Enough is enough when the government stops interfering with the operations of private business.
I saw a post today that asked why we keep hearing Social Security is running out of money (funded by working people) but we never hear of welfare running out of money.
When companies stop putting the maximization of profits before people, the environment, and the general welfare of our society. In other words, never.
Like it or not, most, if not all, regulations stem from companies going too far to maximize profits. To corporations, there is never enough profit and they do not care whom or what may be harmed. This is how we know corporations are not people. If they were, they would be sociopaths.
Ron,
Not all businesses are huge, public companies where maximized profits for shareholders is the goal. More businesses are under 50 staff, including mine. My goal is to provide jobs for the people who want to work with me, give them good salaries and benefits. I would like to make the choices on what is right for my business; I don’t want the government telling me what I have to do. I know what I can afford to do, the gov’t doesn’t.
I applaud you for your approach to owning a business. However, you are in the minority.
By definition, a corporation’s sole purpose is to maximize profits. Without regulations controlling what corporations can and cannot do, you may not have a small, successful business.
Nobody wants the government telling us what to do, but we have brought much of that upon ourselves and each other.
Do you agree with my statement, “most, if not all, regulations stem from companies going too far to maximize profits.” That may not apply directly to your business, but how are we to pick and choose which companies need to be regulated?
March 10, 2015 at 10:51 am
Mickey Dee says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ron,
Thanks.
I don’t think profits are the SOLE purpose of corporations or any business. Providing a service or product and making money are purposes of a company. What I don’t like is using one solution for all businesses, large and small. As the economy improves, then the workers will have the voice and dictate what the benefits will be. If they don’t believe in contraception, then they may choose to work for Notre Dame or Hobby Lobby. If they disagree, they don’t have to work at Notre Dame or Hobby Lobby. At that point, the company will have a choice on what to offer; not the gov’t dictating what to offer.
March 10, 2015 at 11:42 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hey Mickey, how did you like the lecture Ron gave you that you are in the minority of businesses? There are millions of small businesses in America so I think you are in the majority myself. Unfortunately for small business, Ron thinks you should be regulated and controlled by the government and his savior thinks you didn’t do that or you didn’t build that and the government is the only avenue for success. That is pure Marxism, by the way.
Stop incorrectly telling people what you think other folks believe — you’re usually wrong and always ignorant when you do that.
March 10, 2015 at 12:08 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Weren’t you the one who complains about others butting into your conversations? Mickey Dee and I were having a civil discussion until you arrived.
I stated Mickey Dee was in the minority because of his/her approach to owning a business, not the fact that he/she owns a small business. See my post, “I applaud you for your approach to owning a business. However, you are in the minority.” Where did I say anything about small business?
Please, for the love of God, work on your reading comprehension skills.
March 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ignore Agent, he’s the biggest hypocrite on the site. Ill prove it to you:
Agent, are you for legalizing marijuana at the federal level and leaving it up to the states to decide? Or are you for a FEDERAL ban, where big govt. decides what is best for the states?
March 10, 2015 at 3:47 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Try to sharpen up some Ron. You read everything backwards. Mickey Dee told you he had a small business under 50 and it sailed right over your head. Small businesses under 50 employees are the vast majority of businesses in this country and create most of the jobs in this country and you say he is in the minority. What a dufus!
March 11, 2015 at 8:15 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Do not feed the troll Ron – don’t do it!! You and Mickey Dee know exactly what you said and what you meant. That’s all that matters. Who cares if Agent still stupidly disagrees?
March 11, 2015 at 10:38 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Rosenblatt,
I know what you are saying, but it so much fun to see Agent constantly make a fool of himself. He is the poster child for the quote from the great President Lincoln, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Agent,
Please tell me where I specifically stated that Mickey Dee was in the minority for owning a small business.
March 12, 2015 at 12:43 pm
Stan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, why dont you answer a question for once? Are you afraid to take a stand against big bad, Stan?
Why are you always afraid? Classic Texan, talks a big talk, but then cowers behind silence when challenged.
You are such a p*ssy.
March 9, 2015 at 3:30 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
FFA, if there is a group of people who are against birth control and abortions due to religious beliefs, it was the Catholics. I wonder why a majority of Catholics continue to vote Democratic since Democrats are the baby killers. This is why the law should have been made optional for those who wanted it and those who didn’t. Forcing the government mandates was one of the most stupid things they could have done. It is being borne out with every case that comes up.
Catholics, like any American, vote for whom they believe is the better candidate. Neither party truly subscribes to all Catholic beliefs.
If you do not know the difference between believing women should have the right to make choices regarding their own bodies and killing babies, you are too irrational to debate this topic.
I will make a hypothetical deal. If we ban all abortions, then the government provides free pre and post natal care and free child care until the child is age 15. This would be paid for by increasing taxes on all pro-lifers. Let’s see how much you and other pro-lifers truly value life.
Do you know what adverse selection is and the adverse effect it has on insurance? If yes, then you do not belive your own statement, “Forcing the government mandates was one of the most stupid things they could have done.” For the record, government mandates were an idea originated by the Heritage Foundation and a key to Mitt Romney’s health care reform in MA. I guess you are saying that the most stupid part of this law is the Republican idea.
I think that some Americans vote for who they feel is the best candidate, some close their minds and vote straight party line, and some vote for who will give them the most free stuff.
You are absolutely correct. And you will find Catholics in each of those groups of voters.
March 23, 2015 at 12:56 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Mickey, back in the day, Democratic voters who voted straight party line were known as “Yellow Dog” Democrats. They pulled the lever for Democrats without a thought on what the candidate stood for. Republicans have typically been more thoughtful and wanted to know the positions of the candidates. Now, we have a legion of low information voters who are lazy and want all the free stuff a politician can give them.
March 10, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Get your facts straight says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’d vote for banning abortions and spending our tax money for free child health care options. I bet you find it’s pro-choice who’d be against it.
Based on the demographics of pro-lifers, I would respectfully disagree. These are people that tend to lean right and are against any taxes, let alone any tax increase levied against them.
I do not disagree with your assessment of the pro-choice people being against the proposal. That is becasue they belive in freedom from the government telling them what to do with their own bodies.
March 11, 2015 at 12:12 pm
Get your facts straight says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And that’s the sticking point. An abortion is not only affecting their own bodies, but the body of the child as well.
March 11, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Get your facts straight,
That is a matter of opinion. Many people believe it is not a child until it can survive without the mother. Up until that point, it is the woman’s body and her choice.
Until there is a universal acceptance of when it is a human being, there will always be a debate.
March 12, 2015 at 11:53 am
Get your facts straight says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agreed, and thanks for saying its a matter of opinion and not a scientific fact.
March 12, 2015 at 12:01 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Dear Agent: On what planet do you live in which the majority of Catholics are Democrats? In the Bible Belt planet?
I was replying to Mickey Dees statement, “Enough is enough when the government stops interfering with the operations of private business.” which was a reply to FFA’S question, “When is enough enough?” Got it?
Try following the bouncing ball and pay attention instead of making assumptions.
Bob, would you seriously consider Notre Dame to be a non-profit? They are only considered that by the fair and reasonable IRS, which allows for multi-Billion $ corporations such as ND and almost as humorously, Northwestern University to avoid payment of taxes. Just because you get the taxpayers to support your huge mega $ business, doesn’t mean that you get a pass on Obamacare too.
I understand that Notre Dame is a Catholic-affiliated school. But I think that as long as a company is operating in the public space, they need to provide the same coverage any other business would be required to provide. Especially if they are employing and providing services to people not of their faith. I wouldn’t expect a small parish to provide contraceptive coverage to the women working in the rectory’s main office, but a school or hospital that is affiliated but not operated directly by the Church should be subject to the same requirements as any secular company.
Could you define “operating in the public space”? Is Notre Dame a publically traded corporation? Why is a small parish not operating in a public space if you consider Notre Dame to be doing so? Is it strictly a limit on the size of an organization? Not trying to be argumentative, but I’m not sure how this could be enforced if they are classified as a non-profit.
I see ‘operating in the public space’ to be those organizations that employ and provide goods/services to the general public, and not just a specific religion. It’s not the size of an organization, but it’s function and operations that determine whether it’s ‘operating in the public space.’
A Church’s primary function is worship and providing instruction about its religion. It’s not completely ‘private’ as they tend to let anyone walk in, but their masses and sacraments are designed for and aimed specifically at their congregation and not the random person off the street. While I don’t see a priest refusing to allow a Jew or Muslim sit in on a Sunday service, I also can’t see him providing extensive spiritual Church-focused counseling to one of them if they have absolutely no interest in converting. He would direct them to contact their own religious leaders. And rightly so. His focus needs to be on members of his congregation.
Now, a Catholic-affiliated organization like a college or hospital does not have the same primary function as a church does. Their primary functions are to teach/heal and not to preach the scriptures. They also recruit, employ and provide non-religious based services to non-Catholics. As such, they are operating in the public space. Or secular space. If a religious-affiliated organization is operating in the public, secular sector, I believe they need to adhere to the same rules as any other business.
I see your line of reasoning, but I would disagree with your points. I don’t think a religious organization would agree that their primary function differs from the local church. I can’t speak for all religions of course, but for Christians, it is to serve others and spread the gospel as God has commanded. How that service is provided can differ, but the end goal is the same – demonstrate and spread the love of Jesus and tell others of him.
For someone to come in and tell a religious organization how they can do that is contrary to the idea of religious freedom.
Hey Get, The founding fathers would roll over in their graves to see what this country has turned out to be. Their idea was not to let government get too big so it would be dictating to the people and to be limiting freedom. We are getting close to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat with Obama. Checks and Balances between the three branches of government used to work. Now, the Executive Branch thinks they are more equal and wants everyone to kneel in front of them since they “know best”.
March 16, 2015 at 10:16 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Get your facts straight,
How about a trade off? No more tax-exempt status for religious organizations in exchange for no more government interference.
I highly doubt Jesus looks upon Notre Dame, or any other religious organization who collects millions of dollars that are then used to build shrines to their athletes, in a favorabnle light. The fact that some of these players, especially football players who take pride in hitting other human beings for sport, think it is Jesus who provided them with their talents is blasphemous, in my opinion. Jesus would not even strike another to defend himself, let alone for fun.
March 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Please lay out, with specific actions, how President Obama is getting us close to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
You speak out against limitations of feedom, yet call for more laws (texting while driving and voter ID) that limit freedom and are against the removal of other laws (marijuana, gay marriage, abortion) that limit our freedoms.
Whether you like it or not, the current Executive Branch is doing no more than previous administrations do circumvent our system of chacks and balances.
Here is my proof. You are constantly telling us how President Obama wants to turn our country to Socialism. However, you have no proof that we have become any more Socialist since he took office 6 years ago. This must mean that either, President Obama is not a Socialist or checks and balances have stopped him from accomplishing his goal. You pick.
March 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Hi Get your facts straight,
I might agree that the religious organizations are spreading the word of their (whichever denomination they are) God, and therefore should be exempt from certain aspects of they law, if they only employed followers of their specific religion. However, many of those organizations employ non-believers. And when they do, their claims of ‘spreading the word’ rings false. After all, a Jewish/Muslim professor/doctor employed by a Catholic organization is not going to be spreading the word of Jesus.
As I said earlier, if a priest does not want to provide insurance that includes contraception to the women who work at his church, I have no problem with that. Internal church employees, working in the church/on behalf of the Church have to deal with Church rules.
However, I don’t believe Mr. Smith, the CEO at St. Mary’s Catholic Hospital* should get the same consideration. While it may be closely affiliated with the Church, St. Mary’s is a public entity, operating in the secular world outside of the Church, employing and serving non-Catholics. It should be held to the same standards as the county hospital.
*I have no idea if this is a real hospital, just used a random saint’s name.
March 17, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Olive Awborshun says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I don’t think Jesus looks down on anyone. Maybe he’ll chime in.
FFA, I saw that. The main difference is that Republicans resign when they get caught doing the wrong thing. Democrats stay in office and continue to do the same corrupt things. Does Charlie Rangel ring a bell? One of the biggest tax cheats in Congress and he isn’t prosecuted or put in jail for evasion.
Hey FFA, what do you think about all the movement of players in the NFL? That CAP is ripping a bunch of teams a new one. Are the Bears swinging a little now? Haven’t seen much on them. The Cowboys lost Murray and signed the McFadden guy who has been well hidden in his years with Oakland. Actually, McFadden is a good back and he might just have a banner year running behind the Dallas line. Murray may have some trouble running behind Philly’s line since McCoy couldn’t last year.
The Bears signed Antrell Rolle & Eddie Royals and a lineman today. Still haven’t addressed the Line Backer issues.
McFadden is made of glass. He is hurt and hurt often.. He is a Derric Rose of the NFL. He is a beast when healthy, but….
Never been a fan of the cap, but I guess its necessary.
March 18, 2015 at 9:44 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well, McFadden hasn’t had much of a line to run behind in Oakland so part of his injury issues may stem from getting hit by 250 lb linebackers the second he hits the line. He may have better luck getting hit by safeties after he is 10 yards down the field. Perhaps the Eagles will let them have one of their linebackers. They seem to be getting rid of plenty of players these days.
Agent, the Bears also scored a LB from Baltimore. News Feed stated he was #1 on the wish list. So, they are working on the D.
Seems they need another receiver. All they have is Alshon & Royals. Maybe address that in the draft?
FFA, per Dallascowboys.com, they signed Defensive End, Greg Hardy away from Carolina. He has been a productive (All Pro) sacks leader, but got into trouble with a girlfriend (Common reason in the NFL) and suspended. He may have to serve some suspension before he can play. It is just like Jones to sign someone with issues. His value went way down with the trouble.
Incentive laden contract on Hardy. Depends on how much he plays and how productive he is. Most football players in the league should have incentive contracts instead of huge signing bonuses that they rarely live up to. I wonder what will happen to Cutler. Are they going to salvage him or replace him?
Oh Boy. More Court Action on this… When is enough enough?
Enough is enough when the government stops interfering with the operations of private business.
I saw a post today that asked why we keep hearing Social Security is running out of money (funded by working people) but we never hear of welfare running out of money.
McD, I doubt the govt will ever stop…
Mickey Dee,
When companies stop putting the maximization of profits before people, the environment, and the general welfare of our society. In other words, never.
Like it or not, most, if not all, regulations stem from companies going too far to maximize profits. To corporations, there is never enough profit and they do not care whom or what may be harmed. This is how we know corporations are not people. If they were, they would be sociopaths.
Ron,
Not all businesses are huge, public companies where maximized profits for shareholders is the goal. More businesses are under 50 staff, including mine. My goal is to provide jobs for the people who want to work with me, give them good salaries and benefits. I would like to make the choices on what is right for my business; I don’t want the government telling me what I have to do. I know what I can afford to do, the gov’t doesn’t.
Mickey Dee,
You are correct.
I applaud you for your approach to owning a business. However, you are in the minority.
By definition, a corporation’s sole purpose is to maximize profits. Without regulations controlling what corporations can and cannot do, you may not have a small, successful business.
Nobody wants the government telling us what to do, but we have brought much of that upon ourselves and each other.
Do you agree with my statement, “most, if not all, regulations stem from companies going too far to maximize profits.” That may not apply directly to your business, but how are we to pick and choose which companies need to be regulated?
Ron,
Thanks.
I don’t think profits are the SOLE purpose of corporations or any business. Providing a service or product and making money are purposes of a company. What I don’t like is using one solution for all businesses, large and small. As the economy improves, then the workers will have the voice and dictate what the benefits will be. If they don’t believe in contraception, then they may choose to work for Notre Dame or Hobby Lobby. If they disagree, they don’t have to work at Notre Dame or Hobby Lobby. At that point, the company will have a choice on what to offer; not the gov’t dictating what to offer.
Hey Mickey, how did you like the lecture Ron gave you that you are in the minority of businesses? There are millions of small businesses in America so I think you are in the majority myself. Unfortunately for small business, Ron thinks you should be regulated and controlled by the government and his savior thinks you didn’t do that or you didn’t build that and the government is the only avenue for success. That is pure Marxism, by the way.
Stop incorrectly telling people what you think other folks believe — you’re usually wrong and always ignorant when you do that.
Agent,
Weren’t you the one who complains about others butting into your conversations? Mickey Dee and I were having a civil discussion until you arrived.
I stated Mickey Dee was in the minority because of his/her approach to owning a business, not the fact that he/she owns a small business. See my post, “I applaud you for your approach to owning a business. However, you are in the minority.” Where did I say anything about small business?
Please, for the love of God, work on your reading comprehension skills.
Ignore Agent, he’s the biggest hypocrite on the site. Ill prove it to you:
Agent, are you for legalizing marijuana at the federal level and leaving it up to the states to decide? Or are you for a FEDERAL ban, where big govt. decides what is best for the states?
Try to sharpen up some Ron. You read everything backwards. Mickey Dee told you he had a small business under 50 and it sailed right over your head. Small businesses under 50 employees are the vast majority of businesses in this country and create most of the jobs in this country and you say he is in the minority. What a dufus!
Do not feed the troll Ron – don’t do it!! You and Mickey Dee know exactly what you said and what you meant. That’s all that matters. Who cares if Agent still stupidly disagrees?
Rosenblatt,
I know what you are saying, but it so much fun to see Agent constantly make a fool of himself. He is the poster child for the quote from the great President Lincoln, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
Agent,
Please tell me where I specifically stated that Mickey Dee was in the minority for owning a small business.
Agent, why dont you answer a question for once? Are you afraid to take a stand against big bad, Stan?
Why are you always afraid? Classic Texan, talks a big talk, but then cowers behind silence when challenged.
You are such a p*ssy.
FFA, if there is a group of people who are against birth control and abortions due to religious beliefs, it was the Catholics. I wonder why a majority of Catholics continue to vote Democratic since Democrats are the baby killers. This is why the law should have been made optional for those who wanted it and those who didn’t. Forcing the government mandates was one of the most stupid things they could have done. It is being borne out with every case that comes up.
Agent,
Catholics, like any American, vote for whom they believe is the better candidate. Neither party truly subscribes to all Catholic beliefs.
If you do not know the difference between believing women should have the right to make choices regarding their own bodies and killing babies, you are too irrational to debate this topic.
I will make a hypothetical deal. If we ban all abortions, then the government provides free pre and post natal care and free child care until the child is age 15. This would be paid for by increasing taxes on all pro-lifers. Let’s see how much you and other pro-lifers truly value life.
Do you know what adverse selection is and the adverse effect it has on insurance? If yes, then you do not belive your own statement, “Forcing the government mandates was one of the most stupid things they could have done.” For the record, government mandates were an idea originated by the Heritage Foundation and a key to Mitt Romney’s health care reform in MA. I guess you are saying that the most stupid part of this law is the Republican idea.
I think that some Americans vote for who they feel is the best candidate, some close their minds and vote straight party line, and some vote for who will give them the most free stuff.
Mickey Dee,
You are absolutely correct. And you will find Catholics in each of those groups of voters.
Mickey, back in the day, Democratic voters who voted straight party line were known as “Yellow Dog” Democrats. They pulled the lever for Democrats without a thought on what the candidate stood for. Republicans have typically been more thoughtful and wanted to know the positions of the candidates. Now, we have a legion of low information voters who are lazy and want all the free stuff a politician can give them.
I’d vote for banning abortions and spending our tax money for free child health care options. I bet you find it’s pro-choice who’d be against it.
Get your facts straight,
Based on the demographics of pro-lifers, I would respectfully disagree. These are people that tend to lean right and are against any taxes, let alone any tax increase levied against them.
I do not disagree with your assessment of the pro-choice people being against the proposal. That is becasue they belive in freedom from the government telling them what to do with their own bodies.
And that’s the sticking point. An abortion is not only affecting their own bodies, but the body of the child as well.
Get your facts straight,
That is a matter of opinion. Many people believe it is not a child until it can survive without the mother. Up until that point, it is the woman’s body and her choice.
Until there is a universal acceptance of when it is a human being, there will always be a debate.
Agreed, and thanks for saying its a matter of opinion and not a scientific fact.
Dear Agent: On what planet do you live in which the majority of Catholics are Democrats? In the Bible Belt planet?
ron, your comments are completely off base. this is a religious college, which is far and away from a “for profit” business.
bob,
I was replying to Mickey Dees statement, “Enough is enough when the government stops interfering with the operations of private business.” which was a reply to FFA’S question, “When is enough enough?” Got it?
Try following the bouncing ball and pay attention instead of making assumptions.
Bob, would you seriously consider Notre Dame to be a non-profit? They are only considered that by the fair and reasonable IRS, which allows for multi-Billion $ corporations such as ND and almost as humorously, Northwestern University to avoid payment of taxes. Just because you get the taxpayers to support your huge mega $ business, doesn’t mean that you get a pass on Obamacare too.
I understand that Notre Dame is a Catholic-affiliated school. But I think that as long as a company is operating in the public space, they need to provide the same coverage any other business would be required to provide. Especially if they are employing and providing services to people not of their faith. I wouldn’t expect a small parish to provide contraceptive coverage to the women working in the rectory’s main office, but a school or hospital that is affiliated but not operated directly by the Church should be subject to the same requirements as any secular company.
Could you define “operating in the public space”? Is Notre Dame a publically traded corporation? Why is a small parish not operating in a public space if you consider Notre Dame to be doing so? Is it strictly a limit on the size of an organization? Not trying to be argumentative, but I’m not sure how this could be enforced if they are classified as a non-profit.
Hi Get your facts straight,
I see ‘operating in the public space’ to be those organizations that employ and provide goods/services to the general public, and not just a specific religion. It’s not the size of an organization, but it’s function and operations that determine whether it’s ‘operating in the public space.’
A Church’s primary function is worship and providing instruction about its religion. It’s not completely ‘private’ as they tend to let anyone walk in, but their masses and sacraments are designed for and aimed specifically at their congregation and not the random person off the street. While I don’t see a priest refusing to allow a Jew or Muslim sit in on a Sunday service, I also can’t see him providing extensive spiritual Church-focused counseling to one of them if they have absolutely no interest in converting. He would direct them to contact their own religious leaders. And rightly so. His focus needs to be on members of his congregation.
Now, a Catholic-affiliated organization like a college or hospital does not have the same primary function as a church does. Their primary functions are to teach/heal and not to preach the scriptures. They also recruit, employ and provide non-religious based services to non-Catholics. As such, they are operating in the public space. Or secular space. If a religious-affiliated organization is operating in the public, secular sector, I believe they need to adhere to the same rules as any other business.
Does that make sense?
I see your line of reasoning, but I would disagree with your points. I don’t think a religious organization would agree that their primary function differs from the local church. I can’t speak for all religions of course, but for Christians, it is to serve others and spread the gospel as God has commanded. How that service is provided can differ, but the end goal is the same – demonstrate and spread the love of Jesus and tell others of him.
For someone to come in and tell a religious organization how they can do that is contrary to the idea of religious freedom.
Hey Get, The founding fathers would roll over in their graves to see what this country has turned out to be. Their idea was not to let government get too big so it would be dictating to the people and to be limiting freedom. We are getting close to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat with Obama. Checks and Balances between the three branches of government used to work. Now, the Executive Branch thinks they are more equal and wants everyone to kneel in front of them since they “know best”.
Get your facts straight,
How about a trade off? No more tax-exempt status for religious organizations in exchange for no more government interference.
I highly doubt Jesus looks upon Notre Dame, or any other religious organization who collects millions of dollars that are then used to build shrines to their athletes, in a favorabnle light. The fact that some of these players, especially football players who take pride in hitting other human beings for sport, think it is Jesus who provided them with their talents is blasphemous, in my opinion. Jesus would not even strike another to defend himself, let alone for fun.
Agent,
Please lay out, with specific actions, how President Obama is getting us close to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
You speak out against limitations of feedom, yet call for more laws (texting while driving and voter ID) that limit freedom and are against the removal of other laws (marijuana, gay marriage, abortion) that limit our freedoms.
Whether you like it or not, the current Executive Branch is doing no more than previous administrations do circumvent our system of chacks and balances.
Here is my proof. You are constantly telling us how President Obama wants to turn our country to Socialism. However, you have no proof that we have become any more Socialist since he took office 6 years ago. This must mean that either, President Obama is not a Socialist or checks and balances have stopped him from accomplishing his goal. You pick.
Hi Get your facts straight,
I might agree that the religious organizations are spreading the word of their (whichever denomination they are) God, and therefore should be exempt from certain aspects of they law, if they only employed followers of their specific religion. However, many of those organizations employ non-believers. And when they do, their claims of ‘spreading the word’ rings false. After all, a Jewish/Muslim professor/doctor employed by a Catholic organization is not going to be spreading the word of Jesus.
As I said earlier, if a priest does not want to provide insurance that includes contraception to the women who work at his church, I have no problem with that. Internal church employees, working in the church/on behalf of the Church have to deal with Church rules.
However, I don’t believe Mr. Smith, the CEO at St. Mary’s Catholic Hospital* should get the same consideration. While it may be closely affiliated with the Church, St. Mary’s is a public entity, operating in the secular world outside of the Church, employing and serving non-Catholics. It should be held to the same standards as the county hospital.
*I have no idea if this is a real hospital, just used a random saint’s name.
I don’t think Jesus looks down on anyone. Maybe he’ll chime in.
Off topic… Another one bites the dust.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/aaron-schock-resigns-116153.html
Another crooked IL Politician. Why Not.
FFA, I saw that. The main difference is that Republicans resign when they get caught doing the wrong thing. Democrats stay in office and continue to do the same corrupt things. Does Charlie Rangel ring a bell? One of the biggest tax cheats in Congress and he isn’t prosecuted or put in jail for evasion.
That came through on my face book feed. Your response is almost word for word what one of the posters said. But, he is from IL so its expected of him.
Hey FFA, what do you think about all the movement of players in the NFL? That CAP is ripping a bunch of teams a new one. Are the Bears swinging a little now? Haven’t seen much on them. The Cowboys lost Murray and signed the McFadden guy who has been well hidden in his years with Oakland. Actually, McFadden is a good back and he might just have a banner year running behind the Dallas line. Murray may have some trouble running behind Philly’s line since McCoy couldn’t last year.
The Bears signed Antrell Rolle & Eddie Royals and a lineman today. Still haven’t addressed the Line Backer issues.
McFadden is made of glass. He is hurt and hurt often.. He is a Derric Rose of the NFL. He is a beast when healthy, but….
Never been a fan of the cap, but I guess its necessary.
Well, McFadden hasn’t had much of a line to run behind in Oakland so part of his injury issues may stem from getting hit by 250 lb linebackers the second he hits the line. He may have better luck getting hit by safeties after he is 10 yards down the field. Perhaps the Eagles will let them have one of their linebackers. They seem to be getting rid of plenty of players these days.
I hope your right agent. If he can stay healthy, he is a force. A better line to open the holes would be an upgrade of what he is used to.
Agent, the Bears also scored a LB from Baltimore. News Feed stated he was #1 on the wish list. So, they are working on the D.
Seems they need another receiver. All they have is Alshon & Royals. Maybe address that in the draft?
FFA, per Dallascowboys.com, they signed Defensive End, Greg Hardy away from Carolina. He has been a productive (All Pro) sacks leader, but got into trouble with a girlfriend (Common reason in the NFL) and suspended. He may have to serve some suspension before he can play. It is just like Jones to sign someone with issues. His value went way down with the trouble.
Incentive laden contract on Hardy. Depends on how much he plays and how productive he is. Most football players in the league should have incentive contracts instead of huge signing bonuses that they rarely live up to. I wonder what will happen to Cutler. Are they going to salvage him or replace him?