Being forced to pay for something that goes against your religious principles and imposing your will on how others must run their lives are two entirely different things.What does everyone here think of the ruling allowing the "religious freedom" of Hobby Lobby's owners to supersede that of their employees? Somehow I think that if Hobby Lobby's owners wanted to impose Sharia on their employees while they're at work, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS wouldn't be so willing to capitulate.
What does everyone here think of the ruling allowing the "religious freedom" of Hobby Lobby's owners to supersede that of their employees?
Hobby Lobby had no problem covering birth control before Obamacare. They seemed to have no trouble "violating" their religious principles then.
Citation needed. Perhaps they felt that their employees were covering that cost through pre-tax paycheck deductions and that now the money is coming from them.
Also it's irrelevant, the government should not be compelling companies to cover contraception.
True, but from a company's point of view it's probably cheaper to pay for contraception than visits to hospitals for duration of a pregnancy, stays at a hospital for delivery, any associated costs with treatment for mother and child, and then paid maternity leave.
However they would probably like it if they weren't forced to by Uncle Sam.
Hobby Lobby claims to not be motivated by cost.
We middle Americans don't push back against this type of racist stereotype, but we probably should.Happy 4th of July or whatever in the states:
It didn't overturn enough.What does everyone here think of the ruling allowing the "religious freedom" of Hobby Lobby's owners to supersede that of their employees? Somehow I think that if Hobby Lobby's owners wanted to impose Sharia on their employees while they're at work, the conservative wing of the SCOTUS wouldn't be so willing to capitulate.
I think it's hilarious because I've actually seen it before, minus the flag.We middle Americans don't push back against this type of racist stereotype, but we probably should.
The crybaby libs push back against everything.
Maybe you are right. I guess I shouldn't get my panties in a wad over such trivial matters.I think it's hilarious because I've actually seen it before, minus the flag.
True, but from a company's point of view it's probably cheaper to pay for contraception than visits to hospitals for duration of a pregnancy, stays at a hospital for delivery, any associated costs with treatment for mother and child, and then paid maternity leave.
However they would probably like it if they weren't forced to by Uncle Sam.
But the woman never answered the question. How do you fight a war against an ideology with weapons? The panelist was ready to point out that the number of radicals were even with the entire US population. You can't kill that many people in one generation, and even then you will have following generations that believe the same because of our actions. You would effectively have to kill off three generations, each equal to the US population, to achieve your goals in this way.I'll just leave this here. This is a must-see:
Dear America,
From what I can tell from most outspoken Australians, here and in public, this guy shouldn't have been electable. So, why is it that we can't get guys like this elected here? Or should the better question be; how is it people refuse to vote for guys like this because "they can't win" when it can happen in Australia?
But the woman never answered the question. How do you fight a war against an ideology with weapons? The panelist was ready to point out that the number of radicals were even with the entire US population. You can't kill that many people in one generation, and even then you will have following generations that believe the same because of our actions. You would effectively have to kill off three generations, each equal to the US population, to achieve your goals in this way.
The panelist has a point, but it did not fit in response to the question asked. In fact, the answer to the actual question might likely point to the issue that created Benghazi.
I'm acquainted with a pretty impressive student of strategic policy. His research on the situation in Sri Lanka has been published, and his conclusion was that pretty much the only thing that was effective in stopping the tamil tigers was bombing the everloving crap out of them.
I'm not sure that you can blow up 300 million people though.
I think it can be done with minimal collateral damage using enough "precision" drone strikes. Those never go wrong.That's the entire population of the USA. When I say I'm not sure, I mean that from a practical, logistical perspective. I just don't think it would be possible, regardless of how anyone feels about it. You'd have to out-do all of the genocide and mass murder (nazis, communists, terrorists, etc.) of the last two centuries combined. And then you'd have to do it again, and perhaps a third time for good measure.
I think it can be done with minimal collateral damage using enough "precision" drone strikes. Those never go wrong.
/sarcasm
What else is keeping people out of California besides the state government and its taxes?
Earthquakes, real estate prices, over crowding, traffic, forest fires, mudslides, and intense heat (for most of the state)
I think it can be done with minimal collateral damage using enough "precision" drone strikes. Those never go wrong.
They'll definitely take out the next generation in the process.Three or four of those could easily kill the required 300 million, no problemo
Dear America,
From what I can tell from most outspoken Australians, here and in public, this guy shouldn't have been electable. So, why is it that we can't get guys like this elected here? Or should the better question be; how is it people refuse to vote for guys like this because "they can't win" when it can happen in Australia?
Dear America,
From what I can tell from most outspoken Australians, here and in public, this guy shouldn't have been electable. So, why is it that we can't get guys like this elected here? Or should the better question be; how is it people refuse to vote for guys like this because "they can't win" when it can happen in Australia?
[Media]