E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Erik S. Lesser / EPA
Republican presidential candidate and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, left, and his wife, Callista, listen to former GOP candidate Herman Cain during a campaign rally Saturday in Atlanta, Ga.
ATLANTA, GA – Newt Gingrich, acknowledging his campaign “all hinges on Georgia,” campaigned Saturday with a very familiar face in the state, fellow Georgian Herman Cain.
“I think Georgia is a very, very important state,” Gingrich said. “We actually have a very good chance of doing well here and that gives us a springboard then to go across the whole country.”
But the former House speaker cautioned “there are no slam dunk states anywhere in America.”
Gingrich and Cain, a former presidential candidate himself, appeared at three separate events.
The two men, who say they have been friends for years, not only cracked jokes with one another as they passed each other on stage, but also were full of compliments for each other during their speeches.
“Newt is not afraid to engage in a little smackdown when necessary,” a smiling Cain told the crowd in Cumming, Ga. “That’s bold leadership.”
Asked by reporters in Suwanee, Ga., what cabinet position Cain would hold in a Gingrich administration, the former speaker shied away from naming a specific job.
Cain, however, took control of the answer himself.
“My ideal job with a Speaker Newt Gingrich as president of the United States is to be a senior adviser not in charge of anything,” Cain said. “That's what I would want to do in a Gingrich administration.”
Cain, who dropped out of the race back in November, was one of many presidential candidates who made their way to the top of the pack at some point during the primary season.
Rick Santorum is currently in that front-runner role now, Gingrich said, but told supporters in Atlanta that he "will survive Santorum.”
The speaker was quick to criticize the way former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is running his campaign against the former Pennsylvania senator.
Santorum accuses Romney of hypocrisy on earmarks
Romney, Gingrich told a packed event in Cumming, is “now doing to Santorum in Michigan what he did to me in Florida and it is an unworthy way for someone to try and become president of the United States by shrinking their opponents.”
Gingrich assured all the crowds Saturday that despite all the ups and downs he has seen in this campaign, where he has been the frontrunner twice and dead twice, that he will continue on the path toward the nomination.
“The fact is I have never seen anything like this nominating process. It has been wild. It will remain wild for a while,” he said. “Some places we’ve won and some places we’ve lost, but we are in the hunt.”
Salt Lake City Olympics earmarks a double-edged sword for Romney
Leave a Comment:
Cue Gingrich name calling and unfounded attacks on President Obama. More of the republican do what I say not what I do.
Meanwhile by at the ranch, the republicans are trying to steam roll women's right to health care, the right to vote and the right to have worker's unions. Somehow religious freedom became the republicans right to tell you what to do with your own body including birth control.
I don't think our country can handle much more the republican brand of freedom.
Two peas in a pod!
Is the argument not whether women have the right to their own method of birth control (if any at all) or is the argument whether you have a right to demand others pay for it?
Let's make sure we're debating the correct topic.
Hope they don't trip over each other's dicks. Maybe they'll hand out free condoms with a "True Patriot" logo on the packaging and product.
That's hilarious coming from Gingrich, the Father of Hate Speak.
I thought the same thing, and then an SNL skit came to mind of a Pokeman-style animation with a song about friends and Sims thoughts above their heads.
ORB 1943 -- Hey, you owe me royalties.
Michael1969.
The argument is: women do have access and choice about birth control and contraceptives, but do others have the right to demand other people to pay for it?
The argument is: should workers have the choice to join a union, or do others have the right to demand that they do so?
The argument is not that the Republicans demand others participate in their own interpretation of religious freedom, but that others allow them the freedom to participate in the religion and faith that they choose.
Unfortunately, followers of "No Drama Obama" get a little dramatic, spin in a tizzy to the extreme, and lose sight of the real issue.
Dang it! Is that not a classic "Mutt and Jeff"? Ummmm well maybe not. That's kind of insulting to Mutt and Jeff. My bad.
Gingrich who?
It is appropriate these two men opened Gingrich's Georgia campaign in that particular town. CUMMING,...ahh, Georgia?
Gingrich must be using Cain as his wing man in the bars.
Since Cain is back in the spotlight do you think the accusations will start coming out again?
Callista must be demanding.
@Michael 1964,
Once the Catholic church choose to become a "business" they must comply with all the same things other businesses comply with. These Catholic "businesses" serve, and employ people of ALL religions, not just Catholics. No one is trying to force Catholics to "practice birth control or have an abortion" just provide coverage. Under the healthcare act, women's healthcare is covered with no copay to the women. THAT is the part that the Catholic church objected to, having to pay for it.
This is why we should have universal healthcare! Like other civilized countries!
Southern retards at their best. Half of them married their cousin, and the other half follow them. WAKEUPAMERICA. brother from anotha mutha
Headline should have read "Cain and Not Able"
Cain says:
“My ideal job with a Speaker Newt Gingrich ... is to be a senior adviser not in charge of anything,” Cain said. “That's what I would want to do in a Gingrich administration.”
It's a good bet that the all jobs in a Gingrich administration will be in charge of nothing, since it will be an administration of nothing at all that only exists inside of Newt's twisted little mind.
Newt, "a stupid man's idea of what a smart person sounds like."
These two have been looking for ways to peddle their wares all along.
Let's examine the right-wing mantra of "exceptional-ism" and someone explain to me how either of them became so wealthy?
Well it would be real nice if this natural born american could have the right to vote in this primary. But I guess I'll just have to settle for watching all of you have the fun. I unfortunatly live in Texas.
@True Patriot: Bunco schemes. Course, that's what the "Right Wing" is all about.
You may be looking at the next US President and Vice-President...
The combination of gas prices and tanking world economy will take out Obama...
No-one in their right mind would put a cooperate-raider, a isolationist, or just crazy person in office...
You can yell lack of morals but that didn't stop JFK or Clinton...
AC, that's just too funny to even respond to. The next US President and Vice President! Priceless.
Oh, you're serious?? OK, not so funny. Just sad.
Michael: women DO pay for it..in their insurance policies--and pay for your VIAGRA too. You'll have to come up with another phoney excuse about why women can't use birth control THEY PAY FOR.
AP, who said women can't use birth control? Nobody, The left has turned this argument into this false claim that someone is trying to deny a women's right to use birth control.
Heck, If the Rupugs had there way women would be chained to the bed post, bare foot and pregnant. So what they aren't outlawing birth control today, tomorrow they will be.
The perfect job for Cain in a Gingrich administration would be shoe shine boy.
Gingrinch and Sugar Daddy Cain working on that open marriage thang?
It took Bill Maher to say this. Something the media should be reporting, but won't. This is today's Republican Party.
***********************************
And finally, New Rule, the GOP candidates must save us all a lot of time by just telling us which parts of America they don't hate. You know, so many Republicans nowadays speak with unbridled disgust for America's east coast elites, and San Francisco liberals, and the Hollywood cesspool, and the inside the Beltway mentality, and Chicago-style politics. And then they accuse Obama of dividing America.
They say how can we be one nation under God if Democrats keep talking about the two Americas, and the haves and have nots, and the 99% versus the 1%. But there are two Americas. We are a nation of haves and have nots. And when it comes to dividing America, it's Republicans who in recent years have carved out a nation into two distinct territories. There's the heartland, and then there's the rest of the country: a vast nightmarish wasteland of college professors, museums, and people who recycle.
I mean, just think of the list of these parts of America the Republicans are publicly complaining about. Chicago, that lawless city where Obama learned how to thug. Hawaii, the state liberals made up so Obama could become President. Hollywood, and San Francisco, and... oh let's just say all of California, except for Orange County and part of the Valley. I mean, just mention Massachusetts with a big eye roll, and it's an automatic applause break at the CPAC convention. "Taxachusetts!" Yeah, the state that's #1 in education, #1 in health coverage, and is basically where our country started? Yeah, screw them.
Honestly, if Sarah Palin were President, and terrorists struck New York again, she would say two things. First, is Mount Rushmore OK? And two, well at least they didn't hit the "real" America.
Democrats don't do this. Jerry Brown doesn't stand under the Hollywood sign and say, "Now I don't know if this will play in Texas (rolls eyes) or down on the farms, where they have no values, but you here in Hollywood are the real Americans!" It never happens!
Pretty soon the only parts of America acceptable to the Right will be Boise, Idaho, Branson, Missouri, and a nursing home in Florida with the six remaining Cubans who still give a damn about Castro.
And yet, somehow they keep finding more parts of America to hate. Last week, Newt Gingrich blasted New York elites who "live in high rises and ride the subway". I kid you not! Newt Gingrich called the subway elitist! Because that's the ultimate in hoity-toity travel. I mean, subway riders, they think they're so great, packed in a shrieking, creaking, lurching, airless underground tube! Pfft! Why don't they travel like real Americans, on a spaceship to the Moon? And mind you, Newt made these comments while in Las Vegas. In Las Vegas, he said elitists live in high rises! Unlike real Americans, who live in pyramids, pirate ships, castles, and the canals of Venice. Yes, Newt and his fellow Republicans are deep patriots, who can't stop loving America, except for the American people. They don't really care for those freaks at all.
And especially not elitists. And anyone who's ever learned a foreign language, visited a foreign nation, or read a book that wasn't about a 5-year-old going to heaven, is an elitist. 'Cause you know where people read, don't you? The subway.
*****************
Republicans hate Americans. That's a fact. It must be tough for them living in a 21st Century world while they are still stuck in the 1950's. Oh well.
The elitist states will continue to progress, with or without them. We always have. Not interested in their bigotry and ignorance. Just not interested. They think they can tell us how to live our lives? Well, they can't.
btw, the highest divorce rates are not in the northeast or Illinois or California. The high divorce rates are in states where poverty is the highest. The south.
Did your mother smoke crack when she was pregnant?
New Rule - If you're going to make bull@!$%# generalizations about things you are ignorant on, keep the number of characters down to a minimum so we don't have to scroll the mouse wheel so much in order to pass over your thread.
@ Michael:
Did your mother smoke crack when she was pregnant?
A very Republican answer, always classy (sarcasm)
Interesting avatar. The constitution is not being ripped off by Obama, as you want to announce it; it is ripped off by the Republican party every day.
The Republicans often remember the constitution when it comes to the "right of having weapons" but soon forget the part of the constitution that dictates Separation of Church and State...What Constitution is that?
Way to go Irespond! You just won the "I Don't Pay Attention To The News" award!
Let's not be political hacks. You a lib, I'm a conservative. we're not going to change each others minds but we can be political consistent no matter the party I believe. Maybe not though.
Lest you forget Obama ignoring our Constitution when he signed the The National Defense Authorization Act this past December
If you're one of those flaming libs that hated Bush over the Patriot Act as well as everything else he did, you should be besides yourself over Obama for doing the same thing.
Or you call just get a new avatar with the words "hack" on it.
Thank you, Thank you for your Comments. Continue to educate the uninformed, or just the plain ignorant.
Herman Cain is still amazing me as a Civil Rights era young person coming from the South. How can he in good conscience campaign for Newt Gingrich and all of the Racists remarks he has been making about President Obama, even if you are a Republican who HATES HIM. I am still trying to see if there are ANY SANE PEOPLE LEFT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
For Herman Cain To campaign for Newt Gingrich after he tries to come as close as he can in DOG WHISTLE TERMS to calling this President the N-WORD with terms like Nazi, Socialist, Food Stamp President. It goes beyond WORDS to explain a Herman Cain.
Get a clue Herman. Newt is talking about your people in the WORST DEROGATORY TERMS.
When the Asians got through talking to the young lady in another Racist Commercial by a Republican Legislator. She ended saying how stupid she was to be used in such a manner.
This has nothing to do with Black people being in the Republican Party. It has to do with drawing a line in the sand on and out and out racism against the first African American President. It does not have anything to do with his policies just his race. Most of this President's policies are Republican policies that Republicans ARE NOW RUNNING AWAY FROM, because they are being proposed by President Obama and we can't have that because it would keep them out of Power so they CRUSH the Economic Recovery of the Country instead, because this might get them back in Power.
NOW IT Is Obama is anti-Religion. So now the Republican Party has to drag out the old PLATFORM OF BEING ANTI-WOMAN AND HER REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM, WHICH IS ALL REPUBLICANS CAMPAIGN ON EVERY ELECTION CYCLE. We even have a Republican Congressman telling Married Couples to abstain from sex so they don't have to use Contraceptives and go against the Church so when they have sex it will always be a baby.
Is this man a total fool or what?
If the News Media had a little more guts they would call these people out. One can only hope the People are sane in this next election.
If you're one of those flaming libs that hated Bush over the Patriot Act as well as everything else he did, you should be besides yourself over Obama for doing the same thing.
Or you call just get a new avatar with the words "hack" on it.
Well, you are comparing two different things.
Most people hate Bush, that is true, but not for signing the Patriot Act. Because we are in this mess because of him. He lied to the American people and to Congress, so he could fight an unprovoked war in Iraq. That war is the reason why the Middle East is so unstable now, and mostly the reason why we have an economic crisis. He really never went after Osama Bin Ladden. He used that to justify his invasion of Iraq. What an opportunistic coward!
Unless you are one of those Republicans that refuse to really see the truth, even when it is presented with FACTS.
If you are one of those Republicans that think that helping the disabled and the old is the reason why we are in this mess, then you really need to take a deep look at yourself in the mirror. Really? Do you think that depriving the poor and old from the miser help they get from the government each month is the answer to this mess, same thing. Look at yourself in the mirror.
The people that are representing you want to take us back to war with Iran. Is that really what you want to do? Ask that question to all the vets, that just came from Iraq. Those that never received a thank you note from Bush or Cheney.
Did your mother smoke crack when she was pregnant?
So. Is this what enters your mind because I dare say that Republicans are attempting to dictate to the rest of the country how immoral we the Democrats/blue states are, and that it has to be that I feel this way because I'm off my rocker? It must be because of drugs or - something I hear too often - it's because of too much public education.
Conservatives are hypocrites.
One thing I have never done is accuse a conservative of having a mother on drugs to explain their views. It would have never entered my mind to do such a thing.
Sad.
Pat Boston IGNORE Michael1969. His comments defintely show that his mother smoked crack and if she did not she birthed him in the almight IRON-CLAD BUBBLE.
Your comments are right on the Money. If anyone listen to the Republicans it sure sounds like they Hate the Rest of American. I hope you get a chance to read my other comment on this.
Keep up the good words.
Man up *rolls eyes*
Nah! She smoked crack to get the taste of Newt out of her mouth.
Talking points, I was going to ignore him but then I got to thinking - this is what conservatives truly believe - that we Democrats are just stupid and blind. They closed their eyes for 30 years while we the Democrats were never silent at what we saw happening, with the final nail in the coffin being the Iraq invasion.
So now that a democrat is in the White House, they have suddenly found conservatism. Again. They don't pay attention to it when a republican is in office.
14 of the 15 worst deficits in recent history were under republican presidents. Our last three republican presidents have accounted for almost all of our national debt.
But it's all Obama's fault. In 3 years he created this mess. They truly believe this. LoL.
p.s.- I read your post and it was spot on.
Michael1969
you conveniently forget that it was Republicans who are responsible for sudsec. D, Title X ... it was they who voted to leave the language in .... Piss in your own pond fella.
During debate within the Senate and before the Act's passage, Senator Mark Udall introduced an amendment to strike subsection D from Title X and "At the end of section 1031, add the following: (f) Extension to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens.--The authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under this section extends to citizens of the United States and lawful resident aliens of the United States, except to the extent prohibited by the Constitution of the United States." The amendment was rejected by a vote of 60-38 (with 2 abstaining).[25] Udall subsequently voted for the Act in the joint session of congress that passed it, and though he remained "extremely troubled" by the detainee provisions, he promised to "push Congress to conduct the maximum amount of oversight possible
Because the Middle East was a peaceful, happy utopia, and all people loved the United States up until 2002.......?
Conservatives don't think Democrats are just stupid and blind. Unlike Democrats who see themselves as "elitist," and who see conservatives as low-information, bigoted or ignorant, the conservatives I know tend not to make broad generalizations. I find this very confusing since Democrats are supposed to be rational, tolerant and above the fray.
What I find really bewildering is that a Democrat can, in pretty hateful rhetoric, call conservatives "haters" and at the same time don't see the hypocrisy in that.
Pat, excellent post.
Candice, I don't know any Democrat up here who considers himself/herself an elitist. Not one single person. They are "accused" of being elitists. By Republicans in other parts of the country.
As far as the north/south thing goes, the way we see it up here is that the southern republicans hate the northerners. Still. I know many many northerners who travel down south for their vacations. They come back with lovely photographs of the area. I myself would love to travel down south for a bit.
But I'm told the southerners hate us northerners so I don't go. They say we're elitists. So instead I'll go to Russia where I will be welcomed. haha. Go figure.
True Patriot, thank you.
Pat,
I must have misunderstood your statement. Apologies.
I don't believe "southerners" hate "northerners." You should travel south - it is warm and lovely. You should travel there and prove the north/south/hate theory wrong.
Hey, Pat?
Republicans don't hate the First Amendment.
Democrats do.
That why they fight it so often. They lose, but keep on fighting it.
Do a little research.
Right, nj. Like this case just this month: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46415120
That case is a win for the 1st amendment, but not for the religious right Republican interpretation of it. You were saying something about research?
So, Nate, how many nine to nothing decisions you think come down from this SCOTUS? The only one I know about came down about a month ago- against the Obama administration butting it's nose into a Lutheran church school.
Seems the minsterial exemption is alive and well, much to Obama's chagrin.
Funny thing, that. Liberals want to focus solely on the establishment section of the First Amendment- in that, I join them, but am also cognizant of the free exercise portion.
Liberals seem to despise that particular piece. Seems they want to dictate to everybody about everything- especially those things that are none of their business.
Why is that, I wonder?
I love Bill Mahr!
:)
From the MSNBC article Nathan cites:
"The banner is a beautiful object but it expresses a concept that we cannot all agree on."
And the banner says:
"Our Heavenly Father, grant us each day the desire to do our best, to grow mentally and morally as well as physically, to be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers, to be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports(men) and smile when we lose as well as when we win, teach us the value of true friendship, help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West"
There's a dozen concepts there that everyone should agree on. These are very inspirational words alot of students could probably use. It's too bad a single student feeling "dejected" can deprive everyone else of something affirmative.
This is the difference, I think, between sides in many cases. If a conservative is not necessarily religious, they just don't go to church. If a liberal is not religious, they want to silence those who are.
Candice:
Don't pray in my school,
and I won't think in your church....
And how quickly Jo-An proves my point.
Tell me, Jo-An, other than the "Heavenly Father" part, do you disagree with any part of the rest of the banner's concepts?
Can I pray in your school if I don't force you to pray with me?
The rest of the "banner" is lovely...But by having the "Heavenly Father" part in it, It needs to be REMOVED! Kids can still pray in school (silently).
No one has ever said YOU can't pray in school, you just can't make me!
PS Candice, I'm a LIBERAL and my husband is a "registered Republican", I don't HATE Republican's, I just disagree on MUCH of their thoughts....
Exactly.
In my ideal world, anyone could have looked at the banner and said, "Wow, I agree with the words on that banner, ...except for the Heavenly Father part." And then let it be.
This student was offended, and now others will feel persecuted and deprived. If people would simply adhere more to the "to each his own" mindset, pay attention to what you believe in, and accept the truth that others may believe what you don't, maybe everyone wouldn't be so mad at each other all the time.
nj, the Obama administration recognizes and grants ministerial exemptions, as they did in the case of the contraception coverage rule. But those exemptions should not apply to non-ministers, should they? The ministerial exemption is not a blank check allowing any group to ignore any civil law they want based on their religious or moral convictions. While fully independent churches and religious institutions serving members of their faith are entitled to autonomy, should that entitlement really apply to religiously-affiliated organizations that partner with governments and communities to provide generally available services? Do you really not see a difference in kind between those two cases?
As an example, see Bob Jones v. U.S. The university's tax exempt status was rescinded because they had racist admissions policies. They sued, claiming free exercise of their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided 8-1 (Rehnquist dissenting) against the university. From wikipedia:
In Employment Division, Dep. HR of Oregon v. Smith, Justice Scalia of all people wrote in another near unanimous opinion (also via Wikipedia):
In that case it was Native American individuals practicing their religion in question rather than Catholic affiliated organizations, and the practice was a violation of criminal drug law rather than antidiscrimination rules. Still, if the above holds, it is difficult to see a 1st amendment infringement in the current contraceptive coverage policy from the Obama administration. While I do not think that particular issue has ever been ruled on by the SCOTUS, similar restrictions with similarly narrow ministerial exemptions have been upheld by state supreme courts.
Buddys moma was probably raised when we had a middle class in this country. Now, Mothers Smoke Crack. WAKEUPAMERICA. If not rooting for change your rooting for failure.
Nathan, In the Bob Jones case, the decision was against the organization - and rightly so - because through their discriminatory policy, they denied access.
The contraceptive issue is different. No one is denying access. Employees of religious organizations and religiously affiliated organizations are not prohibited from using contraceptives, the organizations do not want to provide them or be forced to pay for it. Do you see the difference?
Candice, the point of the Jones ruling was that freedom of religion is not absolute. The government does not have to accommodate or endorse religious positions when they conflict with a "fundamental, overriding interest" for the country. In the case of contraception, the fundamental, overriding interests are the health of the country and the equality of women. The ruling in the second case actually lowers the bar quite a bit further, requiring only that the laws be generally applicable and reasonable. They cannot target religious practices directly, but they can impact them incidentally.
As to the banner, the most objectionable parts are the verbs: "grant us...help us...teach us", in part because they are not affirmative; they are passive. The implication is that we cannot be moral or diligent or friendly people without the aid of an invisible, omnipotent deity pulling our strings for us. Reinforcing that sentiment undermines the ability of students to be self-empowered and furthers the common religious argument that you need the one true god to be moral, and that non-believers and wrong-believers therefore cannot really be good people. If the school were to re-write the principals in an actually affirmative fashion, "As students, we desire every day to...", then it would be able to serve all students without discriminating against or alienating anyone.
Nathan. Okay, let's agree the government does not have to accommodate or endorse religious positions when they conflict with a "fundamental, overriding interest" for the country. The definition and or interpretation of "fundamental, overriding interest" is ambiguous though.
I don't know if free contraception is imperative for the health of the country. Again, there's no denial of access.
I think "rights" is more applicable than "equality" in this instance. What should be protected is the right of a woman to choose, and the right of a woman to decline. The woman's right to choose is protected here. Her right to decline is under attack in this issue.
As to the banner. I understand your good points. I totally agree with your solution to re-write as suggested.
I'll admit there are some religions and some who claim to be righteous who will agree with this statement. The majority of the faithful, however, and those who follow the actual teachings, they don't adhere to that argument.
Is that the gist of the liberal non-believer's intolerance for religion? That they feel as if they're being judged as bad people?
It is an issue of equality. The impetus for the ruling was the fact that women have significantly larger out of pocket costs for prescription medication than men, and that a large contributor to this was the cost of contraceptives. It's an effort to help equalize health care costs for men and women so that gender is not treated as a pre-existing condition. E.g. women should not be penalized because it's harder and more expensive for them to deal with an unplanned pregnancy than it is for a man who can just walk away.
As for a woman's right to decline, I don't think anybody is being forced to take the pill, so any Catholic woman who accepts the church teaching is still free to follow it. I don't see the imposition there.
Back to the prayer banner, the rancorous response of the majority of the faithful against the student asserting her constitutional rights in an open and shut case of establishment clause violation suggests that you give them too much credit. It is not intolerance to insist that the government abide by the establishment clause, is it?
The first amendment is written broadly, which opens it to interpretation. My own interpretation is I think similar to that of the ACLU, that it mandates neutrality in the government's dealings with religion. The government has no place interfering with religious autonomy except in extreme cases, and it also has no place sponsoring or promoting religion. What you call intolerance, I call rolling back undue privilege. This is a step beyond the mainstream interpretation which affords religion some level of privilege, but that is mainly because the majority of Americans are currently religious.
Imagine yourself as a member of an oppressed religious minority (and conservative Christians in America do this all the time, despite it not being remotely true), and you may understand why some would not tolerate having someone else's religion imposed upon them. Then you might understand the difference between having special privileges revoked and having general rights trampled. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, "You're confusing oppression with not always getting everything you want."
Since Bill Maher is so far left he is off the map I won't respond to that. As for the church and healthcare since nobody ever asks the only people who actually know empiracally what happens at conception you are all talking through your hat. The entire experiment has been conducted from beginning to end in this world uncountable times, anything less than finishing the experiment gives incomplete and inconclusive data. The experiment is have sex; get pregnant; have baby all of your parents did it. So why don't you ask them what they conceived a zygote, a fetus or you. Then make your decision based on that. I know my husband and I conceived our daughter.
No. That's wrong. Some women have larger out of pocket costs for medication, and a contributor to that could be the cost of contraceptives for some women.
You believe in contraception and, let's say, I don't. The mandate says your belief trumps mine. Yours matters. Mine doesn't. If it was the other way around - that my belief mattered and yours didn't, would you accept it? People and institutions should have choices. The choice shouldn't be imposed upon you by the Government.
The huge amounts of people that have been murdered in the name of religion can only be guessed at. That is not even counting the maimed , exploited, nor discriminated against,so I think that anyone who thinks that their views of religion is the only true one should be only contented with that and not with undue criticism of other forms. In my opinion there are too many religious so called leaders who should not be spreading hatred of other forms of worship . As far as unlimited procreation is concerned, this planet has too many people upon it.
I don't "believe in contraception". I don't even know what that could mean.
Contraception works. It prevents pregnancy. Access to contraception and robust sex education (i.e. not "abstinence only") reduces unplanned pregnancies, especially in teens, leading to fewer abortions, greater economic stability, better long term health, lowered infant mortality rates, and other indirect societal benefits. You don't have to "believe in" this. These are facts. This is why the Santorum "phony theology" argument, an attempt to bring everything down to religion's level of pure faith, belief and opinion, is absolute baloney.
Our constitution gives government the responsibility to "promote the general welfare".
Candice
The core point is as Nathan alluded to... christianity in whatever form has no right to expect any support or acknowledgement in a US government authority. This is exactly the reason we escaped England "christian" rule, and is enshrined in the constitution. Why are some "christians" so concerned about entrenching their beliefs in secularly "sacred" spaces ? Is it insecurity, or a belief that your faith is without doubt true ? Even if it is "true" you have no right to enforce that on me. If a child is christian and attends a public school, they have every right to their own thoughts and beliefs and can pray silently whenever they want...but the child sitting next to them who does not come from that background or not believe that, should not be forced to listen or engage or even be subject to that belief system. Imagine if the government decided to allow buddhist or islamic prayer in school... would you be ok with that ? I think not. As for the catholic BS.... what kahunas these bishops have.... they have an exemption for religious organizations primarily focused on promoting faith. All others should be subject to the US LAW... this is not a christian's country... it is ALL peoples country... and the rights of woman (actual people)... should not be determined by faith's or beliefs of others...that is and always will be anti-american. Fortunately... the future of these issues are not in the hands of the older white, "we know whats best for you" generation... these issues will be ultimately addressed by the new generation of caring, thoughtful, flexible people - who are not blinded by the discrimination and false choice that you can't be a good person without religion. Our forefathers, thankfully, knew this fact well.
Hey, Mick.
I don't think Christianity in whatever form expects any support from U.S. Government authority. I think they expect the government to not interfere. That's where our Founders differed from English rule. Don't interfere. Don't impose. Don't dictate.
Take First Read as a (hypothetical) example. I read these posts. I consider the points that are made. I don't agree with a lot of them. I find many of them (especially this weekend) actually offensive. I find many of them contrary to what I believe. I'm not running out to find a lawyer to sue MSNBC or NBC for making available this site.
There are some Christians that believe it is their lot in life to "spread the Word", convert and evangelize. But I think those are the minority. Don't be offended by them. They are voicing a belief they believe in. You're not required to agree. You're certainly not imprisoned if you don't. You can roll your eyes and dismiss them. Their right to try - and your right to decline, however - is what makes this country unique.
Truthfully, though, a lot of Christians (myself included) keep their faith very personal and private and close to their heart. I actually (oddly) go out of my way to suppress my own faith in conversations with others (in business mostly and sometimes in personal relationships) so not to make the other uncomfortable (well, except here, obviously --- where you have no idea who I am....)
Let me pray. Allow me to substantiate my beliefs by my action or inaction. You don't have to pray with me. You don't ever have to agree with me. You can even roll your eyes, walk away and think I'm a total idiot for stating or acting on my beliefs. But don't deny me the ability to believe what I believe. Don't deny me the ability to live accordingly. If you happen to witness me saying a prayer --please know I am not asking or requiring you to drop to your knees and join me. I'm just asking you to let me have the freedom to do my thing --- as I fully support your freedom to do yours.
Every one in the U.S. follows US laws. That's why it's important that the Laws the U.S. passes (and enforces) don't infringe on the rights of any one. With the very diverse population that makes up our great country, ----that's not an easy trick.
And Mick. I ask you the same question I asked Nathan. He chose not to answer, I guess. Is that the gist of the of the liberal non-believer's intolerance for religion? That they feel as if they're being judged as bad people?
candice your religous rights are blinding you! the health of all americans is important to the safety and welfare of our country. the civil rights of all americans are important to the safety and welfare of our country.
this religous debate about contraceptives is rediculous. there are many religous institutions which provide these benifits for women, including the catholic church. in fact there are 26 states in which it is the law. but it is up to the religous beliefs of each woman wheather to use them or not?
but the importantance of this issue, is the safety, welfare and the individual protection of the constitution. laws are for the good of all peoples, and without laws we have chaos!
i believe in religous freedom and i know some of my tax dollars must be used to protect these freedoms. do i resent the use of these funds? do i resent protecting another because their belief system is not the same as mine? no, because i believe in the constitution of this country, which basically states the right of choice to all, the right to be treated fairly and just and that we, church and state must obey these god given rights. this is the country we live in. you believe one way, i believe another, and others belive another. you pray one way and i another. but i know without the government and our constitution it could be tragically different.
so god bless you. god bless me. god bless all of the women this law will protect and will end their sexual discrimination, and god bless our country!
Candice: You are unbelievable confused. Not interfering would mean getting your nose out of the business of women paying for their own contraceptives through their own insurance. Preventing OTHER women from contraceptives because of your religious views??? No, that thankfully is prevented by our laws. Don your burka if you want to...there are other places you can live if you want women living under religious edict.
Right... I don't know what the big deal is... this is just another example of the government making those of us who can, give to those of us who choose to receive. The "givers" are never asked if they want to give... they are TOLD to give. And what they give is NEVER enough because there is ALWAYS someone else who needs more.
I really do understand the importance of contraception in today's world. But the fact of the matter is... if you want it... go get it. Don't make me buy it for you.
Next the government will be telling me that I have to buy all of the "less fortunate" a new laptop computer. Think of it, access to a laptop can enable those receiving it to get a better education which, as we all know, will promote the general welfare of the public. (hehehe I said WELFARE - go figure).
Or... they may simply use the laptop to cruise the porn sites - which will likely lead to more need for contraception. HA! Go Figure!
Where does it stop? When do people take responsibility for their own lives? It seems that the left will always have victims to fight for... at least until we all have the same exact income, possessions, housing, blah blah blah! (sounds like communism)
I honestly believe that many of the 'victims' will always be victims. Make me give them half of what I have worked for and they will piss it away and come back for the other half.
(show me the clown nose, fisty!)
Brothers from the same Koch mother. Gotta love it.
This campaign should be absolutely hilarious.
It is hilarious. Problem is so many people actually believe the Clown Act is real and will vote that way.
Come on America! Give Newt the BOOT (again).
Newt Gingrich, acknowledging his campaign “all hinges on Georgia,” campaigned Saturday with a very familiar face in the state, fellow Georgian Herman Cain.
Wow! Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich have some things in common: They both are womanizer that lie. Otherwise, Gingrich is just "using" Herman Cain to campaign in Atlanta, a place that has a very big population of educated African Americans -that by the way, hate Herman Cain-
If Gingrich thinks that he is going to earn "brownie points" by campaigning with Herman Cain, he is wrong. He would probably gain more votes if he would recognize some of the achievements of President Obama. There are many in Atlanta that still live by the memory of Martin Luther King, and Herman Cain is nothing but a serial liar that just made a fool of himself in front of millions of people.
I didn't know that Obummer had any achievements. Do you mean like increasing unemployment, deficit, and controlling the church that is supposed to be seperate from government.
Both Newt and Cain have no problem cheating on their wives. That is a proven fact. What I fail to understand is how any women can support a cheating SOB of a husband?
Last I heard, Obama is still married to his first wife, and so is Cain. Not Newt, we know his history, a cheating lying SOB. Cain has cheated on his wife, more than once. Obama hasn't, and everyone knows if he had, the GOP/baggers would be all over it, right?
So what it really boils down to, some die hard GOPer's and baggers are so hateful that our country has a black president. I don't agree with all he has done, but I do wonder how many coats he can wear, according to the haters. Is he a Muslim, a Solicalist, a Marxist, or an illegal from Kenya. Guess it depends on what Murdocks's NAZI station is reporting on that day, right?
But keep spouting your BS, stinking manure, people are realizing just what you are. Weeeeeeeeeeeeee.
"havin fun yet" got any links to prove those outright lies?
I didn't think so. Your right-wing spin has been disproved repeatedly, and while it sounds good, you're still lying.
Increasing Unemployment: False: tinyurl . com / 88lraf3
Increasing Deficit: False: tinyurl . com / 3vuxsu4
Then again, if the wealthy paid their fair share, we'd have more revenue. It has been proven that Tax Cuts do NOT create jobs. Where are all those jobs created by Bush when he cut taxes on the wealthy? Sure the deficit went up a little. No hiding that. But someone had to account for all that revenue that Dubya threw away with two unnecessary wars. Don't want to remember that, do you?
Controlling the Church: This one's about ridiculous on its face. Don't even need to provide a link to refute that one. Explain how making a BUSINESS responsible for giving its employees health care insurance is controlling a church? Just because that business is a church, does not give it the right to withhold medical insurance or not cover treatments for its employees. You right-wingers will spin anything to your way, won't you? The law (That's the Constitution, for you intelligence-impaired right-wingers) states that the Congress shall make no law establishing religion. It goes on to say (in Article VI) that "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
How does any of that have anything to do with the lie you're spouting, and when has the President done any of that? Geez, you have to do better than that.
Wait, you CAN'T do better than that. Lies, distortions, obfuscation, and misrepresentation are all you have left.
factcheck dot org
Pork pizza for one and all. Hide the waitresses.
They've both porked the waitresses . . . they both had a sudden surge of Patriotism, or was that just jism?
The two of them together have only 1 thing in common; INFIDELITY !
No, they've got more in common than that:
1. They're both from Georgia.
2. They're both corrupt Washington lobbyists.
3. Pizza Dough made Cain the man he is. Gingrich is a man made entirely of pizza dough.
4. They both started fake campaigns for president to help them make money in speaking and lobbying/consulting fees, then were shocked when it turned out the field was so incredibly weak that they actually led it.
5. Despite both leading the race at some point, neither one will ever become President of the United States.
6. They both appeal to white, racist southerners. Gingrich because he tells them what they want to hear. Cain because he also tells them what they want to hear and because liking him means they get to pretend they aren't actually racist.
Great Posts!
AS CAIN SECURES THE LAST NAIL IN THE GRINCHES COFFIN ; genius , just genuis i tell you !!!!!!!!!!
These 2 are both fools! Herman Cain a bigger one though.If he thinks Newton Leroy isn't including him in his remarks about blacks,he's really fooling himself.The only thing they have in common is their love for the ladies.If Hermans wife is still with him she's waiting for something that's for sure.
Please let the South secede. We've been at civil war for 150 years.
Take Obummer with you.
Obama/Biden 2012
Don we did you invaded and put us under martial law. Funny how all northerners forget that part of it. You also stripped the right to vote and it seems in my state you haven't given it back yet.
Cain and Gingrich are just trading ideas on how to hit on women.
US Chamber of Commerce is spending millions on attack ads on Democrats. Sign petition on Change.org to stop this and get the Chamber back in the appropriate role as a trade organization not a Super Pac against state politicians.
Wow..........Birds of a feather, an adulterer and adultererer
So Newt and Pizza Man have teamed up. My guess is they're spending most of their time hunting for a couple of hot honeys rather than votes.
I want a President that is smart enough to know when to hold um and know when to fold um and fortunately for the US, Newt "THE HOOT" Gingrich doesn't know either. All this man knows how to do is to be hateful. Everything he says is right and accurate according to the Gingrich fact book. If Newt "THE HOOT" says it then it is the Gospel truth. Well he believes it anyway. He has herd himself lie so much even he believes himself now.
Birds of a feather, flock together. Both are womanizers. Both are hypocrites.
The 2012 Adultery Tour. Get your tickets now!
Great, a couple of dandys.
Notice how Callista is standing WAY back so as to not get groped! LOL at the losers.
Well it AINT gonna happen but the biggest battle would be coming up with a department of Philandering. That would be a big battle to see which one Cain or Gingrich would give up the Presidency to head up that department.
He could advise Gingrich on the exact location of "Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan".
Newt and Cain together again theres a combo women and moon lovers can get behind
"The Devil Came Down To Georgia" and brought his brother of a different color.
Don't know which is more funny, the posters comments or the Republican candidates?
Newt and Callista and Herman will continue to make as many political rally speeches as long as they have books to sell - wonder how many thousand books are in their inventory? Newt will stay in the race until he sells all of his books.
Was this event billed as a "Boys Night Out""? 1/2 priced cocktails for all the gals....
Cain bragging he can deliver the 9-9-9 while Newt could only promise 4-1/2 once.........