CrimsonWeltall Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 15, 2015 -> 07:03 PM) Little Sisters of the Poor not violating their religious belief.......Obama>>>> Yup, filling out a form is definitely a violation of one's religious belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2015 -> 02:14 PM) They are edit: and what do cknolls and that writer want to see happen? Continue overcrowding our jails with vermin the mentally ill? Given that this behavior hasn't been decriminalized yet, how is it any sort of indictment on "liberal policies"? Did no mentally ill homeless people urinate on the street or bump into people for the 20 years before De Blasio became mayor? I think deblasio is as much of a jackass as rham, they both suck, they're both terrible leaders, and both of them are making everything in their cities worse than it already is. They say one thing and do another...so I really don't buy that these policies are actually in place...they may say they are, but they're not, which is why crime is rising. It's like the years of endless Chicago gun violence...they repeatedly blame the fact that people can buy guns elsewhere...which is right...so WHY f***ING BOTHER WITH YOUR POWERLESS GUN LAWS in the first place? They pretend their gun violence policies work in Chicago, but they clearly don't. People getting caught with illegal guns are right back on the street in Chicago...but according the Rham, they're doing all they can. The only thing that prevents gun violence in Chicago is cold weather...which is why they're really quick to point out how well their new programs are working during the months of december-february, but then go silent as soon as it gets warm again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) Crime is actually down in New York year-over-year. I'm not really trying to argue whether or not De Blasio's policies are good or bad, but he still absolutely supports "broken windows," his police commissioner is clear about it and he gets criticized from the left for it. Edited July 15, 2015 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 15, 2015 -> 03:46 PM) Crime is actually down in New York year-over-year. I'm not really trying to argue whether or not De Blasio's policies are good or bad, but he still absolutely supports "broken windows," his police commissioner is clear about it and he gets criticized from the left for it. That's skews what I consider more important crimes...violent crime and murder are both up in New York, while overall crime is down. I don't care about a lot of what our government considers "crime", but I sure as hell care about the serious stuff like murder and violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 HW fell and broke his neck? Ouch. Hope he's ok. Didn't even think he was as old as 91. Was president when I was in grade school and never thought of him being that old at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 15, 2015 -> 02:15 PM) Yup, filling out a form is definitely a violation of one's religious belief. Yup understanding the issue is a difficult concept.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 11:44 AM) Yup understanding the issue is a difficult concept.. It's not, unless you're falling for the Little Sister's insane framing of the issue. They're allowed to exempt out of the requirement, they just have to notify the government (with a form) that they're doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 09:03 AM) It's not, unless you're falling for the Little Sister's insane framing of the issue. They're allowed to exempt out of the requirement, they just have to notify the government (with a form) that they're doing so. Who is paying for the insurance? What does the insurance cover? The insurance coverage conflicts with the religious beliefs of the nuns, right? The Little sisters pay for the insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/wisco...-conservatives/ FINALLY!!!!! Now a nice civil judgement against this ass clown will end things....And maybe a disbarment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 01:12 PM) Who is paying for the insurance? The Little sisters pay for the insurance? No. That's the point of signing the form. What does the insurance cover? The insurance coverage conflicts with the religious beliefs of the nuns, right? Shouldn't matter regardless, but really doesn't matter because they would not be providing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 On the city level, I never take the crime reporting too terribly seriously. Internal policies can really affect the levels of crimes reported in any direction. More cops on the streets will see more crime, a more liberal reporting policy will make it seem like there is more, a less liberal reporting policy will make it seem like there is less, etc. I know that in my former home of Memphis, they made a concerted effort to start reporting more crimes. They admitted that they didn't want to look bad on a national stage, but realized no matter what they did the numbers made it look like a dangerous place. They began meticulously reporting, which made it seem like there was a crime surge, but it made it far easier to understand the trends going on at the neighborhood level and they've been seeing huge drops since the policy was implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 07:44 AM) Yup understanding the issue is a difficult concept.. Yes, what they want is to prevent people who work for them from having any ability to get the birth control. In truth, they don't care whether or not they're paying for it. They don't want the employment to at all give the person an opportunity to have birth control. Apparently they don't think that the moral compass of the individual is enough to stop it from being used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabiness42 Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Yes, what they want is to prevent people who work for them from having any ability to get the birth control. In truth, they don't care whether or not they're paying for it. They don't want the employment to at all give the person an opportunity to have birth control. Apparently they don't think that the moral compass of the individual is enough to stop it from being used. This is a requirement they can impose upon their employees regardless of whether or not the ACA requires the employees to be able to obtain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 They can mandate that their non-clergy employees abstain from birth control? Or do they only have employees who fall under the clerical exemptions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 07:12 PM) Who is paying for the insurance? What does the insurance cover? The insurance coverage conflicts with the religious beliefs of the nuns, right? The Little sisters pay for the insurance? By requesting an exemption, The Little Sisters would pay only for base insurance that contains no contraceptive coverage. The insurer would then, separately, provide contraception riders for people who want it. Their complaint is that filling out a 2-page form to get an exemption violates their religious freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 01:13 PM) http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/wisco...-conservatives/ FINALLY!!!!! Now a nice civil judgement against this ass clown will end things....And maybe a disbarment More than one person needs to fry for those. And there are supposedly links to Lois Lerner as well. Just one big clusterf*** of illegal s*** they do in the name of the Party, because in their minds, the ends justify the means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 16, 2015 -> 03:41 PM) More than one person needs to fry for those. And there are supposedly links to Lois Lerner as well. Just one big clusterf*** of illegal s*** they do in the name of the Party, because in their minds, the ends justify the means. Yeah the Dems are good like that..Ted Stevens would have attested to that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Wasn't Ted Stevens convicted in a federal investigation during the Bush administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 The Super PACs that Walker allegedly coordinated with also spent $8 million to get the four justices who voted in favor of killing the investigation elected. The justices just recently voted along party lines to change the rules so that they do not have to recuse themselves if a case involving their campaign donors comes to the court. Walker's people weren't even denying that he coordinated with the groups, just arguing that he wasn't technically a candidate. While it's being called a partisan witch hunt, the lead prosecutor is a Republican who endorsed Walker in 2012. I don't know every in and out of the investigation, but something doesn't smell right with the way it is ending given all the substantive evidence and the conflicts of interest for those who had the ultimate say in the matter. I don't have much confidence for any state's ability to enforce campaign finance laws, even as lax as they are today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 17, 2015 -> 03:14 PM) The Super PACs that Walker allegedly coordinated with also spent $8 million to get the four justices who voted in favor of killing the investigation elected. The justices just recently voted along party lines to change the rules so that they do not have to recuse themselves if a case involving their campaign donors comes to the court. Walker's people weren't even denying that he coordinated with the groups, just arguing that he wasn't technically a candidate. While it's being called a partisan witch hunt, the lead prosecutor is a Republican who endorsed Walker in 2012. I don't know every in and out of the investigation, but something doesn't smell right with the way it is ending given all the substantive evidence and the conflicts of interest for those who had the ultimate say in the matter. I don't have much confidence for any state's ability to enforce campaign finance laws, even as lax as they are today. Chilsholm WAS partisan. And a Democrat. The guy in charge of it all has a teacher, and union operative, for a wife and was acting because she felt slighted at the union busting. He was quoted as saying "“he felt that it was his personal duty to stop Walker from treating people like this.” Late night Swat raids at non violent peoples houses for political reasons is a sure fire way to get someone hurt and/or killed. Over a political argument. read about the raids. They busted in on one lady while she was in the shower and had several guns pointed at her as she got dressed. if I was that husband, I would be meeting a few of those cops in the off hours in a dark alley somewhere. There is doing your job, and being an asshole while doing your job. Really surprised that no dogs got shot, since these paramilitary police seem to have a very itchy trigger when it comes to canines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Oh Donald http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trum...17.html?hp=l1_3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pettie4sox Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Donald Trump is guaranteeing another 8 years of Democratic rule in the WH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILMOU Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 18, 2015 -> 12:18 PM) Donald Trump is guaranteeing another 8 years of Democratic rule in the WH. The angry (but not sure why) white man vote is his in the bag. And that may make him look good in Iowa and NH, but only there. And the hot-button immigration anger really only plays in AZ and CA. If they can't see how limited his appeal will be nationally, shame on them. I think the Dem oriented media will love covering him and calling him the front-runner. Big Oil and Defense may not have the resources this time around to decide the nominee ahead of the primaries as they did with W. So this could actually get interesting, and yes it virtually assures another 8 years of Dem rule - which, with the lack of a credible challenge from the right, is probably NOT a good thing for the country. But it WILL be a continuation of the bull market for pharma stocks, so there's that. Edited July 18, 2015 by Stan Bahnsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jul 18, 2015 -> 01:18 PM) Donald Trump is guaranteeing another 8 years of Democratic rule in the WH. He is not going to win anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 18, 2015 Share Posted July 18, 2015 Congrats on supporting a guy for telling it like it is, Greg. Well done. Good choice and I strongly support you guys nominating him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts