>>>>>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is what I think makes this guy such a good President. When there is firm opposition to his views he will bend. He isn't dug in like some. In this case he recognized major resistance to a policy decision and gave them an out, without abandoning those the policy was intended to benefit. I don't call that caving in, I call it dealing with reality in a badly polarized country.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You don't hear so much any more from those who thought he was too inexperienced or soft to be President. He is a lot tougher than he is sometimes given credit for. He pushed the button on taking out Osama bin Laden, something his more bellicose predecessors had been trying to do for years. That was a risky operation that would have blown up in his face big time if it had failed. He said go.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>He stood up for the "bailout" of banks during the financial crisis in 2008, when he was the opposition candidate and had every political reason to oppose it. Because he thought it was the right thing to do. (In case anyone has forgotten, the government wound up making money on the deal).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I don't think he is perfect and have disagreed with him on some things. He has made some mistakes, as all Presidents do. He's still my guy. And he will undoubtedly be reelected.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Barry Blitt of the New Yorker hit pay dirt again on the cover of the issue published Super Bowl week --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/The-New-Yorker-Cover-February-6-2012-Prints_i8682641_.htm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This topic really gets me ticked when I think about it. The way I see it the Catholic church seems to get offended and thinks they're being persecuted if they don't get things their way. They don't want to spend the money on contraception (they prolly need it to pay off all the abused alter boys). What this boils down too is a bunch of bible thumpers trying to impose their belief on others. Rick Santorum seems to be the poster child for such idiot thinking recently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Speaking as a non-Catholic this topic gets me ticked when I think about it. The 1st amendment establishes that no law shall be made establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The way I see it this administration is so elitist that they are going to force everyone to do things their way. They want everyone to spend money on contraception and abortion (need it to pay off all the Planned Parenthood campaign contributions). What this boils down to is a bunch of statists imposing their belief on others through the tyranny of centrailzed power. Obama is the poster child for such idiot thinking recently.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Interesting viewpoint. Last I heard was the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops objected to a measure that would have required Catholic charities, hospitals, and universities -- though not actual churches -- to adopt insurance plans that provide free contraceptive care - so here you have a bunch of old-never-married-men (and never gonna be) dreaming up this crap? Brilliant!
>>>>>>>Mr Catholic Rick Santorum says he believes our legal system ought to have Biblical origins."When God gives us rights, he doesn’t say 'Here are your rights, do whatever you want to do with them.' In fact he has laws that we must abide by," he said. So much for separation of church and state. It's Santorum who was trying to impose his belief on others, not President Obama - Santorum thinks we should all be living by "Christian Law". Now the Republican legislators are trying to extend the exemption to any employer opposed to birth control, not just the Catholic church - which is really stupid because then the employers could object to any kind of coverage for any reason whatsoever. What if they're a Christian Science believer? No pills, no doctors, no nuttin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lastly why not take a deeper look here - why don't the Catholic's want birth control in the first place? It IS the 21st century. The answer is quite simple. If all the Catholic's don't have birth control - then what do you get? More Catholics! And what do all good Catholics do? They tithe 10% of their money to the church! So what you get with no birth control? That's right - MORE MONEY! The fact that people can't figure out this simple concept blows my mind...geeze take a look at all the gold and art at the Vatican and tell me it ain't so. But then again these same suckers think the universe was created in a week, the earth is only 6,000 years old, think evolution is a lie, believe in taking snakes, magic apples, person raising from the dead and a woman who'd never had sex getting knocked up...although I suppose now days the last one actually is possible. Point is that it's a giant load of crap meant to prey on the weak and fearful and steal their money. Hey if people want to believe fairy tales that's fine - doesn't cause me any harm...but don't push it to the point where your beliefs control what I allowed to do with my own body...or any 14year old girl who isn't ready to be prego or the rape victim who doesn't want to carry a baby or the sexually active 22 year old hottie that wants to be on the pill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Victor,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sometimes I wonder why I visit this forum. I always come back to two things: I am still one of the unwashed who works in VFP and I learn a few tricks now and then, and second, it is my "water cooler" where I get a bit of socialization that I gave up 22 years ago when I left the corporate world and started spending my working hours alone. That socialization is important to me but it requires that the gathering around the water cooler be civil and tolerant of all who join in. Slinging insults, especially to ones faith, is not being tolerant.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wasn't trying to sling insults - just point out the way I see things.
>>>>>
>>>>>>On one hand, my intellect tells me to "turn the other cheek" and ignore the insults but on the other hand sometimes you have to point out the lack of civility and tolerance. I am not a "sucker". I pay my own way in this world, I never even accepted unemployment when I lost my job 22 years ago. I am not stupid although I guess I could have earned my two masters degrees somehow without thinking intelligently. And I am not weak as my airborne, ranger credentials and my Silver Star attest. I do not try to push my beliefs down anyone's throat but I do admit to being somewhat evangelistic as my faith requires and I do spend much more than my "tithe" in money and time in places all around the world in an attempt to help others.
>>>>>
>>>>>First of I consider myself quite tolerant. As I said none of this bothers me as long as the religion or it's beliefs are not forced down my throat - like R.S. trying to make us run off "christian law" for example... and what I pointed out about birth control. I wasn't calling all Catholics suckers or all of them weak - I was saying that that these churches tend to prey on the weak minded and less intelligent for their source of income - and if you take a look at who give the church money you'll see I'm right.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Having faith means believing in something that cannot be proven. Having faith does not mean a person is stupid and weak.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're correct - but believing in talking snakes & magic apples etc etc is not faith - it's stupid. Now note that I did NOT say that people that believe in talking snakes are stupid - I said believing in a talking snake is stupid. I try to be pretty careful about how I word things to avoid conflicts like this one.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sorry that I am weak enough to submit to the urge to respond to your intolerance but hey, we cannot all be perfect.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think I have more tolerance than you give me credit for. See that is one of the problems - if someone doesn't agree with these fairy tales then you're either an infidel who should be blown up, "intolerant" because you don't agree, or a sinner who should be banished from the earth.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ken
>>>>
>>>>Well you sure try to walk a fine line and I guess I may be stupid because I do not see the distinction: "I did NOT say that people that believe in talking snakes are stupid - I said believing in a talking snake is stupid." I do not object to you having your views nor do I object to you expressing them. I just wish you would not use such inflammatory statements.
>>>
>>>But there is a HUGE distinction....lets use the smoking cigarettes analogy. If I say "smoking cigarettes is stupid", I did NOT say "people who smoke cigarettes are stupid". What is sounds like to me is you smoke cigarettes and think I called you stupid because you smoke - which is not what I said at all and was very careful not to do so.
>>>
>>>>I give a lot of money to my church and you say " I was saying that that these churches tend to prey on the weak minded and less intelligent for their source of income - and if you take a look at who give the church money you'll see I'm right." I think that means you are calling me weak minded and less intelligent. If that is not an insult, I give up.
>>>
>>>It's not an insult and I didn't call you weak minded anymore than I said you're the only source of income for the church. Take a look who gives the church the most money - it's the old people scared of going to hell and the weak minded followers who are looking for acceptance. Take a look at your average church congregation on a Sunday and you'll find a hugely disproportionate number of social misfits and senior citizens. How do you think every religion in the world started? As a cult of course and these evil mind games and tricks are just the same as if you have 10 followers or a billion. Now if you don't fall into any of these categories then it doesn't apply to you and thus you have no reason for feel insulted.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ken
>>
>>I give up.
>>
>>BTW my congregation is not full of social misfits, and I am one of only three senior citizens in the flock. I give a lot of money and though I am old (although I did ride my bicycle across Iowa last summer, oops that may add to your stupid argument) I don't give money because I am scared of going to hell and I am not weak minded nor looking for acceptance. I give because I want to. In my humble opinion, you need to open your mind a little and be less critical of others who do not see things the way you do. Just be little more civil and less reliant on dismissing others as stupid social misfits.
>>
>>Ken
>>
>>Ken
>
>Well - I guess I give up too. You keep taking things personal here for no reason even though I've been wording things carefully to prevent that. I say "A lot of church members are social misfits" and suddenly you seems to think I just called you a social misfit despite my rather lengthy explanation of how/why I worded my comments as I did. Frankly this is generally the type of response I expect to see from someone who's aware they're on the loosing end of an argument and decide that accusing the other party of some incivility is the only recourse to deflect attention away from the issue of topic...which brings us back to how all this mess got started to begin with . I said the church is against birth control because more members = more money - and you somehow seem to think I personally insulted you by saying that. So rather than saying you disagree with my assessment of church+money+birth control or providing some other insight as to how my thinking here could be wrong you claim I'm intolerant. Hey I've said before if you want to think the universe was created in a week, the earth is only 6,000 years old, think evolution is a lie, believe in taking snakes, magic apples, person raising from the dead, sea's turning read, a giant boat floating around for over a month with all animal and plant life on it, self igniting bushes or whatever I'm ok with that. Just exactly how "tolerant" does one have to be around here? So there you have it - I have no problem with you believing what I consider absurd - so I'm 100% tolerant. You on the other hand seem take offence to the fact that I think it's absurd - thus you're the one with no tolerance??
>
>If you're not doing anything March 24
>http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/17/we-are-stronger-atheists-to-hold-massive-rally-on-national-mall-next-month/

You miss my point altogether. I was not arguing for or against your points. Heck, I may even agree with you. I was simply saying that you use uncivil terminology. I like this place but I don't like it when folks are uncivil. It is as simple as that.

Ken