as possible in every way, and I've never changed my mind about that :~). Needless to say, I'm not fond of small towns; I left home at 17 and moved to the LA area with my new husband where there were lots and lots of people.

I do have experience with emancipation of minors in that I had a (youngest) stepdaughter who was incapable of accepting authority at home, or anywhere, really, and who wanted to live in a foster home after entering the mental health system. Sadly she never learned to take care of her health and died in her early 30's of type 1 diabetes, but had deserted her own child and gone through two husbands by then. I think she was driven by her need to gain her father's attention, but he wasn't interested. As I said, sad story.


----------



## Evie RM (Sep 19, 2012)

onegrannygoose said:


> According to you a company may pick and choose what they wish to cover. By the way you should read the supreme court decision before you state what should and should not be covered and why.


You were the one who asked the question. I just answered it.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> cattdages told KPG she didn't know. I explained how she knew. When the same nasty comments are posted, after your post, periodically with a new name that disappears within minutes or hours. You know it is a troll.


I think you're beating a dead horse to death.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

SAMkewel said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but I will never grow into manhood. I am woman, hear me roar! SAM happens to be my initials, not my name.....


I hear your roar!!!! You go girl, you seem an amazing person despite the your rough childhood. You have matured into a fine woman.

:thumbup:


----------



## Betsy's World (Mar 21, 2014)

WHAT IS A TROLL?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

SAMkewel said:


> I hate to burst your bubble, but I will never grow into manhood. I am woman, hear me roar! SAM happens to be my initials, not my name.....


Please excuse me as I assumed you were a man by the name--I'm sorry.


----------



## Betsy's World (Mar 21, 2014)

joeysomma said:


> In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,(1) by posting inflammatory,(2)extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response(3) or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


Thank you for the explanation. Something else to be aware of on the internet.
:thumbdown:


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> I hear your roar!!!! You go girl, you seem an amazing person despite the your rough childhood. You have matured into a fine woman.
> 
> :thumbup:


Thank you; at nearly 76 I could do with a little less maturity :~).


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,(1) by posting inflammatory,(2)extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response(3) or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


Going by this definition, I'd say that there are times when we have great infestations.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

mmorris said:


> My sympathy is with the employees. They're the true loser! :thumbdown:


Yet these employees don't seem to be complaining. All the complaining seems to be by those that don't work at HL or don't wish to shop there. Interesting.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Yet these employees don't seem to be complaining. All the complaining seems to be by those that don't work at HL or don't wish to shop there. Interesting.


If the economy in your area is such that jobs are hard to come by, you tend to keep your mouth shut and your resume out.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

oops. nevermind. I goofed.


----------



## SAMkewel (Mar 5, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> If the economy in your area is such that jobs are hard to come by, you tend to keep your mouth shut and your resume out.


That's a fact. And the economy is that way in many areas.


----------



## leeannj (Aug 9, 2011)

And so strange when the company invests in contraceptive drugs.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Yet these employees don't seem to be complaining. All the complaining seems to be by those that don't work at HL or don't wish to shop there. Interesting.


I wonder if you know any HL employees. I know one and she was told by a manager to never discuss the issue with anyone or "suffer the consequences" which she rightly took as a threat to her job.


----------



## ThorPepper (Jan 24, 2012)

Don't know if anyone posted this info. There are 16 out of 20 types of birth control that Hobby Lobby DOES cover. The 4 forms of abortion are what they won't cover.


----------



## slapshotma (Sep 14, 2011)

leeannj said:


> And so strange when the company invests in contraceptive drugs.


Because they are not opposed to contraception. They provide contraception for their employees...just not those that prevent implantation!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Cindy S said:


> I wonder if you know any HL employees. I know one and she was told by a manager to never discuss the issue with anyone or "suffer the consequences" which she rightly took as a threat to her job.


More fool her for working in a place with a manager that threatens its employees and allows it to happen. Only she can decide not to be threatened.


----------



## Shelknit (Oct 31, 2012)

bevqual said:


> Oddly enough, NO ONE paid for our birth control and we barely had money to make ends meet, but we survived. And there is a TON to be said for someone who stands up for their personal beliefs.
> 
> I shop there every chance I get. They also are closed on Sundays to enable their workers to go to Church and to spend time with their families. I love them!


Here, here!!!! I support them also. Well said.


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

Eos632 said:


> I agree. No Hobby Lobby for me. I feel sorry for women that must work there.


they dont have to work there they can get job somewhere else


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

Sedona said:


> I agree. Why should Hobby Lobby be expected to respect someone's choice but the other side NOT be expected to respect Hobby Lobby's choice?


amen to that one


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> So the company has rights, but what about the employees? Do they loose their rights because they work there. I know, the same old line is "work someplace else," but jobs are not that easy to find and they shouldn't have to change jobs. President Obama is trying to fix it, but how much you want to bet, the republicans in congress won't allow it. That is their job you know---obstruct.


well if this isnt the pot calling the kettle black, so H/L should change there way of thinking because people have to work, then people need to work else where, they no about H/L stance on this situation,


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have the opposite belief. I went out of my way to drive to a Hobby Lobby to shop and spend money to support them as the lawsuit involving them was argued in front of the Supreme Court.
> 
> I believe every privately owned company like HL should have the right to their own beliefs and business practices without government interference. The SCOTUS decided as I do.
> 
> ...


me to!!!


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> Part of the issue is the income inequality that is very very evident in this country and those on the right who believe it is a simple matter to just go buy them yourself. Every privately owned company does have the right to their own beliefs, but they should not have the right to influence their employees beliefs. Hobby Lobby is even trying to get a mandatory public school bible curriculum into schools in Oklahoma. It would start as a elective course and then because they have the help of the supreme court, push to make it mandatory and push it all across the country. Now it has been postponed because of the backlash, but don't worry. Backed by the SCOTUS, there is no telling what they will do.


Good for H/L when prayer and bibles were taken out of the schools is when trouble happened. I believe in H/L and what they stand for


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> Good for H/L when prayer and bibles were taken out of the schools is when trouble happened. I believe in H/L and what they stand for


 :thumbup:


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> Because Hobby Lobby if forcing "their" choice onto their employees. Hobby Lobby can choose not to use these pills and IUD's. That is their personal choice.


H/L is not forcing their employees to do what they dont want to do, these people chose to work their. H/L was founded on the bible and God and Mr. Green believes his company flourished because of this.
Now some people that are getting pregnant and want to have an abortion and now they want H/L to pay for their mistake. well they should keep there pants or put a cork in it


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> I believe you missed the point entirely, and yes you are very amusing. I always get a good laugh after you post something, as you try to sound as intelligent, as you have told me that you are, but you just don't quite pull it off. Those who brag about how intelligent they are, usually aren't. No you don't speak to what was mentioned. You always speak to what your interpretation, of what was mentioned, and 99% of the time you are off the mark.


NJG, ur doing the same, u need to get off this pedestal u put urself on and get out of this forum


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> H/L is not forcing their employees to do what they dont want to do, these people chose to work their. H/L was founded on the bible and God and Mr. Green believes his company flourished because of this.
> Now some people that are getting pregnant and want to have an abortion and now they want H/L to pay for their mistake. well they should keep there pants or put a cork in it


Interesting imagery there, Crafty!

But the argument that employers can treat their employees any way they please because "no one is forced to work there" cuts no mustard. It's the same line used by mill, factory, and sweatshop owners in the 19th and early 20th century to justify that horrendous working conditions that existed in said establishments--children working 12, 14, and 16 hour shifts, stray fingers and hands getting caught in the machinery, and wages at starvation level. In 21st century America we accept the fact that business owners have to abide by regulations set by the government in regards to working conditions and wages, and society benefits.


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

me to, i think thats half the problem in this country,


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

me to, i think thats half the problem in this country,


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting imagery there, Crafty!
> 
> But the argument that employers can treat their employees any way they please because "no one is forced to work there" cuts no mustard. It's the same line used by mill, factory, and sweatshop owners in the 19th and early 20th century to justify that horrendous working conditions that existed in said establishments--children working 12, 14, and 16 hour shifts, stray fingers and hands getting caught in the machinery, and wages at starvation level. In 21st century America we accept the fact that business owners have to abide by regulations set by the government in regards to working conditions and wages, and society benefits.


It is the Law . So it is over. Supreme Court ruled. The end.


----------



## craftymatt2 (Sep 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Yet these employees don't seem to be complaining. All the complaining seems to be by those that don't work at HL or don't wish to shop there. Interesting.


i so agree


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> It is the Law . So it is over. Supreme Court ruled. The end.


For now, yes--but the same tired argument is still being trotted out that employers should be allowed to do as they please "because no one is forced to work for them". And the response is always the same: just look back into our own history to remember how very bad working conditions were without any government regulation.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> For now, yes--but the same tired argument is still being trotted out that employers should be allowed to do as they please "because no one is forced to work for them". And the response is always the same: just look back into our own history to remember how very bad working conditions were without any government regulation.[/quote
> 
> Now is all that matters. Supreme court is going by the law.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> NJG, ur doing the same, u need to get off this pedestal u put urself on and get out of this forum


Don't pay any attention go NJG as she feels superior to everyone, but she is the one who doesn't measure up as she loves to "impose" her beliefs on everyone. I know her from years back & she lives to argue!

You are allowed to your opinion & voice it so carry on dear lady!


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> For now, yes--but the same tired argument is still being trotted out that employers should be allowed to do as they please "because no one is forced to work for them". And the response is always the same: just look back into our own history to remember how very bad working conditions were without any government regulation.





Country Bumpkins said:


> Now is all that matters. Supreme court is going by the law.


This from a Conservative no less:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/how-the-hobby-lobby-decision-threatens-conservative-values/


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

Janeway said:


> Don't pay any attention go NJG as she feels superior to everyone, but she is the one who doesn't measure up as she loves to "impose" her beliefs on everyone. I know her from years back & she lives to argue!
> 
> You are allowed to your opinion & voice it so carry on dear lady!


Why bother posting then? Your post makes no sense. First you say NJG imposes her beliefs on everyone and then you say she is allowed her opinion.

You're just a spiteful and irritating individual. Plain and simple.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> well if this isnt the pot calling the kettle black, so H/L should change there way of thinking because people have to work, then people need to work else where, they no about H/L stance on this situation,


HL doesn't have to change their way of thinking. They can think whatever they want. If they don't like certain methods of birth control, then they shouldn't use them, But don't make it harder for their employees to make the same choices. You say people don't have to work there. Right and HL doesn't have to take those contraceptives. That is their choice. Their employees should be able to make the choice for themselves.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> Good for H/L when prayer and bibles were taken out of the schools is when trouble happened. I believe in H/L and what they stand for


Separation of church and state is the law of the land. If you want to believe that when prayer and bibles were taken out of the schools is when trouble happened, believe it, but it is just your opinion and not everyone believes that. You and HL do not have the right to force your beliefs on to anyone else. What if the governor of Arkansas decided Arkansas would become a state of Muslim faith? Do you think you would have the right to go against the muslim faith.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> H/L is not forcing their employees to do what they dont want to do, these people chose to work their. H/L was founded on the bible and God and Mr. Green believes his company flourished because of this.
> Now some people that are getting pregnant and want to have an abortion and now they want H/L to pay for their mistake. well they should keep there pants or put a cork in it


Just because someone works at a certain place, doesn't mean they loose their rights.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> "Separation of church and state is the law of the land."
> 
> Where did you find this law? I have never seen it. Please provide a website!


There is no such thing. It is made up.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> NJG, ur doing the same, u need to get off this pedestal u put urself on and get out of this forum


I have just as much of a right to be on this forum as you do, so don't tell me to get out of this forum.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Don't pay any attention go NJG as she feels superior to everyone, but she is the one who doesn't measure up as she loves to "impose" her beliefs on everyone. I know her from years back & she lives to argue!
> 
> You are allowed to your opinion & voice it so carry on dear lady!


Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but should not be able to impose them onto anyone else. You know nothing about me. You think that you know other people, just from posting on a forum like this. You need to get a life.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I am horrified by some of the comments on this site. Horrified because of the total lack of knowledge of history. Horrified because of the total lack of knowledge of what it means to live in a pluralistic and secular society. Horrified by the same old efforts to censor people who don't believe in a fundamentalist, right wing christian theocracy. And horrified at the total ignorance on all the benefits these theocratic people have derived from decades of work by the very kind of people they constantly attack with bigoted self-righteousness.

"Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fouteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion." from http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/separation-of-church-and-state/

What this means is the State cannot support any religion over any other. The State cannot establish a State religion. The corollary of this is that no religion has the right to impose itself on others who may not share the same beliefs.

It seems to me that the joeysomas should live in a theocracy for a couple of years. See what the impact of fundamentalist thinking is really about. Let's see, for starters, most of you are women. How about losing your vote. And then let's see how you will pay for all that once free education which will be no more. And given the corporatism of HL and its ilk, let's see how you will be able to afford even modest housing as these corporations will be able to do as they will and reduce wages to below minimum wage. Walmart has virtually enslaved its workers forcing them to work overtime without pay. And if food quality and quantity weren't bad enough for many already, let's see how people will fare when corporations eliminate even the minimum health requirements in the industry. Of course, all of you who live on social security will not have that pittance any more and since social services would be eliminated by these oligarchs, so how will you like your park bench for a bed?

The organized church has always interfered with people's life. It has never been known to offer high pay with decent benefits. It's work conditions are often abominable. During the early 18c when factories were being developed in the north, it was the church that took control of the shop girls, keeping them locked up at night while they were locked in during the day. The church never raised an eyebrow over this enslavement and quite actively supported it until it became too expensive. It educated the girls only so they could read a bible and today the concept is to limit educational information in public and private schools and colleges. So the church's history is not star studded in its efforts to support democratic freedoms. Lter on it was very few religious sects that even supported manumission of enslaved Africans or woman's right to vote. We know about the church's cruel and brutal repression of Native Americans.

I have heard crap in my life but these comments take the cake.

And how often does it need to be noted that HL is part of the forefront of a collective agenda to turn this country into a theocracy. This is not supposition but clear statements from HL and their cronies. But Goebels was not the only one to tell the big lie over and over until it is believed by people who never bother to do their own research or think thru the consequences of what they get preached.

Organized religion has ALWAYS been about dumbing down the public and mass social manipulation. If some people prefer their ignorance from a priest, so be it, but it needs to be kept within that church and not be imposed on others. That is part of what it means to live in a free society. Live your personal life according to whatever standards you chose, but don't dump that ignorance on me or others.

Reading these posts really challenges my efforts to be tolerant of different opinions; so much self-righteousness and judgementalism under the guise of being fair.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

tamarque said:


> I am horrified by some of the comments on this site. Horrified because of the total lack of knowledge of history. Horrified because of the total lack of knowledge of what it means to live in a pluralistic and secular society. Horrified by the same old efforts to censor people who don't believe in a fundamentalist, right wing christian theocracy. And horrified at the total ignorance on all the benefits these theocratic people have derived from decades of work by the very kind of people they constantly attack with bigoted self-righteousness.
> 
> "Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fouteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion." from http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/separation-of-church-and-state/
> 
> ...


Awesome response.


----------



## Betsy's World (Mar 21, 2014)

Re: Tamarque comments: Very well said.
What we need is a nation of thinkers, not reactors, or "feelers".


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> tamarque-- What is the Law???? There is none. The First Amendment states:
> 
> _Congress shall make* no law* respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> ...


Seems like someone else is carrying the load of crap. It is not you nor I. :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> HL doesn't have to change their way of thinking. They can think whatever they want. If they don't like certain methods of birth control, then they shouldn't use them, But don't make it harder for their employees to make the same choices. You say people don't have to work there. Right and HL doesn't have to take those contraceptives. That is their choice. Their employees should be able to make the choice for themselves.


HL isn't making it harder for their employees to make the same choices. They are just saying make the choice, but pay for it yourself. HL is not prohibiting any employee from using any of those 4 methods of birth control.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Just because someone works at a certain place, doesn't mean they loose their rights.


HL employees are not losing any of their rights. No one is saying they can't have an abortion or use a certain BC method. Having to pay for something yourself does not mean you are losing any of your rights.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> For now, yes--but the same tired argument is still being trotted out that employers should be allowed to do as they please "because no one is forced to work for them". And the response is always the same: just look back into our own history to remember how very bad working conditions were without any government regulation.


Just because HL is against certain BC methods, you are equating their working conditions to that of the beginning of the last century? They follow the regulations of each state they have stores in, they aren't mistreating their employees. So they don't want to offer certain methods of birth control, if that's all that is wrong with HL, then they seem to be a good company to work for. Other businesses have a long list of complaints and don't receive any of this negative attention.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

tamarque said:


> I am horrified by some of the comments on this site. Horrified because of the total lack of knowledge of history. Horrified because of the total lack of knowledge of what it means to live in a pluralistic and secular society. Horrified by the same old efforts to censor people who don't believe in a fundamentalist, right wing christian theocracy. And horrified at the total ignorance on all the benefits these theocratic people have derived from decades of work by the very kind of people they constantly attack with bigoted self-righteousness.
> 
> "Separation of church and state is a concept based in the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause was extended to apply to the states through the Fouteenth Amendment, and prohibits laws dealing with the establishment of religion. Neither the state or federal government may enact laws which aid one or all religions, or give a preference to one religion over another. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion." from http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/separation-of-church-and-state/
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts wrote:


I believe every privately owned company like HL should have the right to their own beliefs and business practices without government interference. The SCOTUS decided as I do.


Companies have the right to believe what they want, but they don't have the right to foist those beliefs on others. They don't have the right to use any business practices they want. There are laws and regulations about how corporations conduct their businesses. Whether you are pro- or anti- abortion doesn't matter. It is legal in this country. If HL decided to force women to not get pregnant while being employed there, is that OK? Is it OK for them to hire only women under 40? Must you be blond to work there? Catholic? Jewish? The owners can believe what they want, but they don't have the right to meddle in their employees' beliefs and rights.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

slapshotma said:


> Because they are not opposed to contraception. They provide contraception for their employees...just not those that prevent implantation!


Just a bit of clarification, they invest in companies that produce the very products they oppose as well as companies that manufacture their approved type of BC.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> More fool her for working in a place with a manager that threatens its employees and allows it to happen. Only she can decide not to be threatened.


Did you consider this might be a corporate policy that spans all their stores? I don't know if it is, but it would not surprise me one little bit. At what point do you think a corporation can infringe on someone's right to freedom of speech?


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Joeysomma--I think you are an obstructionist on purpose. You are like the GOP that can't abide a president of color and so declared, in public, that they would do everything to destroy his presidency. Just plain nasty and self-serving and dangerous.

What it says in the Constitution is THE law. Now stop your inanity.


----------



## quirkycrafter (Jul 9, 2013)

So if everyone has the right to their own opinion as there are no right or wrong answers with an opinion, then why is everyone getting so heated and upset? Not everyone is going to agree and that's fine, I get that. 

It feels to me that there is so much more out there than we are aware of and even then, there is always some side of it we don't know about. I'm not looking to start a fight as that's already been established. I'm just saying and that's fine to disagree. 

As far as politics, usually too much time spent arguing back and forth and nitpicking that nothing really gets settled, which is why I don't get involved. If I don't agree with or have a problem with something, I'm not part of it. Again, I'm just saying and not here to judge.


----------



## Joan Thelma (Nov 18, 2011)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I feel the same way and there is a Hobby Lobby here in our area but I don't agree with their legal action against providing Birth Control coverage under their Health Insurance coverage they are providing their employees.

While I am far beyond having to worry about Birth Control, I am a supporter of the Right to Choose for females of birth control age.

IMO - it is NOT the right for ANY employer to force his beliefs based on his religion on to others including his employees. Women have fought hard and many, many years to earn the right to choose weather or not to practice Birth Control and no man or Goverment or employer should dictate their beliefs on the choice they make.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Did you read the article before you posted It? There are some big flaws in his reasoning. The Supreme Court ruling was a new law. Hobby Lobby sued before the NEW law took effect. In every similar case the law was put on hold so the case can go through the court system. There are many other cases to be decided.
> 
> As far as the other laws mentioned in the article, they are established, and have been for many years. Each of these mentioned, would force the employee to do something they had never done before.
> 
> ...


There you stated part of the issue causing dissension. "The Supreme Court ruling was a new law". It is the job of the Senate and the Legislature to make laws. The Supremes job is to interpret the laws not to make them. That is part of the checks and balances the Founding Fathers set up.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The First Amendment says Congress can pass NO LAW.... I prefer the legal definition of words when in a legal type conversation.
> 
> If you think what is in the Constitution is the Law, we would not need any lawyers. And the Hobby Lobby Case would not have happened. If Obama is as good a Constitutional Professor as he claims to be, Hobby Lobby would never have been in a situation where they would need to sue. He, Obama, would have granted them an exemption based on the first amendment. As that guarantees the freedom to practice their religion the way they choose.
> 
> ...


You are going to keep on beating your same old drum ad nauseum no matter what the Constitution says, no matter what the Amendments to the Constitution say, no matter what laws the legislature passes. Believe whatever nonsense you want to but don't think any of us with a brain in our heads will line up and go kumbayah to you.

According to http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment (and Cornell University Law School is a respected institution without as biased an agenda as the sources you cite:

"The Constitution says first amendment: an overview

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion."

In simple terms, nobody has the right to shove their religious beliefs down anybody else's throats. Believe what you want. And I will believe what I want, and you cannot tell me what to believe if I don't choose to do so. As long as neither of us practices a faith that causes damage to someone else, we are acting within the law. So, no dropping virgins down volcanoes to appease the gods that control earthquakes.

As an example, Muslims and Jews do not eat pork. It is prohibited by their faith. I observe the Jewish dietary laws. If you were to try to force me to eat a ham sandwich, you would be violating my Constitutional right safeguarding my freedom to practice my personal religion, and thereby you would be breaking the law.

And as an aside to the people who tell those of us who disagree with them to get off the forum, (and Joey, I do not think you are one of those), if you don't like what other people say, too bad. We each have the same right to express an opinion. If I think your opinion is without merit, I can say so. I try to say so politely and I try to spell things so people can understand what I am saying and I try to use grammar to give structure to what I say. I have a tendency toward run on sentences, but that is my writing style and I have a right to do so as well.

There are a number of people whose opinions I disagree with vehemently. But if they want to look like fools in my eyes, that is their privilege. Fortunately, we are all anonymous, so if I happen to be your neighbor and know you personally in another context, I don't know that you are a fool. And that is the way I want to keep it. I am sure I interact with a number of people in daily life with whom I would disagree on basic precepts. But we stay cordial and pleasant in a superficial way. That is called being civil.

I hope some of the people who are rude and nasty know how to stay civil to the people with whom they interact in daily life or else they must be very lonely souls.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

MarilynKnits--I came across the same information which I posted couple of pages back I think. However, those who support this country becoming a theocracy will never take in this information as it threatens their paradigm. I think these people also don't believe there are many raised in various christian denominations who don't agree with them either. The idea that people will favor theocratic law making and the forcing of religious dogma on others never seems to strike them as anti-democratic or a serious trespass on the freedom of choices that we are guaranteed.

This argument has been raging for 53 pages with no mutual understandings reached. The fact that HL did not start this lawsuit by themselves and the fact that it was done as part of a nefarious strategy to create theocratic rule in the country does not disturb these people. They revel in this idea without any notion of its problems for them or others.


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

53 pages? My God put it to rest, no one is going to change what they believe and I'm sick of deleting the comments


----------



## Joan Thelma (Nov 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Hobby Lobby does provide contraceptive Birth Control, not abortifacient.


Do they also contribute to the cost of the Birth Control contraceptive -or- does the employee have to pay for the entire prescription out of her own pocket (which many can not afford to do)?


----------



## Joan Thelma (Nov 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The birth control contraceptive is part of the insurance plan. I have not seen a statement saying the employee has a copay. The mandate says there is no copay, and that has not been a part of the argument.


Thank you for the updated educational lesson.

I have to admit that I am not an avid reader of political backroom dealings. I also have my own Insurance Coverage and did not have to use any of the Obamacare policies, nor did I take the time to read all 53 pages for this topic.

Thanks again - have a nice day.


----------



## KnitGma (Apr 10, 2013)

Pat lamb said:


> 53 pages? My God put it to rest, no one is going to change what they believe and I'm sick of deleting the comments


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

tamarque said:


> MarilynKnits--I came across the same information which I posted couple of pages back I think. However, those who support this country becoming a theocracy will never take in this information as it threatens their paradigm. I think these people also don't believe there are many raised in various christian denominations who don't agree with them either. The idea that people will favor theocratic law making and the forcing of religious dogma on others never seems to strike them as anti-democratic or a serious trespass on the freedom of choices that we are guaranteed.
> 
> This argument has been raging for 53 pages with no mutual understandings reached. The fact that HL did not start this lawsuit by themselves and the fact that it was done as part of a nefarious strategy to create theocratic rule in the country does not disturb these people. They revel in this idea without any notion of its problems for them or others.


I wonder, would this even be going on if President Obama had been a white republican. I'll bet those on the right would be kissing his feet.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> See the highlighted paragraph. Why does the government have the right to tell Hobby Lobby's owners their religious belief is of no consequence? Their belief in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." when they believe that the abortifacient *may* cause an abortion. They just do not want to pay for something that *could* cause the death of an innocent child that has not had a chance at life.


So then why aren't those on the right as concerned about the child after it is born?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Pat lamb said:


> 53 pages? My God put it to rest, no one is going to change what they believe and I'm sick of deleting the comments


Mark it as unwatch and you won't get comments anymore.


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

NJG said:


> Mark it as unwatch and you won't get comments anymore.


Thank you for your help. I will do that


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I omitted a word that changes the meaning of what I wrote.
> 
> The Supreme Court ruling was * on * a new law


Thank you for the clarification.

I still think the Supremes have been overstepping their boundaries in the way they interpret what the Founding Fathers said in some instances, and I still think they let their personal dogmas drive their decisions.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> See the highlighted paragraph. Why does the government have the right to tell Hobby Lobby's owners their religious belief is of no consequence? Their belief in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." when they believe that the abortifacient *may* cause an abortion. They just do not want to pay for something that *could* cause the death of an innocent child that has not had a chance at life.


The owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their beliefs. It is when they impose their beliefs on people who do not share those beliefs that they are interfering with others practicing their freedom of religion.

I know a couple of your friends will continue to say people are not forced to work for Hobby Lobby. In today's economy many people are working at jobs they hate because they have to put food on their tables. They are subtly (or not so subtly) coerced and intimidated by their employers to march in lockstep - or forfeit their jobs. They would probably be terminated "for cause" and denied the pittance unemployment insurance provides if the employers considered them "troublemakers".

Most of us are old and retired. Those of us who worked were in our prime at a time when there were plenty of jobs and we had greater choices of where to work. We do not realize how dreadful the employment situation is today. By the time the middle class is squeezed out most of us will no longer be walking the Earth. Many of our children and grandchildren will not be as affluent as we have been.

Employers will have the workers in a situation where they have to compromise their beliefs to keep jobs. That is not the sort of freedom we grew up with. It is an aspect of sharia type law. It subverts the sort of nation our founders envisioned. It subverts the sort of nation many of our grandparents and great grandparents fled to and more resembles some of the oligarchies and theocracies they fled from to come here.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Has anyone been following the story of Market Basket? This is how corporations use to treat their employees. I wonder how many of the corporations today would get this type of response from its employees. I wonder if Hobby Lobby would get this response?

http://www.businessinsider.com/beloved-market-basket-ceo-is-reinstated-2014-8


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

NJG said:


> Has anyone been following the story of Market Basket? This is how corporations use to treat their employees. I wonder how many of the corporations today would get this type of response from its employees. I wonder if Hobby Lobby would get this response?
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/beloved-market-basket-ceo-is-reinstated-2014-8


A number of years ago Malden Mills, the original manufacturer of Polartec fleece, also showed exemplary character. After a fire the owner stayed in Lawrence, Massachusetts and rebuilt the factory. In the interval when the business was closed he paid his employees. Unfortunately the company had to declare bankruptcy but the owner did not take the insurance money and run. His priority was to protect his employees.

These two CEOs who walked the high road made the news because they are the exception rather than the rule. What a misfortune that more businesses have not used them as role models.


----------



## Ginny75 (Aug 27, 2014)

What a nice story about the Market Basket CEO. I am glad to know that there is at least one company head who can create that kind of environment. I was recently surprised to learn that some companies have a V.P. of Human Capital Management. I worked in Human Resource management for 20 years and am downhearted to think that now they are considered human capital. Yuck!


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> When are *YOU* going to understand they are not imposing their beliefs on anyone.
> 
> You said: *"The owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their beliefs."* If they are entitled to their beliefs let them choose to not pay for an abortion in any way shape or form. Since it is their belief that the 4 methods *may not will* cause an abortion.
> 
> Their employees are still free to choose any birth control including abortifacient without any interference from Hobby Lobby, but then they are responsible for their choice, like paying for it.


Joey, you and I will never agree, so there is no sense in going around in circles. I am sure you will want to have the last word, so be my guest. That does not mean that you win. It is just that I know we will never agree and I don't want to waste any more keystrokes.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> When are *YOU* going to understand they are not imposing their beliefs on anyone.
> 
> You said: *"The owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their beliefs."* If they are entitled to their beliefs let them choose to not pay for an abortion in any way shape or form. Since it is their belief that the 4 methods *may not will* cause an abortion.
> 
> Their employees are still free to choose any birth control including abortifacient without any interference from Hobby Lobby, but then they are responsible for their choice, like paying for it.


No need to yell, as it will not help get your point across. The insurance was set up to cover those things for the employees and HL is saying no to what the insurance will cover, because of their religious beliefs, not the employees beliefs and that is not fair. The employee was suppose to have it covered with no extra cost. As I asked before would HL have declined to pay if President Obama had been a white republican? I bet not. Now no need to yell, as it will not change my mind. If we can't have a discussion with out the caps and bold print, just go away. It says more about you than it does about your message.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> No need to yell, as it will not help get your point across. The insurance was set up to cover those things for the employees and HL is saying no to what the insurance will cover, because of their religious beliefs, not the employees beliefs and that is not fair. The employee was suppose to have it covered with no extra cost. As I asked before would HL have declined to pay if President Obama had been a white republican? I bet not. Now no need to yell, as it will not change my mind. If we can't have a discussion with out the caps and bold print, just go away. It says more about you than it does about your message.


Race has nothing to do with it. Who cares what color o is?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Would have made no difference. No Republican would force insurance mandates on anyone. A republican would not have Obama care.
> 
> Do you think Hobby Lobby's insurance should pay for tampons? Same difference, personal responsibility for the employee. Should Hobby Lobby pay for the employees shoes? What should the employee take personal responsibility for?


But, you forget Obamacare was a republican idea, and they were in favor of mandates before President Obama was elected. Anything the president is for they are against. It is laughable a lot of times how you all change your minds. The employee should take personal responsibility for the things that are not to be covered by insurance, like everyone else who uses this insurance. 
Do I think HL should pay for tampons and shoes--stupid question, doesn't even deserve an answer.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Actually free tampons have been proposed as part of Obama care.
> 
> You didn't answer this question: "What belief did the employee loose? The belief that an abortifacient, to possibly kill their own child, is the responsibility of Hobby Lobby?"


But free tampons are not a part of Obamacare, so no point in discussing it. What the employees beliefs are is really not anyone's business, not your business or HL's business and HL's beliefs should be kept private also, as it is their beliefs alone.


----------



## Joan Thelma (Nov 18, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> A number of years ago Malden Mills, the original manufacturer of Polartec fleece, also showed exemplary character. After a fire the owner stayed in Lawrence, Massachusetts and rebuilt the factory. In the interval when the business was closed he paid his employees. Unfortunately the company had to declare bankruptcy but the owner did not take the insurance money and run. His priority was to protect his employees.
> 
> These two CEOs who walked the high road made the news because they are the exception rather than the rule. What a misfortune that more businesses have not used them as role models.


I remember the fire at the company in Mass. very well. What the average person does not know, a business can elect to have "Business Interruption" coverage included in their Business Insurance Coverage to pay the cost of rebuilding the business after a loss. It is extra coverage that the business owner must pay for and it is expensive to have this extra insurance coverage. Most businesses do NOT carry this due to the added cost.

What made that owner of this business so great that none of his employees were without a paycheck when the business burned up. He put all of them to work again and paid their salaries by rebuilding the business. He thought of his employees and not his own personal pocketbook!

In the end, the owner kept his employees that were totally devoted to him because of what he did to keep them working. It was a win-win situation for all of them.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> When are *YOU* going to understand they are not imposing their beliefs on anyone.
> 
> You said: *"The owners of Hobby Lobby are entitled to their beliefs."* If they are entitled to their beliefs let them choose to not pay for an abortion in any way shape or form. Since it is their belief that the 4 methods *may not will* cause an abortion.
> 
> Their employees are still free to choose any birth control including abortifacient without any interference from Hobby Lobby, but then they are responsible for their choice, like paying for it.


I would like to ask you this: if it weren't abortion we were dealing with, would you feel the same way? If HL said that they do not believe in vaccines and allergy injections and their insurance would not cover those things, would that be OK with you? What if they said they don't believe that fibromyalgia is a real disease and decided not to pay for any treatment or medication for that 
disease? Pretend that those examples are part of their belief system. Is it OK for them to state that and not have to provide coverage for them? Even though coverage for those things was mandated by law and their employees wanted those services? They aren't part of the employees' belief systems. Then would it still be OK for HL to say they won't cover those things?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Race has nothing to do with it. Who cares what color o is?


Race has everything to do with it, and republicans have hated President Obama since day 1. I know you will never admit it, but we all know the truth. Republicans are he__ bent on destroying the president regardless of what it does to the country. That proves racism to me. They have never treated another democrat as badly as they have President Obama. No matter what he does, in their eyes he is wrong. I think it is disgusting for repugs in Washington to speak against the president when it concerns foreign policy. We should have a united front and support the president, not try to destroy him. For them to talk about how wonderful Putin is when he is invading another country shows how racist they are.


----------



## Joan Thelma (Nov 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> Race has everything to do with it, and republicans have hated President Obama since day 1. I know you will never admit it, but we all know the truth. Republicans are he__ bent on destroying the president regardless of what it does to the country. That proves racism to me. They have never treated another democrat as badly as they have President Obama. No matter what he does, in their eyes he is wrong. I think it is disgusting for repugs in Washington to speak against the president when it concerns foreign policy. We should have a united front and support the president, not try to destroy him. For them to talk about how wonderful Putin is when he is invading another country shows how racist they are.


IMO - Obama has earned all the bad press about him. He is way over his head as President of our Country and him and his family are more interested in spending the taxpapers' monies than helping the Working Class majority gain good paying jobs to support their families.

Nothing racist at all about how the majority of Americans feel about Obama - he did it all by himself!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Since you don't want to say what beliefs they loose. I guess they either didn't loose any, or you have no idea. Then why did you bring it up in the first place???


Well, I wouldn't say that HL employees have lost beliefs, but their access to the full range of health care options available other American women has been restricted on the basis of their employers' religion beliefs.

And it matters not a whit whether these new restrictions cause them little or much inconvenience. During the Jim Crow era Americans justified the restrictions placed on African-Americans by asserting that it was "no big deal" because there was a "colored" water fountain (restaurant, school, barber shop) across the way. Obviously this was wrong, just on principle.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Joan Thelma said:


> IMO - Obama has earned all the bad press about him. He is way over his head as President of our Country and him and his family are more interested in spending the taxpapers' monies than helping the Working Class majority gain good paying jobs to support their families.
> 
> Nothing racist at all about how the majority of Americans feel about Obama - he did it all by himself!


Not quite. If Obama had truly earned all the negative press solely through his decisions on foreign and domestic policy there'd be no need for conservatives to count his number of vacation days or measure the size of the First Lady's behind. The fact that conservatives are so obsessed with these matters and the stories they pass around are exaggerations or downright lies (champagne and caviar at the Waldorf-Astoria, dog walker at 102K per annum) shows that even they don't feel they have much of a real case against him.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> They still have * full* access to anything their little heart desires. Just that Hobby Lobby will* not pay* for it.


It's still the principle of the thing. Would it have been fair to expect African-American children to pay tuition to attend public schools--even if it was just a token fee of a nickel?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> How can you equate a possible abortion with African Americans attending Public schools? At least they are alive!


Hobby Lobby uses religion to justify its boycott of the IUD and the "day after" pill--historically, Americans turned to the Bible to uphold the principles of slavery and Jim Crow (Psalm 123:2, Titus 2:9, Acts 17:26).


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So what? How about current reasoning, you can always find something wrong in History.


Of course--but Hobby Lobby is using the religion of its founders to restrict women's rights in the present.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I have never heard of any coverage mandated by the government until Obama care. Any coverage in insurance was there to attract and keep an employee. There are still many prescriptions that are not covered by one insurance but are covered by another. It is called choice. I would be against any requirement that* could possibly* cause the death of an innocent child before that child had a chance at life.
> 
> Most insurance plans have co-pays or will state what they will or will not pay for. Why can't Hobby Lobby? What insurance plan will pay for every plastic surgery you might desire? I'm sure there are none. I'm believe they do pay for reconstructive surgery. I am sure Hobby Lobby covers surgery for an ectopic pregnancy. Why should they be required to pay for a person's personal choice?


It isn't a question of paying for personal choice. I tried to give you "pretend what-ifs" because I didn't see any other way to get you to see this issue in a different light, but you just can't. This isn't a question of copays, either. It's a question of a corporation's belief system being foisted on an employee who doesn't subscribe to the same belief system. 
End of epistle


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So what? How about current reasoning, you can always find something wrong in History.


So what? So what? Are you really that blind to this issue?
The answer is "yes."


----------



## Donsdotter (Jun 27, 2014)

NJG said:


> Race has everything to do with it, and republicans have hated President Obama since day 1. I know you will never admit it, but we all know the truth. Republicans are he__ bent on destroying the president regardless of what it does to the country. That proves racism to me. They have never treated another democrat as badly as they have President Obama. No matter what he does, in their eyes he is wrong. I think it is disgusting for repugs in Washington to speak against the president when it concerns foreign policy. We should have a united front and support the president, not try to destroy him. For them to talk about how wonderful Putin is when he is invading another country shows how racist they are.


wow. Really? What was done to President Bush? Sounds like you are talking about him and what was done to him during his presidency.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, I wouldn't say that HL employees have lost beliefs, but their access to the full range of health care options available other American women has been restricted on the basis of their employers' religion beliefs.
> 
> And it matters not a whit whether these new restrictions cause them little or much inconvenience. During the Jim Crow era Americans justified the restrictions placed on African-Americans by asserting that it was "no big deal" because there was a "colored" water fountain (restaurant, school, barber shop) across the way. Obviously this was wrong, just on principle.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You seem to be the one who does not see the issue. Why is Hobby Lobby responsible to pay for the personal choice of their employees? They will pay for 16 of 20. The employee still has a choice.
> 
> Obama tried to tell Hobby Lobby they had NO CHOICE. The only reason for HHS and Obama's mandate was to divide the country and it is working. It had nothing to do with birth control. It was to tell Christians, there is no place for their personal beliefs in Obama's America. You either do what I say or you will pay the penalty, which is so high, it will put you out of business.
> 
> Birth Control was the vehicle Obama chose to use since Christians are opposed to abortion. Some are opposed to birth control also.


I believe your opinion about Obama's mandate to divide the country is abbsolutely wrong. Even ridiculous. It's your right to state it and spread it everywhere because in this country certain rights are guaranteed. I am not Obama's biggest fan, and I have stated this before. However, it isn't about anything that you hate him for. You seem to think of Obama as a black devil voted into office to to persecute Christians and spread the evil work of Satan. Where does this fear and hatred originate? Are you hearing this from your pastor who is supposed to preach love and kindness? You've been anything but kind.
PRESIDENT Obama has tried to work with repubs the first 4 years he was in office. Never forget the mandate from Mitch McConnell: we vow to make Obama a one-term president. That's what started the whole polarization of this country, and the repubs didn't stop with that one statement. In your eyes and In the eyes of the TParty and repubs he couldn't do anything to their liking. He was fought on everything he tried to do. I view the repubs as the cause of the division of this country. Their hatred of the president has overshadowed their responsibilities and any sense of patriotism they ever had. For 6 years nothing has been accomplished; in fact this country has regressed. If they had ever tried to work with the president and the Democrats our country may have been strong. But no. Hatred won over love for their country, and the repubs in congress dragged this country down into the mess we have now.
P.S. Religion has no place in government. Nor should it.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> I believe your opinion about Obama's mandate to divide the country is abbsolutely wrong. Even ridiculous. It's your right to state it and spread it everywhere because in this country certain rights are guaranteed. I am not Obama's biggest fan, and I have stated this before. However, it isn't about anything that you hate him for. You seem to think of Obama as a black devil voted into office to to persecute Christians and spread the evil work of Satan. Where does this fear and hatred originate? Are you hearing this from your pastor who is supposed to preach love and kindness? You've been anything but kind.
> PRESIDENT Obama has tried to work with repubs the first 4 years he was in office. Never forget the mandate from Mitch McConnell: we vow to make Obama a one-term president. That's what started the whole polarization of this country, and the repubs didn't stop with that one statement. In your eyes and In the eyes of the TParty and repubs he couldn't do anything to their liking. He was fought on everything he tried to do. I view the repubs as the cause of the division of this country. Their hatred of the president has overshadowed their responsibilities and any sense of patriotism they ever had. For 6 years nothing has been accomplished; in fact this country has regressed. If they had ever tried to work with the president and the Democrats our country may have been strong. But no. Hatred won over love for their country, and the repubs in congress dragged this country down into the mess we have now.
> P.S. Religion has no place in government. Nor should it.


So after 4 years he stopped. And of course Republicans wanted him to be a one term president, just like the Dems wanted Bush 43 to be a one term president. Don't remember the Dems giving Bush a free ride and all chummy.

The division of our country has come from the Democrats. When someone disagrees with Obama's policy they are called racists. Obama told the Republicans that they can come along for the ride, but they had to sit at the back of the bus. Holder uses the race card.

Obamacare has violated Religious Freedom that is a constitutional right. Your idea would have more weight if Obama had not granted so many waivers to his supporters, Congress and ALL FEDERAL employees would have to have Obamacare without subsidies. They voted for it, they should have to live with it too. He signed and the Dems in Congress that voted for obamacare are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Good grief the Sisters of Poor Claire had to take him to the Supreme Court so that they would not have to pay for abortions and get a waiver.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Joan Thelma said:


> IMO - Obama has earned all the bad press about him. He is way over his head as President of our Country and him and his family are more interested in spending the taxpapers' monies than helping the Working Class majority gain good paying jobs to support their families.
> 
> Nothing racist at all about how the majority of Americans feel about Obama - he did it all by himself!


You are 100% wrong. The republicans hated him from day one. They had a meeting on his inauguration day and said then they would stop everything he tried to do. That was pure racist as he wasn't even in office yet.


----------



## KnitGma (Apr 10, 2013)

Joan Thelma said:


> IMO - Obama has earned all the bad press about him. He is way over his head as President of our Country and him and his family are more interested in spending the taxpapers' monies than helping the Working Class majority gain good paying jobs to support their families.
> 
> Nothing racist at all about how the majority of Americans feel about Obama - he did it all by himself!


AGREE


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> So after 4 years he stopped. And of course Republicans wanted him to be a one term president, just like the Dems wanted Bush 43 to be a one term president. Don't remember the Dems giving Bush a free ride and all chummy.
> 
> The division of our country has come from the Democrats. When someone disagrees with Obama's policy they are called racists. Obama told the Republicans that they can come along for the ride, but they had to sit at the back of the bus. Holder uses the race card.
> 
> Obamacare has violated Religious Freedom that is a constitutional right. Your idea would have more weight if Obama had not granted so many waivers to his supporters, Congress and ALL FEDERAL employees would have to have Obamacare without subsidies. They voted for it, they should have to live with it too. He signed and the Dems in Congress that voted for obamacare are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. Good grief the Sisters of Poor Claire had to take him to the Supreme Court so that they would not have to pay for abortions and get a waiver.


Are you kidding? We went to war on lies, and yes voted on by Dems. Don't even bring Bush into the mix. I consider Bush and Cheney to be war criminals.
There is no talking sense into your head, it's too full of junk.


----------



## Ginny75 (Aug 27, 2014)

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a moderate Republican. I feel that these attacks and accusations of the "Republicans" lumps me in with the kinds of people you are talking about. I was very excited when President Obama was elected and hoped for only the best for him and from him. In my opinion neither side can be solely blamed for the mess our county is in. It is the disgusting behavior of both sides.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> You are 100% wrong. The republicans hated him from day one. They had a meeting on his inauguration day and said then they would stop everything he tried to do. That was pure racist as he wasn't even in office yet.


I see your sign is from Occupy Democrats. :shock: Just sayin'. :roll:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I see your sign is from Occupy Democrats. :shock: Just sayin'. :roll:


And your point is?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, I wouldn't say that HL employees have lost beliefs, but their access to the full range of health care options available other American women has been restricted on the basis of their employers' religion beliefs.
> 
> And it matters not a whit whether these new restrictions cause them little or much inconvenience. During the Jim Crow era Americans justified the restrictions placed on African-Americans by asserting that it was "no big deal" because there was a "colored" water fountain (restaurant, school, barber shop) across the way. Obviously this was wrong, just on principle.


What an exaggeration. Other than 4 methods of birth control, what full range of health care options are HL employees being denied/restricted? HL employees are NOT being denied these 4 BC methods, only payment would be denied by HL. HL not wanting to pay for them is not wrong.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Ginny75 said:


> In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a moderate Republican. I feel that these attacks and accusations of the "Republicans" lumps me in with the kinds of people you are talking about. I was very excited when President Obama was elected and hoped for only the best for him and from him. In my opinion neither side can be solely blamed for the mess our county is in. It is the disgusting behavior of both sides.


It is the loud blustering minority on each end of the spectrum, the radical right and the radical left who are at war leaving moderate people (moderately conservative, moderately liberal) in the middle of the road as roadkill.

And unfortunately the radical right have chosen to demonize the President. Except perhaps for General Eisenhower, I have had issues with Presidents all my voting life. Nobody is perfect, but I do not think any President since Abraham Lincoln has been so vilified by his opponents.

Mr. Obama is still the legally elected President. No hanging chads leaving the legitimacy of his election in question. The concept of the legislature doing war against the well being of the electorate to besmirch the President is so immoral it is beyond being reprehensible. These elected officials are playing havoc with the lives of the American public and the future of what was once a great country.


----------



## Joan Thelma (Nov 18, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> It isn't a question of paying for personal choice. I tried to give you "pretend what-ifs" because I didn't see any other way to get you to see this issue in a different light, but you just can't. This isn't a question of copays, either. It's a question of a corporation's belief system being foisted on an employee who doesn't subscribe to the same belief system.
> End of epistle


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So what? How about current reasoning, you can always find something wrong in History.


1. The problem is that nothing was learned from historical mistakes and they keep getting repeated

2. Trying to deny history is one of the biggest games to confuse the issue. You will never understand the present without dealing with the past.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I have yet to see anyone put the situation in a broader and historical context and it results in the back and forth stuff that is ongoing.

First is the economic issue that documents the biggest cause of bankruptcy int he country is excessive medical bills

A national health care system would be the thing to do. Are people aware that at the time of the national debate 60% of the public was covered by single payer health. 60%!!!!! How is this so? Congress, the military and families, Medicaid, Medicare, Federal employees, and local govt employees, including those who work for Social Services. So what is the big deal about extending this coverage to everyone equally?

Second, the issue is rotten health in the country with drug and insurance corporations raking in massive fortunes. These corps want control over that money that goes into corporate coffers directly for health care. 

Third, the current system of coverage for many people is thru an employer. The insurance corporations like this.

Fourth, instead of removing health care coverage from employers completely, big corporations decided to keep what existed but to expand it to capture more of the money from people. So employers were told to keep being the agencies thru which medical care is provided.

Fifth, this is the kind of thinking under Capitalism/corporatism. 

Sixth, bring in your right wing fundamentalists and they see an avenue to push their theocratic agenda. So lo and behold, we have

Seven--Hobby Lobby and the right wing boys going to court to force their crap on a public which they have no right to do.

and last, Eight--after buying elections and throwing 10's of 1000's off the voting rolls in Fla, Bush was ensured his elevation to the presidency and he appoints rabid neo-cons to the Supreme Court to do the right wing bidding.

Obama? he is a casualty of this coup d'etat. The wheels had begun to race and Congress was well controlled and new laws kept being made to give more and more power to corporations at the expense of the people's freedoms. The press ownership has been getting more and more consolidated into the hands of fewer and fewer people and so the news across the country is the same lying crappy propaganda from coast to coast. And the internet which is the saving grace for the people is being attacked in order to shut down easy access amongst people who can share different realities.

Now HL is a front organization for this theocratic agenda and if you can't look at that and understand what is being said, then there is no point in any discussion here. If this conversation is based on the conflict of whether the US is a theocracy or not, then there is way to much delusion going on. I think it would be much more honest conversation if these proselytizing christians would at least admit they are supporting a theocracy based on white male privilege because that is all they are really saying.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Ginny75 said:


> In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a moderate Republican. I feel that these attacks and accusations of the "Republicans" lumps me in with the kinds of people you are talking about. I was very excited when President Obama was elected and hoped for only the best for him and from him. In my opinion neither side can be solely blamed for the mess our county is in. It is the disgusting behavior of both sides.


i don't know what being a moderate Republican means to you, but I will say that many Republicans were disgusted with the neo-cons and the illegal warmongering in Iraq and elsewhere. They created policies that we are still seeing enacted today. 
Truth be told, it really wasn't a GOP thing but a corporate thing. And corporations have divided up Congress supporting both sides of the aisle. The presidency has always been a puppet except when Bush and Cheney were in office. I say that because they are part of the 1% that is controlling everything. Obama is too much of a newbie, just as Clinton was. And both suffered from their lack of power due to that. However, we have documented evidence of groups such as the Bilderbergs and Tri-Lateral Commission and the Committee of 300 who are the movers and power behind all the political tendencies that we see happening. Obama would never have been able to run if he wasn't vetted by the Bilderberg group, as was Hilary. Bill Clinton became a member at some point in his presidency (don't know the timing of his membership).

Now, my contention is that if people really looked at what was in their best interest the differences btw people would really shrink. When people are polled without bias (that's a hard one), most people are concerned about decent jobs, job security, retirement, clean water and air, decent and healthy food, adequate health care (which we clearly do not have), good schools, safe roads and bridges, etc. What you wear, how you do your spirituality, who you sleep with are insignificant issues that are personal and are nobody else's business. They have no impact on anyone but yourself. If you don't like my life, don't be around me. It is as simple as that.

Thus, if the real issues were identified and real boundaries were set , I feel that people would come together and create enough power to stop the crap that is going on at our expense.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

craftymatt2 said:


> H/L is not forcing their employees to do what they dont want to do, these people chose to work their. H/L was founded on the bible and God and Mr. Green believes his company flourished because of this.
> Now some people that are getting pregnant and want to have an abortion and now they want H/L to pay for their mistake. well they should keep there pants or put a cork in it


I'm undecided whether to correct the spelling and grammar in this post or to correct the wrong-headedness. Grammar would certainly be simpler. You jump into a conversation several days old and get nasty with people who have been calmly exchanging ideas.

Would you really tell married couples that they need to NOT engage in marital relations? You presume that those getting pregnant are unmarried floozies, and that is an oversimplification of the problem.


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

cattdages said:


> I'm undecided whether to correct the spelling and grammar in this post or to correct the wrong-headedness. Grammar would certainly be simpler. You jump into a conversation several days old and get nasty with people who have been calmly exchanging ideas.
> 
> Would you really tell married couples that they need to NOT engage in marital relations? You presume that those getting pregnant are unmarried floozies, and that is an oversimplification of the problem.


Proof that there have been times when birth control of *some* kind should have been used.


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

Ann DeGray said:


> Proof that there have been times when birth control of *some* kind should have been used.


The quote I wanted was not printed. My error. I was agreeing with cattadges regarding the quote she had replied to. I didn't bother correcting grammar, either.

I only succeeded in confusing the issue.

So sorry.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Ann DeGray--no apologies needed. However, the discussion is useless with some of these people. They function like dead heads. No acknowledgement of any nuances in people's lives. And absolutely no relation to the world around them and what are the economic, political and social tendencies are occurring which result in changing lifestyles and societal needs. Some of them act like they never looked outside their front door.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Ann DeGray said:


> Proof that there have been times when birth control of *some* kind should have been used.


Now that was totally uncalled for.


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Now that was totally uncalled for.


Did you read my second post?


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

Ann DeGray said:


> Did you read my second post?


I appreciate it. I sat with my mouse poised over the send button and my irritation and generally sarcastic nature won out. :twisted:


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Ann DeGray said:


> Proof that there have been times when birth control of *some* kind should have been used.


 :lol:


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You seem to be the one who does not see the issue. Why is Hobby Lobby responsible to pay for the personal choice of their employees? They will pay for 16 of 20. The employee still has a choice.
> 
> Obama tried to tell Hobby Lobby they had NO CHOICE. The only reason for HHS and Obama's mandate was to divide the country and it is working. It had nothing to do with birth control. It was to tell Christians, there is no place for their personal beliefs in Obama's America. You either do what I say or you will pay the penalty, which is so high, it will put you out of business.
> 
> Birth Control was the vehicle Obama chose to use since Christians are opposed to abortion. Some are opposed to birth control also.


You truly are delusional or just a plain liar here. Let me just point out that HL is a private corporation and required to adhere to laws and practices of the nation. It is not an alien visitor that we can evict--altho that would be my druthers with the simple wave of my magic wand--if I could only get it fixed properly.

This country's practice is to have benefits provided by corporations that make vast profits from this country. Philosophically and morally it is about giving something back to the very people who make a pittance working for these corporations that make billions of the labor of the workers. If truth be told, the pay scale needs to be reversed. Then HL would be an irrelevant entity paid a finders fee and nothing more. The workers then would own the profits of their labor and could collectively purchase their own group insurance with negotiated benefits.

Right now the country has decided to support the drug and insurance corporations by forcing people to purchase and use the medical industry despite the fact that just about 50% of health care costs go to holistic protocols and practices. Of course no one has raised the question about why people are being forced to buy what they obviously neither want nor use--nor can they afford.

But with typical narrowness of the capitalist model of creating monopolistic; i.e., fascist control over all public behavior, the problem got framed by corporations to maintain employer benefit structures including medical insurance. To try and make a universal standard of health care, national standards of coverage were established which protect insurance corps from having to pay out more than they want; i.e., get more money in and pay less money out.

This is a political and economic issue, not a religious issue. The right wing fundamentalists, always attentive for issues they can make their own for their own uses, jumped on this bandwagon for that same hegemonic goals as Wall St or Monsanto or drug corps.

Get a grip and take off those blinders.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

JS--you truly are pigheaded. First, the GOP designed this rotten medical plan. This was the Romney plan--remember him? GOP presidential candidate? This is the model the GOP DID devise and Obama, placater to the fascists that he has been, kowtowed to that plan forsaking, not only Single Payer, but also the Public Option plan. It was all about GOP planning.

And how many of the drug corporations CEO's and their reps were meeting behind closed doors with the President and his neo-con employees? Mainly GOP people demanding their model. And the insurance corporations? CEOs mainly, if not all GOP'rs. 

Practice: you think you said something smart here. But no, not at all. Practice on a national level becomes law. And the law is there that demands employers provide various benefits to employees. Things like an 8 hr work day and various health requirements are not in the Constitution but they have become more than benefits. They are de facto and legal requirements for employers. Now health care has become a requirement and national standards are set.

And just to remind you, HL was making an issue over something they were not being required to pay for. Every form of birth control was not included in the national standard and HL raised the issue over forms of b.c. they were paying for by their own choice and b.c. that was not included. Their whole issue was a political maneuver.

And people like you jump on their bandwagon because you like to rail and carry on against people you know nothing about but just love to hate because you have let yourself become powerless in life. Get a grip and get real.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

tamarque said:


> JS--you truly are pigheaded. First, the GOP designed this rotten medical plan. This was the Romney plan--remember him? GOP presidential candidate? This is the model the GOP DID devise and Obama, placater to the fascists that he has been, kowtowed to that plan forsaking, not only Single Payer, but also the Public Option plan. It was all about GOP planning.
> 
> And how many of the drug corporations CEO's and their reps were meeting behind closed doors with the President and his neo-con employees? Mainly GOP people demanding their model. And the insurance corporations? CEOs mainly, if not all GOP'rs.
> 
> ...


I do not think calling someone pigheaded adds credence you to your comments. Nor is the fact that if they disagree with you are they wrong they are voicing their opinion. Your bandwagon and railing comment is more appropriate to AOLW that believe if you are against abortion you are for rape.

The GOP did not create obamacare, and no Republican voted for it. It was the plan that Massachusetts had for their state, because that is the type of plan that they wanted. Americans as a whole have never embraced obamacare, and still a majority of Americans disapprove of it. The so called 'National Standard" is not standard because executive orders and mandates change it without Congressional approval. So over and over again, Obama is slapped down by the Supreme Court for over reach.

HL does and did have the right to take obamacare to the Supreme Court, because they believed (and were validated) that it violated their Religious Liberty. No different than the Sisters of Poor Claire that did the same. Until EVERYONE, especially FEDERAL EMPLOYEES and UNIONS are required to have obamacare without subsidies with out exceptions (that are not a violation of Constitutional Rights) for anyone, many and that includes myself, will oppose obamacare.

In addition, the obamacare law should have been followed as passed. The changing of dates, added mandates, exemptions and regulations are unconstitutional because a law can not be changed without the approval of Congress and are an illegal over reach of the Federal Government. And this illegal over reach will and should be challenged. The passing of an 8 hour work day was not unconstitutional nor does it apply to everyone; only hourly workers. The corporations are vilified by the left as evil (though Obama constantly courts, plays and takes money from those evil 1%ers). No one that is a private contractor, independent owner of a business, executive, ....are required to only work 8 hours each day. I would say that 99% of people in those categories work over 40 hours each week.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

tamarque said:


>  JS--you truly are pigheaded.
>  This was the Romney plan--remember him? GOP presidential candidate?
>  Practice: you think you said something smart here.
>  And people like you jump on their bandwagon because you like to rail and carry on against people you know nothing about but just love to hate because you have let yourself become powerless in life. Get a grip and get real.


When you talk to and about people like this no one takes you seriouslyall they see is your finger pointing insults. If you think you said something important in and amongst all that, you didn't.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Sorry you don't like my comment but apply the same standard to the JS" here on the list. Everything I said is true, btw. Perhaps if you actually read some real information you would know the same things I know. The entire attack on the ACA is that it came from a Dem administration headed by a person of color. If you cannot see this, based on statements and behavior by the GOP and its subordinates, there is no dialogue here as this is not about opinion but about facts on the ground

You may not like the facts, but it makes you look delusional when you deny them


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

tamarque said:


> Sorry you don't like my comment but apply the same standard to the JS" here on the list. Everything I said is true, btw. Perhaps if you actually read some real information you would know the same things I know. The entire attack on the ACA is that it came from a Dem administration headed by a person of color. If you cannot see this, based on statements and behavior by the GOP and its subordinates, there is no dialogue here as this is not about opinion but about facts on the ground
> 
> You may not like the facts, but it makes you look delusional when you deny them


It is you and a few other Libs on this site who are delusional and think everything is about Obama's race. Nothing is further from the truth. Too bad you cannot see that fact. Hardly anything you said was true, it was your opinion btw.

Because of Obama and his lack of leadership, America is in the worst state it has ever been, nothing has to do with the color of his skin EXCEPT those who voted for him PRECISELY because they were of the same race. They didn't vote informed or based on intellectual decisions, they voted by race - the very definition of a racist.


----------



## Gerslay (Oct 4, 2011)

tamarque said:


> Sorry you don't like my comment but apply the same standard to the JS" here on the list. Everything I said is true, btw. Perhaps if you actually read some real information you would know the same things I know. The entire attack on the ACA is that it came from a Dem administration headed by a person of color. If you cannot see this, based on statements and behavior by the GOP and its subordinates, there is no dialogue here as this is not about opinion but about facts on the ground
> 
> You may not like the facts, but it makes you look delusional when you deny them


I don't mind your comments, and I do agree with some of your facts, but my post to you was about your insulting comments that negate anything interesting you might otherwise have to say. For instance, to always throw in your opinion as if its fact that opposition to the ACA is because of the President's skin color is ridiculous. When you, and others, do that your credibility is lost.

If you're just preaching to the choir, then that's fine..go for it. But if you're actually wanting to change people's minds, then you might consider another tactic.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I do not trust Obama, I cannot believe anything he says. It has absolutely nothing to do with the color of his skin, after all he is half white. Remember you can keep your insurance. Period. You can keep your Doctor. Period. The average family will save $2500. ALL LIES. All facts.
> If you cannot believe what a person says in small things, how can they be believed in big things.


Unfortunately there hasn't been a President ever who hasn't engaged in slick talk, deception, and outright lies. If we demanded all Presidents be Honest Abe types the White House would have a permanent "Vacancy" sign on it. Presidents (and politicians in general) get away with it because their supporters are willing to overlook all the falsehoods while the opposition is fuming. I'll admit that true in Obama's case, but conservatives too shrugged away all the lies that poured out of the Reagan/Bush/Bush White House.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It is you and a few other Libs on this site who are delusional and think everything is about Obama's race. Nothing is further from the truth. Too bad you cannot see that fact. Hardly anything you said was true, it was your opinion btw.
> 
> Because of Obama and his lack of leadership, America is in the worst state it has ever been, nothing has to do with the color of his skin EXCEPT those who voted for him PRECISELY because they were of the same race. They didn't vote informed or based on intellectual decisions, they voted by race - the very definition of a racist.


Hello...it's ALL just opinion.


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Unfortunately there hasn't been a President ever who hasn't engaged in slick talk, deception, and outright lies. If we demanded all Presidents be Honest Abe types the White House would have a permanent "Vacancy" sign on it. Presidents (and politicians in general) get away with it because their supporters are willing to overlook all the falsehoods while the opposition is fuming. I'll admit that true in Obama's case, but conservatives too shrugged away all the lies that poured out of the Reagan/Bush/Bush White House.


So true. I consider myself a part of the "Watergate Generation". I came home from middle school to watch the Watergate hearings on TV. I believe this helped to form my bone-deep distrust of all politicians. I think they are all liars and will say anything to forward their agenda; which often includes getting cash from whatever business is currently paying for their face and name. I just have to pick the ones whose lies best match my values...and can't be completely disproven with a web search...and hope for the best.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It is you and a few other Libs on this site who are delusional and think everything is about Obama's race. Nothing is further from the truth. Too bad you cannot see that fact. Hardly anything you said was true, it was your opinion btw.
> 
> Because of Obama and his lack of leadership, America is in the worst state it has ever been, nothing has to do with the color of his skin EXCEPT those who voted for him PRECISELY because they were of the same race. They didn't vote informed or based on intellectual decisions, they voted by race - the very definition of a racist.


Now you having me laughing again. You say the dumbest things. White Americans (non-Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/Latino) are the racial majority, with a 72% share of the U.S. population, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 15% of the population, making up the largest minority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to nearly 13% of the population.

It wasn't only 13% of the population that elected our president. There were many many white Americans that voted for him too. America was in the worst state it had ever been when President Obama took office, because of Bush. The republicans have tried to destroy him since day one and that can't be denied, because they have admitted it. You had better be prepared for another democratic president, because even though the republicans have gerrymandered the districts and are trying to restrict voting in a lot of republican run states, the people voting will tell you how the majority feel about republicans.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Unfortunately there hasn't been a President ever who hasn't engaged in slick talk, deception, and outright lies. If we demanded all Presidents be Honest Abe types the White House would have a permanent "Vacancy" sign on it. Presidents (and politicians in general) get away with it because their supporters are willing to overlook all the falsehoods while the opposition is fuming. I'll admit that true in Obama's case, but conservatives too shrugged away all the lies that poured out of the Reagan/Bush/Bush White House.


So you blame only Republican presidents for lying? And you are wrong. Your memory is extremely selective. Many Conservatives criticized Bush, because they believed he was wrong. Until there were two beheadings Dems never questioned or criticized Obama. The Dems have Debbie W.S. that say that Conservatives pull women by the hair and drag them to the Stone Age and Republican are against women? Where is the outrage over the Ray Rice slugging his now wife out cold from the Dems, the NAACP or NOW, but Republicans are at War With Women????? If I criticize him for crushing his wife's head into the bar of the elevator, am I a racist because he is Black and am appalled that he is not in jail for years?

Don't forget 'slick Willy'........I did not have sex with that woman.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

NJG said:


> Now you having me laughing again. You say the dumbest things. White Americans (non-Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/Latino) are the racial majority, with a 72% share of the U.S. population, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to 15% of the population, making up the largest minority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to nearly 13% of the population.
> 
> It wasn't only 13% of the population that elected our president. There were many many white Americans that voted for him too. America was in the worst state it had ever been when President Obama took office, because of Bush. The republicans have tried to destroy him since day one and that can't be denied, because they have admitted it. You had better be prepared for another democratic president, because even though the republicans have gerrymandered the districts and are trying to restrict voting in a lot of republican run states, the people voting will tell you how the majority feel about republicans.


You better be prepared for the Mid Term Elections. Then you will really see how the majority of Americans feel about Obama; his failed foreign policy, his lies about obamacare, IRS scandal, Benghazi.........too many to list. I think a countdown to see how America will vote should start. tick tock


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> So you blame only Republican presidents for lying? And you are wrong. Your memory is extremely selective. Many Conservatives criticized Bush, because they believed he was wrong. Until there were two beheadings Dems never questioned or criticized Obama. The Dems have Debbie W.S. that say that Conservatives pull women by the hair and drag them to the Stone Age and Republican are against women? Where is the outrage over the Ray Rice slugging his now wife out cold from the Dems, the NAACP or NOW, but Republicans are at War With Women????? If I criticize him for crushing his wife's head into the bar of the elevator, am I a racist because he is Black and am appalled that he is not in jail for years?


Good gosh, LTL--get ahold of yourself. I've posted several comments on the "Ray Rice and then Fiance" thread to express my outrage at what I saw: a man knocking his girlfriend unconscious and then wasting precious moments trying to position her body more tidily instead of calling for an ambulance.

It's racists who get confused and uncertain the minute they notice a person's skin color. They simply can't see beyond it, and they tie themselves up in knots trying to hide their telescopic vision from themselves and others. I find it truly sad that the issue of race looms so large in your mind that it keeps you from speaking out against something you KNOW is wrong.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> So you blame only Republican presidents for lying? And you are wrong. Your memory is extremely selective. Many Conservatives criticized Bush, because they believed he was wrong. Until there were two beheadings Dems never questioned or criticized Obama. The Dems have Debbie W.S. that say that Conservatives pull women by the hair and drag them to the Stone Age and Republican are against women? Where is the outrage over the Ray Rice slugging his now wife out cold from the Dems, the NAACP or NOW, but Republicans are at War With Women????? If I criticize him for crushing his wife's head into the bar of the elevator, am I a racist because he is Black and am appalled that he is not in jail for years?
> 
> Don't forget 'slick Willy'........I did not have sex with that woman.


Really, LTL, we don't care if you had sex with that woman or not.
Look no further than your own state for those scandals you love so much.
The ex Gov threw his wife under the bus to save his own ass and now they are both found guilty. The wife let him do it. I'll never understand why she let him use that defense. Such a coward!

BTW you have "Slick Willy's quote all wrong.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Good gosh, LTL--get ahold of yourself. I've posted several comments on the "Ray Rice and then Fiance" thread to express my outrage at what I saw: a man knocking his girlfriend unconscious and then wasting precious moments trying to position her body more tidily instead of calling for an ambulance.
> 
> It's racists who get confused and uncertain the minute they notice a person's skin color. They simply can't see beyond it, and they tie themselves up in knots trying to hide their telescopic vision from themselves and others. I find it truly sad that the issue of race looms so large in your mind that it keeps you from speaking out against something you KNOW is wrong.


You should be sad for your liberal friends. If I or anyone criticized Obama for any reason we were constantly called racists. The new term used is terrorist. So I could care less about his race, what he did was so heinous that he should be in jail. And this is from a huge NFL fan.

I do not have the time to constantly check the new topics, so I missed that one. So I am sorry that I do not follow every thread and wait for your every post.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Really, LTL, we don't care if you had sex with that woman or not.
> Look no further than your own state for those scandals you love so much.
> The ex Gov threw his wife under the bus to save his own ass and now they are both found guilty. The wife let him do it. I'll never understand why she let him use that defense. Such a coward!
> 
> BTW you have "Slick Willy's quote all wrong.


Are you sundowning again? Sex with what woman? Lusting for Slick Willie again? Hope not.

I live in a Commonwealth. He was wrong, he was found guilty, and he should go to jail. She deserved to be thrown under the bus, the woman is wacko with a sense of entitlement that would make your head spin. Her father was in the Secret Service. She spent most of her childhood in Mexico being pampered and indulged. The family returned to DC and she was showered with 'gifts' and a big player of the inside the beltway dem gang. And yes I know this for a fact. My mom is best friends with her aunt, since kindergarten. We have heard about her for years. He aunt went to the trial, and gave my mom a blow by blow report. And her aunt is an obamacultist, and said she was always a spoiled brat, did what she was accused of, and thinks she will end up in jail. So he was an idiot for burying his head in the sand about what she did, and should be punished. The reason she did not speak out was because what he said was true and she had no comeback to defend herself. She took all the gifts, went on free shopping sprees, and her self indulgence caught up with her. And the Commonwealth took them to trial, they were convicted, they probably will go to jail, and I have no problem with that.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Are you sundowning again? Sex with what woman? Lusting for Slick Willie again? Hope not.
> 
> I live in a Commonwealth. He was wrong, he was found guilty, and he should go to jail. She deserved to be thrown under the bus, the woman is wacko with a sense of entitlement that would make your head spin. Her father was in the Secret Service. She spent most of her childhood in Mexico being pampered and indulged. The family returned to DC and she was showered with 'gifts' and a big player of the inside the beltway dem gang. And yes I know this for a fact. My mom is best friends with her aunt, since kindergarten. We have heard about her for years. He aunt went to the trial, and gave my mom a blow by blow report. And her aunt is an obamacultist, and said she was always a spoiled brat, did what she was accused of, and thinks she will end up in jail. So he was an idiot for burying his head in the sand about what she did, and should be punished. The reason she did not speak out was because what he said was true and she had no comeback to defend herself. She took all the gifts, went on free shopping sprees, and her self indulgence caught up with her. And the Commonwealth took them to trial, they were convicted, they probably will go to jail, and I have no problem with that.


The one you said you didn't have sex with. I don't believe a word that man had to say. Just another cowardly conservative caught with his hands in the cookie jar.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> So you blame only Republican presidents for lying? And you are wrong. Your memory is extremely selective. Many Conservatives criticized Bush, because they believed he was wrong. Until there were two beheadings Dems never questioned or criticized Obama. The Dems have Debbie W.S. that say that Conservatives pull women by the hair and drag them to the Stone Age and Republican are against women? Where is the outrage over the Ray Rice slugging his now wife out cold from the Dems, the NAACP or NOW, but Republicans are at War With Women????? If I criticize him for crushing his wife's head into the bar of the elevator, am I a racist because he is Black and am appalled that he is not in jail for years?
> 
> Don't forget 'slick Willy'........I did not have sex with that woman.


The dems have spoke out about Ray Rice, the president of NOW, Terry O'Neill was on tv today talking about him, the president and vice president both spoke about it. 
Most republicans still believe going into Iraq was the right thing to do, and a bunch of them met with Dick Cheney today. My question to you is do you think the republicans got it right when they decided on day one to block everything the president wants to do, regardless of what it does to the country. I don't remember democrats talking against Bush the way republicans do against President Obama. Shouldn't there be a united front behind the president at times like this? Jack Kingston, Georgia Republican said this--" Republicans dont want to change anything. We like the path were on now. We can denounce it if it goes bad, and praise it if it goes well and ask what took him so long. See that is all republicans want, to make the president look bad and make him fail, but that means we all loose. They don't really want to fix anything, they just want to obstruct. It is rare to have a republican speak the truth like Kingston did, but I think ISIL should be debated on the floor and a vote taken, so everyone knows where they all stand. That way we find out who is just a big mouth full of hot air. 
IN 2001 John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. I would say if the same holds true today, and I don't know why it wouldn't, that there a lot of republicans on the side of terrorists. Remember, not so long ago they were even kissing Putin's butt and saying what a great leader he was, because he doesn't take time to think things through, he just reacts. 
You can criticize Ray Rice all you want as he deserves it. I have criticized him since it happened, and I hope he gets what he deserves. His wife is standing with him, which is what battered women usually do, at least in the beginning. 
You probably listen to Fox News and of course everything they say is against President Obama. I believe the republicans do have a "war on Women." The question you ask about being a racist if you criticize Rice is really a stupid question. I have not heard anyone say anything good about Rice. I think jail time would be good for Rice. My question to him would be, "Did you think to check her pulse to make sure she wasn't dead, when you drug her out of the elevator and dropped her like a sack of potatoes, face first on the hard floor. I don't and never have defended every black person, just because of their color and for you to make statements like that shows your lack of knowledge about what democrats stand for.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> You better be prepared for the Mid Term Elections. Then you will really see how the majority of Americans feel about Obama; his failed foreign policy, his lies about obamacare, IRS scandal, Benghazi.........too many to list. I think a countdown to see how America will vote should start. tick tock


As I already stated the republicans could do well in November because of the gerrymandering of districts, but President Obama will not be on the ballot. I am prepared for the November elections. Remember how Rove was positive Romney would win, Romney thought he would win. That just means don't count your chickens before they are hatched.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> The one you said you didn't have sex with. I don't believe a word that man had to say. Just another cowardly conservative caught with his hands in the cookie jar.


Cowardly is the right word for him. Any man that would throw his wife under the bus to try to save his own a__ is a poor excuse for a man and he deserves what he gets. They both do. This is not the time for any politician to be going on trial, as the majority of the people are fed up with Washington and everyone in it. Hope Rick Perry gets his too, along with Scott Walker and Chris Christie.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

NJG--I think if we combed the news during the past 4 administrations, we would find at least triple the scandals from GOP people to Dems. Under Bush at one point it seemed every month there was another GOP scandal for sex or money improprieties or other acts seen as unacceptable and illegal. Entitlement and political and economic power is a deadly combination.

As for mid-term elections, I fear for them as the GOP, not being able to garner majority public support has resorted totally to voting manipulations. From tossing 10's of 1000's off the Florida voting rolls illegally to gerrymandering to attacking voting rights laws and creating laws that impact poor people and people of color in particular, voting practices such as shorter voting times, fewer voting machines, broken voting machines, electronic theft of votes--the list is too long to list all the illegal and racist maneuvers it is only with massive organizing that Dems can win at all these days. 

I am sure you recall the GOP actually talking about limiting Dem votes in order to win. Polls have shown that the vast majority of people actually support all kinds of socialistic policies --as long as you don't use that word! After all what working person doesn't support better work conditions, shorter work hours, better pay. what woman doesn't want to see an end to unequal pay and support for family leave? What person of color doesn't support laws that promote equality of access to education. And what person of color supports privatization of prisons which serve to re-enslave people of color for profit? What person doesn't support improved roads and safer bridges or pubic transportation? Polls show a strong unity among all people for such issues. But voting results often don't because of voting shenanigans of the GOP. It was amazing to me that Obama won the past 2 elections despite these voting aberrations. I think it was a reflection of the public rage against the blatant hostility toward the public by the GOP. Let's hope that anger prevails.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

tamarque said:


> NJG--I think if we combed the news during the past 4 administrations, we would find at least triple the scandals from GOP people to Dems. Under Bush at one point it seemed every month there was another GOP scandal for sex or money improprieties or other acts seen as unacceptable and illegal. Entitlement and political and economic power is a deadly combination.
> 
> As for mid-term elections, I fear for them as the GOP, not being able to garner majority public support has resorted totally to voting manipulations. From tossing 10's of 1000's off the Florida voting rolls illegally to gerrymandering to attacking voting rights laws and creating laws that impact poor people and people of color in particular, voting practices such as shorter voting times, fewer voting machines, broken voting machines, electronic theft of votes--the list is too long to list all the illegal and racist maneuvers it is only with massive organizing that Dems can win at all these days.
> 
> I am sure you recall the GOP actually talking about limiting Dem votes in order to win. Polls have shown that the vast majority of people actually support all kinds of socialistic policies --as long as you don't use that word! After all what working person doesn't support better work conditions, shorter work hours, better pay. what woman doesn't want to see an end to unequal pay and support for family leave? What person of color doesn't support laws that promote equality of access to education. And what person of color supports privatization of prisons which serve to re-enslave people of color for profit? What person doesn't support improved roads and safer bridges or pubic transportation? Polls show a strong unity among all people for such issues. But voting results often don't because of voting shenanigans of the GOP. It was amazing to me that Obama won the past 2 elections despite these voting aberrations. I think it was a reflection of the public rage against the blatant hostility toward the public by the GOP. Let's hope that anger prevails.


Yawn

Re-enslaving Blacks?
The states control how voting is done, not the GOP.
You want anger to prevail?
Shorter hours and larger pay, in this failed Obama economy, I think not.

What about the 'New Black Panthers' intimidating voters at voting locations?
Why do women in the Obama administration make less money than their male counterparts?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Yawn
> 
> Re-enslaving Blacks?
> The states control how voting is done, not the GOP.
> ...


Yes, re-enslaving blacks. Do your research about for-profit prisons, where people of color are disproportionately incarcerated and where, once in the system, the chances of escape are nil. This is a national disgrace and we need to speak out and eliminate the practice.

I think the reference to shorter hours and higher wages was a historical reference, but it certainly applies today. Left to their own devices, most employers will exploit workers any way they can. As a career payroll professional I have seen first-hand the myriad ways employers willfully, deliberately, cheat their employees. I've been fired for refusing to break the law regarding lawful pay practices - and I'm proud of that fact.

As for anger prevailing, again I would invite you to study history. Wasn't the original "tea party" the result of people being angry over unfair treatment? How about a woman's right to vote? Major changes are generally associated with anger over unfairness. Republicans, take heed.

I do not excuse any voter intimidation, black or white. However, a few isolated instances of this is one thing. The republican party has set out an agenda to disenfranchise the poor and people of color as an institutional goal.

As for unequal pay in the Obama administration, where it exists (based on length of service and other workplace considerations) I agree, this is WRONG. It's wrong everywhere. So what are YOU doing about it??


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

tamarque said:


> i don't know what being a moderate Republican means to you, but I will say that many Republicans were disgusted with the neo-cons and the illegal warmongering in Iraq and elsewhere. They created policies that we are still seeing enacted today.
> Truth be told, it really wasn't a GOP thing but a corporate thing. And corporations have divided up Congress supporting both sides of the aisle. The presidency has always been a puppet except when Bush and Cheney were in office. I say that because they are part of the 1% that is controlling everything. Obama is too much of a newbie, just as Clinton was. And both suffered from their lack of power due to that. However, we have documented evidence of groups such as the Bilderbergs and Tri-Lateral Commission and the Committee of 300 who are the movers and power behind all the political tendencies that we see happening. Obama would never have been able to run if he wasn't vetted by the Bilderberg group, as was Hilary. Bill Clinton became a member at some point in his presidency (don't know the timing of his membership).
> 
> Now, my contention is that if people really looked at what was in their best interest the differences btw people would really shrink. When people are polled without bias (that's a hard one), most people are concerned about decent jobs, job security, retirement, clean water and air, decent and healthy food, adequate health care (which we clearly do not have), good schools, safe roads and bridges, etc. What you wear, how you do your spirituality, who you sleep with are insignificant issues that are personal and are nobody else's business. They have no impact on anyone but yourself. If you don't like my life, don't be around me. It is as simple as that.
> ...


Unfortunately, the real issues have been obscured deliberately by the extreme right wing and corporations. They are hammering away at highly emotional topics to garner gut-level support - specifically religious "persecution," illegal immigration, fictional high taxes, gun rights, ad nauseum. I can barely stomach the memes posted constantly on Facebook that purposefully inflame the rhetoric being promoted. I'm also dismayed at the refusal of many to use anything that resembles critical thinking, clicking "like" to even the most blatantly false, prejudiced, bigoted statements. Makes one wonder who comes up with this stuff and for what purpose...?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Yawn
> 
> Re-enslaving Blacks?


Sure--just ask Clive Bundy!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

tamarque said:


> NJG--I think if we combed the news during the past 4 administrations, we would find at least triple the scandals from GOP people to Dems. Under Bush at one point it seemed every month there was another GOP scandal for sex or money improprieties or other acts seen as unacceptable and illegal. Entitlement and political and economic power is a deadly combination.
> 
> As for mid-term elections, I fear for them as the GOP, not being able to garner majority public support has resorted totally to voting manipulations. From tossing 10's of 1000's off the Florida voting rolls illegally to gerrymandering to attacking voting rights laws and creating laws that impact poor people and people of color in particular, voting practices such as shorter voting times, fewer voting machines, broken voting machines, electronic theft of votes--the list is too long to list all the illegal and racist maneuvers it is only with massive organizing that Dems can win at all these days.
> 
> I am sure you recall the GOP actually talking about limiting Dem votes in order to win. Polls have shown that the vast majority of people actually support all kinds of socialistic policies --as long as you don't use that word! After all what working person doesn't support better work conditions, shorter work hours, better pay. what woman doesn't want to see an end to unequal pay and support for family leave? What person of color doesn't support laws that promote equality of access to education. And what person of color supports privatization of prisons which serve to re-enslave people of color for profit? What person doesn't support improved roads and safer bridges or pubic transportation? Polls show a strong unity among all people for such issues. But voting results often don't because of voting shenanigans of the GOP. It was amazing to me that Obama won the past 2 elections despite these voting aberrations. I think it was a reflection of the public rage against the blatant hostility toward the public by the GOP. Let's hope that anger prevails.


I also think the anger has a lot to do with McDonnell and his wife being convicted on so many counts. The people are getting sick and tired of all the shenanigans and won't pass up an opportunity to give one a good slap up side the head. The republicans complain about entitlements. Well it is the wealthy who have this entitlement mentality. They believe everything out there is theirs for the taking and they deserve it. Also people like Ray Rice, because of his football playing ability has been given preferential treatment his whole life and still believes he can do as he pleases. I would bet this isn't the first time his girlfriend/wife was battered. People like Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Scott Walker will hopefully get theirs soon too. 
When the polls reflect that McConnell/Grimes are in a dead heat, it really blows my mind. All the republicans that are voting for him are not in the 1%, so are they so stupid that they don't know they are voting against their own self interests. Here is a link to a talk he gave to some millionaires and billionaires. He has lots of big ideas for he and his cronies. Hope he gets a rude awakening.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said: The states control how voting is done, not the GOP.

But it is in the states that are controlled by the GOP that are experiencing the voting restrictions, so the GOP is trying to restrict voting rights. Tell me where there is a democratic controlled state that is restricting voting rights.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> lovethelake said: The states control how voting is done, not the GOP.
> 
> But it is in the states that are controlled by the GOP that are experiencing the voting restrictions, so the GOP is trying to restrict voting rights. Tell me where there is a democratic controlled state that is restricting voting rights.


Don't forget the influence of ALEC.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Yes, re-enslaving blacks. Do your research about for-profit prisons, where people of color are disproportionately incarcerated and where, once in the system, the chances of escape are nil. This is a national disgrace and we need to speak out and eliminate the practice.
> 
> I think the reference to shorter hours and higher wages was a historical reference, but it certainly applies today. Left to their own devices, most employers will exploit workers any way they can. As a career payroll professional I have seen first-hand the myriad ways employers willfully, deliberately, cheat their employees. I've been fired for refusing to break the law regarding lawful pay practices - and I'm proud of that fact.
> 
> ...


The question truly is, why are there more Blacks in jail VS other groups? Why is 17% of the population a majority of the prison population? It can't be totally blamed on racism, impossible. Personally I believe a huge factor is the lack of fathers in the lives of their children. Children who have father figures involved in their lives are less likely to have cognitive, mental, emotional and societal problems than children that have father actively in their lives.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm

About 25% of American children are raised in single mother families. Of this group 72% are Black. Why is this?

Shouldn't the African American community be addressing the cause of this issue and doing something about it? Why are there more Black on Black murders than any other pairing of groups?

In my opinion, until the African American community starts to heal itself, all other issues are mute.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

NJG said:


> lovethelake said: The states control how voting is done, not the GOP.
> 
> But it is in the states that are controlled by the GOP that are experiencing the voting restrictions, so the GOP is trying to restrict voting rights. Tell me where there is a democratic controlled state that is restricting voting rights.


They are not restricting, they are enforcing the laws on the books. Show me where in a Democratically controlled area (Detroit or Chicago would be a good start) they are enforcing the law.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> The question truly is, why are there more Blacks in jail VS other groups? Why is 17% of the population a majority of the prison population? It can't be totally blamed on racism, impossible. Personally I believe a huge factor is the lack of fathers in the lives of their children. Children who have father figures involved in their lives are less likely to have cognitive, mental, emotional and societal problems than children that have father actively in their lives.
> 
> https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm
> 
> ...


Ever hear of racial profiling? Totally blamed on racism = impossible??? Are you suggesting that racism does not exist?

There are no easy, pat answers to this problem. It does not help to suggest that "if only black fathers would read the book on fatherhood" that these problems would cease to exist. It's much more complex than that and the roots of the problem go back a long way. The easy cop-out attitude that these problems can be solved by the old "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" won't work. It will require commitment on the part of the WHITE community, the business community, the educational community, the black community, the law-enforcement community, to eliminate the human degradation that people of color face in our society. I hope I live to see the day that all people in our country are treated with the respect and dignity every human being deserves and that all have the opportunity to live decent, productive lives - which would be a massive benefit to our country as a whole. I weep for all of us that we do not value all of our citizens equally. Think of the talent and creativity wasted by mindless prejudice!


----------



## cattdages (Aug 3, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Ever hear of racial profiling? Totally blamed on racism = impossible??? Are you suggesting that racism does not exist?
> 
> There are no easy, pat answers to this problem. It does not help to suggest that "if only black fathers would read the book on fatherhood" that these problems would cease to exist. It's much more complex than that and the roots of the problem go back a long way. The easy cop-out attitude that these problems can be solved by the old "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" won't work. It will require commitment on the part of the WHITE community, the business community, the educational community, the black community, the law-enforcement community, to eliminate the human degradation that people of color face in our society. I hope I live to see the day that all people in our country are treated with the respect and dignity every human being deserves and that all have the opportunity to live decent, productive lives - which would be a massive benefit to our country as a whole. I weep for all of us that we do not value all of our citizens equally. Think of the talent and creativity wasted by mindless prejudice!


Hear Hear!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> My question to you is do you think the republicans got it right when they decided on day one to block everything the president wants to do, regardless of what it does to the country.


Are you serious? "Regardless of what it does to the country", you bet they got it right. Obama campaigned on the "transformation of America", which 6 years later is hurting America. They all took an oath, including Obama, to protect America, not transform her into something else. 6 years later the country is in worse shape than when Obama took office, which is the direct result of his policies, mandates, constant fundraising and speeches that divide America.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> They are not restricting, they are enforcing the laws on the books. Show me where in a Democratically controlled area (Detroit or Chicago would be a good start) they are enforcing the law.


Enforcing the laws on the books. That is laughable, but I must say it is a new one I hadn't heard before. I guess I should give you credit for at least coming up with a new twist on the republican voter restriction. 
There are no laws on the books to restrict voting--if there had been, the republicans would have already been enforcing them. What world do you live in? They are making new laws and enforcing them. As soon as the supreme court gutted the voting Rights Act, republican run states immediately passed new stricter voting laws. Two Hours After The Supreme Court Gutted The Voting Rights Act, Texas AG Suppresses Minority Voters. Why is it necessary to get rid of early voting by stopping the Sunday before election day voting? Easy answer--you want to stop the people who usually vote that day from voting--African Americans who usually vote democrat. All this garbage about voter fraud is just that--garbage. I don't think you know what you are talking about.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/25/2212281/two-hours-after-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act-texas-ag-suppresses-minority-voters/


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Are you serious? "Regardless of what it does to the country", you bet they got it right. Obama campaigned on the "transformation of America", which 6 years later is hurting America. They all took an oath, including Obama, to protect America, not transform her into something else. 6 years later the country is in worse shape than when Obama took office, which is the direct result of his policies, mandates, constant fundraising and speeches that divide America.


Oh come on now, does he have a magic wand to do all this stuff with. The repubs have stopped everything, shut down the government costing millions, investigate Benghazi over and over and over costing billions, investigate the IRS and try and try and try to tie it to the white house, but unable to. Filed a law suit that everyone says will go nowhere, so it was done only for show which also cost $500 per hour in attorney fees. Compared to where we were when Bush left, I would say we are in way better shape than we were then. The Shrub will never admit it, but he knows he made a mess. That is why he has basically kept his mouth shut. That is why his Mother said we don't need another Bush in the White house. Obamacare is working and if you pay any attention to the reporting about it, it is better than expected. His constant fundraising is laughable. Who does all the fundraising? The republicans and the Koch Brothers. I won't even waste my time giving you an amount of the billions they are spending to to buy their republican politicians. 
You talk about dividing America. No one does that better than the republicans, spreading all their hate and racism. You have blinders on and need to wake up.

Do you think 3 milloion signatures will make any difference to the republicans? I don't think they really care what the American people want. With the gerrymandered districts they have they know they are set for awhile so they don't have to worry about what the people want.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/09/1328331/-PHOTOS-3-000-000-petition-signatures-to-overturn-Citizens-United-delivered-to-Congress?detail=email


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> Oh come on now, does he have a magic wand to do all this stuff with. The repubs have stopped everything, shut down the government costing millions, investigate Benghazi over and over and over costing billions, investigate the IRS and try and try and try to tie it to the white house, but unable to. Filed a law suit that everyone says will go nowhere, so it was done only for show which also cost $500 per hour in attorney fees. Compared to where we were when Bush left, I would say we are in way better shape than we were then. The Shrub will never admit it, but he knows he made a mess. That is why he has basically kept his mouth shut. That is why his Mother said we don't need another Bush in the White house. Obamacare is working and if you pay any attention to the reporting about it, it is better than expected. His constant fundraising is laughable. Who does all the fundraising? The republicans and the Koch Brothers. I won't even waste my time giving you an amount of the billions they are spending to to buy their republican politicians.
> You talk about dividing America. No one does that better than the republicans, spreading all their hate and racism. You have blinders on and need to wake up.
> 
> Do you think 3 milloion signatures will make any difference to the republicans? I don't think they really care what the American people want. With the gerrymandered districts they have they know they are set for awhile so they don't have to worry about what the people want.
> ...


You need a better source than dailykos.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> Oh come on now, does he have a magic wand to do all this stuff with. The repubs have stopped everything, shut down the government costing millions, investigate Benghazi over and over and over costing billions, investigate the IRS and try and try and try to tie it to the white house, but unable to. Filed a law suit that everyone says will go nowhere, so it was done only for show which also cost $500 per hour in attorney fees. Compared to where we were when Bush left, I would say we are in way better shape than we were then. The Shrub will never admit it, but he knows he made a mess. That is why he has basically kept his mouth shut. That is why his Mother said we don't need another Bush in the White house. Obamacare is working and if you pay any attention to the reporting about it, it is better than expected. His constant fundraising is laughable. Who does all the fundraising? The republicans and the Koch Brothers. I won't even waste my time giving you an amount of the billions they are spending to to buy their republican politicians.
> You talk about dividing America. No one does that better than the republicans, spreading all their hate and racism. You have blinders on and need to wake up.
> 
> Do you think 3 milloion signatures will make any difference to the republicans? I don't think they really care what the American people want. With the gerrymandered districts they have they know they are set for awhile so they don't have to worry about what the people want.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Ever hear of racial profiling? Totally blamed on racism = impossible??? Are you suggesting that racism does not exist?
> 
> There are no easy, pat answers to this problem. It does not help to suggest that "if only black fathers would read the book on fatherhood" that these problems would cease to exist. It's much more complex than that and the roots of the problem go back a long way. The easy cop-out attitude that these problems can be solved by the old "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" won't work. It will require commitment on the part of the WHITE community, the business community, the educational community, the black community, the law-enforcement community, to eliminate the human degradation that people of color face in our society. I hope I live to see the day that all people in our country are treated with the respect and dignity every human being deserves and that all have the opportunity to live decent, productive lives - which would be a massive benefit to our country as a whole. I weep for all of us that we do not value all of our citizens equally. Think of the talent and creativity wasted by mindless prejudice!


No. It will take a commitment from the Black community period to improve the lives of their community. You talk about racial profiling, what about racial quotas? How have quotas helped? How has being on Welfare generation after generation helped any community or ethnic group?

If you have the time to weep, why don't you have the time to mentor or tutor? It is time to return to Ronald Reagan's 'truly needy' and admit that Obama has hurt not helped our economy. Maybe if there were more jobs some of your wailing would be necessary. And I mean real jobs, not just an increase of part time jobs to make the numbers look good. Less people are working today than when Obama took office. How do you like that change?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> No. It will take a commitment from the Black community period to improve the lives of their community. You talk about racial profiling, what about racial quotas? How have quotas helped? How has being on Welfare generation after generation helped any community or ethnic group?
> 
> If you have the time to weep, why don't you have the time to mentor or tutor? It is time to return to Ronald Reagan's 'truly needy' and admit that Obama has hurt not helped our economy. Maybe if there were more jobs some of your wailing would be necessary. And I mean real jobs, not just an increase of part time jobs to make the numbers look good. Less people are working today than when Obama took office. How do you like that change?


Well, tell the wealthy---those you think are the job creators. C'mon, job creators, create some jobs! I hear over and over from the right wing that we can't raise taxes on the wealthy because they are the job creators. I'm waiting.
Also, how do you know who is or isn't mentoring, tutoring, or helping out?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-fight-dems-house/

Here's a neutral source on GOP gerrymandering. It's outrageous!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> You need a better source than dailykos.


OK, here are some other links to more info. Knock yourself out. Do you actually believe it is ok for a few very wealthy people to buy the congressman they want, who will do what they want so that your voice is not heard and it doesn't matter what you want? Oh, by the way, please tell me what was not factual in the daily kos article and why I need a better source. If you can't answer these questions. then it might be time to keep quiet.

http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2014/09/groups-ramp-pressure-key-senators-ahead-citizens-united-vote

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/09/money-in-politics-senate-advances-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united-ruling/

http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/building-government-serves-ordinary-americans-not-special-interests

http://www.united4thepeople.org/local.html

http://youpower.democracyforamerica.com/petitions/overturn-citizens-united-act-california-s-sb-1272

http://www.democracyisforpeople.org/


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> Well, tell the wealthy---those you think are the job creators. C'mon, job creators, create some jobs! I hear over and over from the right wing that we can't raise taxes on the wealthy because they are the job creators. I'm waiting.
> Also, how do you know who is or isn't mentoring, tutoring, or helping out?


All during the Bush years we heard that same talking points about the job creators, but instead of creating jobs we lost jobs, lots of them, but hey the job creators were very profitable and stuck their tax cuts in their pockets. Bless their hearts!


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> OK, here are some other links to more info. Knock yourself out. Do you actually believe it is ok for a few very wealthy people to buy the congressman they want, who will do what they want so that your voice is not heard and it doesn't matter what you want? Oh, by the way, please tell me what was not factual in the daily kos article and why I need a better source. If you can't answer these questions. then it might be time to keep quiet.
> 
> http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2014/09/groups-ramp-pressure-key-senators-ahead-citizens-united-vote
> 
> ...


Which one of these are neutral sites. Maybe I am not the one that needs to be quite. :shock:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> Well, tell the wealthy---those you think are the job creators. C'mon, job creators, create some jobs! I hear over and over from the right wing that we can't raise taxes on the wealthy because they are the job creators. I'm waiting.
> Also, how do you know who is or isn't mentoring, tutoring, or helping out?


Most jobs are not created by 'the wealthy'. They are small business owners trying to improve their business.

Lower the capital gains tax and watch the job market grow instead of like Burger King leaving the country because of the high corporate taxes.

And Libs would rather have Hobby Lobby close all their stores, lay off all those people over 3 "birth control" methods. How is that helping job creation????


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

61 pages? Are you guys going for a record? How many people have change their opinions by reading all of this? Give it a rest


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Which one of these are neutral sites. Maybe I am not the one that needs to be quite. :shock:


Well, why don't you read them and figure it out. Aren't you capable of comprehending what you are reading and making logical decisions. I don't have to do everything for you, do I? Guess what, if you read something that in your opinion is not a neutral site, nothing will happen to you. I am sure you will continue to breathe as normal and the world will not end. I listen to Fox News once in a while, just to see how they are reporting some news that just happened, and I am still here. Don't be one of those people that only listens to one side of the story. You might learn something. The left is probably the only ones talking about it because I assume you and the rest on the right like having your congressmen/women bought and paid for. Some day though, when your congressman votes the way his billionaire wants him to, you may not like it. Then what?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Pat lamb said:


> 61 pages? Are you guys going for a record? How many people have change their opinions by reading all of this? Give it a rest


No one will change their opinion, but does that mean we are not allowed to voice it? As far as I know we still have free speech in this country, and the freedom to read or not read.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Most jobs are not created by 'the wealthy'. They are small business owners trying to improve their business.
> 
> Lower the capital gains tax and watch the job market grow instead of like Burger King leaving the country because of the high corporate taxes.
> 
> And Libs would rather have Hobby Lobby close all their stores, lay off all those people over 3 "birth control" methods. How is that helping job creation????


No I would rather have HL practice their freedom of religion and follow the law and the rules when it comes to their employees so they can do the same. HL saying they would close their stores if they don't get their way sounds like a 3 year old throwing a tantrum. I doubt they would give up their money maker if it came down to that. They were just being a bully when they said that and were using that as a way to try to further their agenda and gain more control. One part of their plan is to get religion in all public schools. This was just a tactic they were trying out so they know what works and what doesn't. They are far from done.

If Burger King leaves it is because they want all of us to buy their burgers, but they want more money in their pockets. They are not concerned with the country and its people that put them where they are. Those CEO's want a 2 million dollar bonus instead of only 1 million. They are not fooling anyone.


----------



## Pat lamb (Oct 31, 2011)

You are 100% correct but it seems to me that the same things are being said over and over and by all means keep on going. I'm just getting tired of deleting


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Pat lamb said:


> You are 100% correct but it seems to me that the same things are being said over and over and by all means keep on going. I'm just getting tired of deleting


Go up to the top of this page and click on unwatch and you won't get any more notices.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> Well, why don't you read them and figure it out. Aren't you capable of comprehending what you are reading and making logical decisions. I don't have to do everything for you, do I? Guess what, if you read something that in your opinion is not a neutral site, nothing will happen to you. I am sure you will continue to breathe as normal and the world will not end. I listen to Fox News once in a while, just to see how they are reporting some news that just happened, and I am still here. Don't be one of those people that only listens to one side of the story. You might learn something. The left is probably the only ones talking about it because I assume you and the rest on the right like having your congressmen/women bought and paid for. Some day though, when your congressman votes the way his billionaire wants him to, you may not like it. Then what?


So far you have done absolutely nothing for me but give me a headache. Maybe you need to take your own advise and look to the right side of left a little more. You have blinders on, not me.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

The Citizens United ruling was opposed by 80 percent of those recently surveyed. That proves the republican congress men/women are voting what they think is good for their party and not what their constituents want. Tell me people on the right, is this the way you want to be represented?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> So far you have done absolutely nothing for me but give me a headache. Maybe you need to take your own advise and look to the right side of left a little more. You have blinders on, not me.


Sounds like you are the problem. I do read both sides of the story, it is you who is afraid you might read a non neutral sight. I think you are just afraid to read something that makes sense.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Most jobs are not created by 'the wealthy'. They are small business owners trying to improve their business.
> 
> Lower the capital gains tax and watch the job market grow instead of like Burger King leaving the country because of the high corporate taxes.
> 
> And Libs would rather have Hobby Lobby close all their stores, lay off all those people over 3 "birth control" methods. How is that helping job creation????


I heard from right-wing people on this forum over and over again:don't raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, for they are the job creators of the US. Sounds like a beatitude, over and over again. All I want to know from the right is:where are those jobs? I will never understand why the right worships the wealthy, corporations, and business owners like they're some kind of holy force. When our country needs money, it's time for all to step up to the plate. Now it's "don't raise taxes on those business owners and they'll create jobs." We've waited a long time, and it's time for them to show us the jobs.

Oh, I got that wrong. It's LOWER taxes and watch the job market grow. This commandment has never worked!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> The Citizens United ruling was opposed by 80 percent of those recently surveyed. That proves the republican congress men/women are voting what they think is good for their party and not what their constituents want. Tell me people on the right, is this the way you want to be represented?


Unfortunately, it is the way they want to be represented, I guess. They're the ones who vote those people into office, not considering the "good of the people" but the good of a few. Too many people in that group lack empathy, maybe because they've been too far removed from witnessing any kind of financial hardship. The other thing they say is 'we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and so should the next guy." Times have changed. There are no bootstraps.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> The question truly is, why are there more Blacks in jail VS other groups? Why is 17% of the population a majority of the prison population? It can't be totally blamed on racism, impossible. Personally I believe a huge factor is the lack of fathers in the lives of their children. Children who have father figures involved in their lives are less likely to have cognitive, mental, emotional and societal problems than children that have father actively in their lives.
> 
> https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chaptertwo.cfm
> 
> ...


One thing I will say for those on the right is they sure have a way of blaming the victim. 
Oh that black on black crime, how awful. Well you fail to mention that most whites killed are killed by other whites. That is usually where people hang out is in their own neighborhoods. DUH Its not brain surgery, but a little common sense goes a long way. 
Good question, why are there more blacks in jail? 
Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%
African Americans represent 12% of monthly drug users, but comprise 32% of persons arrested for drug possession. Why is that?

In 2002, blacks constituted more than 80% of the people sentenced under the federal crack cocaine laws and served substantially more time in prison for drug offenses than did whites, despite that fact that more than 2/3 of crack cocaine users in the U.S. are white or Hispanic. Why is that?

35% of black children grades 7-12 have been suspended or expelled at some point in their school careers compared to 20% of Hispanics and 15% of whites. Why is that? Oh I can hear those on the right, it is because the blacks cause more trouble and that is wrong so don't even go there.

Black men were more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated in federal and state prisons, and local jails in 2010

Michelle Alexander, the civil rights lawyer turned author, says Americas criminal justice system perpetuates racial inequities.

After years of representing victims of racial profiling and police brutality, and investigating patterns of drug law enforcement, and trying to help people who were released from prison face one barrier, one legal roadblock after another to get a job, getting access to housing, getting even food stampsyou know, I had an awakening that our criminal justice system now functions more like a system of racial and social control, than a system of crime prevention or control.

White Americans are more likely than black Americans to have used most kinds of illegal drugs, including cocaine, marijuana and LSD. Yet blacks are far more likely to go to prison for drug offenses.

Blacks are arrested for drug possession more than three times as often as whites, according to a 2009 report from the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

To post things like you just did LTL just means you are part of the problem more than you are part of the solution. Too many people just sit back, and point their finger and criticize rather than try to even understand what the problem is and how we got there and why it continues. As I have said before, every individual person has a story of how they got to where they are and you can't group them all together and then sit and point your finger and pretend you understand, because you really don't.
There is tremendous inequality in this country in more ways than one and if things don't start to change, those who think they have all the answers may find out they really don't even come close.

The following statement I think says it all, and I think those citizens are tired of being the underclass.

One can take it to conspiratorial or racist theories or not," Leno told HuffPost. "The motivation I don't think needs to be determined. The results are the same: Our policy and lawmaking perpetuate a chronic underclass of citizens."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> One thing I will say for those on the right is they sure have a way of blaming the victim.
> Oh that black on black crime, how awful. Well you fail to mention that most whites killed are killed by other whites. That is usually where people hang out is in their own neighborhoods. DUH Its not brain surgery, but a little common sense goes a long way.
> Good question, why are there more blacks in jail?
> Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
> ...


I think the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown murders, to name just two tell a lot about how racist this country is.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> One thing I will say for those on the right is they sure have a way of blaming the victim.


I have deleted most of your comment out of space considerations - but I agree wholeheartedly and thank you for your effort to research the facts.

Racism is alive and well. It is being used to divide, along with issues involving immigration (more racism) and birth control, creationism, climate change - by the extreme right, who are owned by big corporations and the extremely wealthy. Seems to me that many (note I said many, not all) right-wingers have a lot in common. Things like belief in conspiracy theories, extreme religious views, and a lack of critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, they also vote in greater numbers than moderates and left-wingers. Time for moderates to mobilize and take back the conversation and the congress.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I have deleted most of your comment out of space considerations - but I agree wholeheartedly and thank you for your effort to research the facts.
> 
> Racism is alive and well. It is being used to divide, along with issues involving immigration (more racism) and birth control, creationism, climate change - by the extreme right, who are owned by big corporations and the extremely wealthy. Seems to me that many (note I said many, not all) right-wingers have a lot in common. Things like belief in conspiracy theories, extreme religious views, and a lack of critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, they also vote in greater numbers than moderates and left-wingers. Time for moderates to mobilize and take back the conversation and the congress.


Voting is the most important thing anyone can do. Seems like every time an election rolls around I always hear "voting has never been more important than it is this election." Now it is true again. I just wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper and said for anyone working a minimum wage job, it has never been more important that they vote in November, as their survival depended on it. We still have President Obama with veto power, but after that we could loose the federal minimum wage all together and who knows what the states will do.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> I heard from right-wing people on this forum over and over again:don't raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, for they are the job creators of the US. Sounds like a beatitude, over and over again. All I want to know from the right is:where are those jobs? I will never understand why the right worships the wealthy, corporations, and business owners like they're some kind of holy force. When our country needs money, it's time for all to step up to the plate. Now it's "don't raise taxes on those business owners and they'll create jobs." We've waited a long time, and it's time for them to show us the jobs.
> 
> Oh, I got that wrong. It's LOWER taxes and watch the job market grow. This commandment has never worked!


There are plenty of jobs out there that cannot be filled because people don't have the necessary skills to do the job. Blue collar jobs are not necessarily vanishing, they are just not being filled. What many companies are doing is hiring from outside the US because that is the only way to fill these positions. I wonder how many of these jobs could be filled by recent college grads if they had the necessary skills or a technical education instead of a purely academic one with a huge loan to pay off.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> Unfortunately, it is the way they want to be represented, I guess. They're the ones who vote those people into office, not considering the "good of the people" but the good of a few. Too many people in that group lack empathy, maybe because they've been too far removed from witnessing any kind of financial hardship. The other thing they say is 'we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps and so should the next guy." Times have changed. There are no bootstraps.


Obviously you're from the mindset to not work for anything. It should all be given to you. What is wrong with working for what you want? What is wrong with starting at the bottom and working your way up, as far as your education and skills can take you? Why does everything have to be made easy? With all the entitlements given to people these days, their lives should be simple and they should be fulfilled. Yet that is not the case. The only thing that does is promote further entitlements because what is given is not enough.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

He could not have killed the policeman, he was unarmed. The policeman shot an unarmed man and killed him. That is the story. The policeman was using his prejudicial power of the uniform.


joeysomma said:


> If Michael Brown had killed the policeman, would you have ever heard his name?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Oh come on now, does he have a magic wand to do all this stuff with. The repubs have stopped everything, shut down the government costing millions, investigate Benghazi over and over and over costing billions, investigate the IRS and try and try and try to tie it to the white house, but unable to. Filed a law suit that everyone says will go nowhere, so it was done only for show which also cost $500 per hour in attorney fees. Compared to where we were when Bush left, I would say we are in way better shape than we were then. The Shrub will never admit it, but he knows he made a mess. That is why he has basically kept his mouth shut. That is why his Mother said we don't need another Bush in the White house. Obamacare is working and if you pay any attention to the reporting about it, it is better than expected. His constant fundraising is laughable. Who does all the fundraising? The republicans and the Koch Brothers. I won't even waste my time giving you an amount of the billions they are spending to to buy their republican politicians.
> You talk about dividing America. No one does that better than the republicans, spreading all their hate and racism. You have blinders on and need to wake up.
> 
> Do you think 3 milloion signatures will make any difference to the republicans? I don't think they really care what the American people want. With the gerrymandered districts they have they know they are set for awhile so they don't have to worry about what the people want.
> ...


Only Republicans spread hate and racism? It's you that needs to take your blinders off. The Dems have their equivalent to the Koch brothers in George Sorros and don't forget the unions. Both have poured millions upon millions of dollars into the Dem Party to get what they want and what they want isn't what's good for the people. Both parties are guilty of spreading hate and racism. At this point in time, neither party is looking out for anyone but themselves. Obama gives speech after speech telling the listeners what the Republicans aren't doing. Then he turns around and says that the House can pass a bill but he will not sign it. Harry Reid doesn't even bring up for debate/discussion the bills that the House has passed. Talk about obstruction. The Democrats are doing exactly the same things you claim the Republicans are doing.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> If Michael Brown had killed the policeman, would you have ever heard his name?


If Michael Brown had killed the policeman, he would be in jail for life, but he didn't have a gun or a weapon of any kind, so I don't think your statement makes much sense. If you don't see the problem the black community has with police, as a problem, then you are part of the problem.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> If Michael Brown had killed the policeman, he would be in jail for life, but he didn't have a gun or a weapon of any kind, so I don't think your statement makes much sense. If you don't see the problem the black community has with police, as a problem, then you are part of the problem.


Since when do you need a gun or another weapon to kill someone? Brown used his mere size to attack. Yes he was shot, but he wasn't shot because he was standing still. He was shot because he was attacking and wouldn't back down. There are witnesses to what actually happened.

Yes there is a problem between the black community and the police. There is also a problem within the black community towards the police, which has grown throughout the years. Not all police have caused problems for the black community, as is often stated.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Only Republicans spread hate and racism? It's you that needs to take your blinders off. The Dems have their equivalent to the Koch brothers in George Sorros and don't forget the unions. Both have poured millions upon millions of dollars into the Dem Party to get what they want and what they want isn't what's good for the people. Both parties are guilty of spreading hate and racism. At this point in time, neither party is looking out for anyone but themselves. Obama gives speech after speech telling the listeners what the Republicans aren't doing. Then he turns around and says that the House can pass a bill but he will not sign it. Harry Reid doesn't even bring up for debate/discussion the bills that the House has passed. Talk about obstruction. The Democrats are doing exactly the same things you claim the Republicans are doing.


Bills that they know he won't sign are the only kind the house will pass like voting 50 times to repeal the ACA. Now that is a total waste of time. Would it be taking insurance away from people? Yes, of course, but they don't care. One the house won't consider is immigration. They would rather complain and bad mouth the president about all the kids coming to the US than pass some kind of immigration reform. They tell him if he wants something done do it himself, but then sue him for doing it. It's that hypocrite thing again. 
Yes they are both guilty, but the republicans chose to shut down the government rather than bring a bill to the floor that had passed the senate and would have passed the house if it had been brought to the floor. The so called "conservatives" cost us, the tax payers $24 billion and all they talk about is spending spending spending. Well, they are the ones doing it. All the Benghazi investigations as they desperately try to destroy President Obama and Hillary are costing us another $14 million. 
Their main goal was to keep President Obama from a second term, but they failed. So why couldn't they spend the next 4 years working with him instead of against him. There is a good chance Hillary could be our next president. Wonder what they would do to her. It will be very interesting to see how the next democratic president is treated. Then we will see how racism played into the treatment of President Obama. Besides the fact that the next democratic president could be a woman. It just can't get any better than that. Go from a black man in the white house to a woman in the White house. Those republicans would think their world was coming to an end.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Would you have heard his name if it was any black thug who had killed any white policeman? The answer is no, since there would have been no Sharptons or Jesse Jacksons claiming white racism. There was a black thug who killed a white policeman a few days later. The only news was on a conservative website. The liberal press has no interest in black on white crime. But any white on black crime is racist.


I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand. Why is the black man called a thug, but the white man isn't? IF a black man killed a white policeman, he would be in jail so why is there a need for me to know his name. The reason Rev Sharpton and others get involved is because when it is white killing black, there is no arrest.The only way they get their day in court is protest which they have the right to do. They had to do that for Trayvon Martin and I hope they get their day in court for Michael Brown. 
Why is it that gun toting idiots got to get involved in the Cliven Bundy standoff and that is just people protecting their rights, but when black people protest and Rev Sharpton gets involved, it is suddenly wrong. It's that hypocrite thing again.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Ever hear of racial profiling? Totally blamed on racism = impossible??? Are you suggesting that racism does not exist?
> 
> There are no easy, pat answers to this problem. It does not help to suggest that "if only black fathers would read the book on fatherhood" that these problems would cease to exist. It's much more complex than that and the roots of the problem go back a long way. The easy cop-out attitude that these problems can be solved by the old "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" won't work. It will require commitment on the part of the WHITE community, the business community, the educational community, the black community, the law-enforcement community, to eliminate the human degradation that people of color face in our society. I hope I live to see the day that all people in our country are treated with the respect and dignity every human being deserves and that all have the opportunity to live decent, productive lives - which would be a massive benefit to our country as a whole. I weep for all of us that we do not value all of our citizens equally. Think of the talent and creativity wasted by mindless prejudice!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Since when do you need a gun or another weapon to kill someone? Brown used his mere size to attack. Yes he was shot, but he wasn't shot because he was standing still. He was shot because he was attacking and wouldn't back down. There are witnesses to what actually happened.
> 
> Yes there is a problem between the black community and the police. There is also a problem within the black community towards the police, which has grown throughout the years. Not all police have caused problems for the black community, as is often stated.


There are witnesses that tell what happened, that MB had his hands in the air and was saying no, no, no, but no witnesses that say the policeman was correct in shooting him. The one person who talked on the radio was not a witness, just a friend of the policeman, repeating what she was told. No where did I say all police are the problem as many are not, although it sounds like police in Ferguson are a problem. 
Black parents have to tell their kids to act differently in public than what white parents tell their kids. It will almost always be assumed that a young black man is guilty of something and they will be stopped and questioned and searched. If I had a black son I would be terrified to let him out of the house.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Obviously you're from the mindset to not work for anything. It should all be given to you. What is wrong with working for what you want? What is wrong with starting at the bottom and working your way up, as far as your education and skills can take you? Why does everything have to be made easy? With all the entitlements given to people these days, their lives should be simple and they should be fulfilled. Yet that is not the case. The only thing that does is promote further entitlements because what is given is not enough.


Keep making your assumptions. You're totally wrong. My husband and I worked for everything that we have, our parents worked for everything, and our children work for what they have. No silver platters handed to us. So I guess we're obviously not from the entitlement mindset, whatever that is. But you OBVIOUSLY don't understand anything about today's economy. It is nothing like it was. Nothing is wrong with starting at the bottom. Nothing is wrong with starting at the top, either. It's just that not everyone is in a position to work themselves up. They have children, they can't afford more education---there are a variety of reasons, but you OBVIOUSLY can't see them. So we need to have a safety net and yes, a higher minimum wage so that people can survive.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Only Republicans spread hate and racism? It's you that needs to take your blinders off. The Dems have their equivalent to the Koch brothers in George Sorros and don't forget the unions. Both have poured millions upon millions of dollars into the Dem Party to get what they want and what they want isn't what's good for the people. Both parties are guilty of spreading hate and racism. At this point in time, neither party is looking out for anyone but themselves. Obama gives speech after speech telling the listeners what the Republicans aren't doing. Then he turns around and says that the House can pass a bill but he will not sign it. Harry Reid doesn't even bring up for debate/discussion the bills that the House has passed. Talk about obstruction. The Democrats are doing exactly the same things you claim the Republicans are doing.


Excuse me, but George Soros is not the equivalent of the Koch brothers. Do some reading in something besides conservative, right-wing opinion. Republicans in Congress haven't done diddly-squat. Name 5 good pieces of legislation passed by the Congress since they took over the House. It is well-documented that they have done nothing, have vowed to do nothing, and are actually proud of doing nothing. Surely, it's just a matter of record. There's no way you can argue that the Dems have been the obstructionists in this Congress.
P.S. Do you really think there are enough strong unions in the US to compete with the amount of money the Kochs are throwing all over the place?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

The Koch Brothers have been trying for many years to repeal a law in Kansas that says by the year 2020, Kansas must get 20% of its energy from renewable sources. Even with Kansas being a red state, they have not been able to get Kansas state congress to repeal the law. Now why would they want to do that. Does that 20% cut into their oil profits that much or are they just that greedy? It proves they definitely don't give a crap about the people of Kansas and it is all about them. I think that says a lot about the Koch Brothers.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Obviously you're from the mindset to not work for anything. It should all be given to you. What is wrong with working for what you want? What is wrong with starting at the bottom and working your way up, as far as your education and skills can take you? Why does everything have to be made easy? With all the entitlements given to people these days, their lives should be simple and they should be fulfilled. Yet that is not the case. The only thing that does is promote further entitlements because what is given is not enough.


Not obvious at all. What I see as obvious is that you appear to have bought into the notion that poverty, hunger, homelessness, illness, etc., can be cured by taking away the social safety net and demonizing anyone "below" you. Kinda like saying, "just stop being poor." I find it callous and heartless that you seem to think everyone receiving public benefits fits in your neat little picture. By the way, I have never received a penny in benefits, worked hard all my life and yes, worked my way up from the bottom. That didn't take away my humanity or concern for my fellow human beings.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> The Koch Brothers have been trying for many years to repeal a law in Kansas that says by the year 2020, Kansas must get 20% of its energy from renewable sources. Even with Kansas being a red state, they have not been able to get Kansas state congress to repeal the law. Now why would they want to do that. Does that 20% cut into their oil profits that much or are they just that greedy? It proves they definitely don't give a crap about the people of Kansas and it is all about them. I think that says a lot about the Koch Brothers.


You nailed it - they are that greedy.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Only Republicans spread hate and racism? It's you that needs to take your blinders off. The Dems have their equivalent to the Koch brothers in George Sorros and don't forget the unions. Both have poured millions upon millions of dollars into the Dem Party to get what they want and what they want isn't what's good for the people. Both parties are guilty of spreading hate and racism. At this point in time, neither party is looking out for anyone but themselves. Obama gives speech after speech telling the listeners what the Republicans aren't doing. Then he turns around and says that the House can pass a bill but he will not sign it. Harry Reid doesn't even bring up for debate/discussion the bills that the House has passed. Talk about obstruction. The Democrats are doing exactly the same things you claim the Republicans are doing.


Specifically which bills are the Democrats obstructing? Which specific bill did Obama say he would not sign? Seriously, you need to supply some facts here.


----------



## KnitGma (Apr 10, 2013)

knovice knitter said:


> He could not have killed the policeman, he was unarmed. The policeman shot an unarmed man and killed him. That is the story. The policeman was using his prejudicial power of the uniform.


How can you state this so firmly? Were you present when it took place? I am not trying to cause any problems, I just get tired of the same stories all the time. It is always the victim is bipolar and not taking their meds or it is a white policeman being racists. While this maybe the case sometimes, it can't possibly be true all the time. I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks for allowing me to speak my piece.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I was replying to joesysmomma when she asked if Michael Brown had killed the officer, it would be a different story. I simply said he couldn't as he was unarmed. I don't have to be there to know this. It is in the report. No weapon was found on M. Brown or near his body etc. It is also in the police reports that the officer had not heard the report about the cigar theft. He approached this man because he assumed (bad consequences when one assumes) that Michael Brown was up to no good and shot him. That is racial profiling. At this point, there should have been no reason to stop the young man other than that he was black and that is no reason. What am I to think? This is not racism?


KnitGma said:


> How can you state this so firmly? Were you present when it took place? I am not trying to cause any problems, I just get tired of the same stories all the time. It is always the victim is bipolar and not taking their meds or it is a white policeman being racists. While this maybe the case sometimes, it can't possibly be true all the time. I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks for allowing me to speak my piece.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

KnitGma said:


> How can you state this so firmly? Were you present when it took place? I am not trying to cause any problems, I just get tired of the same stories all the time. It is always the victim is bipolar and not taking their meds or it is a white policeman being racists. While this maybe the case sometimes, it can't possibly be true all the time. I'll get off my soapbox. Thanks for allowing me to speak my piece.


Do you read or listen to anything other than network TV? After the Brown shooting the internet has been flooded with videos of police brutality. Not isolated AT ALL. People of color are profiled and targeted and killed by police regularly. In Ferguson a few years ago the police wrongfully arrested a black man (mistaken identity), held him in jail, beat and kicked him so badly even the police were worried and took him to the hospital. THEN charged him with bleeding on their uniforms. Yeah, the Ferguson police are real heroes. Perhaps the poor victim had not taken his meds that day.

Police militarization and brutality exist. Not all police are brutal any more than all blacks are crazed drugged-up killers, but there is a real problem. Just because it doesn't happen as often to whites is no excuse to deny this horror.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> Excuse me, but George Soros is not the equivalent of the Koch brothers. Do some reading in something besides conservative, right-wing opinion. Republicans in Congress haven't done diddly-squat. Name 5 good pieces of legislation passed by the Congress since they took over the House. It is well-documented that they have done nothing, have vowed to do nothing, and are actually proud of doing nothing. Surely, it's just a matter of record. There's no way you can argue that the Dems have been the obstructionists in this Congress.
> P.S. Do you really think there are enough strong unions in the US to compete with the amount of money the Kochs are throwing all over the place?


Name the bills the Senate brought to the floor to vote on that the House passed. Harry Reid has a stack of bills that he refuses to bring to a vote. So until the Senate starts voting on bills passed by the House, your argument has no standing. Remember, the Senate has not passed a budget in over 6 years, which is illegal. Passing continuing funding resolutions is not a budget.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> I was replying to joesysmomma when she asked if Michael Brown had killed the officer, it would be a different story. I simply said he couldn't as he was unarmed. I don't have to be there to know this. It is in the report. No weapon was found on M. Brown or near his body etc. It is also in the police reports that the officer had not heard the report about the cigar theft. He approached this man because he assumed (bad consequences when one assumes) that Michael Brown was up to no good and shot him. That is racial profiling. At this point, there should have been no reason to stop the young man other than that he was black and that is no reason. What am I to think? This is not racism?


Wrong

Michael was walking in the middle of the street and he asked them to get to the sidewalk. The officer drove on and then heard about the robbery and the description of the robbers, and he thought he had just passed them. He went back, Michael shoved him back in the car and tried to get his gun, punched him brutally in the eye and ran away. The officer got out of his car, told him to stop, Michael (An 18 year old that is over 6'4" and 250+ pounds) turned around and charged at the officer (the officer he just viciously assaulted) and would not stop. The officer shot at him several times to stop him, and the final shot killed him. If Michael had stopped, put his hands up, he would not have been shot. So in my opinion it was a tragedy. But to put the blame totally on the officer wrong. And I bet if Michael had been white, assaulted the officer to get his gun, ran away, turned and charged at the officer the sad outcome would have been the same.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Name the bills the Senate brought to the floor to vote on that the House passed. Harry Reid has a stack of bills that he refuses to bring to a vote. So until the Senate starts voting on bills passed by the House, your argument has no standing. Remember, the Senate has not passed a budget in over 6 years, which is illegal. Passing continuing funding resolutions is not a budget.


Tsk, tsk. That naughty Senate! 
Puh-lease. If you really believe that the problem in Congress is Harry Reid and the Senate you've really left the planet! I'll wait for you to list the important legislation passed by this Congress.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Wrong
> 
> Michael was walking in the middle of the street and he asked them to get to the sidewalk. The officer drove on and then heard about the robbery and the description of the robbers, and he thought he had just passed them. He went back, Michael shoved him back in the car and tried to get his gun, punched him brutally in the eye and ran away. The officer got out of his car, told him to stop, Michael (An 18 year old that is over 6'4" and 250+ pounds) turned around and charged at the officer (the officer he just viciously assaulted) and would not stop. The officer shot at him several times to stop him, and the final shot killed him. If Michael had stopped, put his hands up, he would not have been shot. So in my opinion it was a tragedy. But to put the blame totally on the officer wrong. And I bet if Michael had been white, assaulted the officer to get his gun, ran away, turned and charged at the officer the sad outcome would have been the same.


Again, in the interests of looking at both sides of the story, have a look at this:

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/09/12/10/19/ferguson-shooting-witnesses-filmed-saying-teen-had-hands-in-the-air


----------



## KnitGma (Apr 10, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Do you read or listen to anything other than network TV? After the Brown shooting the internet has been flooded with videos of police brutality. Not isolated AT ALL. People of color are profiled and targeted and killed by police regularly. In Ferguson a few years ago the police wrongfully arrested a black man (mistaken identity), held him in jail, beat and kicked him so badly even the police were worried and took him to the hospital. THEN charged him with bleeding on their uniforms. Yeah, the Ferguson police are real heroes. Perhaps the poor victim had not taken his meds that day.
> I did not mean to imply that these things do not happen, I know they do. I was simply saying it is always the same excuses for the happenings. I don't care if you are black, white or pink polka dotted, we are all God's children and one is no better than the other. As to your question about my TV watching, I do not only watch network TV. I know they will sugar coat things whenever it is possible and only give partial info. Thank you for your info.
> Police militarization and brutality exist. Not all police are brutal any more than all blacks are crazed drugged-up killers, but there is a real problem. Just because it doesn't happen as often to whites is no excuse to deny this horror.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Joeysmomma asked if I was there to witness the event. You saw my reply. Now I must ask you if you were there to witness the event. As far as that brutal eye punch...forget it. The picture of the man in the hospital, with the swollen eye, that has been circulating, is not the officer. This man is McNeal and the picture is from many years ago.


lovethelake said:


> Wrong
> 
> Michael was walking in the middle of the street and he asked them to get to the sidewalk. The officer drove on and then heard about the robbery and the description of the robbers, and he thought he had just passed them. He went back, Michael shoved him back in the car and tried to get his gun, punched him brutally in the eye and ran away. The officer got out of his car, told him to stop, Michael (An 18 year old that is over 6'4" and 250+ pounds) turned around and charged at the officer (the officer he just viciously assaulted) and would not stop. The officer shot at him several times to stop him, and the final shot killed him. If Michael had stopped, put his hands up, he would not have been shot. So in my opinion it was a tragedy. But to put the blame totally on the officer wrong. And I bet if Michael had been white, assaulted the officer to get his gun, ran away, turned and charged at the officer the sad outcome would have been the same.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Wrong
> 
> Michael was walking in the middle of the street and he asked them to get to the sidewalk. The officer drove on and then heard about the robbery and the description of the robbers, and he thought he had just passed them. He went back, Michael shoved him back in the car and tried to get his gun, punched him brutally in the eye and ran away. The officer got out of his car, told him to stop, Michael (An 18 year old that is over 6'4" and 250+ pounds) turned around and charged at the officer (the officer he just viciously assaulted) and would not stop. The officer shot at him several times to stop him, and the final shot killed him. If Michael had stopped, put his hands up, he would not have been shot. So in my opinion it was a tragedy. But to put the blame totally on the officer wrong. And I bet if Michael had been white, assaulted the officer to get his gun, ran away, turned and charged at the officer the sad outcome would have been the same.


You have just parroted the police version, which has enough holes to be called a sponge.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Joeysmomma asked if I was there to witness the event. You saw my reply. Now I must ask you if you were there to witness the event. As far as that brutal eye punch...forget it. The picture of the man in the hospital, with the swollen eye, that has been circulating, is not the officer. This man is McNeal and the picture is from many years ago.


I find it amazing that conservatives find it necessary to bolster what they insist is a clear-cut case of murderous aggression by Michael Brown with phony stories and pictures. There's the fractured eye socket story, of course, and that lovely image of a young African-American--gun in hand and mouth stuffed with bills--that made the rounds a few weeks back. The fact that this is in fact not Michael Brown but rather a young man from Oregon accused of killing his grandmother with a pickax doesn't phase them a bit.


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

I choose not to shop at Hobby Lobby because of their policies towards limiting contraceptive choices for their employees, based on contention that their business has a religious conscience. It is one way I can exercise my right in this country to not only have freedom of religion but also freedom from others' religions. Women need to make their own life choices and have equal opportunities under the law, regardless of whom they work for. There are also other companies I do not shop at due to their political and religious biases.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Wrong
> 
> Michael was walking in the middle of the street and he asked them to get to the sidewalk. The officer drove on and then heard about the robbery and the description of the robbers, and he thought he had just passed them. He went back, Michael shoved him back in the car and tried to get his gun, punched him brutally in the eye and ran away. The officer got out of his car, told him to stop, Michael (An 18 year old that is over 6'4" and 250+ pounds) turned around and charged at the officer (the officer he just viciously assaulted) and would not stop. The officer shot at him several times to stop him, and the final shot killed him. If Michael had stopped, put his hands up, he would not have been shot. So in my opinion it was a tragedy. But to put the blame totally on the officer wrong. And I bet if Michael had been white, assaulted the officer to get his gun, ran away, turned and charged at the officer the sad outcome would have been the same.


You are out of your mind. The officer drove on and then came back!!! That never happened. The police chief said it had NO connection to the supposed robbery. Brutally in the eye, have you got proof of that? There was a picture on the internet of someone that was NOT the officer and people were posting that it was, just to try to defend the policeman, but it was all lies. He did have his hands up and you need to listen to the people who actually witnessed the shooting instead of the policeman telling his story to someone else as he is pretending it happened. A friend of his wife or girlfriend was on the radio giving this made up story. There have been NO stories told like this by anyone who was actually there. 
If MB had been white, he would not have been shot.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/10/us/ferguson-michael-brown-shooting-witnesses/


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Where have you read their choices are limited? They are NOT. The employee is responsible for their own choice, not Hobby Lobby.


...and here we go again. Joeysomma, you clearly don't understand the constitutional issues.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Patricia Martinek said:


> I choose not to shop at Hobby Lobby because of their policies towards limiting contraceptive choices for their employees, based on contention that their business has a religious conscience. It is one way I can exercise my right in this country to not only have freedom of religion but also freedom from others' religions. Women need to make their own life choices and have equal opportunities under the law, regardless of whom they work for. There are also other companies I do not shop at due to their political and religious biases.


I agree and won't shop at HL for the same reasons. Well stated.


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

HL is required to provide health care coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act, which includes covering FDA-approved methods of contraception. HL owners (not the company by the way, these are humans) are claiming the company should be able to withhold coverage of some methods based on religious, not scientific, grounds. Not all women can afford to pay for the most effective contraception methods if not covered by employer-covered plans. HL owners wish to push their religious limitations on their female employees who cannot pay extra for their chosen methods.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Patricia Martinek said:


> HL is required to provide health care coverage to their employees under the Affordable Care Act, which includes covering FDA-approved methods of contraception. HL owners (not the company by the way, these are humans) are claiming the company should be able to withhold coverage of some methods based on religious, not scientific, grounds. Not all women can afford to pay for the most effective contraception methods if not covered by employer-covered plans. HL owners wish to push their religious limitations on their female employees who cannot pay extra for their chosen methods.


Well stated and I agree. I won't shop there. HL also wants religion in public schools and wants it to eventually be mandatory. They are not done. This was just their test case before they figure out what their next step will be.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

cattdages said:


> This issue was not about abortion on any level. It was about medications designed to prevent pregnancy and they say they should have the right to deny their employees these medications.


Hobby Lobby doesn't deny their employees their right to these medications, they just refuse to pay for them. Any employee can pay for them out-of-pocket should they so choose.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It is you and a few other Libs on this site who are delusional and think everything is about Obama's race. Nothing is further from the truth. Too bad you cannot see that fact. Hardly anything you said was true, it was your opinion btw.
> 
> Because of Obama and his lack of leadership, America is in the worst state it has ever been, nothing has to do with the color of his skin EXCEPT those who voted for him PRECISELY because they were of the same race. They didn't vote informed or based on intellectual decisions, they voted by race - the very definition of a racist.


 :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Not obvious at all. What I see as obvious is that you appear to have bought into the notion that poverty, hunger, homelessness, illness, etc., can be cured by taking away the social safety net and demonizing anyone "below" you. Kinda like saying, "just stop being poor." I find it callous and heartless that you seem to think everyone receiving public benefits fits in your neat little picture. By the way, I have never received a penny in benefits, worked hard all my life and yes, worked my way up from the bottom. That didn't take away my humanity or concern for my fellow human beings.


No, I'm sick and tired of people playing the victim 100% of the time. I've never received public benefits either and worked my way up in the business world. If we can do it, so can others. It's not easy, but it can be done with effort. The point is that it will take effort to achieve what you want. If it warms the cockles of your heart to watch them stagnate in poverty, so be it. I think they can do much better than that and deserve more from life.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Specifically which bills are the Democrats obstructing? Which specific bill did Obama say he would not sign? Seriously, you need to supply some facts here.


Seriously, you need to start listening to what Obama and Reid are saying when they are making speeches. If you want to know specifically which bills, do your own research. There are at least 200 bills passed by the House that haven't been given the decency of a debate/discussion by the Senate because Reid won't allow it.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Hobby Lobby doesn't deny their employees their right to these medications, they just refuse to pay for them. Any employee can pay for them out-of-pocket should they so choose.


You are ignoring the constitutional issues.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Seriously, you need to start listening to what Obama and Reid are saying when they are making speeches. If you want to know specifically which bills, do your own research. There are at least 200 bills passed by the House that haven't been given the decency of a debate/discussion by the Senate because Reid won't allow it.


You're the one that made the claim. Back it up.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> No, I'm sick and tired of people playing the victim 100% of the time. I've never received public benefits either and worked my way up in the business world. If we can do it, so can others. It's not easy, but it can be done with effort. The point is that it will take effort to achieve what you want. If it warms the cockles of your heart to watch them stagnate in poverty, so be it. I think they can do much better than that and deserve more from life.


You make some pretty sweeping generalizations. Am I to understand you to mean that there should be no SNAP, no Aid to Dependent Children, no public benefits at all? Are you suggesting that ALL welfare/public assistance recipients are just not trying hard enough?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> You are ignoring the constitutional issues.


The Scotus decided that the constitution can not override the religious beliefs of its citizens in this case. My comment stands true, HL is not denying medications to its employees, they simply will not be paying for them. There's a big difference.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Well stated and I agree. I won't shop there. HL also wants religion in public schools and wants it to eventually be mandatory. They are not done. This was just their test case before they figure out what their next step will be.


I'm sure they have a well-planned agenda. They have already injected themselves into Arizona politics by contributing large sums of money to support the recent debacle of SB1062 which would have legalized discrimination against gays on "religious grounds." Sound familiar? One has to wonder why an Oklahoma company would find their political interests served by getting involved in Arizona politics. As you mentioned, Mr. Green also has other projects in mind, "including a public school curriculum he is proposing about the Bible thats under challenge by church-state separation groups and some Bible scholars." (Washington Post). WTF???? A public school curriculum about the bible, written by a religious fanatic that believes every word of the bible is true? He's building a "bible museum" near the Capitol Mall in Washington - citing that location is vital to spreading the "message." The Green family represents a serious menace. At the same time, they continue to buy cheap goods from China, where mandatory abortion is practiced. What incredible hypocrites.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> The Scotus decided that the constitution can not override the religious beliefs of its citizens in this case. My comment stands true, HL is not denying medications to its employees, they simply will not be paying for them. There's a big difference.


I repeat, you are ignoring the constitutional issues. Or maybe you just don't understand them.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> Hobby Lobby doesn't deny their employees their right to these medications, they just refuse to pay for them. Any employee can pay for them out-of-pocket should they so choose.


That is the question. Why should HL's religion force their employees to pay out of their pocket for something that should be covered. Your comment seems to be a common response for those on the right, just go buy it yourself. Sometimes easier said than done. People on the right must never have money concerns!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mmorris (Sep 5, 2013)

Have heard a lot of stories about working at HL and none of them are good. I really feel badly for the employees who have to deal w/ this thing.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You're the one that made the claim. Back it up.


At least 50 of those are to repeal Obamacare so I am betting the rest of them fall pretty close to the same category, things that we would never want or expect the senate to pass and the president to sign.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

NJG said:


> That is the question. Why should HL's religion force their employees to pay out of their pocket for something that should be covered. Your comment seems to be a common response for those on the right, just go buy it yourself. Sometimes easier said than done. People on the right must never have money concerns!!!!!!!!!!!!


In my opinion it's a matter of principle more than $$$. It would have been an outrage had Southern racists settled the school segregation issue by extracting a fee from African-American students for the "privilege" of attending "white" schools--by charging them a non-deposit on a stool at a lunch counter--or demanding that they pay even one penny to obtain a library card. Such folks quoted the Bible endlessly to prove that God approved of slavery and segregation--now Hobby Lobby is using the same tactic to limit American women's right to safe and legal birth control. It's outrageous.


----------



## mmorris (Sep 5, 2013)

Pay, Working conditions, and personnel issues; :thumbdown:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> In my opinion it's a matter of principle more than $$$. It would have been an outrage had Southern racists settled the school segregation issue by extracting a fee from African-American students for the "privilege" of attending "white" schools--by charging them a non-deposit on a stool at a lunch counter--or demanding that they pay even one penny to obtain a library card. Such folks quoted the Bible endlessly to prove that God approved of slavery and segregation--now Hobby Lobby is using the same tactic to limit American women's right to safe and legal birth control. It's outrageous.


What in the world are you talking about? Never mind I don't care.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> In my opinion it's a matter of principle more than $$$. It would have been an outrage had Southern racists settled the school segregation issue by extracting a fee from African-American students for the "privilege" of attending "white" schools--by charging them a non-deposit on a stool at a lunch counter--or demanding that they pay even one penny to obtain a library card. Such folks quoted the Bible endlessly to prove that God approved of slavery and segregation--now Hobby Lobby is using the same tactic to limit American women's right to safe and legal birth control. It's outrageous.


Yes, outrageous. But more than that, we must maintain separation of church and state! This is for the protection of everyone; freethinkers, atheists and theists. When government gets in the business of endorsing any religion, it puts itself in the position of endorsing what it considers "legitimate" over what is not. When your interpretation of the bible is not respected because your religion is not favored, we've got problems, people. Government must remain strictly neutral in these matters and in the case of HL they have not.

By the way, I'm atheist, so I abhor the thought of government endorsing any religion. However, my views on the matter come from a strong conviction that all should be free to practice their beliefs as their conscience and understanding dictate. Separation of church and state protects YOUR religion from persecution. Too bad evangelicals and fundies are often blind to this concept. Keep faith where it belongs - at home and in the church. No one has ever shown me where their right to attend the church of their choice or practice their faith has been attacked or abridged in any way. Churches still are not taxed. There is no war on religion.

By the way - corporations are not people and therefore cannot have religious views. SCOTUS got it wrong and this argument is NOT settled.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Yes, outrageous. But more than that, we must maintain separation of church and state! This is for the protection of everyone; freethinkers, atheists and theists. When government gets in the business of endorsing any religion, it puts itself in the position of endorsing what it considers "legitimate" over what is not. When your interpretation of the bible is not respected because your religion is not favored, we've got problems, people. Government must remain strictly neutral in these matters and in the case of HL they have not.
> 
> By the way, I'm atheist, so I abhor the thought of government endorsing any religion. However, my views on the matter come from a strong conviction that all should be free to practice their beliefs as their conscience and understanding dictate. Separation of church and state protects YOUR religion from persecution. Too bad evangelicals and fundies are often blind to this concept. Keep faith where it belongs - at home and in the church. No one has ever shown me where their right to attend the church of their choice or practice their faith has been attacked or abridged in any way. Churches still are not taxed. There is no war on religion.


I agree completely, Green. Freedom of religion means freedom for all religions--something Oklahoma City is learning the hard way. When Oklahoma legislators decided it was OK to put up a monument that showed the Ten Commandments on the lawn of the state capitol, the Satanic Temple petitioned to put up something of religious significance to them--a statue of Baphomet, the goat-headed god of the underworld.

There are 19 major religions in the world and countless smaller ones--if all were given their just due people wouldn't be able to walk down the halls of a public building without stumbling over a cross or a monument--the walls and windows would be completely papered over with excerpts from the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and who knows what else.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I agree completely, Green. Freedom of religion means freedom for all religions--something Oklahoma City is learning the hard way. When Oklahoma legislators decided it was OK to put up a monument that showed the Ten Commandments on the lawn of the state capitol, the Satanic Temple petitioned to put up something of religious significance to them--a statue of Baphomet, the goat-headed god of the underworld.
> 
> There are 19 major religions in the world and countless smaller ones--if all were given their just due people wouldn't be able to walk down the halls of a public building without stumbling over a cross or a monument--the walls and windows would be completely papered over with excerpts from the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and who knows what else.


Heck, there are at least 19 different iterations of Christianity practiced right here in the US. It makes me shake my head to remember how then-candidate Kennedy was vilified because of his Catholic faith and there was a cry that he would surely violate separation of church and state. How times change.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Patricia Martinek said:


> I choose not to shop at Hobby Lobby because of their policies towards limiting contraceptive choices for their employees, based on contention that their business has a religious conscience. It is one way I can exercise my right in this country to not only have freedom of religion but also freedom from others' religions. Women need to make their own life choices and have equal opportunities under the law, regardless of whom they work for. There are also other companies I do not shop at due to their political and religious biases.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Heck, there are at least 19 different iterations of Christianity practiced right here in the US. It makes me shake my head to remember how then-candidate Kennedy was vilified because of his Catholic faith and there was a cry that he would surely violate separation of church and state. How times change.


Now it is the right and the supreme court that violate separation of church and state.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> Tsk, tsk. That naughty Senate!
> Puh-lease. If you really believe that the problem in Congress is Harry Reid and the Senate you've really left the planet! I'll wait for you to list the important legislation passed by this Congress.


How can I list legislation when the Senate won't vote on the Bills sent to them by the House? Here is a Civics lesson; legislation or bills can not be law unless voted on and passed by both the House and Senate then signed by the president. So your ignorance about the Constitution is obvious; Congress is just not the House of Representatives.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Where does it state "separation of church and state in the constitution?'


Only those interested in setting up a strawman argument would pose this question. It is commonly understood (even by those who want to claim the "Christian nation" baloney) that we are talking about the first amendment, that says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That we DESCRIBE this as "separation of church and state" is easily understood and commonly accepted. Unless you want to pose stupid, "gotcha" questions that have no bearing on the discussion.

Until recently, courts have ALWAYS held that to mean freedom of religion AND freedom FROM religion. You know that. This concept is being seriously eroded by the religious right, the tea party and now the supreme court. The majority of Americans DO NOT want government to favor fundamental Christianity or any other religion, which is what so many republicans/teabaggers are attempting to accomplish. The evidence of this effort is undeniable. There is a very serious move afoot to overturn some recent SCOTUS decisions and to even impeach some justices for overstepping their authority and making insane decisions. Stay tuned.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> What constitutional issue? Please provide the section of the constitution in question.


The first amendment. Despite what the Supreme Court says in the case of Hobby Lobby. They got it wrong and it will not stand.

The FIRST problem is that they allowed Hobby Lobby, a CORPORATION, to claim to have religious beliefs. This is hogwash. When is the last time you sat next to a corporation in church? Can General Motors claim to have religious beliefs? Of course not. They got it wrong.

The SECOND problem is that they endorsed the idea that a corporation has SUPERIOR constitutional rights over their employees' rights. It is not a question of whether those women can afford to buy their own contraception. Never has been. It has been found in the past that when rights are in conflict, the burden must fall on the party with the lesser compelling interest. In this case, it is dollars and mythical religious beliefs (refer to the first point) against a woman's right to choose what is best for her body. No contest as far as I'm concerned. They got it wrong.

What the supreme court has done is ENDORSE religion by allowing HL to evade the law. Doing this violates the first amendment.

And the problem I have with that is this: as an atheist, I believe all religions have it wrong. It's pure, unadulterated idiocy. Believe what you want but you have no right to impose it on me or anyone else.

And a further problem I have is that HL claims to object to those select forms of contraception because of "sincerely held" religious beliefs. Their actions and moneymaking model prove they have sincerely held beliefs about making money but not in being "Christian."


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> What law did Congress make establishing a religion? The Constitution does not say "freedom from religion."


No, it doesn't. Only idiots use that argument.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> The Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case was not based on the Constituion, but on a law signed by Bill Clinton. Period. Please do not believe me, Read both for yourself. Then tell me what it says.
> Both the Supreme Court Decision and Bill Clinton's Law.


Oh, the protection of religion thing? Mainly intended to protect Native Americans who use peyote in association with religious ceremonies. It has become a quagmire. You are correct, the supreme court did use that law, but the constitutional questions are still there. You can't blame this on Clinton and expect people to say, "Oh, if Clinton signed the bill everything is great." We will never agree on this issue or the predictable fallout as religious fanatics seek to push their agenda harder and harder.

It was NOT Bill Clinton's law. He signed it because it was passed by congress.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Maybe it is the idiots (to use your word) that say it is in the Constituion, when it is not there.


Ok. Then by your reasoning, I do not have any constitutional right to NOT practice religion. Is that your point and belief?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> That is the question. Why should HL's religion force their employees to pay out of their pocket for something that should be covered. Your comment seems to be a common response for those on the right, just go buy it yourself. Sometimes easier said than done. People on the right must never have money concerns!!!!!!!!!!!!


Your answer is a common response from those on the left. There are organizations were the employees of HL, that require the 4 methods of birth control, can obtain them at no cost or for a fraction of the cost. This is an issue that has been blown way out of proportion from both sides. Why can't people pay for their own birth control? If both the man and women pool their resources, they should have the cost of BC covered. After all, they are both responsible for the child their union could produce.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Your answer is a common response from those on the left. There are organizations were the employees of HL, that require the 4 methods of birth control, can obtain them at no cost or for a fraction of the cost. This is an issue that has been blown way out of proportion from both sides. Why can't people pay for their own birth control? If both the man and women pool their resources, they should have the cost of BC covered. After all, they are both responsible for the child their union could produce.


Because it is a bigger question than merely whether employees can afford it. It is the question in the long run of whether an employer can refuse to hire blacks because his religion tells him black people are bad. It is a question of whether an employer can pay women less because his religion tells him that women must be dominated by men. This ruling opens the door to any number of discriminatory practices based on religion alone. In case you had not noticed, the bible is full of these things and there are lots of people who believe them.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I agree completely, Green. Freedom of religion means freedom for all religions--something Oklahoma City is learning the hard way. When Oklahoma legislators decided it was OK to put up a monument that showed the Ten Commandments on the lawn of the state capitol, the Satanic Temple petitioned to put up something of religious significance to them--a statue of Baphomet, the goat-headed god of the underworld.
> 
> There are 19 major religions in the world and countless smaller ones--if all were given their just due people wouldn't be able to walk down the halls of a public building without stumbling over a cross or a monument--the walls and windows would be completely papered over with excerpts from the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and who knows what else.


We should also get rid of all items, decorations and displays to any religious holiday. No one should be allowed to take time off for a religious holiday - schools, workplace, government - all praying/rejoicing should be done on your time only. Celebrations should only be allowed in private, without any public display. This way, no one will be offended.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Because it is a bigger question than merely whether employees can afford it. It is the question in the long run of whether an employer can refuse to hire blacks because his religion tells him black people are bad. It is a question of whether an employer can pay women less because his religion tells him that women must be dominated by men. This ruling opens the door to any number of discriminatory practices based on religion alone. In case you had not noticed, the bible is full of these things and there are lots of people who believe them.


There are many more that do not believe them. Your comparison is making more out of it than needs to be. HL does NOT refuse its employees access to the BC, nor does HL say they can't work at their stores because they use certain BC. It's not the same thing as denying blacks employment because one's religion tells them blacks are bad. That's an extreme. It's the same as you killing your neighbor because your religion says he has to behave in a certain way and your neighbor didn't.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> There are many more that do not believe them. Your comparison is making more out of it than needs to be. HL does NOT refuse its employees access to the BC, nor does HL say they can't work at their stores because they use certain BC. It's not the same thing as denying blacks employment because one's religion tells them blacks are bad. That's an extreme. It's the same as you killing your neighbor because your religion says he has to behave in a certain way and your neighbor didn't.


I can't agree that many do not believe those things. You may recall the debacle over Arizona's law that would make it legal to refuse service to gays based on religion. Enough people have strange religious beliefs to create problems and to restrict freedoms. Extreme? Oh yeah. by the way, your last example makes no sense at all.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> We should also get rid of all items, decorations and displays to any religious holiday. No one should be allowed to take time off for a religious holiday - schools, workplace, government - all praying/rejoicing should be done on your time only. Celebrations should only be allowed in private, without any public display. This way, no one will be offended.


Perhaps you would like to reflect on the fact that national holidays associated with religion are exclusively Christian.

"Praying should be done on your time only." Please tell me any other time that would be appropriate? Certainly not on MY time.

No one gives a damn about your religious displays until they are funded, sponsored or endorsed by a government entity. As an atheist I'm not offended by religious displays in the least, but I sure don't want to pay for them with my taxes.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> How can I list legislation when the Senate won't vote on the Bills sent to them by the House? Here is a Civics lesson; legislation or bills can not be law unless voted on and passed by both the House and Senate then signed by the president. So your ignorance about the Constitution is obvious; Congress is just not the House of Representatives.


Why don't you list the bills passed by the wonderful republican house that Harry won't bring to the floor in the senate.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Your answer is a common response from those on the left. There are organizations were the employees of HL, that require the 4 methods of birth control, can obtain them at no cost or for a fraction of the cost. This is an issue that has been blown way out of proportion from both sides. Why can't people pay for their own birth control? If both the man and women pool their resources, they should have the cost of BC covered. After all, they are both responsible for the child their union could produce.


Those on the right never do understand the issue of money and what people can afford. So now they can go to some "organization" to get help with the cost. If the ACA was enforced as it was suppose to be, they wouldn't need help from others. Their contraceptives would be covered. Is it that you just enjoy those less fortunate having to constantly depend on help from someone. Is it a fact that when you talk about "those people," that you like them being dependent on others for their contraceptives or needing food stamps or rent assistance or whatever it is, because it makes you feel superior and better? Now they can pool their resources. It is obvious those on the right don't want to help those less fortunate, but when the ACA tries to make it better for everyone, well, you don't like that either.

Why can't wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes. Why do they think they always need tax cuts? Sounds like you are the dependent ones for your government handout.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

The right believes many things that they usually don't admit to, especially concerning rape. It only takes an idiot or two to open their mouth and be overheard by someone they didn't intend it to be heard by and then they have to go into the denial mode. Truth be known, the majority believe these and a whole lot more.

Clayton Williams made that statement when running against Ann Richards for governor of Texas. Then in 08 he raised money for John McCain, but McCain cancelled a fundraiser returned the money as he knew the name Clayton Williams was poison.

They have rape kits where a woman can get "cleaned out" after rape. How can a woman be so stupid and she is now a candidate for her 7th term in congress in Texas. Says a lot about Texas republican women.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Those on the right never do understand the issue of money and what people can afford. So now they can go to some "organization" to get help with the cost. If the ACA was enforced as it was suppose to be, they wouldn't need help from others. Their contraceptives would be covered. Is it that you just enjoy those less fortunate having to constantly depend on help from someone. Is it a fact that when you talk about "those people," that you like them being dependent on others for their contraceptives or needing food stamps or rent assistance or whatever it is, because it makes you feel superior and better? Now they can pool their resources. It is obvious those on the right don't want to help those less fortunate, but when the ACA tries to make it better for everyone, well, you don't like that either.
> 
> Why can't wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes. Why do they think they always need tax cuts? Sounds like you are the dependent ones for your government handout.


The really hilarious part of this argument is that "those people" didn't bring the lawsuit or make an issue of it one way or the other. It was Hobby Lobby vs. Kathleen Sibelius.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> The really hilarious part of this argument is that "those people" didn't bring the lawsuit or make an issue of it one way or the other. It was Hobby Lobby vs. Kathleen Sibelius.


Right, but then they claim to want smaller government, less interference from the government, less regulation from the government, unless of course it is to my benefit. Hypocrites


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Right, but then they claim to want smaller government, less interference from the government, less regulation from the government, unless of course it is to my benefit. Hypocrites


You might be interested in this article. Very informative about the religious right. A little long, but well worth the read.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

NJG said:


> The right believes many things that they usually don't admit to, especially concerning rape. It only takes an idiot or two to open their mouth and be overheard by someone they didn't intend it to be heard by and then they have to go into the denial mode. Truth be known, the majority believe these and a whole lot more.
> 
> Clayton Williams made that statement when running against Ann Richards for governor of Texas. Then in 08 he raised money for John McCain, but McCain cancelled a fundraiser returned the money as he knew the name Clayton Williams was poison.
> 
> They have rape kits where a woman can get "cleaned out" after rape. How can a woman be so stupid and she is now a candidate for her 7th term in congress in Texas. Says a lot about Texas republican women.


Those quotes are appalling! How did they come to light and when? These people are politicians? OMG.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> Those quotes are appalling! How did they come to light and when? These people are politicians? OMG.


Yes these people are politicians. The first and last ones are from awhile back, but the others are from the last election in 2012. Just google each persons name if you want to read more.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You might be interested in this article. Very informative about the religious right. A little long, but well worth the read.
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2014/03/27/hobby_lobbys_secret_agenda_how_its_secretly_funding_a_vast_right_wing_movement/


Yes, I have read that. There is definitely more coming from HL. They are only getting started.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

NJG said:


> Yes these people are politicians. The first and last ones are from awhile back, but the others are from the last election in 2012. Just google each persons name if you want to read more.


Will do.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Those on the right never do understand the issue of money and what people can afford. So now they can go to some "organization" to get help with the cost. If the ACA was enforced as it was suppose to be, they wouldn't need help from others. Their contraceptives would be covered. Is it that you just enjoy those less fortunate having to constantly depend on help from someone. Is it a fact that when you talk about "those people," that you like them being dependent on others for their contraceptives or needing food stamps or rent assistance or whatever it is, because it makes you feel superior and better? Now they can pool their resources. It is obvious those on the right don't want to help those less fortunate, but when the ACA tries to make it better for everyone, well, you don't like that either.
> 
> Why can't wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes. Why do they think they always need tax cuts? Sounds like you are the dependent ones for your government handout.


Get off your high horse. I'm not one of the 1% - very far from it. I worked for what I have and have had to do without many times. Just because I wanted something, didn't mean that I could financially afford it. I either saved up for it, or did without. Your "those people" are being kept down by your party and themselves. Democrats are the ones that want to make sure everything is given instead of earned. The real question is why are they less fortunate? Most of it is because you and your ilk have been keeping them down for decades. By doing so, it fills your agenda. A glaring example is Detroit, which has been under the control of Democrats for the last 60 years. How has that turned out for the citizens? Take a look at Chicago - same thing going on there.

You're always good at saying the rich should pay their fair share. Well, what exactly is their fair share? 70, 80, 90%? What exactly happens to the economy if they do pay that amount?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> If you read the actual *ACA Law*, there is no mention of any contraceptives to be provided free. It is a rule by HHS that can be changed by the "powers that be" at any time. Hobby Lobby challenged that rule. The Supreme Court ruled it cannot be enforced on Hobby Lobby or similar business or organizations because of a Law signed by Bill Clinton. Hobby Lobby does provide contraceptives free, just not IUD's and abortifacients. I do believe if a women is raped and she goes to an emergency room, the morning after pill is provided in that setting.
> Is there anything else in the law or rules that is mandated that it be provided free?


GENERALLY, insurance covers expenses that are MEDICALLY NECESSARY not elective. Contraceptives are not medically necessary and therefore, should not be covered.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Another volley in the war on women.



rderemer said:


> GENERALLY, insurance covers expenses that are MEDICALLY NECESSARY not elective. Contraceptives are not medically necessary and therefore, should not be covered.


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

You mean, like Viagra? Medically necessary, you say?


----------



## Patricia Martinek (Jan 22, 2014)

rderemer said:


> GENERALLY, insurance covers expenses that are MEDICALLY NECESSARY not elective. Contraceptives are not medically necessary and therefore, should not be covered.


Smoking, drug addiction, and obesity also are not medically necessary. Why then do our insurance pools pay for complications related to them?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Those on the right never do understand the issue of money and what people can afford. So now they can go to some "organization" to get help with the cost. If the ACA was enforced as it was suppose to be, they wouldn't need help from others. Their contraceptives would be covered. Is it that you just enjoy those less fortunate having to constantly depend on help from someone. Is it a fact that when you talk about "those people," that you like them being dependent on others for their contraceptives or needing food stamps or rent assistance or whatever it is, because it makes you feel superior and better? Now they can pool their resources. It is obvious those on the right don't want to help those less fortunate, but when the ACA tries to make it better for everyone, well, you don't like that either.
> 
> Why can't wealthy people pay their fair share of taxes. Why do they think they always need tax cuts? Sounds like you are the dependent ones for your government handout.


I'm afraid reason is wasted on the right-wingers here - and everywhere else. They appear to believe their own hype, that everyone who needs public assistance is either lazy, believes others should give them everything, buy drugs instead of food and rent, or a combination of the above. Facebook and Faux news promotes these beliefs by taking every opportunity to report on that small percentage that do fit the negative stereotype. It is inconceivable to them that others may not have had the same advantages in life they have enjoyed. And I'm not talking about being wealthy. They take for granted that at some point their hard work was actually rewarded, a luxury not enjoyed by many. They probably had decent education, even if it was not a college education. This is also a luxury not enjoyed by all, who even though they had a school, may have been trying to learn while struggling with hunger, illness and lack of support at home.

How many times have I been asked, "So you don't mind your tax dollars going to people who refuse to work???" Well, actually, I do. However, I would rather my tax dollars go to that miniscule percentage of recipients who cheat than NOT help the vast majority who do not. I would rather feed a few lazy bums than knowingly deny a hungry child adequate food. I would rather pay taxes, even higher taxes, to ensure that those struggling with illness and helplessness receive care and support and a decent life.

Teabaggers and right-wingers have human compassion limited by their refusal to see anything besides what they want to see from their self-imposed pedestal of self-righteousness. They prove that every time they open their mouths. Their only answer, boiled down from the endless rhetoric, is simple; "it's your own fault for being poor." They refuse to recognize facts to the contrary.

They deny racism exists, and if it does, minorities should just get over it or try harder, and at the same time never display anger, or frustration, remaining always gracious in the face of any adversity.

They deny or ignore the issue of hunger, even though the overwhelming majority of SNAP recipients are the WORKING POOR. They refuse to acknowledge the special challenges of the ill, disabled, elderly as if they don't exist.

As a feminist I believe birth control is fundamental to the advancement of women. That other women deny this is a mystery to me. How can they deny our collective experience so casually? Birth control SHOULD be free to any woman who wants it and to hell with the objections of religious fanatics or stingy republicans. The argument that women should take responsibility??? Isn't using birth control exactly that? Oh -- I guess if you can't afford to pay for it you don't deserve normal relationships, even if married. So work harder, bitch.

I know I will be blasted by the right-wingers, but these are honest observations based on what I have personally heard and read from them - I'm not parroting what I heard anywhere else.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I'm afraid reason is wasted on the right-wingers here - and everywhere else. They appear to believe their own hype, that everyone who needs public assistance is either lazy, believes others should give them everything, buy drugs instead of food and rent, or a combination of the above. Facebook and Faux news promotes these beliefs by taking every opportunity to report on that small percentage that do fit the negative stereotype. It is inconceivable to them that others may not have had the same advantages in life they have enjoyed. And I'm not talking about being wealthy. They take for granted that at some point their hard work was actually rewarded, a luxury not enjoyed by many. They probably had decent education, even if it was not a college education. This is also a luxury not enjoyed by all, who even though they had a school, may have been trying to learn while struggling with hunger, illness and lack of support at home.
> 
> How many times have I been asked, "So you don't mind your tax dollars going to people who refuse to work???" Well, actually, I do. However, I would rather my tax dollars go to that miniscule percentage of recipients who cheat than NOT help the vast majority who do not. I would rather feed a few lazy bums than knowingly deny a hungry child adequate food. I would rather pay taxes, even higher taxes, to ensure that those struggling with illness and helplessness receive care and support and a decent life.
> 
> ...


You hit multiple nails directly on their respective heads, Green. Thanks!

:thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> You hit multiple nails directly on their respective heads, Green. Thanks!
> 
> :thumbup:


Applause, D Green! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> Applause, D Green! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Thanks, Ladies! I feel so much better getting that off my chest.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I'm afraid reason is wasted on the right-wingers here - and everywhere else. They appear to believe their own hype, that everyone who needs public assistance is either lazy, believes others should give them everything, buy drugs instead of food and rent, or a combination of the above. Facebook and Faux news promotes these beliefs by taking every opportunity to report on that small percentage that do fit the negative stereotype. It is inconceivable to them that others may not have had the same advantages in life they have enjoyed. And I'm not talking about being wealthy. They take for granted that at some point their hard work was actually rewarded, a luxury not enjoyed by many. They probably had decent education, even if it was not a college education. This is also a luxury not enjoyed by all, who even though they had a school, may have been trying to learn while struggling with hunger, illness and lack of support at home.
> 
> How many times have I been asked, "So you don't mind your tax dollars going to people who refuse to work???" Well, actually, I do. However, I would rather my tax dollars go to that miniscule percentage of recipients who cheat than NOT help the vast majority who do not. I would rather feed a few lazy bums than knowingly deny a hungry child adequate food. I would rather pay taxes, even higher taxes, to ensure that those struggling with illness and helplessness receive care and support and a decent life.
> 
> ...


Very very well said. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Get off your high horse. I'm not one of the 1% - very far from it. I worked for what I have and have had to do without many times. Just because I wanted something, didn't mean that I could financially afford it. I either saved up for it, or did without. Your "those people" are being kept down by your party and themselves. Democrats are the ones that want to make sure everything is given instead of earned. The real question is why are they less fortunate? Most of it is because you and your ilk have been keeping them down for decades. By doing so, it fills your agenda. A glaring example is Detroit, which has been under the control of Democrats for the last 60 years. How has that turned out for the citizens? Take a look at Chicago - same thing going on there.
> 
> You're always good at saying the rich should pay their fair share. Well, what exactly is their fair share? 70, 80, 90%? What exactly happens to the economy if they do pay that amount?


Why don't you take a look at Kansas with Brownback and his "new pro-growth tax policy, and the cuts that would pay for themselves in economic growth. The state now has a shortfall of $338 million so how is that working out for the citizens? 
Take a look at New Jersey, with a big budget shortfall and Christie thinks he can be president.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I'm afraid reason is wasted on the right-wingers here - and everywhere else. They appear to believe their own hype, that everyone who needs public assistance is either lazy, believes others should give them everything, buy drugs instead of food and rent, or a combination of the above. Facebook and Faux news promotes these beliefs by taking every opportunity to report on that small percentage that do fit the negative stereotype. It is inconceivable to them that others may not have had the same advantages in life they have enjoyed. And I'm not talking about being wealthy. They take for granted that at some point their hard work was actually rewarded, a luxury not enjoyed by many. They probably had decent education, even if it was not a college education. This is also a luxury not enjoyed by all, who even though they had a school, may have been trying to learn while struggling with hunger, illness and lack of support at home.
> 
> How many times have I been asked, "So you don't mind your tax dollars going to people who refuse to work???" Well, actually, I do. However, I would rather my tax dollars go to that miniscule percentage of recipients who cheat than NOT help the vast majority who do not. I would rather feed a few lazy bums than knowingly deny a hungry child adequate food. I would rather pay taxes, even higher taxes, to ensure that those struggling with illness and helplessness receive care and support and a decent life.
> 
> ...


It also appears that you believe your own hype, and because Conservatives don't agree with you, they are wrong. That is a false premise.

Conservatives do not deny racism, they don't use it as a crutch. Conservatives do not deny hunger. Conservatives are not all rich and have had an easy life. Conservatives donate a tremendous amount of money to their churches and charities. They are quiet about it, because they do it because it is the right thing to do and it is necessary. Personally, I prefer to give my time and money to local needs or to organizations that I have vetted thoroughly and know that my money will be used to help not buy TV ads. I am very private about my financial donations. In fact I made a very large donation to my church with the strict understanding that it was to remain anonymous.

Hobby Lobby pays for birth control, just not for three that they believe causes abortions. They do not stop any employee from using those three.

And just because you are a feminist (Which I personally believe most are radicalized, politicized and angry that they have lost the main purpose of the NOW movement of the 60's and try to remain relevant but are failing) how does having birth control advance you? Do you need birth control to be free and be successful? Or are you sleeping your way to the top? Who is going to pay for all this free b.c.? Will it drop from the sky? It has to be produced, packaged, many times prescribed, distributed....all of that costs money. How will it be paid for? Personally I do not believe that my tax dollars should be used that way. Since 2010, and the disastrous obamacare has been in existence, my heath care insurance has doubled. I had a good policy, and chose a high deductible to keep my cost down. My monthly payment has gone from $325 to $650, and I have less coverage, more out of pocket expenses and no increase of my income. I thought that obamacare was to save me almost $100 a month, not cost me over $325 more a month. Basically obamacare is costing me almost $5000 more a year. I honestly will say, that my medical situation has not changed in the past four years. I have only gone to my doctor for routine checkups and once for an infection. This is not what we as a country were promised. It is all a LIE. So don't expect me to believe in "free" b.c., nothing in life is free.

Everything you say that Conservative (falsely) say are against costs money. How are we going to pay for it? Britain is in financial ruins because of socialism. Who are you going to take money from to pay for what you believe is necessary? And who are you to determine what is necessary? In fact there was something on the radio yesterday that was about how people lied to get subsidies, and now tat needs to be fixed at taxpayer's expense.

Why doesn't Obama raise money for the poor and not for political gains? Maybe if he would stop jetting around on Air Force One to play golf, go to bachelor parties, attend galas and fund raisers, Americans would see a good role model. How does he say he is for the poor when he lives such a lavish life style?

Focus more on job creation (real jobs, not part time jobs) and maybe we wouldn't need all those social welfare programs.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Since 2010, and the disastrous obamacare has been in existence, my heath care insurance has doubled. I had a good policy, and chose a high deductible to keep my cost down. My monthly payment has gone from $325 to $650, and I have less coverage, more out of pocket expenses and no increase of my income. I thought that obamacare was to save me almost $100 a month, not cost me over $325 more a month. Basically obamacare is costing me almost $5000 more a year. I honestly will say, that my medical situation has not changed in the past four years. I have only gone to my doctor for routine checkups and once for an infection. This is not what we as a country were promised. It is all a LIE.


Wait a minute. Are you claiming that your insurance premium has gone up $325 a month since Obamacare went into effect in 2010? The sign-up and new rates went into effect in 2014.

That leaves 2011, 2012 and 2013 for your rates to have been affected by forces other than Obamacare. Having been deeply involved in negotiating insurance plans for my employer (Arizona), I know that insurance premiums were increasing by about 13% a year between 2010 and 2013. This was not due to the new law, it was due to insurance companies raising their rates just because they could. At that time they also had lifetime caps, could drop you because you got sick - and were free to gouge you with astronomical rates unless you were covered by a group plan. Or refuse to insure you at all. And pay their shareholders a handsome profit.

I'm glad to hear you seldom use your insurance. That tells me you are healthy and don't have any chronic health problems. That does NOT mean you never will have an accident, a heart attack, cancer, a stroke or other major health event, at which time you probably will need coverage. In case you have forgotten, that is the main reason you have insurance in the first place. And if you do develop some awful condition, you can now rest assured that you won't be subject to a limit on your care, after which you would not have been able to get coverage at any cost under the old "free market" dynamic.

You say you have only gone to the doctor for routine checkups and an infection. Ok. Routine checkups like yearly exams? Yes, I've heard the horror stories about the limits on the yearly exam - if you bring up a problem you will get charged for the visit. Logically, this actually makes some sense. Otherwise those "takers" would use the yearly exam to cheat and get treated for all of their ongoing health conditions for free. So, if you went for a routine checkup and then discussed an old or existing problem, you may have been charged a copay.

You don't say whether you have individual coverage or family coverage or whether you get insurance through your employer or independently. All of those factors figure in. Evidently you do not live in poverty if you can afford to make a "large donation" to your church.

You're looking at Obamacare through your own little view. I understand your pain, but what about the abuses this law will help eliminate? What about the huge number of people who will now have care that otherwise would have gone to the ER - costing taxpayers vast amounts of money? What about the good that it will do in the long run in terms of slowing down the huge amount of resources sucked up by the health-care industry?

No increase in income? Look to your employer regarding that. Wages have been stagnant for a long time and that is not Obama's fault. Profits are at record highs, so figure out who is getting the benefit of your labor.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Another volley in the war on women.[/quo
> 
> Are you serious? Insurance was intended to cover medical expenses to help offset the out-of-pocket expenses for necessary medical care (illness and accident) not procedures or medications the insured decided they wanted. Many insurance companies currently cover female contraceptives (not condoms) but that still doesn't make them medically necessary.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Conservatives do not deny racism, they don't use it as a crutch. Conservatives do not deny hunger. Conservatives are not all rich and have had an easy life. Conservatives donate a tremendous amount of money to their churches and charities. They are quiet about it, because they do it because it is the right thing to do and it is necessary. Personally, I prefer to give my time and money to local needs or to organizations that I have vetted thoroughly and know that my money will be used to help not buy TV ads. I am very private about my financial donations. In fact I made a very large donation to my church with the strict understanding that it was to remain anonymous.


OK. You don't deny that racism exists. You seem to be okay with that. I sure don't hear conservatives suggesting any solutions to this disgrace. Don't use it as a "crutch?" You are probably not a person of color and don't really get it. The very real impact of racism is that it hurts people in very real ways. Conservatives seem to have no compassion for the less fortunate and expect them to work harder, try harder, accept their lot and not complain. When people are discriminated against for WHO THEY ARE and not for WHAT THEY DO, it is wrong. Your willingness to dismiss this tells me you are a racist.

Conservatives do not deny hunger but want to cut food stamps and constantly paint SNAP recipients as "takers." Looks like you're comfortable with people being hungry since you acknowledge it exists. You don't want to "enable" those lazy "takers" in any way, right? What balance do you suggest in this area? Using hunger as a motivation? Letting children and the helpless go without food in order to teach their parents and caretakers a lesson? WTF. What about the working poor? Conservatives prefer to see businesses make the maximum profit over any hike in minimum wage, that's for sure. Oh yes - I forgot that those at the bottom of the economy are there because they made poor life decisions. Gotcha.

If you donate heavily to your church, that is a personal choice. Good for you if you have the ability to do so. Churches generally pass out a big helping of Jesus with the dinner plate. A great model for proselytizing but not for resolving the root cause of poverty.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> DGreen said:
> 
> 
> > Another volley in the war on women.[/quo
> ...


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

Patricia Martinek said:


> Smoking, drug addiction, and obesity also are not medically necessary. Why then do our insurance pools pay for complications related to them?


The employer who is providing the coverage decides what will be covered in their group insurance policy. Some can afford to be more generous than others as the cost of the policy increases as more benefits are added. I don't know about smoking cessation being covered by insurance but I do know that drug addiction is considered an illness and, therefore, covered. Obesity is also covered if the afflicted is a certain percentage of body fat overweight.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

Patricia Martinek said:


> You mean, like Viagra? Medically necessary, you say?


Viagara is not medically necessary and may not be covered by some insurance policies.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> And just because you are a feminist (Which I personally believe most are radicalized, politicized and angry that they have lost the main purpose of the NOW movement of the 60's and try to remain relevant but are failing) how does having birth control advance you? Do you need birth control to be free and be successful? Or are you sleeping your way to the top? Who is going to pay for all this free b.c.? Will it drop from the sky? It has to be produced, packaged, many times prescribed, distributed....all of that costs money. How will it be paid for? Personally I do not believe that my tax dollars should be used that way. quote]
> 
> Yes, women need birth control to be free and successful. In terms of pursuing higher education, career advancement, economic independence and human dignity, the ability to control reproduction is absolutely necessary.
> 
> ...


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

. . . Your tax dollars don't pay for birth control anyway. . . 

Of course they do, where do you think the money comes from?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said: Everything you say that Conservative (falsely) say are against costs money. How are we going to pay for it?

Common response, but when I ask why then, was there no thought of paying for two wars and the Medicare RX plan in advance, I get no answer. I assume that if a conservative wants to spend money, it is ok, but if it is a democrat, well we need that paid for. Am I right LTL?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> How did women obtain their birth control before the ACA?
> 
> Were they "free and sucessful" before the ACA?
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: I am free and successful - I am not a victim


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> I'm afraid reason is wasted on the right-wingers here - and everywhere else. They appear to believe their own hype, that everyone who needs public assistance is either lazy, believes others should give them everything, buy drugs instead of food and rent, or a combination of the above. Facebook and Faux news promotes these beliefs by taking every opportunity to report on that small percentage that do fit the negative stereotype. It is inconceivable to them that others may not have had the same advantages in life they have enjoyed. And I'm not talking about being wealthy. They take for granted that at some point their hard work was actually rewarded, a luxury not enjoyed by many. They probably had decent education, even if it was not a college education. This is also a luxury not enjoyed by all, who even though they had a school, may have been trying to learn while struggling with hunger, illness and lack of support at home.
> 
> How many times have I been asked, "So you don't mind your tax dollars going to people who refuse to work???" Well, actually, I do. However, I would rather my tax dollars go to that miniscule percentage of recipients who cheat than NOT help the vast majority who do not. I would rather feed a few lazy bums than knowingly deny a hungry child adequate food. I would rather pay taxes, even higher taxes, to ensure that those struggling with illness and helplessness receive care and support and a decent life.
> 
> ...


Talk about believing one's own hype. Nice job of reading the propaganda and spitting it back out. You are quite the poster child for the liberal propaganda.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Why don't you take a look at Kansas with Brownback and his "new pro-growth tax policy, and the cuts that would pay for themselves in economic growth. The state now has a shortfall of $338 million so how is that working out for the citizens?
> Take a look at New Jersey, with a big budget shortfall and Christie thinks he can be president.


how about an answer to my questions?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> GENERALLY, insurance covers expenses that are MEDICALLY NECESSARY not elective. Contraceptives are not medically necessary and therefore, should not be covered.


In your opinion, they are not medically necessary. Try telling that to the young family, struggling financially, and can't afford another child. Tell that to the woman with endometriosis or very painful periods. There are many reasons for using contraceptives.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Wait a minute. Are you claiming that your insurance premium has gone up $325 a month since Obamacare went into effect in 2010? The sign-up and new rates went into effect in 2014.
> 
> That leaves 2011, 2012 and 2013 for your rates to have been affected by forces other than Obamacare. Having been deeply involved in negotiating insurance plans for my employer (Arizona), I know that insurance premiums were increasing by about 13% a year between 2010 and 2013. This was not due to the new law, it was due to insurance companies raising their rates just because they could. At that time they also had lifetime caps, could drop you because you got sick - and were free to gouge you with astronomical rates unless you were covered by a group plan. Or refuse to insure you at all. And pay their shareholders a handsome profit.
> 
> ...


No you are wrong. According to my insurance company it was in anticipation of obamamcare. In addition, we used to get a 'refund' check once a year if the group did not use all the fund. The first year it was somewhere around $300. Two years ago it was around $160. Last years was $16.

Why do you think that because my income has not changed it is not Obama's fault? You ASSume that my money is being taken by a greedy 1% er (just like the people Obama hangs with on weekends, plays golf with and gets campaign money from) Wrong again. Profits maybe up, but so are taxes and additional regulations by an out of control Federal Government. But I guess like Burger King, many companies are leaving the US because of the capital gains tax that is the highest in the world. Corporations do donate money, but not legally obligated to do so. The only obligation a corporation has is to it's shareholders (the people that gambled with their own money on their stock and hopefully won).

So with companies leaving the US. Small family owned companies are laying off full time people and hiring part time people, no wonder the US is ready for a free fall economically.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> . . . Your tax dollars don't pay for birth control anyway. . .
> 
> Of course they do, where do you think the money comes from?


Premiums, and in some cases from the insurance companies themselves, from profits. The portion of your tax dollars you think is going for birth control is so small as to be almost incalculable.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> No you are wrong. According to my insurance company it was in anticipation of obamamcare. In addition, we used to get a 'refund' check once a year if the group did not use all the fund. The first year it was somewhere around $300. Two years ago it was around $160. Last years was $16.
> 
> Why do you think that because my income has not changed it is not Obama's fault? You ASSume that my money is being taken by a greedy 1% er (just like the people Obama hangs with on weekends, plays golf with and gets campaign money from) Wrong again. Profits maybe up, but so are taxes and additional regulations by an out of control Federal Government. But I guess like Burger King, many companies are leaving the US because of the capital gains tax that is the highest in the world. Corporations do donate money, but not legally obligated to do so. The only obligation a corporation has is to it's shareholders (the people that gambled with their own money on their stock and hopefully won).
> 
> So with companies leaving the US. Small family owned companies are laying off full time people and hiring part time people, no wonder the US is ready for a free fall economically.


So again, why did we have a "free fall economically" when Bush gave all the tax cuts?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

How sad Susanne that you feel that people that value life are at war with fetuses. And many believe fetuses are children, so are they at war with children 

But then again good ole JE said:

You can't be what you don't see. I didn't think about being a doctor. I didn't even think about being a clerk in a store, I'd never seen a black clerk in a clothing store. 
6 up, 4 down


Joycelyn Elders


And don't forget she resigned (and would have been fired according to Panneta) for encouraging masturbation to prevent aids to school kids. So if that is who you worship as a beacon of brilliance, I find that hilarious.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

LTL said: According to my insurance company it was in anticipation of obamamcare. 

Sounds like your insurance company ripping you off--in anticipation of. It has been proven that Obamacare has performed better than expected. Your insurance company just wants more money in their pocket and as usual is putting themselves first. You just except that and blame the President. Typical conservative.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

NJG said:


> So again, why did we have a "free fall economically" when Bush gave all the tax cuts?


We didn't. But when the Bush tax credits were allowed to wither on the vine under Obama, I didn't see any robust economic growth in the last two years to justify the tax hike. Obama has raised taxes over and over again, and over and over again our economy limps so slowly that it appears to be going in reverse. Wait until the Obama corporate obamacare mandates kick in. I love roller coasters, but this is one free fall I don't want to experience.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

NJG said:


> LTL said: According to my insurance company it was in anticipation of obamamcare.
> 
> Sounds like your insurance company ripping you of--in anticipation of. It has been proven that Obamacare has performed better than expected. Your insurance company just wants more money in their pocket and as usual is putting themselves first. You just except that and blame the President. Typical conservative.


Nope, one of the best. But when people lie to get subsidies for obamacare, and the administrations had to admit it and now has to fix that problem. you wonder why insurance companies are raising rates? Don't forget all the illegals Obama let in that get taxpayer funded healthcare.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> How sad Susanne that you feel that people that value life are at war with fetuses. And many believe fetuses are children, so are they at war with children
> 
> But then again good ole JE said:
> 
> ...


JE certainly isn't the first person to resign and I don't remember anything being said about worship. You do read things that aren't there. And just a reminder, my name isn't Susanne.

Actually, when they want to outlaw abortion for any reason and at the same time cut the snap program which helps those children, I guess you called it right, they are at war with children.
So tell me what is so wrong about the statement by JE, "You can't be what you don't see." If you see a lot of Drs in your family, you might want to be a Dr. What did black children see in their family and neighborhoods, back in the 40's? 
As far as masturbation, it is a part of human sexuality and a little more masturbation and a little less sex among teenagers, and pedophiles and rapists sounds like a good thing to me.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> No you are wrong. According to my insurance company it was in anticipation of obamamcare. In addition, we used to get a 'refund' check once a year if the group did not use all the fund. The first year it was somewhere around $300. Two years ago it was around $160. Last years was $16.
> 
> Why do you think that because my income has not changed it is not Obama's fault? You ASSume that my money is being taken by a greedy 1% er (just like the people Obama hangs with on weekends, plays golf with and gets campaign money from) Wrong again. Profits maybe up, but so are taxes and additional regulations by an out of control Federal Government. But I guess like Burger King, many companies are leaving the US because of the capital gains tax that is the highest in the world. Corporations do donate money, but not legally obligated to do so. The only obligation a corporation has is to it's shareholders (the people that gambled with their own money on their stock and hopefully won).
> 
> So with companies leaving the US. Small family owned companies are laying off full time people and hiring part time people, no wonder the US is ready for a free fall economically.


Then your insurance company was raking in whatever extra money they could before they had additional costs.

Bitching about Obama's golfing is ridiculous, you know. Of course he has to raise money, just like every other politician out there, your favorites included.

Profit is AFTER taxes and expenses. Profits are up. According to Bloomberg, "U.S. corporations after-tax profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, more than under any president since World War II, and are now at their highest level relative to the size of the economy since the government began keeping records in 1947, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. "

Capital gains taxes are NOT the highest in the world. Claiming that is total BS.

Corporations definitely have an obligation to shareholders, but to suggest that is the ONLY obligation is wrong. All companies who employ human beings have an obligation to them, as well. Like to you, if you work. So, companies like Burger King are leaving the country because they can't make a decent profit? Look that one up. Their PROFIT MARGIN is 28.75%, meaning they make almost $ .29 profit on every dollar spent there. That is AFTER taxes, by the way. Bottom line.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Talk about believing one's own hype. Nice job of reading the propaganda and spitting it back out. You are quite the poster child for the liberal propaganda.


Perhaps you would like to present a reasonable argument rather than fall back on ad hominem attacks. Lazy and not very intellectual.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> JE certainly isn't the first person to resign and I don't remember anything being said about worship. You do read things that aren't there. And just a reminder, my name isn't Susanne.
> 
> Actually, when they want to outlaw abortion for any reason and at the same time cut the snap program which helps those children, I guess you called it right, they are at war with children.
> So tell me what is so wrong about the statement by JE, "You can't be what you don't see." If you see a lot of Drs in your family, you might want to be a Dr. What did black children see in their family and neighborhoods, back in the 40's?
> As far as masturbation, it is a part of human sexuality and a little more masturbation and a little less sex among teenagers, and pedophiles and rapists sounds like a good thing to me.


 :thumbup:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> How did women obtain their birth control before the ACA?
> 
> Were they "free and sucessful" before the ACA?
> 
> ...


Yes, some women were free and successful before the ACA. Now more will be free and successful.

Please articulate what you mean by being responsible. Relative to what, exactly?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Then your insurance company was raking in whatever extra money they could before they had additional costs.
> 
> Bitching about Obama's golfing is ridiculous, you know. Of course he has to raise money, just like every other politician out there, your favorites included.
> 
> ...


For every dollar we spend on food, .16 cents goes to the farmer and if you eat at a restaurant they get about 5 cents so I think Burger King is doing pretty good. We in the US have made them what they are so leaving the us is the way they say thank you.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Nope, one of the best. But when people lie to get subsidies for obamacare, and the administrations had to admit it and now has to fix that problem. you wonder why insurance companies are raising rates? Don't forget all the illegals Obama let in that get taxpayer funded healthcare.


Ya right, he wouldn't pass any immigration reform so he could let in all the illegals. Wrong. It is the conservatives who wouldn't pass any reform so they could complain about immigration. They will complain about everything, no matter what. If he is for it, they are against it and if he is against it, they are for it. It has become a fact of life. When Bush played golf, it was ok, but OMG if President Obama plays golf, how terrible. The president put his feet up on the desk--how disrespectful he was. Then comes a picture of Bush with his feet on the desk--all is quiet. HYPOCRITES


----------



## KittiPaws (Aug 10, 2013)

cattdages said:


> Does anyone else have a problem with Hobby Lobby's politics with regards to providing birth control to their employees as part of their health plan? I have never shopped there as there is not one convenient to me, but I hear everyone talk about liking their products, and recently I was driving by one and I just couldn't bring myself to support them. I suppose I am voting with my pocketbook.
> 
> Anyone else feeling that way?


I have absolutely no problem with Hobby Lobby's politics. They have every right to provide any health plan they wish. Anyone who doesn't agree with their provisions is absolutely free to seek work with another employer. I fail to see why any of this is an issue.


----------



## Jules934 (May 7, 2013)

I just feel sorry for the folks who work there. It is none of their boss's business. The stores all in shopping centers and there are other stores/job opportinities to the left and right of them (strictly directionally speaking, that is) I wonder why they don't get other jobs.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Jules934 said:


> I just feel sorry for the folks who work there. It is none of their boss's business. The stores all in shopping centers and there are other stores/job opportinities to the left and right of them (strictly directionally speaking, that is) I wonder why they don't get other jobs.


Jobs are not that easy to find these days. Starting over at the bottom of the pay scale in a new place may not be an option for everyone. Saying get a different job is certainly easier than doing it. The store where I live is not in a large shopping center, hours make a difference and many other things to consider. I agree, what they do is none of their boss's business.


----------



## Jules934 (May 7, 2013)

NJG said:


> Jobs are not that easy to find these days. Starting over at the bottom of the pay scale in a new place may not be an option for everyone. Saying get a different job is certainly easier than doing it. The store where I live is not in a large shopping center, hours make a difference and many other things to consider. I agree, what they do is none of their boss's business.


I know they'e not. And if the folks working for Hobby Lobby are there because they are trapped, I feel even worse. There are just so many retail outlets that I think that there would be some available. Especially for experienced workers.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> And just because you are a feminist (Which I personally believe most are radicalized, politicized and angry that they have lost the main purpose of the NOW movement of the 60's and try to remain relevant but are failing) how does having birth control advance you? Do you need birth control to be free and be successful? Or are you sleeping your way to the top? Who is going to pay for all this free b.c.? Will it drop from the sky? It has to be produced, packaged, many times prescribed, distributed....all of that costs money. How will it be paid for? Personally I do not believe that my tax dollars should be used that way.
> 
> 
> > -------------
> ...


----------



## CarolBest (Sep 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> It also appears that you believe your own hype, and because Conservatives don't agree with you, they are wrong. That is a false premise.
> 
> Conservatives do not deny racism, they don't use it as a crutch. Conservatives do not deny hunger. Conservatives are not all rich and have had an easy life. Conservatives donate a tremendous amount of money to their churches and charities. They are quiet about it, because they do it because it is the right thing to do and it is necessary. Personally, I prefer to give my time and money to local needs or to organizations that I have vetted thoroughly and know that my money will be used to help not buy TV ads. I am very private about my financial donations. In fact I made a very large donation to my church with the strict understanding that it was to remain anonymous.
> 
> ...


"Or are you sleeping your way to the top? " If women could sleep their way to the top there would be more women at the top.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> (Personally) Responsible for their reproduction.


Like, by using contraceptives?

Look, would you rather pay a tiny fraction of that cost or more in the cost of unwanted pregnancies, subsidies, welfare, food stamps...all the things conservatives scream about?

Not everyone, even those who are working as hard as they can, are able to afford birth control. So, they should just abstain, eh? There is no satisfying conservatives.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

CarolBest said:


> "Or are you sleeping your way to the top? " If women could sleep their way to the top there would be more women at the top.


Indeed.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

KittiPaws said:


> I have absolutely no problem with Hobby Lobby's politics. They have every right to provide any health plan they wish. Anyone who doesn't agree with their provisions is absolutely free to seek work with another employer. I fail to see why any of this is an issue.


 :thumbup:


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

Jules934 said:


> I just feel sorry for the folks who work there. It is none of their boss's business. The stores all in shopping centers and there are other stores/job opportinities to the left and right of them (strictly directionally speaking, that is) I wonder why they don't get other jobs.


None of their bosses business? Their bosses are the ones who decide what benefits they will provide through their healthcare. Usually the bosses are paying part of the premium for _your_ coverage. Would you change jobs simply because your group health coverage didn't cover a prescription you took?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Like, by using contraceptives?
> 
> Look, would you rather pay a tiny fraction of that cost or more in the cost of unwanted pregnancies, subsidies, welfare, food stamps...all the things conservatives scream about?
> 
> Not everyone, even those who are working as hard as they can, are able to afford birth control. So, they should just abstain, eh? There is no satisfying conservatives.


Oral contraceptives are not the only form of birth control, it's the only one insurance companies pay for. Granted, it's the second most effective one but is also the most expensive one. I don't recall anyone suggesting that abstinence was an answer and, for your information, I don't scream.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> None of their bosses business? Their bosses are the ones who decide what benefits they will provide through their healthcare. Usually the bosses are paying part of the premium for _your_ coverage. Would you change jobs simply because your group health coverage didn't cover a prescription you took?


Not any more. There are now standards that every plan must cover. In today's world, you are making a big claim by saying "usually the bosses are paying part of the premium." Used to be, but not necessarily true any more.

Would you change jobs....? You make a good point. If you can't change jobs, you do not have the same rights as others - just because the corporation you work for may be owned by religious fanatics.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Not any more. There are now standards that every plan must cover. In today's world, you are making a big claim by saying "usually the bosses are paying part of the premium." Used to be, but not necessarily true any more.
> 
> Would you change jobs....? You make a good point. If you can't change jobs, you do not have the same rights as others - just because the corporation you work for may be owned by religious fanatics.


I do not believe Hobby Lobby is owned by religious fanatics. They are people of deep faith, and it has not been a secret. They are never opened on Sunday because they believe their employees should have time with their families. So if you choose to work there you know the principles and beliefs of the company you work for from the start. I doubt that if one works for HL and has a problem with their religious beliefs that there are not other job options available to them. HL is never in the middle of nowhere, so if you feel so offended by their religious beliefs you have options. But that would mean giving up a job that pays higher than the minimum wage. Oh what a dilemma, standing by one's radical feminist beliefs or work for a caring company that pays better than other stores around it. A true radical feminist could not work there because of their antiabortion beliefs if they truly stood with the NOW gang of old gals. So they have already compromised their values and beliefs by working there in the first place and should not be surprised at their stance on abortion producing drugs, procedures or devices. Since that is the case, they should not complain. And I do not remember hearing an outcry from the employees of HL, just the meddling obnoxious NOW gang that are not an organization for women, because they pick and choose which women to support. They are hypocrites, and I truly believe they are not for all for women, just for their radical political advancement. So until they stand for all women, they should be ignored as well as all other radical feminists because in many cases they are anti-women.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> FYI: Hobby Lobby does not pay premiums to an insurance company. They are self insured. That means they pay the medical bills directly. Why should they not decide what bills they will pay for and what the employee will be responsible for. Would you be happier if they changed their employees to minimum wage part time and not provide any insurance?


They still pay premiums to a Third Party Administrator that processes the claims - it's a moot point but I wanted this to be accurate.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> I do not believe Hobby Lobby is owned by religious fanatics. They are people of deep faith, and it has not been a secret. They are never opened on Sunday because they believe their employees should have time with their families. So if you choose to work there you know the principles and beliefs of the company you work for from the start. I doubt that if one works for HL and has a problem with their religious beliefs that there are not other job options available to them. HL is never in the middle of nowhere, so if you feel so offended by their religious beliefs you have options. But that would mean giving up a job that pays higher than the minimum wage. Oh what a dilemma, standing by one's radical feminist beliefs or work for a caring company that pays better than other stores around it. A true radical feminist could not work there because of their antiabortion beliefs if they truly stood with the NOW gang of old gals. So they have already compromised their values and beliefs by working there in the first place and should not be surprised at their stance on abortion producing drugs, procedures or devices. Since that is the case, they should not complain. And I do not remember hearing an outcry from the employees of HL, just the meddling obnoxious NOW gang that are not an organization for women, because they pick and choose which women to support. They are hypocrites, and I truly believe they are not for all for women, just for their radical political advancement. So until they stand for all women, they should be ignored as well as all other radical feminists because in many cases they are anti-women.


We agree on some of what you say. No self-respecting feminist would work for HL or shop there. Also, the employees have not uttered a peep that I am aware of. The lawsuit over birth control was brought by HL against Kathleen Sibelius' enforcement of the ACA.

I'm interested to know what you think the "radical feminist" agenda is.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I do not believe Hobby Lobby is owned by religious fanatics. They are people of deep faith, and it has not been a secret. They are never opened on Sunday because they believe their employees should have time with their families. So if you choose to work there you know the principles and beliefs of the company you work for from the start. I doubt that if one works for HL and has a problem with their religious beliefs that there are not other job options available to them. HL is never in the middle of nowhere, so if you feel so offended by their religious beliefs you have options. But that would mean giving up a job that pays higher than the minimum wage. Oh what a dilemma, standing by one's radical feminist beliefs or work for a caring company that pays better than other stores around it. A true radical feminist could not work there because of their antiabortion beliefs if they truly stood with the NOW gang of old gals. So they have already compromised their values and beliefs by working there in the first place and should not be surprised at their stance on abortion producing drugs, procedures or devices. Since that is the case, they should not complain. And I do not remember hearing an outcry from the employees of HL, just the meddling obnoxious NOW gang that are not an organization for women, because they pick and choose which women to support. They are hypocrites, and I truly believe they are not for all for women, just for their radical political advancement. So until they stand for all women, they should be ignored as well as all other radical feminists because in many cases they are anti-women.


Sorry--the founder of HL favors mandatory religious classes in public schools and is actively working toward that goal, so obviously he's not a believer in free choice. David Green knows what's best for him, his family, his employees, and apparently all of America.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry--the founder of HL favors mandatory religious classes in public schools and is actively working toward that goal, so obviously he's not a believer in free choice. David Green knows what's best for him, his family, his employees, and apparently all of America.


Seems fanatic to me. He is spending vast amounts of money to accomplish this.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Seems fanatic to me. He is spending vast amounts of money to accomplish this.


It amazes me that conservatives react so strongly to the IS and its vision of a one religion world but fail to see that this guy is of the same breed. He really does believe in Christianity for all, whether people like it or not.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I do not believe Hobby Lobby is owned by religious fanatics. They are people of deep faith, and it has not been a secret. They are never opened on Sunday because they believe their employees should have time with their families. So if you choose to work there you know the principles and beliefs of the company you work for from the start. I doubt that if one works for HL and has a problem with their religious beliefs that there are not other job options available to them. HL is never in the middle of nowhere, so if you feel so offended by their religious beliefs you have options. But that would mean giving up a job that pays higher than the minimum wage. Oh what a dilemma, standing by one's radical feminist beliefs or work for a caring company that pays better than other stores around it. A true radical feminist could not work there because of their antiabortion beliefs if they truly stood with the NOW gang of old gals. So they have already compromised their values and beliefs by working there in the first place and should not be surprised at their stance on abortion producing drugs, procedures or devices. Since that is the case, they should not complain. And I do not remember hearing an outcry from the employees of HL, just the meddling obnoxious NOW gang that are not an organization for women, because they pick and choose which women to support. They are hypocrites, and I truly believe they are not for all for women, just for their radical political advancement. So until they stand for all women, they should be ignored as well as all other radical feminists because in many cases they are anti-women.


No truer words have been said. :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I believe he wants the BIBLE taught, not a particular religion.


Sorry--teaching the Bible and only the Bible is promoting Christianity. The fact that he wants to make these classes MANDATORY is shocking.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I believe he wants the BIBLE taught, not a particular religion.


Exactly how do you separate your bible from Christianity? Do you even recognize how narrow minded that statement is?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Perhaps you would like to present a reasonable argument rather than fall back on ad hominem attacks. Lazy and not very intellectual.


i was just following your lead. You were accusing conservatives of doing that very same thing.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> For every dollar we spend on food, .16 cents goes to the farmer and if you eat at a restaurant they get about 5 cents so I think Burger King is doing pretty good. We in the US have made them what they are so leaving the us is the way they say thank you.


Just think how many times we say thank you to the companies that sent all the jobs overseas when we use our smartphones, appliances, wear our shoes and clothing, etc., etc. It's just Burger King corporate that has jumped ship. The franchises still pay their share of taxes and pay their share to corporate as well.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Jobs are not that easy to find these days. Starting over at the bottom of the pay scale in a new place may not be an option for everyone. Saying get a different job is certainly easier than doing it. The store where I live is not in a large shopping center, hours make a difference and many other things to consider. I agree, what they do is none of their boss's business.


Again, HL is not saying its employees CAN'T use those methods of BC, only that they don't want to pay for them.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I believe he wants the BIBLE taught, not a particular religion.


The last time I looked the Bible was of a certain religion---Christianity.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I do not believe Hobby Lobby is owned by religious fanatics. They are people of deep faith, and it has not been a secret. They are never opened on Sunday because they believe their employees should have time with their families. So if you choose to work there you know the principles and beliefs of the company you work for from the start. I doubt that if one works for HL and has a problem with their religious beliefs that there are not other job options available to them. HL is never in the middle of nowhere, so if you feel so offended by their religious beliefs you have options. But that would mean giving up a job that pays higher than the minimum wage. Oh what a dilemma, standing by one's radical feminist beliefs or work for a caring company that pays better than other stores around it. A true radical feminist could not work there because of their antiabortion beliefs if they truly stood with the NOW gang of old gals. So they have already compromised their values and beliefs by working there in the first place and should not be surprised at their stance on abortion producing drugs, procedures or devices. Since that is the case, they should not complain. And I do not remember hearing an outcry from the employees of HL, just the meddling obnoxious NOW gang that are not an organization for women, because they pick and choose which women to support. They are hypocrites, and I truly believe they are not for all for women, just for their radical political advancement. So until they stand for all women, they should be ignored as well as all other radical feminists because in many cases they are anti-women.


For you to use terms like "radical feminists" shows how right-wing radical, old-fashioned, and out of the mainstream you are. "Feminist" is not a pejorative these days. You don't seem to understand that some people consider your views to be "radical."


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Where do you think a good part of our ancient history comes from? It has poetry. It also has morals and ethics. But then that is forbidden in todays standards. Why would anyone of today, want to learn that when the people forgot their morals, they were defeated.


There are plenty of people who have no religion at all who have a strong moral compass.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Where do you think a good part of our ancient history comes from? It has poetry. It also has morals and ethics. But then that is forbidden in todays standards. Why would anyone of today, want to learn that when the people forgot their morals, they were defeated.


Please expand on your statement that "it is forbidden in todays standards" I sincerely don't understand what you mean by that.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> There are plenty of people who have no religion at all who have a strong moral compass.


Thank you for that truthful reminder.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Some people just find it very hard to accept those that don't follow the same path and have the same beliefs that they do.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You can't teach morals in school!


I disagree. A teacher teaches "morals" all the time by her/his actions and what s/he requires of the students. Learning respect, honesty, sharing, team work, just to name a few things, are all "moral" behaviors. Are you talking about memorizing "thou shalt nots"? I guess I don't understand.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> You can't teach morals in school!


Teaching morals is the job of parents, not the school. Why would you want your children to be taught morality by anyone but you? I really don't get it.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Where do you think a good part of our ancient history comes from? It has poetry. It also has morals and ethics. But then that is forbidden in todays standards. Why would anyone of today, want to learn that when the people forgot their morals, they were defeated.


How would you suggest incorporating the bible in schools, if that were permitted? Would you use the bible as a piece in an overall curriculum, a piece of literature, or as a definitive authority on historical fact? Would it be the only text, an alternative text, or a supplemental text?

Also, how would one choose a curriculum, given that there are differences in ways people view the bible? Some think it is completely, absolutely true in every detail. Others believe it is largely allegorical and symbolic. How would one resolve the thorny problem of those who are Jewish, Hindu, or of no religion?

I just can't imagine how this would work or how various people could reach a consensus on how the bible would be taught or in what context.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Following is a quote from a very pertinent story about the actual ramifications of the Hobby Lobby decision. Many of us argued that allowing HL to evade the provisions of the ACA on "religious belief" grounds would be a slippery slope to all sorts of unexpected claims of religious freedom. Here you go:

Turns out that ruling wasnt such a limited decision after all, and Justice Ginsburg may have been onto something when she referred to it as a decision of startling breadth.

Ben Winslow reports:

 [District Court Judge David Sam] has ruled that a member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church does not have to answer questions about child labor violations because of the U.S. Supreme Courts ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.

The individual in question is Vergel Steed (or Vernon Steed  his name appears both ways in the ruling), who refused to answer even the most basic questions in a recent deposition, because he is protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The questions were part of a case pertaining to the suspected removal of children from school by FLDS leaders in order to compel the kids to work in FLDS fields. Hundreds of children had been seen at work in pecan field in 2012 (rather than attending school).

Note, this is not only an OPINION on the case - it describes an actual RULING in a criminal case, citing Hobby Lobby as a precedent.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/17/a-fundamentalist-mormon-was-allowed-to-keep-silent-about-child-labor-violations-due-to-wait-for-it-hobby-lobby/#ixzz3Ddjz0kRi


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> But schools encourage premarital sex, homosexual sex, and masturbation. All deviant behavior. They provide condoms, even aid pregnant girls to get abortions without parental notification. This will lead do the downfall of our nation.


This isn't true of our school district. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes deviant behavior. Anyone can get condoms almost anywhere; schools don't need to hand them out. 
The downfall of our nation is more likely to occur from inequality, poverty, ruling by an oligarchy, lack of caring for natural resources, crime, an armed citizenry, and crazy people!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> For you to use terms like "radical feminists" shows how right-wing radical, old-fashioned, and out of the mainstream you are. "Feminist" is not a pejorative these days. You don't seem to understand that some people consider your views to be "radical."


I think you need a cookie to sweeten your disposition.

Just because I have a differing view, based on my observations on how the NOW gang only supports liberal women, does not make me radical. I can not think of one conservative woman that the NOW gang has come to her defense. They remain silent when a conservative woman is attacked. If they are THE National Organization FOR women, shouldn't they support all women? But they don't because they are so politically attached to the extreme liberal left they ignore a majority of women that do not condone their radical feminists ideas. When the NOW gang becomes what it's name implies, your attack on me would be more valid. But until then, NOW is nothing more than a group of radical and angry screechy women that makes fools of themselves with their useless use of protest signs and time wasting demonstrations.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> But schools encourage premarital sex, homosexual sex, and masturbation. All deviant behavior. They provide condoms, even aid pregnant girls to get abortions without parental notification. This will lead do the downfall of our nation.


So sex and masturbation are deviant behaviours you say? And assistance provided in crisis situations for students is "deviant" and "will lead to the downfall of our nation."

Your stance on abortion is one thing but the above takes the cake.

Sex and masturbation are normal human functions just like urinating, defecating, eating, sneezing, coughing, passing gas and whatever else our bodies NEED TO DO to function.

Furthermore, thank goodness there are some people in authority who ARE willing to assist those students too frightened of their parents and other adults in their lives to ask them for help.

Come to think of it, if you had your way, we'd all be back in the fifties, dutifully cleaning house, cooking dinner and looking presentable for our husbands when they come home from work and then submitting ourselves to his needs in the sanctity of the marital bed, all the while feeling too frightened to show him where our clitoris is.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> I think you need a cookie to sweeten your disposition.
> 
> Just because I have a differing view, based on my observations on how the NOW gang only supports liberal women, does not make me radical. I can not think of one conservative woman that the NOW gang has come to her defense. They remain silent when a conservative woman is attacked. If they are THE National Organization FOR women, shouldn't they support all women? But they don't because they are so politically attached to the extreme liberal left they ignore a majority of women that do not condone their radical feminists ideas. When the NOW gang becomes what it's name implies, your attack on me would be more valid. But until then, NOW is nothing more than a group of radical and angry screechy women that makes fools of themselves with their useless use of protest signs and time wasting demonstrations.


Again, I would ask for further details on what you think their "agenda" is. What are the radical ideas you talk about? Specifics would help others understand your position.

By the way, they are not using YOUR time with demonstrations, only their own. What's your beef?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Was it actually stated in the written court ruling that it was because of Hobby Lobby or the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act ?" I'm sure there are many different cases in which the Religious Freedom Restoration Act can be used. Then it was confirmed in Hobby Lobby that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was constitutional.
> 
> It seems the Fifth Amendment is more fitting for what was stated in the article.
> 
> No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The fifth amendment applies to SELF incrimination, not testifying about facts. This guy was called as a witness, not as a defendant.

Yes, you are correct about the ruling being associated with the Religious Restoration Act, which is also the basis in the HL case. The two are intertwined and the judge cited HL as a precedent. Same thing.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> But schools encourage premarital sex, homosexual sex, and masturbation. All deviant behavior. They provide condoms, even aid pregnant girls to get abortions without parental notification. This will lead do the downfall of our nation.


I can't help but observe that all of your examples relate to sex. Are there no other immoral activities going on in the US, or is it your contention that sex is the root of all problems? What's with the conservative preoccupation with sex all the time?

Do you truly believe that teaching FACTS about sex, that providing accurate information about sex, are the equivalent of encouraging these behaviors? It would be interesting to see some proof of your claims somewhere, anywhere, which you don't provide. Have you actually witnessed this "encouragement" yourself?

Since when is masturbation deviant behavior? If so, we are ALL deviant - even you. Premarital sex is by definition "deviant?" C'mon, joey.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Where do you think a good part of our ancient history comes from? It has poetry. It also has morals and ethics. But then that is forbidden in todays standards. Why would anyone of today, want to learn that when the people forgot their morals, they were defeated.


I'm still wondering about my earlier questions regarding the how-to's of implementing your apparent belief that the bible be taught in public schools. Your posts are full of sweeping, unsubstantiated opinions, but when asked reasonable questions, you go on to the next comment. I am also still waiting to hear from you regarding my question of a few days ago, when you stated that the constitution does not guarantee freedom from religion. I'll ask again and point out that a simple "yes" or "no" is all that is needed. In your view, do I have a constitutional right to NOT practice religion?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> When the Bible was removed as reading material in Public Schools in 1963. Our education and country has gone downhill. When the Bible was removed Secular Humanism took its place. "If it feels right do it." For the downfall of our country. We are in the gutter now and will soon go into the cesspool. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality. When are you and others going to study enough History to realize that?
> 
> Enough said!


Still no answers - only unsubstantiated opinions and the bible. When are you and others going to learn that homosexuality has been around forever, everywhere? It is not ruining our country any more today than it was in your idealized time before secular humanism. Where are your FACTS? The bible does not count, by the way.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> If you do bother to read history, you will find that any country or civilization that has fallen into immorality (where we are heading) will not survive as a nation or civilization.


History as written in the bible, right? Or do you have other sources? If so, please provide them and I'll do the reading.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry--teaching the Bible and only the Bible is promoting Christianity. The fact that he wants to make these classes MANDATORY is shocking.


Only the New Testament, the Old Testament is used in Jewish and Islamic teachings.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Only the New Testament, the Old Testament is used in Jewish and Islamic teachings.


You seem to think mandatory bible teaching is a good idea. Please give those of us who think this is a bad idea some solid reasons to change our minds.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Only the New Testament, the Old Testament is used in Jewish and Islamic teachings.


I'm asking you the same questions I asked joeysomma:

How would you suggest incorporating the bible in schools, if that were permitted? Would you use the bible as a piece in an overall curriculum, a piece of literature, or as a definitive authority on historical fact? Would it be the only text, an alternative text, or a supplemental text?

Also, how would one choose a curriculum, given that there are differences in ways people view the bible? Some think it is completely, absolutely true in every detail. Others believe it is largely allegorical and symbolic. How would one resolve the thorny problem of those who are Jewish, Hindu, or of no religion?

I just can't imagine how this would work or how various people could reach a consensus on how the bible would be taught or in what context.

So far, crickets is all I hear. If you have ideas, let's hear them.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> You seem to think mandatory bible teaching is a good idea. Please give those of us who think this is a bad idea some solid reasons to change our minds.


My point was that Christianity is not the only religion that uses the bible for its teachings. Why this prompted you to interpret my point as meaning I "think mandatory bible teaching is a good idea" is beyond me.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> My point was that Christianity is not the only religion that uses the bible for its teachings. Why this prompted you to interpret my point as meaning I "think mandatory bible teaching is a good idea" is beyond me.


You are correct. I made an unwarranted assumption.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Do your own research. Almost all ancient history books, start with the Bible and go from there with archaeologist's discoveries to show that what the Bible says is true.
> 
> I can see you are not a student of History or you would not have to ask.


Wait a minute. YOU are the one presenting opinions as facts. My research doesn't come from Christian apologists, by the way. One needs to employ some critical thinking skills relative to the validity of sources before claiming the bible is true.

Besides, you are not addressing the questions I asked, which tells me you don't really want to engage in a reasonable exchange of views.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

For joesomma:

From emmaspeaks - well-articulated comments that reflect my own thoughts, except for the fact that I do not believe in god. Any god.

"I have to laugh at how many people still refer to the bible as a historically accurate document. It is far from accurate, historically or in any other way. There is a term, however, for ancient texts that, while containing historical information, are more of a mythological story. That term is hagiography. A hagiography is a writing on the subject of holy people. I think even Christians will agree that the purpose of the bible was not to recount historical information but to recount the life of god and his son, Jesus--a very holy person. So, while the bible does contain information that can be historically confirmed, it also contains myths like the one of Noah and the Great Flood, which have not been confirmed, and most likely never will be. At least not how the bible tells it. There may have been a flood, but it was not a world wide disaster like the bible tells it. And Noah is another one of those holy characters that hagiographies serve so well.

This is no different than the fabrications in the bible of virgin births and arcs carrying two of every animal. While there may have been a town called Bethlehem, there is not any record of a birth in a manger. None. In fact, theologists can't even agree on a year for his birth. That's because no records exist for it outside of the bible, and the bible, as I have already established, is highly unreliable as a source for historical accuracy. All historical records indicate that no one by the name of Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. There is not even one record outside of the unreliable bible that can be cross referenced to confirm his birth because he is glaringly absent from history. Sorry, Christians."


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> For joesomma:
> 
> From emmaspeaks - well-articulated comments that reflect my own thoughts, except for the fact that I do not believe in god. Any god.
> 
> ...


Right now I'm feeling sorry too.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Right now I'm feeling sorry too.


??? About?


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Do your own research. Almost all ancient history books, start with the Bible and go from there with archaeologist's discoveries to show that what the Bible says is true.
> 
> I can see you are not a student of History or you would not have to ask.


Joey, there is a conundrum: If we are all God's children, why don't you think he loves his homosexual children? He created so many of them.


----------



## mmorris (Sep 5, 2013)

This Country was founded on 'Separation of Church and State.' I personally don't support Bible Study/ Religious Education in Schools.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

mmorris said:


> This Country was founded on 'Separation of Church and State.' I personally don't support Bible Study/ Religious Education in Schools.


 :thumbup: Agree


----------



## mmorris (Sep 5, 2013)

DGreen: Thanks!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I think you need a cookie to sweeten your disposition.
> 
> Just because I have a differing view, based on my observations on how the NOW gang only supports liberal women, does not make me radical. I can not think of one conservative woman that the NOW gang has come to her defense. They remain silent when a conservative woman is attacked. If they are THE National Organization FOR women, shouldn't they support all women? But they don't because they are so politically attached to the extreme liberal left they ignore a majority of women that do not condone their radical feminists ideas. When the NOW gang becomes what it's name implies, your attack on me would be more valid. But until then, NOW is nothing more than a group of radical and angry screechy women that makes fools of themselves with their useless use of protest signs and time wasting demonstrations.


Please don't forget that if you're calling my post "an attack" your posts are also that---and more. Your view of NOW as a group of "radical and angry screechy women that makes fools of themselves . . . . " is not interpreted by every woman out there as valid. If their work obtains equal pay or other perks for women, you don't have to accept them. I don't see peaceful protest signs and demonstrations as time wasting. Are you still living on Tara?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> FYI: It is legal to teach the BIBLE in school, as an elective.


Maybe as literature or in the context of comparative study, not as religious indoctrination. By the way, which school are you referring to? All of them? A few of them? Where do you get this "fact?"


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> He created man and woman, anything else is the choice of the individual. God loves the person but not his actions.
> 
> [/i]


Then god is unmerciful because if he created people to be homosexual then condemns them for their desires, that is cruel.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Then god is unmerciful because if he created people to be homosexual then condemns them for their desires, that is cruel.


God didn't do as you suggest. You don't know God.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> God didn't do as you suggest. You don't know God.


Exactly, because god does not exist.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> FYI: It is legal to teach the BIBLE in school, as an elective.


The Bible, perhaps, but not religion.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Since that is what you believe, why are you so concerned about the Bible being taught in school?
> 
> According to you, they would be studying nothing.
> 
> Are you afraid that God really does exist and you will be sent to hell?


You show so much disrespect for people who do not believe the way you do that I wonder at your self righteousness. Or is it hubris?

If one does not believe in G-d, that is their right in a free country. If one does not believe in G-d, one does not fear the hereafter, either, so there is no heaven or hell. If one is skeptical about G-d, or curious about the hereafter, or whatever one believes, it is not your place to disparage them.

You are strong in your beliefs, and consistent in them. But your audacity in preaching to people, many of whom do not share your beliefs, is not an attractive trait.

My beliefs are different from yours. I may comment on them, but not in a way in which to try to convince people that my beliefs are the only way of living a good life. In fact, I think being judgmental and stiff necked about one's beliefs is a good way to make people go in another direction. Any other direction!


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Since that is what you believe, why are you so concerned about the Bible being taught in school?
> 
> According to you, they would be studying nothing.
> 
> Are you afraid that God really does exist and you will be sent to hell?


People like you are truly dangerous.

I'm concerned about separation of church and state and you mindless Christians trying to convert the rest of the world and innocent children. The bible is total, unadulterated bullshit. It has no place in the classroom, and if you do manage to weasel it into the curriculum, it CANNOT be used to promote your bizarre beliefs.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> You show so much disrespect for people who do not believe the way you do that I wonder at your self righteousness. Or is it hubris?
> 
> If one does not believe in G-d, that is their right in a free country. If one does not believe in G-d, one does not fear the hereafter, either, so there is no heaven or hell. If one is skeptical about G-d, or curious about the hereafter, or whatever one believes, it is not your place to disparage them.
> 
> ...


Small correction, if I may. Joesomma does NOT believe in freedom from religion. She says it isn't in the constitution.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Joey, you said "He created man and woman, anything else is the choice of the individual. God loves the person but not his actions."

How do you know what G-d loves and does not love? Has he or she spoken to you? 

There are people who are born hermaphroditic. There are people who grow up knowing they were born in the wrong body and are transgender. I know a young man who was born in a female body and realized he was in the wrong place at a very young age. If his parents had not been as loving and supportive of him, his mother told me he was ready to take his own life out of despair.

And are people to be denied the human comforts of love and a family if the family is not the traditional mommy, daddy and 2 3/4 children? Remember when interracial marriage was illegal? Remember when it would split up a family if people were of different faiths? Or of different national origins?

You have no empathy for people who have different biologic makeups than yours. Perhaps I live in a more diversified community than yours and see people as individuals rather than stereotypes. Perhaps if I had been born into a tight closed society and raised among people exactly like my family I would have been closed minded too. I am grateful that my world is a rainbow rather than monochromatic.

Of course we will never know who is correct unless there is really a hereafter, a world to come, and some of us will be in for some rude surprises. But among my beliefs, not necessarily religious ones, is that if one lives with kindness toward others, is not judgmental of others, and has a live and let live attitude, one had made a good choice in life in the here and now.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Small correction, if I may. Joesomma does NOT believe in freedom from religion. She says it isn't in the constitution.


It kind of is in that we are guaranteed freedom "of" religion. That really means if our "religion" is atheism or agnosticism we are guaranteed the right of our beliefs. That includes Wicca. Which translates as freedom of religion or freedom from religion. And the 14th amendment guarantees our civil rights as citizens regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof.

Joey is free to believe whatever she chooses to believe. That does not mean she is correct. Just as I speak for myself and my own beliefs, she speaks for hers. I don't expect anybody to feel bound to share my beliefs; I don't have that sort of audacity. Fortunately we do not have an inquisition mindset in this country the way it was in Spain in the 1400s or in some Middle Eastern countries today.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> It kind of is in that we are guaranteed freedom "of" religion. That really means if our "religion" is atheism or agnosticism we are guaranteed the right of our beliefs. That includes Wicca. Which translates as freedom of religion or freedom from religion. And the 14th amendment guarantees our civil rights as citizens regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof.
> 
> Joey is free to believe whatever she chooses to believe. That does not mean she is correct. Just as I speak for myself and my own beliefs, she speaks for hers. I don't expect anybody to feel bound to share my beliefs; I don't have that sort of audacity. Fortunately we do not have an inquisition mindset in this country the way it was in Spain in the 1400s or in some Middle Eastern countries today.


I'm alarmed by the fervor with which some Christians think their religious beliefs should be enshrined into law and into the educational process. Hence, my anger, which I realize is not always attractive or gentle. Things they want:

Creationism taught as if it were science
Denial of climate change
Abstinence-only sex education
Women to behave as the "bible" instructs
Severe restrictions on birth control
Complete ban on abortions

They are free to practice these things as they choose but to promote an agenda imposing them on me is something I will fight.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

none of my money goes in their pockets.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> It kind of is in that we are guaranteed freedom "of" religion. That really means if our "religion" is atheism or agnosticism we are guaranteed the right of our beliefs. That includes Wicca. Which translates as freedom of religion or freedom from religion. And the 14th amendment guarantees our civil rights as citizens regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof.
> 
> Joey is free to believe whatever she chooses to believe. That does not mean she is correct. Just as I speak for myself and my own beliefs, she speaks for hers. I don't expect anybody to feel bound to share my beliefs; I don't have that sort of audacity. Fortunately we do not have an inquisition mindset in this country the way it was in Spain in the 1400s or in some Middle Eastern countries today.


The problem with joesomma is that she refuses to acknowledge that common sense interpretation of the first amendment, or even propose any intelligent points for discussion. She's a parrot. If anyone makes a valid point she can't answer, she goes off line, quotes the bible, or takes up a different subject.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> I'm alarmed by the fervor with which some Christians think their religious beliefs should be enshrined into law and into the educational process. Hence, my anger, which I realize is not always attractive or gentle. Things they want:
> 
> Creationism taught as if it were science
> Denial of climate change
> ...


Denial of climate change? Please elaborate.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> People like you are truly dangerous.
> 
> I'm concerned about separation of church and state and you mindless Christians trying to convert the rest of the world and innocent children. The bible is total, unadulterated bullshit. It has no place in the classroom, and if you do manage to weasel it into the curriculum, it CANNOT be used to promote your bizarre beliefs.


Why are Christians dangerous?It only appears you want to hang onto sin. How does it hurt to believe that your sins can be forgiven ? Why so scared?
You heart has been harded. I pray before you die that you see the real heart of God for your life. I wouldn't want you to be in eternal hell. The worst part of being is hell is knowing that you can't be with God . You still have a chance to change. Today is the day for Salvation. I pray that you open your heart to Him. Sounds like you have had bad experiences I pray you can overcome your hurt and your past.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Why are Christians dangerous?quote]
> 
> DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE?????


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> It only appears you want to hang onto sin. .


There you go - telling me I'm a sinner. Sin is YOUR gig, not mine. What sin, anyway? Oh yes, "we are all sinners" which translates to "we all must feel guilty and unworthy and beg for god to save us."

YOUR problem.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Denial of climate change? Please elaborate.


The statement is pretty clear. Many right-wing fundamentalists deny that there is any climate change, or that any change I related to man's activities.

Of course, they also want their unfounded "doubts" to be respected as a debatable issue.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> The statement is pretty clear. Many right-wing fundamentalists deny that there is any climate change, or that any change I related to man's activities.
> 
> Of course, they also want their unfounded "doubts" to be respected as a debatable issue.


In your original post you were talking about Christians, not "right-wing fundamentalists". My question was how Christians are denying climate change.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> F**k your prayers, CB. The obscenity is there deliberately to emphasize the force and conviction of my rejection of the very idea and concept behind your prayers.
> 
> Instead of engaging in an intelligent discussion, you start proselytizing.
> 
> By the way, I'm not scared of the boogeyman, either. Why is it so difficult for you to accept the real fact that many do not believe in god? Why does that scare YOU and make you feel you have to convert them? I don't believe for a second it is because you fear for my salvation. Maybe it is because when reason is injected into the debate and you have no answers, it is YOU who feel threatened.


I am not threatened what so ever by your words. It is your rejection of Christ that is making you so angry. It is the Great commission to tell everyone about Salvation. I am just doing my job. It only offends you because you know deep down I am right. It is your choice to accept Him or reject Him. But you now know the Truth. So you are accountable now. I am free you ,are in bondage. I am just being frank to you. What is so wrong with telling someone I have the answer to go away with sin and having life eternal? At least I care enough for you to take the abuse.
Christ died for you not buddha.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> In your original post you were talking about Christians, not "right-wing fundamentalists". My question was how Christians are denying climate change.


Right-wing fundamentalists are Christians. Please don't deny that they do this. Not credible. Ponder the following:

"Matthew Hagee kicked off this week's "Hagee Hotline" by informing his viewers that in situations where "men are saying things that contradict God's word, God's word is accurate and men are wrong" ... and that is why Christians should not believe in climate change. As Hagee explained, the views put forth by scientists and experts on any subject are not to be believed if those views are at odds with what the Bible teaches. As such, the extreme weather events that the climate has been experiencing are not the result of climate change but are rather signs of the End Times and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. "The Bible says that whenever we approach the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ," Hagee explained, "that there would be strange weather patterns. Jesus said this in Matthew the twenty-fifth chapter. So we have a decision to make: do we believe what an environmentalist group says and choose to live in a world where we're attempting to make everything as clean in the air as possible, or do we believe what the Bible says, that these things were going to happen and that rather than try to clean up all of the air and solve all of the problems of the world by eliminating factories, we should start to tell people about Jesus Christ who is to return?": - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hagee-it-not-climate-change-its-imminent-return-jesus-christ#sthash.SmL0uvOP.dpuf


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I am not threatened what so ever by your words. It is your rejection of Christ that is making you so angry. It is the Great commission to tell everyone about Salvation. I am just doing my job. It only offends you because you know deep down I am right. It is your choice to accept Him or reject Him. But you now know the Truth. So you are accountable now. I am free you ,are in bondage. I am just being frank to you. What is so wrong with telling someone I have the answer to go away with sin and having life eternal? At least I care enough for you to take the abuse.
> Christ died for you not buddha.


You are free to believe whatever nonsense you want, but you are NOT free to get in my face and tell me what I'm scared of, what I believe, or what I know.

Let me put it another way. If you can hate the sin but not the sinner, I can hate the religion but not the religious.

You're making it difficult, though.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Denial of climate change? Please elaborate.


from the Christian site, "gotquestions.org":

How, then, should a Christian view climate change? We should view it skeptically and critically, but at the same time honestly and respectfully. Most importantly, though, Christians should look at climate change biblically. What does the Bible say about climate change? Not much. Likely the closest biblical examples of what could be considered climate change would be the end times disasters prophesied in Revelation 618. Yet these prophecies have nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions; rather, they are the result of the wrath of God, pouring out justice on an increasingly wicked world. Also, a Christian must remember that God is in control and that this world is not our home. God will one day erase this current universe (2 Peter 3:7-12) and replace it with the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 2122). How much effort should be made "saving" a planet that God is eventually going to obliterate and replace with a planet so amazing and wonderful that the current earth pales in comparison?

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/climate-change.html#ixzz3DmY8O63f


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You are free to believe whatever nonsense you want, but you are NOT free to get in my face and tell me what I'm scared of, what I believe, or what I know.
> 
> Let me put it another way. If you can hate the sin but not the sinner, I can hate the religion but not the religious.
> 
> You're making it difficult, though.


I am sorry if you thought that. I care about you . I am willing to take the abuse if I can keep anyone out of hell. Just my nature to share my faith.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> from the Christian site, "gotquestions.org":
> 
> How, then, should a Christian view climate change? We should view it skeptically and critically, but at the same time honestly and respectfully. Most importantly, though, Christians should look at climate change biblically. What does the Bible say about climate change? Not much. Likely the closest biblical examples of what could be considered climate change would be the end times disasters prophesied in Revelation 618. Yet these prophecies have nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions; rather, they are the result of the wrath of God, pouring out justice on an increasingly wicked world. Also, a Christian must remember that God is in control and that this world is not our home. God will one day erase this current universe (2 Peter 3:7-12) and replace it with the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 2122). How much effort should be made "saving" a planet that God is eventually going to obliterate and replace with a planet so amazing and wonderful that the current earth pales in comparison?
> 
> Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/climate-change.html#ixzz3DmY8O63f


Thank you for sharing your sources.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I am sorry if you thought that. I care about you . I am willing to take the abuse if I can keep anyone out of hell. Just my nature to share my faith.


At what stage of this discussion did I lead you to believe I was inviting you to judge my life or my future, my fears or anything else you can't possibly know about me?


----------



## sjrNC (Jul 30, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Thank you for sharing your sources.


and now for the rest of the article.

Is there anything wrong with going green? No, of course not. Is trying to reduce your carbon footprint a good thing? Probably so. Are solar panels, wind mills, and other renewable energy sources worth pursuing? Of course. Are any of these things to be the primary focus of followers of Jesus Christ? Absolutely not! As Christians, our focus should be proclaiming the truth of the gospel, the message that has the power to save souls. Saving the planet is not within our power or responsibility. Climate change may or may not be real, and may or may not be human-caused. What we can know for certain is that God is good and sovereign, and that Planet Earth will be our habitat for as long as God desires it to be. Psalm 46:2-3, "Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/climate-change.html#ixzz3DmhNn18Y

As a Christian I believe that is is my duty to take care of the Earth. It is a given! Yes, Earth is changing and yes, we are to take care of it!


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

sjrNC said:


> and now for the rest of the article.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with going green? No, of course not. Is trying to reduce your carbon footprint a good thing? Probably so. Are solar panels, wind mills, and other renewable energy sources worth pursuing? Of course. Are any of these things to be the primary focus of followers of Jesus Christ? Absolutely not! As Christians, our focus should be proclaiming the truth of the gospel, the message that has the power to save souls. Saving the planet is not within our power or responsibility. Climate change may or may not be real, and may or may not be human-caused. What we can know for certain is that God is good and sovereign, and that Planet Earth will be our habitat for as long as God desires it to be. Psalm 46:2-3, "Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging."
> 
> ...


Saving the earth is not within our power or responsibility? Really?

There are those who believe it is our responsibility but we are being hampered by people who shrug off the problem; "Oh well, we're going to heaven so it doesn't matter."


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

sjrNC said:


> and now for the rest of the article.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with going green? No, of course not. Is trying to reduce your carbon footprint a good thing? Probably so. Are solar panels, wind mills, and other renewable energy sources worth pursuing? Of course. Are any of these things to be the primary focus of followers of Jesus Christ? Absolutely not! As Christians, our focus should be proclaiming the truth of the gospel, the message that has the power to save souls. Saving the planet is not within our power or responsibility. Climate change may or may not be real, and may or may not be human-caused. What we can know for certain is that God is good and sovereign, and that Planet Earth will be our habitat for as long as God desires it to be. Psalm 46:2-3, "Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea, though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging."
> 
> ...


I actually agree (sort of) with you, sjrNC. As long as humans live on Earth we'll leave our mark--at more than 7 billion it's impossible for us not to do so, short of returning to some sort of hunter/gatherer lifestyle. "Saving the Earth" through our own efforts may not be possible, but limiting the damage we cause is certainly a worthwhile goal, if only for our personal health and comfort. I'm sure no one wants that filthy air the Chinese suck in 24/7 enveloping our cities, or strip mines encroaching on our houses.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> There are those who believe it is our responsibility but we are being hampered by people who shrug off the problem; "Oh well, we're going to heaven so it doesn't matter."


What people?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> The statement is pretty clear. Many right-wing fundamentalists deny that there is any climate change, or that any change I related to man's activities.
> 
> Of course, they also want their unfounded "doubts" to be respected as a debatable issue.


Since the beginning of earth's creation, there has always been climate change. There were ice ages. There were volcanic eruptions, The north and south poles have been reversed. The Great Lakes were created by the melting of glaciers. So no, I know of hardly anyone that thinks there isn't climate change. The only difference is that I do not believe that humans have created the changes that you insist that we have caused. There was more carbon produced by the ancient Romans and Greeks than we do now. More carbon created by volcanoes than we do now. Do I believe we should be grateful stewards of our third rock from the sun, absolutely. But enough with the regulations. Enough of phony science. If you notice the liberal's term changed from global warning to climate change, because the global warming accusations were proven false. So yes, there is climate change, and we have never controlled it, caused it or influenced it. What did man do to create the ice age? What did man do to cause the glaciers to melt? What did man do to cause solar flares, as our sun cools? What did man do to cause a major cooling of the earth's temperature during Elizabethan Times?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Since the beginning of earth's creation, there has always been climate change. There were ice ages. There were volcanic eruptions, The north and south poles have been reversed. The Great Lakes were created by the melting of glaciers. So no, I know of hardly anyone that thinks there isn't climate change. The only difference is that I do not believe that humans have created the changes that you insist that we have caused. There was more carbon produced by the ancient Romans and Greeks than we do now. More carbon created by volcanoes than we do now. Do I believe we should be grateful stewards of our third rock from the sun, absolutely. But enough with the regulations. Enough of phony science. If you notice the liberal's term changed from global warning to climate change, because the global warming accusations were proven false. So yes, there is climate change, and we have never controlled it, caused it or influenced it. What did man do to create the ice age? What did man do to cause the glaciers to melt? What did man do to cause solar flares, as our sun cools? What did man do to cause a major cooling of the earth's temperature during Elizabethan Times?


Bravo.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Since the beginning of earth's creation, there has always been climate change. There were ice ages. There were volcanic eruptions, The north and south poles have been reversed. The Great Lakes were created by the melting of glaciers. So no, I know of hardly anyone that thinks there isn't climate change. The only difference is that I do not believe that humans have created the changes that you insist that we have caused. There was more carbon produced by the ancient Romans and Greeks than we do now. More carbon created by volcanoes than we do now. Do I believe we should be grateful stewards of our third rock from the sun, absolutely. But enough with the regulations. Enough of phony science. If you notice the liberal's term changed from global warning to climate change, because the global warming accusations were proven false. So yes, there is climate change, and we have never controlled it, caused it or influenced it. What did man do to create the ice age? What did man do to cause the glaciers to melt? What did man do to cause solar flares, as our sun cools? What did man do to cause a major cooling of the earth's temperature during Elizabethan Times?


It takes an incredible amount of smugness and arrogance to disagree with 97% of the scientific community. I don't understand the denial of seemingly educated people. What's to gain from this blindness?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I am not threatened what so ever by your words. It is your rejection of Christ that is making you so angry. It is the Great commission to tell everyone about Salvation. I am just doing my job. It only offends you because you know deep down I am right. It is your choice to accept Him or reject Him. But you now know the Truth. So you are accountable now. I am free you ,are in bondage. I am just being frank to you. What is so wrong with telling someone I have the answer to go away with sin and having life eternal? At least I care enough for you to take the abuse.
> Christ died for you not buddha.


You can continue to believe what you have been brainwashed to believe since you were a child. There are many of us who think things out and do not follow stories that may be myths or bogeyman stories designed to make us obedient. Even those of us who practice other religions do not necessarily take what those religions preach as fact. The stories in the bible were written a long time ago and many of them were the transcribing of stories told orally for generations. And we know how warped stories can get from oral transmissions. Remember playing "whispering down the line" as a child and laughing at how the original story changed radically as it went from person to person. Many of the stories some people take as absolute truth can be seen as tools to keep the pagans in line and protecting the dominance of tribal chiefs. Some of us think and don't take anything at face value. We evaluate the source and expect accurate documentation.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> You can continue to believe what you have been brainwashed to believe since you were a child. There are many of us who think things out and do not follow stories that may be myths or bogeyman stories designed to make us obedient. Even those of us who practice other religions do not necessarily take what those religions preach as fact. The stories in the bible were written a long time ago and many of them were the transcribing of stories told orally for generations. And we know how warped stories can get from oral transmissions. Remember playing "whispering down the line" as a child and laughing at how the original story changed radically as it went from person to person. Many of the stories some people take as absolute truth can be seen as tools to keep the pagans in line and protecting the dominance of tribal chiefs. Some of us think and don't take anything at face value. We evaluate the source and expect accurate documentation.


So you are cutting my faith? Classy. :thumbdown:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> It takes an incredible amount of smugness and arrogance to disagree with 97% of the scientific community. I don't understand the denial of seemingly educated people. What's to gain from this blindness?
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


Key word: Seemingly


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> It takes an incredible amount of smugness and arrogance to disagree with 97% of the scientific community. I don't understand the denial of seemingly educated people. What's to gain from this blindness?
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Once again, LTL thinks she knows it all, but always shows us otherwise,.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I would think meteorologists would know more about global warming (now called climate change because the earth has cooled). Beside simple science cannot say carbon dioxide is a pollutant, since it is required for human and plant life.
> 
> Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists dont believe in man-made global warming.
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/


Probably because their own masterminds have manipulated the data regarding temperatures in past years

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I would think meteorologists would know more about global warming (now called climate change because the earth has cooled). Beside simple science cannot say carbon dioxide is a pollutant, since it is required for human and plant life.
> 
> Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists dont believe in man-made global warming.
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/


Your source is questionable. This is the same publication that reported that New Jersey senator Bob Menendez had allegedly paid two prostitutes to have sex with him during a stay at a Dominican Republic resort, but it was discovered that the paper itself had paid the prostitutes to make the claims against someone they had never met.

I have contacted the AMS for their comments on the validity of this survey.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Probably because their own masterminds have manipulated the data regarding temperatures in past years
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/23/Global-warming-Fabricated-by-NASA-and-NOAA


Briebart is well-known to have manipulated a lot of data, themselves. They are fond of publishing articles that have been heavily edited, taking comments out of context, and of perpetrating hoaxes. Check Wikipedia's data on "controversies" relating to Briebart for an idea of how much integrity this publication has.

The article claims that climate scientists manipulate data - but this claim is made by a journalist, not by scientists who use computer models all the time. I'll base my understanding of climate change on findings by scientists, not some right-leaning journalist with an agenda.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Since the beginning of earth's creation, there has always been climate change. There were ice ages. There were volcanic eruptions, The north and south poles have been reversed. The Great Lakes were created by the melting of glaciers. So no, I know of hardly anyone that thinks there isn't climate change. The only difference is that I do not believe that humans have created the changes that you insist that we have caused. There was more carbon produced by the ancient Romans and Greeks than we do now. More carbon created by volcanoes than we do now. Do I believe we should be grateful stewards of our third rock from the sun, absolutely. But enough with the regulations. Enough of phony science. If you notice the liberal's term changed from global warning to climate change, because the global warming accusations were proven false. So yes, there is climate change, and we have never controlled it, caused it or influenced it. What did man do to create the ice age? What did man do to cause the glaciers to melt? What did man do to cause solar flares, as our sun cools? What did man do to cause a major cooling of the earth's temperature during Elizabethan Times?


LTL, I suggest you stick to knitting and leave climate science to real scientists.

Yes, the term "global warming" was changed, not because claims of warming were ever proven false, but because the uninformed public doesn't understand the simple concept that "weather" and "climate" are different. Observations of local conditions such as extreme winters is a predictable result of climate change, not "proof" that the earth is not warming.

You ask, "What did man do to cause the ice age?" Hmm. What possible bearing does that have on today? There was no industry pumping out pollution, no internal combustion engines then, so what is the connection?

You ask, "What did man do to cause the glaciers to melt?" Hmm. What bearing does that have on today? There was no industry pumping out pollution, no internal combustion engines then, so what is the connection?

You mention that the sun is cooling. Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite directions.

None of what you say has any actual SCIENTIFIC merit. Opinion and false premise arguments. Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

. double post


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

DGreen said:


> At what stage of this discussion did I lead you to believe I was inviting you to judge my life or my future, my fears or anything else you can't possibly know about me?


 :shock: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> It takes an incredible amount of smugness and arrogance to disagree with 97% of the scientific community. I don't understand the denial of seemingly educated people. What's to gain from this blindness?
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


not every scientist agrees with this theory.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

theyarnlady said:


> not every scientist agrees with this theory.


So? It's not unanimous, only 97 agreeing with 3 disagreeing.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

I have never seen those fact that 97 to 3. Will have to look into to that.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

theyarnlady said:


> I have never seen those fact that 97 to 3. Will have to look into to that.


Here's a place to start

The Myth of the Climate Change "97%"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Here's a place to start
> 
> The Myth of the Climate Change "97%"
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


or here . . .

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Here's a place to start
> 
> The Myth of the Climate Change "97%"
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


That is an OPINION piece, inherently subject to bias. Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal and we all know he's unbiased, right?

If you truly want to learn something, read some things written by real scientists:
http://www.realclimate.org/


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> or here . . .
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/


Who makes up this scientific group? A variety of people in different disciplines. When you ask climatologists, the percentage remains at 97% to 3%.

This is taken from the data you cited:
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the work of about 2,000 individuals, contends that recent global warming is a direct result of human activities for which we should mitigate the effects (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b). In contrast, climate sceptics (as per Antonio & Brulle, 2011; Hamilton, 2010; Hoffman, 2011a, 2011b; Kahan, Jenkins-Smith & Braman, 2010; Levy & Rothenberg, 2002; McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2011) have argued that the climate is changing due to natural causes and have countered with their own experts reports.

This Senate report is not a list of scientists [like that given by the IPCC; addition by authors], but a report that includes full biographies of  distinguished scientists  experts in..: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. (US Senate, 2009, p. 7)

The headline is misleading if you take it at face value. You might want to actually read the stuff you post and use some critical thinking skills while you're at it, including considering the possible bias of the source.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Who makes up this scientific group? A variety of people in different disciplines. When you ask climatologists, the percentage remains at 97% to 3%.
> 
> This is taken from the data you cited:
> The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the work of about 2,000 individuals, contends that recent global warming is a direct result of human activities for which we should mitigate the effects (IPCC, 2007a, 2007b). In contrast, climate sceptics (as per Antonio & Brulle, 2011; Hamilton, 2010; Hoffman, 2011a, 2011b; Kahan, Jenkins-Smith & Braman, 2010; Levy & Rothenberg, 2002; McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2011) have argued that the climate is changing due to natural causes and have countered with their own experts reports.
> ...


You can't take things out of context to prove your point. All the pieces we have referred to here are opinion pieces. Unless we access pure research where a hypothesis is tested we will do nothing but go back and forth.

I don't believe the climate change is a result of man made influences and can come up with supporting articles, you can do the same proving your opinion. My husband and son, an astronomer (B.S., M.E.P.D and meteorologist, (B.S., M.S.) respectively share the opinion that it is natural climate change that is occurring - I count them among the authorities that prove my point.

Just because I don't think the problem is man made doesn't mean that we're environmentally irresponsible either. We conserve water, recycle, compost, don't litter grow our own vegetables and ride bicycles. Being a Christian or not, being a conservative or liberal does not influence my opinion on this matter.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> That is an OPINION piece, inherently subject to bias. Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal and we all know he's unbiased, right?
> 
> If you truly want to learn something, read some things written by real scientists:
> http://www.realclimate.org/


And there has never been a "real scientist" that has altered their data to fit their conclusion or to achieve the results they wanted.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> *None of what you say has any actual SCIENTIFIC merit. Opinion and false premise arguments.*


I'm going to suggest the same thing to you that I suggested earlier today. If you really want to read about what climate scientists have to say instead of second-hand, biased baloney and news articles about interpretations of what climate scientists have to say, you might want to so some reading that doesn't come from Faux News.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

You claim to be open minded. Oh wait. Maybe you never said that, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and trust you will read a little of what they have to say. I will be interested to see whether you can come up with some intelligent rebuttals to realclimate.org, including appropriate attribution.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I'm going to suggest the same thing to you that I suggested earlier today. If you really want to read about what climate scientists have to say instead of second-hand, biased baloney and news articles about interpretations of what climate scientists have to say, you might want to so some reading that doesn't come from Faux News.
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
> 
> You claim to be open minded. Oh wait. Maybe you never said that, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and trust you will read a little of what they have to say. I will be interested to see whether you can come up with some intelligent rebuttals to realclimate.org, including appropriate attribution.


You are asking for a lot there, D. :XD:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> And there has never been a "real scientist" that has altered their data to fit their conclusion or to achieve the results they wanted.


I'm not saying that at all. Not as common among scientists as it is with Christians, though.

That's why scientists rely on peer-review. In case you don't know what that is, when scientists come up with what they believe to be solid discoveries or advances, they submit their findings to a panel of their peers - people who have solid credentials in the specific discipline being discussed - for criticism and comment on their methods, conclusions and accuracy - that sort of thing. This effectively weeds out scientists who might be tempted to do as you suggest. They don't submit discoveries in geophysics to biologists. They don't submit it to the public for opinions. They don't submit discoveries on marine biology to astrophysicists. If what they propose does not pass peer review, they go back to the drawing board and try again - with improvements.

The charlatans just publish on Facebook and YouTube along with the conspiracy theorists and teabaggers.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> You are asking for a lot there, D. :XD:


She's on dictionary.com at this moment, trying to figure out what "attribution" is. That should keep her busy for a while.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> You can't take things out of context to prove your point. All the pieces we have referred to here are opinion pieces. Unless we access pure research where a hypothesis is tested we will do nothing but go back and forth.
> 
> I don't believe the climate change is a result of man made influences and can come up with supporting articles, you can do the same proving your opinion. My husband and son, an astronomer (B.S., M.E.P.D and meteorologist, (B.S., M.S.) respectively share the opinion that it is natural climate change that is occurring - I count them among the authorities that prove my point.
> 
> Just because I don't think the problem is man made doesn't mean that we're environmentally irresponsible either. We conserve water, recycle, compost, don't litter grow our own vegetables and ride bicycles. Being a Christian or not, being a conservative or liberal does not influence my opinion on this matter.


So, you read the article you cited? I'm impressed.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> It takes an incredible amount of smugness and arrogance to disagree with 97% of the scientific community. I don't understand the denial of seemingly educated people. What's to gain from this blindness?
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/


I think it is purely political. They have to dumb down to keep their base happy. I don't think most of them are quite that dumb, but it is what they have believed for years, so it can't change. I think they are moving more in that direction all the time. They want to go back and live in the 50's, before all the immigration and same sex marriage came into play and when we were, in their eyes more of a Christian country.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> DGreen - The Global Warming Scientist, AKA as Al Gore is in it for political reasons and money,. money, money. He could care less about what carbon footprint he leaves behind. If he really cared, he would not have a private jet (or more than one) and he would not live in the huge house. Have you ever wondered who would get the money companies would pay for the carbon tax.
> 
> Global Warming AKA as Climate Change is nothing but a HOAX. They sure have enough supposedly smarty people hoodwinked, including you.


And the Conspiracy Theorist has chimed in.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

DGreen said:


> And the Conspiracy Theorist has chimed in.


I still don't understand how people who claim they have college degrees can totally disregard the evidence from almost the whole scientific community.
Hopeless.
Blind.
Gullible.
Refuse to use the brains God gave them.
Ruled by fear.
Accepting lies without batting an eyelash.
Controlled by the liars.
Don't recognize fact from fiction.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> The Ultimate List of Things Liberals Blame on Global Warming
> 
> If you read the website, and you click on the words in red, it will take you to the source of the material. Are "Real Scientists" making these statements?????
> 
> ...


The "good folks at the Daily Caller" says it all. By the way, joey, have you ever had an original thought?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

DGreen said:


> LTL, I suggest you stick to knitting and leave climate science to real scientists.
> 
> Yes, the term "global warming" was changed, not because claims of warming were ever proven false, but because the uninformed public doesn't understand the simple concept that "weather" and "climate" are different. Observations of local conditions such as extreme winters is a predictable result of climate change, not "proof" that the earth is not warming.
> 
> ...


So people are too stupid to know the difference between global warming and climate change? What an arrogant and elitist statement.

Oh, so man caused the glaciers to melt and create the Great Lakes? What?????? I think that is an extremely stupid and ignorant thought by a environmentalist wacko.

Last year was one of the coldest and snowiest on record. This spring was extremely cold and rainy. This summer has not been as warm as normal...................hummmmm

So I will ask a similar question. Where do you get erroneous, judgmental, and arrogant nonscientific opinions?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> I still don't understand how people who claim they have college degrees can totally disregard the evidence from almost the whole scientific community.
> Hopeless.
> Blind.
> Gullible.
> ...


Interesting link about how conservative brains might be structurally different from liberal's brains, published here:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/08/liberal-vs-conservative-does-the-difference-lie-in-the-brain/

To my way of thinking, "Ruled by fear" is a key.

"These structural differences, the authors suggest, support previous reports of differences in personality: liberals tend to be better at managing conflicting information, while conservatives are thought to be better at recognizing threats, researchers said. Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individuals political orientation, said Kanai in a press release. Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure.

So, perhaps they can't help it.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> So people are too stupid to know the difference between global warming and climate change? What an arrogant and elitist statement.
> 
> Oh, so man caused the glaciers to melt and create the Great Lakes? What?????? I think that is an extremely stupid and ignorant thought by a environmentalist wacko.
> 
> ...


You obviously don't have the capacity to even understand my post, since your reply doesn't address the actual points I made. You're ranting, LTL.

I'm proud to be an environmentalist, wacko or not.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

cookiequeen said:


> I still don't understand how people who claim they have college degrees can totally disregard the evidence from almost the whole scientific community.
> Hopeless.
> Blind.
> Gullible.
> ...


It all depends on their field of study. I have two uni degrees, one in library technology the other in records management, but this does not give me any authority or scientific background to quote my uni background and sprout forth on the latest medical discoveries. This is how 'how people who claim they have college degrees can totally disregard the evidence from almost the whole scientific community'. Just because you have a PhD in English Literature does does not qualify you to waffle on about advances in Mechanical Engineering. You do not take your car to the butcher to be fixed when it breaks down even though the butcher may like tinkering with cars, nor do you ask the lady in the bakery to diagnose your ailments because she advocates taking vitamins and other health supplements. It is the same in the scientific world, do not look just at the scientists qualifications but look at their field of study. And as has been said before, do not take their word as gospel but question everything that they say.
Down from soapbox before someone challenges me to a duel at 20 posts with bible quotes to the fore, and charges me with denigrating their religious beliefs. I can only recommend the advice given to me by a nun in third grade - question, question and question some more.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Interesting link about how conservative brains might be structurally different from liberal's brains, published here:
> 
> http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/08/liberal-vs-conservative-does-the-difference-lie-in-the-brain/
> 
> ...


So you are saying that because a person has sense to not believe in global warming that they are fearful? Looks like the other way around. You have been conned . :shock:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> So you are saying that because a person has sense to not believe in global warming that they are fearful? Looks like the other way around. You have been conned . :shock:


As usual, you have missed the point. Had you been paying attention, you would know my comments had nothing to do with global warming.

It appears that your knee-jerk reaction is to quickly find some pretense to disagree and think up an insult rather than actually think.

Interesting, too, your use of the "...so you think..." This coming from someone who has been known to whine about others putting words in your mouth.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> As usual, you have missed the point. Had you been paying attention, you would know my comments had nothing to do with global warming.
> 
> It appears that your knee-jerk reaction is to quickly find some pretense to disagree and think up an insult rather than actually think.
> 
> Interesting, too, your use of the "...so you think..." This coming from someone who has been known to whine about others putting words in your mouth.


It is always a put down with you isn't it? Does that make you feel superior ?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> It is always a put down with you isn't it? Does that make you feel superior ?


This, from someone who has done nothing but put me down.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> This, from someone who has done nothing but put me down.


Turning it back onto me. How liberal of you. 
:shock:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Turning it back onto me. How liberal of you.
> :shock:


I would like to see the post where I put you down. I looked back at my post to you and didn't see it.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Wiseguy said:


> You're the one that said she was being "conned". She was giving you facts in the discussion and you keep coming back with it's just your "common sense" that global warming is a hoax.
> 
> It seems to me you want to insult but everyone is supposed to pretend you didn't do it.


I would wonder where you were Lisa.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Turning it back onto me. How liberal of you.
> :shock:


Actually CB, I have been pretty kind to you so far.

Tell, me then, whether it makes YOU feel superior to me when you spew scripture at me, tell me I'm ignorant and am going to hell, that you KNOW what god wants of ME, that will I simmer in an eternal lake of fire without your generous help...that you know I will be pleading for god's mercy on my deathbed...need I go on?

If you have the courage to come out from behind your own self-righteous belief that you are obviously smarter than everyone who dares disagree with you, I would invite you to review your posts of the last week and honestly tell me you are pure as the driven snow and all of your comments have been well-researched, purely logical, kind and reasonable.

Wanna put this up for a vote of other commenters? Think carefully, since you really hate "being picked on."

I'm weary of your intellectual shortcomings and lack of cognitive reasoning. Once again, I'm by no means promising I will not respond to your inane comments in the future, but for today I leave you - talk to yourself and your cronies. Try not to get the keyboard wet as you sputter at my audacity and attitude.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Maybe the "superior" one can give a website that explains how carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming or climate change. My teeny, tiny brain with a degree in Chemistry does NOT know how it can be possible, Chemically. If you know please explain.
> 
> If it is not possible, it is nothing but a hoax.


Maybe that teeny tiny brain can look up a website that isn't conspiracy based.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> If you read, I am the one who says that Global warming is a HOAX. Please accuse the "right" person.


CB said I was being conned. Read it yourself.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Turning it back onto me. How liberal of you.
> :shock:


What is wrong with you? Lately it seems that you can't go through a day without picking a fight. You are not the CB I knew and respected. I miss her and I want her back.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Wiseguy said:


> ?? What are you talking about
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Any new person who posts, the righties call Lisa. You don't look like a LIsa to me! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Don't forget, we also need water to survive, but we (and plants) can easily drown in too much - as the coastal cities will eventually learn.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I'm weary of your intellectual shortcomings and lack of cognitive reasoning.


 :roll:


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> The excess of water in the coastal cities has nothing to do with global warming. There will never be more water on earth than what is here now. It may just be in different forms and in different locations. Remember "Matter can never be created or destroyed."


Take Bratty Patty's advice and look up information somewhere besides conservatives opinion pages.

There is a lot of water in the polar icecaps that if released, WILL raise sea level. That, too, is physics. It's already happening, in case you had not heard.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The excess of water in the coastal cities has nothing to do with global warming. There will never be more water on earth than what is here now. It may just be in different forms and in different locations. Remember "Matter can never be created or destroyed."


Since man is made up of matter in various forms, you are saying that we could never have been created. Hmmmm.......
Or we could never be destroyed. How does that fit in with God?


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Maybe the "superior" one can give a website that explains how carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming or climate change. My teeny, tiny brain with a degree in Chemistry does NOT know how it can be possible, Chemically. If you know please explain.
> 
> If it is not possible, it is nothing but a hoax.


Seems to me an awful lot of people marched in support of a hoax, 310,000 of them infact, including Ban Ki Moon. But of course, you know much more than these people. A degree in Chemistry makes you an expert on all things.

Last week, meteorologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that the Earth had its warmest June through August on record and that 2014 is on track to be the warmest year ever.
scientists said carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel, the main contributor to climate change, are expected to rise 2.5 percent this year to a record 40 billion tons.
http://www.news.net/article/1964813/Top+Stories/?referid=114

*Ban Ki Moon joins 310,000-strong March for climate action*
By Allyson Versprille and Mark Drajem
Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) 
Hundreds of thousands marched through Manhattan and in cities around the world today demanding government action on climate change in what organizers called the largest climate demonstration ever.
The Peoples Climate March drew more than 310,000 people to New York this weekend, organizers said, tripling the original forecast. Demonstrators, including homeowners flooded by Hurricane Sandy, New York political leaders and indigenous people fighting oil companies in Latin America, chanted, sang and danced in an appeal to global leaders to act on climate change.
We need to demonstrate there are an awful lot of people that care about climate change and demonstrate that this is a huge issue for all kinds of people, said Bill McKibben, the head of 350.org, the organizing group. Since the fossil fuel companies have money, we have to have something on our side, and thats people.
The demonstration comes ahead of a United Nations summit this week on climate change and coincided with more than 2,600 events planned in 150 countries. Organizers said the New York march was the citys largest social demonstration in the last decade.
Among the marchers was UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who will host more than 120 heads of state and government at what he called a political action forum on climate change on Sept. 23. It will be the largest gathering of heads of state focusing on climate issues, and will set a framework for talks in Lima in December and Paris next year, when leaders will attempt to hammer out a pact on cutting emissions blamed for global warming.
New Warnings
The summit will open on the heels of new warnings from scientists on the risks of climate change. Last week, meteorologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that the Earth had its warmest June through August on record and that 2014 is on track to be the warmest year ever.
In a separate report today, scientists said carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel, the main contributor to climate change, are expected to rise 2.5 percent this year to a record 40 billion tons. The numbers were reported by the Global Carbon Project, a tracking initiative, and published in the journal Nature Geoscience.
We are not on course for a safe world, UN Special Envoy for Climate Change Mary Robinson, said in an interview. This is about saving the lives of those affected by climate change as well as future generations.
Sting, DiCaprio
Singer Sting, actor Leonardo DiCaprio and Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders joined the march.
Its a campaign to solve complacency against climate change, Sting said in an interview. We are making a statement that is anything but complacent.
In anticipation of the event, the Metropolitan Transit Authority shut subway stations and adjusted bus routes to accommodate the 60,000 people it estimated would be attending. Organizers had said they expected 100,000. The New York Police Department said it doesnt provide crowd estimates.
Activists say they want world leaders to agree to take measures to phase out the use of coal, tar sands, oil and natural gas. Burning those fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases that scientists say are responsible for warming the Earths temperature.
Lisa Cline and Matt Haasch of Newburgh, New York, had their home on the Hudson flooded by Hurricane Sandy, as the water level rose 9 feet above the tidal peak.
Under Water
It woke us up to the global situation, Cline said as they exited the march. If things keep going like they are, our house will be under water in 20 years.
A draft UN report seen by Bloomberg News in August said there is a risk of irreversible damage to the planet unless theres faster action to limit fossil fuel emissions blamed for climate change. The most direct impact of weather on health comes from extreme events such as storms, floods and landslides, according the World Health Organization.
The UN summit took a symbolic hit after China, the worlds top carbon polluter, and India, third biggest after the U.S., decided not to send their top political leaders. The last attempt at a global accord broke down in Copenhagen in 2009, when the talks dissolved into finger-pointing between rich and poor nations over which group should move first on emissions reductions. Leaders from Germany, Australia and Canada are also not on the UNs schedule.
They need to be here in the summit to make commitments, said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who joined the march, today announced a plan to reduce greenhouse emissions from public and private buildings 80 percent by 2050 from 2005 levels. The plan would make New York the largest municipality to commit to the 80 percent goal, according to a statement.
--With assistance from Natasha Khan in Hong Kong and Brian K. Sullivan in Boston.
To contact the reporters on this story: Allyson Versprille in New York at [email protected]; Mark Drajem in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at [email protected] Jim Efstathiou Jr.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> So you are cutting my faith? Classy. :thumbdown:


Figured you would take whatever I said in the most insulting way you could think of.

I am not cutting anybody's faith. I am just commenting on another perspective toward faith.

We shall never know in this life time which of us has the correct belief if any of us does.

Considering how different people's beliefs are across the planet, if there is a world to come, a whole bunch of people are in for a big surprise.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> not every scientist agrees with this theory.


But many do. We wonder at the qualifications of some scientists, and what their areas of specialization are. And who is paying some of them to say what. That can go either in the direction of people who believe there is evidence of climate change or of people who do not.

I am not educated enough in climatological studies to give an informed opinion. I have an opinion, but at least I am not arrogant enough to claim mine is the right one. And if it is, I do not have the authority or the power to do anything meaningful to affect the issue.

Also, I am old enough that if there is severe climate change, I will probably not live long enough to see the effects.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> You are asking for a lot there, D. :XD:


How nice to see our little sweetie back in full force. Love that girl!


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Figured you would take whatever I said in the most insulting way you could think of.
> 
> I am not cutting anybody's faith. I am just commenting on another perspective toward faith.
> 
> ...


Considering a few facts I think a lot of people are in for a very big surprise.

Consider
Only those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, ie Christians are going to be saved - one third of the world's population are designated as Christian so a lot are not going to be saved. What happens to those who do not hear about Christianity before they die, and a lot of people are in this category. A lot of very good people are not Christians and they are to be condemned to eternal flames along with the murderers, rapists, Hitler, Stalin. Oh, sorry, of course those murderers, rapists, Hitler, Stalin, and others, may have made a death bed conversion and been whisked up to heaven leaving only the non believers and those who have no knowledge of Christianity to burn forever.
Christianity has only been here for 2,000 and thinking man has walked the earth for how long? A lot longer than Christianity, so a lot more people are not going to be saved. What happens to all those people who were born before Christianity arrived? A quick read of history may be needed to discover the names of the people who lived prior to Christianity.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

DGreen said:


> Interesting link about how conservative brains might be structurally different from liberal's brains, published here:
> 
> http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/08/liberal-vs-conservative-does-the-difference-lie-in-the-brain/
> 
> ...


Wondering whether there is any degree of autism spectrum involved? I know a couple of really bright guys, well educated, well read, who are inflexible in their thoughts, judgmental, ultra conservative, and who each have Asperger's to one degree or another. Makes you speculate whether there is a connection. Makes me feel lucky my brain is wired the way it is.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Turning it back onto me. How liberal of you.
> :shock:


Not fun to get your words twisted, is it? You can do it to other people, learn to take it like a big girl. Some day you may get it that not everybody believes the way you do about various issues.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

MarilynKnits said:


> Wondering whether there is any degree of autism spectrum involved? I know a couple of really bright guys, well educated, well read, who are inflexible in their thoughts, judgmental, ultra conservative, and who each have Asperger's to one degree or another. Makes you speculate whether there is a connection. Makes me feel lucky my brain is wired the way it is.


Autism is not related to stupidity. I know you have not said that but others may think that you are implying that. People with autism will see things from a narrow perspective, yes, but this can also mean that they are not sidetracked or diverted from their original research. The two guys you mention may have problems stemming from their ultra conservative background more than their autism. People with autism are more likely to see an angle that others miss. Autism does not necessarily mean inflexibility in thought and judgement. Autistic sufferers have trouble relating to other people. A lot of people on KP have children who are Autistic. They will come out fighting for their Autistic children, I know I am the mother of an Autistic child and I am there for him, I will defend him against unnecessary barbs. I always have and always will.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> Autism is not related to stupidity. I know you have not said that but others may think that you are implying that. People with autism will see things from a narrow perspective, yes, but this can also mean that they are not sidetracked or diverted from their original research. The two guys you mention may have problems stemming from their ultra conservative background more than their autism. People with autism are more likely to see an angle that others miss. Autism does not necessarily mean inflexibility in thought and judgement. Autistic sufferers have trouble relating to other people. A lot of people on KP have children who are Autistic. They will come out fighting for their Autistic children, I know I am the mother of an Autistic child and I am there for him, I will defend him against unnecessary barbs. I always have and always will.


Oh, I agree with you that Autism is not in the least related to stupidity. These two people I know are quite bright. I think they succeeded as well as they did at University is that they were able to focus and do research in depth without being distracted. I have a degree of attention deficit disorder and wish I were able to immerse in a topic and stay with it long enough to plumb its full content. Part of the problem I have had is being bright, having a good memory, and having it come too easily when I was a child. I never had to learn good study skills or develop the ability to focus and concentrate. That is a different kind of handicap. My job in customer service for many years was so suited to me because it was constantly something different with each phone call or e-mail. My job required me to flit off in different directions and not stay too focused.

Our differences are what make life interesting. Respecting one another's differences is so important.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MarilynKnits said:


> Wondering whether there is any degree of autism spectrum involved? I know a couple of really bright guys, well educated, well read, who are inflexible in their thoughts, judgmental, ultra conservative, and who each have Asperger's to one degree or another. Makes you speculate whether there is a connection. Makes me feel lucky my brain is wired the way it is.


Autism is a completely different thing.

One of the other points raised in the study I cited is the possibility that those whose brains are wired on the conservative side tend to respond with a "fight or flight" response rather more than others. This could render them less able to analyze situations clearly or realistically due to their overwhelming fear response. Only a suggestion, but intriguing. I have observed that some hard-right conservatives tend to regard the world from a fearful, defensive stance. Liberals, by contrast, tend to take on problems with the goal of solving them. Note the somewhat remarkable position of some on the idea of hell and their massive fear of offending god. Could explain a lot in terms of the apparent desire of some conservatives to return to the "good old days" before women's lib, sexual freedom, acceptance of gays, civil rights....

Of course, I'm not suggesting that any of the conservatives here have fear of change or anything.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

EveMCooke said:


> Considering a few facts I think a lot of people are in for a very big surprise.
> 
> Consider
> Only those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, ie Christians are going to be saved - one third of the world's population are designated as Christian so a lot are not going to be saved. What happens to those who do not hear about Christianity before they die, and a lot of people are in this category. A lot of very good people are not Christians and they are to be condemned to eternal flames along with the murderers, rapists, Hitler, Stalin. Oh, sorry, of course those murderers, rapists, Hitler, Stalin, and others, may have made a death bed conversion and been whisked up to heaven leaving only the non believers and those who have no knowledge of Christianity to burn forever.
> Christianity has only been here for 2,000 and thinking man has walked the earth for how long? A lot longer than Christianity, so a lot more people are not going to be saved. What happens to all those people who were born before Christianity arrived? A quick read of history may be needed to discover the names of the people who lived prior to Christianity.


You have touched on an element of religion that I find extremely interesting; that most people follow the religion taught to them as children then defend it vehemently. If one was born in India, chances are you will follow the Hindu religion. If one was born in Iran, chances are you will follow Islam. A fair number of those absolutely believe their religion is the only correct one, the only one with the "truth." Here in the US, those brought up in any number of different faiths are absolutely, positively convinced they are the "one true" religion. They can't ALL be "right."

How marvelously lucky that so many Christians - by pure accident of birth - were born into the "right" religion. Whichever one they were born into, that is.

As for your philosophical question, this is what I was taught:

I was a good practicing Catholic for much of my early adulthood. I was taught that only Catholicism was true, but there was a special dispensation for those who had not "heard" about god. This covered all those who lived BC, and those that missionaries had not reached. As I recall, god would give those poor ignorant souls a second chance. As for those who HAD heard the word but were not catholic, god would be merciful if they had pure intentions and followed god to the best of their ability and understanding, so they could get into heaven, too.

Philosophical question solved in a nice neat package.

The question of proportionality was never addressed and to this day I have yet to hear any Christian even discuss the possibility (based on their own beliefs) that they could be sharing heaven with Hitler, Pol Pot, Charles Manson...but not the moral person who doesn't believe. They just gloss over that one.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You have touched on an element of religion that I find extremely interesting; that most people follow the religion taught to them as children then defend it vehemently. If one was born in India, chances are you will follow the Hindu religion. If one was born in Iran, chances are you will follow Islam. A fair number of those absolutely believe their religion is the only correct one, the only one with the "truth." Here in the US, those brought up in any number of different faiths are absolutely, positively convinced they are the "one true" religion. They can't ALL be "right."
> 
> How marvelously lucky that so many Christians - by pure accident of birth - were born into the "right" religion. Whichever one they were born into, that is.
> 
> ...


All have fallen short of the Glory of God. There will be no sinners in Heaven. They must be born again before they can enter. Who knows what prayer Hilter prayed before he died. Jeffery Dahmer was said to have given his life to the Lord before he got murdered.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Autism will affect different people so different. There may be a few who are unable to take care of them selves. Then there are some who are very intelligent. My friend's son is working on his doctorate. He will be presenting a paper to an international audience of his peers, next spring, in Czech Republic. Most fall somewhere in between. My niece, who is autistic will probably not be able to live on her own. She does work in a sheltered workshop and still lives at home. My hear goes out to all of the parents who have worked so hard and have so much love for their challenged children.


My son is a very loving person and I find that is the important thing. He tells me every day that he loves me and I know that he means it. He still lives at home and works, he just has trouble keeping a job because he is prone to meltdowns when upset. At times it is like walking on eggshells. I had people tell me when he was a teenager that I should untie the apron strings and I would reply that there were no apron strings but there was a safety lifeline in place. I know there are many different aspects to autism. Some are very severely handicapped. Autism is now recognised when the child is much younger than previously and remedial programmes are set in place. I am glad your niece can work in a sheltered workshop and live at home. Despite her difficulties she is still making a valuable contribution to life and others. Treasure her as she is special.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> All have fallen short of the Glory of God. There will be no sinners in Heaven. They must be born again before they can enter. Who knows what prayer Hilter prayed before he died. Jeffery Dahmer was said to have given his life to the Lord before he got murdered.


How extraordinarily lucky for you that you were not born in India. Otherwise, you might not have ever learned what god thinks and who will qualify to get into heaven. Neat how that worked out for you.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> How extraordinarily lucky for you that you were not born in India. Otherwise, you might not have ever learned what god thinks and who will qualify to get into heaven. Neat how that worked out for you.


You are right. I am thankful for being raised under a Christian roof. Not perfect. I went a different way than my parents tho. I chose to look around and decide for myself. I went to different churches and studied on my own to believe what I believe. I do read from the Book often to make sure I don't get out of line with the scriptures. Even if you don't think so I do mean well. I am over zealous it is true. I don't mean to come across as judging. I just have peace and joy and want to share. I am a work in progress. God is always working on me. But my desire is to show back the love that God has shown me. I ask your forgiveness if I had angered you or hurt you.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> You are right. I am thankful for being raised under a Christian roof. Not perfect. I went a different way than my parents tho. I chose to look around and decide for myself. I went to different churches and studied on my own to believe what I believe. I do read from the Book often to make sure I don't get out of line with the scriptures. Even if you don't think so I do mean well. I am over zealous it is true. I don't mean to come across as judging. I just have peace and joy and want to share. I am a work in progress. God is always working on me. But my desire is to show back the love that God has shown me. I ask your forgiveness if I had angered you or hurt you.


I'm humbled by your gracious response to my sarcastic remark. I'm going to simply say thank you, and that I recognize the openness and honesty of this testimony to your beliefs.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> I'm humbled by your gracious response to my sarcastic remark. I'm going to simply say thank you, and that I recognize the openness and honesty of this testimony to your beliefs.


Thank you. Maybe we can start over.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Thank you. Maybe we can start over.


That would be nice.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

DGreen said:


> That would be nice.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

EveMCooke said:


> Considering a few facts I think a lot of people are in for a very big surprise.
> 
> Consider
> Only those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, ie Christians are going to be saved - one third of the world's population are designated as Christian so a lot are not going to be saved. What happens to those who do not hear about Christianity before they die, and a lot of people are in this category. A lot of very good people are not Christians and they are to be condemned to eternal flames along with the murderers, rapists, Hitler, Stalin. Oh, sorry, of course those murderers, rapists, Hitler, Stalin, and others, may have made a death bed conversion and been whisked up to heaven leaving only the non believers and those who have no knowledge of Christianity to burn forever.
> Christianity has only been here for 2,000 and thinking man has walked the earth for how long? A lot longer than Christianity, so a lot more people are not going to be saved. What happens to all those people who were born before Christianity arrived? A quick read of history may be needed to discover the names of the people who lived prior to Christianity.


Certainly thought provoking. You make some salient points here and I'm going to do a search about this and see what comes up.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

MarilynKnits said:


> But many do. We wonder at the qualifications of some scientists, and what their areas of specialization are. And who is paying some of them to say what. That can go either in the direction of people who believe there is evidence of climate change or of people who do not.
> 
> I am not educated enough in climatological studies to give an informed opinion. I have an opinion, but at least I am not arrogant enough to claim mine is the right one. And if it is, I do not have the authority or the power to do anything meaningful to affect the issue.
> 
> Also, I am old enough that if there is severe climate change, I will probably not live long enough to see the effects.


No, I will not live long enough either, but future generations of my family will. Common sense should apply here for those who don't believe. Just consider the number of people living on this planet and how things have changed over the last 100 years, I would at least think it was a possibility that things are changing instead of deny, deny, deny. Think of the increasing pollution from cars during the last 100 years. Look at China where in places they are wearings masks so they don't breath in the pollution and you can barely see across the street. Why do they wish this on their grandchildren just so they can be against something the left believes in. That is all it is with them. If Obama and the left believe it, then they don't.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I would think meteorologists would know more about global warming (now called climate change because the earth has cooled). Beside simple science cannot say carbon dioxide is a pollutant, since it is required for human and plant life.
> 
> Poll: Nearly half of meteorologists dont believe in man-made global warming.
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/


I have done a little research into the article you quoted and as I suspected, the Daily Caller has misrepresented the study in an egregious manner.

The study to which they refer was done by Edward Maibach, Neil Stenhouse, and Sara Cobb of George Mason University. The introduction to the study outlines the methodology and statistics relative to sample size, response rates, etc. before detailing the responses and conclusions.

Of the 7,197 surveys sent, 135 had invalid addresses and were invalid, so the survey was sent to 7,062 people, 1,862 responded, a least in part. This is a response rate of 26.4%.

The question about whether climate change is human caused was interested, with 59% agreeing it is human caused and 11% thinking causes were a combination of humans and natural forces. That is 70% of the 26.4% who responded. It is impossible to extrapolate those responses to 73% who did NOT respond.

The Daily Caller flatly claimed that 52% of AMS members believe climate change is human-induced. This is a flat-out lie.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

According to Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for Science under Pres. Obama and is the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at NYU, the point "isn't whether climate is changing but that climate has always changed and always will".

Koonin said "we often hear there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change, but as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. While humans can cause serious issues for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole and directly shift the atmosphere's natural effect by only 1-2%." 

Earth's average temperature has increased much slower over the last 16 years. The human contribution to CO2 has gone up by 25% during that period.

Koonin said that current global warming models have limitations: 

"Models show Arctic ice melting but do not show the almost equal growth of ice across Antarctica.

Lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere - has not materialized. 

Reports from the last century of rising global sea levels - sea levels rise at almost the same rate today.

Climate sensitivity - from hypothetical doubling of CO2 concentration - no different and no more certain than it was 30 years ago."

There is a lot of info out there. A lot of that info has been proven wrong, scientists have admitted making false claims about climate change data and data just doesn't add up. CO2 accumulation isn't nearly a troublesome as some speculated. The climate is going to change regardless of what humans do. We can keep our air, water and earth clean, but that falls under pollution not climate change.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> Any new person who posts, the righties call Lisa. You don't look like a LIsa to me! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


He's better looking. Then again, your opinion isn't worth much. I see you are using that cute little girl- which you stated is your grand daughter - as your avatar again. I saw the same picture used in connection to an article on Yahoo about ADHD in children. Little girls and cats, what else are you lying about?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> According to Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for Science under Pres. Obama and is the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at NYU, the point "isn't whether climate is changing but that climate has always changed and always will".
> 
> Koonin said "we often hear there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change, but as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. While humans can cause serious issues for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole and directly shift the atmosphere's natural effect by only 1-2%."
> 
> ...


In 2004, Koonin joined BP plc serving as their Chief Scientist where he was responsible for guiding the companys long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources.

And we know what the BP agenda is. This guy is a physicist, not a climatologist. And he's ONE person.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

I also have the following e-mail from the Communications Director of the American Meteorological Society in response to my inquiry about the article in the Daily Caller, claiming almost half of AMS members do not believe in man made climate change:

Diane, yes, AMS believes that the article does not present an accurate assessment of the actual survey results., but rather points to a single question without full context. As noted in this article, the survey specifically asked about mankinds influence on rising global temperatures over a 150-year period, and some survey respondents indicated later that they would have changed their answers if the survey had asked specifically about the last 50 years of warming.

Further, only 4 percent of respondents said that global warming was not happening, and only 5 percent are convinced that global warming over the past 150 years is due mostly to natural causes.


The survey also showed 93 percent of actively publishing climate scientists indicated that they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. This is consistent with prior studies findings that the climate science community is in agreement that humans are largely responsible for the climate change we have seen in recent decades.

********

Please note the 93% - this counts members of the AMS, while President Obama was citing figures for scientists worldwide.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> He's better looking. Then again, your opinion isn't worth much. I see you are using that cute little girl- which you stated is your grand daughter - as your avatar again. I saw the same picture used in connection to an article on Yahoo about ADHD in children. Little girls and cats, what else are you lying about?


You are quite mistaken, solow. I never said that this avatar that I am currently using is my grand daughter. Not ever. For one thing, everyone knows that this child is too old to be my grand.
In the past I had pics of my grand as my avatar. But I decided to pull them for very good reasons. 
Please show where I said that this current pic is my grand.
You cant, you lying old sour puss. 
Geez, did a bee fly up your bloomers today?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Wiseguy said:


> .... and? There's a difference between "simple science" and the "science" of simpletons.
> 
> Has anyone ever claimed that carbon dioxide is not part of the eco system?
> 
> But how can anyone with even two braincells to rub together look at the chart below and not understand this increase is not part of a natural cycle? You'd have to be so grossly obtuse to think that, that I would advise to anyone who does that they go to the doctor to see if they have some sort of brain disease eating away at their grey matter.


Thank you for the charts, Wiseguy. It is not a matter of braincells. I believe most of the ladies here have plenty of brain cells but they have been polluted by Faux news and publications like the Daily Caller.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Wiseguy said:


> Oh, you poor thing. Do you really think that anyone anywhere has ever claimed that the climate doesn't naturally cycle or that we're trying to stop if from changing as it we're trying to stop the natural cycle?
> 
> If that's what you think, you need to go back to the beginning and educate yourself.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Wiseguy said:


> Oh, you poor thing. Do you really think that anyone anywhere has ever claimed that the climate doesn't naturally cycle or that we're trying to stop if from changing as it we're trying to stop the natural cycle?
> 
> If that's what you think, you need to go back to the beginning and educate yourself.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Autism is a completely different thing.
> 
> One of the other points raised in the study I cited is the possibility that those whose brains are wired on the conservative side tend to respond with a "fight or flight" response rather more than others. This could render them less able to analyze situations clearly or realistically due to their overwhelming fear response. Only a suggestion, but intriguing. I have observed that some hard-right conservatives tend to regard the world from a fearful, defensive stance. Liberals, by contrast, tend to take on problems with the goal of solving them. Note the somewhat remarkable position of some on the idea of hell and their massive fear of offending god. Could explain a lot in terms of the apparent desire of some conservatives to return to the "good old days" before women's lib, sexual freedom, acceptance of gays, civil rights....
> 
> Of course, I'm not suggesting that any of the conservatives here have fear of change or anything.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: Satire alert.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> All have fallen short of the Glory of God. There will be no sinners in Heaven. They must be born again before they can enter. Who knows what prayer Hilter prayed before he died. Jeffery Dahmer was said to have given his life to the Lord before he got murdered.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

If you don't mind sharing, what was your parent's choice of religion? Did they understand your choice? Thanks.



Country Bumpkins said:


> You are right. I am thankful for being raised under a Christian roof. Not perfect. I went a different way than my parents tho. I chose to look around and decide for myself. I went to different churches and studied on my own to believe what I believe. I do read from the Book often to make sure I don't get out of line with the scriptures. Even if you don't think so I do mean well. I am over zealous it is true. I don't mean to come across as judging. I just have peace and joy and want to share. I am a work in progress. God is always working on me. But my desire is to show back the love that God has shown me. I ask your forgiveness if I had angered you or hurt you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Honestly, you have such a warped sense of 'logic.'

I'm sure Patty's avatar is not a relative and she has never 'admitted' that it is. We all just think it looks like we imagine she might.

None of this is a rational basis for discussion.



soloweygirl said:


> He's better looking. Then again, your opinion isn't worth much. I see you are using that cute little girl- which you stated is your grand daughter - as your avatar again. I saw the same picture used in connection to an article on Yahoo about ADHD in children. Little girls and cats, what else are you lying about?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

DGreen said:


> In 2004, Koonin joined BP plc serving as their Chief Scientist where he was responsible for guiding the companys long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources.
> 
> And we know what the BP agenda is. This guy is a physicist, not a climatologist. And he's ONE person.


And he is one person paid by BP. (added for the intellectually challenged.)


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

damemary said:


> Honestly, you have such a warped sense of 'logic.'
> 
> I'm sure Patty's avatar is not a relative and she has never 'admitted' that it is. We all just think it looks like we imagine she might.
> 
> None of this is a rational basis for discussion.


I might add - nor are her comments relevant to anything.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> In 2004, Koonin joined BP plc serving as their Chief Scientist where he was responsible for guiding the companys long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources.
> 
> And we know what the BP agenda is. This guy is a physicist, not a climatologist. And he's ONE person.


Where there is ONE there are usually MORE. So what that he is a physicist. Does this mean he can't understand climate?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Not to change the subject, but I found this kind of interesting.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-sees-subtle-dig-in-republicans-who-say-democrat-instead-of-democratic/





 Has this guy changed his opinion or is he now just saying things differently?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Not to change the subject, but I found this kind of interesting.
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-sees-subtle-dig-in-republicans-who-say-democrat-instead-of-democratic/
> 
> ...


Which explains perfectly why right-wing extremists are trying to sell you on the idea that illegals vote and that there is widespread voter fraud so they can pass laws that disenfranchise people likely to vote the democratic ticket. This is clearly a right-wing goal.

Now, let's sit back and wait for the righties to scream bloody murder and we'll be off on that tangent for a while.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Remember the kissing congressman from Louisiana? He said he would resign, but has changed his mind and will run again. You know he is a good Christian and lucky for him, so is his wife. Wonder how Christian he would have been if he hadn't been caught on camera. Hypocrite

This describes his campaign add. 


Im lucky to have been blessed with a great family and a wonderful Christian wife, the congressman says in the ad.

And Im blessed to have a husband who owns up to his mistakes, never gives up, always fighting for the good people of Louisiana, his wife responds.

At one point, the camera cuts to a shot of the two holding hands with Mrs. McAllisters engagement ring prominently visible. At the end, it fades into footage of the congressman smiling with his children outside.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Climate change alarmists silent on economic damage done by climate change alarmists
> 
> By M.D. Kittle | Watchdog.org
> 
> ...


Once again, consider the source, the Watchdog. Conservative, owned by conservative and associated with numerous conservative media outlets. This is NOT balanced. If I thought it would do any good, I would research each of your points, but I'm really tired of doing research which your righties refuse to acknowledge.

I have to point out, though, their not-so-subtle mention of "Along the parade route, from Central Park West to West 34th Street, the Big Apple was filled with an estimated 400,000 (by organizers estimates) TRUMPET BLASTING, DRUM-CIRCLE GATHERING, HOLISTIC MEDICINE-INGESTING PARTICIPANTS" Hard to tell there's a bias there, right? They also made a point to mention the socialists. Which means the entire 400,000 are socialists? Or all are to be dismissed by association?

At least those committed to saving the earth are inclusive and embrace even those with differing political beliefs instead of practicing ad hominem discrimination.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Remember the kissing congressman from Louisiana? He said he would resign, but has changed his mind and will run again. You know he is a good Christian and lucky for him, so is his wife. Wonder how Christian he would have been if he hadn't been caught on camera. Hypocrite
> 
> This describes his campaign add.
> 
> ...


The guy at least understands how to get through to his constituents - though it would be hard NOT to own up to that mistake. And you gotta hand it to him. He's never giving up power and influence. Willingly.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> The guy at least understands how to get through to his constituents - though it would be hard NOT to own up to that mistake. And you gotta hand it to him. He's never giving up power and influence. Willingly.


Ya it don't matter what you do in your private life or how good a Christian you really are. Just go to Washington and make life as miserable as you can for President Obama and the democratic party. That is your job. Vote against your own constituents. They don't appear smart enough to know the difference.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> But you are forgetting they can get no more from Social Security, than the person making $117,000.


But you think it is ok for them to use every tax loophole they can and stash their money off shore, so they can stuff more money in their pocket, right. All the benefit goes to those at the top.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

I know those on the right will say Daily Kos, no no no, but for everyone else watch how the republicans make themselves look stupid, even though they are on the Committee on Science, Space and Technology. I think the last time they actually learned anything scientific was grade school.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/23/1331763/-The-Daily-Show-Burn-Noticed?detail=email


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> But you are forgetting they can get no more from Social Security, than the person making $117,000.


And they need it so much!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

DGreen said:


> And they need it so much!


Ha! :thumbup: :thumbup
These conservatives will always try to protect the wealthy. It's like the 1% is so lofty they're close to God! And never forget: they're the job-creators, and besides, the rest of us are just jealous. Those guys worked hard for everything they have---don't forget that, either.
(Can you tell I've been around for a long time and am very tired of the same ol' lines!)


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Where there is ONE there are usually MORE. So what that he is a physicist. Does this mean he can't understand climate?


The point, I believe, was the percentage of CLIMATE scientists who believe in man-caused climate changes. Some have disputed the overwhelming percentage who agree man is affecting climate. He's entitled to his opinion, but I believe the weight of more qualified opinion is against him.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

I just read this topic

Hobby Lobby Politics #2 

LollyGaggle
new user
Joined: Sep 24, 14
Messages: 2
Feedback: 0/0.0%
Location: in hiding 

Is it meant to deceive?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It means he is not an expert in the field, although he is presenting himself that way. What credence would you give to a geologist who wrote a paper on flu effects in humans? Would you line up for a flu shot or run the other way?



soloweygirl said:


> Where there is ONE there are usually MORE. So what that he is a physicist. Does this mean he can't understand climate?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Which explains perfectly why right-wing extremists are trying to sell you on the idea that illegals vote and that there is widespread voter fraud so they can pass laws that disenfranchise people likely to vote the democratic ticket. This is clearly a right-wing goal.
> 
> Now, let's sit back and wait for the righties to scream bloody murder and we'll be off on that tangent for a while.


Excellent.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

damemary said:


> Excellent.


It's not worth blood murder and really how will I be at the murdering thing. I can't even kill a spider and I hate spiders. I have to ask someone else to do it.

How are you this fine morning. Life is good. We are only promise today so lets give a cheer and get out there and spread the cheese. :roll: :lol:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> As far as Social Security, its the law. They are entitled to their "fair share" of what they put in. That is my only comment.


Ya they are that entitlement crowd.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Once again, consider the source, the Watchdog. Conservative, owned by conservative and associated with numerous conservative media outlets. This is NOT balanced. If I thought it would do any good, I would research each of your points, but I'm really tired of doing research which your righties refuse to acknowledge.
> 
> I have to point out, though, their not-so-subtle mention of "Along the parade route, from Central Park West to West 34th Street, the Big Apple was filled with an estimated 400,000 (by organizers estimates) TRUMPET BLASTING, DRUM-CIRCLE GATHERING, HOLISTIC MEDICINE-INGESTING PARTICIPANTS" Hard to tell there's a bias there, right? They also made a point to mention the socialists. Which means the entire 400,000 are socialists? Or all are to be dismissed by association?
> 
> At least those committed to saving the earth are inclusive and embrace even those with differing political beliefs instead of practicing ad hominem discrimination.


I'm interested in knowing the effects of the carbon footprint most of these 400,000 left getting to and from NYC just to participate in the demonstration.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

DGreen said:


> The point, I believe, was the percentage of CLIMATE scientists who believe in man-caused climate changes. Some have disputed the overwhelming percentage who agree man is affecting climate. He's entitled to his opinion, but I believe the weight of more qualified opinion is against him.


No one is disputing that humans have had a hand in causing climate changes. The question is how much of the change is due to humans and how much to the natural cycle of nature. The human effect is proving to be not so much of a problem as originally thought.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

How about we clean up our act, just in case.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> How about we clean up our act, just in case.


That makes the most sense to me. Don't believe it if you don't want to, but just in case it is true, think about your grandchildren who will reap the benefit of the positive things you do.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> I'm interested in knowing the effects of the carbon footprint most of these 400,000 left getting to and from NYC just to participate in the demonstration.


With all those feet on the ground, I would say there was very little carbon foot print being made!


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> No one is disputing that humans have had a hand in causing climate changes. The question is how much of the change is due to humans and how much to the natural cycle of nature. The human effect is proving to be not so much of a problem as originally thought.


Not true, it is proving to be have a daunting impact. The only changes in predictions I see are a matter of a few years, not life times or millennia.

One of my questions is how the food patent monopolists see climate change as beneficial to their goal. With the loss of the bees and other beneficial insects, with increased wet/dry/heat/cold at the wrong times for natural food growing cycles, I see the the chemical moguls cheering as they will see this as the opportunity to force their chemicalized, patented, non-nutritious, disease producing products on the public who will be desperate to put anything in their mouths and guts.

Globalization encompasses all of our life processes and needs.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> No one is disputing that humans have had a hand in causing climate changes. The question is how much of the change is due to humans and how much to the natural cycle of nature. The human effect is proving to be not so much of a problem as originally thought.


"no one" is disputing this? Really? Really???


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I do believe they have to WORK to get Social Security. What do you have against actually working?
> 
> Food Stamps, Medicaid, are entitlements. Most of these recipients think that the government owes them these.
> 
> ...


I'll answer. Your elitist sensibilities are showing.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The height of hypocrisy: Climate change marchers trash NYC
> 
> By Michael F. Haverluck, OneNewsNow.com September 24, 2014 6:55 am
> 
> ...


I checked out the company of this website (invites one to do this at the bottom of the page), and in the first sentence it states that it is spreading the conservative view across America (or words to that effect).

Is it too much to ask for you to post objective data?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Wombatnomore said:


> I checked out the company of this website (invites one to do this at the bottom of the page), and in the first sentence it states that it is spreading the conservative view across America (or words to that effect).
> 
> Is it too much to ask for you to post objective data?


Yes, it is, Wombat. She actually thinks we are reading that stuff.
joey, just post the link so we don't have to keep scrolling to find something enlightening.
BT what happened to your WOW thread?


----------



## Frogging123 (Jul 3, 2014)

soloweygirl said:


> According to Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for Science under Pres. Obama and is the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at NYU, the point "isn't whether climate is changing but that climate has always changed and always will".
> 
> Koonin said "we often hear there is a 'scientific consensus' about climate change, but as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. While humans can cause serious issues for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole and directly shift the atmosphere's natural effect by only 1-2%."
> 
> ...


Haven't been on for awhile....I think people are egomaniacs if they think they can change the climate.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Someone commented that when conservatives hold a rally their trash ends up on the Internet, so it all evens out.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Why do you care who reported it? A pile of garbage is a pile of garbage. How can you call that biased. Just shows how much these 400,000 really care about the planet. All talk and no action. If they really *cared* there would have been no garbage for anyone to report. I guess you don't care either how much garbage they left!


I have to agree with you on this one. Littering is really disgusting.

One has to wonder, though, if there were adequate receptacles available, since NYC has cleared the streets of anything that could be used to hide a bomb. Mailboxes welded shut - that sort of thing. Do we KNOW the photos were actually taken after this particular march? I would not put it past the conservative press to fudge the facts and post photos taken at a different time, either.

I've seen Pasadena Avenue after the Rose Parade. They bring in bulldozers to clean up that mess. Gross, wherever it happens.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

DGreen said:


> "no one" is disputing this? Really? Really???


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Real jokers in spite of themselves.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Wombatnomore said:


> I checked out the company of this website (invites one to do this at the bottom of the page), and in the first sentence it states that it is spreading the conservative view across America (or words to that effect).
> 
> Is it too much to ask for you to post objective data?


They seem unable to post objective data. We'll just have to skip what they have to say. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

If Jon Stewart wrote an article, would you accept everything he said as gospel truth?



joeysomma said:


> Why do you care who reported it? A pile of garbage is a pile of garbage. How can you call that biased. Just shows how much these 400,000 really care about the planet. All talk and no action. If they really *cared* there would have been no garbage for anyone to report. I guess you don't care either how much garbage they left!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Someone commented that when conservatives hold a rally their trash ends up on the Internet, so it all evens out.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: Excellent.


----------



## Wombatnomore (Dec 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Someone commented that when conservatives hold a rally their trash ends up on the Internet, so it all evens out.


Yay!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I do believe they have to WORK to get Social Security. What do you have against actually working?
> 
> Food Stamps, Medicaid, are entitlements. Most of these recipients think that the government owes them these.
> 
> ...


Call food stamps and Medicaid, entitlements if you want, but if you don't qualify you don't get them. 
I have nothing against "actually working." I have done it my whole life. 
I would guess that you personally know, very few people that believe the government owes them food stamps and Medicaid. That is just a talking point you and the right use to make it easier on yourselves to treat the poor with disrespect and try to make it harder for them to survive by cutting food stamps etc. If you call them all moochers then you don't have to show any empathy for them. 
The republicans are the ones that want to go back to before there was SS and snap. You are the ones that group all poor people together and paint them with the same brush and call them all moochers and takers. 
I do not receive any entitlements. I paid into SS and am drawing that now, plus money I had put into a 401K, so again you don't know what you are talking about, but for some reason you think you have the right to disrespect me when you don't even know me. Those at the top who don't pay their fair share of taxes are the moochers, always having their hand out for another tax cut, another loophole, another way to screw over the rest of society. 
Such good Christian comments you always make. Your lack of empathy is not the way God expects you to live your life. You sound very hypocritical.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Why do you want to deny someone who has worked, what they have earned? Just because they have Money (no matter how much) from a retirement plan or family, should they be denied Social Security? Because you have a 401K should you be denied Social Security? Then why are you complaining about someone who has more money than you from a retirement plan, their right to Social Security? That's the hypocrisy. Or are you envious, because they were born with a silver spoon and you had none?


Here we go again. Because some of us want the wealthy to pay their fair share, we're envious. Why do you want the wealthy to continue to hide their money, clamor for tax cuts, and search for new loopholes to avoid paying taxes? You worship the rich because they're rich. Nobody complains that they're rich; it's just that they aren't paying a fair share.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Why do you want to deny someone who has worked, what they have earned? Just because they have Money (no matter how much) from a retirement plan or family, should they be denied Social Security? Because you have a 401K should you be denied Social Security? Then why are you complaining about someone who has more money than you from a retirement plan, their right to Social Security? That's the hypocrisy. Or are you envious, because they were born with a silver spoon and you had none?


There is a huge difference between people who actually work and people who are at the very top, who don't actually work at all for their money. Take the Walton clan, whose "work" is primarily protecting their vast wealth and buying legislation that benefits them.

Three WaltonsRob, Jim, and Alice (all children of Walmart founder Sam Walton)own over 50% of outstanding Walmart shares. This fiscal year, Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control) will receive an estimated $3.16 billion in Walmart dividends on those shares.

If Sam Waltons dependents actually worked for their Walmart dividend checks this year, they would be handed $1.5 million every hour. Meanwhile, Walmart workers get an average of $8.81 per hour and are routinely denied full-time work.

THAT is what people are upset about - because they "earn" this money on the backs of their employees and on you and me because instead of paying their employees fairly, they are "entitled" to $1.5 million an hour. We pay for SNAP and subsidies because the Waltons and others like them are laughing all the way to the bank. And because Americans can't resist the low prices because their wages are stagnant.

If you are talking about those who are just well-to-do and who have truly worked for their money, that is another matter. No one is suggesting the moderately wealthy, small business owners and others who are merely millionaires (who actually are hard-working and have made smart decisions to get where they are) are the problem. It is the top 1% who control such a massive amount of wealth that should be taxed.

This is not envy, it's outrage.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Dividends don't count. If they have never WORKED getting a W-2, they will never receive Social Security. So you have no argument. How much Social Security do you think they will receive a year?
> 
> You said that the top 1% should be taxed. They are taxed on 85% of the Social Security income now. Plus all of the extra taxes that Obamacare has placed on that amount of dividends.
> 
> ...


Deny them their dividends? Never said that. Are you suggesting that they really earn $1.5 million an hour or that anyone is worth that? C'mon. They can't possibly use that money. It equals power to them. Power over the rest of us.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> You are just envious that they have money. It's their money. Do you want someone to tell you, you have to much?


No danger of that, believe me.

Yes, they have too much money when it is ill-gotten. Like getting injunctions against union organizers in multiple states, knowing that unionization would reduce their profits. Not make them go broke - just reduce their own pocketbook, which they can well afford. Like fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo in their discrimination against women. Documented case after case of promoting men over women. Like the fact that they buy massive quantities of foreign goods produced by workers who are paid abysmal wages so they can dominate the market over American goods. Like the fact that their workers are paid so poorly they need food stamps to survive - food stamps you and I pay for. The Waltons are true corporate devils and I'm astonished you are defending them.

You accuse me of envy. That's unfounded and ridiculous. I'm looking at the issue of justice and you would recognize that if you had READ what I posted.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Why do you want to deny someone who has worked, what they have earned? Just because they have Money (no matter how much) from a retirement plan or family, should they be denied Social Security? Because you have a 401K should you be denied Social Security? Then why are you complaining about someone who has more money than you from a retirement plan, their right to Social Security? That's the hypocrisy. Or are you envious, because they were born with a silver spoon and you had none?


Now where did I say I want to deny someone what they earn? You have a bad habit of reading things that are not there. Did I say someone should not receive social security? No, I did not. I am not envious of anyone. Just because someone has a lot of money does not make them better than anyone else and they will have to answer to the same God that we do. Lots of money will not get you through the pearly gates, it depends on how you lived your life and how you treated other people. I am enjoying every minute of my retirement, I have two beautiful grandchildren and have everything I need. What is wrong with you? You are definitely a republican and that is not meant as a compliment.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> Now where did I say I want to deny someone what they earn? You have a bad habit of reading things that are not there. Did I say someone should not receive social security? No, I did not. I am not envious of anyone. Just because someone has a lot of money does not make them better than anyone else and they will have to answer to the same God that we do. Lots of money will not get you through the pearly gates, it depends on how you lived your life and how you treated other people. I am enjoying every minute of my retirement, I have two beautiful grandchildren and have everything I need. What is wrong with you? You are definitely a republican and that is not meant as a compliment.


Agree!!

But I don't see those views as republican in the traditional sense. Call it what it really is - teabagger nonsense.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Qoute: If they have never WORKED getting a W-2, they will never receive Social Security. 

Wrong Joey. My parents were farmers, never got a W-2, but worked harder than most people and paid into social security every year and received SS when they retired.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

Yeah, Sam Walton worked hard. No one is disputing that. His heirs certainly don't, and he's not the hero some would suggest.

A 1995 article published in Economic Development Review revealed that, in thirty-four small communities studied, small businesses in towns with a Wal-Mart suffered cumulative sales declines of 25.4 percent after five years, while towns lacking a Wal-Mart lost 12.9 percent of their general merchandise sales in the first year a Wal-Mart opened in a neighboring town. Other studies suggest that the increased cost of roads, water, sewage, telephone, and other services installed in Wal-Mart locations exceeds the sales and property tax revenues collected from new stores. In efforts to protect their home-grown businesses and cultures, dozens of municipalities have lobbied hard to keep Wal-Mart out of their towns. While many consumers, particularly in the South, were grateful to Wal-Mart for serving small rural markets, others feared for the survival of their local merchants and economies. The editor of the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion-Ledger wrote on June 3, 1990, Is it really worth saving a few bucks to virtually destroy the heart and soul of our small town business community?

In an effort to keep labor costs low, Wal-Mart pioneered the use of part-time and temporary help, thus eliminating such overhead as employee health benefits and overtime. Some employees have accused Wal-Mart of demanding off-the-clock work. Too, Wal-Mart has been sued for gender discrimination and accused of profiting from the use of third-world sweatshops.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Name the Law they have broken. If you don't like the laws do something to change them. None of what the Waltons have is ill-gotten. They are just smart and invested wisely.
> 
> The wages they pay are market wages for the work the employees do. Nothing else. I do see the incomes of many people since I prepare taxes professionally. I am happy to see people whose withholding fed tax is double what I earn in a year.
> Then I see people (usually a young unmarried women, with 2 or 3 children from different fathers) who work the minimum to gain the most in tax credits, that will get a huge tax refund (almost the amount I earn in a year). These same people are getting food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, child care, maybe rent assistance and energy assistance. Then they come with the latest "Smart" gadget, manicured fingernails, and labeled clothes.
> ...


Since you are a so called Christian Joey, just remember all the nasty things you say about poor people will come back to haunt you someday. Group those people all together and paint them with the same brush, but remember that is not the way God wants you to live.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> Since you are a so called Christian Joey, just remember all the nasty things you say about poor people will come back to haunt you someday. Group those people all together and paint them with the same brush, but remember that is not the way God wants you to live.


You might consider what Joey has said as nasty. Nevertheless, what she has said is true. The more the government spends, the less progress against poverty is made. There are currently more than 80 means tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing and medical care to low income Americans. This results in a significant % of the population less capable of self sufficiency than when the War on Poverty began. The US taxpayers have spent over 22T on the *** since it began - with the result being a lost war. The US Census bureau counts a family as "poor" if its income falls below a certain amount. This amount goes higher every year allowing more people to be classified as poor and to be able to receive welfare benefits. The Census ignores almost all of the welfare state when calculating poverty. This ensures the growth of welfare programs, while doing nothing about poverty.

LBJ's goal was not to expand the welfare system. His goal was to increase self sufficiency. Create a new generation capable of supporting themselves out of poverty without government handouts. He wanted to "make taxpayers out of tax-eaters".For the last 40 years, self sufficiency has remained stagnant or worsened. Lower wages and especially lower education levels are 2 main reasons. An eroding work ethic and dissolving family structure are also factors. The expansion of the welfare state has weakened the capacity for self sufficiency. Being on welfare breaks down the habits that are needed and lead to self sufficiency and self reliance. This has resulted in intergenerational dependence which, in turn, creates an even greater need for assistance in the future It's time for the cycle to stop.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> Here we go again. Because some of us want the wealthy to pay their fair share, we're envious. Why do you want the wealthy to continue to hide their money, clamor for tax cuts, and search for new loopholes to avoid paying taxes? You worship the rich because they're rich. Nobody complains that they're rich; it's just that they aren't paying a fair share.


What is the fair share for the wealthy to pay? Come up with a number and why they should pay so much.

There are many more wealthy people out there that have earned their money by working their asses off at the expense of family time than those that have inherited it. Are these people to be penalized because their businesses made a profit? Maybe they invested wisely. Should they be penalized for choosing wisely? Should they be penalized for working their way out of the MC into a higher tax bracket? Why should they be penalized for having a dream and achieving it?

You are right, here we go again. You are whining again about the wealthy paying their fair share and don't have a clue what that amount is.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

tamarque said:


> With all those feet on the ground, I would say there was very little carbon foot print being made!


Feet on the ground DURING the march. How did the demonstrators get to NYC? They all don't live in the city.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

DGreen said:


> There is a huge difference between people who actually work and people who are at the very top, who don't actually work at all for their money. Take the Walton clan, whose "work" is primarily protecting their vast wealth and buying legislation that benefits them.
> 
> Three WaltonsRob, Jim, and Alice (all children of Walmart founder Sam Walton)own over 50% of outstanding Walmart shares. This fiscal year, Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control) will receive an estimated $3.16 billion in Walmart dividends on those shares.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> That is called self employment, just the same as a W-2 only they were their own boss.


No kidding, but I didn't just fall off of a turnip truck. I know what self employed is. Why must you always be so condescending?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> There are poor people who are physically and mentally not able to support themselves. Then a totally different story for the lazy people who are abusing the system.
> 
> The Bible says "...for the laborer is worthy of his wages."
> 
> ...


Yes, I have heard your story before and I am sorry that happened to you, but please don't make your comments cover all poor people. That is what you do, you group them all together. 
On the other side of that a policeman I know gets lots of domestic violence calls to a very affluent neighborhood and he says you would be shocked at what he sees in these beautiful homes, some could be called mansions. The same thing happens on both sides of the spectrum, not just poor people. The wealthy ones have the money and power to get out of their charges.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> There is a huge difference between people who actually work and people who are at the very top, who don't actually work at all for their money. Take the Walton clan, whose "work" is primarily protecting their vast wealth and buying legislation that benefits them.
> 
> Three WaltonsRob, Jim, and Alice (all children of Walmart founder Sam Walton)own over 50% of outstanding Walmart shares. This fiscal year, Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control) will receive an estimated $3.16 billion in Walmart dividends on those shares.
> 
> ...


Well said and even though it makes so much sense, common sense, those on the right won't get it, probably because they don't want to. Just keep denying inequality and blame the poor, so you don't have use that thing called common sense.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> What is the fair share for the wealthy to pay? Come up with a number and why they should pay so much.
> 
> There are many more wealthy people out there that have earned their money by working their asses off at the expense of family time than those that have inherited it. Are these people to be penalized because their businesses made a profit? Maybe they invested wisely. Should they be penalized for choosing wisely? Should they be penalized for working their way out of the MC into a higher tax bracket? Why should they be penalized for having a dream and achieving it?
> 
> You are right, here we go again. You are whining again about the wealthy paying their fair share and don't have a clue what that amount is.


We are talking about about the 1%, about those that use every loophole in the book and stash their money off shore, those like Mitt Romney that made their money by causing hard working people to loose their jobs when factories were closed and jobs sent over seas so those at the top could make more profit, those that pay a lower % than the people working in the factory. Those like the Walton family who pay a low wage so that the American people have to subsidize them with food stamps. You call that choosing wisely, I call that cheating. I know all of this was a waste of my time as you already know this, you just don't care.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put. You explain it so well. Thank you.



DGreen said:


> There is a huge difference between people who actually work and people who are at the very top, who don't actually work at all for their money. Take the Walton clan, whose "work" is primarily protecting their vast wealth and buying legislation that benefits them.
> 
> Three WaltonsRob, Jim, and Alice (all children of Walmart founder Sam Walton)own over 50% of outstanding Walmart shares. This fiscal year, Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control) will receive an estimated $3.16 billion in Walmart dividends on those shares.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm sure all the Walton clan will accept their Social Security, although it is a drop in the ocean. Beam me up Scotty.



joeysomma said:


> Dividends don't count. If they have never WORKED getting a W-2, they will never receive Social Security. So you have no argument. How much Social Security do you think they will receive a year?
> 
> You said that the top 1% should be taxed. They are taxed on 85% of the Social Security income now. Plus all of the extra taxes that Obamacare has placed on that amount of dividends.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> You are just envious that they have money. It's their money. Do you want someone to tell you, you have to much?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Now where did I say I want to deny someone what they earn? You have a bad habit of reading things that are not there. Did I say someone should not receive social security? No, I did not. I am not envious of anyone. Just because someone has a lot of money does not make them better than anyone else and they will have to answer to the same God that we do. Lots of money will not get you through the pearly gates, it depends on how you lived your life and how you treated other people. I am enjoying every minute of my retirement, I have two beautiful grandchildren and have everything I need. What is wrong with you? You are definitely a republican and that is not meant as a compliment.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: I'm with you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Agree!!
> 
> But I don't see those views as republican in the traditional sense. Call it what it really is - teabagger nonsense.


And the teabaggers are a minority within a minority. They certainly are organized for attention....and diverting attention from the real objectives.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Shame.



DGreen said:


> Yeah, Sam Walton worked hard. No one is disputing that. His heirs certainly don't, and he's not the hero some would suggest.
> 
> A 1995 article published in Economic Development Review revealed that, in thirty-four small communities studied, small businesses in towns with a Wal-Mart suffered cumulative sales declines of 25.4 percent after five years, while towns lacking a Wal-Mart lost 12.9 percent of their general merchandise sales in the first year a Wal-Mart opened in a neighboring town. Other studies suggest that the increased cost of roads, water, sewage, telephone, and other services installed in Wal-Mart locations exceeds the sales and property tax revenues collected from new stores. In efforts to protect their home-grown businesses and cultures, dozens of municipalities have lobbied hard to keep Wal-Mart out of their towns. While many consumers, particularly in the South, were grateful to Wal-Mart for serving small rural markets, others feared for the survival of their local merchants and economies. The editor of the Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion-Ledger wrote on June 3, 1990, Is it really worth saving a few bucks to virtually destroy the heart and soul of our small town business community?
> 
> In an effort to keep labor costs low, Wal-Mart pioneered the use of part-time and temporary help, thus eliminating such overhead as employee health benefits and overtime. Some employees have accused Wal-Mart of demanding off-the-clock work. Too, Wal-Mart has been sued for gender discrimination and accused of profiting from the use of third-world sweatshops.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

.......?



joeysomma said:


> Name the Law they have broken. If you don't like the laws do something to change them. None of what the Waltons have is ill-gotten. They are just smart and invested wisely.
> 
> The wages they pay are market wages for the work the employees do. Nothing else. I do see the incomes of many people since I prepare taxes professionally. I am happy to see people whose withholding fed tax is double what I earn in a year.
> Then I see people (usually a young unmarried women, with 2 or 3 children from different fathers) who work the minimum to gain the most in tax credits, that will get a huge tax refund (almost the amount I earn in a year). These same people are getting food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, child care, maybe rent assistance and energy assistance. Then they come with the latest "Smart" gadget, manicured fingernails, and labeled clothes.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Since you are a so called Christian Joey, just remember all the nasty things you say about poor people will come back to haunt you someday. Group those people all together and paint them with the same brush, but remember that is not the way God wants you to live.


And, if your beliefs prove to be true, you will have some answering to do at the Pearly Gates one day.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Did you and KPG go to school together? You sound the same and think you know everything.



joeysomma said:


> That is called self employment, just the same as a W-2 only they were their own boss.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> We are talking about about the 1%, about those that use every loophole in the book and stash their money off shore, those like Mitt Romney that made their money by causing hard working people to loose their jobs when factories were closed and jobs sent over seas so those at the top could make more profit, those that pay a lower % than the people working in the factory. Those like the Walton family who pay a low wage so that the American people have to subsidize them with food stamps. You call that choosing wisely, I call that cheating. I know all of this was a waste of my time as you already know this, you just don't care.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd love to see it happen. I've got a feeling the country would survive just fine. And the 1% would get their just desserts.



joeysomma said:


> So what would happen if the 1%ers lost their money? The companies they own would go bankrupt and all those hard working people would not have a job. Be thankful for those 1%ers.
> 
> Why don't you use some common sense?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So what would happen if the 1%ers lost their money? The companies they own would go bankrupt and all those hard working people would not have a job. Be thankful for those 1%ers.
> 
> Why don't you use some common sense?


There'd be more for the rest of us?


----------



## ann seal (Jan 30, 2014)

Just because the bridge is there, it is up to you to jump off or not. It's called freedom of choice.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> So what would happen if the 1%ers lost their money? The companies they own would go bankrupt and all those hard working people would not have a job. Be thankful for those 1%ers.
> 
> Why don't you use some common sense?


You are being pretty extreme again. Why don't you ask all those hard working people who lost their jobs because of Romney, what happened to them and their families? If the incomes of all those "hard working people" went up a bit along with the top 1%'s increase in income, then I could be thankful for those 1%ers, and our economy could be booming. In case you don't understand, when the top 1% stash their money off shore, it doesn't help the economy. If the income for the hard working people went up, some of that money would be spent and that helps the economy.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> Did you and KPG go to school together? You sound the same and think you know everything.


The key word there is "think."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

This is who is trying to buy our government.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924#ixzz3EN1h2p1h

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/three-new-ways-the-koch-brothers-are-screwing-america-20140604


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> You are being pretty extreme again. Why don't you ask all those hard working people who lost their jobs because of Romney, what happened to them and their families? If the incomes of all those "hard working people" went up a bit along with the top 1%'s increase in income, then I could be thankful for those 1%ers, and our economy could be booming. In case you don't understand, when the top 1% stash their money off shore, it doesn't help the economy. If the income for the hard working people went up, some of that money would be spent and that helps the economy.


How convenient of you to ignore all the jobs Romney's company created and saved. I'm sure these people are grateful that Romney's company was able to save theirs and thus their jobs.

The top 1% are not a large enough group to make a real difference as far as turning around the economy. Putting their money into overseas accounts does not mean they spend less in the US.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> This is who is trying to buy our government.
> 
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924#ixzz3EN1h2p1h
> 
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/three-new-ways-the-koch-brothers-are-screwing-america-20140604


Rolling Stone Magazine? Really? Not exactly an unbiased publication.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> We are talking about about the 1%, about those that use every loophole in the book and stash their money off shore, those like Mitt Romney that made their money by causing hard working people to loose their jobs when factories were closed and jobs sent over seas so those at the top could make more profit, those that pay a lower % than the people working in the factory. Those like the Walton family who pay a low wage so that the American people have to subsidize them with food stamps. You call that choosing wisely, I call that cheating. I know all of this was a waste of my time as you already know this, you just don't care.


You talk about the top 1% as being the whole economy. They aren't. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. They are the ones that create the majority of the jobs in the country and pay salaries according to what the market will bear. Those that inherit their (mega) wealth are a very small portion of the population.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Actually Obama has money stashed overseas the same way Romney has. Romney just has more. Just check their tax returns for 2010 and 2011. Neither one has control of money in their individual name, in another country. They have investments in companies that have their headquarters in another country. The mill from which my husband retired was purchased by a company in Finland. No change in how the company was run other than the employees and local people now owned stock in a Finish company and they had foreign income tax to report on their tax return. Just like both Obama and Romney did.
> 
> If you do find their tax return, look for schedule B and then look for the answers to the questions on the bottom of the page.


As I said it was a waste of time. There is no comparison between Romney and President Obama as you know exactly what I was talking about and just try to turn things around to put the blame somewhere else.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> You talk about the top 1% as being the whole economy. They aren't. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. They are the ones that create the majority of the jobs in the country and pay salaries according to what the market will bear. Those that inherit their (mega) wealth are a very small portion of the population.


The top 1% accounted for 19% of all taxable income. That's a pretty hefty chunk.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> Rolling Stone Magazine? Really? Not exactly an unbiased publication.


Did you read it? Did you know the Kochs were responsible for killing two teenagers? Would you like the pipeline going through your yard, do you have a child to sacrifice?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> As I said it was a waste of time. There is no comparison between Romney and President Obama as you know exactly what I was talking about and just try to turn things around to put the blame somewhere else.


I find more and more satisfaction in knitting than trying to tell anyone on the right anything. Even if it's just a swatch!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> You talk about the top 1% as being the whole economy. They aren't. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. They are the ones that create the majority of the jobs in the country and pay salaries according to what the market will bear. Those that inherit their (mega) wealth are a very small portion of the population.


Do you really think it is good for our economy to have this much inequality? 
No where did I say the 1% is the whole economy, but they are gaining more and more control of the government and they have the money to buy their congressman who will vote the way they want him to. Do you think that is a good thing? The income of the middle class has been stagnant for years, but the income for the 1% is reaping huge profits. Is that a good thing? What happens to these small businesses when the middle class has no money to spend on their goods and services, but the 1% has plenty of money to stash away and stash off shore? Does that help our economy? How much can the 1% buy when they already have everything they need and want?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> I find more and more satisfaction in knitting than trying to tell anyone on the right anything. Even if it's just a swatch!


You are right about that. I have become addicted to dish cloths and scratchy pads. I will have to start selling them soon as I am over run with them.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

D


NJG said:


> Do you really think it is good for our economy to have this much inequality?
> No where did I say the 1% is the whole economy, but they are gaining more and more control of the government and they have the money to buy their congressman who will vote the way they want him to. Do you think that is a good thing? The income of the middle class has been stagnant for years, but the income for the 1% is reaping huge profits. Is that a good thing? What happens to these small businesses when the middle class has no money to spend on their goods and services, but the 1% has plenty of money to stash away and stash off shore? Does that help our economy? How much can the 1% buy when they already have everything they need and want?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> Did you read it? Did you know the Kochs were responsible for killing two teenagers? Would you like the pipeline going through your yard, do you have a child to sacrifice?


As these 89 pages clearly show, just because somebody writes something doesn't make it so. If it were, we would be all agreeing here instead of disagreeing so vehemently.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

rderemer said:


> As these 89 pages clearly show, just because somebody writes something doesn't make it so. If it were, we would be all agreeing here instead of disagreeing so vehemently.


No, but I fear people don't think about doing the "right" thing for our country. They just want what's best for themselves. There's no consideration for "the common good". It's very discouraging.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> As these 89 pages clearly show, just because somebody writes something doesn't make it so. If it were, we would be all agreeing here instead of disagreeing so vehemently.


And just because they try to deny everything doesn't make it not true either. There is a lot of information out there. They can say the petcoke in Chicago is not a hazard to anyone's health, but they aren't living in it. Their home is not covered in black soot and they are not breathing it in. Maybe if you breath it in for a year or two, no problem, but how about long term? Do you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and live there? It is amazing to me how easy people disregard things that are not personally affecting them. Just remember, it is affecting someone!


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> No, but I fear people don't think about doing the "right" thing for our country. They just want what's best for themselves. There's no consideration for "the common good". It's very discouraging.


If I believed what I read in Rolling Stone magazine I'd be discouraged too.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> If I believed what I read in Rolling Stone magazine I'd be discouraged too.


I'll bet Danny Smalley believes it!!!

On the day before Danielle Smalley was to leave for college, she and her friend Jason Stone were hanging out in her family's mobile home. Seventeen years old, with long chestnut hair, Danielle began to feel nauseated. "Dad," she said, "we smell gas." It was 3:45 in the afternoon on August 24th, 1996, near Lively, Texas, some 50 miles southeast of Dallas. The Smalleys were too poor to own a telephone. So the teens jumped into her dad's 1964 Chevy pickup to alert the authorities. As they drove away, the truck stalled where the driveway crossed a dry creek bed. Danielle cranked the ignition, and a fireball engulfed the truck. "You see two children burned to death in front of you  you never forget that," Danielle's father, Danny, would later tell reporters.

Unknown to the Smalleys, a decrepit Koch pipeline carrying liquid butane  literally, lighter fluid  ran through their subdivision. It had ruptured, filling the creek bed with vapor, and the spark from the pickup's ignition had set off a bomb. Federal investigators documented both "severe corrosion" and "mechanical damage" in the pipeline. A National Transportation Safety Board report would cite the "failure of Koch Pipeline Company LP to adequately protect its pipeline from corrosion."

Installed in the early Eighties, the pipeline had been out of commission for three years. When Koch decided to start it up again in 1995, a water-pressure test had blown the pipe open. An inspection of just a few dozen miles of pipe near the Smal­ley home found 538 corrosion defects. The industry's term of art for a pipeline in this condition is Swiss cheese, according to the testimony of an expert witness  "essentially the pipeline is gone."

Koch repaired only 80 of the defects  enough to allow the pipeline to withstand another pressure check  and began running explosive fluid down the line at high pressure in January 1996. A month later, employees discovered that a key anti­corrosion system had malfunctioned, but it was never fixed. Charles Koch had made it clear to managers that they were expected to slash costs and boost profits. In a sternly worded memo that April, Charles had ordered his top managers to cut expenditures by 10 percent "through the elimination of waste (I'm sure there is much more waste than that)" in order to increase pre-tax earnings by $550 million a year.

The Smalley trial underscored something Bill Koch had said about the way his brothers ran the company: "Koch Industries has a philosophy that profits are above everything else." A former Koch manager, Kenoth Whitstine, testified to incidents in which Koch Industries placed profits over public safety. As one supervisor had told him, regulatory fines "usually didn't amount to much" and, besides, the company had "a stable full of lawyers in Wichita that handled those situations." When Whitstine told another manager he was concerned that unsafe pipelines could cause a deadly accident, this manager said that it was more profitable for the company to risk litigation than to repair faulty equipment. The company could "pay off a lawsuit from an incident and still be money ahead," he said, describing the principles of MBM to a T.

At trial, Danny Smalley asked for a judgment large enough to make the billionaires feel pain: "Let Koch take their child out there and put their children on the pipeline, open it up and let one of them die," he told the jury. "And then tell me what that's worth." The jury was emphatic, awarding Smalley $296 million  then the largest wrongful-death judgment in American legal history. He later settled with Koch for an undisclosed sum and now runs a pipeline-safety foundation in his daughter's name. He declined to comment for this story. "It upsets him too much," says an associate.

T


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> No, but I fear people don't think about doing the "right" thing for our country. They just want what's best for themselves. There's no consideration for "the common good". It's very discouraging.


Well said. "There is no consideration for the common good." It's every man for himself and if I hurt you in the process, well you should have stayed out of my way.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

rderemer said:


> If I believed what I read in Rolling Stone magazine I'd be discouraged too.


Do you believe what you see coming from the Congress of the US? When we're trying to do something with ISIS they decide to go home and campaign for the elections? They won't have any type of debate about what's going on because they want to see what fails and what works so they can decide how much they can denigrate the President. What have our elected officials---the ones who are supposed to pass the laws----done since Obama has been in office? What have they done for the good of the country? What good legislation have they passed? What has the wonderful TeaParty done besides criticize and cause dissension? The way Congress has behaved in the past 6 years has given me cause for discouragement, I don't need to read Rolling Stone or anything else to feel discouraged.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> I'll bet Danny Smalley believes it!!!
> 
> On the day before Danielle Smalley was to leave for college, she and her friend Jason Stone were hanging out in her family's mobile home. Seventeen years old, with long chestnut hair, Danielle began to feel nauseated. "Dad," she said, "we smell gas." It was 3:45 in the afternoon on August 24th, 1996, near Lively, Texas, some 50 miles southeast of Dallas. The Smalleys were too poor to own a telephone. So the teens jumped into her dad's 1964 Chevy pickup to alert the authorities. As they drove away, the truck stalled where the driveway crossed a dry creek bed. Danielle cranked the ignition, and a fireball engulfed the truck. "You see two children burned to death in front of you  you never forget that," Danielle's father, Danny, would later tell reporters.
> 
> ...


The death of these two young people is tragic but can't you see that the story is biased? Many posters earlier today were writing about the 1%ers who didn't earn their money does this unfortunate father now fit that bill as well? You see how people shouldn't generalize?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> Do you believe what you see coming from the Congress of the US? When we're trying to do something with ISIS they decide to go home and campaign for the elections? They won't have any type of debate about what's going on because they want to see what fails and what works so they can decide how much they can denigrate the President. What have our elected officials---the ones who are supposed to pass the laws----done since Obama has been in office? What have they done for the good of the country? What good legislation have they passed? What has the wonderful TeaParty done besides criticize and cause dissension? The way Congress has behaved in the past 6 years has given me cause for discouragement, I don't need to read Rolling Stone or anything else to feel discouraged.


You come back with what you read and believe . . . I come back with what I read and believe . . . there's no way we're going to agree. It's a shame that there are so few media outlets that tell the absolute truth about what is going on in the world.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> The death of these two young people is tragic but can't you see that the story is biased? Many posters earlier today were writing about the 1%ers who didn't earn their money does this unfortunate father now fit that bill as well? You see how people shouldn't generalize?


It was because the Koch brothers opened up a pipeline, installed in the early 80's that had been closed down for 3 years, did some repairs and decided good enough, because it didn't personally affect them. Of the 538 corrosion defects, they repaired 80. It didn't run by their home, no worry. The death of these two kids is more than tragic, but at least you had the good sense to not call it an accident.

That is not a nice thing to say. You know they were not talking about money from a law suit because someones negligence killed their child. Besides the law suit was settled out of court, so you don't know how much there was. Do you think he wanted to be part of the 1% that way? He is using the money to run a pipeline safety foundation in his daughters name, not out doing harm to others.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> How convenient of you to ignore all the jobs Romney's company created and saved. I'm sure these people are grateful that Romney's company was able to save theirs and thus their jobs.
> 
> The top 1% are not a large enough group to make a real difference as far as turning around the economy. Putting their money into overseas accounts does not mean they spend less in the US.


I've seldom read anything as stupid at what you just wrote.

The top 1% have something like 70% of the money, which certainly is a large enough slice to make a difference in the economy. A big difference. And yes, if they store money offshore, that is less they store, invest or spend here.

Let me remind you of the figures on the Walton heirs, who "earn" something like $1.5 million PER HOUR. You can be sure they're not spending that much at the local grocery store or with their local small businesses or on clothing or even houses. YOU CAN'T SPEND that much money in the way normal people do. Like on the mortgage, food, transportation, health care, utilities, etc. When I want $100 worth of yarn, I have to save and really consider the purchase a lot. Most of us do. Are you seriously suggesting the top 1% spends even a miniscule part of their money on goods and services personally?

Raising the minimum wage would actually return real dollars to LOCAL economies where people buy housing, clothing and food and health care, boosting everyone's prosperity.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

NJG said:


> It was because the Koch brothers opened up a pipeline, installed in the early 80's that had been closed down for 3 years, did some repairs and decided good enough, because it didn't personally affect them. Of the 538 corrosion defects, they repaired 80. It didn't run by their home, no worry. The death of these two kids is more than tragic, but at least you had the good sense to not call it an accident.
> 
> That is not a nice thing to say. You know they were not talking about money from a law suit because someones negligence killed their child. Besides the law suit was settled out of court, so you don't know how much there was. Do you think he wanted to be part of the 1% that way? He is using the money to run a pipeline safety foundation in his daughters name, not out doing harm to others.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Are there no depths to low for the GOP to go to try to destroy this president? Encourage the generals to resign at this time?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/obama-generals-resign_n_5888434.html


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

rderemer said:


> You come back with what you read and believe . . . I come back with what I read and believe . . . there's no way we're going to agree. It's a shame that there are so few media outlets that tell the absolute truth about what is going on in the world.


There is truth. You just have to be able to discern the difference between fact and fiction. You have to read a variety of reputable sources and listen to or watch a variety of TV news shows. A steady diet of Fox News does not give a complete picture, does it? Any more than Rolling Stone magazine?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> It was because the Koch brothers opened up a pipeline, installed in the early 80's that had been closed down for 3 years, did some repairs and decided good enough, because it didn't personally affect them. Of the 538 corrosion defects, they repaired 80. It didn't run by their home, no worry. The death of these two kids is more than tragic, but at least you had the good sense to not call it an accident.
> 
> That is not a nice thing to say. You know they were not talking about money from a law suit because someones negligence killed their child. Besides the law suit was settled out of court, so you don't know how much there was. Do you think he wanted to be part of the 1% that way? He is using the money to run a pipeline safety foundation in his daughters name, not out doing harm to others.


Of course he didn't want to be part of the 1% that way. Let's just assume that there are other 1%ers who are not doing harm to others either.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> You talk about the top 1% as being the whole economy. They aren't. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. They are the ones that create the majority of the jobs in the country and pay salaries according to what the market will bear. Those that inherit their (mega) wealth are a very small portion of the population.


Small businesses pay salaries according to what the market will bear?

You conservatives love to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

If someone who has a family but no job, you criticize them and say they should take whatever they can get to avoid having to "take" anything they have not earned. "Get a better education" is what you shout. "They made poor life decisions so they deserve to be paid less." I've heard that over and over so please don't deny conservatives harp on those stereotypes.

That isn't exactly market rates - it's what the employer can get away with paying when there are too few jobs. People who are desperate take what they can get and greedy businesses take advantage of that. Been there.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> There is truth. You just have to be able to discern the difference between fact and fiction. You have to read a variety of reputable sources and listen to or watch a variety of TV news shows. A steady diet of Fox News does not give a complete picture, does it? Any more than Rolling Stone magazine?


How true. But how do you discern the truth?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Of course he didn't want to be part of the 1% that way. Let's just assume that there are other 1%ers who are not doing harm to others either.


He's not part of the 1%. The 1% have massive wealth, not a few million. Not a few billion. Hundreds of billions, and no one gets that kind of money out of a wrongful death suit.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> Of course he didn't want to be part of the 1% that way. Let's just assume that there are other 1%ers who are not doing harm to others either.


If they are stashing their money off shore and keeping their middle income workers wages stagnant, while reaping record profits, they are doing harm to others and to this country. If they are thinking of things other than how much profit they can make for themselves, then I will assume they are not doing harm.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> My, My what inequality!. Why should the top 1% pay more than 1% of the tax?
> 
> It seems that 19% of the tax is way more than their "fair share!"


How about we have them pay the same rate of tax as you and I do on earned income and they only get the same deductions we do. That would be a very good thing.

What you don't seem to grasp is that these are not working people. They make money on YOUR labor, then stash it away and don't return it to the economy. Why do you admire these oligarchs?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> There is truth. You just have to be able to discern the difference between fact and fiction. You have to read a variety of reputable sources and listen to or watch a variety of TV news shows. A steady diet of Fox News does not give a complete picture, does it? Any more than Rolling Stone magazine?


No Fox New does not give much of anything when they say things like this.

9/24/2014:

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE: The first female pilot, piloting for the U.A.E. ... dropped the bombs on ISIS on Monday night.

ERIC BOLLING: Would that be considered "boobs on the ground" or no?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Can you prove that anyone has "cash" stashed off shore?
> 
> Most have investments in corporations that own companies that are operating in the US and the parent company is off shore. I wonder how much of the US is really owned by someone in another Country. I'm sure we would be very surprised at the total.
> 
> I recently read that China is in the process of buying a large acreage in upstate New York to build a community for the Chinese.


Cash? Ever hear of Swiss bank accounts?

So what if the Chinese are buying acreage? Why is that worthy of mention?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> No Fox New does not give much of anything when they say things like this.
> 
> 9/24/2014:
> 
> ...


That was really pretty awful!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for the emphasis NJG.



NJG said:


> The key word there is "think."


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bullfeathers. (Nonsense and you know it.)



soloweygirl said:


> You talk about the top 1% as being the whole economy. They aren't. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy. They are the ones that create the majority of the jobs in the country and pay salaries according to what the market will bear. Those that inherit their (mega) wealth are a very small portion of the population.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> As I said it was a waste of time. There is no comparison between Romney and President Obama as you know exactly what I was talking about and just try to turn things around to put the blame somewhere else.


Exactly.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

cookiequeen said:


> The top 1% accounted for 19% of all taxable income. That's a pretty hefty chunk.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I had stitches come off the needle. I'm trying to rectify it.

You're right of course, Cookie (darling avatar.)There is no point in research, well-constructed opinions and conclusion. Off to knit as soon as the sun comes up.



cookiequeen said:


> I find more and more satisfaction in knitting than trying to tell anyone on the right anything. Even if it's just a swatch!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Do you really think it is good for our economy to have this much inequality?
> No where did I say the 1% is the whole economy, but they are gaining more and more control of the government and they have the money to buy their congressman who will vote the way they want him to. Do you think that is a good thing? The income of the middle class has been stagnant for years, but the income for the 1% is reaping huge profits. Is that a good thing? What happens to these small businesses when the middle class has no money to spend on their goods and services, but the 1% has plenty of money to stash away and stash off shore? Does that help our economy? How much can the 1% buy when they already have everything they need and want?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

rderemer said:


> If I believed what I read in Rolling Stone magazine I'd be discouraged too.


Welcome. Are you new? You seem to have firm opinions. How do you determine what to believe? I agree that it is difficult to examine information from various sources and determine what is factual.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What a powerful example! Thank you.



NJG said:


> I'll bet Danny Smalley believes it!!!
> 
> On the day before Danielle Smalley was to leave for college, she and her friend Jason Stone were hanging out in her family's mobile home. Seventeen years old, with long chestnut hair, Danielle began to feel nauseated. "Dad," she said, "we smell gas." It was 3:45 in the afternoon on August 24th, 1996, near Lively, Texas, some 50 miles southeast of Dallas. The Smalleys were too poor to own a telephone. So the teens jumped into her dad's 1964 Chevy pickup to alert the authorities. As they drove away, the truck stalled where the driveway crossed a dry creek bed. Danielle cranked the ignition, and a fireball engulfed the truck. "You see two children burned to death in front of you  you never forget that," Danielle's father, Danny, would later tell reporters.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Well said. "There is no consideration for the common good." It's every man for himself and if I hurt you in the process, well you should have stayed out of my way.


Sad but true.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put, Cookie. Bravo.



cookiequeen said:


> Do you believe what you see coming from the Congress of the US? When we're trying to do something with ISIS they decide to go home and campaign for the elections? They won't have any type of debate about what's going on because they want to see what fails and what works so they can decide how much they can denigrate the President. What have our elected officials---the ones who are supposed to pass the laws----done since Obama has been in office? What have they done for the good of the country? What good legislation have they passed? What has the wonderful TeaParty done besides criticize and cause dissension? The way Congress has behaved in the past 6 years has given me cause for discouragement, I don't need to read Rolling Stone or anything else to feel discouraged.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Wow! Great thoughts leading to succinct conclusions. Thank you.



DGreen said:


> I've seldom read anything as stupid at what you just wrote.
> 
> The top 1% have something like 70% of the money, which certainly is a large enough slice to make a difference in the economy. A big difference. And yes, if they store money offshore, that is less they store, invest or spend here.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

A few options come to my mind.



NJG said:


> Are there no depths to low for the GOP to go to try to destroy this president? Encourage the generals to resign at this time?
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/obama-generals-resign_n_5888434.html


 :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Small businesses pay salaries according to what the market will bear?
> 
> You conservatives love to talk out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

damemary said:


> Welcome. Are you new? You seem to have firm opinions. How do you determine what to believe? I agree that it is difficult to examine information from various sources and determine what is factual.


No I am not new - I have been chiming in here and there. It's hard to discern what is spin and what is truth in the media but I try to use logic and sound reasoning to sort out the information. Our local newspaper is biased so it is more annoying than helpful. Local news programs are better. We have a heated gubernatorial race coming up and there is so much spin that I'm dizzy. Some people believe whatever their political party says and form no opinions of their own. You have to be able to determine what is fact and be able to use that to form your opinions. I feel many people prefer to believe the outrageous and fantastic because they like the dramatic rather than the mundane (truth).


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> My, My what inequality!. Why should the top 1% pay more than 1% of the tax?
> 
> It seems that 19% of the tax is way more than their "fair share!"


To whom much is given, much is expected.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

cookiequeen said:


> That was really pretty awful!


Right, they don't hesitate to slam the president for the "coffee salute" but then think it is ok to talk this way about our female soldiers. Such hypocrites.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> To whom much is given, much is expected.


This is taken out of context.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> To whom much is given, much is expected.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> Right, they don't hesitate to slam the president for the "coffee salute" but then think it is ok to talk this way about our female soldiers. Such hypocrites.


I think you mean hypocrite (not plural) only one idiot said this ridiculous remark. I don't know who you're talking about when you say, "_They_ think it is ok to talk this way . . .".


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

I watched Bill Maher last night and there was a reporter-forgot her name. She was in Minnesota talking to people and asked a guy if he believed in de-funding Planned Parenthood. He said no. She asked if he believed in equal pay for equal work and he said yes. She asked him if he believed in a woman's right to choose and he said yes. He wasn't sure he was going to vote, but if he did it would be the one that started with R. I believe there are lots of people like this that pay no attention to what is going on, but just vote for the party, because that is what they have always done. Dumb


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> How much should we expect from those who are "given" their livelihood from the government?


Why should it matter?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

rderemer said:


> This is taken out of context.


So enlighten us.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> I think you mean hypocrite (not plural) only one idiot said this ridiculous remark. I don't know who you're talking about when you say, "_They_ think it is ok to talk this way . . .".


No I mean hypocrites, as they all sat there and laughed and every one of those idiots have had their special idiot moment.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

rderemer said:


> This is taken out of context.


How so?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> I watched Bill Maher last night and there was a reporter-forgot her name. She was in Minnesota talking to people and asked a guy if he believed in de-funding Planned Parenthood. He said no. She asked if he believed in equal pay for equal work and he said yes. She asked him if he believed in a woman's right to choose and he said yes. He wasn't sure he was going to vote, but if he did it would be the one that started with R. I believe there are lots of people like this that pay no attention to what is going on, but just vote for the party, because that is what they have always done. Dumb


Yeah, and when the ones that start with /r/ take away their Social Security, they'll wonder what happened.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> I watched Bill Maher last night and there was a reporter-forgot her name. She was in Minnesota talking to people and asked a guy if he believed in de-funding Planned Parenthood. He said no. She asked if he believed in equal pay for equal work and he said yes. She asked him if he believed in a woman's right to choose and he said yes. He wasn't sure he was going to vote, but if he did it would be the one that started with R. I believe there are lots of people like this that pay no attention to what is going on, but just vote for the party, because that is what they have always done. Dumb


Yes, on both sides. What do you think about the people who vote for someone based on race and not political views?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> How so?


Luke 12:48 refers to, "Three grades of punishment that the judge will mete out in proportion to both the privileges each person has enjoyed and one's response to those privileges." (NIV)

It does mean that if one has a lot they should be expected to share what they have.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> Yes, on both sides. What do you think about the people who vote for someone based on race and not political views?


Well if you lived your whole life never seeing someone that looked like you in the Whitehouse and never expected to, I think you might do that too. I think race is a better reason to vote for someone, than voting without knowing any thing about them, just voting for the party because it is what you have always done, especially when that party is going to vote against your own self interests.

Also I remember the little boy that wanted to feel the presidents hair. He was amazed the president had hair like his and he was still quite small. Very intuitive I would say.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> Well if you lived your whole life never seeing someone that looked like you in the Whitehouse and never expected to, I think you might do that too. I think race is a better reason to vote for someone, than voting without knowing any thing about them, just voting for the party because it is what you have always done, especially when that party is going to vote against your own self interests.


People should use their vote to put someone in office who they think follows the same line of thinking politically as they do. Whether they "look" like they do has no place in politics, nor does their religion (Kennedy) nor whether they are divorced or not (Reagan). People need to look beyond themselves when voting and look toward what they think is best for the country based on shared policy ideas.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> Well if you lived your whole life never seeing someone that looked like you in the Whitehouse and never expected to, I think you might do that too. I think race is a better reason to vote for someone, than voting without knowing any thing about them, just voting for the party because it is what you have always done, especially when that party is going to vote against your own self interests.
> 
> Also I remember the little boy that wanted to feel the presidents hair. He was amazed the president had hair like his and he was still quite small. Very intuitive I would say.


p.s. Both my sons have hair like our current president's too.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

rderemer said:


> People should use their vote to put someone in office who they think follows the same line of thinking politically as they do. Whether they "look" like they do has no place in politics, nor does their religion (Kennedy) nor whether they are divorced or not (Reagan). People need to look beyond themselves when voting and look toward what they think is best for the country based on shared policy ideas.


But you know that is not happening and never will. People have many many reasons for voting the way they do. Why would a woman vote republican when the republicans vote against women all the time. Why would seniors vote republican when it is the republicans who have hated social security and medicare since it started and are always trying to cut it. Why would any minority vote republican when they are always trying to block their vote? I completely understand why a African American would vote for President Obama. I think the worst is the uninformed voter who votes for a party no matter what and then thinks they are doing their duty.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

damemary said:


> Bullfeathers. (Nonsense and you know it.)


Explain why it is nonsense.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> But you know that is not happening and never will. People have many many reasons for voting the way they do. Why would a woman vote republican when the republicans vote against women all the time. Why would seniors vote republican when it is the republicans who have hated social security and medicare since it started and are always trying to cut it. Why would any minority vote republican when they are always trying to block their vote? I completely understand why a African American would vote for President Obama. I think the worst is the uninformed voter who votes for a party no matter what and then thinks they are doing their duty.


The uninformed voter certainly does do a lot of harm to our country.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Can you prove that anyone has "cash" stashed off shore?
> 
> Most have investments in corporations that own companies that are operating in the US and the parent company is off shore. I wonder how much of the US is really owned by someone in another Country. I'm sure we would be very surprised at the total.
> 
> I recently read that China is in the process of buying a large acreage in upstate New York to build a community for the Chinese.


She can't, she's only repeating what her "unbiased" sources report.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

NJG said:


> No Fox New does not give much of anything when they say things like this.
> 
> 9/24/2014:
> 
> ...


These two people are not reporters. They are on an opinion show. Bolling made a joke, which wasn't funny. Big deal.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Yes, on both sides. What do you think about the people who vote for someone based on race and not political views?


A lot of us vote for what we consider the lesser of two evils. What do you think about that? I can count the number of times I voted for anything or anyone on any other basis than that I was voting for the lesser of two evils. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I voted for any other reason. (The thumb doesn't count. It's not technically considered a finger.)


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

rderemer said:


> People should use their vote to put someone in office who they think follows the same line of thinking politically as they do. Whether they "look" like they do has no place in politics, nor does their religion (Kennedy) nor whether they are divorced or not (Reagan). People need to look beyond themselves when voting and look toward what they think is best for the country based on shared policy ideas.


Let me know when that happens. I have to laugh at what you've said so I don't break down and weep.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Let me know when that happens. I have to laugh at what you've said so I don't break down and weep.


How do you think people should use their vote?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

rderemer said:


> How do you think people should use their vote?


We can talk about how people *should* use their votes versus how they *actually* use their votes until the cows come home only to find we haven't gotten anywhere. *"Should"* is nothing but an ideal. Using my vote as I should means voting for the best interests of my country, state, myself and my fellow citizens and other similar reasons. I wish I could afford to use my vote as I should. After voting for 44 years, I have only had the opportunity to vote the way I believe I should three times. Three times in 44 years has left me disappointed, pessimistic and cynical about voting but I still do it.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> We can talk about how people *should* use their votes versus how they *actually* use their votes until the cows come home only to find we haven't gotten anywhere. *"Should"* is nothing but an ideal. Using my vote as I should means voting for the best interests of my country, state, myself and my fellow citizens and other similar reasons. I wish I could afford to use my vote as I should.


Believe me, I wish you would use your vote as you should too.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Believe me, I wish you would use your vote as you should too.


Me, too. And wouldn't it be wonderful if more people would bother to vote?


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Luke 12:48 refers to, "Three grades of punishment that the judge will mete out in proportion to both the privileges each person has enjoyed and one's response to those privileges." (NIV)
> 
> It does mean that if one has a lot they should be expected to share what they have.


There's a typo here - it should say, "It doesn't mean that if one . . ."


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

NJG said:


> I watched Bill Maher last night and there was a reporter-forgot her name. She was in Minnesota talking to people and asked a guy if he believed in de-funding Planned Parenthood. He said no. She asked if he believed in equal pay for equal work and he said yes. She asked him if he believed in a woman's right to choose and he said yes. He wasn't sure he was going to vote, but if he did it would be the one that started with R. I believe there are lots of people like this that pay no attention to what is going on, but just vote for the party, because that is what they have always done. Dumb


I saw that, too. Depressing.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Me, too. And wouldn't it be wonderful if more people would bother to vote?


As long as they're not uninformed or misinformed. Back to the question of where to best get the most unbiased information.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I think you had best go back in history, to see who really voted against the African American. Who is trying to block votes? I thought it was one vote per person, would not a Democratic believing person want to assure that?
> Social Security and Medicare were started during Democratic Presidencies but they have steadily increased under all Presidents. President Bush suggested a different way of funding it, but not to cut it. He wanted people to control a part of what they invested. What have the Democrats done for women? They have done nothing for me.


Bush wanted to privatize social security essentially having people just invest in the stock market. This would be great for Wall Street, and the firms who make money on stock trading but you might remember how much investors lost in the last years under Bush. What would seniors have done then? Starve. Be homeless. Republicans are still promoting this idiotic idea. Not everyone is savvy about the stock market and by no means does everyone make money investing, even if they are savvy.

No one is suggesting that "blocking votes" is blocking multiple or fraudulent votes. Democrats simply believe that everyone who is qualified to vote is permitted to do so and is not blocked by teabagger restrictions on those rights.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> Bush wanted to privatize social security essentially having people just invest in the stock market. This would be great for Wall Street, and the firms who make money on stock trading but you might remember how much investors lost in the last years under Bush. What would seniors have done then? Starve. Be homeless. Republicans are still promoting this idiotic idea. Not everyone is savvy about the stock market and by no means does everyone make money investing, even if they are savvy.
> 
> No one is suggesting that "blocking votes" is blocking multiple or fraudulent votes. Democrats simply believe that everyone who is qualified to vote is permitted to do so and is not blocked by teabagger restrictions on those rights.


Are you referring to voter ID?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

rderemer said:


> Are you referring to voter ID?


I'm referring to places that have closed polling places in black neighborhoods, too.

We've heard all the differing opinions about voter ID so let's not go there again. Suffice it to say that in the past 10 years there have only been 50 charges of voter fraud across all types of elections in the United States (The Atlantic)  this hardly represents a clear and present danger our democratic system, yet many republicans at the state level are pushing harder than ever to require IDs at voting booths. This disproportionately affects poor communities, where people often do not have the time or money to register for the identification that would be required to vote. With voter ID laws popping up in the legislatures of many states, it could have a significant effect on a close presidential election.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

DGreen said:


> I'm referring to places that have closed polling places in black neighborhoods, too.
> 
> We've heard all the differing opinions about voter ID so let's not go there again. Suffice it to say that in the past 10 years there have only been 50 charges of voter fraud across all types of elections in the United States (The Atlantic)  this hardly represents a clear and present danger our democratic system, yet many republicans at the state level are pushing harder than ever to require IDs at voting booths. This disproportionately affects poor communities, where people often do not have the time or money to register for the identification that would be required to vote. With voter ID laws popping up in the legislatures of many states, it could have a significant effect on a close presidential election.


You're right - let's not go there.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Joeysmomma, how many dead people have voted? Please, I want the actual number. Unfortunately, the people have to be begged to vote, as it is. Do you think there are enough people rifling through the obituaries to find names of people to vote in those districts to sway the vote? What kind of paranoia are you nurturing?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I don't believe the citizens in the poor neighborhoods do not have a government issued ID's. If they have food stamps or any other kind of government handout they need an ID. If they have a desire to vote they can make the time to register. They can call any political party and I'm sure there will be a volunteer to help them register to vote. You are just repeating Democratic rhetoric. I'm sure no more than 5% (I'm being generous with this number) of illegal voting was ever prosecuted. The Democratic Party is so thorough with gathering evidence and prosecuting violation of voter laws. For example, the New Black Panthers were ready to plead in the voter intimidation case, and Holder dismissed the charges.
> 
> Of course, the illegals, will probably not have an ID. But then only citizens have the right to vote.


I'm willing to bet there are far fewer citizens without an acceptable ID (to prove they are eligible to vote if they so desire) than there are illegal votes (non citizens, multiple votes by the same person, unregistered voters, dead voters, etc.) cast each Presidential election.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> These two people are not reporters. They are on an opinion show. Bolling made a joke, which wasn't funny. Big deal.


Sure, make a joke about a woman in the military, funny, ha ha. But let the president do something they don't like and they make a huge deal about it and talk about it all day. As I have said before hypocrites and this is a perfect example.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> More than 6,000 dead people are registered to vote in Nassau County and records show about 270 of them actually voted after their deaths, according to a Newsday analysis of voter registration and federal death records.
> 
> The paper reports dead registered voters in Nassau County account for nearly 25 percent of the 26,500 dead people registered to vote statewide.
> 
> ...


Evidently you did not read the article, only the headline. If you READ it, you will see what it says:

Investigators tell the paper they don't consider the discrepancy fraudulent; the number of votes attributed to deceased voters is too small and their votes are spread out over more than two dozen elections.

County elections commissioner Bill Biamonte said simple clerical errors make it seem as if the dead are voting. For example, a person voting could accidentally sign their name next to a dead person's name rather than their own in a poll registry book.

"Theres no malice, no evil intentions behind this," said Biamonte."Just election day workers or voters making mistakes."

Not even a good try at providing the number of dead people voting.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> Joeysmomma, how many dead people have voted? Please, I want the actual number. Unfortunately, the people have to be begged to vote, as it is. Do you think there are enough people rifling through the obituaries to find names of people to vote in those districts to sway the vote? What kind of paranoia are you nurturing?


I can guarantee you that no dead people have ever voted.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Did you read the article or just the headlines? 270 people did not vote fraudulently. There have been clerical errors. I can believe this as in my district (which will soon be gerrymandered)hard-working (read exhausted) geriatric poll volunteers, check off names with a pencil in a series of flip books. Further aiding to errors is the fact that their is such poor lighting for these workers in the old schools, churches and other polling areas, that making a check mark on the wrong name would be quite easy. I could die tomorrow and my name would still be on the registry. The deliberate fraud you imply just does not exist. That one dead vote that wiggles through certainly does not make up for the lost votes due to voter restrictions and redistricting.


joeysomma said:


> More than 6,000 dead people are registered to vote in Nassau County and records show about 270 of them actually voted after their deaths, according to a Newsday analysis of voter registration and federal death records.
> 
> The paper reports dead registered voters in Nassau County account for nearly 25 percent of the 26,500 dead people registered to vote statewide.
> 
> ...


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I think you had best go back in history, to see who really voted against the African American. Who is trying to block votes? I thought it was one vote per person, would not a Democratic believing person want to assure that?
> Social Security and Medicare were started during Democratic Presidencies but they have steadily increased under all Presidents. President Bush suggested a different way of funding it, but not to cut it. He wanted people to control a part of what they invested. What have the Democrats done for women? They have done nothing for me.


Social Security and Medicare were started during Democratic presidencies and the republicans fought them all the way because they didn't want it. If Bush had been able to privatize it, the money would be gone. The reason it has increased is because democrats are fighting for it. If we are ever under complete republican control they will try to destroy it. Every republican controlled state has passed voter restriction laws that affect minorities. You will deny that, but it is true. Yes I do want to assure 1 vote per person. That is why there have been many law suits in republican controlled states as they fight those new laws, some passed and signed the very same day the SCOTUS stripped the previous law. Why would a state discontinue early voting on the Sunday before election day when it has had it in the past? There are many women who now have insurance because of Obamacare. We still have Planned Parenthood which helps many women. You must have everything you need--good for you.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Joeysmomma, how many dead people have voted? Please, I want the actual number. Unfortunately, the people have to be begged to vote, as it is. Do you think there are enough people rifling through the obituaries to find names of people to vote in those districts to sway the vote? What kind of paranoia are you nurturing?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> As if the media never made fun of President Bush.


We both know there is no comparison at all between how these two presidents have been treated, and congress is one example.


----------



## rderemer (Nov 13, 2012)

NJG said:


> We both know there is no comparison at all between how these two presidents have been treated, and congress is one example.


Boy, that's a fact.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> When did the early voting ever become law? What happened to absentee ballots or voting on election day? Sunday voting would only mean overtime for government workers. I would think if voting was important to you, you would make the time to go when it was available. Just having any form of early voting should be good enough. Why don't the liberals just quit complaining. I don't think they will be happy until Obama is President for Life.
> 
> How many more women have lost health insurance because of Obamacare than have gained it? I know more women that have lost their insurance than gained it. They are unable to afford the premiums, deductibles and copays. Remember the subsidies are illegal in Wisconsin. Even if they have taken the subsidies they will have to pay them back.


Obviously, you think the rest of the world must conform to what you think they should do and what YOU think is good enough. Sunday voting is INTENDED to make voting easily accessible. What's wrong with that? It does NOT equate to voter fraud or anything close to it.

It may come as a surprise to you, but just because you don't personally know anyone who has benefited from Obamacare does not mean they're not out there in the hundreds of thousands - or do you believe that only the things you see exist and there is no other world out there that matters?


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> When did the early voting ever become law?
> I don't think they will be happy until Obama is President for Life.


Early voting became law when the various state legislatures made it law. Under the 10th Amendment, the States have the power to regulate their own elections.

You reveal yourself as a Teabagger by repeating the nonsense about Obama wanting to be president for life. I don't mean that as a compliment, by the way.

Where in the world does that idiocy come from?

To all libs out there - if you have not already done so, take a look at the official Tea Party website. Be sure to have a barf bag ready - pretty hard to stomach the twisted stuff they are selling, but informative. If you are not already highly motivate to vote in November, their site will get you going.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> When did the early voting ever become law? What happened to absentee ballots or voting on election day? Sunday voting would only mean overtime for government workers. I would think if voting was important to you, you would make the time to go when it was available. Just having any form of early voting should be good enough. Why don't the liberals just quit complaining. I don't think they will be happy until Obama is President for Life.
> 
> How many more women have lost health insurance because of Obamacare than have gained it? I know more women that have lost their insurance than gained it. They are unable to afford the premiums, deductibles and copays. Remember the subsidies are illegal in Wisconsin. Even if they have taken the subsidies they will have to pay them back.


I never said early voting was a law. It has make it possible and more convenient for people to vote. Republican run states have shortened the early voting which increases the lines people need to stand in, and some of them can not stand and wait and so they don't get to vote. Republicans have tried to change early voting only in minority districts. If you have never had a problem voting before and then find yourself in a long line, it is a little late to vote absentee. I am sorry, I don't know the schedule of all the people wanting to vote so I can't tell you why they vote when they do. I know a lot of people are working two jobs. That might make it a little harder and early voting on Sunday is when a lot of African American churches take the people by bus to vote. That wasn't a problem until republicans figured out they were likely voting democratic, so they want to stop that. Early voting isn't done entirely by government workers. There are a lot of volunteers. You might actually get some people to believe you when you talk about voter ID and everyone should have an ID, but the rest of your comments are pretty racist. Those are the people you are trying to keep from voting and everyone knows it. Republicans will NEVER gain the trust and respect of minorities with an attitude like yours and don't forget, it won't be long till the white race is the minority. By then your republican party will be a thing of the past if you don't change your attitude. Obama, president for life--now you are showing you stupidity among other things.
Obamacare is working. If there are women out there who don't have health insurance, it isn't because of Obamacare. It could be because they listen to Fox News or republicans in congress, or you, as all of you have done everything they can to scare people. Now with all these people insured, they still want to repeal it. What happens to those people then? I don't know about health insurance in Wisconsin. You will have to talk to your not so awesome governor or maybe Fox News can help you.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

The GOP has been heard in "private" meetings state that the only way they can win an election is if they eliminate Democraitc votes. And so in many States it is not just people of color that are being eliminated but anyone they can prevent from voting. Voter ID laws are entrapping professional white folks in Texas, including the politicians. California, If I recall correctly, has trashed millions of dollars of electronic equipment because they cannot certify their honesty. This was a push under Bush to get all States to use these machines which can be controlled long distance without being able to ever check their counts.

So instead of promoting voting according to American lifestyles, we see a concerted effort to prevent voter registration drives in Democratic leaning communities and manipulation of the actual voting process. We have seen assaults on ACORN by bogus sting operations which destroyed the organization despite these allegations being shown to be false. But now there is a law that prevents the organization to receive funding. 

While the joeysommas of the country carry on like lunatics about illegal voting, Americans often cannot get off from work to vote on the a one day a year schedule. Also, due to the insufficient voting booths and poor maintenance of them in poorer neighborhoods, waiting lines are astronomical taking hours to get thru them Thus, if the position is to increase voting then Sunday voting is a great way to deal with both problems. 

I don't know if my neurology could read an entire Tea Party website. I get enough of it regularly and it makes me want to scream. But joeysomma & co can rest assured there are many racist faux liberals who think voter ID and other restrictions are reasonable. Those people enrage me even more because they promote racism while pretending to be something more noble.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

tamarque said:


> The GOP has been heard in "private" meetings state that the only way they can win an election is if they eliminate Democraitc votes. And so in many States it is not just people of color that are being eliminated but anyone they can prevent from voting. Voter ID laws are entrapping professional white folks in Texas, including the politicians. California, If I recall correctly, has trashed millions of dollars of electronic equipment because they cannot certify their honesty. This was a push under Bush to get all States to use these machines which can be controlled long distance without being able to ever check their counts.
> 
> So instead of promoting voting according to American lifestyles, we see a concerted effort to prevent voter registration drives in Democratic leaning communities and manipulation of the actual voting process. We have seen assaults on ACORN by bogus sting operations which destroyed the organization despite these allegations being shown to be false. But now there is a law that prevents the organization to receive funding.
> 
> ...


That is why I am so glad I live in such a wonderful country as Australia. We have so many ways to cast a vote in our elections.

Ways to vote
Updated: 4 April 2014
On this page:
	Ordinary vote
	Absent vote
	Early vote
	Interstate vote on election day
	Overseas
	Mobile polling
	Provisional vote
	How to vote if you are blind or have low vision

Ordinary vote
An ordinary vote is a vote cast by an elector at a polling place or at an early voting centre within the division for which they are enrolled. This is the simplest way to vote and the method used by the majority of electors.

Absent vote
An absent vote is a vote cast by an elector out of their home division but still within their home state or territory on election day.

Early vote
You can vote early either in person or by post if on election day you:
	are outside the electorate where you are enrolled to vote
	are more than 8km from a polling place
	are travelling
	are unable to leave your workplace to vote
	are seriously ill, infirm or due to give birth shortly (or caring for someone who is)
	are a patient in hospital and can't vote at the hospital
	have religious beliefs that prevent you from attending a polling place
	are in prison serving a sentence of less than three years or otherwise detained
	are a silent elector
	have a reasonable fear for your safety.

In person
You can vote in person at an early voting centre or any AEC divisional office in the weeks leading to an election.

By post
After an election is announced, you can apply for a postal vote online, or complete a postal vote application form.

Interstate vote on election day
An interstate vote can be cast on election day at interstate voting centres by electors who are not in their home state or territory.

Overseas
For federal elections, electors who are overseas can vote in person at an overseas voting centre (most Australian embassies or missions) or by post.
	How to vote while overseas
	Further information for overseas electors

Provisional vote
A provisional vote is cast in circumstances where an elector's name cannot be found on the roll or the name has already been marked off the roll. The vote cannot be counted until a careful check of enrolment records and entitlements has been made.

Electors making an absent, postal, early (not in own division), interstate or provisional vote must complete a declaration envelope giving their personal details. This will be checked by divisional staff before the votes are counted.

Mobile polling
AEC mobile polling teams visit many electors who are not able to get to a polling place. Mobile polling facilities are set up in some hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and remote areas of Australia. Mobile polling is carried out around Australia prior to election day and on election day.

How to vote if you are blind or have low vision
Voters who are blind or have low vision have the options of:
	casting a vote over the telephone from any location
	casting a vote with assistance at any polling place or by post


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

EveMCooke said:


> That is why I am so glad I live in such a wonderful country as Australia. We have so many ways to cast a vote in our elections.


Seems like good sense to me. Do you have any idea what the turnout rate is? Here in the US it's fairly low, even lower in "off" years when there is no Presidential election.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

EveMCooke, that is the way voting should be. You should not have to fight a battle in order to vote, and you should be encouraged to vote, but the republicans want to make it as hard as they can for democratic voters to vote.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

DGreen said:


> Seems like good sense to me. Do you have any idea what the turnout rate is? Here in the US it's fairly low, even lower in "off" years when there is no Presidential election.


Voting in both State and Federal elections is compulsory in Australia. The turnout figure for the last Federal election, held last year was 94%.

Some people did vote informally, both through choice as they could not decide between the parties, and through error when voting. The ballot paper for the Senate was over 1 metre in length due to the number of minor parties standing for the senate. We have the Clive Palmer United Party, the Motoring Enthusiasts Party, the Hunters and Shooters Party, to name a few.

The minor parties gained votes because many people were very dissatisfied with the performance of the Australian Labor Party and could not bring themselves to vote for either the Australian Liberal Party or the Australian Greens Party, so they chose one of the minor parties.

Voting in Local Council Elections is not compulsory and does not have a large turnout generally, although this has altered of late because the electoral commission send out postal voting papers to electors so they can submit a postal vote. Unfortunately, I have not voted in several of the Local Council Elections of late because there has only been the one person standing for election in my ward of the local shire. This one person is then elected - unopposed.

We do not vote for the Prime Minister or Premier in separate elections. The Prime Minister and the Premier are the leaders of the party that has the majority of members in the House of Representatives in either State or Federal Parliaments, they are elected by a caucus meeting of their respective parties not the general voting pubic. Both the Prime Minister and the Premiers can lose the faith of their party and can be voted out of office by the party caucus, as happened with Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. Someone in their party can move a motion of no confidence in the leader and a split is called and the caucus then votes for a new leader. It is much easier for us to remove a leader than it is for the USA.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Wouldn't it be nice if the Liberals who want to make sure no one is turned away from voting here in the US, would make at least half that effort to get absentee ballots to the military that are serving overseas, especially those in a combat zone. Then to get them back to their home districts to be counted in time.


In Australia, Defence Forces personnel can vote by three methods

How to vote overseas for a federal election
Australian Defence personnel serving overseas have three voting options during electoral events:

Postal voting
Mobile voting
Australian overseas voting centre

Postal voting

There are two ways to register for a postal vote:

Defence personnel posted overseas are entitled to register as general postal voters. This means that ballot papers will be sent automatically for each electoral event. Complete the registration form to become a general postal voter. Applications can be completed at any time and only need to be completed once.
Defence personnel who will be overseas for a short period of time and intend to return to their original address can complete a postal vote application for each electoral event. Postal vote applications can be completed online.

Mobile voting
The AEC works with the ADF to provide mobile polling services to Defence personnel serving in some overseas areas of operation during an election. Defence personnel will be trained and appointed as Assistant Returning Officers by the AEC. Defence personnel will also be trained to issue votes and bring them back to Australia in time to be included in the count.

More information on mobile polling will be released closer to the election on both the AEC and Defence websites.

Overseas voting centre
Defence personnel serving overseas will also have the option of voting in person at an Australian overseas voting centre.

If you are unable to vote
You can notify the AEC that you are overseas and may not be able to vote by filling in an overseas notification form or calling +61 2 6273 8606.

The Australian Electoral Commission also sends out mobile voting stations to the remote indigenous communities who would not be able to come into the larger towns or communities in order to cast a vote. Some of these communities are in very remote areas and in the wet season the roads are impassable. Some of these communities consist of only one or two families but they are still entitled to vote. Here in Australia we try to ensure that everyone who is entitled to cast a vote is given every opportunity to vote.

Australia - we care for all Australians.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for sharing your perspective.



rderemer said:


> No I am not new - I have been chiming in here and there. It's hard to discern what is spin and what is truth in the media but I try to use logic and sound reasoning to sort out the information. Our local newspaper is biased so it is more annoying than helpful. Local news programs are better. We have a heated gubernatorial race coming up and there is so much spin that I'm dizzy. Some people believe whatever their political party says and form no opinions of their own. You have to be able to determine what is fact and be able to use that to form your opinions. I feel many people prefer to believe the outrageous and fantastic because they like the dramatic rather than the mundane (truth).


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You put it so well. Thanks.



MaidInBedlam said:


> To whom much is given, much is expected.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bone chilling.



NJG said:


> I watched Bill Maher last night and there was a reporter-forgot her name. She was in Minnesota talking to people and asked a guy if he believed in de-funding Planned Parenthood. He said no. She asked if he believed in equal pay for equal work and he said yes. She asked him if he believed in a woman's right to choose and he said yes. He wasn't sure he was going to vote, but if he did it would be the one that started with R. I believe there are lots of people like this that pay no attention to what is going on, but just vote for the party, because that is what they have always done. Dumb


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I say let em eat cat food and learn empathy with the poor.



cookiequeen said:


> Yeah, and when the ones that start with /r/ take away their Social Security, they'll wonder what happened.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I may be tired tonite, but it sounds like agreement to me. I thought MIB's comment was appropriate.



rderemer said:


> Luke 12:48 refers to, "Three grades of punishment that the judge will mete out in proportion to both the privileges each person has enjoyed and one's response to those privileges." (NIV)
> 
> It does mean that if one has a lot they should be expected to share what they have.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Obviously people's opinions vary greatly. And they are not based on logic or policy ideas (which frequently change radically when elected.) I'm afraid we are frequently left to trust our instincts. IMHO



rderemer said:


> People should use their vote to put someone in office who they think follows the same line of thinking politically as they do. Whether they "look" like they do has no place in politics, nor does their religion (Kennedy) nor whether they are divorced or not (Reagan). People need to look beyond themselves when voting and look toward what they think is best for the country based on shared policy ideas.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Do they feel 'like' or 'different' from the world at large? How do they feel about role models?



rderemer said:


> p.s. Both my sons have hair like our current president's too.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

So does the bigot etc. There is no limit to the harm done. IMHO



rderemer said:


> The uninformed voter certainly does do a lot of harm to our country.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well put.



knovice knitter said:


> Joeysmomma, how many dead people have voted? Please, I want the actual number. Unfortunately, the people have to be begged to vote, as it is. Do you think there are enough people rifling through the obituaries to find names of people to vote in those districts to sway the vote? What kind of paranoia are you nurturing?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks for the tip. It's a good example of how we make intelligent choices.



DGreen said:


> Early voting became law when the various state legislatures made it law. Under the 10th Amendment, the States have the power to regulate their own elections.
> 
> You reveal yourself as a Teabagger by repeating the nonsense about Obama wanting to be president for life. I don't mean that as a compliment, by the way.
> 
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

rderemer said:


> There's a typo here - it should say, "It doesn't mean that if one . . ."


Good grief! Could you create a greater contradiction when you make a typo? I'm sticking with "To whom much is given, much is expected", and using that to mean the 1% should be expected to pay a larger percentage their income in taxes.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

rderemer said:


> As long as they're not uninformed or misinformed. Back to the question of where to best get the most unbiased information.


You're expecting too much. To what extent do you think any voter seeks unbiased information? They seek information which conforms to their opinions.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I agree. I think we expect all these lofty things of other voters. For ourselves' we wish the freedom to choose what we wish, no strings attached.



MaidInBedlam said:


> You're expecting too much. To what extent do you think any voter seeks unbiased information? They seek information which conforms to their opinions.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Forgive me, but I'm going to revisit the subject of ID, though more broadly than voter ID. Until pretty recently, and in reaction to 911, Americans became required to possess and produce ID. A 1974 Supreme Court decision confirmed that citizens were neither required to have any form of ID or produce it on request. The case involved an African-American man who liked to take late-night walks in nice, pretty neighborhoods and got tired of being stopped by police several times a night. I don't give a good God d--n about why, as a citizen, I now should have to possess OR produce ID on request. This is an erosion of my rights as a citizen. Can you say "counterfeit"?

If, as you say, "in the past 10 years there have only been 50 charges of voter fraud across all types of elections in the United States (The Atlantic)" voter fraud is indeed a dead subject. If polling places in black neighborhoods have been closed, we're talking about a crime. Have you ever thought of pursuing this possible crime?



DGreen said:


> I'm referring to places that have closed polling places in black neighborhoods, too.
> 
> We've heard all the differing opinions about voter ID so let's not go there again. Suffice it to say that in the past 10 years there have only been 50 charges of voter fraud across all types of elections in the United States (The Atlantic)  this hardly represents a clear and present danger our democratic system, yet many republicans at the state level are pushing harder than ever to require IDs at voting booths. This disproportionately affects poor communities, where people often do not have the time or money to register for the identification that would be required to vote. With voter ID laws popping up in the legislatures of many states, it could have a significant effect on a close presidential election.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> What do you think they do? Since 1% pay 19% of the taxes as another KPer stated on this thread.
> 
> Actually the 1% has not been given anything. They have either worked for or their ancestors did. The only ones that have been given are those on food stamps, Medicaid etc.


Yes, I read the post that stated the 1% pays 19% of its income in taxes. It obviously isn't enough given the basic services we say we expect from our governments from the feds on down. Given what services we say we want and need, none of us are paying enough income taxes. Next time you trip on a massive crack in your sidewalk, or it takes the EMTs 10 minutes to get to you or the children in your life describe the conditions in their schools and the quality of education they're getting, think well on what needs to be paid for, NOT sported by hot air only.

People who are being given food stamps and/or Medicaid and other services they are allowed to have without paying for them is a dead argument. People are "given" services they qualify for and actually need. Period. Spare me from your out-dated clinging to an argument that doesn't even exist.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Forgive me, but I'm going to revisit the subject of ID, though more broadly than voter ID. Until pretty recently, and in reaction to 911, Americans became required to possess and produce ID. A 1974 Supreme Court decision confirmed that citizens were neither required to have any form of ID. The case involved an African-American man who liked to take late-night walks in nice, pretty neighborhoods and got tired of being stopped by police several times a night. I don't give a good God d--n about why, as a citizen, I now should have to possess OR produce ID on request. This is an erosion of my rights as a citizen. Can you say "counterfeit"?
> 
> If, as you say, "in the past 10 years there have only been 50 charges of voter fraud across all types of elections in the United States (The Atlantic)" voter fraud is indeed a dead subject. If polling places in black neighborhoods have been closed, we're talking about a crime. Have you ever thought of pursuing this possible crime?


Pertinent to your comments, I will quote tamarqe:

The GOP has been heard in "private" meetings state that the only way they can win an election is if they eliminate Democratic votes.

There is no source cited for this statement, but based on my own reading of media reports, I believe it to be true.

That is why I personally am active in local democratic party activities. The only long-term solution to the continuing erosion of our democracy is to elect progressive candidates. I am also passionately committed to working toward demilitarizing our police and to fighting what feels like an insidious erosion of our civil rights; your examples are exactly why. Americans have long resisted any attempt to impose mandatory identity cards on citizens but we seem to have forgotten that in light of 9-11. Please note the political orientation of those on this site who purport to support individual rights but at the same time insist that everyone should/must have government-issued ID.

There are some places where citizens are compelled to provide ID if requested by law enforcement personnel. Other places protect citizens' fifth amendment rights and in those places you do NOT have to answer ANYTHING the police ask, even your name. You do not have to submit to search of your person, your vehicle or your home without a valid warrant. As we are seeing more and more, police have been permitted to get away with egregious violations of citizens' rights - up to and including murder. Time for us to get angry and get busy as Americans to stop these violations. Just because it hasn't happened to me doesn't mean I should sit back and let it happen to anyone else.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I agree somewhat, There are many that do have enough income to pay taxes. The ones that have money should pay the poor's share of taxes. But then they (the low income people) should NOT be given a tax refund on the backs of the hard working people who do PAY taxes.


I hit "send" accidentally and before I had finished writing my post you're responding to. I don't know if it will change your mind or not, but you might like to read all of what I was trying to say.

If people are getting tax refunds according to IRS regulations, so be it. You could always start a movement to change the qualifications for receiving tax refunds.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> What do you think they do? Since 1% pay 19% of the taxes as another KPer stated on this thread.
> 
> Actually the 1% has not been given anything. They have either worked for or their ancestors did. The only ones that have been given are those on food stamps, Medicaid etc.


Wrong again. A lot of the 1% receive corporate welfare. We subsidize the walmart workers with food stamps, so the Walton family gets to keep more of their money. The big oil companies receive about 4 billion in tax breaks. That is all you talk about is tax breaks for the job creators. Only problem is no jobs. They want to just keep that welfare money for themselves.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The same for those paying taxes. They are paying taxes according to IRS regulations. So quite complaining.
> 
> The rich are paying more than their "fair share" and they are not getting deductions in the same way middle income people do. Almost all deductions and credits are not available to taxable incomes over $150,000. Then there are extra taxes with the higher incomes.


Oh, now they are paying "more" than their fair share. Quit being so gullible. Just because you consider yourself a tax expert means nothing. How long since you have done taxes for a 1%'er? Oh never, you say, because they have a whole team of 
"tax experts" working to get them all the breaks they can. Remember when Romney had to produce his taxes and he had not taken a deduction he could have so that he would pay a higher % tax rate, cause he wanted to look better to all the peons. It didn't work of course, he was still a phony.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Corporate Welfare has nothing to do with personal taxes. The individual's taxes have nothing to do with a company or corporation.
> Since you insist they are the same, YOU find the tax code that states what you say.


I know you always to keep corporate taxes out of it so it sounds better, but the comment was the 1% pay 19% of the taxes and it didn't say personal or corporate.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I hit "send" accidentally and before I had finished writing my post you're responding to. I don't know if it will change your mind or not, but you might like to read all of what I was trying to say.
> 
> If people are getting tax refunds according to IRS regulations, so be it. You could always start a movement to change the qualifications for receiving tax refunds.


You and I see things in a very similar way. I think we both need to stop giving joey ammunition so she can have a chance to spout the tea party line. She has her script and she's sticking to it.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DGreen said:


> You and I see things in a very similar way. I think we both need to stop giving joey ammunition so she can have a chance to spout the tea party line. She has her script and she's sticking to it.


But you notice when she runs into something she can't answer, or doesn't want to answer, she is gone.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Good grief! Could you create a greater contradiction when you make a typo? I'm sticking with "To whom much is given, much is expected", and using that to mean the 1% should be expected to pay a larger percentage their income in taxes.


Good grief! You cry for equality out of one side of your mouth and the other side cries for inequality.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I do know the Law for *any* person paying taxes. You sure do *not*. The 1% have the same rules as the rest.
> 
> Any "tax breaks" are in how the money is invested not how the taxes are prepared.
> 
> ...


30% of Obama's income did not come from foreign INVESTMENTS. Their returns do not disclose which foreign countries are responsible for paying the Obamas the $2.7 million in foreign SOURCE income, but the overwhelming bulk of it must come from payments resulting directly or indirectly from book sales. Nonetheless, the Obamas did report a total of $3,611 in foreign passive income in 2009 and 2010, a type of income that most often results from investments in foreign countries. Obama's 2010s passive foreign source income ($1,571) resulted from Freeman Henry G. Jr. Decd TW, which is the so-called Pin Money Trust set up for first ladies by Henry Freeman, who died in 1917. The 2009 return does not appear to contain a similar statement, but given the similarity in amounts, the passive income in that year must come from the same source. Just to be clear, the Obamas would have no discretion over the investment of the Freeman Trust.

Where does he put most of his net worth?

US Treasury notes, where he has up to $5 million, and US Treasury bills, where he has up to $500,000.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The corporations pay their own taxes. No one said anything about a corporation being part of the 1%. If you want to include corporations, the percent would be much higher.
> 
> So you want to call a corporation a person, but I'm sure you were one of those who complained, when Hobby Lobby was called a person for religious beliefs.


And did you defend the concept because it supported a cause you espouse? I believe it is ludicrous to call a corporation a person to give it human rights that real people (or persons) expect in a free multicultural country.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The same for those paying taxes. They are paying taxes according to IRS regulations. So quite complaining.
> 
> The rich are paying more than their "fair share" and they are not getting deductions in the same way middle income people do. Almost all deductions and credits are not available to taxable incomes over $150,000. Then there are extra taxes with the higher incomes.


Joey - you are trying to talk to those who have no idea how taxes are calculated particularly to the very wealthy. They (the Libs) simply quote what the DNC or Daily Kos feeds them and don't understand what the wealthy DO pay in taxes and that all the so-called 'loopholes' they love to tout often do not apply or exist for the majority. They are envious and ill informed so keep repeating the same stale and invalid arguments, and they are wrong. You and I both know it. When you fail to get through to them or they cannot offer intelligent counter points, they resort to vulgarity and name calling.

Don't waste your breath; save your energy and time for more viable endeavors.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Corporate Welfare has nothing to do with personal taxes. The individual's taxes have nothing to do with a corporation.
> Since you insist they are the same, YOU find the tax code that states what you say.
> 
> FYI: Businesses incorporated as "Corporations" pay separate taxes on profits according to their own IRS rules. It is best for the corporation to invest their profit back into the business so there is no tax for them to pay. Whatever tax they have to pay is passed on to the consumer anyway.
> ...


Don't forget the double taxation of the very wealthy. My client is heavily taxed, first by the LLC or private investment and then again on his individual return. Many, like him, pay more than 40% in income taxes ALONE on their earned/passive income.

There are NO loopholes and he has ZERO foreign accounts. The Libs think everyone falls into the scenario they paint - I doubt they understand how those with income over $100K file a tax return and understand how to calculate the taxes on same yet they are more than happy to tell you problems that doesn't exist and what has no basis in fact.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I pay exactly $309 less for my monthly premium than I did before Obamacare.


joeysomma said:


> When did the early voting ever become law? What happened to absentee ballots or voting on election day? Sunday voting would only mean overtime for government workers. I would think if voting was important to you, you would make the time to go when it was available. Just having any form of early voting should be good enough. Why don't the liberals just quit complaining. I don't think they will be happy until Obama is President for Life.
> 
> How many more women have lost health insurance because of Obamacare than have gained it? I know more women that have lost their insurance than gained it. They are unable to afford the premiums, deductibles and copays. Remember the subsidies are illegal in Wisconsin. Even if they have taken the subsidies they will have to pay them back.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> Oh, now they are paying "more" than their fair share. Quit being so gullible. Just because you consider yourself a tax expert means nothing. How long since you have done taxes for a 1%'er? Oh never, you say, because they have a whole team of
> "tax experts" working to get them all the breaks they can. Remember when Romney had to produce his taxes and he had not taken a deduction he could have so that he would pay a higher % tax rate, cause he wanted to look better to all the peons. It didn't work of course, he was still a phony.


You are 100% wrong so stop talking about what you do not understand or have the correct knowledge, you do yourself a disservice.

Tell me you SIL doesn't take every deduction on his own return for his benefit or whoever does your return be tasked to do the same for you. We are all expected to know, understand and follow the tax code.

You have shown you have no idea how taxes apply to a wealthy individual. Talk about which you know, not what you don't please.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I do know the Law for *any* person paying taxes. You sure do *not*. The 1% have the same rules as the rest.
> 
> Any "tax breaks" are in how the money is invested not how the taxes are prepared.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I wonder what percentage they would call the "fair share." Depending on what state they are living in, a combination of all taxes can exceed 60 - 70% of the gross income. New York State for one.
> 
> You are right they are just regurgitating liberal rhetoric. I am trying to talk to a brick wall. I wonder if any understand taxes enough to do their own or if they take them to a Registered Tax Preparer.


If they do them themselves, they are probably making mistakes since their multiple posts highlight to me what they do not know nor understand. I'd hate to let them know, IF they were wealthy, and I their tax preparer or CPA, that there are no readily available loopholes, tax avoidance schemes or corporate welfare programs to bail out their sorry souls (as they keep telling us there are).

They are envious with anyone who has more than they do, pure and simple and obvious.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Knock it off with the medicaid is free crap. You and I are both in Wisconsin. I was on the medicaid plan known as BadgerCare Plus. It cost me $325/mo. and I never used it except for yearly physicals. 
When the soulless governor, we have in this state, decided that we moochers were still willing to pay that much even though I had to keep my thermostat at 54 all winter to afford it; he had to eliminate it altogether. That premium took up a great deal of my social security, but I managed because, at my age, healthcare was of the utmost importance. I have responded to you about this very subject on numerous occasions. Yet you keep saying that Medicaid is a give-away. Well, I am here, once again, to tell you it is not. Not in Wisconsin.


joeysomma said:


> What do you think they do? Since 1% pay 19% of the taxes as another KPer stated on this thread.
> 
> Actually the 1% has not been given anything. They have either worked for or their ancestors did. The only ones that have been given are those on food stamps, Medicaid etc.


----------



## MarilynKnits (Aug 30, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Joey - you are trying to talk to those who have no idea how taxes are calculated particularly to the very wealthy. They (the Libs) simply quote what the DNC or Daily Kos feeds them and don't understand what the wealthy DO pay in taxes and that all the so-called 'loopholes' they love to tout often do not apply or exist for the majority. They are envious and ill informed so keep repeating the same stale and invalid arguments and they are wrong. When you fail to get through to them or they cannot offer intelligent counter points, they resort to vulgarity and name calling.
> 
> Don't waste your breath; save your energy and time for more viable endeavors.


You really don't get it. It is not envy. It is disgust. The attitude of entitlement displayed by the very rich, their disdain for people who did not have the opportunity to be born into extremely wealthy families, is so classless and vulgar.

People like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and Warren Buffet should be among the role models for the very rich. They have supported charities and educational endeavors. They pay their employees well. They created their businesses through their own intelligence and hard work, of course with some fortuitous timing and luck thrown in.

I wonder about their next generations in their families. Will their children, like the Walton children, consider themselves "entitled" and "superior" because of their wealth? Or will they have been raised and nurtured to use their wealth to help others improve their lots in life?

Rich people owe me nothing on a personal level. My husband and I started with an $86 a month third floor walk up apartment and a 17 year old Chevy and progressed to a comfortable life. Still love those old cars though; our "new" one is a 14 year old Jeep. We don't have a fancy life style but are content with what we have and take personal pride in our accomplishments.

But if we were very wealthy, obscenely wealthy, I certainly hope we would set up a foundation to support education and services to people who have not had opportunities through circumstances beyond their control.

We pay our taxes, about 25% of our gross income in Federal and State plus whatever sales taxes and property taxes we are required to. I think there should be either a flat income tax rate across the board without any deductions or a graduated tax rate with the more income you have from all sources the higher a percentage you pay up to a point to be determined. There are tweaks that are needed in dealing with the poverty level, physical and mental health disabilities, and other factors that need to be assessed carefully. Out tax codes have become so unwieldy that it is nearly impossible for taxes to be equitable or for the normal person to understand all the bells and whistles involved.

I doubt this will ever happen, any more than Initiative and Referendum will ever happen, as these changes would benefit middle class and poorer people and might deprive people like the Walton children of some of their mega millions.

So ranters, rant on like Rumpelstiltskin. Or followers of the Pied Piper. Poor deluded fools that some of you are.


----------



## DGreen (Nov 1, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I never said he did. I said he had the same type of foreign investments as Romney. I have no idea where or how much.


No, he does/did not have the same type of foreign investments at all.

If you have no idea "where" then how can you state with such confidence that Obama's investments were the same as Romneys? I don't understand your logic, or lack thereof.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

DGreen said:


> No, he does/did not have the same type of foreign investments at all.
> 
> If you have no idea "where" then how can you state with such confidence that Obama's investments were the same as Romneys? I don't understand your logic, or lack thereof.


If you are so desperate to know the facts, look up Romney's and Obama's filed tax return. I did. They will tell you everything you want to know and don't.

Pay particular attention to the percentages that each paid in income taxes based on earnings, how each generated their income and the amounts/%s given to charities and how each used their money to further or support others (or not).


----------



## admin (Jan 12, 2011)

This is an automated notice.

This topic was split up because it reached high page count.
Please feel free to continue the conversation in the new topic that was automatically created here:

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-292071-1.html

Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------

