You nuns, grab your coat hangers we got babies to murder

[Celticguy]

PEPSIVISACHEVRON Exempt From Mandate, LITTLE SISTERS OF POOR Not... http://www.lifenews.com/2016/03/23/...ndate-but-little-sisters-of-the-poor-are-not/

Nah, no campaign against Christianity... thats crazy talk

 

[Stelakh]

From "lifenews.com." How did I know it wouldn't be completely truthful?

Instead, the administration has offered what it calls an “accommodation” whereby religious non-profits such as the Little Sisters can notify the government of their moral objections, and government in turn will order the issuer of their health plan to provide the coverage.

In fact, religious groups who whish to not provide coverage for common sense things like contraception (because this is about condoms and other birth control measures and NOT abortion) simply need to fill out a form and send it to the government.

It would take approximately 5 minutes (if you write slowly), an envelope, a stamp, and they'd be exempt.

Corporations that are exempt have already filed the necessary paperwork to obtain their exemptions.

The "Little Sisters" simply can't be bothered to fill out and send in the form and instead are issuing a rallying cry for what can most charitably be described as their own laziness - because nothing gets your point across like acting stupidly and playing the martyr (you know, the way religions do).

Point blank: The Little Sisters don't want to fill out a form, so they're costing us tax dollars by going to the Supreme Court, instead.

And thus by injecting some fact and truth we see just how the "campaign against Christianity" is actually a campaign by Christian organizations (who DON'T pay taxes) against tax-paying Americans.

 

[Robo]

Point blank: The Little Sisters don't want to fill out a form, so they're costing us tax dollars by going to the Supreme Court, instead.

So, you're claiming that the Little Sisters are getting taxpayer's dollars to cover their lawyers? So, you're claiming that no taxpayers dollars would be financing the court and the government's lawyers if it weren't for the Little Sister's case?

And thus by injecting some fact and truth we see just how the "campaign against Christianity" is actually a campaign by Christian organizations (who DON'T pay taxes) against tax-paying Americans.

Seems to me your alleged "facts" and "truth" are highly suspicious. Why would the Little Sisters be using the church's lawyers and paying court cost for a case that has no merit because all they need to do is fill out a post card according to you? How come the geniuses on the courts are bothering to hear the case if all the Little Sisters need to do is fill out a post card?

Hey Stelath, I think you're full of shit! I think you're a leftist anti-Christian brainwashed Atheist asshole!

 

[Celticguy]

They used to be protected from government. Now they're not and no change in the constitution.
That's the point that's escaping you. They don't need an exemption if they are already exempt.

 

[Stelakh]

So, you're claiming that the Little Sisters are getting taxpayer's dollars to cover their lawyers? So, you're claiming that no taxpayers dollars would be financing the court and the government's lawyers if it weren't for the Little Sister's case?

When did I say that?

No, little sister, by taking this to court instead of simply filing out the form and mailing it in, they are costing taxpayer dollars to cover the expenses of Federal courts. What's the matter, is your dress tripping you and thus making you incapable of keeping up?

Seems to me your alleged "facts" and "truth" are highly suspicious. Why would the Little Sisters be using the church's lawyers and paying court cost for a case that has no merit because all they need to do is fill out a post card according to you? How come the geniuses on the courts are bothering to hear the case if all the Little Sisters need to do is fill out a post card?

Nobody mentioned postcards, simpleton. It's a "form." I very clearly mentioned 5 minutes, a form, a stamp and an envelope. If you're going to continue to be this stupid, I'm not sure why any of us bother with you at all.

As to the Little Sisters, I also was quite clear as to the "why" of their suit. They wish to make a point and martyr themselves in the cause of furthering the Catholic dogma that women should not have access to contraceptive healthcare. That's what it's about. If you're not able to see that, then your bangs must need to be cut because they're blinding you.

Hey Stelath, I think you're full of shit! I think you're a leftist anti-Christian brainwashed Atheist asshole!

Am I a "leftist"? Nope. I'm dead center and proud of it. Am I anti-Christian? Well, since I'm Jewish but had a mother who was Methodist, that's fairly unlikely. Am I brainwashed? I am not capable of being mentally subverted by the dogma of any particular group, religious or not. Am I an atheist? See my previous comment.

Am I an asshole? You bet I am, little girl. I'm a huge asshole when it comes to dealing with stupid, dogma-induced morons such as yourself.

Finally, I think it very likely that it is impossible for you to even begin to fathom how insignificant I find the opinion of a proven liar like you.

 

[Stelakh]

They used to be protected from government. Now they're not and no change in the constitution.
That's the point that's escaping you. They don't need an exemption if they are already exempt.

You know, speaking of the Constitution, there's that little hook to it called the "Ninth Amendment." You know the one:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It could easily be argued that any organization attempting to exempt themselves from regulation which by and large is more in favor of the common good may in fact violate those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. So now we've got the Constitution fighting itself.

I also question the validity of the argument that a health insurance company paying for contraceptive services is in fact trampling the religious rights of an employer who is opposed to providing contraception (obviously, I did not agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling), especially since the employer doesn't actually provide contraception services and nor does the insurance company.

You see, neither the insurance company nor the religious organization actually provide access to contraceptive services, the doctor/clinic/hospital does. It's not even sine qua non. If they don't offer health insurance that includes contraception there are other ways to get it, some of which are free. (And by the way, I believe quite firmly that contraception like norplant, daily pills, condoms and so forth should NOT be paid for by insurance at all - sex is an elective activity and not a medical necessity. The onus for contraception should be on the people involved (women AND men).)

In the end, all the Little Sisters have to do is fill out the form and send it in and then they're done. This is a waste of taxpayer dollars so that they can make a rather pointless point.

 

[Robo]

When did I say that?

Post 283, and I quote,

Point blank: The Little Sisters don't want to fill out a form, so they're costing us tax dollars by going to the Supreme Court, instead.

So you still contend that because the Little Sisters have filed this suit, extra taxpayer’s dollars will be extorted from said taxpayers to cover the cost, right genius? The court’s budget will have to be reworked and expanded, correct?

No, little sister, by taking this to court instead of simply filing out the form and mailing it in, they are costing taxpayer dollars to cover the expenses of Federal courts. What's the matter, is your dress tripping you and thus making you incapable of keeping up?

Again, So you still contend that because the Little Sisters have filed this suit, extra taxpayer’s dollars will be extorted from said taxpayers to cover the cost, right genius? The court’s budget will have to be reworked and expanded, correct?

Nobody mentioned postcards, simpleton. It's a "form." I very clearly mentioned 5 minutes, a form, a stamp and an envelope.

A ”POSTCARD.” You call it a form, I’ll call it a postcard. It’s short sweet and you mail it, right genius?

If you're going to continue to be this stupid, I'm not sure why any of us bother with you at all.

A wise man once, “stupid is as stupid does.” Reading your post genius proves you’re no genius, but you’re the definition of stupid and liar.

As to the Little Sisters, I also was quite clear as to the "why" of their suit. They wish to make a point and martyr themselves in the cause of furthering the Catholic dogma that women should not have access to contraceptive healthcare. That's what it's about. If you're not able to see that, then your bangs must need to be cut because they're blinding you.

Well genius, the courts must need their bangs cut also, huh? The courts can and do throw frivolous cases to the dogs. They don’t have to hear crap! So far you’ve avoided/refused to address that simple fact. WHY are the courts even hearing the case if your absurd postings have a dime’s worth of merit?

Am I an asshole? You bet I am, little girl. I'm a huge asshole when it comes to dealing with stupid, dogma-induced morons such as yourself.

Well Adolph, you’re not doing very well. You’re preposterous post are pointing the “stupid” arrow at your chest, not mine.

Finally, I think it very likely that it is impossible for you to even begin to fathom how insignificant I find the opinion of a proven liar like you.

OH GEE! The horror of it! I won’t sleep tonight!

By the way genius, point to me the article or amendment in our Constitution that authorizes the federal government to even conduct a health insurance program. Can you do that?

 

[Robo]

You know, speaking of the Constitution, there's that little hook to it called the "Ninth Amendment." You know the one:



It could easily be argued that any organization attempting to exempt themselves from regulation which by and large is more in favor of the common good may in fact violate those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. So now we've got the Constitution fighting itself.

Which rights not enumerated in the Constitution do you think are being violated by an employer who chooses to exempt himself/herself from paying for contraceptives for his/her employees?

What “common good” is served by contraceptives?

 

[Robo]

I also question the validity of the argument that a health insurance company paying for contraceptive services is in fact trampling the religious rights of an employer who is opposed to providing contraception (obviously, I did not agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling), especially since the employer doesn't actually provide contraception services and nor does the insurance company.

So in idiot Stelakh world ”paying for” isn’t equal to ”providing” and ”providing” isn’t equal to “paying for” Right genius?

What a fucking dope!

 

[Robo]

In the end, all the Little Sisters have to do is fill out the form and send it in and then they're done. This is a waste of taxpayer dollars so that they can make a rather pointless point.

GEE! Why hasn’t that been brought up in the courts? Why haven’t the courts told the Little Sisters that and thrown the case out?

I’ll wait for your answer genius.

 

[Stelakh]

A lot of things go to trial that are a waste of taxpayer dollars, piglet. We live in a litigious society.

Not every case has merit, but they get tried anyway.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Christianophobes strike again

 

[Robo]

A lot of things go to trial that are a waste of taxpayer dollars, piglet. We live in a litigious society.

Not every case has merit, but they get tried anyway.

All the way through the federal court system, right? Name a couple of really frivolous ones so the class will know you're not just a giant phony bullshitter.

While your at it, call the Little Sisters and offer to fill out that post card for them and get back to the class on their reply, OK Adolph?

 

[Celticguy]

You know, speaking of the Constitution, there's that little hook to it called the "Ninth Amendment." You know the one:



It could easily be argued that any organization attempting to exempt themselves from regulation which by and large is more in favor of the common good may in fact violate those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. So now we've got the Constitution fighting itself.

I also question the validity of the argument that a health insurance company paying for contraceptive services is in fact trampling the religious rights of an employer who is opposed to providing contraception (obviously, I did not agree with the Hobby Lobby ruling), especially since the employer doesn't actually provide contraception services and nor does the insurance company.

You see, neither the insurance company nor the religious organization actually provide access to contraceptive services, the doctor/clinic/hospital does. It's not even sine qua non. If they don't offer health insurance that includes contraception there are other ways to get it, some of which are free. (And by the way, I believe quite firmly that contraception like norplant, daily pills, condoms and so forth should NOT be paid for by insurance at all - sex is an elective activity and not a medical necessity. The onus for contraception should be on the people involved (women AND men).)

In the end, all the Little Sisters have to do is fill out the form and send it in and then they're done. This is a waste of taxpayer dollars so that they can make a rather pointless point.

First ammendment did enumerate it

 

[Robo]

First ammendment did enumerate it

Don't confuse the forum bullshitter with truths and logic. He can't handle it!

 

[Stelakh]

First ammendment did enumerate it

You aren't aware of what I'm talking about, then.

The Constitution does not specifically enumerate freedom FROM religion, but we have a right to be free from the machinations of radicalized religious extremists who try to force their beliefs on the nation through legislation.

 

[Stelakh]

All the way through the federal court system, right? Name a couple of really frivolous ones so the class will know you're not just a giant phony bullshitter.

While your at it, call the Little Sisters and offer to fill out that post card for them and get back to the class on their reply, OK Adolph?

Okay, piglet, you asked for it.

In 1916, the United States of America filed a suit to try and get the Coca-Cola Company to take caffeine out of Coke. (241 U.S. 265)

In 1924, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether or not Apple Cider Vinegar was, in fact, Apple Cider Vinegar if it was made from dried-then-rehydrated apples instead of fresh apples. (265 U.S. 438)

In 1965, the Supreme Court had to rule on whether or not a 1958 Plymouth Sedan could be confiscated by the state as a civil penalty, saying essentially, "No, State of Pennsylvania, you can't steal someone's car."

In 1990, I'm just going to give you the names on this one, because while it deals with post-conviction relief of a death sentence case, the names are really all you need: Demosthenes v. Baal (495 U.S. 731)

In 1989, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on a suit brought by Benjamin R. Ward, who was suing "Rock Against Racism" because the city of New York provided (by regulation) the sound systems and personnel so they could control the volume of the concert being held in Central Park. Ward felt that making sure the concert wasn't too loud (and thus not a public nuisance) was a violation of his First Amendment rights. (491 U.S. 781)

In 1992, the Supreme Court had to rule on International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, where it gave the opinion that airports aren't considered "public forums," so the Krishnas couldn't distribute their pamphlets in them. (505 U.S. 672)

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled on a mail fraud trial that had a defendant with either the best or worst (depending on how you look at it) ever: Schmuck v. United States of America. (489 U.S. 705)

In 2006's Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, the Supreme Court had to rule on a case where the plaintiff (McDonald) sued Domino's Pizza, Inc. The problem? He didn't have a claim because he wasn't party to the contract he was suing about. 546 (U.S. 470)

In 1995, a case made it all the way to the Supreme Courts because lower courts couldn't decide whether or not it was okay to execute a person who is actually innocent. (513 U.S. 298)

In 1994, a case went all the way to the Supreme Court because lower courts couldn't decide whether or not specific portions of Federal child porn laws were Constitutional. (513 U.S. 64)

In 1973, even though the right was already ruled to be protected by the First Amendment several years prior, the Supreme Court had to rule again on whether or not it was legal under the First Amendment to import pornographic materials for their own personal and private use. (413 U.S. 123)

Do I need to go on, girlie? I can.

Oh, and I've actually sent a missive to the Little Sisters offering my services as you suggested. We will see whether or not they are willing to pay a standard fee of $475 an hour to complete their form. Perhaps I should prepare an amicus curiae for the Court to inform them of my offer.

 

[Robo]

Okay, piglet, you asked for it.

In 1916, the United States of America filed a suit to try and get the Coca-Cola Company to take caffeine out of Coke. (241 U.S. 265)

In 1924, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether or not Apple Cider Vinegar was, in fact, Apple Cider Vinegar if it was made from dried-then-rehydrated apples instead of fresh apples. (265 U.S. 438)

In 1965, the Supreme Court had to rule on whether or not a 1958 Plymouth Sedan could be confiscated by the state as a civil penalty, saying essentially, "No, State of Pennsylvania, you can't steal someone's car."

In 1990, I'm just going to give you the names on this one, because while it deals with post-conviction relief of a death sentence case, the names are really all you need: Demosthenes v. Baal (495 U.S. 731)

In 1989, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on a suit brought by Benjamin R. Ward, who was suing "Rock Against Racism" because the city of New York provided (by regulation) the sound systems and personnel so they could control the volume of the concert being held in Central Park. Ward felt that making sure the concert wasn't too loud (and thus not a public nuisance) was a violation of his First Amendment rights. (491 U.S. 781)

In 1992, the Supreme Court had to rule on International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, where it gave the opinion that airports aren't considered "public forums," so the Krishnas couldn't distribute their pamphlets in them. (505 U.S. 672)

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled on a mail fraud trial that had a defendant with either the best or worst (depending on how you look at it) ever: Schmuck v. United States of America. (489 U.S. 705)

In 2006's Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, the Supreme Court had to rule on a case where the plaintiff (McDonald) sued Domino's Pizza, Inc. The problem? He didn't have a claim because he wasn't party to the contract he was suing about. 546 (U.S. 470)

In 1995, a case made it all the way to the Supreme Courts because lower courts couldn't decide whether or not it was okay to execute a person who is actually innocent. (513 U.S. 298)

In 1994, a case went all the way to the Supreme Court because lower courts couldn't decide whether or not specific portions of Federal child porn laws were Constitutional. (513 U.S. 64)

In 1973, even though the right was already ruled to be protected by the First Amendment several years prior, the Supreme Court had to rule again on whether or not it was legal under the First Amendment to import pornographic materials for their own personal and private use. (413 U.S. 123)

Do I need to go on, girlie? I can.

YES! You do need to go on by equating each of your presentations rationally to your claims about the Little Sisters case relative to being "frivolous." What postcard size form could have been filled out and registered to solve the situation and saved taxpayer's dollars in the courts, genius?

Oh, and I've actually sent a missive to the Little Sisters offering my services as you suggested. We will see whether or not they are willing to pay a standard fee of $475 an hour to complete their form. Perhaps I should prepare an amicus curiae for the Court to inform them of my offer.

You're not even worth $4.75 an hour in my opinion, bullshitter!

By the way, when are you going to explain how the Little Sisters case will cost taxpayers more money than will already be allotted to the court system as you've accused, as I've challenged you to do in earlier post, genius?

By the way, numbnuts, how's it feel to be intellectually bested by a "little girl?"

Oh Yeah! Lest I forget, when are you going to take on the other challenge I put to you and deliver the constitutional article or amendment that authorizes the federal government to even be involved in Health insurance? The little Sisters case would be moot had not the feds violated the Constitution and passed the ACA, numbnuts!

 

[Jarod]

The Conservatives hate the 9th Amendment.

They don't think the government should protect any rights unless they are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The Conservatives hate the 9th Amendment.

They don't think the government should protect any rights unless they are specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

And what is your interpretation of the 9th Amendment counselor?

Do you know the historical context of the 9th Amendment?