A veto override will need a lot more than 14 Democrats.
As I said before, new Congress, same crap. Maybe if the Republicans spent more time crafting a better health care law, I would have much more respect for them, even if I did not support it. This is just wasting time to score political points.
Successful businesses do not rely on short term planning – They are already restructuring employee working hour policies to maximize their bottom lines. Changing the most economically damaging portions of the ACA is not any more of a waste of time than the Democrats refusing to fix it before it collapses under its rising tax burden. If the Supremes rule against federal subsidies to state without exchanges, effectively ending the ACA, then you will be able to judge whether the Republican’s “crap” is worse than Obamacrap.
Do you even understand my position? I have been against the PPACA since it was passed. However, I am more against politicians wasting time and taxpayer money trying to repeal something that has zero chance of being repealed. It is called political reality.
They have tried the Supreme Court route and they failed also.
While I do not have a problem with Republicans trying to repeal the law, they need to do something that has a chance of working.
Ron, are you talking to yourself? I see no post from FFA on this article. Maybe you are further gone than we all thought. Weren’t you critical of Congress as being a do nothing Congress for the past 6 years? Then, when they do something that benefits the country, they are wasting your time. Why not get on your obstructionist President for vowing to veto everything that is passed?
If you were smart enough to remember, FFA and I had a back and forth about the odds this would President Obama’s veto of this law would be overridden. See the comments under “Republicans Target Obamacare Part-Time Worker Provision” We even have a bet on it. Looks like I will win the bet.
Ron, you might want to let a man post something before going on your lecture posts from another article or is that asking too much? Try limiting your posts to those actually commenting and you will fare better. Just talking into cyberspace with a person not even on the blog does not give him a chance to respond since he isn’t here yet.
Agent – Ron’s post clearly was not meant for you, but you still had to give him sh1t about it. Why do you care if Ron posts to FAA in this article or a different one?
January 12, 2015 at 11:20 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And he calls ME a butt-in-ski. Jeesh!
January 9, 2015 at 3:37 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
How is passing a law that has no chance of becoming law benefiting our country? Just because it makes the right feel good that the Republicans are “honoring their campaign promises”, it does NOTHING for the country.
My guess is that he will not veto everything, just anything that is designed to repeal or destroy the PPACA.
Ron, you aren’t staying up with the news. Try to check it out sometime instead of pontificating. He has already vowed to veto Keystone and that is not an Obamacare issue.
This man will veto anything that comes up unless it fits his agenda. I would like to be present at the meeting next Tuesday at the White House between him and the new Congress leaders to see what they can find in common to move forward. I am not hopeful that this President will compromise on any of his leftist agenda.
These republicans are representing people. It does not cost more money to put it up for vote.
They are honoring people yes, campaign promises are honoring people who voted them in. So stop degrading them (the people behind them as well) for them doing it.
Also, it keeps it alive to keep repealing it, and shows who the culprits are for keeping it in place. I cannot tell you how many college students from my now youngest sibling who graduated recently, used to say that they don’t support the PPACA but it would have passed regardless of Obama. That’s simply not true, and the republicans need to make that known. They are showing people this plan was not their doing and letting people know yes, they have a choice to get it removed. Whereas if they stop trying, 2016 it will be forgotten and accepted as something that cannot be changed. The republicans need to sell the fact that they will get rid of this plan.
You said you have no problem with the plan being repealed, but you have given the republicans literally no way of repealing it that would leave them good in your eyes.
Did you read my post and understand my point? Based on your post I would say, “no”.
Neither you nor Agent understand me. Not surprising though. I am complicated you both are very simple thinkers. You like to put people in boxes and label them in order to put them down.
January 12, 2015 at 6:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m sorry, did you not make half a million comments about republicans, including your own step father?
As well as democrats? And the reason your are an independent is due to these labels?
I am not a simple thinker. You however are. Especially with the “Reagan was Keynesian” crap you spew out.
January 12, 2015 at 7:05 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Half a million? Bob, you know that that is 500,000 comments right? That would mean over 1300 comments daily (500k / 365 = 1369). Not possible. So youre lying.
What else have you been lying about? Other than your age? No one can believe anything you say when youre clearly a lying lazy liar who lies.
Lies make Baby Jesus cry too, Bobby. I think its time that you apologize and get back to your pilates classes.
January 13, 2015 at 8:08 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob,
I do not even have a step father. Both of my parents took “Til death do us part” to the grave after nearly 40 years of marriage. Yes bob, that means I am not in my 20s as you believe.
I never said Reagan was Keynesian. I said he implemented some Keynesian principles. Did he not sign bills that increased spending, the debt, deficits and taxes to help get the country out of the mess left behind by President Carter? You can spin it any way you want, HE SIGNED THEM. In addition, the size of the federal government increased under his administration including the number of federal employees.
I have criticized President Obama, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi many times. I have also spoken out against the PPACA. If you are not going to read and comprehend all my posts, do not make generalizations about me.
January 12, 2015 at 10:25 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m here agent. Just been busy…
So, who caught 60 Mins last night? Who considers CBS to be anti OBama? If only 10% of the tax payers watched that, they will be outraged over this thing.
FFA, don’t you just love it when Ron goes off on one of his tangents to you when you haven’t even signed on or commented?
Changing the subject, there were sure some good playoff games on this weekend. Your Packers were pretty lucky to get the win. That call with Dez Bryant was very border line and could easily have gone the other way. The official standing 10 feet away said it was a catch and marked the ball on the one. I am afraid I don’t understand the rule and many think it should be changed. When a receiver goes up, catches and controls it, takes two steps, stretches out for the goal line when he hits the ground, that should be a catch. Where was the rule that the ground cannot cause a fumble? How many times do we see the ball carrier fumble and they rule the knee touched the ground so it is reversed? In this case, Bryant’s whole body was on the ground before the ball came loose. Anyway, good luck to the Packers next week. The Seahawks are awfully tough.
I don’t understand that rule at all. In this case, Bryant seemed to try and reach out for the goal line. In my opinion, it was a home town call. It wasn’t a fumble, that rule is still intact. Its just an incomplete pass. The “football” move, in my opinion was stretching for the goal line.
It appears that Manning is just a regular season stud. A playoff flop. Where will he land next year?
January 12, 2015 at 11:04 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, FFA, I don’t think the NFL understands the rule either. Some of the commenters at NFL Network said as much. They gave it all a big “Common Man”. Dez will remember that play the rest of his life. Highway Robbery?
As far as Manning is concerned, he is about finished as a top line quarterback and his arm is pretty much history. They were speculating retirement after the game. At least Dallas beat the team that beat the Broncos. Having said that, Brady will probably trounce the Colts next week and it will be the Pats and Seattle in the Super Bowl.
January 12, 2015 at 11:25 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Let me quote you the rule and explain it to you through the time-tested tactic of parsing words.
“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass…he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground…If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.”
FIRST – To me, Dez had control and tried to make a football move lunging into the end zone. The way the rule is written, that part doesn’t matter at all.
HOWEVER – because he was “a player [going] to the ground in the act of catching a pass” AND “he [lost] control of the ball, and the ball [touched] the ground before he [regained] control, the pass is incomplete.”
“How many times do we see the ball carrier fumble and they rule the knee touched the ground so it is reversed?”
The rule on fumbles is different for a running back than it is a receiver who is going down to the ground in the act of catching the pass.
January 12, 2015 at 11:28 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
PS – This was the second time in this playoff run where that rule came into play. Both times it was interpreted correctly.
Similar to “the tuck rule” – the final call made was technically correct based on the rule book, but I think the rules should be changed so it would be considered a catch & fumble the next time this scenario comes up.
January 12, 2015 at 11:34 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rose, I know the rule. It states a foot ball move somewhere in there. In my opinion the football move was stretching for the goal line. Had he crossed the goal line – TD. If, if and if….
In my opinion, it was a home field call.
That being said, I don’t like the rule at all. The Megatron Catch in Chicago went my teams way. I didn’t like it then. I don’t like it now. Its the playoffs. Let the player play.
January 12, 2015 at 11:55 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA – I’m sorry, but you don’t know the rule then. Nowhere in the “Player Going To The Ground” rule is “a football move” or anything like that actually written.
The whole “did he make a football move or not” is a pointless discussion here and it does not come into play at all when a pass-catcher is coming to the ground in the act of catching a pass.
Again, from the rule book:
“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”
I copied that rule verbatim from the rule book – where is “a football move” mentioned anywhere in that rule? Seriously, please point it out to me if I’m wrong.
January 12, 2015 at 12:00 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have a simple fix to this stupid rule:
“If the receiver has control of the ball at the time the play is deemed to be over , it will considered a completed pass.”
January 12, 2015 at 12:04 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rose, I don’t understand the rule. Megatron catch look like a legit catch to me. He crossed the goal line with it and when he hit the ground, he lost the ball. No Catch. No TD.
Same with Dez yesterday. Only Diff was Dez didn’t make the goal line. Prior to your last post, I stated very clearly that I dont understand this rule at all.
Could this have been the refs pulling a make up call for the home town call last week in Dallas? The judgment calls.
January 12, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I should probably specify that the receiver must have received and controlled the ball while having at least 2 feet in the field of play.
January 12, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What Rosenblatt, only 6 paragraphs to give your version of events? Usually, it is 8 or more. The problem we have is the rules are different for a receiver and any other runner. That is why it needs to be addressed by the rules committee. I have seen this play at least 15 times, saw still photos with Bryant fully extended on the ground with the ball in possession. He made 3 strides with the ball and dove for the end zone. I think that is considered a football move. The catch was already made and the ball didn’t come out in the act of catching it. This was a good, hard fought game that shouldn’t have been decided by a late call. They interviewed Rogers after the game and he sheepishly said he was glad it went their way.
January 12, 2015 at 12:14 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron. Agreed. Now, the split second the play considered to be dead is the refs judgment.
Don’t ya just love the NFL??? I personally think there is more judgment calls in this sport than any other sport.
January 12, 2015 at 12:18 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“What Rosenblatt, only 6 paragraphs to give your version of events?”
First of all, it was 3. Not 6.
Second, it’s not his “version of events” you moron. He quoted the rule from the rulebook.
You can’t even mock anyone intelligently.
January 12, 2015 at 12:29 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA,
There will always be judgement calls. My fix would have made Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant’s catches, completions. There would be no judgement for those 2 calls.
In my opinion, it is not the fact that there are judgement calls, it is the ambiguity of the NFL rulebook that allows multiple good, experienced referees to have different opinions on whether a call was correct or not.
If you consider each pitch a separate call in baseball, and balls and strikes are judgement calls, that would be the most.
January 12, 2015 at 12:30 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, (1) I already said he made a football move and that (2) I think the rule needs to be changed for next year.
Let me try and make this very clear to you.
THE RULE DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HAVING TO MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE. THE RULE ONLY SAYS THE BALL CAN’T HIT THE GROUND ON THE RECEIVER’S WAY DOWN.
The ball hit the ground = pass incomplete. What don’t you get?
January 12, 2015 at 12:47 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I stand corrected Ron. Ive been out of touch with Baseball since the base ball season has been ending in Chicago before the Black Hawks are done.
Can you believe that Sporting News is predicting the Cubs in the Series this year??? Is boy wonder that good?
January 12, 2015 at 1:01 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA,
I am not sure of their chances, but, as a baseball junkie, I will be rooting for the Cubs.
I finally made it to Wrigley Field last year. It comes as a very close second to Fenway Park as my favorite place I have seen a sporting event. I am just disappointed that they will be adding a jumbotron, but glad I got to a game before they did.
January 12, 2015 at 1:08 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
They have a lot of young raw talent and the Manager that can get them to gel.. Oh, lets not forget to mention Lester… Their Farm System is stacked with top prospect. Got a bunch of them from the Rangers.
I cant believe that Chicago is making the Rickets jump through all the hoops on the Expansion project. Parking is lacking. A huge amount of money and numerous jobs to be had.
January 9, 2015 at 1:45 pm
TX Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Prior to Obamacare 97% of Americans had no issue with there healthcare. We re-vamped the entire Healthcare system for 7%. Healthcare represents around 20-30% of the GDP….It was fine prior to Obamacare. We did (and do) need to find a better way of taking care of the 7% of Americans who did not have healthcare. Obamacare is not the answer. Look to what Arkansas did (I’m from TX so do hometown plug here)and didn’t need Washington.
Obamacare is not about healthcare. Its about control!!! Keep that in mind.
Wow – you are completely clueless. And your math skills are somewhat suspect. Health care was not “fine” prior to the ACA. It is not “fine” if even 1% of families that need health insurance can’t get it due to cost or underwriting restrictions.
Robert, obviously you haven’t heard of the Pools for people denied coverage for health issues that were in place. If Healthcare wasn’t fine, it certainly didn’t need a Progressive solution as was demonstrated by the liar in chief and his minions. It was all done wrong and here we are arguing about it four years later.
SW, I don’t think the 6 million who had their coverage cancelled appreciated the government doing that and forcing them to buy high deductible, mandated coverage they didn’t want which was higher than they were paying.
FFA, it has not been a good year for the NFL. The concussion suit, Rice, Peterson issues and now poor officiating in playoff games by supposed cream of the crop officials. Several plays flagged Dallas for holding their receivers when GB’s line was holding Dallas linemen from rushing Rogers so they get a 5 yard penalty and a first down instead of a 10 yard penalty for holding.
I wasn’t screaming FFA, but I was really surprised that play was overturned. Actually, had it been a GB receiver doing the same thing, I would have thought, well they made a play to beat us and would have been equally surprised if it was overturned.
I think the key is that domed teams need to start getting home field advantage and let GB, Pats to travel to the south to play. Rogers had a 7 point lead before the game even kicked off. Having said that, Manning didn’t do so well even with the home field advantage.
January 12, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
You were surprised only because you do not understand the rule. As soon as I saw the play I thought of Calvin Johnson.
The Cowboys got their break last week.
January 12, 2015 at 4:20 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Regardless of you agreeing with the rule or not, at least the league was consistent on how they enforced the rule!
January 9, 2015 at 3:05 pm
Trish says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree with TX Agent! We did have the best health care system in the world. If we had made it law that companies must accept people with prior health issues – and covered them after 90 days perhaps – and had policy limits lay people could understand, most of the problems would have been solved. Young people basically need a major medical policy covering cancer, heart, stroke. If they break a finger, its on them to pay. The 7% of Americans who now have coverage are mostly due to Medicaid expansion. They weren’t paying before, and they are not paying now.
Hi Trish, the best political commercial made in my adult lifetime was Obama unwittingly saying – Make no mistake about it, my policies are on the ballot in this mid term. Every politician supporting him 97% of the time with the exception of one lost, some by wide margins. Progressive Socialism went down in flames. It also didn’t help when Jonathon Gruber called Americans stupid and the big lie was exposed.
Did your Algorithms tell you that Ron? Calvin Johnson was in the end zone, not running down the sideline and taking three steps with the ball in his hands and lunging for the goal line with the ball in his hands.
Let the whole “algorithms” thing go. You are just looking like an idiot who is trying to be funny. Fail!
Calvin Johnson’s catch was more of a reception than Dez Bryant’s.He had control, in the end zone, took 3 steps put his other hand down before the ball ever touched the ground.
And once again “a football move” has nothing to do with the ruling.
If the receiver, who is falling to the ground after making the catch, has the ball hit the ground and loses control, that’s an incomplete pass.
Even if he caught the ball in the air, levitated, spun around and made the Heisman Trophy pose for 20 seconds in the air, if on his way down he loses control of the ball and the ball hits the ground = pass incomplete.
I don’t really care about this particular provision. The size of these companies providing the insurance would not harm the company. I only say this because there is a breed of republican who is for a minimum wage increase, provided it is tried to the size, earnings, or profit of a company. For example, a company too small (start ups) would be able to pay lower until they became bigger. This would eliminate the problem that minimum wage plans can cause lack luster jobs growth, and would have firms that are holding out on their employees actually give fair payment to their employees. Most democrat voters are completely unaware of these republicans. In a similar method, many republicans are for subsidizing insurance coverage, whether through credits or payments for low income earners, or through large employers covering insureds in order to avoid the same problem with start up firms and small businesses. This isn’t the issue they have with the plan. They aren’t thinking “gosh darn those poor people, I hate it when they get free things!”. This is a common belief of democrats, the republicans don’t care about the poor. It’s a lie. And it is annoying.
I would encourage conservative voters to show this is the case, so democrats stop clinging to this “republicans don’t care about the poor” slogan. In Catholicism, it is huge, and it causes many to betray their faith.
Bob, I don’t think the Catholic hospitals were too fond of having to perform abortions since it is against their faith. Yet, Catholics as a voting group tend to be liberal. Quite a dilemma.
I’m aware of this. That’s why I said this mainstream opinion that the republicans don’t care about the poor is causing Catholics to betray their faith.
There are 4 sins that cause crying to God in the bible.
There is the sin of Sodom.
The sin of neglecting the poor (this is for everyone
The sin of defrauding the worker (which is much like the above)
The sin of Murder.
Interestingly one of the founding fathers before 100 AD of the first Churches of God actually defined abortions are ending life within the womb as he called it as breaking the commandment of thou shalt not murder, which is ironic because most Catholics ignore that the sin of Murder is second only to not loving God. Which is the first commandment but not a sin that causes crying to God.
I only bring this up because the primary sin is the sin of murder, and murder is definitely shown to be abortion according to the first Catholic Saint. Yet Catholics instead focus on the crying of the poor, instead of the crying of the murdered children. Just like Abel’s blood cried to God, and God refused him forgiveness, so does the blood of the children which is on the hands of those betraying their Catholic faith. Disregarding that they are wrong to begin with that republicans don’t ignore the cries of the poor. These four sins that cry to God for vengeance are why Catholics vote democratic. They believe the last two are the most serious offenses of politicians. I should say that “they” is people who are Catholics, not Catholic leaders.
I wasn’t aware until recently that abortion was directly talked about among Jesus’s first followers until recently.
There is The Didache, and The Epistle of Barnabas.
If it isn’t evident I have learned a lot about religion from my classes lately.
It is not Rosenblatt’s job to monitor my exchanges with you or yours with me. He responded to the comment you directed at him. For someone allegedly so smart, you certainly are simple.
January 12, 2015 at 6:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is completely relevant to why we are arguing.
And instead, he has come after me rather than you.
January 12, 2015 at 6:29 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, the reason people come after you is because you dont have a clue as to what youre talking about, but you still spout non-sense about religion, weight lifting, Osama, whatever as if you arent a moronic tool.
But Bobby, you are a moronic tool, so that is why people cant stand your idiocy. Ask yourself, if you were so smart and persuasive, why doesnt anyone here agree with you? Can you not find a way to communicate to simpler minds?
Or should we just add “persuasion” or “articulation” to your long list of lazy failures?
January 12, 2015 at 6:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I have every clue what I’m talking about.
Libby just tried to post incorrect info about the Catholic Church.
Please list what I have been wrong about in this post.
Please list in my recent posts where I was wrong about oil taxes, the WHO, or other areas.
List one.
January 12, 2015 at 6:39 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I can list one here where Ron was wrong, and Libby.
Both with my links to back it up.
Ron said that a Catholic would have to go against Catholic Teaching in order to choose either the death penalty, or abortion.
The death penalty is not against Catholic teaching. I even gave the Catechisms. 2266 and 2267.
Libby stated that a Cardinal was in affect against what I mentioned.
I then showed a site going over such info.
I’m not only better versed on these issues…I’m backing it up with sources, one of which was contained in Libby’s own source.
I love how you try to say how idiotic I am, and in this page alone I have correct two people who were completely wrong, who have yet to admit they were.
January 12, 2015 at 6:57 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sure, Bob, whatever you say. You post a few links and all the sudden youre king shit of turd mountain? Give me a break, old man.
Go play with a rosary.
January 13, 2015 at 8:19 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Bob a moron.
-The sole member and founder of the IJ comment police
January 13, 2015 at 8:24 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob,
I will post the complete wording for those who do not like to click on links.
Catechism 2266 states, “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.” Sounds like the offender has to accept the death penalty in order to be executed. In addition, how does death contribute to the correction of the offender?
Catechism 2267 states, “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”
Did you miss, “…when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”? I would think life in prison with no possibility of parole is a practicable way to defend people from the offender.
Catholics believe, or at least are suppose to believe, in the sanctitiy of all life. I know, I am a Catholic.
You lose, again.
January 13, 2015 at 9:23 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan – you are penalized one IJ credit for insulting Bob.
-The sole member and founder of the IJ comment police
January 13, 2015 at 12:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Stan,
The Church does indeed agree with sanctity of all life.
And they are “mostly” against the death penalty. That is the most accurate way of framing it. Catechisms do allow for executions to occur when needed. The Church itself does agree with what I put above.
Did you in fact miss “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”?”
It is of your opinion that life in prison will meet that for all individuals. Many do not share that opinion. Regardless, Catechism 2266 and 2267 indefinitely would make you perfectly within Catholic bounds voting for a person ok with capital punishment. However, NO catechism would protect you for voting for a candidate for abortion. This is the official stance of the Church Ron. Deny it, and you are a heretic. They don’t like it, but the death penalty itself is allowed to the States.
Here is how many people have been executed since 1976. That is 36 per year. You want to compare this to 60 million? You really want to say you are breaking beliefs equally in the Catholic faith?
Side comment: You. Are. Not. A. Catholic.
To be a Catholic, you must try to the best of your ability to adhere to God’s will. In the faith, you are technically excommunicated, or prohibited from Heaven / the Eucharist if you break the laws of God and you do not go to Confession for it.
You are actually breaking them right now arguing that voting for a candidate for the death penalty is equal to that of abortion. The Church has many times gone over the priorities of voting.
There are intrinsic evils, and then there is a literal weight. Currently, the big two are actually NOT at all involved in the death penalty. The big three may not even be. Something interesting is that what you have failed to see is my other post.
4 sins cry vengeance out to God.
Currently,
The democrats lose on 2 of them. Murder. (Abortion does exceed capital punishment whether you want to admit it or not) and the sin of Sodom.
Defrauding a laborer and not taking care of the poor come next. The Church has already spoken. There are legitimate arguments of both parties in regards to the other two. Anyone who says the democrats are better, have ignored the Church. They specifically go a step further when it comes to taking care of the poor. They say it isn’t the government’s role, and that paying taxes does not constitute charity, and being the case, if you vote a candidate in and they tax enough for the poor, so you don’t have to pay for the poor, you have in affect removed your ability to be charitable. Disregarding even that, the democrats have both the sin of Sodom and the sin of murder beat.
The other two are debatable.
We go off of known evils first, the possible evils second.
January 13, 2015 at 12:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ah Stan,
I post links, but I never post links right?
I don’t post them, I never quote my sources.
I do post them, you say so what?
What we are talking about is factual.
You are arguing my personality instead of my points.
Do you debate the points?
Or do you not? We are not going off of steroids to debate my points, or my character, or weight lifting. You called me pathetic for ever even responding to you on that.
Stay on topic. Boy.
January 13, 2015 at 1:20 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, you’re such a sheep. The catholic church says one thing, you believe it (no abortion). They say another, you sort of believe it (death penalty). What about contraceptives? Sinful?
Take a stand, Bobby!
January 16, 2015 at 1:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There is no hypocrisy in my words.
I posted a link on this. The Catholic Church says that Capital Punishment is not a sin.
I am in accordance with the Church.
I posted another link on this, from the Church. You are free to disagree with the Church.
You aren’t free to call me a sheep, while also saying I am not following my faith. That is a contradictory statement I might add. Are you too ignorant to see that? If you were correct, that I was not following my faith, I wouldn’t be a sheep. If you were correct that I was a sheep, I wouldn’t be rebelling against my faith.
Take a stand?
I have. And I have backed that stand up. Or do I have to agree with you in order to take a stand? (Also a contradictory statement).
You have the IQ of a 4 year old. Go debate with someone else. You don’t have the capability to talk any bit logical with me.
January 16, 2015 at 1:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Also Stan,
I love the bait tactic here. You’re trying to get my opinion on contraceptives, because it is one you believe would discredit me entirely no matter which way I went.
If I say I’m for it, you would say I’m a controlling religious whack job.
If I say I’m against it, you will say I am picking and choosing with my Church.
How about I just drive you crazy, and not enlighten you?
Especially considering how often you have insulted me when I have gone over facts about myself before. But you’re way more accepting than those judgmental religious whack jobs right? You haven’t learned the importance of a religion yet. Hopefully that will change.
January 16, 2015 at 3:55 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Religion” is not important. It’s something man made up to try to 1) explain the unexplainable and 2) to control people. What’s important is finding your faith. That’s what brings one peace in their life. Not following some book or person. There is no great diety keeping score.
January 16, 2015 at 6:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Religion is what the debate is about here, so my topics were on point in reference to Catholics betraying their religion.
You keep on trying to say philosophical statements (and I might add ones you perceive are popular) to disregard the fact that I am putting up relevant commentary.
I proved you wrong regarding the Catholic Church on gay behavior, I proved Ron wrong about whether or not capital punishment is an intrinsic evil, which would be against a Catholic’s faith.
Both are relevant to the topic at hand. Also: Stan and I are talking here, and I defended myself from his attacks. You can’t just join in on an attack, for no other reason than to make his attacks valid because I don’t adhere to your philosophical belief that religion is to control people etc. That in fact is using a philosophical belief, a form of religion (the way you used it) in order to do an attack on another person and justify it.
When people start thinking they are smarter than God, or religion, that is when things tend to get ugly.
Ergo your posts, and your “boob” comments.
I guess if I were really actually stupid, you could apply retard right? After all, I would just be a retard correct?
There are lines you don’t cross.
Calling someone stupid, fine.
Applying a degrading name, not fine.
January 16, 2015 at 6:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt,
The vary reason I called you a child, is that despite your “front” I knew very well what your attitude was.
It is ironic that now you are actually living out that attitude in part, with the IJ points.
You say comments that sound moderate, balanced, but really they are just to play king of the mountain, high on the horse, moral high ground.
You seldom actually have a point here. It’s usually just a, Conservatives and liberals mess up! Ah, you ridiculous people who support conservatives, can no thou see that your actions art in error? Can not you see that I doth not do this?
Surely can not you see, I must know about the chicken sandwich story? It was never about demeaning agent! Not I! Never!
The only thing worse than an aggressive A$$hat, is a passive aggressive one. You aren’t really that hard to read, and you are NOT different or special to the arguing on this site. You partake. You act like the rest. Your wording is different, your intention the same. Humiliate and degrade.
January 19, 2015 at 11:18 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The fact that you were “on point” regarding Catholocism does not negate my reply to your post saying: “You haven’t learned the importance of a religion yet.” Religion is NOT important. Faith is. That’s my opinion and you can bully me all you want, it won’t change.
January 12, 2015 at 8:49 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Private Catholic hospitals are not required to perfrom abortions if they do not accept public money. If you take money from the governemnt, you should perform any and all legal medical procedures.
If you think about it, there is no party for Catholics. You either vote for pro-choice or pro-death penalty. Both go against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
How can you be pro-life and also for the death penalty?
It is this kind of thinking that is extremely destructive.
He creates a supposed “philosophical” impossibility to make a serious wrong no longer exist.
60 million people have not been executed. And to do with capital punishment, you might want to read the bible a bit on that. First, there were people stoned to death. Death as a punishment exists in the bible in the old testament. In the new bible it is more fuzzy.
But just so you know, you tried to make Catholics hypocrites without knowing the faith.
While many Catholics are liberal, and do not support the death penalty, and I’m sure you are speaking of Catholics you know, it is something Catechisms does not reject. Which means you spoke of “people” you know, and not “religious law”.
This is exactly a problem with you Ron.
Your ineptitude is astounding.
January 12, 2015 at 12:36 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
boob – Just where did he say ANYTHING about Catholics??? Are you paranoid and feeling persecuted today?
You using the bible to make a point is like me using the koran. It carries no weight with people that don’t believe it. It’s a BOOK. Written by MAN. That’s all. What is says or doesn’t say has no bearing on my beliefs, so quit quoting it incessantly. You’re an idiot trying to make a point with that resource as your only source.
January 12, 2015 at 12:37 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How you can use the bible to justify killing on the one hand (executions) and condemn it on the other (embryos) is beyond the absurd. If killing people is bad, it’s bad regardless of who’s doing the killing. BTW, an embryo is not a person.
January 12, 2015 at 12:50 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“If you think about it, there is no party for Catholics. You either vote for pro-choice or pro-death penalty. Both go against the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
He went over Catholic teachings.
I am talking about those. They have every point here, because this conversation started as me talking about Catholics going against their faith due to democrats labeling certain lifestyles, which you are doing right now. Ironic no?
I think you need to get out of your defensive fury. Not I.
Moving on:
So then the old Testament doesn’t talk about stoning people to death? The New Testament doesn’t talk about the first technical “Pope” using God’s wrath to strike down two people who made an action against the Church?
You are trying to find hypocrisy where there is none.
The Didache specifically says the 2nd commandment includes murder of the unborn. This was written at the same time as the bible, by those who wrote the bible. What you forget, is that this isn’t “Catholic”. Catholics claim it is their origin. They say the writings are theirs, and they decided what went in the bible. They left the Didache out, but simultaneously claim ownership of the writing which I’ll admit could be wrong. The Coptic Church is just as likely to have originated from Jesus, since it can easily be linked back to Mark. But this Church also claims ownership of The Didache. Neither says it is wrong. They both say it was written by the beginning of the Church.
You can’t say that the people who wrote the bible are just wrong and hypocrites. They said killing an unborn child is wrong. They said that killing a murderer or bad person is ok as long as the circumstance calls for it.
It is not contradictory. And for you to say murdering a child is the same as murdering a serious threat to society, is sick, and makes you a murderer.
There are 9 ways to support sin. I don’t care if you believe in Catholicism or not. You’re engaging in more than 1 of those 9 ways right now.
January 12, 2015 at 1:14 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – can I make it any clearer than this? I don’t give a shit about what the bible says or any other religious document. Quit quoting to me as if it were some kind of factual account of anything. It is not.
January 12, 2015 at 4:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenbalt,
Also this one. What in my comment merited the I don’t give a @%@@#%
Nothing.
January 12, 2015 at 4:37 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t. I’ve said it nicely to you on more than one occasion. The only thing you respond to is swearing. For someone that swears at everyone on here you have alot of nerve. Pot meet kettle.
January 12, 2015 at 6:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
For God’s sakes!
You entice me into anger, and then say it’s because I swear at you that you swear at me?
EVERY time I have sworn, it is because you have made a bigoted comment, or accused me of being the ultimate evil in chief.
This is insanity of which I am sick of it Libby!
I made a comment that you had no point in commenting regarding. Agent and I were talking about the effect of liberalism on the Church, or churches in general.
There were no insults, until you pressed them down with BOOB as a method of talking to me.
Similar to your other comment:
“Way to take one line of a speech out of context. Classic move by Republicans. And their sheeple swallow it hook, line, and sinker without nary a google search. Ignorant cows.”
That is NOT how you talk to someone.
AND THAT WASN’T EVEN DIRECT AT ME.
It was your NORMAL comment. I RESPOND to comments like this saying to hell with you.
Outside of that, I am completely within reason.
January 12, 2015 at 7:01 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Take it easy there, Bobby. So Libby made a good point and made you look dumb? Grow up, dont be such a tool. It happens. Just admit she was right and be a man about it.
Stop crying all the time, lordy.
January 12, 2015 at 10:54 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby – you have been penalized one IJ credit for insulting someone in your post.
January 13, 2015 at 8:20 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Libby a murderer
-The sole member and founder of the IJ comment police
January 13, 2015 at 8:25 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Rosenbalt, Also this one. What in my comment merited the I don’t give a @%@@#%. Nothing.”
You’re so worked up Bob. Relax. Libby said she doesn’t give a @#($*& about the bible. That’s a belief she holds.
She didn’t say she doesn’t give a !)@$*& about you personally, or that she doesn’t give a @$&*& about Christians — she just told you her take on religion & the bible.
I don’t see a problem with that comment. Libby is NOT getting penalized any IJ credits for that statement.
January 13, 2015 at 10:42 am
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Sorry to interrupt your policing, Rosenblatt, but I just needed to tell you that you’re kind of awesome. :)
January 13, 2015 at 10:49 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank you, BS. I want to give you one IJ credit for saying something positive about someone else here, but I checked with the administrators and I only have permission to take away people’s IJ credits — unfortunately, I have no authority to give out IJ credits! :D
January 13, 2015 at 12:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
She made no good point whatsoever Stan.
I have not been made to look dumb, and like it or not, moron, I can show discontent and being pissed off and still be intelligent.
January 13, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“I have not been made to look dumb, and like it or not, moron…”
Bob, you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Stan a moron.
-The sole and founding member of the IJ comment police
January 13, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, she made several good points (pretty sure you conceded that already) and then made you look dumb for your hypocritical religious stance on abortion / death penalty.
It’s why everyone on here agreed with her assessment that you, dummy, are a dumb moron who lazily lifts weights. Tool.
January 13, 2015 at 1:56 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“It’s why everyone on here agreed with her assessment that you, dummy, are a dumb moron who lazily lifts weights. Tool.”
Stan – you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Bob a dumb moron and a tool.
-The founding & sole member of the IJ comment police
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BOB – THIS IS GETTING TEDIOUS. DO YOU AGREE I AM CALLING OUT OTHERS WHO INSULT YOU SO CAN I STOP DOING THIS!??!?!?!?!?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 14, 2015 at 10:13 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I nominate Rose for the IJ Chief of Police!
Maybe the personal insults will fade away?
January 16, 2015 at 12:57 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt,
I would say your maturity is in question given your point basis after I demanded you show at least some discontent with the liberals who are out of line on this site.
But fine. I admit defeat. You are correct. My speaking was out of line.
I will try to control it.
January 12, 2015 at 10:30 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In my opinion, the unborn baby has not had a chance to be good, bad or indifferent.
In the case of the death penalty, them folks sentenced to death have proven the world will be better with out them.
So – if you’re “bad” you deserve to be murdered but if you’re not you deserve to live? I’m sorry. I just can’t agree with that mindset. It’s too much like the thumbs up or thumbs down at the Colessium. What gives you the right to decide who lives and who dies???
January 12, 2015 at 11:40 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Violent crime has touched my family. My cousin hubby killed her for ins money, set three houses on fire for insurance and the third fire tried to kill his son and his new wife. He sits alive in the Fed Pen while my cousin is dead.
There was a mass murder in a night club several years back where the gun man dry fired at my niece. He killed 6 people and hurt many more.
Do them two deserve to live? What about the Boston Bomber? The nut jobs in France?
So, you incorrect in your assumption. Not all bad people deserve to die, just the worst.
January 12, 2015 at 12:14 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, if you don’t mind, I’ll leave that judgment up to the Almighty. It’s way above my pay grade to decide life or death.
An abortion is not the same in the least, as an embryo is not a human being yet. Not until it’s born and can survive outside the mother’s womb.
If you kill the killer, you are no better than they are.
January 12, 2015 at 12:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
You aren’t leaving the judgment to the almighty. You are specifically judging that a child should be killed.
You are a false speaker on this.
Moreover, You can’t call me a “boob” for quoting Catholic teaching and whether or not Catholics go against it.
I do not ramble religiously. Have you even read the Didache, or The Epistle of Baranabas?
Or again, did you come up with the “God of Libby’s head”.
Read about the Church fathers. I am basing my life on teachings, not what my brain tells me, as you do.
You are the religious nut job. Not I.
January 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There’s no “judgment” involved in having an abortion, you moron. No one is saying the embryo is bad and deserves to be aborted. It is aborted so that is not able to become a human being, probably unwanted and unloved and faced with a horrible life. A soul never dies. That soul will be reborn in another body at time that is best for it.
Take you catholic church crap and keep it to yourself. I am not a catholic and do not follow their rhetoric.
January 12, 2015 at 12:37 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hello again Libby, with the insults, boob, moron, etc, and then you say that I crack at you for no reason. It try to remain composed.
Back on topic:
I am not talking about judgment on the child. Though you do render judgement in saying they are just as likely guilty as murderers.
What I did say, is you are rendering judgment on the action of killing a child. You are saying it is ok.
While you simultaneously say that rendering judgment is not ok to kill a human through the death penalty due to it being up to God.
You equated the death penalty as the same as having an abortion.
The government aborts the man. You say that’s wrong because it is God’s choice.
The woman aborts the child. It is also wrong, because it is God’s choice.
Also: Aborting a child is also judgement on the Child’s life that you do not have the ability to make. There are only two reasons to have an abortion: You believe it will make the child suffer. Which God says the poor are the richest in the world, so I think God is clear that the Child’s life is valuable no matter what. And then there is because it would make your own life too difficult. I think that judgement to kill the child, puts the mother on equal terms for why most people murder first of all, but also, it is not a pure motivation to go against the life God created. The first Church fathers went over this. You have a choice to make: You can believe in them and God. Or you can choose not to.
But if you want to make a religious argument, you have to go by and through their words.
I don’t care if you are an atheist and agree with abortion. Those people don’t know any better.
But you do. You just choose to make yourself a God on all matters to do with God. You aren’t God. God is.
January 12, 2015 at 1:02 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby Says – “Well, if you don’t mind, I’ll leave that judgment up to the Almighty. It’s way above my pay grade to decide life or death. ”
Not my call either.
January 12, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – listen up. I get tired of having to clarify everything for you over and over.
I specifically said that execution and abortion were not the same in the least. You must have skipped over that part in your haste to preach at me.
Aborting an embryo or unviable fetus is not murder, as an embryo and unviable fetus is not a person. They are just that, tissue.
And the only one that can make the choice of having an abortion or not is the woman to which the embryo belongs. Not you. Not me. And certainly not the government. She is the only person that knows whether or not that choice is the right one for her at the time.
Fear not, the soul lives on and will be born in another body at another time. She is just expelling unwanted tissue from her body. Period.
Execution, on the other hand, takes a living, breathing human being and kills it. By doing that, you are no better than the person being executed.
But again, I know your disdain for science and your love of anything Catholic, so I do not expect you to either understand or agree with my position. Just as I will not yours.
January 12, 2015 at 1:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is not just tissue in her body.
Nothing I said goes against science.
I am completely able to understand your writings. You don’t have to clarify. You are the one who does not understand mine.
You do not understand what I just wrote. Which is ok. Maybe at some time God will set you straight on the matter. But I don’t have the time to educate you and it isn’t my place. This argument is over.
January 12, 2015 at 1:16 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It’s not that I don’t understand your argument, I just don’t agree with it. As far as I’m concerned, I’m right and you’re wrong. Good luck changing my mind.
January 12, 2015 at 12:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you think about it, there is no party for anyone.
On the topic of Abortions, there have been over 60 million since roe vs wade, and a child as God says, is innocent. There is an age where you become responsible for sin in the Catholic Church, and it isn’t before birth.
If we are to compare which party is more for god,
It is one of the four sins that cry out to vengeance to kill an unborn child. 60 million deaths, vs how many executions of people who are by no means an innocent child?
Your logics are unbearably bad.
The Church already has things going over this, areas that are more important than others due to size and scope.
The republican party meets it more than the democrat. Libertarian is actually just as close as republican.
An embryo is not a child. A fetus is not a child until it is viable and able to survive outside the womb. I know how much you dislike science, but these are the facts. I am against the abortion of a fetus once it becomes viable.
January 12, 2015 at 1:07 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Science is science and is not against God.
You can’t name call and say I am against science and am a religious nut job, to invalidate my beliefs and expect me to debate without insults to you.
Moving on: Science absolutely states a human developing organism, is a developing human, from the moment the egg joins with the sperm.
You try to then say that it is a fetus at that time, until it is “viable” or “can survive on it’s own.”.
It is still a developing child. It is not a mythical non existent thing. Science absolutely supports the fact that a developing child is a developing…CHILD. A fetus is a HUMAN developing child.
From the moment a child is developing, God, who exists in all times, does not see a difference in it’s rights.
God, who made it, knows who it will be. God knew Abraham before he was in the womb. The Didache says no unborn can be killed.
This isn’t against science what I am saying. It is in accordance with God.
What you are saying is against science. It is not in accordance with God. You will be held accountable.
January 12, 2015 at 1:11 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I know. I’m going to hell. See you there!
January 12, 2015 at 1:15 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob,
You said, “If you think about it, there is no party for anyone.” Thank you!!!
Maybe now you understand why I am an Independent.
If more Catholics voting for Democrats than Republicans goes against their beliefs, so be it. I don’t think either party can claim to be any more Christian than the other. Can’t you just respect the fact that they can vote for whomever they wish without judgement?
I am sure we all vote against our own self interests at some point.
I do not recall Jesus advocating for the death penalty and that is who Cathoilcs are to be following. The Old testament contains stories to help us understand why we should be following Jesus, not how the live.
January 12, 2015 at 1:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ah yes, I’ll be in hell because I told you that you were against God.
Clearly.
Quite contrary, God tells people to inform people of truth.
I would be in hell if I didn’t stop the effect of people like you.
The 9 ways of supporting sin. You might want to look it up. In-action would damn me, praise and misleading people to follow it would damn you.
Do you want to debate on this issue?
I have more experience than you ever could in terms of theology.
Ultimately it would all come down to you saying you believe in God, not the Church or Bible.
The Bible and Church came from the apostles of Jesus. They were indeed real. You must believe in them, to believe in Jesus. And the follow what I believe.
You are unwilling to admit you don’t support or believe in God. Part of that is an unwillingness to submit to a life without sin and whatever you want. You want for God to shape around you, and your body. That’s fine. But you can’t say the bible of the apostles says you are going to Heaven for it.
January 12, 2015 at 1:20 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
*they follow what I believe.
January 12, 2015 at 1:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron,
As usual, you try to use the word “judgement” as if my even believing this is bad.
First of all: What I just said is not why you are ind pendant. What you don’t get is I was stating that by your logics, there is no party to vote for. However, I then pointed out, there is a party that is MORE for what they believe than another.
Also: If you’re a part of the Catholic Church you follow it. If you’re not, you don’t. If they don’t want to be Catholic they are free to that. You however, are not allowed to judge Catholic beliefs as judgmental, and then rewrite Catholicism.
You’re just a philosophical guy with no real knowledge whatsoever. Choices involve conviction. Not constantly saying “everything is the same” as you do.
To end this: What I said is that the application of beliefs against republicans has caused many Catholics to believe they are supporting their faith voting for them.
Perhaps, judging republican as being against the poor, or your judgements against republicans, is akin to my supposed “judgements” only your conclusions are wrong. Maybe you need to stop judging what republicans are. You can’t have it both ways Ron. You speak for them all the time.
If you were an independent, you would be open to that fact, that currently the republicans are not what you say they are. But you are not.
January 12, 2015 at 1:27 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
boob – because you really are a boob. I believe in God, I just don’t believe in YOUR God. I find it amusing that religious people all think they’ve got the one and only pipeline to the Lord to the exclusion of anyone that thinks differently than they do. How pompous can you be?
Yes, Jesus and the apostles were real. Real people. Just like Mohammad and Buddha. He was the son of God, just as you and I are children of God. The bible has a very good message, but I refuse to believe it is the word of God. It is not. It is the word on man, relating their experiences with Jesus. That’s all.
You worship how and to whom you like. I will continue with my “wicked ways” and we’ll just see who ends up where. Because you also know I don’t believe in heaven and hell either. That’s just another scare tactic used by the Church to control people. Think for yourself!
January 12, 2015 at 2:40 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I really don’t care Libby. About anything you say.
It has no value in life, to degrade the life of a human in development. There is no benefit in the termination of the child, scientifically, morally, or spiritually, so it should never be done.
I only say it like this because you’ll call me a religious nut job when I say I don’t care, you’re just wrong on the issue.
There is no tangible benefit to killing a child, and it does remove the being from existence, who would have otherwise been born.
You cannot argue against that. The being who wasn’t born, was robbed a chance at birth.
That is an injustice. People like you are a dime a dozen.
I wasn’t guaranteed a life of people agreeing with me by moving to faith. So it doesn’t surprise me that someone like yourself is arguing with me.
January 12, 2015 at 2:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There are however aspects, not to do with spirituality, which comes from degrading human life from conception.
Sex becomes more important than children.
Sex becomes more important than a relationship devoid of sex. Allow me to explain: Go up to someone and say you want to date with absolutely no sex until marriage. How many people will say yes? Sex has become too important to them. The focus on the relationship is no longer two people’s compatibility. It is whether or not the sex is good. I had had this argument too often. Would you give up sex entirely in your marriage? The answer is universally, no. Marriage is not about sex. Again, I sound too conservative, but when I was a child, not having sex, what I wanted was someone who loved me. And my parents showed me true love, something we all yearn for, and seek partners for, and yet are never fulfilled
.
Physical desire becomes more important than responsibility or love.
Sex becomes separate from child birthing. Yes I sound like such a conservative saying that, but I don’t mean it in the same light. If a 16 year old separates sex from child birthing, and it is a pleasure issue, they are a lot more likely to think “well, I’m not acting irresponsibly because I’m making sure I don’t have a kid by using protection”. I was around these kids who clearly went by this lifestyle. Sex itself was not considered to be irresponsible if protected, sex itself wasn’t even limited to relationships, let alone marriage. It was a method of pleasure.
By separating sex from child birthing, which is an affect of abortion, you basically have kids being stupid, dating stupidly, and weighing their relationships by how good of sex they can get.
I’m not even arguing spiritually that this is bad.
You tell me that dating in this age isn’t almost exclusively ruled by how good the sex is in the start. How many relationships have fallen afterward, when people started focusing on what a relationship actually is and realized they didn’t have one? We got encouraged in this by removing child birthing from sex, by making sex a pleasure activity that is not limited to marriage, and then not even limited to couples. It all originated from abortion.
Abortion itself is bad. But so are the affects.
January 12, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m glad you don’t care anymore. Now you can shut the hell up about it.
January 12, 2015 at 2:57 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If marriage isn’t about sex, why wouldn’t you give it up??? You’re a walking contradiction, aren’t you? God made sex pleasurable because he wanted us to procreate, yes. If that was the only reason, why is it pleasurable to people that can not procreate? Are you saying God didn’t perfect his approach? God wants us to be happy. With or without sex and with or without procreating.
January 12, 2015 at 3:01 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Whatever Libby requires.
As you wish.
January 12, 2015 at 4:01 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
To simplify all the points here, and remove all insults (as I just don’t like having to deal with your typical arguments Ron)
You said:
“If you think about it, there is no party for Catholics. You either vote for pro-choice or pro-death penalty. Both go against the teachings of the Catholic Church. ”
There is a party that goes by the Church on more issues, but forgetting that you highlighted two particular issues, and you were wrong that you have to go against “The teachings of the Catholic Church” in either capital punishment or pro life issues. It’s that easy. When I replied to you, your comment should have been “I was wrong.”. Instead, it was not. You seemed to think I told you that I endorsed that there was no one party for the Catholic to vote for. And of course, that they can in good faith vote for a democrat. You called me judgmental at that point. Judgmental when it comes to going “against the teachings of the Catholic Church” which was the original point? Neither of us can judge that. The Church can. I quote the Church. You quote…You.
You are not divinely inspired, don’t really care much on issues of religion, and instead are philosophically inspired. Your thoughts don’t apply to the Catholic Church.
You will likely move to another section the republicans are against the Church regarding in order to make the same point, however, the Church has already spoken on this.
As I said above, the primary concern for them is abortion. Any candidate who allows it cannot be voted for. In the event that two candidates are for abortion, you must vote for the one with the lesser standard.
While the Church does go over other issues for candidates who both do not support abortion, that is in the event that abortion is not an issue.
This argument was whether the democrat party causes Catholics to go against their ideals, by claiming to be the party of morality to the poor and understanding. The answer is yes. They do. And there are other issues as well. Gay marriage being another. There are in the Catholic Church 9 ways of supporting sin, that are considered sin. The Church is clear in how to treat homosexuality. You are not to praise it. You are not to condone it, nor condemn those who practice it. If there is a wedding not authorized by God, you are even supposed to vocalize you are against it (though not be harsh in your words) and reject to attend. The bottom line is to love the person, but not to spread the sin itself.
The democrat party definitely spreads the sin of homosexuality. This is only relevant because of my original comment:
4 sins cry out to God for Vengeance in the Catholic Church. These are basically the worst sins to do (to men, considering technically not loving God is the first). Murder is the first outside of that. It is the worst. Democrats violate the first, through abortion.
The next is the Sin of Sodom. This is gay sex. It also links back to the 9 ways to support sin. The city was destroyed for not just practicing gay sex. It was for arrogance and supporting and spreading gay sex in the first place (refusing to listen to God when he told them to stop). How does this link to the 9 ways of supporting sin? God destroyed also the people who supported the sin of Sodom, gay sex. They were considered one in the same. This is important because we are clearly having people who don’t practice gay sex in their beliefs, manage to practice the sin of Sodom openly and proudly. This is two that the democrats break.
Then there are the other two, which the liberals use to have the Catholic violate the two other sins. Those two are a matter of opinion. The Church also goes over this. They have talked about this. They said that just because one party accuses the other of not caring for the poor, does not make it true. It is a valid area of disagreement in which both parties lack the best method of taking care of the poor. This is something that the bible itself says is irrelevant. Paying taxes is not a form of caring for the poor. Neither is voting for someone to take care of the poor. Only direct contributions are.
The last two are debatable in who is better, with the Church constantly lambasting unchecked democrat economics and republican ones (though they never use the words, as it would get them in trouble, they are clearly referring to the two by theories.).
“Last week New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan gave his okay to the St. Patrick Day Parade Committee’s decision to allow a gay group to march in the 2015 parade under their own banner. This was a remarkable shift from one of Dolan’s predecessors Cardinal John O’Connor who in 1993 declared that to allow a gay group to march in the parade would be a slander to the Apostle’s Creed.
Pope Francis Reaffirms Support of Public Breast-FeedingThe Possible Presidential Candidate Who Agrees the Most With Pope Francis’I’m Not Dying Tonight’: Ex-NFLer Shares Survival Story NBC NewsWhite House on Paris Rally No-Show: We Blew It NBC News’Terrified’ Jews Question Their Future in France NBC News
This closes a remarkable summer in which a number of high-ranking Catholic prelates have signaled that Pope Francis’s more open posture on gay issues has permeated through the Catholic world. In May, a top-ranking Italian bishop said that the Church should be more open to arguments in support of same-sex marriage. And just a few weeks ago, one of Pope Francis’s closest friends Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes said in an interview that he “didn’t know” whether Jesus would oppose gay marriage.”
Seems like your catechism teacher needs to get with the program.
January 12, 2015 at 5:43 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I wonder if you read your own link, inside your link, that your link referenced.
“But the St. Patrick’s Day parade, which is not church-run, allows for some wiggle room. Dolan said Wednesday the parade committee that operates the annual event “continues to have my confidence and support.”
Not run by the Church. Regardless of this, Cardinals are not infallible. They are not the final word on the Church. The Catechisms are. These have not changed regarding homosexuality. These will not change regarding homosexuality. You might want to go inform your Non-Catholic source regarding this.
Pope Francis has not changed the stance. He has said that a gay person can come to God. This is nothing new.
Second link is delayed due to the amount of links I have posted. Insurance journal does this often.
Libby,
I posted a link and description of why and how you can be an accessory to sin. While there is no CCC directly stating that going to a gay wedding is a sin, there are CCC’s regarding how one can be an accessory to sin, and thus be committing a sin.
It applies to many things, but it would also apply to a gay wedding.
Of all things, quoting a Times article for Catholic code is quite absurd, and literally, heretical to their teachings.
January 13, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t believe in sin Bob, so I’m pretty sure I cannot be an accessory to it. The article clearly stated the Pope’s position on gays is evolving but don’t expect radical changes. They can still be accepted into the Church and are loved by God. If you don’t think that many Chritians do not condemn them to hell then you’re just not paying attention. Just read the comments on any IJ article regarding gays.
January 13, 2015 at 6:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The Catholic position has not changed.
Francis has only emphasized what has already been emphasized. I’m a part of the Church, and I have seen the rebuttals to this. Google it. Catholic approved pieces.
The Church has not changed on this, and will not.
You surely believe in Sin. Ergo, Hitler. You do believe in sin.
To do with Sin, the bible is explicit, no sin will exist in Heaven, all sin that does exist will exist in hell, and the sin of Sodom, cries out to God. Not only that, Gay behavior is condemned in both Leviticus, and by Paul.
Popular opinion, does not change the bible, your point is meaningless.
Regardless of such, we are talking of the Catholic Church, which you just tried to use a Times article, to say is changing gay procedure, of which you are wrong.
Say the words, you are wrong. Because you are.
January 14, 2015 at 9:05 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There you go again, telling me what I believe. You haven’t a clue about what anyone believes because you’re too busy shoving what you believe down everyone’s throat. Yes, Pope Francis’ stance on gays is much more tolerant that past Popes have been. And I clearly stated that we are to expect no radical changes in the Church’s position. Did you miss that in your haste to argue with me?
And I DO NOT believe in “sin” that will be used as a tallysheet to determine whether you get into “heaven” or go to “hell.” WTF does Hitler have to do with anything? You’re off your rocker.
January 16, 2015 at 12:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually Libby,
YOU are telling me what THE CATHOLIC CHURCH believes.
Don’t try to turn it around. You told me to go speak with my teacher.
I know the Catholic Church. You don’t. It has not changed. It will not change, in the area of gay behavior.
January 16, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
NO, bob. Don’t get it twisted. You were telling ME what I believe:
“You surely believe in Sin. Ergo, Hitler. You do believe in sin.”
Now say the words: I was wrong. You can’t, can you?
January 16, 2015 at 4:08 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I said:
“Popular opinion, does not change the bible, your point is meaningless.
Regardless of such, we are talking of the Catholic Church, which you just tried to use a Times article, to say is changing gay procedure, of which you are wrong.
Say the words, you are wrong. Because you are.”
I told you that Sin does exist as a side comment to the original debate, because you went on a side comment yourself to say that you didn’t believe in sin. I told you sin does exist, but that is irrelevant to whether or not the Church supports gay behavior.
I told you, regardless of such we are talking of the Catholic Church.
Did you forget Libby? This is what you said at the end of your original post:
“Seems like your catechism teacher needs to get with the program.”
and this was Following links about a Cardinal supporting Gay Marriage, and you said that the Church is now moving toward Gay Marriage.
You, labeled, Catholic, beliefs, and I defended that label.
We aren’t getting off topic, you are being extremely dishonest here.
Your original post, said that a Catholic endorsed Gay Marriage and that was the purpose of the post. Read it.
“Last week New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan gave his okay to the St. Patrick Day Parade Committee’s decision to allow a gay group to march in the 2015 parade under their own banner. This was a remarkable shift from one of Dolan’s predecessors Cardinal John O’Connor who in 1993 declared that to allow a gay group to march in the parade would be a slander to the Apostle’s Creed.
Pope Francis Reaffirms Support of Public Breast-FeedingThe Possible Presidential Candidate Who Agrees the Most With Pope Francis’I’m Not Dying Tonight’: Ex-NFLer Shares Survival Story NBC NewsWhite House on Paris Rally No-Show: We Blew It NBC News’Terrified’ Jews Question Their Future in France NBC News
This closes a remarkable summer in which a number of high-ranking Catholic prelates have signaled that Pope Francis’s more open posture on gay issues has permeated through the Catholic world. In May, a top-ranking Italian bishop said that the Church should be more open to arguments in support of same-sex marriage. And just a few weeks ago, one of Pope Francis’s closest friends Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes said in an interview that he “didn’t know” whether Jesus would oppose gay marriage.”
Seems like your catechism teacher needs to get with the program.”
January 16, 2015 at 4:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So choke it down, and say the words “I was wrong about the Catholic Church”
NOW.
I will not have you try to degrade me, while we talk about the original point and I stayed on topic, while you did not.
Also, this was my conversation that I started. Even before your original attempt to rewrite Catholicism, I wrote a post to start this whole topic that got out of control:
The topic was: Democrats all too often label Republicans in ways that cause Catholics to vote against their faith.
And if we take that literally: Abortion, Euthanasia, etc, I was correct. Also, my most recent post goes over how Wars and the Death penalty is actually weighed in the Church. They can be valid, though usually not. This means as the Church has always said, we must weigh by Abortion and the intrinsic evils first (known evils that are evil regardless of circumstance) and I’m sorry, but by the Church code, the death penalty is not evil regardless of circumstance, neither is war.
Ron tried to circumvent that argument, and argue against catechisms, then he tried to twist the catechism interpretation. I have now quoted the catechisms, an authorized Catholic Cardinal in his website, and a book that was submitted to and approved by the Church.
I have not been wrong on this.
If you don’t agree with Catholicism fine. You are not however allowed to rewrite it.
January 16, 2015 at 4:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Really, do I need to repeat this 50 times?
“The Catholic position has not changed.
Francis has only emphasized what has already been emphasized. I’m a part of the Church, and I have seen the rebuttals to this. Google it. Catholic approved pieces.
The Church has not changed on this, and will not.
You surely believe in Sin. Ergo, Hitler. You do believe in sin.
To do with Sin, the bible is explicit, no sin will exist in Heaven, all sin that does exist will exist in hell, and the sin of Sodom, cries out to God. Not only that, Gay behavior is condemned in both Leviticus, and by Paul.
Popular opinion, does not change the bible, your point is meaningless.
Regardless of such, we are talking of the Catholic Church, which you just tried to use a Times article, to say is changing gay procedure, of which you are wrong.
Say the words, you are wrong. Because you are.”
There I go again saying what you believe though, right? Tell me, was it just that I said you believe in Sin? You do. You clearly believe in evil, which is sin. You believe Hitler was evil. Don’t try to be disingenuous. I am telling you what you believe, and am being so bold in that:
Because I told you that you do in fact believe Hitler is wrong?
Are you out of your damn mind?
You do think that, and it is not unreasonable of me to say that. I’m not controlling you. I’m saying what is true, because you are lying, (to yourself and me) by saying you don’t believe in sin. ‘
But back on topic: You started this by telling me that the Pope has been moving toward accepting gay behavior. I told you he has not, he will not.
Liberal articles are claiming he has. They are not Church Authority. Before telling me I need to go back to my “Catechism teacher” you were claiming I don’t know my own religion, which is bull crap.
Nothing has changed in the Catholic Church regarding Gay behavior. Yet you labeled that it has. Ergo, labeled my faith, and called me stupid for not knowing it.
I’m a practicing Catholic. I’m going to classes on it. Maybe, just maybe, I know more than you about the faith I attend.
January 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh. My. God. I was wrong. OK? Don’t get your panties all in a twist. With that being said, I do believe they will change their position on it some day.
Further, you said: “There I go again saying what you believe though, right? Tell me, was it just that I said you believe in Sin? You do. You clearly believe in evil, which is sin. You believe Hitler was evil. Don’t try to be disingenuous. I am telling you what you believe, and am being so bold in that”
Please go back and re-read my original statement which was: “I DO NOT believe in “sin” that will be used as a tallysheet to determine whether you get into “heaven” or go to “hell.” WTF does Hitler have to do with anything?”
Now. Say you were wrong. I did.
January 16, 2015 at 5:19 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Don’t get my panties in a bunch…Fine.
To do with the Sin Tally sheet, that’s fine as well.
Hitler as an example was solely to show that sin does exist.
From there, if we look at what the bible says about sin…It’s pretty clear that tally sheet or no, the primary issue with getting into Heaven is in being willing to admit you were sinful. To deny that your sin is sin, will certainly land you in hell. You are not talking about a tally sheet in these arguments themselves. You are talking about people willingly going against God, and refusing to stop. I’m not talking about tally sheets either. So why are we even talking about one?
The only reason I can imagine, is that you want to believe that is my system. It isn’t.
January 19, 2015 at 11:22 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“the primary issue with getting into Heaven is in being willing to admit you were sinful.” I’m not sure what that means unless you mean to say be willing to admit we are not perfect. That goes without saying. When you are wrong, it is best to try to make an amend and do better. When you are wronged, it is best to forgive. I don’t need a bible or a priest or a rabbi or a shaman to tell me that.
January 20, 2015 at 6:54 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Willing to admit you are not perfect is not the same as willing to admit you were wrong.
One is a blanket statement.
One is a specific one.
In fact, I have heard quite a few people say they are not perfect in order to justify an imperfect action they refuse to stop doing.
Being willing to admit you were wrong and stop your action is the issue. It’s not as easy as you imply, and is quite impossible if we refuse to acknowledge the sin in the first place.
So if I beat my wife, I have to not just admit I’m a wife beater. I have to also stop.
If I lie, I have to stop.
If I have pre marital sex I have to stop.
If I use my wife sexually, and force her into submission, I have to stop.
There are several sins that certain people have made popular, and thus you actually do need a priest or a rabbi to tell you it is wrong.
It is amazing you think of other religious folk as arrogant who are willing to listen to their priests and rabbis, and you who don’t believe anyone needs to tell you about morality do not have an issue whatsoever.
I am well aware of how one falls morally, mainly because I fell. You should be more on guard.
January 21, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob, we’re talking in circles. I don’t believe in sin. I believe I should treat others as I want to be treated. So I do not lie or cheat or harm them. If I do, intentionally or unintentionally, I must apologize and make amends and a conscious effort to not do it again. I don’t think having pre-marital sex, eating meat on Friday, or using birth control is wrong so there is no need for me to do anything in that regard.
To boil it down for you, you are pushing Catholic doctrine on a non-Catholic and I’m not buying it. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I’M NOT CATHOLIC. I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER I CAN MAKE IT.
January 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron,
For your reading pleasure, from a Cardinal of the Church, speaking about the laws of the Church in regards to voting.
You have spoken incorrectly on the matter, and I have 100% spoken correctly on it.
Note where he goes over that the Church does in fact leave open the opinion of Capital Punishment, and that there can be legitimate disagreements. He is referring to the same CCC’s I referred to.
And also note, I didn’t even go over Euthanasia. Also note, he goes over whether or not you can receive communion, which you should know what that means.
You were bluntly wrong on this, and tried to point out hypocrisy in my words. You are not a member of the Catholic Church, even according to this. You have ex communicated yourself.
I would strongly encourage you to see a priest regarding what we have debated, if you really desire a connection to the Church. Blaspheming against the bible (or Church) is among the worst of all sins.
To Clarify on this, because I know your only recourse Ron, and I know you will try it:
When a cardinal speaks on matters of the Catholic Church, and says it is Church teaching while quoting CCC’s, a cardinal does in fact have authority to speak regarding the Church.
And if they speak improperly, they are excommunicated, and their documents are taken offline. Catholic websites speaking of Catholic Doctrine are strictly regulated by the Church. This Cardinal has not been excommunicated by the Church.
You also might want to read a book that was submitted to the Vatican and was approved to be taught to Catholics.
It was called something to the effect of “Liberalism is a sin”. You might want to read that. It isn’t literally talking about democrats. It is however talking about the support of morally questionable material on the moral high ground of being accepting of people. You might like it. But then again…As you aren’t a good Catholic, you might just hate the Catholic Church more, or disregard a book that is fully supported by the Catholic Church, because you pick and choose.
But that goes to my original argument:
Democrats are encouraging Catholics to go against their teachings.
I have now quoted CCC, Cardinals in the Church, and a Church approved book.
What else do you need to admit defeat on this Ron?
Also for your reading pleasure. It even goes over the reply from the Church regarding the book I just mentioned. It was praised by the Church. You can click through the book on the site.
They demanded the alternate opinion be removed by the other priest.
This occurred some time ago to be sure, but liberals today apply to the same basic concept.
January 16, 2015 at 2:35 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob,
You have me more confused than ever. All I said is that there is no party that completely represents Catholicism. Both advocate policies that go against Catholic teachings.
I was not trying to point out your hypocrisy, just poking holes in your argument that the Catholic XChurch is OK with capital punishment. You can spin whatever excuse you want to say the death penalty is OK, but the exclusions listed in the Catechisms you referenced are extremely rare, especially today. I am confident in stating that there are far fewer situations that meet the criteria to excuse an execution than the number of innocent people who have been executed.
I am also very confident that the Catholic Church would not favor increasing corporate welfare while reducing welfare for the poor.
There is only one way to KNOW what exactly God expects from us and we will not KNOW until we meet him for our final judgement.
You, just like Agent, try to label me and think you know me by misinterpreting my posts.
January 16, 2015 at 3:42 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Typical boob tactic.
January 16, 2015 at 4:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No. We do not label. You do. I have however pointed out that you constantly lie about who you are and what you represent in order to appear like you are a moderate.
Is this statement, not labeling conservatives? ” “Are you Conservative too incapabale of doing your own research?””
You just tried to use your same argument to dismiss mine. You just tried again Ron, to say that Agent and I do that, not you. I would say the above is doing that. We aren’t going to debate like this.
Your original post said they had to either go against the Church regarding Capital punishment, or abortion. You were wrong, the Church specifically says that advocating capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil. An intrinsic evil is evil regardless of circumstance. Both the area of war and capital punishment are not intrinsic evils.
And back on topic: Unicorn arguments ARE NOT GOING TO BE DONE HERE. Pardon the anger, but it is a lie to say that both parties are equally against the faith. You saying that both parties cause people to go against the faith, is also part of why Catholics then won’t vote republican. Typically, they say they betray it either way. Everything is equal right? But then they can’t list why they are going against their faith voting republican. This is why they are not equally going against their faith by voting republican or democrat. When they vote democrat, they KNOW the democrat party violates list-able intrinsic evil. When they go against the republican party, they don’t KNOW which evil the republican party does wrong, only that it is just as bad to vote for a republican. This is due to people like you, which is why I won’t accept your crap for beans arguments. Can you list one area, where republicans are in favor of an intrinsic evil? Can you list one area where the republican platform goes against the Church on an intrinsic evil? I just mentioned the Church dismisses any of those that are up for debate, and that would apply to tax rates, corporate tax code, lower spending, debates on healthcare, social security, welfare, and programs for the poor. The republican party doesn’t support any intrinsic evil as defined by the Church. So to vote for a democrat, is always a sin, whereas to vote for a republican, is not. As according to the Church, one party does not go against the beliefs of the Church. There is not a system by which a Catholic goes against their faith no matter what.
This is why so many Catholics have fallen from grace.
As I have said several times: You are not special. You are part of the problem in the Catholic Church. Man up, grow up, represent your faith, or leave it. Also, stop making inaccurate statements about the Church. Again, you do not violate Catholic beliefs no matter who you vote for. You are wrong. Say the words.
January 16, 2015 at 4:36 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My tactic, is to argue the topics.
In the posts above, regarding the Catholic teachings, list one area where I labeled to gain points.
The action of Ron saying how we argue is improper, in order to disregard many posts that did not at all do what he said, was in fact that tactic he just described Libby.
I’m extremely intelligent, and don’t fall for this crap.
I usually direct it, say the person is not being honest in their debate, and then I go back on topic.
The problem is, people like you and Ron then refuse to go back on the topic. It is more comfortable to stay on the moral aspects of the argument, than the argument itself. Stay on topic. Both of you.
January 16, 2015 at 5:10 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Listen, man, you are not the debate couch or the debate judge of IJ. We are free to express ourselves anyway we want to. I’ve told you time and time again that I am not here to debate. I’m here to express my opinion and hear other’s express theirs. I can disagree with someone’s opinion without having to back it up with anything. It’s an OPINION. And I think everyone’s entitled to mine.
January 16, 2015 at 6:04 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The moment you put your opinion out there, while saying snide remarks, is the moment you start a debate.
You keep on going with this “you’re not my dad” type of attitude, simply because I say your commentary on the Church is wrong. Or alternatively, because your commentary of how I debate is wrong. YOU are not the IJ debate king, pal.
It goes two ways Libby, in this street.
Side comment: You really aren’t used to hearing people disagree with you, are you? Or tell you that you’re wrong.
January 19, 2015 at 9:38 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob,
If you do not like the way Libby or I “debate”, then do not engage us in a debate.
I did not twist the interpretation of the Catechisms you reference, I posted them word-for-word showing that the death penalty is not unconditionally acceptable to the Catholic Churchand te conditions to avoid its use, based on the Catechisms are easily met in today’s society.
Please tell me how I constatntly lie. I have post a few inaccuracies and apologized when they were pointed out, but it was NEVER done to intentionally deceive. Nobody knows everything. Well, maybe you.
You think your tactic is to argue the topics, yet post deragotry statements to put people down. Every time you call someone a child or tell thenm to grow up, it is disrespectful and off-topic. In addition, How can you say you stay on topic while engaging in a discussion about religion on an article about the PPACA?
January 19, 2015 at 11:27 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – you really have a humongous chip on your shoulder, dude. I suggest you try to get some help for it, as you have to live a miserable life looking for arguments and insults in every sentence. You are incapable of reading a post and just accepting it for what it plainly says. No. You have to make suppositions and leap to ridiculous conclusions in order to pick a fight and then continue to badger and bully until you feel vidicated and have “won.” Someone once told me, it’s better to be happy than right. You need to let some things go in order to be happy. Until you do, you will continue to be the miserable son-of-a-bitch that you are.
January 12, 2015 at 12:09 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, Libby is against any limitations on abortions which kills millions of babies each year, yet she doesn’t think we should execute serial killers for their murders. That is how the liberal mind works.
How about I speak for myself and you speak for yourself? Is that unreasonable to ask? Agent has no right speaking for me on ANY topic, no matter how well he thinks he knows me. As a matter of fact, he was incorrect in his statement above, as I do have limits on the amount of time you should have to make your choice. He’s full of hot air. And so are you.
You speak for yourself. Agent is quoting you. He has every right to quote you.
He is over exaggerating for affect. And he gets to do that. As you have done yourself. Hypocrite.
Like you said before: He CAN do and say whatever he wants.
Didn’t we just have this argument when I said what you can’t do to people?
I guess that changes for you doesn’t it Libby?
January 12, 2015 at 1:19 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
He can say whatever HE wants to say. He can not ascribe false words in my name. I did not say what he said and never have. I’ve spoken out about late term abortions, as at the point the fetus is viable. I have been very clear in my position and will restate it every time he tries to twist it to his own agenda. The same as you are ought to do on a regular basis. So, no, you don’t get to spew lies about what I believe and what I say. You speak for yourself. I’ll speak for me.
January 12, 2015 at 2:08 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“He has every right to quote you. He is over exaggerating for affect. And he gets to do that”
Bob – I cannot agree with these statements. If someone wants to PROPERLY and ACCURATELY quote someone, that’s fine (assuming that person successfully comprehendeds the post in the first place, which some people have pointed out with Agent is not always the case.)
BY DEFINITION, you don’t have the right to over exaggerate someone’s statement and “quote” them since – voila – you’re no longer accurately quoting that person because it’s been exaggerated!
There’s enough to debate on these forums without having to defend something you didn’t say because someone read too far into it.
If you want to quote someone, quote exactly what they said – simple as that.
January 12, 2015 at 2:32 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenbalt,
At the risk of sounding like a berserk fool, (of which I am not)
I am going to demand why you have not commented whatsoever to Libby who does this same thing I just mentioned, and I’m also going to demand, why you are replying to my posts which are in line and not Libby’s.
Also on topic:
Yes. People exaggerate for effect. Also, it is what Libby said.
She is changing what she has said in the past.
Libby has specifically said she is ok with abortions at any time in the pregnancy.
When I said he exaggerated for effect, I’m talking about the exaggeration of no abortions limitations. Libby is currently lying, saying that there is a point she finds the child to be viable in the pregnancy.
Agent knows from the past, that she never said such a thing and argued against it.
When I say he is exaggerating for effect, for limitations that there are none whatsoever in the mind of Libby, I am mostly considering the fact that saying no limitations vs killing people is a bit over the top. However, it is accurate to Libby’s beliefs.
So back to what will make me sound berserk,
Shut the hell up, you ignorant child, and start talking to the people you should be.
You are a fake moderate.
January 12, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob – I am NOT lying on this. Agent specifically asked me about late term abortions last year and I said I was against them for the safety of the mother and the fact that the fetus is now viable. I don’t expect him to speak up on my behalf, as he will do everything to discredit me. IF I said, sometime previously than last year, I was for late term abortions then I have changed my position. But I don’t remember ever giving them a thought until presented with the question by Agent last year.
January 12, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Shut the hell up, you ignorant child, and start talking to the people you should be. You are a fake moderate.”
Hold on there kiddo. Was that directed towards me? Please advise. Or, if you prefer – I demand you answer.
“I am going to demand why you have not commented whatsoever to Libby who does this same thing I just mentioned”
I did not see her do it in this thread. Did I miss it? If I’m wrong, can you please show me where Libby incorrectly recalled your stance on a topic, and you had to defend yourself and re-explain what you literally said?
“I’m also going to demand, why you are replying to my posts which are in line and not Libby’s.”
I am not required to reply to your posts if I don’t want to. I am replying to hers because Agent posted “Libby said “A”” and Libby has had to defend her prior comments and explain that’s not what she really said.
I am also replying because Agent has misquoted me numerous times — most recently when he said I didn’t partake in the election process based on my comment of “I did vote, but I didn’t vote for Obama or Romney” — and I disagreed with you saying it’s okay for him to exaggerate like that.
January 12, 2015 at 4:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
How many times has Libby in this post, before my words were any bit improper, called me a boob?
You commented lately, that even calling someone an idiot is out of line.
In that same post, Libby was calling people Morons. No comments came from you.
And pardon you where did it come from?
You are allowing Libby to run a parade while constantly coming after me. So excuse me, dear child, if I am offended by your constant attempts to belittle me based on my telling someone to shut the hell up, (which is a perfectly fine comment, when insulted, you ignorant child).
I demand, you child, that you treat Libby equally.
I demand, that you comment on her obscene works here. And I demand, that if your goal is merely to make republicans look like people who said idiot more than democrats, that you immediately highlight the democrat zealots on these pages, whom you have never named, but recently you named me.
January 12, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob, I’m sure if I called Rosenblatt an idiot or moron he would indeed have something to say to me. I didn’t.
You, on the other hand said those things directly to him when he told you you weren’t allowed to misquote someone and say you were quoting them.
He called you out because of your actions TOWARDS HIM. His job is not to police IJ comments unless they’re addressed to him, which your disrespectful diatribe was.
January 12, 2015 at 4:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Wow Bob, you sure are angry. Also, I never called you any names, but now you call me a child. THAT is childish, sir.
“How many times has Libby in this post, before my words were any bit improper, called me a boob?”
You did not answer my question – answer me and I’ll be happy to answer you: Can you please show me where Libby incorrectly recalled your stance on a topic, and you had to defend yourself and re-explain what you literally said?
“You are allowing Libby to run a parade while constantly coming after me.”
I’m sorry, Bob, but I don’t run the internet or the Insurance Journal site. I’m not allowing anyone to do anything. I’m just a guy commenting on posts in a little box just like you.
“I demand, you child, that you treat Libby equally.”
You started calling me names before I called you any names, but I’m a child somehow. Okay. You sure are demand-y, Bob, but I promise to play fair — next time Libby posts “Bob you said ‘A'” and you reply with “No, I said “B” and here’s the exact quote from that article to prove you wrong” like she just did, I’ll side with you no problem!
“I demand, that you comment on her obscene works here.”
So demand-y, Bob. Since there’s been a lot of “you don’t have reading comprehension skills” posts recently from both sides, I’d like to make sure I understand you — you would like me to be the Insurance Journal police and make sure I post every time someone is called a bad name or whenever someone is insulted? Around here, that sounds like a full time job to me!
Listen. This all started with me saying I disagreed with you when you said it’s okay for Agent to exaggerate when quoting someone else. I did not call ANYONE out for name calling or insults anywhere in this thread. I asked you a question, you failed to answer it, and came back lobbing the first insult to me.
“So excuse me, dear child, if I am offended by your constant attempts to belittle me based on my telling someone to shut the hell up”
What what what? I am belittling you because I don’t agree if anyone is going to quote someone, they should use the actual quote and not modify/exaggerate it at all?
Also, how the h3ll did you get me being offended by you telling Libby to shut up? Did you even read this:
“Shut the hell up, you ignorant child, and start talking to the people you should be. You are a fake moderate.”
Hold on there kiddo. Was that directed towards me? Please advise. Or, if you prefer – I demand you answer.
January 12, 2015 at 5:48 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenbalt,
No. We aren’t playing that game. It’s why I’m angry with you. I can’t have an answer as to why you defend libby’s calling me a moron, but not my calling people a moron, without referencing back to when she has incorrectly referenced something I have said? She has. I guarantee it incorrectly referenced something I have said. As has EVERYONE in this site. And I will not listen to the zealotry, and high horse off of which you speak.
Have you, condemned, at all, one time, the way Libby has spoken BY NAME?
January 12, 2015 at 6:08 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenbalt:
You are belittling because you are following condemning each post I make, and remaining silent on Libby’s.
You don’t have to be the police of all.
But to the the police of the left, and claim to be a moderate, is not acceptable.
If you are not a moderate, let it be known, you don’t like conservatives.
If you are a liberal, then stop faking being a moderate.
I’m telling you to stop belittling me in the fact that you have referenced me by name, saying I respect none. While you simultaneously never said anything about this from Libby, and this was an intro comment on her part:
“Way to take one line of a speech out of context. Classic move by Republicans. And their sheeple swallow it hook, line, and sinker without nary a google search. Ignorant cows.”
January 12, 2015 at 6:23 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt,
If you go into a post between two people who are clearly having issues, you surely have to realize the fire will turn on you.
I will back off of you, but my demand holds true.
If you aren’t telling Libby to knock it off, and felt so compelled to comment about misrepresentation of someone, and not in fact mistreatment, you and I are not on speaking terms. Error, unintentional, is not equivalent to outright attacks.
I do not regard such a person a high light. You need to admit you did this. And see how inappropriate it was. Here we have Libby outright attacking me, and all you can do is stay silent on her and then go after the minute details in my comments.
That is belittling. And to begin with I told her she dishes it out, she gets it back.
It’s perfectly appropriate.
January 12, 2015 at 11:07 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You know Bob, I was ready to reply to everything you wrote and explain my stance on the topics you mentioned in a civilized manner, but then you had to screw it up and write this:
“I’m telling you to stop belittling me in the fact that you have referenced me by name, saying I respect none”
You sir, are a liar. I have never said nor implied that you respect none. Your willingness to blatantly lie about what I have said IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ISSUE OF PEOPLE ON IJ LYING ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID is mind-blowing meta
January 13, 2015 at 10:56 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“Libby says: bob, I’m sure if I called Rosenblatt an idiot or moron he would indeed have something to say to me.”
You are 100% correct, Libby! I don’t care if you’re the most conservative Republican, the most liberal Democrat, or the most independent independent, I will call you out if you insult me or, as you so astutely put it earlier, if you ascribe false words to someone’s name.
If Libby wrote “Bob, you said you love killing adults no matter what”, which is an exaggeration of his comment on the death penalty, I’d call you out on it and tell you to stop lying.
January 12, 2015 at 12:33 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
26 weeks on a potential life is not an embryo Libby. Late terms like Tiller the baby killer performed is murder by almost any standard.
What was the topic of this article? NFL & Judgment calls???
Tooo early in the week for all this hubba bubba.
January 12, 2015 at 2:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No…You did not.
You never did. We specifically had an argument about partial birth abortions.
I said there was no way you could be for this. You are now lying for image.
And that is unacceptable, but shows I have nothing to gain debating with you.
This is your character. And it’s too far gone.
January 12, 2015 at 2:44 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
boob – if we were to rely on yours or Agent’s reading comprehension to settle arguments, we’d be here all day. I know what I said and I said it to Agent in an IJ article last year. Yes, I am against them, for the safety of the mother and the fact that at that point the fetus is viable. I have always said this.
” Get your facts straight says:
You don’t believe the the egg is already fertilized by the time the morning after pill is used, or you don’t believe life begins at conception?
July 3, 2014 at 11:51 am Libby says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I don’t believe a zygote is the same as a baby.
Get your facts straight says:
At what point in development would you consider it a baby?
July 3, 2014 at 1:01 pm Libby says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
When it can survive outside the womb.”
End quote.
January 12, 2015 at 3:59 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The fact you had to find an article 6 months old to copy & paste what you previously said to make sure you’re not misrepresented any further is sad.
I commend you for finding that post to support your stance, and I sincerely hope those who are putting different words in your mouth take the same time and effort to find the evidence to back up their arguments of what they claim you said in the past too.
January 12, 2015 at 4:04 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It is sad. And frustrating. I am forever being called a liar on here. I’m a lot of things, but not a liar.
January 12, 2015 at 4:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenbalt,
She is a liar. And she has for a fact said that she was for partial birth abortions.
She lied then, she lied now. She has gone back and forth on this issue.
It is not commendable that she lies so easily.
January 12, 2015 at 4:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby,
You are a liar. You did have this argument with me.
The problem is, that you flip flop based on what is the safest image to have.
For you, sometimes us republicans have caught you in a corner. Where you finally have to either agree it would be terrible, or you are terrible.
At that point, you realize it, and you lie.
I have seen you do this constantly.
We did have a debate on this.
I told you the biggest area where republicans differ is partial birth abortion, which I told you that you could not possibly find them to be in the wrong regarding. It was the first thing Bush W went after.
You also said that was incorrect, and told me Akin was the norm. Is this ringing bells yet?
I told you that you were wrong about republicans regarding Akin being the norm. It was about the forcible rape comment.
After I said this, you said it didn’t matter. Why?
Because partial birth abortion was not wrong.
January 12, 2015 at 4:10 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And when I say the biggest area they differ, I mean on areas of abortion.
We definitely had this conversation. And you definitely said there was nothing wrong with partial birth abortion.
January 12, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
IF I ever said that, and I say IF because I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt which you don’t deserve, you are calling me a liar for changing my position. I have every right to do that.
January 12, 2015 at 4:47 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I just thought I’d drop this here:
“November 1, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Libby says:
Oh, and I don’t agree with partial birth abortions. At 22 weeks the fetus becomes viable and should not be aborted. At that point I would support adoption.”
“Rosenbalt, She is a liar. And she has for a fact said that she was for partial birth abortions.”
Well, Bob – Libby included a link to a prior article and thread where it would appear she is not lying. Do you have any evidence to prove her wrong, or are you just going with “well, she said it – I swear she did – just trust me”? That is not evidence; that’s heresay.
January 12, 2015 at 4:57 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank you BS, it seems pretty clear Libby wrote “I don’t agree with partial birth abortions.” Can’t parse too much into that phrase.
Bob – were you able to find any posts to support your claim that Libby is a liar and previously said she was for partial birth abortions?
January 12, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks, B.S.! That was the one I was referring to originally.
January 12, 2015 at 5:26 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS, how the heck did you come up with that? Nov, 2013??
January 12, 2015 at 5:40 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m an expert in Google-fu. ;)
If you use Google’s advanced search, it gives you the option of searching a specific domain instead of the entire web. I just put in insurancejournal.com, “Libby says” and a couple other terms, and hit search. It pulled up a decent number of results, but not so much that I wasn’t able to find what I was looking for pretty easily. :)
January 12, 2015 at 5:59 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I am not continuing into he said she said crap.
I will go back to our original conversation:
Can someone over exaggerate about someone’s beliefs for affect of the severity of those beliefs and not get criticized?
“Way to take one line of a speech out of context. Classic move by Republicans. And their sheeple swallow it hook, line, and sinker without nary a google search. Ignorant cows.” I supposed you supported this one. You said nothing to her in this page and quite a bit to me.
And with regards to Libby, her over exaggerations that do not correctly correspond would be regarding Texas, and hicks and conservatives. She does it all the time to illustrate a point about republicans.
January 12, 2015 at 6:13 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Basically I told Libby that if she’s going to go off her rocker about what republicans believe all the time,
Agent is perfectly fine to go off on what democrats like her believe.
Libby has constantly said what republicans all believe. I think it’s fair game that Agent assumed the same with her.
January 13, 2015 at 8:12 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – I feel you’re missing the sole point I tried to make getting involved in this discussion.
“Can someone over exaggerate about someone’s beliefs for affect of the severity of those beliefs and not get criticized?”
If that person is generalizing about a group of people, however incorrect and wrong it may be, that definitely happens all the time and there’s no excuse for having a narrow-minded belief about a group of people and posting it here. However, this is not the point we were talking about.
“Basically I told Libby that if she’s going to go off her rocker about what republicans believe all the time, Agent is perfectly fine to go off on what democrats like her believe.”
First – I agree with this statement. However, this is not what I was talking about!
The issue is not Agent going off on what democrats as a group believe, which he has every right to do.
The issue is AGENT “QUOTED” LIBBY BUT PUT WORDS IN HER MOUTH ABOUT HER BELIEFS BECAUSE HE DID NOT QUOTE HER PROPERLY AND TWISTED HER STATEMENT AROUND.
Proven by links above, Libby clearly said she is against late-term abortions yet Agent “quoted” her and lied when he said Libby was against any restrictions on abortions.
Generalize about a group of people – yeah, we all do that.
Intentionally twisting someone’s words around to use their (now false) statement against them and turning a blind eye to any evidence that proves the person they quoted did not actually say those things = bad.
Did Libby say she is against late term abortions?
Yes – see BS’s link above
Did Agent lie when he said Libby is against any restrictions on abortions?
Yes – see BS’s link above
THAT is the point here. Agent lied about what Libby specifically said in the past and you two have ganged up on her for lying — yet it’s pretty clear it was Agent who lied and you who, at best, mis-remembered what Libby posted.
Do you understand how Agent lying about a specific comment Libby made to make it seem like Libby believes the opposite of what she said is different than people generalizing about a group of people (which is also wrong)?
January 13, 2015 at 12:25 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well BS, you get a Bozo Button. You just taught an old dog a new trick. Now, when I get the time to research my latest topic, I don’t have to sift through hundredss of thousands of posts.
January 13, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob- Agent did not exaggerate what I said! He misrepresented what I said and didn’t even have the decency to apologize for it. I don’t expect you to understand since you are the king of putting words in people’s mouths. Mostly due to your incredible lack of reading comprehension. You put 2 & 2 together and come up with 5 on a regular basis.
January 12, 2015 at 1:02 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Libby, all we can do is respond to your statement that you think they are embryos. Late term abortions are a scourge on our society.
There goes your lack of reading comprehension again, Agent. You obviously don’t know the difference between a zigot, embryo, unviable fetus, viable fetus, and a baby. But why would you? It’s science.
Libby, I think the term is zygote, not zygot. Sharpen up there some before posting.
January 16, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Did you have to google that to find that out?
January 16, 2015 at 5:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
No Libby, I passed spelling 101. You obviously didn’t. You have rage issues and knocks your brain off line.
January 19, 2015 at 8:46 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Funny. Because earlier you didn’t even know what it is or the difference between it, an embryo, and a fetus. Now all of a sudden you can spell it? I think not.
January 12, 2015 at 1:25 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Please clarify your statement, “Late term abortions are a scourge on our society”. How does someone having an abortion negatively impact our society? Is this a moral or an economic issue?
Killing a human absolutely has an affect on the human killed. Of course, philosophically if we argue without the human being killed taken into consideration by society, then you can make it a moral issue of which there is no opinion that is correct, correct? Killing a child is always murder, Philosopher Phil.
You aren’t that smart, kid.
January 12, 2015 at 2:46 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There’s nothing philosophical about it. How do abortions negatively affect our society? It maybe affects that woman that has it, but it’s hardly a scourge on society. In many ways, it can improve society.
January 12, 2015 at 2:51 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron, you should have been an abortion doctor if you don’t see that murdering innocent lives is wrong on about every level. To you, aborting a well developed fetus/baby is no different than putting a pet to sleep. You liberals are something else. How about putting the needle in the arm of a convicted cop killer or serial murderer. Is there justification for keeping them alive for 20-40 years?
January 12, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Spoken like a true Texan! How many are on death row, Agent?
January 12, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
When did I say abortion is not wrong? I believe that abortion is wrong, but, from a legal standpoint, it is more important to give a woman a right to choose something that impacts her body.
How about, for once, you just answer my questions?
“Please clarify your statement, ‘Late term abortions are a scourge on our society’. How does someone having an abortion negatively impact our society? Is this a moral or an economic issue?”
Just lay out your argument so we may understand your position.
January 12, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If Ron should have been an abortion doctor, you should have been a prison executioner.
January 12, 2015 at 4:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The philosophical argument that it harms no one in society, (which is an attempt of a philosophical argument) is only true if you remove the child itself.
This is why I said anything is true with the right philosophical argument, and it’s why I don’t like them.
January 12, 2015 at 4:23 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
There is no harm done to the embryo. It feels nothing.
January 12, 2015 at 6:01 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The embryo (Human, therefore human child)
Doesn’t get to be born. That is harm.
In the absence of God, it is denied existence.
In the existence of God, God creates no children without purpose, and you took away that child’s life. God doesn’t stop people from doing so. That is honoring your decision. But you didn’t honor the kid’s decision. The second that baby started developing God gave it a destiny, in the absence of your intervention, that it would have received. You say you are religious. This is a fact.
But even off the non religious, that is also a fact.
January 13, 2015 at 8:39 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
bob,
Agent’s exact words were, “Late term abortions are a scourge on our society”. Did he teach you reading comprehension?
It was not a philosophical question. I really wanted him to defend his statement. Is that really too mush to ask?
If this discussion is too complicated for you, try the Sesame Street blog.
January 12, 2015 at 3:25 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m surprised no comments on the 60 Min piece last night… Almost sounded like a collage of quotes off this site.
Ron, if several million potential human beings are being killed each year in the womb or partial birth, that is a scourge on society. Sorry you can’t get that through your thick head. Deduct one credit from me Rosenblatt.
PPACA one year mark. The “expert” stated that there was no cost control – in particular Med Mal Reform. Stated the only good this did was to get more hospitals more customers and increase their profits at the expense of the Joe average Tax Payer. They were citing a Hospital in TX and in PA.
They had a person that lived in Ohio and went to a TX Cancer Treatment Center and went through the bill line item by line item.
They were citing the jump in profits for the hospital in PA.
In the end, the interviewer asked the CEO of the PA hospital “Who wins in all this”. He stated “The Hospitals at the expense of the tax payer”.
FFA, I think youre mistaking the effect of the law: which is to increase the number of insured people. The costs are not touched in any way by the ACA, why do you blame the law for increased costs?
The segment blamed the market itself for rising costs, not the ACA.
Stan, are you that big of a dufus? When you have a law with all those mandates for coverage in it, carriers having to take all comers including chronically sick people, the prices for coverage have to go up. That is the law causing this. This law was written by Gruber to lie and deceive the American People and make them think they were getting something for nothing. That is why it is a horror story.
Silly me thinking Affordable Care Act and $2500 reduction in cost actually meant Cost going up, OOP’s going up, no more Carryover Deductible. I have no clue what this suspected Compression Fracture is gong to do to me financially.
I am not mistaking the effect of this law, I am feeling every bit of the pain of it.
…and this is where someone who isn’t a troll would at least reply with “I’m sorry” or “I hope she gets better.”
January 12, 2015 at 4:34 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m just summing up the 20 minute piece. I am sure you can catch it On Demand tonight.
The segment did credit the PPACA for increasing hospital profits. It was very clear that there was no cost control at all in the law. The CEO was citing in particular Med Mal Reform. This is a point I been preaching since the law has been enacted. No Cost Control, Price will go up. And it has.
Well yeah of course the CEO is preaching med mal reform because that doesnt really impact his profits since its such a small portion of spending. Think about that: the CEO of a hospital is in the biz of keeping the cost of healthcare high. Why would he want to make substantive reform?
Basically, I agree the PPACA does little to contain costs. But we can do that with more regulations: use the govt to negotiate / cap prices. Shit, just expand medicare to the entire country. Costs would halve overnight.
My recent experience with Medicare / Medicaid, you don’t want it. Over $25,000 in legal fees to get them people to do their job correctly.
I dont agree that it does little. I do agree it does nothing. It gonna bury your generation in a hole so deep, your gonna be working just to pay for this thing.
Have you ever seem med mal premiums? That line item has a definite effect on profits.
I have a law degree. We had tons of people come in – – med mal lawyers even – – talking about how the awards just arent what they used to be.
Could there be additional reform? Sure. OBGYN med mal insurance is outrageous. But to blame Med Mal for a substantive year over year multi-digit increase in healthcare costs is just not true.
No, its not the only driving factor, but it is one that drives the cost and effects the bottom line.
January 13, 2015 at 10:29 am
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Malpractice insurance is expensive, no question about it. But from what I’ve seen, rates have actually been pretty stable for the past couple of years. There are a couple of companies trying to get rate increases, but in general, I’ve been seeing flat and decreased rates on renewals. Will it always be that way? No. But right now, there are enough carriers fighting to get/keep business, that it’s still a buyers market.
Considering how stable premiums have been, I have somewhat of a hard time believing that Med Mal is the cause of rising health costs.
January 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, did you see the news that the wonderful director of Medicare/Medicaid Services is resigning in February. Marilyn Tavener worked hand in hand with Sebelius on the disastrous roll out of Obamacare. She has had enough and leaving. Her picture on the Fox Site was just as leathery as Sebelius and Hillary. Defending a disastrous policy must be hard on these liberal women.
January 16, 2015 at 12:49 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The roll out was just pure stupidity. Open enrollment for Medicaid, Medicare Supp, personal health and group health all at once during the Holiday Season. Not to mention what it has done to the carriers having to employ people on a temp basis just to lay them off after open enrollment passes and then got socked with a high Unemployment bill.
What a bunch of jack asses. Not an ounce of logic went into this. every time I see that commercial when the guy says it took me 20 minutes, I want to smash my TV.
Finally got my problem app issued yesterday when it was submitted on 12/18/2014. Client is sick and needs medical attention that has been delayed till yesterday because of the foolishness. Might I add, I spent at least 15 hours on the phone – mostly hold time to get it resolved. All for a $400 premium at 5% commish. She stated that she would not have been able to get this done if not for me – a licensed & trained agent.
January 12, 2015 at 5:35 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree that it is a single brick in the overarching wall of rising healthcare costs, but it is hardly the cornerstone.
FFA, I admire your persistence in trying to work with an unworkable law, terrible website, insolent employees who could care less if they answer the phone or help at all. All that for a pittance of a commission. I have been sending people to the BCBS website. It is more secure anyway. If they want what is displayed, they can click on it and pursue it. I would rather handle P&C for less trouble and more commission.
Well agent, I wonder if I would have pushed forward with this had I know Commissions were going to get slashed from 15% to 6%. I am too deep into it to pull out at this point. What I am making off it covers my rent & utilities. I figure the commis slash cost me about $20000 in revenues.
Hey FFA, how did you like that National Championship game last night? Ohio State really put it on the poor Ducks. I think Urban Meyer is probably the best college coach in America currently. He said when he took the job there, he wanted to not just build a team that would compete in the Big Ten, but a program that would compete with the SEC and PAC Ten. Looks like he was pretty successful doing that against both conferences.
The Buckeyes definitely deserved to win that game – better offense, better defense, certainly took less penalties, and better coaching.
I know Oregon only had like 2 3rd down conversions, but I’m a little surprised their Blur Offense didn’t create more favorable results, especially in the red zone (I think they were 1-4 in the red zone & THE Ohio State University went 5-5)
Rosenblatt, thanks for answering for FFA. In your “Opinion”, do you think the fast break offenses are a fading fad in both college and the Pros? If something isn’t working, they are three and out and then their defense is on the field for much of the game and they get worn down and get in a hole. Good examples are Oregon, Baylor and the Eagles in the NFL. All three failed this season.
“Do you think the fast break offenses are a fading fad in both college and the Pros?”
No.
Would you like me to explain WHY I feel that way, or you’re just that happy I gave you a simple one-word/one-paragraph response?
January 13, 2015 at 12:04 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Serious question: In your opinion, is there only 1 successful team each year?
January 13, 2015 at 2:34 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
So Ron, I’ll but in with my two cents. It all depends on how you measure success. There will be only one Super Bowl Champ, but Cutler & Marshal & Alshon (and a whole lot more) were successful at getting Trestman fired.
Success is a subjective thing.
January 13, 2015 at 3:14 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA,
I agree that success is subjective. That is why I asked Agent that question. He called Oregon a failure for coming in 2nd in the country. I would guess 100% of rational people would consider that success.
I may be wrong, but I am guessing his agency has never been #1 in the country, and he calls himself successful.
I find it fun to point out his hypocrisies. And yes, I am aware I have my own. At least I have enough self awareness to recognize it.
January 13, 2015 at 3:37 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Is Peyton Manning Successful? Great Season QB, but cant seem to manage to get through the play offs.
We can make the argument that Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson & Doug Williams are just as successful as Peyton. Is Eli more successful then Peyton? Is Archie?
January 13, 2015 at 4:33 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA,
I do not like tying an individual’s success to team results, especially football. Too many variables out of an individual’s control, even for a QB.
You have to say he is more successful than any of the others you mentioned based on what he accomplished as an individual.
January 13, 2015 at 5:30 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
True that Ron. Brad Johnson never had the supporting cast in Minn. He did get the job done but never over the hump. His numbers are way better then most from Minn (except Fran Tarkenton).
January 13, 2015 at 6:14 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually Rosenblatt, that was refreshing to see a short reply instead of 8 to 10 paragraphs. By the way, you need to give another debit for insulting me. He is at it again. See below.
January 13, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron, if the Bills had a great QB, they might have made the playoffs instead of sitting at home for another year. Their defense was awesome, but you can’t be on the field for 3/4 of a game and win in the Not for Long league.
January 14, 2015 at 9:31 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“By the way, you need to give another debit for insulting me. He is at it again. See below.”
Who are you talking about & what’s the date/time on the post?
January 14, 2015 at 10:34 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Seems to me the BIlls are a few Key Players away from being a power house.
January 14, 2015 at 6:16 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Serious answer Ron. No, I don’t think success can by measured by only 1 team winning a championship. Obviously, several teams think a coach should bring a championship in a reasonable time. Look at the growing unemployment line among head coaches. Some are let go with a winning record,ie Lovie Smith at Chicago and Denver’s head coach and the carousel in Buffalo. Rex Ryan, really? Jones had numerous coaches after Johnson and they were all doomed because he was handling the drafting and signing of players. I don’t know if Stephen Jones is having input now, but the last 3 drafts gave them a chance to compete and Garrett finally learned how to turn duties over to assistants and had better luck this year so he got renewed.
January 15, 2015 at 10:26 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Then why did do you state that Oregon failed this season?
January 13, 2015 at 12:13 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I was bowling last night so I didn’t see much of the Oregon offense. last night. In between my throws, Ohio State had the ball or there was a commercial or I was chasing my Gr Son around.
The Fast Break offense needs a premier QB at any level. Without a Brady or Rodgers or Luck type QB, your exactly correct about the D’s being on the field too long. Just wears them out. The Bears were having some success with No Huddle until Trestman “lost” the team. Then the players conspired to get the Coach wacked. Alshon drops 7 balls in one game?
Now, today, we have Bennett & Kyle Long fighting over social media. Martelious is a good player, but seemingly and A Hole. This is not his first incident with a team mate. We need Long way more then we need Bennett.
Bennett had some issues with his team mates in Dallas as well plus he wasn’t ever going to start in place of Witten. He was let go, went to NY had the same issues and was sent packing to the Bears.
I believe Eli has been more successful than Peyton. He has two rings and Peyton one. He also has not played on teams with as many stars as Peyton. By the way, the coach of the Broncos was let go by Elway today. Too many failures to advance in the playoffs. Reminds me of Lovie Smith who was let go with a winning record. Who will play QB if Peyton hangs them up?
Jones has some Cap issues in Dallas now. Murray and Bryant are in their contract years. How do you pay both of them and keep the team together? Do you ask Romo to give back some money and re-negotiate? How about all those no name defensive players they signed off the couch and played well this year at NFL minimum? They all will expect a raise. The Cowboys have plenty of money, but they have to operate within the Cap. It is a thorny issue. Hard to keep the stars! By the way, it was a catch no matter what the rule said. I am surprised they kept Aikman, Smith and Irvin together as long as they did.
sGonna have to ask Romo to redo the contract. Brady did it in NE and freed up $24 mill (I think it the figure). If he wants his supporting cast, gonna have to do it.
FFA, Bryant and Murray both had monster years and will expect a monster contract and will be 1%ers if they get them. That pesky Cap will certainly be a factor. The Redskins got into trouble about 5 years ago with paying too much to certain players and had no wiggle room at all. No wonder they don’t have a competitive team. RG3 cost them plenty and they have not been able to develop him. He should return a lot of his contract to the team so they can draft and sign some decent players. Others, they can just cut.
Didn’t take long for the NFL Defenses to adjust to him. Now Rex Grossman is a better option.
Murry and Dez are big factors in Tonys success this year. He needs to pitch in if he want to have another years (s) like last one..
January 15, 2015 at 1:04 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, that read option may work in college, but it gets a QB killed in the pros. Mariota will find that out if he tries it next year. Those linebackers are just about as fast as most fast QB’s and their eyes get bigger when they see a QB running with the ball.
Do you think the Pack will have enough to beat the Seahawks? I think not, but I could be wrong. I think Brady will handle Indy. They will not be passive like the Bronco’s were. Elway saw enough and cut the coach loose even with a winning record.
January 15, 2015 at 3:02 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Gb / Seattle is a hard call. Rock Paper Scissors on who to bet on there. Sea Hawks could be the toughest D GB faces this year and Rodgers is gong to have to be sharper then sharp. Gb D is not the good.
Indy / Pats – I’m going with the seasoned vet. Brady will be razor sharp and make quick work out of the Indy D. Can Luck keep pace? I just don’t think he has the receivers.
To take it all, I am going with Pats.
January 15, 2015 at 3:05 pm
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
John Fox was in Chicago yesterday. Sports guy in WGN was asking the burning question – why did you let him leave? Saying he is the best man for the job…
January 15, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, Seattle handed the Pack their head early in the season when Rogers was healthy. Now that he can’t move around with his leg issue, he better get rid of that ball in a hurry to a hot receiver or he won’t last long in the game. I also don’t see GB running on the Seahawks. They are just too tough. Add the loud home crowd into the picture and it could get ugly. I see the Seahawks vs Patriots matchup in the Super Bowl. That should be a good match up.
January 16, 2015 at 8:53 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t know which one I hate worse…
January 16, 2015 at 10:42 am
FFA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well Libby, in this neck of the woods, its highly fashionable to hate the Packers..
And Agent, that hobbled leg is gonna be an issue. Eddie Lacy is a hard runner – battering ram type of a player. That Seatle D is tough… I agree with the match up in the Sb with NE taking it.
January 16, 2015 at 12:23 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, Jones got his coaches all signed up. Now, the tough work begins trying to sign Dez and Murray to new contracts. Wouldn’t it be interesting to sit in on that process with the agents, players and management in the room?
January 14, 2015 at 6:09 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt, I was talking about Ron on the insults and his post of 1-13-15 at 3:14. He is real proud to insult me at every opportunity. His apology was short lived, wasn’t it. Sorry the post jumped around. Sometimes the reply button sends it either above or below.
I have been clear that I do not intend to stop insulting Agent, as he has no intention of stopping his constant insults towards me. I have tried the no insulting route before. It doesn’t change his nasty behavior. He’s a troll and he makes it his job to needle people into controversy. It’s his little childish game. Well, I can not only play the game, I can beat him at his own game. He’s just too stupid to realize it.
Well FFA, you could be right on the SB. One of the hardest things to do is repeat as champions. The Pats may be due if they can control that little Russell on his rollouts and keep their monster running back in check. Brady is going to score no matter what defense they throw at him. Not many like the Pats, but you do have to respect what they have done.
Belichek was on Brady’s case early in the year and apparently that motivated him, because he really turned it on afterward. It also helped that his team mates got their act together and started doing their job. That Grankowski is a monster at tight end. He is like a younger, meaner, faster Witten.
Funny how NE gets it done without Wide Receivers. Eddleman is another monster TE. Amendolla and the other guy and virtually no RB… Gronk may be the best in the biz right now.
Not sure whats gong on at NIU. I see that Jordan Lynch signed in the CFL. I was very surprised the Bears didn’t at least keep him on the practice squad.
That kid QB for Ohio State was their third string QB after the other two were injured during the year. He looked all world to me. Big, fast, rifle arm and poised as well. I think the other two may be looking to transfer to another school. Maybe to NIU? Do they need help at QB?
Ron, they failed because their theory failed when the chips were down. Philadelphia failed because their theory failed. Opposing teams figured this out. Get a few three and outs and the fast break teams will tank. That is why I think the fast break teams will go by the wayside in the near future.
I look at vicarious liability as being held responsible for something that happened under your watch or direction. For example, a hospital has vicarious exposure if a surgeon botches an appendectomy while practicing there. Or if a nursing agency sends an RN to the home of an invalid, and the nurse doesn’t notice/take care of the patient’s bed sores, the agency has vicarious exposure.
Neither the hospital nor the agency provided the actual care, but because the care was provided at their direction, or on their behalf, they can be seen as responsible for it. The same goes for a physician who is supervising another healthcare practitioner, ie. a PA or NP. He/she can be held vicariously responsible for that practitioner’s actions even if they had no personal interaction with the patient.
That didn’t take long. Fox is a pretty good coach. Now, he needs to hire some good assistants and then get some control over the draft picks and signings. What do you think he will do with Cutler, coach him up or get rid of him?
Unfortunate, Cutler is our best option right now. I don’t know of any better Free Agents hanging out there. Draft is always a crap shoot. Bears havn’t had any success drafting QB since Harhaugh.
How about those playoff games FFA? Tell me, how does a team who gets four interceptions and a fumble manage to lose a game? Kick the other teams butt for 56 minutes and lose in the last 4 minutes plus a minute of overtime? There is a proven theory that if you get soft and play prevent, you will lose as the game showed. GB thought they had the game won when they didn’t. Brady did as expected and trounced the Colts. I don’t think Belechek will make the same mistakes GB’s coach did. If the Pats get 5 turnovers, they will wax the Seahawks.
Well, if Winston is there when the Bears pick, I still wouldn’t pick him. He is a thug and will be in trouble shortly. I would pick someone else even if he is a project. Mariota will go high and Tampa or someone in the first three picks will snap him up and he has character as well as being a great athlete.
In this neck of the woods, we say the only thing Prevent Defense prevents is victory. I cant believe they self destructed like that in such a short period of time. Cant even cover an on sides kick… I am looking forward to the SB Match up. Probably the best QB (20 post season wins) vs the best D in the league since the 85 Bears. Oh, and Seatle got a pretty good QB too.
Well, Wilson finally got vindicated after four interceptions. It is a good thing he finally woke up from his 3 quarter slumber. He looked like a rookie QB for much of the game throwing the ball up for grabs like that. When GB went into their prevent, he started completing passes. Why on earth would they do that? Defensive coordinator made a big mistake. Head coach made a big mistake as well. After the game, Rogers said – What just happened here? He thought he had it won. On an onside kick, you are supposed to have your hands guys in there. The guy goes up for it and it hit him in the shoulder pads????? Easy play for the kickoff bunch. After that, GB was toast.
You seeing this stuff about NE using underinflated balls? Where does this stuff even come from – a team that had their buts kicked from Boston to Indy and then back again?
I am picking NE to win. I’ll take the seasoned Vet to figure out the top defense.
FFA, it is a bunch of nonsense on the underinflated balls. The officials in that game are supposed to be the best and they handle the ball before every snap. Are we to believe they couldn’t tell the difference when Indy had the ball or New England? They are supposed to check the balls before the first kickoff to make sure they are uniform for both teams.
On Bennett, I didn’t see he made the Pro Bowl. Was he ahead of Witten? Hmm! What is wrong with that picture?
Well, it just came out today that 11 out of the 12 NE balls were underinflated by 2 lbs. psi. But not Indy’s balls. Hmmmmm. I think they cheated. As much as I hate to say it, I must root for the Seahags on the 1st.
January 21, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And where was Peyton on game day? Oops! He is on vacation contemplating retirement.
January 22, 2015 at 9:06 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
What the hell does that have to do with New England cheating???
Besides, where was Romo on game day? Oh! That’s right! He was on vacation with Peyton. Turd.
January 22, 2015 at 5:21 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, Belechek said he didn’t do it and Brady said he didn’t do it. Now, they can question the ball guys and see who really did it or who told them to do it.
January 20, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Looks like Kubiak got the Denver job. He made a mess in Houston and they cut him loose. He does have better players to work with now so maybe he gets Peyton to come back for another try.
Well Libby, you are in fine form on the insult parade. Peyton was home a game early than the Cowboys. They let Indianapolis??? handle them and it cost the coach his job. By the way, “It was a catch” and most football analysts saw it that way.
I blame the officials for the screw up on Deflategate. They are charged with checking the balls before the game even started. Another black eye for the NFL as if they needed one.
January 23, 2015 at 9:13 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I know. I’m kinda impressed with myself, too. You must inspire me, Agent.
January 26, 2015 at 8:01 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
It was a catch, but not a completion. Most football experts saw it that way. Since you’re from TX I should not have to explain the distinction between the two.
January 26, 2015 at 11:15 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Don’t bother, Ron. I already cited the exact NFL rule and attempted to explain to Agent at least 2 times how — technically, even though I agree the rule needs to be changed — those “catches” were correctly called incomplete passes.
Agent – please think critically here — can you REALLY tell the difference in weight between 2 and 3 pieces of regular paper placed on your hand? If you can (although I think you’d be lying), then feel free to blame the officials.
“A standard NFL football has between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch of pressure; that’s equivalent to 15 ounces. When we deflate the ball by 2 PSI, at 10.5 pounds of pressure per square inch, the football weighed 14 and 3/4 ounces, just a quarter ounce less. That’s like being able to feel the difference between holding 2 and 3 sheets of paper in your hand.”
FFA,
A veto override will need a lot more than 14 Democrats.
As I said before, new Congress, same crap. Maybe if the Republicans spent more time crafting a better health care law, I would have much more respect for them, even if I did not support it. This is just wasting time to score political points.
Successful businesses do not rely on short term planning – They are already restructuring employee working hour policies to maximize their bottom lines. Changing the most economically damaging portions of the ACA is not any more of a waste of time than the Democrats refusing to fix it before it collapses under its rising tax burden. If the Supremes rule against federal subsidies to state without exchanges, effectively ending the ACA, then you will be able to judge whether the Republican’s “crap” is worse than Obamacrap.
Original Bob,
Do you even understand my position? I have been against the PPACA since it was passed. However, I am more against politicians wasting time and taxpayer money trying to repeal something that has zero chance of being repealed. It is called political reality.
They have tried the Supreme Court route and they failed also.
While I do not have a problem with Republicans trying to repeal the law, they need to do something that has a chance of working.
Ron, are you talking to yourself? I see no post from FFA on this article. Maybe you are further gone than we all thought. Weren’t you critical of Congress as being a do nothing Congress for the past 6 years? Then, when they do something that benefits the country, they are wasting your time. Why not get on your obstructionist President for vowing to veto everything that is passed?
Agent,
If you were smart enough to remember, FFA and I had a back and forth about the odds this would President Obama’s veto of this law would be overridden. See the comments under “Republicans Target Obamacare Part-Time Worker Provision” We even have a bet on it. Looks like I will win the bet.
Ron, you might want to let a man post something before going on your lecture posts from another article or is that asking too much? Try limiting your posts to those actually commenting and you will fare better. Just talking into cyberspace with a person not even on the blog does not give him a chance to respond since he isn’t here yet.
Agent – Ron’s post clearly was not meant for you, but you still had to give him sh1t about it. Why do you care if Ron posts to FAA in this article or a different one?
And he calls ME a butt-in-ski. Jeesh!
Agent,
How is passing a law that has no chance of becoming law benefiting our country? Just because it makes the right feel good that the Republicans are “honoring their campaign promises”, it does NOTHING for the country.
My guess is that he will not veto everything, just anything that is designed to repeal or destroy the PPACA.
Ron, you aren’t staying up with the news. Try to check it out sometime instead of pontificating. He has already vowed to veto Keystone and that is not an Obamacare issue.
This man will veto anything that comes up unless it fits his agenda. I would like to be present at the meeting next Tuesday at the White House between him and the new Congress leaders to see what they can find in common to move forward. I am not hopeful that this President will compromise on any of his leftist agenda.
These republicans are representing people. It does not cost more money to put it up for vote.
They are honoring people yes, campaign promises are honoring people who voted them in. So stop degrading them (the people behind them as well) for them doing it.
Also, it keeps it alive to keep repealing it, and shows who the culprits are for keeping it in place. I cannot tell you how many college students from my now youngest sibling who graduated recently, used to say that they don’t support the PPACA but it would have passed regardless of Obama. That’s simply not true, and the republicans need to make that known. They are showing people this plan was not their doing and letting people know yes, they have a choice to get it removed. Whereas if they stop trying, 2016 it will be forgotten and accepted as something that cannot be changed. The republicans need to sell the fact that they will get rid of this plan.
You said you have no problem with the plan being repealed, but you have given the republicans literally no way of repealing it that would leave them good in your eyes.
bob,
Did you read my post and understand my point? Based on your post I would say, “no”.
Neither you nor Agent understand me. Not surprising though. I am complicated you both are very simple thinkers. You like to put people in boxes and label them in order to put them down.
I’m sorry, did you not make half a million comments about republicans, including your own step father?
As well as democrats? And the reason your are an independent is due to these labels?
I am not a simple thinker. You however are. Especially with the “Reagan was Keynesian” crap you spew out.
Half a million? Bob, you know that that is 500,000 comments right? That would mean over 1300 comments daily (500k / 365 = 1369). Not possible. So youre lying.
What else have you been lying about? Other than your age? No one can believe anything you say when youre clearly a lying lazy liar who lies.
Lies make Baby Jesus cry too, Bobby. I think its time that you apologize and get back to your pilates classes.
bob,
I do not even have a step father. Both of my parents took “Til death do us part” to the grave after nearly 40 years of marriage. Yes bob, that means I am not in my 20s as you believe.
I never said Reagan was Keynesian. I said he implemented some Keynesian principles. Did he not sign bills that increased spending, the debt, deficits and taxes to help get the country out of the mess left behind by President Carter? You can spin it any way you want, HE SIGNED THEM. In addition, the size of the federal government increased under his administration including the number of federal employees.
I have criticized President Obama, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi many times. I have also spoken out against the PPACA. If you are not going to read and comprehend all my posts, do not make generalizations about me.
I’m here agent. Just been busy…
So, who caught 60 Mins last night? Who considers CBS to be anti OBama? If only 10% of the tax payers watched that, they will be outraged over this thing.
FFA, don’t you just love it when Ron goes off on one of his tangents to you when you haven’t even signed on or commented?
Changing the subject, there were sure some good playoff games on this weekend. Your Packers were pretty lucky to get the win. That call with Dez Bryant was very border line and could easily have gone the other way. The official standing 10 feet away said it was a catch and marked the ball on the one. I am afraid I don’t understand the rule and many think it should be changed. When a receiver goes up, catches and controls it, takes two steps, stretches out for the goal line when he hits the ground, that should be a catch. Where was the rule that the ground cannot cause a fumble? How many times do we see the ball carrier fumble and they rule the knee touched the ground so it is reversed? In this case, Bryant’s whole body was on the ground before the ball came loose. Anyway, good luck to the Packers next week. The Seahawks are awfully tough.
I don’t understand that rule at all. In this case, Bryant seemed to try and reach out for the goal line. In my opinion, it was a home town call. It wasn’t a fumble, that rule is still intact. Its just an incomplete pass. The “football” move, in my opinion was stretching for the goal line.
It appears that Manning is just a regular season stud. A playoff flop. Where will he land next year?
Yes, FFA, I don’t think the NFL understands the rule either. Some of the commenters at NFL Network said as much. They gave it all a big “Common Man”. Dez will remember that play the rest of his life. Highway Robbery?
As far as Manning is concerned, he is about finished as a top line quarterback and his arm is pretty much history. They were speculating retirement after the game. At least Dallas beat the team that beat the Broncos. Having said that, Brady will probably trounce the Colts next week and it will be the Pats and Seattle in the Super Bowl.
Let me quote you the rule and explain it to you through the time-tested tactic of parsing words.
“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass…he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground…If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.”
FIRST – To me, Dez had control and tried to make a football move lunging into the end zone. The way the rule is written, that part doesn’t matter at all.
HOWEVER – because he was “a player [going] to the ground in the act of catching a pass” AND “he [lost] control of the ball, and the ball [touched] the ground before he [regained] control, the pass is incomplete.”
“How many times do we see the ball carrier fumble and they rule the knee touched the ground so it is reversed?”
The rule on fumbles is different for a running back than it is a receiver who is going down to the ground in the act of catching the pass.
PS – This was the second time in this playoff run where that rule came into play. Both times it was interpreted correctly.
Similar to “the tuck rule” – the final call made was technically correct based on the rule book, but I think the rules should be changed so it would be considered a catch & fumble the next time this scenario comes up.
Rose, I know the rule. It states a foot ball move somewhere in there. In my opinion the football move was stretching for the goal line. Had he crossed the goal line – TD. If, if and if….
In my opinion, it was a home field call.
That being said, I don’t like the rule at all. The Megatron Catch in Chicago went my teams way. I didn’t like it then. I don’t like it now. Its the playoffs. Let the player play.
FFA – I’m sorry, but you don’t know the rule then. Nowhere in the “Player Going To The Ground” rule is “a football move” or anything like that actually written.
The whole “did he make a football move or not” is a pointless discussion here and it does not come into play at all when a pass-catcher is coming to the ground in the act of catching a pass.
Again, from the rule book:
“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”
I copied that rule verbatim from the rule book – where is “a football move” mentioned anywhere in that rule? Seriously, please point it out to me if I’m wrong.
I have a simple fix to this stupid rule:
“If the receiver has control of the ball at the time the play is deemed to be over , it will considered a completed pass.”
Rose, I don’t understand the rule. Megatron catch look like a legit catch to me. He crossed the goal line with it and when he hit the ground, he lost the ball. No Catch. No TD.
Same with Dez yesterday. Only Diff was Dez didn’t make the goal line. Prior to your last post, I stated very clearly that I dont understand this rule at all.
Could this have been the refs pulling a make up call for the home town call last week in Dallas? The judgment calls.
I should probably specify that the receiver must have received and controlled the ball while having at least 2 feet in the field of play.
What Rosenblatt, only 6 paragraphs to give your version of events? Usually, it is 8 or more. The problem we have is the rules are different for a receiver and any other runner. That is why it needs to be addressed by the rules committee. I have seen this play at least 15 times, saw still photos with Bryant fully extended on the ground with the ball in possession. He made 3 strides with the ball and dove for the end zone. I think that is considered a football move. The catch was already made and the ball didn’t come out in the act of catching it. This was a good, hard fought game that shouldn’t have been decided by a late call. They interviewed Rogers after the game and he sheepishly said he was glad it went their way.
Ron. Agreed. Now, the split second the play considered to be dead is the refs judgment.
Don’t ya just love the NFL??? I personally think there is more judgment calls in this sport than any other sport.
“What Rosenblatt, only 6 paragraphs to give your version of events?”
First of all, it was 3. Not 6.
Second, it’s not his “version of events” you moron. He quoted the rule from the rulebook.
You can’t even mock anyone intelligently.
FFA,
There will always be judgement calls. My fix would have made Calvin Johnson and Dez Bryant’s catches, completions. There would be no judgement for those 2 calls.
In my opinion, it is not the fact that there are judgement calls, it is the ambiguity of the NFL rulebook that allows multiple good, experienced referees to have different opinions on whether a call was correct or not.
If you consider each pitch a separate call in baseball, and balls and strikes are judgement calls, that would be the most.
Agent, (1) I already said he made a football move and that (2) I think the rule needs to be changed for next year.
Let me try and make this very clear to you.
THE RULE DOESN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HAVING TO MAKE A FOOTBALL MOVE. THE RULE ONLY SAYS THE BALL CAN’T HIT THE GROUND ON THE RECEIVER’S WAY DOWN.
The ball hit the ground = pass incomplete. What don’t you get?
I stand corrected Ron. Ive been out of touch with Baseball since the base ball season has been ending in Chicago before the Black Hawks are done.
Can you believe that Sporting News is predicting the Cubs in the Series this year??? Is boy wonder that good?
FFA,
I am not sure of their chances, but, as a baseball junkie, I will be rooting for the Cubs.
I finally made it to Wrigley Field last year. It comes as a very close second to Fenway Park as my favorite place I have seen a sporting event. I am just disappointed that they will be adding a jumbotron, but glad I got to a game before they did.
They have a lot of young raw talent and the Manager that can get them to gel.. Oh, lets not forget to mention Lester… Their Farm System is stacked with top prospect. Got a bunch of them from the Rangers.
I cant believe that Chicago is making the Rickets jump through all the hoops on the Expansion project. Parking is lacking. A huge amount of money and numerous jobs to be had.
Prior to Obamacare 97% of Americans had no issue with there healthcare. We re-vamped the entire Healthcare system for 7%. Healthcare represents around 20-30% of the GDP….It was fine prior to Obamacare. We did (and do) need to find a better way of taking care of the 7% of Americans who did not have healthcare. Obamacare is not the answer. Look to what Arkansas did (I’m from TX so do hometown plug here)and didn’t need Washington.
Obamacare is not about healthcare. Its about control!!! Keep that in mind.
Wow – you are completely clueless. And your math skills are somewhat suspect. Health care was not “fine” prior to the ACA. It is not “fine” if even 1% of families that need health insurance can’t get it due to cost or underwriting restrictions.
Robert, obviously you haven’t heard of the Pools for people denied coverage for health issues that were in place. If Healthcare wasn’t fine, it certainly didn’t need a Progressive solution as was demonstrated by the liar in chief and his minions. It was all done wrong and here we are arguing about it four years later.
“If it wasn’t fine…” and then I lost the logic of your response in a cloud of pointless name-calling.
It was better then it is.
“97% of Americans had no issue with there healthcare” – I must have been asleep when this was occurring.
SW, I don’t think the 6 million who had their coverage cancelled appreciated the government doing that and forcing them to buy high deductible, mandated coverage they didn’t want which was higher than they were paying.
FFA, it has not been a good year for the NFL. The concussion suit, Rice, Peterson issues and now poor officiating in playoff games by supposed cream of the crop officials. Several plays flagged Dallas for holding their receivers when GB’s line was holding Dallas linemen from rushing Rogers so they get a 5 yard penalty and a first down instead of a 10 yard penalty for holding.
All I can say is Home Field Advantage…
And one more thing Agent, I thought I heard you screaming at the TV all the way up here from TX…
I wasn’t screaming FFA, but I was really surprised that play was overturned. Actually, had it been a GB receiver doing the same thing, I would have thought, well they made a play to beat us and would have been equally surprised if it was overturned.
I think the key is that domed teams need to start getting home field advantage and let GB, Pats to travel to the south to play. Rogers had a 7 point lead before the game even kicked off. Having said that, Manning didn’t do so well even with the home field advantage.
Agent,
You were surprised only because you do not understand the rule. As soon as I saw the play I thought of Calvin Johnson.
The Cowboys got their break last week.
Regardless of you agreeing with the rule or not, at least the league was consistent on how they enforced the rule!
I agree with TX Agent! We did have the best health care system in the world. If we had made it law that companies must accept people with prior health issues – and covered them after 90 days perhaps – and had policy limits lay people could understand, most of the problems would have been solved. Young people basically need a major medical policy covering cancer, heart, stroke. If they break a finger, its on them to pay. The 7% of Americans who now have coverage are mostly due to Medicaid expansion. They weren’t paying before, and they are not paying now.
Hi Trish, the best political commercial made in my adult lifetime was Obama unwittingly saying – Make no mistake about it, my policies are on the ballot in this mid term. Every politician supporting him 97% of the time with the exception of one lost, some by wide margins. Progressive Socialism went down in flames. It also didn’t help when Jonathon Gruber called Americans stupid and the big lie was exposed.
Did your Algorithms tell you that Ron? Calvin Johnson was in the end zone, not running down the sideline and taking three steps with the ball in his hands and lunging for the goal line with the ball in his hands.
Agent,
Let the whole “algorithms” thing go. You are just looking like an idiot who is trying to be funny. Fail!
Calvin Johnson’s catch was more of a reception than Dez Bryant’s.He had control, in the end zone, took 3 steps put his other hand down before the ball ever touched the ground.
And once again “a football move” has nothing to do with the ruling.
If the receiver, who is falling to the ground after making the catch, has the ball hit the ground and loses control, that’s an incomplete pass.
Even if he caught the ball in the air, levitated, spun around and made the Heisman Trophy pose for 20 seconds in the air, if on his way down he loses control of the ball and the ball hits the ground = pass incomplete.
As an interesting comment here:
I don’t really care about this particular provision. The size of these companies providing the insurance would not harm the company. I only say this because there is a breed of republican who is for a minimum wage increase, provided it is tried to the size, earnings, or profit of a company. For example, a company too small (start ups) would be able to pay lower until they became bigger. This would eliminate the problem that minimum wage plans can cause lack luster jobs growth, and would have firms that are holding out on their employees actually give fair payment to their employees. Most democrat voters are completely unaware of these republicans. In a similar method, many republicans are for subsidizing insurance coverage, whether through credits or payments for low income earners, or through large employers covering insureds in order to avoid the same problem with start up firms and small businesses. This isn’t the issue they have with the plan. They aren’t thinking “gosh darn those poor people, I hate it when they get free things!”. This is a common belief of democrats, the republicans don’t care about the poor. It’s a lie. And it is annoying.
I would encourage conservative voters to show this is the case, so democrats stop clinging to this “republicans don’t care about the poor” slogan. In Catholicism, it is huge, and it causes many to betray their faith.
Bob, I don’t think the Catholic hospitals were too fond of having to perform abortions since it is against their faith. Yet, Catholics as a voting group tend to be liberal. Quite a dilemma.
I don’t understand the comment.
I’m aware of this. That’s why I said this mainstream opinion that the republicans don’t care about the poor is causing Catholics to betray their faith.
There are 4 sins that cause crying to God in the bible.
There is the sin of Sodom.
The sin of neglecting the poor (this is for everyone
The sin of defrauding the worker (which is much like the above)
The sin of Murder.
Interestingly one of the founding fathers before 100 AD of the first Churches of God actually defined abortions are ending life within the womb as he called it as breaking the commandment of thou shalt not murder, which is ironic because most Catholics ignore that the sin of Murder is second only to not loving God. Which is the first commandment but not a sin that causes crying to God.
I only bring this up because the primary sin is the sin of murder, and murder is definitely shown to be abortion according to the first Catholic Saint. Yet Catholics instead focus on the crying of the poor, instead of the crying of the murdered children. Just like Abel’s blood cried to God, and God refused him forgiveness, so does the blood of the children which is on the hands of those betraying their Catholic faith. Disregarding that they are wrong to begin with that republicans don’t ignore the cries of the poor. These four sins that cry to God for vengeance are why Catholics vote democratic. They believe the last two are the most serious offenses of politicians. I should say that “they” is people who are Catholics, not Catholic leaders.
I wasn’t aware until recently that abortion was directly talked about among Jesus’s first followers until recently.
There is The Didache, and The Epistle of Barnabas.
If it isn’t evident I have learned a lot about religion from my classes lately.
More religious ramblings from boob…
Libby’s first post, Rosenbalt.
It is not Rosenblatt’s job to monitor my exchanges with you or yours with me. He responded to the comment you directed at him. For someone allegedly so smart, you certainly are simple.
It is completely relevant to why we are arguing.
And instead, he has come after me rather than you.
Bob, the reason people come after you is because you dont have a clue as to what youre talking about, but you still spout non-sense about religion, weight lifting, Osama, whatever as if you arent a moronic tool.
But Bobby, you are a moronic tool, so that is why people cant stand your idiocy. Ask yourself, if you were so smart and persuasive, why doesnt anyone here agree with you? Can you not find a way to communicate to simpler minds?
Or should we just add “persuasion” or “articulation” to your long list of lazy failures?
I have every clue what I’m talking about.
Libby just tried to post incorrect info about the Catholic Church.
Please list what I have been wrong about in this post.
Please list in my recent posts where I was wrong about oil taxes, the WHO, or other areas.
List one.
I can list one here where Ron was wrong, and Libby.
Both with my links to back it up.
Ron said that a Catholic would have to go against Catholic Teaching in order to choose either the death penalty, or abortion.
The death penalty is not against Catholic teaching. I even gave the Catechisms. 2266 and 2267.
Libby stated that a Cardinal was in affect against what I mentioned.
I then showed a site going over such info.
I’m not only better versed on these issues…I’m backing it up with sources, one of which was contained in Libby’s own source.
I love how you try to say how idiotic I am, and in this page alone I have correct two people who were completely wrong, who have yet to admit they were.
Sure, Bob, whatever you say. You post a few links and all the sudden youre king shit of turd mountain? Give me a break, old man.
Go play with a rosary.
Libby – you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Bob a moron.
-The sole member and founder of the IJ comment police
bob,
I will post the complete wording for those who do not like to click on links.
Catechism 2266 states, “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.” Sounds like the offender has to accept the death penalty in order to be executed. In addition, how does death contribute to the correction of the offender?
Catechism 2267 states, “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”
Did you miss, “…when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”? I would think life in prison with no possibility of parole is a practicable way to defend people from the offender.
Catholics believe, or at least are suppose to believe, in the sanctitiy of all life. I know, I am a Catholic.
You lose, again.
Stan – you are penalized one IJ credit for insulting Bob.
-The sole member and founder of the IJ comment police
Stan,
The Church does indeed agree with sanctity of all life.
And they are “mostly” against the death penalty. That is the most accurate way of framing it. Catechisms do allow for executions to occur when needed. The Church itself does agree with what I put above.
Did you in fact miss “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”?”
It is of your opinion that life in prison will meet that for all individuals. Many do not share that opinion. Regardless, Catechism 2266 and 2267 indefinitely would make you perfectly within Catholic bounds voting for a person ok with capital punishment. However, NO catechism would protect you for voting for a candidate for abortion. This is the official stance of the Church Ron. Deny it, and you are a heretic. They don’t like it, but the death penalty itself is allowed to the States.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Here is how many people have been executed since 1976. That is 36 per year. You want to compare this to 60 million? You really want to say you are breaking beliefs equally in the Catholic faith?
Side comment: You. Are. Not. A. Catholic.
To be a Catholic, you must try to the best of your ability to adhere to God’s will. In the faith, you are technically excommunicated, or prohibited from Heaven / the Eucharist if you break the laws of God and you do not go to Confession for it.
You are actually breaking them right now arguing that voting for a candidate for the death penalty is equal to that of abortion. The Church has many times gone over the priorities of voting.
There are intrinsic evils, and then there is a literal weight. Currently, the big two are actually NOT at all involved in the death penalty. The big three may not even be. Something interesting is that what you have failed to see is my other post.
4 sins cry vengeance out to God.
Currently,
The democrats lose on 2 of them. Murder. (Abortion does exceed capital punishment whether you want to admit it or not) and the sin of Sodom.
Defrauding a laborer and not taking care of the poor come next. The Church has already spoken. There are legitimate arguments of both parties in regards to the other two. Anyone who says the democrats are better, have ignored the Church. They specifically go a step further when it comes to taking care of the poor. They say it isn’t the government’s role, and that paying taxes does not constitute charity, and being the case, if you vote a candidate in and they tax enough for the poor, so you don’t have to pay for the poor, you have in affect removed your ability to be charitable. Disregarding even that, the democrats have both the sin of Sodom and the sin of murder beat.
The other two are debatable.
We go off of known evils first, the possible evils second.
Ah Stan,
I post links, but I never post links right?
I don’t post them, I never quote my sources.
I do post them, you say so what?
What we are talking about is factual.
You are arguing my personality instead of my points.
Do you debate the points?
Or do you not? We are not going off of steroids to debate my points, or my character, or weight lifting. You called me pathetic for ever even responding to you on that.
Stay on topic. Boy.
Bob, you’re such a sheep. The catholic church says one thing, you believe it (no abortion). They say another, you sort of believe it (death penalty). What about contraceptives? Sinful?
Take a stand, Bobby!
There is no hypocrisy in my words.
I posted a link on this. The Catholic Church says that Capital Punishment is not a sin.
I am in accordance with the Church.
I posted another link on this, from the Church. You are free to disagree with the Church.
You aren’t free to call me a sheep, while also saying I am not following my faith. That is a contradictory statement I might add. Are you too ignorant to see that? If you were correct, that I was not following my faith, I wouldn’t be a sheep. If you were correct that I was a sheep, I wouldn’t be rebelling against my faith.
Take a stand?
I have. And I have backed that stand up. Or do I have to agree with you in order to take a stand? (Also a contradictory statement).
You have the IQ of a 4 year old. Go debate with someone else. You don’t have the capability to talk any bit logical with me.
Also Stan,
I love the bait tactic here. You’re trying to get my opinion on contraceptives, because it is one you believe would discredit me entirely no matter which way I went.
If I say I’m for it, you would say I’m a controlling religious whack job.
If I say I’m against it, you will say I am picking and choosing with my Church.
How about I just drive you crazy, and not enlighten you?
Especially considering how often you have insulted me when I have gone over facts about myself before. But you’re way more accepting than those judgmental religious whack jobs right? You haven’t learned the importance of a religion yet. Hopefully that will change.
“Religion” is not important. It’s something man made up to try to 1) explain the unexplainable and 2) to control people. What’s important is finding your faith. That’s what brings one peace in their life. Not following some book or person. There is no great diety keeping score.
Religion is what the debate is about here, so my topics were on point in reference to Catholics betraying their religion.
You keep on trying to say philosophical statements (and I might add ones you perceive are popular) to disregard the fact that I am putting up relevant commentary.
I proved you wrong regarding the Catholic Church on gay behavior, I proved Ron wrong about whether or not capital punishment is an intrinsic evil, which would be against a Catholic’s faith.
Both are relevant to the topic at hand. Also: Stan and I are talking here, and I defended myself from his attacks. You can’t just join in on an attack, for no other reason than to make his attacks valid because I don’t adhere to your philosophical belief that religion is to control people etc. That in fact is using a philosophical belief, a form of religion (the way you used it) in order to do an attack on another person and justify it.
When people start thinking they are smarter than God, or religion, that is when things tend to get ugly.
Ergo your posts, and your “boob” comments.
I guess if I were really actually stupid, you could apply retard right? After all, I would just be a retard correct?
There are lines you don’t cross.
Calling someone stupid, fine.
Applying a degrading name, not fine.
Rosenblatt,
The vary reason I called you a child, is that despite your “front” I knew very well what your attitude was.
It is ironic that now you are actually living out that attitude in part, with the IJ points.
You say comments that sound moderate, balanced, but really they are just to play king of the mountain, high on the horse, moral high ground.
You seldom actually have a point here. It’s usually just a, Conservatives and liberals mess up! Ah, you ridiculous people who support conservatives, can no thou see that your actions art in error? Can not you see that I doth not do this?
Surely can not you see, I must know about the chicken sandwich story? It was never about demeaning agent! Not I! Never!
The only thing worse than an aggressive A$$hat, is a passive aggressive one. You aren’t really that hard to read, and you are NOT different or special to the arguing on this site. You partake. You act like the rest. Your wording is different, your intention the same. Humiliate and degrade.
The fact that you were “on point” regarding Catholocism does not negate my reply to your post saying: “You haven’t learned the importance of a religion yet.” Religion is NOT important. Faith is. That’s my opinion and you can bully me all you want, it won’t change.
Agent,
Private Catholic hospitals are not required to perfrom abortions if they do not accept public money. If you take money from the governemnt, you should perform any and all legal medical procedures.
If you think about it, there is no party for Catholics. You either vote for pro-choice or pro-death penalty. Both go against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
How can you be pro-life and also for the death penalty?
Touche!
It is this kind of thinking that is extremely destructive.
He creates a supposed “philosophical” impossibility to make a serious wrong no longer exist.
60 million people have not been executed. And to do with capital punishment, you might want to read the bible a bit on that. First, there were people stoned to death. Death as a punishment exists in the bible in the old testament. In the new bible it is more fuzzy.
But just so you know, you tried to make Catholics hypocrites without knowing the faith.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html
Read Catechism 2266 and 2267.
While many Catholics are liberal, and do not support the death penalty, and I’m sure you are speaking of Catholics you know, it is something Catechisms does not reject. Which means you spoke of “people” you know, and not “religious law”.
This is exactly a problem with you Ron.
Your ineptitude is astounding.
boob – Just where did he say ANYTHING about Catholics??? Are you paranoid and feeling persecuted today?
You using the bible to make a point is like me using the koran. It carries no weight with people that don’t believe it. It’s a BOOK. Written by MAN. That’s all. What is says or doesn’t say has no bearing on my beliefs, so quit quoting it incessantly. You’re an idiot trying to make a point with that resource as your only source.
How you can use the bible to justify killing on the one hand (executions) and condemn it on the other (embryos) is beyond the absurd. If killing people is bad, it’s bad regardless of who’s doing the killing. BTW, an embryo is not a person.
“If you think about it, there is no party for Catholics. You either vote for pro-choice or pro-death penalty. Both go against the teachings of the Catholic Church.”
He went over Catholic teachings.
I am talking about those. They have every point here, because this conversation started as me talking about Catholics going against their faith due to democrats labeling certain lifestyles, which you are doing right now. Ironic no?
I think you need to get out of your defensive fury. Not I.
Moving on:
So then the old Testament doesn’t talk about stoning people to death? The New Testament doesn’t talk about the first technical “Pope” using God’s wrath to strike down two people who made an action against the Church?
You are trying to find hypocrisy where there is none.
The Didache specifically says the 2nd commandment includes murder of the unborn. This was written at the same time as the bible, by those who wrote the bible. What you forget, is that this isn’t “Catholic”. Catholics claim it is their origin. They say the writings are theirs, and they decided what went in the bible. They left the Didache out, but simultaneously claim ownership of the writing which I’ll admit could be wrong. The Coptic Church is just as likely to have originated from Jesus, since it can easily be linked back to Mark. But this Church also claims ownership of The Didache. Neither says it is wrong. They both say it was written by the beginning of the Church.
You can’t say that the people who wrote the bible are just wrong and hypocrites. They said killing an unborn child is wrong. They said that killing a murderer or bad person is ok as long as the circumstance calls for it.
It is not contradictory. And for you to say murdering a child is the same as murdering a serious threat to society, is sick, and makes you a murderer.
There are 9 ways to support sin. I don’t care if you believe in Catholicism or not. You’re engaging in more than 1 of those 9 ways right now.
bob – can I make it any clearer than this? I don’t give a shit about what the bible says or any other religious document. Quit quoting to me as if it were some kind of factual account of anything. It is not.
Rosenbalt,
Also this one. What in my comment merited the I don’t give a @%@@#%
Nothing.
I don’t. I’ve said it nicely to you on more than one occasion. The only thing you respond to is swearing. For someone that swears at everyone on here you have alot of nerve. Pot meet kettle.
For God’s sakes!
You entice me into anger, and then say it’s because I swear at you that you swear at me?
EVERY time I have sworn, it is because you have made a bigoted comment, or accused me of being the ultimate evil in chief.
This is insanity of which I am sick of it Libby!
I made a comment that you had no point in commenting regarding. Agent and I were talking about the effect of liberalism on the Church, or churches in general.
There were no insults, until you pressed them down with BOOB as a method of talking to me.
Similar to your other comment:
“Way to take one line of a speech out of context. Classic move by Republicans. And their sheeple swallow it hook, line, and sinker without nary a google search. Ignorant cows.”
That is NOT how you talk to someone.
AND THAT WASN’T EVEN DIRECT AT ME.
It was your NORMAL comment. I RESPOND to comments like this saying to hell with you.
Outside of that, I am completely within reason.
Take it easy there, Bobby. So Libby made a good point and made you look dumb? Grow up, dont be such a tool. It happens. Just admit she was right and be a man about it.
Stop crying all the time, lordy.
Libby – you have been penalized one IJ credit for insulting someone in your post.
Bob – you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Libby a murderer
-The sole member and founder of the IJ comment police
“Rosenbalt, Also this one. What in my comment merited the I don’t give a @%@@#%. Nothing.”
You’re so worked up Bob. Relax. Libby said she doesn’t give a @#($*& about the bible. That’s a belief she holds.
She didn’t say she doesn’t give a !)@$*& about you personally, or that she doesn’t give a @$&*& about Christians — she just told you her take on religion & the bible.
I don’t see a problem with that comment. Libby is NOT getting penalized any IJ credits for that statement.
Sorry to interrupt your policing, Rosenblatt, but I just needed to tell you that you’re kind of awesome. :)
Thank you, BS. I want to give you one IJ credit for saying something positive about someone else here, but I checked with the administrators and I only have permission to take away people’s IJ credits — unfortunately, I have no authority to give out IJ credits! :D
She made no good point whatsoever Stan.
I have not been made to look dumb, and like it or not, moron, I can show discontent and being pissed off and still be intelligent.
“I have not been made to look dumb, and like it or not, moron…”
Bob, you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Stan a moron.
-The sole and founding member of the IJ comment police
Bob, she made several good points (pretty sure you conceded that already) and then made you look dumb for your hypocritical religious stance on abortion / death penalty.
It’s why everyone on here agreed with her assessment that you, dummy, are a dumb moron who lazily lifts weights. Tool.
“It’s why everyone on here agreed with her assessment that you, dummy, are a dumb moron who lazily lifts weights. Tool.”
Stan – you are penalized one IJ credit for calling Bob a dumb moron and a tool.
-The founding & sole member of the IJ comment police
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BOB – THIS IS GETTING TEDIOUS. DO YOU AGREE I AM CALLING OUT OTHERS WHO INSULT YOU SO CAN I STOP DOING THIS!??!?!?!?!?!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I nominate Rose for the IJ Chief of Police!
Maybe the personal insults will fade away?
Rosenblatt,
I would say your maturity is in question given your point basis after I demanded you show at least some discontent with the liberals who are out of line on this site.
But fine. I admit defeat. You are correct. My speaking was out of line.
I will try to control it.
In my opinion, the unborn baby has not had a chance to be good, bad or indifferent.
In the case of the death penalty, them folks sentenced to death have proven the world will be better with out them.
Again, in my opinion.
So – if you’re “bad” you deserve to be murdered but if you’re not you deserve to live? I’m sorry. I just can’t agree with that mindset. It’s too much like the thumbs up or thumbs down at the Colessium. What gives you the right to decide who lives and who dies???
Violent crime has touched my family. My cousin hubby killed her for ins money, set three houses on fire for insurance and the third fire tried to kill his son and his new wife. He sits alive in the Fed Pen while my cousin is dead.
There was a mass murder in a night club several years back where the gun man dry fired at my niece. He killed 6 people and hurt many more.
Do them two deserve to live? What about the Boston Bomber? The nut jobs in France?
So, you incorrect in your assumption. Not all bad people deserve to die, just the worst.
Well, if you don’t mind, I’ll leave that judgment up to the Almighty. It’s way above my pay grade to decide life or death.
An abortion is not the same in the least, as an embryo is not a human being yet. Not until it’s born and can survive outside the mother’s womb.
If you kill the killer, you are no better than they are.
Libby,
You aren’t leaving the judgment to the almighty. You are specifically judging that a child should be killed.
You are a false speaker on this.
Moreover, You can’t call me a “boob” for quoting Catholic teaching and whether or not Catholics go against it.
I do not ramble religiously. Have you even read the Didache, or The Epistle of Baranabas?
Or again, did you come up with the “God of Libby’s head”.
Read about the Church fathers. I am basing my life on teachings, not what my brain tells me, as you do.
You are the religious nut job. Not I.
There’s no “judgment” involved in having an abortion, you moron. No one is saying the embryo is bad and deserves to be aborted. It is aborted so that is not able to become a human being, probably unwanted and unloved and faced with a horrible life. A soul never dies. That soul will be reborn in another body at time that is best for it.
Take you catholic church crap and keep it to yourself. I am not a catholic and do not follow their rhetoric.
Hello again Libby, with the insults, boob, moron, etc, and then you say that I crack at you for no reason. It try to remain composed.
Back on topic:
I am not talking about judgment on the child. Though you do render judgement in saying they are just as likely guilty as murderers.
What I did say, is you are rendering judgment on the action of killing a child. You are saying it is ok.
While you simultaneously say that rendering judgment is not ok to kill a human through the death penalty due to it being up to God.
You equated the death penalty as the same as having an abortion.
The government aborts the man. You say that’s wrong because it is God’s choice.
The woman aborts the child. It is also wrong, because it is God’s choice.
Also: Aborting a child is also judgement on the Child’s life that you do not have the ability to make. There are only two reasons to have an abortion: You believe it will make the child suffer. Which God says the poor are the richest in the world, so I think God is clear that the Child’s life is valuable no matter what. And then there is because it would make your own life too difficult. I think that judgement to kill the child, puts the mother on equal terms for why most people murder first of all, but also, it is not a pure motivation to go against the life God created. The first Church fathers went over this. You have a choice to make: You can believe in them and God. Or you can choose not to.
But if you want to make a religious argument, you have to go by and through their words.
I don’t care if you are an atheist and agree with abortion. Those people don’t know any better.
But you do. You just choose to make yourself a God on all matters to do with God. You aren’t God. God is.
Libby Says – “Well, if you don’t mind, I’ll leave that judgment up to the Almighty. It’s way above my pay grade to decide life or death. ”
Not my call either.
bob – listen up. I get tired of having to clarify everything for you over and over.
I specifically said that execution and abortion were not the same in the least. You must have skipped over that part in your haste to preach at me.
Aborting an embryo or unviable fetus is not murder, as an embryo and unviable fetus is not a person. They are just that, tissue.
And the only one that can make the choice of having an abortion or not is the woman to which the embryo belongs. Not you. Not me. And certainly not the government. She is the only person that knows whether or not that choice is the right one for her at the time.
Fear not, the soul lives on and will be born in another body at another time. She is just expelling unwanted tissue from her body. Period.
Execution, on the other hand, takes a living, breathing human being and kills it. By doing that, you are no better than the person being executed.
But again, I know your disdain for science and your love of anything Catholic, so I do not expect you to either understand or agree with my position. Just as I will not yours.
It is not just tissue in her body.
Nothing I said goes against science.
I am completely able to understand your writings. You don’t have to clarify. You are the one who does not understand mine.
You do not understand what I just wrote. Which is ok. Maybe at some time God will set you straight on the matter. But I don’t have the time to educate you and it isn’t my place. This argument is over.
It’s not that I don’t understand your argument, I just don’t agree with it. As far as I’m concerned, I’m right and you’re wrong. Good luck changing my mind.
If you think about it, there is no party for anyone.
On the topic of Abortions, there have been over 60 million since roe vs wade, and a child as God says, is innocent. There is an age where you become responsible for sin in the Catholic Church, and it isn’t before birth.
If we are to compare which party is more for god,
It is one of the four sins that cry out to vengeance to kill an unborn child. 60 million deaths, vs how many executions of people who are by no means an innocent child?
Your logics are unbearably bad.
The Church already has things going over this, areas that are more important than others due to size and scope.
The republican party meets it more than the democrat. Libertarian is actually just as close as republican.
60 million embyos, not children.
60 million children.
An embryo is not a child. A fetus is not a child until it is viable and able to survive outside the womb. I know how much you dislike science, but these are the facts. I am against the abortion of a fetus once it becomes viable.
Science is science and is not against God.
You can’t name call and say I am against science and am a religious nut job, to invalidate my beliefs and expect me to debate without insults to you.
Moving on: Science absolutely states a human developing organism, is a developing human, from the moment the egg joins with the sperm.
You try to then say that it is a fetus at that time, until it is “viable” or “can survive on it’s own.”.
It is still a developing child. It is not a mythical non existent thing. Science absolutely supports the fact that a developing child is a developing…CHILD. A fetus is a HUMAN developing child.
From the moment a child is developing, God, who exists in all times, does not see a difference in it’s rights.
God, who made it, knows who it will be. God knew Abraham before he was in the womb. The Didache says no unborn can be killed.
This isn’t against science what I am saying. It is in accordance with God.
What you are saying is against science. It is not in accordance with God. You will be held accountable.
I know. I’m going to hell. See you there!
bob,
You said, “If you think about it, there is no party for anyone.” Thank you!!!
Maybe now you understand why I am an Independent.
If more Catholics voting for Democrats than Republicans goes against their beliefs, so be it. I don’t think either party can claim to be any more Christian than the other. Can’t you just respect the fact that they can vote for whomever they wish without judgement?
I am sure we all vote against our own self interests at some point.
I do not recall Jesus advocating for the death penalty and that is who Cathoilcs are to be following. The Old testament contains stories to help us understand why we should be following Jesus, not how the live.
Ah yes, I’ll be in hell because I told you that you were against God.
Clearly.
Quite contrary, God tells people to inform people of truth.
I would be in hell if I didn’t stop the effect of people like you.
The 9 ways of supporting sin. You might want to look it up. In-action would damn me, praise and misleading people to follow it would damn you.
Do you want to debate on this issue?
I have more experience than you ever could in terms of theology.
Ultimately it would all come down to you saying you believe in God, not the Church or Bible.
The Bible and Church came from the apostles of Jesus. They were indeed real. You must believe in them, to believe in Jesus. And the follow what I believe.
You are unwilling to admit you don’t support or believe in God. Part of that is an unwillingness to submit to a life without sin and whatever you want. You want for God to shape around you, and your body. That’s fine. But you can’t say the bible of the apostles says you are going to Heaven for it.
*they follow what I believe.
Ron,
As usual, you try to use the word “judgement” as if my even believing this is bad.
First of all: What I just said is not why you are ind pendant. What you don’t get is I was stating that by your logics, there is no party to vote for. However, I then pointed out, there is a party that is MORE for what they believe than another.
Also: If you’re a part of the Catholic Church you follow it. If you’re not, you don’t. If they don’t want to be Catholic they are free to that. You however, are not allowed to judge Catholic beliefs as judgmental, and then rewrite Catholicism.
You’re just a philosophical guy with no real knowledge whatsoever. Choices involve conviction. Not constantly saying “everything is the same” as you do.
To end this: What I said is that the application of beliefs against republicans has caused many Catholics to believe they are supporting their faith voting for them.
Perhaps, judging republican as being against the poor, or your judgements against republicans, is akin to my supposed “judgements” only your conclusions are wrong. Maybe you need to stop judging what republicans are. You can’t have it both ways Ron. You speak for them all the time.
If you were an independent, you would be open to that fact, that currently the republicans are not what you say they are. But you are not.
boob – because you really are a boob. I believe in God, I just don’t believe in YOUR God. I find it amusing that religious people all think they’ve got the one and only pipeline to the Lord to the exclusion of anyone that thinks differently than they do. How pompous can you be?
Yes, Jesus and the apostles were real. Real people. Just like Mohammad and Buddha. He was the son of God, just as you and I are children of God. The bible has a very good message, but I refuse to believe it is the word of God. It is not. It is the word on man, relating their experiences with Jesus. That’s all.
You worship how and to whom you like. I will continue with my “wicked ways” and we’ll just see who ends up where. Because you also know I don’t believe in heaven and hell either. That’s just another scare tactic used by the Church to control people. Think for yourself!
I really don’t care Libby. About anything you say.
It has no value in life, to degrade the life of a human in development. There is no benefit in the termination of the child, scientifically, morally, or spiritually, so it should never be done.
I only say it like this because you’ll call me a religious nut job when I say I don’t care, you’re just wrong on the issue.
There is no tangible benefit to killing a child, and it does remove the being from existence, who would have otherwise been born.
You cannot argue against that. The being who wasn’t born, was robbed a chance at birth.
That is an injustice. People like you are a dime a dozen.
I wasn’t guaranteed a life of people agreeing with me by moving to faith. So it doesn’t surprise me that someone like yourself is arguing with me.
There are however aspects, not to do with spirituality, which comes from degrading human life from conception.
Sex becomes more important than children.
Sex becomes more important than a relationship devoid of sex. Allow me to explain: Go up to someone and say you want to date with absolutely no sex until marriage. How many people will say yes? Sex has become too important to them. The focus on the relationship is no longer two people’s compatibility. It is whether or not the sex is good. I had had this argument too often. Would you give up sex entirely in your marriage? The answer is universally, no. Marriage is not about sex. Again, I sound too conservative, but when I was a child, not having sex, what I wanted was someone who loved me. And my parents showed me true love, something we all yearn for, and seek partners for, and yet are never fulfilled
.
Physical desire becomes more important than responsibility or love.
Sex becomes separate from child birthing. Yes I sound like such a conservative saying that, but I don’t mean it in the same light. If a 16 year old separates sex from child birthing, and it is a pleasure issue, they are a lot more likely to think “well, I’m not acting irresponsibly because I’m making sure I don’t have a kid by using protection”. I was around these kids who clearly went by this lifestyle. Sex itself was not considered to be irresponsible if protected, sex itself wasn’t even limited to relationships, let alone marriage. It was a method of pleasure.
By separating sex from child birthing, which is an affect of abortion, you basically have kids being stupid, dating stupidly, and weighing their relationships by how good of sex they can get.
I’m not even arguing spiritually that this is bad.
You tell me that dating in this age isn’t almost exclusively ruled by how good the sex is in the start. How many relationships have fallen afterward, when people started focusing on what a relationship actually is and realized they didn’t have one? We got encouraged in this by removing child birthing from sex, by making sex a pleasure activity that is not limited to marriage, and then not even limited to couples. It all originated from abortion.
Abortion itself is bad. But so are the affects.
I’m glad you don’t care anymore. Now you can shut the hell up about it.
If marriage isn’t about sex, why wouldn’t you give it up??? You’re a walking contradiction, aren’t you? God made sex pleasurable because he wanted us to procreate, yes. If that was the only reason, why is it pleasurable to people that can not procreate? Are you saying God didn’t perfect his approach? God wants us to be happy. With or without sex and with or without procreating.
Whatever Libby requires.
As you wish.
To simplify all the points here, and remove all insults (as I just don’t like having to deal with your typical arguments Ron)
You said:
“If you think about it, there is no party for Catholics. You either vote for pro-choice or pro-death penalty. Both go against the teachings of the Catholic Church. ”
There is a party that goes by the Church on more issues, but forgetting that you highlighted two particular issues, and you were wrong that you have to go against “The teachings of the Catholic Church” in either capital punishment or pro life issues. It’s that easy. When I replied to you, your comment should have been “I was wrong.”. Instead, it was not. You seemed to think I told you that I endorsed that there was no one party for the Catholic to vote for. And of course, that they can in good faith vote for a democrat. You called me judgmental at that point. Judgmental when it comes to going “against the teachings of the Catholic Church” which was the original point? Neither of us can judge that. The Church can. I quote the Church. You quote…You.
You are not divinely inspired, don’t really care much on issues of religion, and instead are philosophically inspired. Your thoughts don’t apply to the Catholic Church.
You will likely move to another section the republicans are against the Church regarding in order to make the same point, however, the Church has already spoken on this.
As I said above, the primary concern for them is abortion. Any candidate who allows it cannot be voted for. In the event that two candidates are for abortion, you must vote for the one with the lesser standard.
While the Church does go over other issues for candidates who both do not support abortion, that is in the event that abortion is not an issue.
This argument was whether the democrat party causes Catholics to go against their ideals, by claiming to be the party of morality to the poor and understanding. The answer is yes. They do. And there are other issues as well. Gay marriage being another. There are in the Catholic Church 9 ways of supporting sin, that are considered sin. The Church is clear in how to treat homosexuality. You are not to praise it. You are not to condone it, nor condemn those who practice it. If there is a wedding not authorized by God, you are even supposed to vocalize you are against it (though not be harsh in your words) and reject to attend. The bottom line is to love the person, but not to spread the sin itself.
The democrat party definitely spreads the sin of homosexuality. This is only relevant because of my original comment:
4 sins cry out to God for Vengeance in the Catholic Church. These are basically the worst sins to do (to men, considering technically not loving God is the first). Murder is the first outside of that. It is the worst. Democrats violate the first, through abortion.
The next is the Sin of Sodom. This is gay sex. It also links back to the 9 ways to support sin. The city was destroyed for not just practicing gay sex. It was for arrogance and supporting and spreading gay sex in the first place (refusing to listen to God when he told them to stop). How does this link to the 9 ways of supporting sin? God destroyed also the people who supported the sin of Sodom, gay sex. They were considered one in the same. This is important because we are clearly having people who don’t practice gay sex in their beliefs, manage to practice the sin of Sodom openly and proudly. This is two that the democrats break.
Then there are the other two, which the liberals use to have the Catholic violate the two other sins. Those two are a matter of opinion. The Church also goes over this. They have talked about this. They said that just because one party accuses the other of not caring for the poor, does not make it true. It is a valid area of disagreement in which both parties lack the best method of taking care of the poor. This is something that the bible itself says is irrelevant. Paying taxes is not a form of caring for the poor. Neither is voting for someone to take care of the poor. Only direct contributions are.
The last two are debatable in who is better, with the Church constantly lambasting unchecked democrat economics and republican ones (though they never use the words, as it would get them in trouble, they are clearly referring to the two by theories.).
“Last week New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan gave his okay to the St. Patrick Day Parade Committee’s decision to allow a gay group to march in the 2015 parade under their own banner. This was a remarkable shift from one of Dolan’s predecessors Cardinal John O’Connor who in 1993 declared that to allow a gay group to march in the parade would be a slander to the Apostle’s Creed.
Pope Francis Reaffirms Support of Public Breast-FeedingThe Possible Presidential Candidate Who Agrees the Most With Pope Francis’I’m Not Dying Tonight’: Ex-NFLer Shares Survival Story NBC NewsWhite House on Paris Rally No-Show: We Blew It NBC News’Terrified’ Jews Question Their Future in France NBC News
This closes a remarkable summer in which a number of high-ranking Catholic prelates have signaled that Pope Francis’s more open posture on gay issues has permeated through the Catholic world. In May, a top-ranking Italian bishop said that the Church should be more open to arguments in support of same-sex marriage. And just a few weeks ago, one of Pope Francis’s closest friends Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes said in an interview that he “didn’t know” whether Jesus would oppose gay marriage.”
http://time.com/3303851/is-the-catholic-church-evolving-on-gay-marriage/#3303851/is-the-catholic-church-evolving-on-gay-marriage/
Seems like your catechism teacher needs to get with the program.
I wonder if you read your own link, inside your link, that your link referenced.
“But the St. Patrick’s Day parade, which is not church-run, allows for some wiggle room. Dolan said Wednesday the parade committee that operates the annual event “continues to have my confidence and support.”
http://ncronline.org/news/people/gay-groups-st-patricks-parade-all-right-cardinal-dolan
Not run by the Church. Regardless of this, Cardinals are not infallible. They are not the final word on the Church. The Catechisms are. These have not changed regarding homosexuality. These will not change regarding homosexuality. You might want to go inform your Non-Catholic source regarding this.
Pope Francis has not changed the stance. He has said that a gay person can come to God. This is nothing new.
Also,
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu44.htm
Regarding the Catholic beliefs on being an accessory to sin.
While there is no outright law that says “you should not attend a gay marriage”
There are laws regarding promoting sin. All quoted here, or in the links therein.
This is a Catholic site. They are quoting CCC (Catechisms.)
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu44.htm
Second link is delayed due to the amount of links I have posted. Insurance journal does this often.
Libby,
I posted a link and description of why and how you can be an accessory to sin. While there is no CCC directly stating that going to a gay wedding is a sin, there are CCC’s regarding how one can be an accessory to sin, and thus be committing a sin.
It applies to many things, but it would also apply to a gay wedding.
Of all things, quoting a Times article for Catholic code is quite absurd, and literally, heretical to their teachings.
I don’t believe in sin Bob, so I’m pretty sure I cannot be an accessory to it. The article clearly stated the Pope’s position on gays is evolving but don’t expect radical changes. They can still be accepted into the Church and are loved by God. If you don’t think that many Chritians do not condemn them to hell then you’re just not paying attention. Just read the comments on any IJ article regarding gays.
The Catholic position has not changed.
Francis has only emphasized what has already been emphasized. I’m a part of the Church, and I have seen the rebuttals to this. Google it. Catholic approved pieces.
The Church has not changed on this, and will not.
You surely believe in Sin. Ergo, Hitler. You do believe in sin.
To do with Sin, the bible is explicit, no sin will exist in Heaven, all sin that does exist will exist in hell, and the sin of Sodom, cries out to God. Not only that, Gay behavior is condemned in both Leviticus, and by Paul.
Popular opinion, does not change the bible, your point is meaningless.
Regardless of such, we are talking of the Catholic Church, which you just tried to use a Times article, to say is changing gay procedure, of which you are wrong.
Say the words, you are wrong. Because you are.
There you go again, telling me what I believe. You haven’t a clue about what anyone believes because you’re too busy shoving what you believe down everyone’s throat. Yes, Pope Francis’ stance on gays is much more tolerant that past Popes have been. And I clearly stated that we are to expect no radical changes in the Church’s position. Did you miss that in your haste to argue with me?
And I DO NOT believe in “sin” that will be used as a tallysheet to determine whether you get into “heaven” or go to “hell.” WTF does Hitler have to do with anything? You’re off your rocker.
Actually Libby,
YOU are telling me what THE CATHOLIC CHURCH believes.
Don’t try to turn it around. You told me to go speak with my teacher.
I know the Catholic Church. You don’t. It has not changed. It will not change, in the area of gay behavior.
NO, bob. Don’t get it twisted. You were telling ME what I believe:
“You surely believe in Sin. Ergo, Hitler. You do believe in sin.”
Now say the words: I was wrong. You can’t, can you?
I said:
“Popular opinion, does not change the bible, your point is meaningless.
Regardless of such, we are talking of the Catholic Church, which you just tried to use a Times article, to say is changing gay procedure, of which you are wrong.
Say the words, you are wrong. Because you are.”
I told you that Sin does exist as a side comment to the original debate, because you went on a side comment yourself to say that you didn’t believe in sin. I told you sin does exist, but that is irrelevant to whether or not the Church supports gay behavior.
I told you, regardless of such we are talking of the Catholic Church.
Did you forget Libby? This is what you said at the end of your original post:
“Seems like your catechism teacher needs to get with the program.”
and this was Following links about a Cardinal supporting Gay Marriage, and you said that the Church is now moving toward Gay Marriage.
You, labeled, Catholic, beliefs, and I defended that label.
We aren’t getting off topic, you are being extremely dishonest here.
Your original post, said that a Catholic endorsed Gay Marriage and that was the purpose of the post. Read it.
“Last week New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan gave his okay to the St. Patrick Day Parade Committee’s decision to allow a gay group to march in the 2015 parade under their own banner. This was a remarkable shift from one of Dolan’s predecessors Cardinal John O’Connor who in 1993 declared that to allow a gay group to march in the parade would be a slander to the Apostle’s Creed.
Pope Francis Reaffirms Support of Public Breast-FeedingThe Possible Presidential Candidate Who Agrees the Most With Pope Francis’I’m Not Dying Tonight’: Ex-NFLer Shares Survival Story NBC NewsWhite House on Paris Rally No-Show: We Blew It NBC News’Terrified’ Jews Question Their Future in France NBC News
This closes a remarkable summer in which a number of high-ranking Catholic prelates have signaled that Pope Francis’s more open posture on gay issues has permeated through the Catholic world. In May, a top-ranking Italian bishop said that the Church should be more open to arguments in support of same-sex marriage. And just a few weeks ago, one of Pope Francis’s closest friends Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes said in an interview that he “didn’t know” whether Jesus would oppose gay marriage.”
http://time.com/3303851/is-the-catholic-church-evolving-on-gay-marriage/#3303851/is-the-catholic-church-evolving-on-gay-marriage/
Seems like your catechism teacher needs to get with the program.”
So choke it down, and say the words “I was wrong about the Catholic Church”
NOW.
I will not have you try to degrade me, while we talk about the original point and I stayed on topic, while you did not.
Also, this was my conversation that I started. Even before your original attempt to rewrite Catholicism, I wrote a post to start this whole topic that got out of control:
The topic was: Democrats all too often label Republicans in ways that cause Catholics to vote against their faith.
And if we take that literally: Abortion, Euthanasia, etc, I was correct. Also, my most recent post goes over how Wars and the Death penalty is actually weighed in the Church. They can be valid, though usually not. This means as the Church has always said, we must weigh by Abortion and the intrinsic evils first (known evils that are evil regardless of circumstance) and I’m sorry, but by the Church code, the death penalty is not evil regardless of circumstance, neither is war.
Ron tried to circumvent that argument, and argue against catechisms, then he tried to twist the catechism interpretation. I have now quoted the catechisms, an authorized Catholic Cardinal in his website, and a book that was submitted to and approved by the Church.
I have not been wrong on this.
If you don’t agree with Catholicism fine. You are not however allowed to rewrite it.
Really, do I need to repeat this 50 times?
“The Catholic position has not changed.
Francis has only emphasized what has already been emphasized. I’m a part of the Church, and I have seen the rebuttals to this. Google it. Catholic approved pieces.
The Church has not changed on this, and will not.
You surely believe in Sin. Ergo, Hitler. You do believe in sin.
To do with Sin, the bible is explicit, no sin will exist in Heaven, all sin that does exist will exist in hell, and the sin of Sodom, cries out to God. Not only that, Gay behavior is condemned in both Leviticus, and by Paul.
Popular opinion, does not change the bible, your point is meaningless.
Regardless of such, we are talking of the Catholic Church, which you just tried to use a Times article, to say is changing gay procedure, of which you are wrong.
Say the words, you are wrong. Because you are.”
There I go again saying what you believe though, right? Tell me, was it just that I said you believe in Sin? You do. You clearly believe in evil, which is sin. You believe Hitler was evil. Don’t try to be disingenuous. I am telling you what you believe, and am being so bold in that:
Because I told you that you do in fact believe Hitler is wrong?
Are you out of your damn mind?
You do think that, and it is not unreasonable of me to say that. I’m not controlling you. I’m saying what is true, because you are lying, (to yourself and me) by saying you don’t believe in sin. ‘
But back on topic: You started this by telling me that the Pope has been moving toward accepting gay behavior. I told you he has not, he will not.
Liberal articles are claiming he has. They are not Church Authority. Before telling me I need to go back to my “Catechism teacher” you were claiming I don’t know my own religion, which is bull crap.
Nothing has changed in the Catholic Church regarding Gay behavior. Yet you labeled that it has. Ergo, labeled my faith, and called me stupid for not knowing it.
I’m a practicing Catholic. I’m going to classes on it. Maybe, just maybe, I know more than you about the faith I attend.
Oh. My. God. I was wrong. OK? Don’t get your panties all in a twist. With that being said, I do believe they will change their position on it some day.
Further, you said: “There I go again saying what you believe though, right? Tell me, was it just that I said you believe in Sin? You do. You clearly believe in evil, which is sin. You believe Hitler was evil. Don’t try to be disingenuous. I am telling you what you believe, and am being so bold in that”
Please go back and re-read my original statement which was: “I DO NOT believe in “sin” that will be used as a tallysheet to determine whether you get into “heaven” or go to “hell.” WTF does Hitler have to do with anything?”
Now. Say you were wrong. I did.
Don’t get my panties in a bunch…Fine.
To do with the Sin Tally sheet, that’s fine as well.
Hitler as an example was solely to show that sin does exist.
From there, if we look at what the bible says about sin…It’s pretty clear that tally sheet or no, the primary issue with getting into Heaven is in being willing to admit you were sinful. To deny that your sin is sin, will certainly land you in hell. You are not talking about a tally sheet in these arguments themselves. You are talking about people willingly going against God, and refusing to stop. I’m not talking about tally sheets either. So why are we even talking about one?
The only reason I can imagine, is that you want to believe that is my system. It isn’t.
“the primary issue with getting into Heaven is in being willing to admit you were sinful.” I’m not sure what that means unless you mean to say be willing to admit we are not perfect. That goes without saying. When you are wrong, it is best to try to make an amend and do better. When you are wronged, it is best to forgive. I don’t need a bible or a priest or a rabbi or a shaman to tell me that.
Willing to admit you are not perfect is not the same as willing to admit you were wrong.
One is a blanket statement.
One is a specific one.
In fact, I have heard quite a few people say they are not perfect in order to justify an imperfect action they refuse to stop doing.
Being willing to admit you were wrong and stop your action is the issue. It’s not as easy as you imply, and is quite impossible if we refuse to acknowledge the sin in the first place.
So if I beat my wife, I have to not just admit I’m a wife beater. I have to also stop.
If I lie, I have to stop.
If I have pre marital sex I have to stop.
If I use my wife sexually, and force her into submission, I have to stop.
There are several sins that certain people have made popular, and thus you actually do need a priest or a rabbi to tell you it is wrong.
It is amazing you think of other religious folk as arrogant who are willing to listen to their priests and rabbis, and you who don’t believe anyone needs to tell you about morality do not have an issue whatsoever.
I am well aware of how one falls morally, mainly because I fell. You should be more on guard.
Bob, we’re talking in circles. I don’t believe in sin. I believe I should treat others as I want to be treated. So I do not lie or cheat or harm them. If I do, intentionally or unintentionally, I must apologize and make amends and a conscious effort to not do it again. I don’t think having pre-marital sex, eating meat on Friday, or using birth control is wrong so there is no need for me to do anything in that regard.
To boil it down for you, you are pushing Catholic doctrine on a non-Catholic and I’m not buying it. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I’M NOT CATHOLIC. I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER I CAN MAKE IT.
Ron,
For your reading pleasure, from a Cardinal of the Church, speaking about the laws of the Church in regards to voting.
You have spoken incorrectly on the matter, and I have 100% spoken correctly on it.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
Note where he goes over that the Church does in fact leave open the opinion of Capital Punishment, and that there can be legitimate disagreements. He is referring to the same CCC’s I referred to.
And also note, I didn’t even go over Euthanasia. Also note, he goes over whether or not you can receive communion, which you should know what that means.
You were bluntly wrong on this, and tried to point out hypocrisy in my words. You are not a member of the Catholic Church, even according to this. You have ex communicated yourself.
I would strongly encourage you to see a priest regarding what we have debated, if you really desire a connection to the Church. Blaspheming against the bible (or Church) is among the worst of all sins.
To Clarify on this, because I know your only recourse Ron, and I know you will try it:
When a cardinal speaks on matters of the Catholic Church, and says it is Church teaching while quoting CCC’s, a cardinal does in fact have authority to speak regarding the Church.
And if they speak improperly, they are excommunicated, and their documents are taken offline. Catholic websites speaking of Catholic Doctrine are strictly regulated by the Church. This Cardinal has not been excommunicated by the Church.
You also might want to read a book that was submitted to the Vatican and was approved to be taught to Catholics.
It was called something to the effect of “Liberalism is a sin”. You might want to read that. It isn’t literally talking about democrats. It is however talking about the support of morally questionable material on the moral high ground of being accepting of people. You might like it. But then again…As you aren’t a good Catholic, you might just hate the Catholic Church more, or disregard a book that is fully supported by the Catholic Church, because you pick and choose.
But that goes to my original argument:
Democrats are encouraging Catholics to go against their teachings.
I have now quoted CCC, Cardinals in the Church, and a Church approved book.
What else do you need to admit defeat on this Ron?
You’re wrong. Just admit it already.
Ron,
http://www.liberalismisasin.com
Also for your reading pleasure. It even goes over the reply from the Church regarding the book I just mentioned. It was praised by the Church. You can click through the book on the site.
They demanded the alternate opinion be removed by the other priest.
This occurred some time ago to be sure, but liberals today apply to the same basic concept.
bob,
You have me more confused than ever. All I said is that there is no party that completely represents Catholicism. Both advocate policies that go against Catholic teachings.
I was not trying to point out your hypocrisy, just poking holes in your argument that the Catholic XChurch is OK with capital punishment. You can spin whatever excuse you want to say the death penalty is OK, but the exclusions listed in the Catechisms you referenced are extremely rare, especially today. I am confident in stating that there are far fewer situations that meet the criteria to excuse an execution than the number of innocent people who have been executed.
I am also very confident that the Catholic Church would not favor increasing corporate welfare while reducing welfare for the poor.
There is only one way to KNOW what exactly God expects from us and we will not KNOW until we meet him for our final judgement.
You, just like Agent, try to label me and think you know me by misinterpreting my posts.
Typical boob tactic.
No. We do not label. You do. I have however pointed out that you constantly lie about who you are and what you represent in order to appear like you are a moderate.
Is this statement, not labeling conservatives? ” “Are you Conservative too incapabale of doing your own research?””
You just tried to use your same argument to dismiss mine. You just tried again Ron, to say that Agent and I do that, not you. I would say the above is doing that. We aren’t going to debate like this.
Your original post said they had to either go against the Church regarding Capital punishment, or abortion. You were wrong, the Church specifically says that advocating capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil. An intrinsic evil is evil regardless of circumstance. Both the area of war and capital punishment are not intrinsic evils.
And back on topic: Unicorn arguments ARE NOT GOING TO BE DONE HERE. Pardon the anger, but it is a lie to say that both parties are equally against the faith. You saying that both parties cause people to go against the faith, is also part of why Catholics then won’t vote republican. Typically, they say they betray it either way. Everything is equal right? But then they can’t list why they are going against their faith voting republican. This is why they are not equally going against their faith by voting republican or democrat. When they vote democrat, they KNOW the democrat party violates list-able intrinsic evil. When they go against the republican party, they don’t KNOW which evil the republican party does wrong, only that it is just as bad to vote for a republican. This is due to people like you, which is why I won’t accept your crap for beans arguments. Can you list one area, where republicans are in favor of an intrinsic evil? Can you list one area where the republican platform goes against the Church on an intrinsic evil? I just mentioned the Church dismisses any of those that are up for debate, and that would apply to tax rates, corporate tax code, lower spending, debates on healthcare, social security, welfare, and programs for the poor. The republican party doesn’t support any intrinsic evil as defined by the Church. So to vote for a democrat, is always a sin, whereas to vote for a republican, is not. As according to the Church, one party does not go against the beliefs of the Church. There is not a system by which a Catholic goes against their faith no matter what.
This is why so many Catholics have fallen from grace.
As I have said several times: You are not special. You are part of the problem in the Catholic Church. Man up, grow up, represent your faith, or leave it. Also, stop making inaccurate statements about the Church. Again, you do not violate Catholic beliefs no matter who you vote for. You are wrong. Say the words.
My tactic, is to argue the topics.
In the posts above, regarding the Catholic teachings, list one area where I labeled to gain points.
The action of Ron saying how we argue is improper, in order to disregard many posts that did not at all do what he said, was in fact that tactic he just described Libby.
I’m extremely intelligent, and don’t fall for this crap.
I usually direct it, say the person is not being honest in their debate, and then I go back on topic.
The problem is, people like you and Ron then refuse to go back on the topic. It is more comfortable to stay on the moral aspects of the argument, than the argument itself. Stay on topic. Both of you.
Listen, man, you are not the debate couch or the debate judge of IJ. We are free to express ourselves anyway we want to. I’ve told you time and time again that I am not here to debate. I’m here to express my opinion and hear other’s express theirs. I can disagree with someone’s opinion without having to back it up with anything. It’s an OPINION. And I think everyone’s entitled to mine.
The moment you put your opinion out there, while saying snide remarks, is the moment you start a debate.
You keep on going with this “you’re not my dad” type of attitude, simply because I say your commentary on the Church is wrong. Or alternatively, because your commentary of how I debate is wrong. YOU are not the IJ debate king, pal.
It goes two ways Libby, in this street.
Side comment: You really aren’t used to hearing people disagree with you, are you? Or tell you that you’re wrong.
bob,
If you do not like the way Libby or I “debate”, then do not engage us in a debate.
I did not twist the interpretation of the Catechisms you reference, I posted them word-for-word showing that the death penalty is not unconditionally acceptable to the Catholic Churchand te conditions to avoid its use, based on the Catechisms are easily met in today’s society.
Please tell me how I constatntly lie. I have post a few inaccuracies and apologized when they were pointed out, but it was NEVER done to intentionally deceive. Nobody knows everything. Well, maybe you.
You think your tactic is to argue the topics, yet post deragotry statements to put people down. Every time you call someone a child or tell thenm to grow up, it is disrespectful and off-topic. In addition, How can you say you stay on topic while engaging in a discussion about religion on an article about the PPACA?
Bob – you really have a humongous chip on your shoulder, dude. I suggest you try to get some help for it, as you have to live a miserable life looking for arguments and insults in every sentence. You are incapable of reading a post and just accepting it for what it plainly says. No. You have to make suppositions and leap to ridiculous conclusions in order to pick a fight and then continue to badger and bully until you feel vidicated and have “won.” Someone once told me, it’s better to be happy than right. You need to let some things go in order to be happy. Until you do, you will continue to be the miserable son-of-a-bitch that you are.
FFA, Libby is against any limitations on abortions which kills millions of babies each year, yet she doesn’t think we should execute serial killers for their murders. That is how the liberal mind works.
Agent – you don’t know my thoughts on abortion, so please do not presume to speak for me.
Please do not try to say such phrases in order to make agent look like he isn’t respecting you, when in fact this is a disingenuous comment.
He DOES know your opinions on abortion.
The “you don’t know me” argument doesn’t work, when you have already explained your point of view.
How about I speak for myself and you speak for yourself? Is that unreasonable to ask? Agent has no right speaking for me on ANY topic, no matter how well he thinks he knows me. As a matter of fact, he was incorrect in his statement above, as I do have limits on the amount of time you should have to make your choice. He’s full of hot air. And so are you.
Ha.
Hilarious. Hot air.
I would go on but I’m saying too much hot air.
You speak for yourself. Agent is quoting you. He has every right to quote you.
He is over exaggerating for affect. And he gets to do that. As you have done yourself. Hypocrite.
Like you said before: He CAN do and say whatever he wants.
Didn’t we just have this argument when I said what you can’t do to people?
I guess that changes for you doesn’t it Libby?
He can say whatever HE wants to say. He can not ascribe false words in my name. I did not say what he said and never have. I’ve spoken out about late term abortions, as at the point the fetus is viable. I have been very clear in my position and will restate it every time he tries to twist it to his own agenda. The same as you are ought to do on a regular basis. So, no, you don’t get to spew lies about what I believe and what I say. You speak for yourself. I’ll speak for me.
“He has every right to quote you. He is over exaggerating for affect. And he gets to do that”
Bob – I cannot agree with these statements. If someone wants to PROPERLY and ACCURATELY quote someone, that’s fine (assuming that person successfully comprehendeds the post in the first place, which some people have pointed out with Agent is not always the case.)
BY DEFINITION, you don’t have the right to over exaggerate someone’s statement and “quote” them since – voila – you’re no longer accurately quoting that person because it’s been exaggerated!
There’s enough to debate on these forums without having to defend something you didn’t say because someone read too far into it.
If you want to quote someone, quote exactly what they said – simple as that.
Rosenbalt,
At the risk of sounding like a berserk fool, (of which I am not)
I am going to demand why you have not commented whatsoever to Libby who does this same thing I just mentioned, and I’m also going to demand, why you are replying to my posts which are in line and not Libby’s.
Also on topic:
Yes. People exaggerate for effect. Also, it is what Libby said.
She is changing what she has said in the past.
Libby has specifically said she is ok with abortions at any time in the pregnancy.
When I said he exaggerated for effect, I’m talking about the exaggeration of no abortions limitations. Libby is currently lying, saying that there is a point she finds the child to be viable in the pregnancy.
Agent knows from the past, that she never said such a thing and argued against it.
When I say he is exaggerating for effect, for limitations that there are none whatsoever in the mind of Libby, I am mostly considering the fact that saying no limitations vs killing people is a bit over the top. However, it is accurate to Libby’s beliefs.
So back to what will make me sound berserk,
Shut the hell up, you ignorant child, and start talking to the people you should be.
You are a fake moderate.
bob – I am NOT lying on this. Agent specifically asked me about late term abortions last year and I said I was against them for the safety of the mother and the fact that the fetus is now viable. I don’t expect him to speak up on my behalf, as he will do everything to discredit me. IF I said, sometime previously than last year, I was for late term abortions then I have changed my position. But I don’t remember ever giving them a thought until presented with the question by Agent last year.
“Shut the hell up, you ignorant child, and start talking to the people you should be. You are a fake moderate.”
Hold on there kiddo. Was that directed towards me? Please advise. Or, if you prefer – I demand you answer.
“I am going to demand why you have not commented whatsoever to Libby who does this same thing I just mentioned”
I did not see her do it in this thread. Did I miss it? If I’m wrong, can you please show me where Libby incorrectly recalled your stance on a topic, and you had to defend yourself and re-explain what you literally said?
“I’m also going to demand, why you are replying to my posts which are in line and not Libby’s.”
I am not required to reply to your posts if I don’t want to. I am replying to hers because Agent posted “Libby said “A”” and Libby has had to defend her prior comments and explain that’s not what she really said.
I am also replying because Agent has misquoted me numerous times — most recently when he said I didn’t partake in the election process based on my comment of “I did vote, but I didn’t vote for Obama or Romney” — and I disagreed with you saying it’s okay for him to exaggerate like that.
How many times has Libby in this post, before my words were any bit improper, called me a boob?
You commented lately, that even calling someone an idiot is out of line.
In that same post, Libby was calling people Morons. No comments came from you.
And pardon you where did it come from?
You are allowing Libby to run a parade while constantly coming after me. So excuse me, dear child, if I am offended by your constant attempts to belittle me based on my telling someone to shut the hell up, (which is a perfectly fine comment, when insulted, you ignorant child).
I demand, you child, that you treat Libby equally.
I demand, that you comment on her obscene works here. And I demand, that if your goal is merely to make republicans look like people who said idiot more than democrats, that you immediately highlight the democrat zealots on these pages, whom you have never named, but recently you named me.
bob, I’m sure if I called Rosenblatt an idiot or moron he would indeed have something to say to me. I didn’t.
You, on the other hand said those things directly to him when he told you you weren’t allowed to misquote someone and say you were quoting them.
He called you out because of your actions TOWARDS HIM. His job is not to police IJ comments unless they’re addressed to him, which your disrespectful diatribe was.
Wow Bob, you sure are angry. Also, I never called you any names, but now you call me a child. THAT is childish, sir.
“How many times has Libby in this post, before my words were any bit improper, called me a boob?”
You did not answer my question – answer me and I’ll be happy to answer you: Can you please show me where Libby incorrectly recalled your stance on a topic, and you had to defend yourself and re-explain what you literally said?
“You are allowing Libby to run a parade while constantly coming after me.”
I’m sorry, Bob, but I don’t run the internet or the Insurance Journal site. I’m not allowing anyone to do anything. I’m just a guy commenting on posts in a little box just like you.
“I demand, you child, that you treat Libby equally.”
You started calling me names before I called you any names, but I’m a child somehow. Okay. You sure are demand-y, Bob, but I promise to play fair — next time Libby posts “Bob you said ‘A'” and you reply with “No, I said “B” and here’s the exact quote from that article to prove you wrong” like she just did, I’ll side with you no problem!
“I demand, that you comment on her obscene works here.”
So demand-y, Bob. Since there’s been a lot of “you don’t have reading comprehension skills” posts recently from both sides, I’d like to make sure I understand you — you would like me to be the Insurance Journal police and make sure I post every time someone is called a bad name or whenever someone is insulted? Around here, that sounds like a full time job to me!
Listen. This all started with me saying I disagreed with you when you said it’s okay for Agent to exaggerate when quoting someone else. I did not call ANYONE out for name calling or insults anywhere in this thread. I asked you a question, you failed to answer it, and came back lobbing the first insult to me.
“So excuse me, dear child, if I am offended by your constant attempts to belittle me based on my telling someone to shut the hell up”
What what what? I am belittling you because I don’t agree if anyone is going to quote someone, they should use the actual quote and not modify/exaggerate it at all?
Also, how the h3ll did you get me being offended by you telling Libby to shut up? Did you even read this:
“Shut the hell up, you ignorant child, and start talking to the people you should be. You are a fake moderate.”
Hold on there kiddo. Was that directed towards me? Please advise. Or, if you prefer – I demand you answer.
Rosenbalt,
No. We aren’t playing that game. It’s why I’m angry with you. I can’t have an answer as to why you defend libby’s calling me a moron, but not my calling people a moron, without referencing back to when she has incorrectly referenced something I have said? She has. I guarantee it incorrectly referenced something I have said. As has EVERYONE in this site. And I will not listen to the zealotry, and high horse off of which you speak.
Have you, condemned, at all, one time, the way Libby has spoken BY NAME?
Rosenbalt:
You are belittling because you are following condemning each post I make, and remaining silent on Libby’s.
You don’t have to be the police of all.
But to the the police of the left, and claim to be a moderate, is not acceptable.
If you are not a moderate, let it be known, you don’t like conservatives.
If you are a liberal, then stop faking being a moderate.
I’m telling you to stop belittling me in the fact that you have referenced me by name, saying I respect none. While you simultaneously never said anything about this from Libby, and this was an intro comment on her part:
“Way to take one line of a speech out of context. Classic move by Republicans. And their sheeple swallow it hook, line, and sinker without nary a google search. Ignorant cows.”
Rosenblatt,
If you go into a post between two people who are clearly having issues, you surely have to realize the fire will turn on you.
I will back off of you, but my demand holds true.
If you aren’t telling Libby to knock it off, and felt so compelled to comment about misrepresentation of someone, and not in fact mistreatment, you and I are not on speaking terms. Error, unintentional, is not equivalent to outright attacks.
I do not regard such a person a high light. You need to admit you did this. And see how inappropriate it was. Here we have Libby outright attacking me, and all you can do is stay silent on her and then go after the minute details in my comments.
That is belittling. And to begin with I told her she dishes it out, she gets it back.
It’s perfectly appropriate.
You know Bob, I was ready to reply to everything you wrote and explain my stance on the topics you mentioned in a civilized manner, but then you had to screw it up and write this:
“I’m telling you to stop belittling me in the fact that you have referenced me by name, saying I respect none”
You sir, are a liar. I have never said nor implied that you respect none. Your willingness to blatantly lie about what I have said IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ISSUE OF PEOPLE ON IJ LYING ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID is mind-blowing meta
“Libby says: bob, I’m sure if I called Rosenblatt an idiot or moron he would indeed have something to say to me.”
You are 100% correct, Libby! I don’t care if you’re the most conservative Republican, the most liberal Democrat, or the most independent independent, I will call you out if you insult me or, as you so astutely put it earlier, if you ascribe false words to someone’s name.
If Libby wrote “Bob, you said you love killing adults no matter what”, which is an exaggeration of his comment on the death penalty, I’d call you out on it and tell you to stop lying.
26 weeks on a potential life is not an embryo Libby. Late terms like Tiller the baby killer performed is murder by almost any standard.
If you were smart enough to remember, you would have known I spoke out about late term abortions in the past. But you’re not.
What was the topic of this article? NFL & Judgment calls???
Tooo early in the week for all this hubba bubba.
No…You did not.
You never did. We specifically had an argument about partial birth abortions.
I said there was no way you could be for this. You are now lying for image.
And that is unacceptable, but shows I have nothing to gain debating with you.
This is your character. And it’s too far gone.
boob – if we were to rely on yours or Agent’s reading comprehension to settle arguments, we’d be here all day. I know what I said and I said it to Agent in an IJ article last year. Yes, I am against them, for the safety of the mother and the fact that at that point the fetus is viable. I have always said this.
To prove I am not a liar, I will refer you to:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/06/30/333238.htm/?comments
2/3 of the way down I quote:
” Get your facts straight says:
You don’t believe the the egg is already fertilized by the time the morning after pill is used, or you don’t believe life begins at conception?
July 3, 2014 at 11:51 am Libby says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I don’t believe a zygote is the same as a baby.
Get your facts straight says:
At what point in development would you consider it a baby?
July 3, 2014 at 1:01 pm Libby says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
When it can survive outside the womb.”
End quote.
The fact you had to find an article 6 months old to copy & paste what you previously said to make sure you’re not misrepresented any further is sad.
I commend you for finding that post to support your stance, and I sincerely hope those who are putting different words in your mouth take the same time and effort to find the evidence to back up their arguments of what they claim you said in the past too.
It is sad. And frustrating. I am forever being called a liar on here. I’m a lot of things, but not a liar.
Rosenbalt,
She is a liar. And she has for a fact said that she was for partial birth abortions.
She lied then, she lied now. She has gone back and forth on this issue.
It is not commendable that she lies so easily.
Libby,
You are a liar. You did have this argument with me.
The problem is, that you flip flop based on what is the safest image to have.
For you, sometimes us republicans have caught you in a corner. Where you finally have to either agree it would be terrible, or you are terrible.
At that point, you realize it, and you lie.
I have seen you do this constantly.
We did have a debate on this.
I told you the biggest area where republicans differ is partial birth abortion, which I told you that you could not possibly find them to be in the wrong regarding. It was the first thing Bush W went after.
You also said that was incorrect, and told me Akin was the norm. Is this ringing bells yet?
I told you that you were wrong about republicans regarding Akin being the norm. It was about the forcible rape comment.
After I said this, you said it didn’t matter. Why?
Because partial birth abortion was not wrong.
And when I say the biggest area they differ, I mean on areas of abortion.
We definitely had this conversation. And you definitely said there was nothing wrong with partial birth abortion.
IF I ever said that, and I say IF because I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt which you don’t deserve, you are calling me a liar for changing my position. I have every right to do that.
I just thought I’d drop this here:
“November 1, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Libby says:
Oh, and I don’t agree with partial birth abortions. At 22 weeks the fetus becomes viable and should not be aborted. At that point I would support adoption.”
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/10/30/309752.htm/?comments
You’re welcome, Libby. ;)
“Rosenbalt, She is a liar. And she has for a fact said that she was for partial birth abortions.”
Well, Bob – Libby included a link to a prior article and thread where it would appear she is not lying. Do you have any evidence to prove her wrong, or are you just going with “well, she said it – I swear she did – just trust me”? That is not evidence; that’s heresay.
Thank you BS, it seems pretty clear Libby wrote “I don’t agree with partial birth abortions.” Can’t parse too much into that phrase.
Bob – were you able to find any posts to support your claim that Libby is a liar and previously said she was for partial birth abortions?
Thanks, B.S.! That was the one I was referring to originally.
BS, how the heck did you come up with that? Nov, 2013??
I’m an expert in Google-fu. ;)
If you use Google’s advanced search, it gives you the option of searching a specific domain instead of the entire web. I just put in insurancejournal.com, “Libby says” and a couple other terms, and hit search. It pulled up a decent number of results, but not so much that I wasn’t able to find what I was looking for pretty easily. :)
I am not continuing into he said she said crap.
I will go back to our original conversation:
Can someone over exaggerate about someone’s beliefs for affect of the severity of those beliefs and not get criticized?
Yes. Libby does it all the time.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/01/08/353363.htm/?comments#comment-3318902
“Way to take one line of a speech out of context. Classic move by Republicans. And their sheeple swallow it hook, line, and sinker without nary a google search. Ignorant cows.” I supposed you supported this one. You said nothing to her in this page and quite a bit to me.
And with regards to Libby, her over exaggerations that do not correctly correspond would be regarding Texas, and hicks and conservatives. She does it all the time to illustrate a point about republicans.
Basically I told Libby that if she’s going to go off her rocker about what republicans believe all the time,
Agent is perfectly fine to go off on what democrats like her believe.
Libby has constantly said what republicans all believe. I think it’s fair game that Agent assumed the same with her.
Bob – I feel you’re missing the sole point I tried to make getting involved in this discussion.
“Can someone over exaggerate about someone’s beliefs for affect of the severity of those beliefs and not get criticized?”
If that person is generalizing about a group of people, however incorrect and wrong it may be, that definitely happens all the time and there’s no excuse for having a narrow-minded belief about a group of people and posting it here. However, this is not the point we were talking about.
“Basically I told Libby that if she’s going to go off her rocker about what republicans believe all the time, Agent is perfectly fine to go off on what democrats like her believe.”
First – I agree with this statement. However, this is not what I was talking about!
The issue is not Agent going off on what democrats as a group believe, which he has every right to do.
The issue is AGENT “QUOTED” LIBBY BUT PUT WORDS IN HER MOUTH ABOUT HER BELIEFS BECAUSE HE DID NOT QUOTE HER PROPERLY AND TWISTED HER STATEMENT AROUND.
Proven by links above, Libby clearly said she is against late-term abortions yet Agent “quoted” her and lied when he said Libby was against any restrictions on abortions.
Generalize about a group of people – yeah, we all do that.
Intentionally twisting someone’s words around to use their (now false) statement against them and turning a blind eye to any evidence that proves the person they quoted did not actually say those things = bad.
Did Libby say she is against late term abortions?
Yes – see BS’s link above
Did Agent lie when he said Libby is against any restrictions on abortions?
Yes – see BS’s link above
THAT is the point here. Agent lied about what Libby specifically said in the past and you two have ganged up on her for lying — yet it’s pretty clear it was Agent who lied and you who, at best, mis-remembered what Libby posted.
Do you understand how Agent lying about a specific comment Libby made to make it seem like Libby believes the opposite of what she said is different than people generalizing about a group of people (which is also wrong)?
Well BS, you get a Bozo Button. You just taught an old dog a new trick. Now, when I get the time to research my latest topic, I don’t have to sift through hundredss of thousands of posts.
Bob- Agent did not exaggerate what I said! He misrepresented what I said and didn’t even have the decency to apologize for it. I don’t expect you to understand since you are the king of putting words in people’s mouths. Mostly due to your incredible lack of reading comprehension. You put 2 & 2 together and come up with 5 on a regular basis.
Libby, all we can do is respond to your statement that you think they are embryos. Late term abortions are a scourge on our society.
There goes your lack of reading comprehension again, Agent. You obviously don’t know the difference between a zigot, embryo, unviable fetus, viable fetus, and a baby. But why would you? It’s science.
Libby, I think the term is zygote, not zygot. Sharpen up there some before posting.
Did you have to google that to find that out?
No Libby, I passed spelling 101. You obviously didn’t. You have rage issues and knocks your brain off line.
Funny. Because earlier you didn’t even know what it is or the difference between it, an embryo, and a fetus. Now all of a sudden you can spell it? I think not.
Agent,
Please clarify your statement, “Late term abortions are a scourge on our society”. How does someone having an abortion negatively impact our society? Is this a moral or an economic issue?
Oh shut the hell up.
Philosophical arguments again.
Killing a human absolutely has an affect on the human killed. Of course, philosophically if we argue without the human being killed taken into consideration by society, then you can make it a moral issue of which there is no opinion that is correct, correct? Killing a child is always murder, Philosopher Phil.
You aren’t that smart, kid.
There’s nothing philosophical about it. How do abortions negatively affect our society? It maybe affects that woman that has it, but it’s hardly a scourge on society. In many ways, it can improve society.
Ron, you should have been an abortion doctor if you don’t see that murdering innocent lives is wrong on about every level. To you, aborting a well developed fetus/baby is no different than putting a pet to sleep. You liberals are something else. How about putting the needle in the arm of a convicted cop killer or serial murderer. Is there justification for keeping them alive for 20-40 years?
Spoken like a true Texan! How many are on death row, Agent?
Agent,
When did I say abortion is not wrong? I believe that abortion is wrong, but, from a legal standpoint, it is more important to give a woman a right to choose something that impacts her body.
How about, for once, you just answer my questions?
“Please clarify your statement, ‘Late term abortions are a scourge on our society’. How does someone having an abortion negatively impact our society? Is this a moral or an economic issue?”
Just lay out your argument so we may understand your position.
If Ron should have been an abortion doctor, you should have been a prison executioner.
The philosophical argument that it harms no one in society, (which is an attempt of a philosophical argument) is only true if you remove the child itself.
This is why I said anything is true with the right philosophical argument, and it’s why I don’t like them.
There is no harm done to the embryo. It feels nothing.
The embryo (Human, therefore human child)
Doesn’t get to be born. That is harm.
In the absence of God, it is denied existence.
In the existence of God, God creates no children without purpose, and you took away that child’s life. God doesn’t stop people from doing so. That is honoring your decision. But you didn’t honor the kid’s decision. The second that baby started developing God gave it a destiny, in the absence of your intervention, that it would have received. You say you are religious. This is a fact.
But even off the non religious, that is also a fact.
bob,
Agent’s exact words were, “Late term abortions are a scourge on our society”. Did he teach you reading comprehension?
It was not a philosophical question. I really wanted him to defend his statement. Is that really too mush to ask?
If this discussion is too complicated for you, try the Sesame Street blog.
I’m surprised no comments on the 60 Min piece last night… Almost sounded like a collage of quotes off this site.
I missed 60 Minutes last night. What was it about?
Ron, if several million potential human beings are being killed each year in the womb or partial birth, that is a scourge on society. Sorry you can’t get that through your thick head. Deduct one credit from me Rosenblatt.
PPACA one year mark. The “expert” stated that there was no cost control – in particular Med Mal Reform. Stated the only good this did was to get more hospitals more customers and increase their profits at the expense of the Joe average Tax Payer. They were citing a Hospital in TX and in PA.
They had a person that lived in Ohio and went to a TX Cancer Treatment Center and went through the bill line item by line item.
They were citing the jump in profits for the hospital in PA.
In the end, the interviewer asked the CEO of the PA hospital “Who wins in all this”. He stated “The Hospitals at the expense of the tax payer”.
This was not very flattering of the law.
FFA, I think youre mistaking the effect of the law: which is to increase the number of insured people. The costs are not touched in any way by the ACA, why do you blame the law for increased costs?
The segment blamed the market itself for rising costs, not the ACA.
Stan, are you that big of a dufus? When you have a law with all those mandates for coverage in it, carriers having to take all comers including chronically sick people, the prices for coverage have to go up. That is the law causing this. This law was written by Gruber to lie and deceive the American People and make them think they were getting something for nothing. That is why it is a horror story.
Agent is docked one IJ credit for rhetorically asking Stan if he is a big dufus.
-The sole and founding member of the IJ police
“I think youre mistaking the effect of the law”
Silly me thinking Affordable Care Act and $2500 reduction in cost actually meant Cost going up, OOP’s going up, no more Carryover Deductible. I have no clue what this suspected Compression Fracture is gong to do to me financially.
I am not mistaking the effect of this law, I am feeling every bit of the pain of it.
What did you do to yourself FFA, slip on the ice from Global Warming up there in balmy Chicago?
Not me, my wife.
…and this is where someone who isn’t a troll would at least reply with “I’m sorry” or “I hope she gets better.”
I’m just summing up the 20 minute piece. I am sure you can catch it On Demand tonight.
The segment did credit the PPACA for increasing hospital profits. It was very clear that there was no cost control at all in the law. The CEO was citing in particular Med Mal Reform. This is a point I been preaching since the law has been enacted. No Cost Control, Price will go up. And it has.
Well yeah of course the CEO is preaching med mal reform because that doesnt really impact his profits since its such a small portion of spending. Think about that: the CEO of a hospital is in the biz of keeping the cost of healthcare high. Why would he want to make substantive reform?
Basically, I agree the PPACA does little to contain costs. But we can do that with more regulations: use the govt to negotiate / cap prices. Shit, just expand medicare to the entire country. Costs would halve overnight.
My recent experience with Medicare / Medicaid, you don’t want it. Over $25,000 in legal fees to get them people to do their job correctly.
I dont agree that it does little. I do agree it does nothing. It gonna bury your generation in a hole so deep, your gonna be working just to pay for this thing.
Have you ever seem med mal premiums? That line item has a definite effect on profits.
I have a law degree. We had tons of people come in – – med mal lawyers even – – talking about how the awards just arent what they used to be.
Could there be additional reform? Sure. OBGYN med mal insurance is outrageous. But to blame Med Mal for a substantive year over year multi-digit increase in healthcare costs is just not true.
No, its not the only driving factor, but it is one that drives the cost and effects the bottom line.
Malpractice insurance is expensive, no question about it. But from what I’ve seen, rates have actually been pretty stable for the past couple of years. There are a couple of companies trying to get rate increases, but in general, I’ve been seeing flat and decreased rates on renewals. Will it always be that way? No. But right now, there are enough carriers fighting to get/keep business, that it’s still a buyers market.
Considering how stable premiums have been, I have somewhat of a hard time believing that Med Mal is the cause of rising health costs.
FFA, did you see the news that the wonderful director of Medicare/Medicaid Services is resigning in February. Marilyn Tavener worked hand in hand with Sebelius on the disastrous roll out of Obamacare. She has had enough and leaving. Her picture on the Fox Site was just as leathery as Sebelius and Hillary. Defending a disastrous policy must be hard on these liberal women.
The roll out was just pure stupidity. Open enrollment for Medicaid, Medicare Supp, personal health and group health all at once during the Holiday Season. Not to mention what it has done to the carriers having to employ people on a temp basis just to lay them off after open enrollment passes and then got socked with a high Unemployment bill.
What a bunch of jack asses. Not an ounce of logic went into this. every time I see that commercial when the guy says it took me 20 minutes, I want to smash my TV.
Finally got my problem app issued yesterday when it was submitted on 12/18/2014. Client is sick and needs medical attention that has been delayed till yesterday because of the foolishness. Might I add, I spent at least 15 hours on the phone – mostly hold time to get it resolved. All for a $400 premium at 5% commish. She stated that she would not have been able to get this done if not for me – a licensed & trained agent.
I agree that it is a single brick in the overarching wall of rising healthcare costs, but it is hardly the cornerstone.
FFA, I admire your persistence in trying to work with an unworkable law, terrible website, insolent employees who could care less if they answer the phone or help at all. All that for a pittance of a commission. I have been sending people to the BCBS website. It is more secure anyway. If they want what is displayed, they can click on it and pursue it. I would rather handle P&C for less trouble and more commission.
Well agent, I wonder if I would have pushed forward with this had I know Commissions were going to get slashed from 15% to 6%. I am too deep into it to pull out at this point. What I am making off it covers my rent & utilities. I figure the commis slash cost me about $20000 in revenues.
Another topic to research… Compression Fracture of the Vertebrae.
It just don’t stop…
Hey FFA, how did you like that National Championship game last night? Ohio State really put it on the poor Ducks. I think Urban Meyer is probably the best college coach in America currently. He said when he took the job there, he wanted to not just build a team that would compete in the Big Ten, but a program that would compete with the SEC and PAC Ten. Looks like he was pretty successful doing that against both conferences.
The Buckeyes definitely deserved to win that game – better offense, better defense, certainly took less penalties, and better coaching.
I know Oregon only had like 2 3rd down conversions, but I’m a little surprised their Blur Offense didn’t create more favorable results, especially in the red zone (I think they were 1-4 in the red zone & THE Ohio State University went 5-5)
Rosenblatt, thanks for answering for FFA. In your “Opinion”, do you think the fast break offenses are a fading fad in both college and the Pros? If something isn’t working, they are three and out and then their defense is on the field for much of the game and they get worn down and get in a hole. Good examples are Oregon, Baylor and the Eagles in the NFL. All three failed this season.
“Do you think the fast break offenses are a fading fad in both college and the Pros?”
No.
Would you like me to explain WHY I feel that way, or you’re just that happy I gave you a simple one-word/one-paragraph response?
Agent,
Serious question: In your opinion, is there only 1 successful team each year?
So Ron, I’ll but in with my two cents. It all depends on how you measure success. There will be only one Super Bowl Champ, but Cutler & Marshal & Alshon (and a whole lot more) were successful at getting Trestman fired.
Success is a subjective thing.
FFA,
I agree that success is subjective. That is why I asked Agent that question. He called Oregon a failure for coming in 2nd in the country. I would guess 100% of rational people would consider that success.
I may be wrong, but I am guessing his agency has never been #1 in the country, and he calls himself successful.
I find it fun to point out his hypocrisies. And yes, I am aware I have my own. At least I have enough self awareness to recognize it.
Is Peyton Manning Successful? Great Season QB, but cant seem to manage to get through the play offs.
We can make the argument that Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson & Doug Williams are just as successful as Peyton. Is Eli more successful then Peyton? Is Archie?
FFA,
I do not like tying an individual’s success to team results, especially football. Too many variables out of an individual’s control, even for a QB.
You have to say he is more successful than any of the others you mentioned based on what he accomplished as an individual.
True that Ron. Brad Johnson never had the supporting cast in Minn. He did get the job done but never over the hump. His numbers are way better then most from Minn (except Fran Tarkenton).
Actually Rosenblatt, that was refreshing to see a short reply instead of 8 to 10 paragraphs. By the way, you need to give another debit for insulting me. He is at it again. See below.
Ron, if the Bills had a great QB, they might have made the playoffs instead of sitting at home for another year. Their defense was awesome, but you can’t be on the field for 3/4 of a game and win in the Not for Long league.
“By the way, you need to give another debit for insulting me. He is at it again. See below.”
Who are you talking about & what’s the date/time on the post?
Seems to me the BIlls are a few Key Players away from being a power house.
Serious answer Ron. No, I don’t think success can by measured by only 1 team winning a championship. Obviously, several teams think a coach should bring a championship in a reasonable time. Look at the growing unemployment line among head coaches. Some are let go with a winning record,ie Lovie Smith at Chicago and Denver’s head coach and the carousel in Buffalo. Rex Ryan, really? Jones had numerous coaches after Johnson and they were all doomed because he was handling the drafting and signing of players. I don’t know if Stephen Jones is having input now, but the last 3 drafts gave them a chance to compete and Garrett finally learned how to turn duties over to assistants and had better luck this year so he got renewed.
Agent,
Then why did do you state that Oregon failed this season?
I was bowling last night so I didn’t see much of the Oregon offense. last night. In between my throws, Ohio State had the ball or there was a commercial or I was chasing my Gr Son around.
The Fast Break offense needs a premier QB at any level. Without a Brady or Rodgers or Luck type QB, your exactly correct about the D’s being on the field too long. Just wears them out. The Bears were having some success with No Huddle until Trestman “lost” the team. Then the players conspired to get the Coach wacked. Alshon drops 7 balls in one game?
Now, today, we have Bennett & Kyle Long fighting over social media. Martelious is a good player, but seemingly and A Hole. This is not his first incident with a team mate. We need Long way more then we need Bennett.
Bennett had some issues with his team mates in Dallas as well plus he wasn’t ever going to start in place of Witten. He was let go, went to NY had the same issues and was sent packing to the Bears.
I believe Eli has been more successful than Peyton. He has two rings and Peyton one. He also has not played on teams with as many stars as Peyton. By the way, the coach of the Broncos was let go by Elway today. Too many failures to advance in the playoffs. Reminds me of Lovie Smith who was let go with a winning record. Who will play QB if Peyton hangs them up?
Jones has some Cap issues in Dallas now. Murray and Bryant are in their contract years. How do you pay both of them and keep the team together? Do you ask Romo to give back some money and re-negotiate? How about all those no name defensive players they signed off the couch and played well this year at NFL minimum? They all will expect a raise. The Cowboys have plenty of money, but they have to operate within the Cap. It is a thorny issue. Hard to keep the stars! By the way, it was a catch no matter what the rule said. I am surprised they kept Aikman, Smith and Irvin together as long as they did.
sGonna have to ask Romo to redo the contract. Brady did it in NE and freed up $24 mill (I think it the figure). If he wants his supporting cast, gonna have to do it.
FFA, Bryant and Murray both had monster years and will expect a monster contract and will be 1%ers if they get them. That pesky Cap will certainly be a factor. The Redskins got into trouble about 5 years ago with paying too much to certain players and had no wiggle room at all. No wonder they don’t have a competitive team. RG3 cost them plenty and they have not been able to develop him. He should return a lot of his contract to the team so they can draft and sign some decent players. Others, they can just cut.
Didn’t take long for the NFL Defenses to adjust to him. Now Rex Grossman is a better option.
Murry and Dez are big factors in Tonys success this year. He needs to pitch in if he want to have another years (s) like last one..
Yes, that read option may work in college, but it gets a QB killed in the pros. Mariota will find that out if he tries it next year. Those linebackers are just about as fast as most fast QB’s and their eyes get bigger when they see a QB running with the ball.
Do you think the Pack will have enough to beat the Seahawks? I think not, but I could be wrong. I think Brady will handle Indy. They will not be passive like the Bronco’s were. Elway saw enough and cut the coach loose even with a winning record.
Gb / Seattle is a hard call. Rock Paper Scissors on who to bet on there. Sea Hawks could be the toughest D GB faces this year and Rodgers is gong to have to be sharper then sharp. Gb D is not the good.
Indy / Pats – I’m going with the seasoned vet. Brady will be razor sharp and make quick work out of the Indy D. Can Luck keep pace? I just don’t think he has the receivers.
To take it all, I am going with Pats.
John Fox was in Chicago yesterday. Sports guy in WGN was asking the burning question – why did you let him leave? Saying he is the best man for the job…
FFA, Seattle handed the Pack their head early in the season when Rogers was healthy. Now that he can’t move around with his leg issue, he better get rid of that ball in a hurry to a hot receiver or he won’t last long in the game. I also don’t see GB running on the Seahawks. They are just too tough. Add the loud home crowd into the picture and it could get ugly. I see the Seahawks vs Patriots matchup in the Super Bowl. That should be a good match up.
I don’t know which one I hate worse…
Well Libby, in this neck of the woods, its highly fashionable to hate the Packers..
And Agent, that hobbled leg is gonna be an issue. Eddie Lacy is a hard runner – battering ram type of a player. That Seatle D is tough… I agree with the match up in the Sb with NE taking it.
Well, Jones got his coaches all signed up. Now, the tough work begins trying to sign Dez and Murray to new contracts. Wouldn’t it be interesting to sit in on that process with the agents, players and management in the room?
Rosenblatt, I was talking about Ron on the insults and his post of 1-13-15 at 3:14. He is real proud to insult me at every opportunity. His apology was short lived, wasn’t it. Sorry the post jumped around. Sometimes the reply button sends it either above or below.
Agent,
First, that comment came after my apology on 1/13/15 @ 3:47 PM. Meaning, I have not insulted you since then.
Second, Where was the insult?
I have been clear that I do not intend to stop insulting Agent, as he has no intention of stopping his constant insults towards me. I have tried the no insulting route before. It doesn’t change his nasty behavior. He’s a troll and he makes it his job to needle people into controversy. It’s his little childish game. Well, I can not only play the game, I can beat him at his own game. He’s just too stupid to realize it.
Correction: The comment came BEFORE my apology
Well FFA, you could be right on the SB. One of the hardest things to do is repeat as champions. The Pats may be due if they can control that little Russell on his rollouts and keep their monster running back in check. Brady is going to score no matter what defense they throw at him. Not many like the Pats, but you do have to respect what they have done.
Belichek was on Brady’s case early in the year and apparently that motivated him, because he really turned it on afterward. It also helped that his team mates got their act together and started doing their job. That Grankowski is a monster at tight end. He is like a younger, meaner, faster Witten.
Funny how NE gets it done without Wide Receivers. Eddleman is another monster TE. Amendolla and the other guy and virtually no RB… Gronk may be the best in the biz right now.
Not sure whats gong on at NIU. I see that Jordan Lynch signed in the CFL. I was very surprised the Bears didn’t at least keep him on the practice squad.
That kid QB for Ohio State was their third string QB after the other two were injured during the year. He looked all world to me. Big, fast, rifle arm and poised as well. I think the other two may be looking to transfer to another school. Maybe to NIU? Do they need help at QB?
Ron, they failed because their theory failed when the chips were down. Philadelphia failed because their theory failed. Opposing teams figured this out. Get a few three and outs and the fast break teams will tank. That is why I think the fast break teams will go by the wayside in the near future.
Who knows what the Term Vicarious Liability means at the street level to the client?
Not being lazy, just want to know from someone with experience instead of a text book / google search.
I look at vicarious liability as being held responsible for something that happened under your watch or direction. For example, a hospital has vicarious exposure if a surgeon botches an appendectomy while practicing there. Or if a nursing agency sends an RN to the home of an invalid, and the nurse doesn’t notice/take care of the patient’s bed sores, the agency has vicarious exposure.
Neither the hospital nor the agency provided the actual care, but because the care was provided at their direction, or on their behalf, they can be seen as responsible for it. The same goes for a physician who is supervising another healthcare practitioner, ie. a PA or NP. He/she can be held vicariously responsible for that practitioner’s actions even if they had no personal interaction with the patient.
Does that help a all?
It helps way more then the Legal / Claims people explanation. Now I understand it so I can explain it in “street level terms”.
Glad I could help! :)
If you loan your car to someone you could be vicariously liable for any BI or PD they cause.
Thank you both. Them Text Book explanations… The Claims & legal field just don’t know how to “dumb it down” for Joe Average.
Any preferred markets out there for Group Home (Mentally / Physically Disabled) other then Philly?
CNA might be an option.
Selective and Hanover.
To small for CNA. Will check selective & hanover.
Thanks and Thanks.
Stam – this must be how Bob “sees” sound!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/see-what-sound-looks-like/vi-AA85tEt
Just reported…. John Fox new coach of the Bears.
That didn’t take long. Fox is a pretty good coach. Now, he needs to hire some good assistants and then get some control over the draft picks and signings. What do you think he will do with Cutler, coach him up or get rid of him?
Unfortunate, Cutler is our best option right now. I don’t know of any better Free Agents hanging out there. Draft is always a crap shoot. Bears havn’t had any success drafting QB since Harhaugh.
How about those playoff games FFA? Tell me, how does a team who gets four interceptions and a fumble manage to lose a game? Kick the other teams butt for 56 minutes and lose in the last 4 minutes plus a minute of overtime? There is a proven theory that if you get soft and play prevent, you will lose as the game showed. GB thought they had the game won when they didn’t. Brady did as expected and trounced the Colts. I don’t think Belechek will make the same mistakes GB’s coach did. If the Pats get 5 turnovers, they will wax the Seahawks.
Well, if Winston is there when the Bears pick, I still wouldn’t pick him. He is a thug and will be in trouble shortly. I would pick someone else even if he is a project. Mariota will go high and Tampa or someone in the first three picks will snap him up and he has character as well as being a great athlete.
In this neck of the woods, we say the only thing Prevent Defense prevents is victory. I cant believe they self destructed like that in such a short period of time. Cant even cover an on sides kick… I am looking forward to the SB Match up. Probably the best QB (20 post season wins) vs the best D in the league since the 85 Bears. Oh, and Seatle got a pretty good QB too.
Well, Wilson finally got vindicated after four interceptions. It is a good thing he finally woke up from his 3 quarter slumber. He looked like a rookie QB for much of the game throwing the ball up for grabs like that. When GB went into their prevent, he started completing passes. Why on earth would they do that? Defensive coordinator made a big mistake. Head coach made a big mistake as well. After the game, Rogers said – What just happened here? He thought he had it won. On an onside kick, you are supposed to have your hands guys in there. The guy goes up for it and it hit him in the shoulder pads????? Easy play for the kickoff bunch. After that, GB was toast.
You seeing this stuff about NE using underinflated balls? Where does this stuff even come from – a team that had their buts kicked from Boston to Indy and then back again?
I am picking NE to win. I’ll take the seasoned Vet to figure out the top defense.
Did you see Bennett made the pro bowl?
FFA, it is a bunch of nonsense on the underinflated balls. The officials in that game are supposed to be the best and they handle the ball before every snap. Are we to believe they couldn’t tell the difference when Indy had the ball or New England? They are supposed to check the balls before the first kickoff to make sure they are uniform for both teams.
On Bennett, I didn’t see he made the Pro Bowl. Was he ahead of Witten? Hmm! What is wrong with that picture?
Well, it just came out today that 11 out of the 12 NE balls were underinflated by 2 lbs. psi. But not Indy’s balls. Hmmmmm. I think they cheated. As much as I hate to say it, I must root for the Seahags on the 1st.
And where was Peyton on game day? Oops! He is on vacation contemplating retirement.
What the hell does that have to do with New England cheating???
Besides, where was Romo on game day? Oh! That’s right! He was on vacation with Peyton. Turd.
FFA, Belechek said he didn’t do it and Brady said he didn’t do it. Now, they can question the ball guys and see who really did it or who told them to do it.
Looks like Kubiak got the Denver job. He made a mess in Houston and they cut him loose. He does have better players to work with now so maybe he gets Peyton to come back for another try.
Well Libby, you are in fine form on the insult parade. Peyton was home a game early than the Cowboys. They let Indianapolis??? handle them and it cost the coach his job. By the way, “It was a catch” and most football analysts saw it that way.
I blame the officials for the screw up on Deflategate. They are charged with checking the balls before the game even started. Another black eye for the NFL as if they needed one.
I know. I’m kinda impressed with myself, too. You must inspire me, Agent.
Agent,
It was a catch, but not a completion. Most football experts saw it that way. Since you’re from TX I should not have to explain the distinction between the two.
Don’t bother, Ron. I already cited the exact NFL rule and attempted to explain to Agent at least 2 times how — technically, even though I agree the rule needs to be changed — those “catches” were correctly called incomplete passes.
Agent – please think critically here — can you REALLY tell the difference in weight between 2 and 3 pieces of regular paper placed on your hand? If you can (although I think you’d be lying), then feel free to blame the officials.
“A standard NFL football has between 12.5 and 13.5 pounds per square inch of pressure; that’s equivalent to 15 ounces. When we deflate the ball by 2 PSI, at 10.5 pounds of pressure per square inch, the football weighed 14 and 3/4 ounces, just a quarter ounce less. That’s like being able to feel the difference between holding 2 and 3 sheets of paper in your hand.”
http://wwlp.com/2015/01/22/what-difference-do-under-inflated-footballs-really-make/
PS, Agent: “They are charged with checking the balls before the game even started” They did. Your point makes no sense.