Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(NewsOK)   Hobby Lobby to continue hobby of lobbying Appeals Court to allow their other hobby of lobbing their beliefs on their employees private lobby hobbies   (newsok.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, sidelines, appeals court  
•       •       •

7724 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2012 at 4:02 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-28 07:47:06 PM  

pxlboy: Exactly. But it's preposterous to suggest that an atheist would do that. Unlike the religious folks, most of us are content to live and let live.


Most of "the religious folks" probably feel the same. The religious nutjobs are the ones ruining it.
 
2012-12-28 07:47:34 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Yeah, the weird thing is they were put in place by Republicans. I thought they were supposed to be anti-regulation?


Follow the money and see who proposed and co-sponsored the bill requiring the 75 years of pension funding. See who donates the most to the aforementioned and you'll see who has a vested interest in wresting control of the postal system from the government.
 
2012-12-28 07:48:43 PM  

pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.


It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?
 
2012-12-28 07:49:16 PM  

you are a puppet: Submitter: you sir, are a mouthful.


That's what she said.
 
2012-12-28 07:53:32 PM  

moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?


Because we are spread out all over the country here. Though most of us live in concentrations around the coasts and major cities, we still provide certain infrastructural services and benefits even to those living in near isolation.

So I guess we can tell all the folks in the rural areas to suck it up and cope with cost increases of receiving even basic postal services?

As much of a relic as you think the USPS is, it still serves a functional purpose to this country.
 
2012-12-28 07:54:01 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: PsychoTherapist: cwolf20: On an unrelated note.

Owner with 6 employees figured up the math on providing insurance for the first time to his employees.

It'll be cheaper for him to take a 350 dollar hit per employee including himself and wife. Which wouldn't be an issue except she's never worked there. But the state government told him she always has. Meanwhile the employees will go forth and get Obama care.

I'd welcome him paying down the deficit at $350 per, but it's a strange thing for him to do considering that businesses with less than 50 employees do not incur any penalty under PPACA for not offering health insurance.

Isn't it funny that the people who are most against Obamacare have no idea what it actually IS?


Well, even I didn't know, until I looked it up just now, that "very small" businesses can get subsidies for purchasing insurance through the Exchanges. Oh, and that the penalty is actually going to be $2000 per. So I kinda call bullshiat on that entire post ... and I'm not the first one to do that.
 
2012-12-28 07:54:04 PM  

moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Exactly. But it's preposterous to suggest that an atheist would do that. Unlike the religious folks, most of us are content to live and let live.

Most of "the religious folks" probably feel the same. The religious nutjobs are the ones ruining it.

"...religious nutjobs..."


Let's unpack this flavored noun.

First, religious: seriously? Get over dogma, man.

Second, nutjobs: seriously? NSS, you have to be a nutjob to believe any religious text literally anymore. Have you seen science? It's fricking amazing, man, and I suspect that science can/could explode your understanding of your religious world, if you only had the resources to  look it up. Words and Peaces.
 
2012-12-28 07:54:49 PM  

pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.


Well, I didn't come on here to defend Republicans, but let's see if I have your logic correct.... The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?
 
2012-12-28 07:55:05 PM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion


I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.
 
2012-12-28 07:56:54 PM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?


Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.
 
2012-12-28 07:56:54 PM  

dr_blasto: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.


Exactly as planned.

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

Well, I didn't come on here to defend Republicans, but let's see if I have your logic correct.... The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?


Nice try. That was shoehorned in by the Republicans the preceding year.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-serv ic e/11433/
 
2012-12-28 07:57:36 PM  

dr_blasto: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.


So, change the model.
 
2012-12-28 07:58:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.


Government bloat is ok as long as it's military spending or crapping on the poor. If it's doing anything to bridge the inequality gap, it's evil socialism..
 
2012-12-28 07:59:47 PM  

dr_blasto: Maybe they should go be a company in some other country that doesn't have any farking standards. If they can't deal with making money in a first-world nation, maybe the Central African Republic would suit them better. Or maybe Iran.

Ooh, there's probably a lot of unused land they could set up shop in Afghanistan. That seems like its right up their alley.


We were a civil and stable country long before the days of employers providing health insurance so your whole tired argument is crap. The whole reason why we look to our employers for health insurance is because it is (so far) and untaxed benefit which companies use to attract talent. Like every other tax, the income tax affects the behavior of individuals and employers. Why we dont have insurance companies competing for business, lowering prices and offering attractive services like wellness and fitness to keep their costs low, giving consumers the ability to shop for a plan that fits their health needs with the freedom to take the plan across jobs and state lines is beyond me.
 
2012-12-28 08:00:38 PM  

Indubitably: dr_blasto: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

I'll be nice, but only because the ashtrays have all retired. Fundamentally the USPS is constantly played as the rope in a political war in congress. They are forced to fund 75 years of pension and have no ability to close underperforming offices nor can they change their role to be competitive without congressional approval. Since congress can only agree to sign off on laws that reduce the fourth amendment, the USPS is well and truly farked.

So, change the model.


Implying that any changes made will benefit the proles.

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-28 08:01:00 PM  

giftedmadness:

So if an atheist organization was forced to give equal amounts of money to religious causes you'd be fine with that?


ummm tell me again how a business is either religious or atheist?
 
2012-12-28 08:03:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.


....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.
 
2012-12-28 08:03:48 PM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: pxlboy: pesky government interfering with their attempts at further exploitation of the worker. Free market! Galt! Socialism!

Because government knows what is best for business..... Postal Service Reports Loss of $15 Billion

Meanwhile ignoring the ponderous funding rules the USPS has to follow. Nice try.

You mean the ponderous funding rules put in place by...... government?

Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

Well, I didn't come on here to defend Republicans, but let's see if I have your logic correct.... The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?


So... the moment the Democrats came in, they passed laws, which took effect immediately, and showed drastic changes within the year? If the control switch was in 2007 and the failure was in 2007, that almost guarantees whatever got farked up happened on the Republican's majority watch, wouldn't it?

I'm just glad they got their name disassociated with the Tour de France team before all the doping shiat really hit the fan. The media would have had a farking field day with that one.
 
2012-12-28 08:04:07 PM  
Some interesting reading on Hobby Lobby's employment practices and financial expression of the CEO's Dominion Theology. As an example, CEO David Green's son Mart (what is he - a Palin?) is CEO of EthnoGraphic Media (formerly Bearing Fruit Communications) which appears to operate as a 501(c)(3) corporation, despite the fact that its sole purpose is to generate Dominionist propaganda films such as The End of the Spear.

Mart Green bailed out Oral Roberts University with a $70 million donation in 2007 after its former president (Oral's son) was embroiled in a criminal investigation regarding misappropriation of funds which left it deeply in debt. Mart then became Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the university.

In short, the entire family lives the so-called prosperity gospel, along with the likes of Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, and Pat Robertson.They have accumulated enormous wealth by shuffling money among various "charities" operated by family members and paying themselves salaries (and expensing their lifestyles) from each of these organizations. If I had to venture a guess, I'd call this move by Hobby Lobby a calculated attempt to energize a base of evangelical Christians, the ultimate goal being a Congressional )and perhaps one day a Presidential) bid by Mart Green.
 
2012-12-28 08:06:48 PM  

clyph: What was the name of the religious leader who commanded his followers to cure the sick?

Oh right, is was Jesus.

But fundies only read the part of the bible that has smiting and abominations... they skip over the parts that say "feed and clothe the poor", "cure the sick", and "love one another". And especially the parts that say to give away your riches and pray in private. They NEVER read those parts.


Organized religion functions much like the government: selective enforcement.
 
2012-12-28 08:07:11 PM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.


And assholes in office sabotaging the government so they can point an accusing finger to say, "See!? It *doesn't* work!"

Trying to play the "both sides" card when it was clearly a Republican Congress in at the end of the 2006 session that put in place requirements for 75 years of pensions. No other company or government service is run that way.

It is patently obvious that the regulation was designed to make the Postal Service fail. Set it up for failure until it does so you can crow on about how government doesn't work.
 
2012-12-28 08:08:01 PM  
Oh, and GET THE MONEY!
 
2012-12-28 08:08:53 PM  

CreampuffCasperMilktoast: cameroncrazy1984: CreampuffCasperMilktoast: The Democrats take control of the House (and Senate) in 2007, and coincidentally in 2007 the USPS operated at a loss for the first time in over 5 years..... but this is somehow the Republicans fault?

Um, because the new regs were put in  prior to 2007? Oh gee, that was so hard to figure out.

....and those regs would be what exactly? The point is that Government, regardless of whether the "r's" or "d's" are running the show, is not conducive to a profitable environment.... not even a "break even" environment. With only a few exceptions (wars, moon landing), nothing they do is successful. Any successes they have had is at some colossal financial loss anyway.


The regs require the pension to be funded out for 75 years. Tell me any private company that has that requirement?

And don't tell me "both sides are bad" because under Democrats unemployment and the national debt are better than under Republicans. It's a proven fact.
 
2012-12-28 08:08:58 PM  

Whole Wheat: ZeroCorpse: The Greens should shove some Chic-Fil-A up their asses and STFU.

Honestly, I'm sick of these fundies who own corporations thinking they can act like their business is a branch of their church. It's not, and your employees are not your congregation.

Honestly, screw these people.

It's their business, they should be allowed to run it how they want. It was formed from their own biblical beliefs. If they choose to pay the fines instead of complying with the law, good on them.


I'm starting a new company soon. I just thought of an awesome rule ... employees are not allowed to donate any of their salaries to churches or other right wing causes, nor to buy guns. My company, my rules.
 
2012-12-28 08:11:02 PM  

KidneyStone: Bontesla: KidneyStone: I have a big problem with the government making it a law that health insurance must pay for contraceptives. Ya wanna fark and not make babies? Cool, but don't make my health insurance costs go up because of it.

Uhm your health insurance costs Do go up because employers weren't forced to cover things like contraception. Who do you think eats those costs when an uninsured mother gives birth?

Uhm, the doctor/hospital, not the insurance company.


And who pays the hospital?

/ we know logic and reasoning is hard for you lot
 
2012-12-28 08:17:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.

The state doesn't force anyone to pay for someone else's abortion. In fact, there's a law, called the Hyde Amendment, that says no federal tax dollars can go to abortion.

Care to be wrong about anything else?


Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion.

That, in my book, is interference in the religion.

BTW, just in case you are naive enough to believe in unicorn farts, yes, the "State" operates on force. Period. Defy government and the ultimate response is a bullet.
 
2012-12-28 08:18:36 PM  
This thread is further proof that calling oneself a Libertarian is the simplest, most elegant IQ test ever devised--along with support for Ron Paul or the gold standard. Might as well just wear a helmet at all times, because you lack the sense that the FSM gave dirt.
 
2012-12-28 08:19:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

The state doesn't force anyone to own a corporation.


Good lord, you're as stupid as your picture suggests you are.
 
2012-12-28 08:20:05 PM  

Great Janitor: The Why Not Guy: Great Janitor: It shouldn't be the government's position to tell businesses exactly what benefits they have to offer, what kind of healthcare packages they have to provide.

Oh, but they can tell me who I can or cannot marry, and prevent me from adopting a child?

Conservatives. Bless their hearts. Please.

Interestingly enough, I don't think they should have the ability to tell you who to marry or if you can or can not adopt a child.

The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern. If you work for Company ABC and you think you should make more money and get certain benefits, it shouldn't be the government who forces Company ABC to make those changes. It should be up to you to make the change to get the benefits and pay that you believe that you deserve. If that means changing jobs or acquiring a new job skills set, then make those changes.


Is it the lack of history that makes you so naive?

Http://lmgtfy.com/?q=working+conditions+industrial+revolution
 
2012-12-28 08:20:42 PM  

give me doughnuts: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Your problem is that you are foolish enough to believe that this is the case.



So.... you don't think separation of Church and State is a good thing?
 
2012-12-28 08:22:07 PM  

Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,


So, in theory, there is no difference (except in degree) between the United States and Nazi Germany?
 
2012-12-28 08:22:51 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: cameroncrazy1984: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: PanicMan: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says you can't pay for someone else's abortion?

Care to quote the section of the bible that says that magic mushrooms and licked frog skins are sacred sacraments? It's religious belief, douchbag. Doesn't matter whose religion, or what support it has or doesn't have.

/Go ahead, make some more assumptions about me.

The state doesn't force anyone to pay for someone else's abortion. In fact, there's a law, called the Hyde Amendment, that says no federal tax dollars can go to abortion.

Care to be wrong about anything else?

Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion.

That, in my book, is interference in the religion.

BTW, just in case you are naive enough to believe in unicorn farts, yes, the "State" operates on force. Period. Defy government and the ultimate response is a bullet.


The government is not there to enforce your religion or anyone else's, for that matter. It it enforcing a secular state. I'm sorry that you think birth control and the morning-after pill are as bad as partial-birth abortion and that life begins at conception, but you don't get to impose your religion on me.

We have enough of that already.
 
2012-12-28 08:23:28 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Wally007: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: So now the State invades religion, and forces some people to pay for abortions against their religious beliefs. Seriously, how is this really different from forcing people to worship a particular religion?

Because telling someone the health care they provide to employees must cover standard medications is not the same as forcing them to cease or begin any kind of worship to anyone. If you had to seriously ask that you should immediately stop sharing your opinions on anything.

Ah ah ahhh! No changing context, please. The issue is whether the State has the right to force someone who has a set of religious beliefs to act contrary to those beliefs.

Questions:

If I am a devout Black Muslim, who does charity work for destitute Blacks, does the State have the right to force me to also do charity work for destitute whites?

If I am a principled Atheist who makes charitable contributions to causes that promote Atheism, does the State have the right to force me to also make contributions to devout Catholic or Muslim causes?

Be honest now....

If you own and run a business in this country, the State absolutely has the right to tell you how you may do that, yes,

So, in theory, there is no difference (except in degree) between the United States and Nazi Germany?


It took this many comments for someone to Godwin the conversation?
 
2012-12-28 08:23:51 PM  

Great Janitor: The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern.


Yes, because that worked out splendidly in the late 1800's...
 
2012-12-28 08:25:29 PM  

pxlboy: moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?

Because we are spread out all over the country here. Though most of us live in concentrations around the coasts and major cities, we still provide certain infrastructural services and benefits even to those living in near isolation.

So I guess we can tell all the folks in the rural areas to suck it up and cope with cost increases of receiving even basic postal services?

As much of a relic as you think the USPS is, it still serves a functional purpose to this country.


And just how will the explosion of delivery of Internet Purchasing going to be PROFITIZED?
Just seems to me that if we had a publicly owned service keeping it real, the sheep would get shorn less.
Oh, secret GOP agenda? Well, hush my mouth and call me suprised.

Once upon a time the GOP was a happening and righteous dealeo.
But, then they were hijacked by sociopathic religious nutbirds and fratboys with no morals and a bank full of MEMEME.
 
2012-12-28 08:25:50 PM  

Beavz0r: Great Janitor: The role of the government should be small. Making sure we have infrastructure, clean water, a military and police and fire. That's about where it should end. Telling your employer how much you should be paid and what benefits you should or should not get shouldn't be the government's concern.

Yes, because that worked out splendidly in the late 1800's...


The Republicans, their corporate sponsors, and their Randroid followers won't be happy until we're on wage parity with Southeast Asia. They believe we should be pushing for first place in this race to the bottom. Anything less is socialism and welfare.
 
2012-12-28 08:28:22 PM  

snocone: pxlboy: moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?

Because we are spread out all over the country here. Though most of us live in concentrations around the coasts and major cities, we still provide certain infrastructural services and benefits even to those living in near isolation.

So I guess we can tell all the folks in the rural areas to suck it up and cope with cost increases of receiving even basic postal services?

As much of a relic as you think the USPS is, it still serves a functional purpose to this country.

And just how will the explosion of delivery of Internet Purchasing going to be PROFITIZED?
Just seems to me that if we had a publicly owned service keeping it real, the sheep would get shorn less.
Oh, secret GOP agenda? Well, hush my mouth and call me suprised.

Once upon a time the GOP was a happening and righteous dealeo.
But, then they were hijacked by sociopathic religious nutbirds and fratboys with no morals and a bank full of MEMEME.


Not saying it's some kind of secret agenda. It's easy target to hit to score points with the "government never works ever ever ever and only private companies can produce anything of value" crowd.
 
2012-12-28 08:30:45 PM  
Drop the insurance and let obama care take over. Done.
 
2012-12-28 08:31:59 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Mmmm... first, by "State" I refer to the technical term of government (in this case the feds), just in case you thought I meant the STATE government. Second, if the feds tell the company that, yes, they have to pay for employee purchases of contraceptives and other things that the employer's religion defines as abortifacients then yes, indeed, they are forcing them to pay for someone else's abortion


No you're not, because it doesn't matter what your religion is, it matters what science says. And science says you're still wrong.

Additionally, a corporation is not a religious entity so you're STILL wrong!
 
2012-12-28 08:34:48 PM  

letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.


Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.
 
2012-12-28 08:38:32 PM  

ParaHandy: letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.

Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.


You're assuming he even knows what Mazlo's hierarchy is.
 
2012-12-28 08:45:51 PM  

pxlboy: ParaHandy: letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.

Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.

You're assuming he even knows what Mazlo's hierarchy is.


It's  Maslo's
 
2012-12-28 08:47:14 PM  

Thunderpipes: just because of Obamacare, we have crushing taxes starting to take effect in 2013,


This is complete and utter bullshiat. You should feel bad for typing such nonsense in public.
 
2012-12-28 08:51:32 PM  

Indubitably: pxlboy: ParaHandy: letrole: As usual, the smarmy, conceited, and belligerent schoolboy-atheist types are descending into circle-jerkery.

The interesting thing is that these fellows are generally still dependant upon mummy and daddy. There's nothing quite like the sense of entitlement that comes from extended adolescence.

You do not have a right to medical care. It's a privilege.

Balls. Tell me where on Mazlo's hierarchy guns are.

You're assuming he even knows what Mazlo's hierarchy is.

It's  Maslo's


Forgive my spelling mistake. I am aware of what it is without having to Google it. That said, the original point still stands.

Greed, avarice, and xenophobia have become staples of the right wing belief system. To the those conservatives who aren't a bunch of angry godbotherers and the Libertarians who aren't mindless Randroids, form a party. There were once some sensible ideas and principled individuals in the GOP that seem to have been pushed out by loonies.

I would love to see some actual, viable, electable third parties in this country. But getting elected means either using your own money (assuming you can afford an election) or someone else's -- usually at a great moral cost.
 
2012-12-28 08:54:43 PM  
I don't understand why you teabaggers have a problem with this.
The only people who will take advantage of birth control and abortion are liberals and brown people, right? You pay for enough of it and surely within a few generations this country will turn into a glorious white Jesusland.
Pay a little now, live in a glorious Fatherland later. It seems like a good investment. Call it a solution to your problems. Carry it out far enough and it might even turn into a, how to say it, final solution?
 
2012-12-28 08:55:09 PM  

moothemagiccow: pxlboy: Republicans, specifically. They have a hard-on for destroying the USPS and public schools. Not everything needs a profit motive.

It's not like the USPS serves any real purpose any more. Is there any reason to send a letter anymore other than nostalgia and unwanted advertising?


It does fulfill constitutional obligations.
 
2012-12-28 08:58:23 PM  

PepperFreak: I don't understand why you teabaggers have a problem with this.
The only people who will take advantage of birth control and abortion are liberals and brown people, right? You pay for enough of it and surely within a few generations this country will turn into a glorious white Jesusland.
Pay a little now, live in a glorious Fatherland later. It seems like a good investment. Call it a solution to your problems. Carry it out far enough and it might even turn into a, how to say it, final solution?


And how gay sex doesn't result in abortions because no conception is taking place? You'd think that it would be obvious to any logical, thinking person. Then again, if they were logical, thinking people, they probably wouldn't hold such idiotic beliefs in the first place.
 
2012-12-28 08:58:44 PM  
Cool HL story time: Few years back I was in my local Hobby Lobby in Cowtown and was doing some shopping but also considering applying there since they offered a decent starting wage. What stopped me from applying was a young lady in one of the home decor aisles speaking to a customer about how she was a member of a Bible study group and that they met on Wednesdays and how delighted she and her brethren/sisteren would be if said customer would but consent to join them. Sorry, Hobby Lobby, you're a business. Either run it as such or STFU and if you don't hush it, hope you get sued to kingdom come and may your sanctimonious asses be handed to you as was the head of John the Baptist delivered to Salome on a silver platter. Sadly, HL does have the best selection of dollhouse kits I've found in a brick and mortar store and have put it off, as one of my reasons is shipping of delicate parts and returning items from an online retailer. They have received no further business from me except for the one time I took an out of town houseguest at her request there and chose not to delve into why I boycotted the company. Amazon, who has a better return policy than I would've imagined, should have the same dollhouse kits for cheaper, so HL and all of their nonsense may go fly a kite and hopefully go down in flames for their neglect of the health and consideration of their employees and their families. I will not shed a tear to see them all close shop permanently and GTFU of my state.  I pray it is soon.
 
2012-12-28 09:00:22 PM  

o5iiawah: dr_blasto: Maybe they should go be a company in some other country that doesn't have any farking standards. If they can't deal with making money in a first-world nation, maybe the Central African Republic would suit them better. Or maybe Iran.

Ooh, there's probably a lot of unused land they could set up shop in Afghanistan. That seems like its right up their alley.

We were a civil and stable country long before the days of employers providing health insurance so your whole tired argument is crap. The whole reason why we look to our employers for health insurance is because it is (so far) and untaxed benefit which companies use to attract talent. Like every other tax, the income tax affects the behavior of individuals and employers. Why we dont have insurance companies competing for business, lowering prices and offering attractive services like wellness and fitness to keep their costs low, giving consumers the ability to shop for a plan that fits their health needs with the freedom to take the plan across jobs and state lines is beyond me.


You mean, why didn't we implement Obamacare sooner? Because that's exactly what you post is implying. Those things you long for? In there. Cross-state markets, echanges, allow for competitive services. Wellness and preventative medicine? Now required.
 
2012-12-28 09:04:37 PM  

dr_blasto: o5iiawah: dr_blasto: Maybe they should go be a company in some other country that doesn't have any farking standards. If they can't deal with making money in a first-world nation, maybe the Central African Republic would suit them better. Or maybe Iran.

Ooh, there's probably a lot of unused land they could set up shop in Afghanistan. That seems like its right up their alley.

We were a civil and stable country long before the days of employers providing health insurance so your whole tired argument is crap. The whole reason why we look to our employers for health insurance is because it is (so far) and untaxed benefit which companies use to attract talent. Like every other tax, the income tax affects the behavior of individuals and employers. Why we dont have insurance companies competing for business, lowering prices and offering attractive services like wellness and fitness to keep their costs low, giving consumers the ability to shop for a plan that fits their health needs with the freedom to take the plan across jobs and state lines is beyond me.

You mean, why didn't we implement Obamacare sooner? Because that's exactly what you post is implying. Those things you long for? In there. Cross-state markets, echanges, allow for competitive services. Wellness and preventative medicine? Now required.


Preventative medicine can go a long way towards reducing healthcare costs. People shouldn't have to wait until they're having a stroke or the cancer becomes so painful they go to the ER. At that point, whatever is necessary is going to have to be done immediately and at great expense.
 
Displayed 50 of 516 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report