Supreme Court hearing Hobby Lobby v Obamacare

[PaulS]

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the progressive lack of compassion and empathy for those who hold religious beliefs is stunning.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, the progressive lack of compassion and empathy for those who hold religious beliefs is stunning.

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But my statement did have something to do with progressivism and religion. To achieve the transformation of the American regime that was instituted by the Founders constitutional republic, Progressives had/have to eliminate the People's attachment to basic constitutional principles and various cultural traits and institutions, including religion. Those things stood/stand in the way of the authoritarian regime Progressives see as a necessary and historical imperative. Old "norms" had to be "normalized" into a homogenous acceptance of rule by elite experts. Old notions such as self reliance, or individual sovereignty, or state's sovereignty, or God and family being more important than government, or unalienable rights, or certain exclusive rights of association, or even the limitation of the central government to a small list of enumerated powers, had to be phased out. In essence, the central government actually must have supreme power over all aspects of our lives.

So my statement did have something to do with progressivism and religion, and has implications of much more. And I, in no way, meant to disparage your laughable feeling.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The statement had nothing to with religious beliefs but rather the laughable feeling that doing something is to "increase dependency on the Feds"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. It's "laughable" that politicians would give financial benefits to a constituency, in order to secure future votes? That never happens? Politicians never try to buy votes?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

That is a problem they'll never overcome - the lack of compassion and empathy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

You might see it that way, as usual, by skimming the surface of things and avoiding the underlying principles. Jim doesn't have the same approach to the Constitution as I do. He is more accepting than I to the bending of its principles, especially in matters of charity. I think he once alluded to being influenced more by his Catholicism. He also, being a good soldier, accepts with finality what SCOTUS decides. I don't believe those decisions must stand if they are faulty. Again, you revert to the tactic of ridicule when you have nothing substantial to say. It becomes you, or you become it . . . either way, it works.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops! . . . back at ya.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If this was supposed to be "parroting" me, your analogy fails yet again. In the thread which discussed the ACA being decided by the Court, I said that I did not know which way it would go, and that it might well be upheld . . . Ooops!

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So where's the constutional argument? Theoretical or applied?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Constitutional argument about what?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I like how you're trying to parrot Detbuch like a toddler parrots their older brother...it's cute.

Just wait till the ACA goes before the Supreme Court and they find it unconstitutional. That will sure reinforce your argument...

Oops.

-spence

"Oops."

Hobby Lobby is before the Supreme Court right now, their case hasn't been decided yet. You "oops" seems a wee bit premature.

The ACA was declared constitutional. Obama accomplished this, by convincing the Court that it is a "tax", despite telling us repeatedly that it is not a tax. Gotta like that consietency. Say one thing to one audience, say the exact opposite to anotheraudience, and hope that no one notices.

Spence, as I have said, I like the idea of Obamacare, so don't for one second think you nailed me in a gotcha! moment. No one gets to decide whether they will be born healthy or born sick, therefore it seems just to me, that we all share in some kind of shared risk pool of some sort. But, as always, we need to do it within the confines of the constitution.

The Supreme Court may well rule against HL. That doesn't mean HL was wrong. The Supreme Court is not infallible. They upheld slavery not all that long ago, and more recently, some of your ilk refused to accept the Court's decision regarding the 2000 election.

Spence, for all your posts on this thread, for all your insults, I see you continue to cowardly dodge the only issue that matters - why is HL wrong when they say that their constitutional rights are being violated? What's the matter, The Huffington Post hasn't told you how to respond to that point yet, so you just lob insults while you're waiting?

Why can't you answer the only question that matters on this issue? Can't you show a tiny shred of intellectual honesty?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No Paul. What you don't understand, is that you cannot throw out the Constitution, even for reasons you sympathize with.

I love the liberal notion that you are morally superior just by virtue of declaring yourself a liberal.

Paul, who has more sympathy for the family that owns HL. Me or you? Just curious.

Constitution, shmonstitution.

I certainly don't think I'm morally superior to anyone bc of some label. It is more based on the action of others. When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves it is only so they will vote for that party, I do consider myself morally superior to them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I certainly don't think I'm morally superior to anyone bc of some label. It is more based on the action of others. When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves it is only so they will vote for that party, I do consider myself morally superior to them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"When I see people with the belief that when some people do something to help people less fortunate than themselves "

Oh, please. Sandra Fluke was a student at the Georgetown University School Of Law, and she needs me to pay for her condoms? She's "less fortunate" than we are?

This isn't about charity, because there is no "needs test" to qualify for teh free contraception - under the ACA, everyone gets free contraception, not just poor people.

You are suggesting that if i opose handing out free contraception to everyone (including billionaires), that it's because I have no sympathy for those who deserve sympathy?

Wrong. My opposition to this has nothing to do with lack of sympathy. It has everything to do with the constitution.

We're not talking about giving food to starving kids here. Let's put this debate in the proper context.