If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minn Post)   In what appears to be the political equivalent of a tree falling in the forest, ND voters shoot down Catholic Churches' pet "Religious Liberation Restoration" act in this week's primary and nobody notices   (minnpost.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, Religious Liberation Restoration, North Dakotans, North Dakota, North Dakota voters, Fighting Sioux, strict scrutiny, name of God, war chest  
•       •       •

3200 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2012 at 12:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-16 12:56:34 PM
The who in the what, now?
 
2012-06-16 12:58:14 PM
Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.
 
2012-06-16 12:59:11 PM

odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.


Yeah you betcha'
 
2012-06-16 01:02:06 PM
"Government may not burden a person's religious organization's religious liberty,"

Fixed that for y'all.
 
2012-06-16 01:05:43 PM

odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.


Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.
 
2012-06-16 01:08:40 PM
they also said no to dropping the income tax
 
2012-06-16 01:10:31 PM

Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax


Encouraging glimmers of rationality...
 
2012-06-16 01:11:37 PM

Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax


Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!
 
2012-06-16 01:13:37 PM
I noticed, and I gave quiet applause.
 
2012-06-16 01:20:50 PM
"Tom Freier, executive director of the North Dakota Family Alliance"

Oh look, another group with the word "Family" in its name that you can substitute "bigot" for and describe the group.
 
2012-06-16 01:24:52 PM
Rational voting decisions? Sounds like someone is afflicted with secondhand-Canada
 
2012-06-16 01:25:14 PM

brandent: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!


The "religious freedom" thing lost 65% to 35%, the property tax measure lost 78% to 22%. This in ND, a very red state. The democrat in the senate race there also has a slight lead in current polls. The republican party would do well to pay attention to all this, but they probably aren't capable of an appropriate response.
 
2012-06-16 01:27:24 PM
Notre Dame votes now? I thought they were an episcopocracy?
 
2012-06-16 01:28:49 PM
This is just more evidence that there is a war on religion in this country.
 
2012-06-16 01:32:46 PM
"The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.
 
2012-06-16 01:35:54 PM

malaktaus: brandent: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!

The "religious freedom" thing lost 65% to 35%, the property tax measure lost 78% to 22%. This in ND, a very red state. The democrat in the senate race there also has a slight lead in current polls. The republican party would do well to pay attention to all this, but they probably aren't capable of an appropriate response.


Obviously, they're not acting conservative enough.
 
2012-06-16 01:46:05 PM

deadcrickets: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.


North Dakota has 10 people. Wisconsin has several thousand.
 
2012-06-16 01:48:47 PM

Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.


Thread over.
 
2012-06-16 01:49:15 PM

malaktaus: brandent: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

Actually it was banning property tax. Get your obscure local news straight!

The "religious freedom" thing lost 65% to 35%, the property tax measure lost 78% to 22%. This in ND, a very red state. The democrat in the senate race there also has a slight lead in current polls. The republican party would do well to pay attention to all this, but they probably aren't capable of an appropriate response.


While I hope it is indeed a harbinger of rationality, it could also be just Lutherans sticking it to Pope.
 
2012-06-16 01:53:33 PM

Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax


It wasn't income. It was property.
 
2012-06-16 01:57:09 PM

Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.


You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?
 
2012-06-16 02:00:25 PM

Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?


i322.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-16 02:08:17 PM
"Stealth" anti-reproductive rights legislation.
 
2012-06-16 02:18:31 PM

Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?


Touche, salesman.
 
2012-06-16 02:19:32 PM

LoneWolf343: Guidette Frankentits: they also said no to dropping the income tax

It wasn't income. It was property.


Your mom is my property.

Her face I income.
 
2012-06-16 02:26:02 PM

ghare: deadcrickets: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.

North Dakota has 10 people. Wisconsin has several thousand.


Wisconsin has several thousand. Pennsylvania has millions.
 
2012-06-16 02:30:30 PM

Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.


Clearly there was a typo in the law, it should have read,

"motivated by a sincerely held Christian belief"
 
2012-06-16 03:05:07 PM

Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?


Apparently, that depends on my religious beliefs. Because if I wasn't weighed down with paternalistic bronze age morality, I'd say absolutely that is a compelling government interest in the safety of its citizens. Just like, oh I don't know let me grab a random analogy, there's a compelling government interest in the health and freedom of its citizens to have easy and affordable access to birth control for both men and women. But, again, I suppose that depends entirely on ones religious beliefs.
 
2012-06-16 03:45:48 PM

Kome: Serious Black: Kome: "The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest."

I do believe 9/11 was an act motivated by a sincerely held religious belief.

You don't think preventing fully-loaded Boeing 747's from crashing into skyscrapers is a compelling government interest?

Apparently, that depends on my religious beliefs. Because if I wasn't weighed down with paternalistic bronze age morality, I'd say absolutely that is a compelling government interest in the safety of its citizens. Just like, oh I don't know let me grab a random analogy, there's a compelling government interest in the health and freedom of its citizens to have easy and affordable access to birth control for both men and women. But, again, I suppose that depends entirely on ones religious beliefs.


Perhaps one should establish the Church of Socialism. I'd love to see the arguments against that...
 
2012-06-16 03:53:07 PM

Kome: there's a compelling government interest in the health and freedom of its citizens to have easy and affordable access to birth control for both men and women.


No there isn't.

Buy your own condoms, or you know, jerk off in the shower.

Oh I want to have sex, lets get the government involved!
 
2012-06-16 03:57:42 PM

halfof33: No there isn't.

Buy your own condoms, or you know, jerk off in the shower.

Oh I want to have sex, lets get the government involved!


You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?
 
2012-06-16 04:01:02 PM

Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?


Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.
 
2012-06-16 04:12:31 PM

halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.


It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?
 
2012-06-16 04:14:01 PM

deadcrickets: ghare: deadcrickets: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Because normally America is completely obsessed with local Wisconsin politics.

North Dakota has 10 people. Wisconsin has several thousand.

Wisconsin has several thousand. Pennsylvania has millions.


No, Pennsylvania has Neanderthals. No actual humans. Well, maybe Weaver.
 
2012-06-16 04:15:54 PM

doyner: It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?


Why should the tenets of YOUR religion be codified into law, nah nah!

The guy just compared sex to diabetes and condoms to insulin.

SUPER! That is some sharp thinking. Not having sex is a fatal disease now, Fark closes shop, news at 11....
 
2012-06-16 04:23:17 PM

halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.


Ok. Condoms are one form of birth control. They are an incredibly effective one, at not just preventing pregnancy but stopping the transmission of STDs. So, yay for condoms. Over 99% effectiveness! Hooray! And, oddly enough, I can get them for free at most clinics. I don't know if that's just because I live near multiple college campuses, but they are free. I've never had to pay for a condom in my life. Why? Because preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs is apparently enough of a health and economic concern that hospitals and clinics (all of which receive state and/or federal financial aid) are willing to foot that tiny bill if it gets me to wrap my man-tackle up. Of course, condoms are for sale, and not just given away for free. But, you know, the last time I was at the drug store, it didn't seem like the cost of condoms were all that expensive. In fact, they were quite affordable. It is apparently better for society that men have cheap (possibly even free!) and easy access to a form of birth control, without having to even schedule a doctor's appointment to get a prescription for it.

Now, that said, as many free condoms as I can get, every woman I know has to get a prescription for her birth control method of choice. The most common one is a daily hormonal pill (well, with some chemically inert pills for a few days out of the month). Now, this hormonal pill does more than just aid in preventing unwanted pregnancies. They help regulate a woman's hormonal cycle. Hormone regulation is pretty important not just for pregnancy-related issues, but for quite a host of other health-related issues too. Once again, unwanted pregnancies are a health and economic concern (the cost of giving birth, the health risks in carrying to term, the health risks of giving birth, etc.; I should emphasize the word "unwanted" here since a desired pregnancy is usually accepting of those same risks and costs) to the degree that men's birth control (the condom) is so omnipresent that you can't go into any grocery store, drug store, or convenient store without being able to buy some. But women have to pay a higher rate. A higher rate for a product that also helps control disease, just not necessarily sexually transmitted ones. Seems strange, that.

It strikes me as somewhat short-sighted, ignorant, or just plain misogynistic to think that there is any rational reason to deny women access to either birth control or abortion to help prevent unwanted pregnancy (possibly both), regulate her hormonal cycle (birth control), possibly save her life (possibly both). So it is, of course, no surprise to see the religious freedom argument brought to bear on the issue, since religion is nothing if not short-sighted, ignorant, and plain misogynistic.

The government has an incredibly compelling reason to let women have access to these things. Because, and here's the kicker, having access to a thing is not the same thing as being forced or required to use it. Religious people who object to birth control or abortions can not have them. Win-motherf*cking-win.
 
2012-06-16 04:24:26 PM

One Bad Apple: odinsposse: Because normally America is completely obsessed with local North Dakota politics.

Yeah you betcha'


Uff da!
 
2012-06-16 04:30:06 PM

halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.


You want to save taxpayer money, do you? Well, guess wgat? A condom or BC pills is a hell of a lot cheaper than nearly two decades of Medicaid, food stamps, schooling, and other government assistance. Not to mention the expense of a prison cell over 4 or 5 decades.

You can preach abstinence all you want, but out in the real world, people are going to Fark. If they're low income, it would be vastly cheaper to pay for some BC.
 
2012-06-16 04:37:04 PM

Riche: halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.

You want to save taxpayer money, do you? Well, guess wgat? A condom or BC pills is a hell of a lot cheaper than nearly two decades of Medicaid, food stamps, schooling, and other government assistance. Not to mention the expense of a prison cell over 4 or 5 decades.

You can preach abstinence all you want, but out in the real world, people are going to Fark. If they're low income, it would be vastly cheaper to pay for some BC.


Fiscal matters clearly come in second place to social control of people in today's GOP. Witness the giant boost in bills passed over the last year and a half dealing with restricting abortion. This argument won't phase them.
 
2012-06-16 04:46:23 PM

halfof33: doyner: It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?

Why should the tenets of YOUR religion be codified into law, nah nah!

The guy just compared sex to diabetes and condoms to insulin.

SUPER! That is some sharp thinking. Not having sex is a fatal disease now, Fark closes shop, news at 11....


ITT: Yet another example of a conservative struggling and failing to comprehend complex concepts like "health" and "insurance".
 
2012-06-16 05:09:51 PM

Biological Ali: halfof33: doyner: It isn't a government handout any more than getting insulin payed by your INSURER is.
Besides, why should the tenets of your religion be codified into law?

Why should the tenets of YOUR religion be codified into law, nah nah!

The guy just compared sex to diabetes and condoms to insulin.

SUPER! That is some sharp thinking. Not having sex is a fatal disease now, Fark closes shop, news at 11....

ITT: Yet another example of a conservative struggling and failing to comprehend complex concepts like "health" and "insurance".


I wonder if his insurer covers counseling for pathological partisanship.
 
2012-06-16 05:16:18 PM

Serious Black: Riche: halfof33: Kome: You don't know the first thing about pregnancy or the birthing process, do you?

Gee, I'm guessing you don't know what "birth control" is.

Wait, you sound horny, let me buy you a condom.

/been paying for birth control for 30 years, gee I shoulda asked the govmint for a god damn handout.

You want to save taxpayer money, do you? Well, guess wgat? A condom or BC pills is a hell of a lot cheaper than nearly two decades of Medicaid, food stamps, schooling, and other government assistance. Not to mention the expense of a prison cell over 4 or 5 decades.

You can preach abstinence all you want, but out in the real world, people are going to Fark. If they're low income, it would be vastly cheaper to pay for some BC.

Fiscal matters clearly come in second place to social control of people in today's GOP. Witness the giant boost in bills passed over the last year and a half dealing with restricting abortion. This argument won't phase them.


Not second...last. They want to ramp up "defense" spending because TERROR, and if you try to touch *their* government benefits, they'll be straining to get up off their Hoverounds to shake their meaty fists and gasp, "not...armed...THIS time...THIS time! *wheeze*"

They don't give a fark about the deficit.

They want to see their imagined social and racial inferiors put back in a position of deference and humility. That's where it begins and ends. That's why they can say self-righteously "buy your own condoms, whore" and maintain that this is part of their deep, deep, super-deep concern for the deficit.
 
2012-06-16 05:29:12 PM
Even if this passed, imagine how fast it would get shot down the first time some Muslim grocery clerk refuses to sell you bacon or a Muslim cabbie won't give you a ride because you've been drinking.
 
2012-06-16 05:36:23 PM
the vote should show politicians across the country that some of the loudest church organizations and leaders are not reflecting the views of their followers.

My local parish priests talk more about their pet projects and the fundraisers for it than they do about God, except to bring him up as a bargaining chip (God wants you to give me money so I can expand my television show......and remember God will not be outdone in generosity!). Their most recent rant was that "the Catholic church is under attack, the same as it was in Mexico in the 1920's". Hmmm, I haven't noticed a whole lot of dead clergy and raped nuns recently, maybe I've been spending too much time on Fark. In the meanwhile the church is taking in 25k a week in collections alone and they are spending it like drunken sailors on shore leave. There is no modern luxury invented that they do not enjoy in their private lives, yet they claim to be poor, subsisting on a paltry 17k (albeit tax free) per year.

It has gotten to the point where when they start to talk, I immediately stop listening, because they have a higher crap content than most commercial grade fertilizers. If they have told me how to vote I reckon I was asleep. I not only would never consider them for a source of advice for voting, I wouldn't consider them as a source of advice for anything else period. They are in freaking la la land, young priests in a large and wealthy suburban parish where everyone constantly kisses their ass and nobody takes them to task when they makes mistakes or frivolously spend enormous amounts of money.
 
2012-06-16 05:44:17 PM

Kome: The government has an incredibly compelling reason to let women have access to these things.


That is a SPECTACULAR number of words devoted to an absolute straw man. I seriously commend you for it! That takes effort.

Access does not equal public funding of birth control.

You also seem to be a stone cold champ of argument from the outlying case, but that is a whole nother story!

Diabetes = recreational sex, I still get a kick out of that one, lulz.
 
2012-06-16 05:57:03 PM

halfof33: Access does not equal public funding of birth control.


How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?
 
2012-06-16 06:17:35 PM

TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?


For reals? lulz
 
2012-06-16 06:57:14 PM

halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz


i48.tinypic.com

Living up to the tagging I see...
 
2012-06-16 06:57:41 PM
Honestly, I didn't understand how throwing this in the constitution defended the state against the federal government mandating...whatever it was that this legislation was trying to prevent.

/ND kid
//we voted all kinds of sane on our ballot measures this year
///snowball fight in hell, anyone?
 
2012-06-16 07:13:06 PM

Need Help Soonish: halfof33: TheJoeY: How does mandating that insurers cover birth control equal public funding of birth control?

For that matter, what's wrong with public funding of birth control?

For reals? lulz

[i48.tinypic.com image 229x70]

Living up to the tagging I see...


Yawn. Sweetie, if you are going to bring a ad hominem, bring it, don't fark around with some half ass screen cap that makes you giggle but doesn't make a bit of sense to farking anyone reading it.

Go load up your profile with more myspace poses, the adults are talking.
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report