Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I'm honestly having a tough time telling private companies they have to provide something they are religiously opposed to. But if the slippery slope argument is a real threat than I can see why it has people up in arms.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-sca ... ntrol-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Make birth control available over the counter and tell people they have to buy their own damn pills unless unless they have a real medical need for them.

I'm not sure why you'd (they, not you Kalm) have to make a religious arguement out of this. Right now it's hard to get insurance to cover prescriptions for diagnosable learning issues. Why should somebody be required to offer birth control, a completely elective medication?

89Hen wrote:I'm not sure why you'd (they, not you Kalm) have to make a religious arguement out of this. Right now it's hard to get insurance to cover prescriptions for diagnosable learning issues. Why should somebody be required to offer birth control, a completely elective medication?

This.

I don't think it's really "Constitutional" for the Federal government to be telling private businesses that they have to provide health insurance at all. And I think that as intelligent people we need to all start making the distinction between what the Constitution really says and what the Federal Judiciary of the United States says it says. The Federal Judiciary of the United States does not follow the Constitution and it makes no pretense that it DOES follow the Constitution.

We need to understand that. We are NOT governed by the Constitution. Maybe if people would come to understand that they could object to the situation.

kalm wrote:I'm honestly having a tough time telling private companies they have to provide something they are religiously opposed to. But if the slippery slope argument is a real threat than I can see why it has people up in arms.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-sca ... ntrol-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think it's really "Constitutional" for the Federal government to be telling private businesses that they have to provide health insurance at all. And I think that as intelligent people we need to all start making the distinction between what the Constitution really says and what the Federal Judiciary of the United States says it says. The Federal Judiciary of the United States does not follow the Constitution and it makes no pretense that it DOES follow the Constitution.

We need to understand that. We are NOT governed by the Constitution. Maybe if people would come to understand that they could object to the situation.

I agree. It's already been established that private businesses have 1st amendment rights.

Wow, this has to be the most boring thread ever started in the Poli board.

89Hen wrote:Wow, this has to be the most boring thread ever started in the Poli board.

thats because Klam is nowhere near the quality troll that D or JSO are

(but it is delicious that JSO responded)

CID1990 wrote:

89Hen wrote:Wow, this has to be the most boring thread ever started in the Poli board.

thats because Klam is nowhere near the quality troll that D or JSO are

(but it is delicious that JSO responded)

This is what I get for being fair and balanced.

thats because Klam is nowhere near the quality troll that D or JSO are

I am not a cyber troll. I religiously follow internet rules of decorum. I never attack other posters personally. I stick to the arguments. Etc. I never write anything for the purpose of upsetting people. Yes, I know that some of the things I post WILL cause people to react negatively. But that is not my purpose in writing them.

However, if people want to say I'm a troll I guess that's fine.

JohnStOnge wrote:

thats because Klam is nowhere near the quality troll that D or JSO are

I am not a cyber troll. I religiously follow internet rules of decorum. I never attack other posters personally. I stick to the arguments. Etc. I never write anything for the purpose of upsetting people. Yes, I know that some of the things I post WILL cause people to react negatively. But that is not my purpose in writing them.

However, if people want to say I'm a troll I guess that's fine.

Nice try. I don't believe you, but I like the idea of you being a "Gentleman Troll".

89Hen wrote:I'm not sure why you'd (they, not you Kalm) have to make a religious arguement out of this. Right now it's hard to get insurance to cover prescriptions for diagnosable learning issues. Why should somebody be required to offer birth control, a completely elective medication?

I agree. On the other hand, I think it's best if the people that need insurance to get birth control don't reproduce.

Nice try. I don't believe you, but I like the idea of you being a "Gentleman Troll".

Just watch. What you'll see is that things I say do result in people throwing insults at me, etc. But I never respond in kind. I simply respond to the substance of the argument.

Sure, I challenge certain dogmas. But that's not being a troll.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Nice try. I don't believe you, but I like the idea of you being a "Gentleman Troll".

Just watch. What you'll see is that things I say do result in people throwing insults at me, etc. But I never respond in kind. I simply respond to the substance of the argument.

Sure, I challenge certain dogmas. But that's not being a troll.

The fact that you don't return insults doesn't mean that you aren't posting to upset people. It's part of your "trollnificence". It's what makes you the "Gentleman Troll".

Maybe Chizzy is what we need to get flames going in this thread. He's the feminist that thinks any abortion restrictions are an obscene encroachment on women's health care.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Just watch. What you'll see is that things I say do result in people throwing insults at me, etc. But I never respond in kind. I simply respond to the substance of the argument.

Sure, I challenge certain dogmas. But that's not being a troll.

The fact that you don't return insults doesn't mean that you aren't posting to upset people. It's part of your "trollnificence". It's what makes you the "Gentleman Troll".

I don't think he's posting to upset people. That would be the Bobsey Twins that do that. Or do you think JSO doesn't believe what he posts?

JSO is correct, he is perhaps the only poster here that I've never seen get in a name calling match, which is amazing because he is probably one of the posters who is called the most names.