Page 12 of 169 FirstFirst ... 278910111213141516172262112 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 3367

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    this thread was way better before people started responding to rj
    The same can be said of every non-horse racing thread that RJ posts on.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Liquid Karma View Post
    The same can be said of every non-horse racing thread that RJ posts on.
    Yeah, I don't disagree.

    You can't control what rj does. He's not going to change.

    You can make the thread a better place by just not responding to him though.

  3. #223
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,785
    rj and has conservative brother from another mother jhmd have arrived.

    This thread officially sucks.

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Show me where I specifically said this.
    The comment I was responding to in which you alluded that this leaves the door open for "that" to come to pass. "That" being "Further, if you can use religion to deny certain aspects of healthcare, why can't you use religion to deny service to gay people? Or single women?"

    This is not true, for the last time. This decision in no way has any impact on corporations denying aspects on the basis of people being gay or single women, or women at all for that matter. It solely deals with closed corporations using this one exemption and perhaps a handful of others under the ACA.

  5. #225
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    45,917
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    EL-OH-EL. I won't threadjack, I'll just quietly note by objection to this sweeping and inaccurate conclusion, since we've had many, many threads where you guys advocate FOR de jure discrimination solely on the basis of race BY our government.
    i won't threadjack....but DIS THREAD DONE GOT JACKED

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    EL-OH-EL. I won't threadjack, I'll just quietly note by objection to this sweeping and inaccurate conclusion, since we've had many, many threads where you guys advocate FOR de jure discrimination solely on the basis of race BY our government.
    God you're insufferable. This isn't what we're talking about at all. And everything I said is completely accurate in the context of this discussion.

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    God you're insufferable. This isn't what we're talking about at all. And everything I said is completely accurate in the context of this discussion.
    Just remember to distinguish between the types of racial discrimination you favor from those you don't and there won't be any confusion.

    P.S. I think this opinion was a no-win situation for the Court. It's a poorly thought-out, poorly-implemented law and it's just going to keep causing more problems. Neither result would fix what is wrong with this disaster.

  8. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    Just remember to distinguish between the types of racial discrimination you favor from those you don't and there won't be any confusion.
    Let's just make sure we stick to the topic on the thread instead of trolling like 4 year olds.

  9. #229
    Completely ignoring the fact, even, that my statement had nothing to do with personal opinion and everything to do with the government's actions.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Let's just make sure we stick to the topic on the thread instead of trolling like 4 year olds.
    Says the guy who brought race into it for no reason....(beyond tradition).

  11. #231
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    The comment I was responding to in which you alluded that this leaves the door open for "that" to come to pass. "That" being "Further, if you can use religion to deny certain aspects of healthcare, why can't you use religion to deny service to gay people? Or single women?"

    This is not true, for the last time. This decision in no way has any impact on corporations denying aspects on the basis of people being gay or single women, or women at all for that matter. It solely deals with closed corporations using this one exemption and perhaps a handful of others under the ACA.
    And four members of the Supreme Court and many other experts agree with me that this has opened the door for other exemptions.

    The POTUS said it puts the health of employed women at risk.

    But keep making it about RJ. It's much easier that dealing with the facts that others are saying the same things I have.

    Keep bringing up outside issues. The reality is that a door is open.

    According others, this is also the first time that corporations have been given religious rights. There is now a precedent to expand these rights.

    I'm out for about 90 minutes.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    rj and has conservative brother from another mother jhmd have arrived.

    This thread officially sucks.
    I think my position on children by multiple women is clear.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by jhmd2000 View Post
    Says the guy who brought race into it for no reason....(beyond tradition).
    Lol RJ was quoting protected classes so I mistakenly included race. Thanks for stopping by and offering up your intelligent comments though. This thread is considerably better off with your idiotic comments.

  14. #234
    We have 90 minutes to have a productive conversation, go!

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    And four members of the Supreme Court and many other experts agree with me that this has opened the door for other exemptions.

    The POTUS said it puts the health of employed women at risk.

    But keep making it about RJ. It's much easier that dealing with the facts that others are saying the same things I have.

    Keep bringing up outside issues. The reality is that a door is open.

    According others, this is also the first time that corporations have been given religious rights. There is now a precedent to expand these rights.

    I'm out for about 90 minutes.
    Yes, I agreed that it has opened the door for other exemptions. I've said that several times.

    It does not put the health of employed women at risk because the government will offer these people contraceptives.

    I didn't say anything about you until you continued to say that the the door was open for religious exemptions for single women and gay people.

  16. #236
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Lol RJ was quoting protected classes so I mistakenly included race. Thanks for stopping by and offering up your intelligent comments though. This thread is considerably better off with your idiotic comments.
    Aren't either a law student or a first year practitioner? Where does this authority you claim come from? A sweet BarBri outline? I don't get it.

    FTR, I haven't the first idea how a corporation can have religious feelings that the ACA offends. That part seems a bit wobbly to me. Methinks that John Roberts saw it as a political question in 2012, put it on the ballot and let the people decide. They did. And now it sucks.
    Last edited by jhmd2000; 06-30-2014 at 02:22 PM.

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by DeaconCav06 View Post
    There is a lot of stupid going on in this thread and the whole case just really reinforces how poorly conceived and executed the ACA was.

    Just switch to a single payer system and get rid of all this bullshit about what company doesn't want to provide which benefit because it is prohibited by whatever deity.
    Agreed. Forcing individuals to buy and corporations to provide insurance for their employees was a horrible idea. If we were going to make a change single payer was the way.

  18. #238
    Gotta show people that halfway doesn't really work first. Single payer's coming eventually.

  19. #239
    Yeah it's almost as if Obama was actually in favor of single payer and then his plan got neutered somewhere between the idea stage and the implementation stage.

    "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. "

    Crazy coincidence

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdoublezero View Post
    Gotta show people that halfway doesn't really work first. Single payer's coming eventually.
    So the plan was to pass and implement a law that we knew wouldn't work during an already horrendous economy. I feel much better now. (I know I'm off topic so I'm done on this line of thought.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •