PDA

View Full Version : Birth-Control Agitprop



Mister D
03-07-2012, 01:18 PM
Snip


Part of the problem is simply psychological projection. Since many liberals believe there’s no valid limiting principle on government’s ability to do “good,” they assume that conservatives believe there’s no valid limiting principle to do “bad.”
Rick Santorum, who unproductively helped inject birth control into the GOP primaries, nonetheless explained the flaw in this thinking. “Here’s the difference between me and the Left, and they don’t get this. Just because I’m talking about it doesn’t mean I want a government program to fix it. That’s what they do. That’s not what we do.”


Snip

The lying demonization of Republicans isn’t nearly so offensive, or at least surprising, as the extremist policy assumptions liberals are now using to defend Obama’s “accommodation” of religious institutions. They argue, in short, that if employers and the government — using taxpayer money — do not provide birth control (and some abortifacients) for “free,” then they are banning birth control. Taking them seriously — no easy task — Democrats are saying that there’s no legitimate realm outside of government.
In other words, there’s no room for anybody to be personally opposed to paying for someone else’s birth control. That means the people who want birth control to be a personal matter and no one else’s business are demagogically fighting for a policy in which your birth control is in fact everyone’s business, starting with the government’s.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292751/birth-control-agitprop-jonah-goldberg?pg=1

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 05:43 PM
Two questions - what's good and desired for people in general and what's "morally" objectionable.

What's good and desired is good and desired. Add moral objectivity into the mix and it gets fuzzy.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 06:50 PM
In other words, there’s no room for anybody to be personally opposed to paying for someone else’s birth control. That means the people who want birth control to be a personal matter and no one else’s business are demagogically fighting for a policy in which your birth control is in fact everyone’s business, starting with the government’s.

Do you agree with that?

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 06:59 PM
Do you agree with that?

That's a lot of grandstanding.

Gubmint, taxpayers, etc. in this scenario aren't telling me that I can or can't use birth control - covered benefit or not. The real issue is it being a covered benefit.

The real real issue is the religious right wanting to force their beliefs down everyone's throat. Since when do we govern our benefit, tax or otherwise systems by the moral beliefs of some?

Where would it stop? Would those fundamental Christian wackos who hole up in compounds every now and then praying for their children to get better while giving them zero medical attention and then watching them die be objected to my kids being "taxpayer" covered? If they did (and they probably might), where is the difference?

Conley
03-07-2012, 07:07 PM
I don't get the argument why it's not ok for me to pay for other people's birth control, but it's perfectly fine for me to pay for other people's pregnancies and births. The whole thing is absurd. IMO this issue is about religion and nothing else.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:08 PM
That's a lot of grandstanding.

Gubmint, taxpayers, etc. in this scenario aren't telling me that I can or can't use birth control - covered benefit or not. The real issue is it being a covered benefit.

The real real issue is the religious right wanting to force their beliefs down everyone's throat. Since when do we govern our benefit, tax or otherwise systems by the moral beliefs of some?

Where would it stop? Would those fundamental Christian wackos who hole up in compounds every now and then praying for their children to get better while giving them zero medical attention and then watching them die be objected to my kids being "taxpayer" covered? If they did (and they probably might), where is the difference?

I keep hearing about the "Religious Right" but that term never used to apply to the RCC or Catholic organizations which are typically in the liberal Democrat camp. Who and where are these "fundamental Christian wackos" you refer to? What makes them "wacko"? A difference of opinion with you?

The issue at hand is a manufactured one (i.e. the banning of birth control). No one has suggested such a thing. That said, I'll ask again if you agree with this or not.


In other words, there’s no room for anybody to be personally opposed to paying for someone else’s birth control. That means the people who want birth control to be a personal matter and no one else’s business are demagogically fighting for a policy in which your birth control is in fact everyone’s business, starting with the government’s.

Conley
03-07-2012, 07:11 PM
I keep hearing about the "Religious Right" but that term never used to apply to the RCC or Catholic organizations which are typically in the liberal Democrat camp.

It didn't apply, at least nationally, until Santorum. Now it does, and his numbers show he's not alone. Right?

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:12 PM
I don't get the argument why it's not ok for me to pay for other people's birth control, but it's perfectly fine for me to pay for other people's pregnancies and births. The whole thing is absurd. IMO this issue is about religion and nothing else.

I don't understand. Who argues that it's not OK for you to pay for people's birth control?

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:13 PM
It didn't apply, at least nationally, until Santorum. Now it does, and his numbers show he's not alone. Right?

Santorum has nothing to do with this and neither does this bogeyman we call the "Religious Right".

Conley
03-07-2012, 07:15 PM
I don't understand. Who argues that it's not OK for you to pay for people's birth control?

Tell me if I'm getting the argument wrong. I've tried to ignore this brouhaha as best I can. People on this forum have said they don't want to have their taxes go to pay for birth control. Whether it is a government program or private health care that is involved, those same people are paying for others to get pregnant and have babies. So the argument isn't a fiscal one, it's a religious one.

Conley
03-07-2012, 07:16 PM
Santorum has nothing to do with this and neither does this bogeyman we call the "Religious Right".

Santorum has nothing to do with the national birth control discussion that's exploded over the last few weeks?

Conley
03-07-2012, 07:18 PM
I'm gonna have to run soon, so don't assume my departure means I have sand in my vag. :grin:

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:18 PM
Tell me if I'm getting the argument wrong. I've tried to ignore this brouhaha as best I can. People on this forum have said they don't want to have their taxes go to pay for birth control. Whether it is a government or private health care, those same people are paying for others to get pregnant and have babies. So the argument isn't a fiscal one, it's a religious one.

As far as I know I haven't seen anyone on this site or in the public domain say anything about this being a fiscal matter. Maybe I'm wrong but I do know that's certainly not the objection of Catholic organizations. Of course it's a religious matter. It's a matter of conscience.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:19 PM
I'm gonna have to run soon, so don't assume my departure means I have sand in my vag. :grin:

Nigga, I'll kill you! :afro: I'm gonna grab some food and chill myself.

Conley
03-07-2012, 07:20 PM
As far as I know I haven't seen anyone on this site or in the public domain say anything about this being a fiscal matter. Maybe I'm wrong but I do know that's certainly not the objection of Catholic organizations. Of course it's a religious matter. It's a matter of conscience.

In another thread it was discussed ,and on the national stage, Rush said Fluke should film herself having sex and post it online since we are paying for it. Of course, he said some other stuff too. :wink:

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 07:20 PM
I keep hearing about the "Religious Right" but that term never used to apply to the RCC or Catholic organizations which are typically in the liberal Democrat camp. Who and where are these "fundamental Christian wackos" you refer to? What makes them "wacko"? A difference of opinion with you?

The issue at hand is a manufactured one (i.e. the banning of birth control). No one has suggested such a thing. That said, I'll ask again if you agree with this or not.

You can be personally opposed to anything you want as far as I'm concerned.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:21 PM
Santorum has nothing to do with the national birth control discussion that's exploded over the last few weeks?

No. I'm sure he's commented on it but so have many people. No. Santorum is irrelevant.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 07:22 PM
I don't understand. Who argues that it's not OK for you to pay for people's birth control?

Rush, conversely.

Conley
03-07-2012, 07:22 PM
No. I'm sure he's commented on it but so have many people. No. Santorum is irrelevant.

But you brought up the Catholic Church and how Catholics tend to be liberals. I brought up Santorum as a counter example. Furthermore he has definitely mobilized Catholics in this debate.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:25 PM
You can be personally opposed to anything you want as far as I'm concerned.

Would you mind funding abortions despite your personal opposition to the practice?

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 07:26 PM
As far as I know I haven't seen anyone on this site or in the public domain say anything about this being a fiscal matter. Maybe I'm wrong but I do know that's certainly not the objection of Catholic organizations. Of course it's a religious matter. It's a matter of conscience.

For the record, I've made the fiscal argument several times. Pro-fiscally responsible that is.

As for the RCC - I have a huge problem with their influence on the matter. I'm no fan of the RCC, should be no surprise there and I'll put that aside for now, but they exist as a NFP institution in the US. They, according to IRS regs for NFP's cannot lobby or otherwise be politically influential.

That's a fucking joke, the RCC is one of the most politically influential institutions in American politics. They should have no say in the matter. Furthermore, they are not required - rather, it is highly frowned upon if they only hire Catholics in their "public" institutions (ie: colleges, hospitals, etc.). It is discriminatory that they would practice this, therefore how is it fair if, say a Protestant who might be a doc at a Catholic hospital be forced to govern his personal medically insured practices at the discretion of an institution who has no business influencing US policy?

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 07:28 PM
Would you mind funding abortions despite your personal opposition to the practice?

Yes

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:29 PM
But you brought up the Catholic Church and how Catholics tend to be liberals. I brought up Santorum as a counter example. Furthermore he has definitely mobilized Catholics in this debate.

I stated a fact. The RCC and Catholic organizations are pretty friendly to the Democratic Party. Individual Catholics are all sorts of things from conservatives to fascists to socialists to democrats. Santorum is irrelevant. What gives? BO has a little spat with Catholic organizations and now they are fundamentalist wackos?

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 07:31 PM
I stated a fact. The RCC and Catholic organizations are pretty friendly to the Democratic Party. Individual Catholics are all sorts of things from conservatives to fascists to socialists to democrats. Santorum is irrelevant. What gives? BO has a little spat with Catholic organizations and now they are fundamentalist wackos?

In fairness to those who are labeling the CC as 'fundamentalist wackos", you have to consider a couple of things.

Would you say that the majority or minority of legal adults in the US approve of the use of contraception?

Here's another consideration - would you say the majority or minority of legal adult women who are Catholics actually use (or have used) contraception?

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:37 PM
Yes

I appreciate the honesty. Some people have strong beliefs about birth control in general. I respect those beliefs. I'd like our government to respect them as well. IMHO, there is simply no good reason to violate the conscience of any American on this matter. Birth control is readily available and often for free. But hey, on the other hand it's great that BO is going to alienate Catholic leaders and organizations. First the Jews, now the Catholics. Who's next? :grin:

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:44 PM
In fairness to those who are labeling the CC as 'fundamentalist wackos", you have to consider a couple of things.

Would you say that the majority or minority of legal adults in the US approve of the use of contraception?

Here's another consideration - would you say the majority or minority of legal adult women who are Catholics actually use (or have used) contraception?

You're right. I'd say most Catholics, at least in the USA, don't follow the church's teachings on contraception but to require the RCC and affiliated institutions to fund practices they have always preached against is a violation of a man's conscience, IMHO.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 07:46 PM
I appreciate the honesty. Some people have strong beliefs about birth control in general. I respect those beliefs. I'd like our government to respect them as well. IMHO, there is simply no good reason to violate the conscience of any American on this matter. Birth control is readily available and often for free. But hey, on the other hand it's great that BO is going to alienate Catholic leaders and organizations. First the Jews, now the Catholics. Who's next? :grin:

This matter has nothing to do with alienation. Conversely, it has everything to do with the RCC influencing US policy.

I'll go back to my Protestant example. Why should I, assuming I am Protestant be morally governed by the RCC because I work for a Catholic institution?

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 07:48 PM
You're right. I'd say most Catholics, at least in the USA, don't follow the church's teachings on contraception but to require the RCC and affiliated institutions to fund practices they have always preached against is a violation of a man's conscience, IMHO.

They should forgo their parenting of "public" institutions then.

This is not a theocracy that we live in.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:50 PM
For the record, I've made the fiscal argument several times. Pro-fiscally responsible that is.

As for the RCC - I have a huge problem with their influence on the matter. I'm no fan of the RCC, should be no surprise there and I'll put that aside for now, but they exist as a NFP institution in the US. They, according to IRS regs for NFP's cannot lobby or otherwise be politically influential.

That's a fucking joke, the RCC is one of the most politically influential institutions in American politics. They should have no say in the matter. Furthermore, they are not required - rather, it is highly frowned upon if they only hire Catholics in their "public" institutions (ie: colleges, hospitals, etc.). It is discriminatory that they would practice this, therefore how is it fair if, say a Protestant who might be a doc at a Catholic hospital be forced to govern his personal medically insured practices at the discretion of an institution who has no business influencing US policy?

I could make the same fiscal argument about abortions and you would be right to think of me as a depraved cretin.

I'm not 100% on this but I'm willing to bet that, by and large, the RCC and its affiliates supported Obamacare 100% and BO's minions were only too happy to receive their endorsement. That was their say. Little did they know it would come back to haunt them.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 07:54 PM
They should forgo their parenting of "public" institutions then.

This is not a theocracy that we live in.

Right. It's not a theocracy and the people objecting to this law have never been inclined to make it one. Women have easy access to birth control now and will continue to have easy access to birth control in the future.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 08:09 PM
I could make the same fiscal argument about abortions and you would be right to think of me as a depraved cretin.

I'm not 100% on this but I'm willing to bet that, by and large, the RCC and its affiliates supported Obamacare 100% and BO's minions were only too happy to receive their endorsement. That was their say. Little did they know it would come back to haunt them.

Abortions <> contraception.

First, abortion is a highly politically/morally, polarized issue. Contraception is not. Second, contraception can be highly argued that it provides wellness and security for people who are sexually active, socially responsible. Abortion is a cop-out for people (in general) who are not socially or personally responsible.

Keep in mind if you're speaking in terms of popular support, it's highly probable that the average BO plan supporting Catholic favors the use of birth control. It's only the INSTITUTION of Catholicism that opposes it and hypocritically that institution is now using it's power to influence. The institution is influencing, not the members per se, that is the ironic hypocrisy.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 08:11 PM
Right. It's not a theocracy and the people objecting to this law have never been inclined to make it one. Women have easy access to birth control now and will continue to have easy access to birth control in the future.

We have easy access to a lot of things, basic health care is one of them. It's not that expensive either. Regular bi-annual checkups might cost you a hundred bucks total if you shop it right.

Does easy and cheap access to healthcare benefits dictate it's coverability?

Mister D
03-07-2012, 08:54 PM
Abortions <> contraception.

First, abortion is a highly politically/morally, polarized issue. Contraception is not. Second, contraception can be highly argued that it provides wellness and security for people who are sexually active, socially responsible. Abortion is a cop-out for people (in general) who are not socially or personally responsible.

Keep in mind if you're speaking in terms of popular support, it's highly probable that the average BO plan supporting Catholic favors the use of birth control. It's only the INSTITUTION of Catholicism that opposes it and hypocritically that institution is now using it's power to influence. The institution is influencing, not the members per se, that is the ironic hypocrisy.

My point regarding abortion and birth control is not that they are the same (although some behave as if the former is merely a form of the latter) but just to give you an opportunity to perceive the issue from the other side. You may not have the strong feelings with regard to birth control that some Catholics do but that doesn't mean you should dismiss those people as theocratic whack jobs.

The RCC has no formal power or influence over the Obama Administration. They are objecting to a government policy they believe violates their conscience. I see nothing wrong with that.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 09:01 PM
We have easy access to a lot of things, basic health care is one of them. It's not that expensive either. Regular bi-annual checkups might cost you a hundred bucks total if you shop it right.

Does easy and cheap access to healthcare benefits dictate it's coverability?

If access to birth control (which is not a matter of human health per se) is easy and cheap where's the fire? Why is the government pushing this on organizations that have long standing objections to birth control?

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 09:05 PM
My point regarding abortion and birth control is not that they are the same (although some behave as if the former is merely a form of the latter) but just to give you an opportunity to perceive the issue from the other side. You may not have the strong feelings with regard to birth control that some Catholics do but that doesn't mean you should dismiss those people as theocratic whack jobs.

The RCC has no formal power or influence over the Obama Administration. They are objecting to a government policy they believe violates their conscience. I see nothing wrong with that.

Oh yeah, forgot about that point.

What I was rambling on earlier about the minority/majority of Catholics who use and/or approve of contraception is that contraception is a widely accepted social/moral practice even within the Catholic rank and file. Considering that, one can defend the position that an institution who's beliefs that they are trying to force onto people (and yes, they are trying to force it onto people) are in a minority position, hence it's reasonable to consider them theocratic whack jobs.

And yes, they're forcing it onto people. I'll keep going back to my example of the Protestant doc. If the RCC is that concerned with getting caught up in what's socially acceptable, they should get out of the social arena and stay in the NFP world.

How can you have an institution operate as an employer in a public setting who's moral ideology runs against the grain of popular morality?

And yes, the RCC has no formal influence over US policy, but they have actual influence - a tremendously powerful actual influence. If the IRS would do it's job, they would challenge the NFP status of the RCC and other politically powerfully influential NFP institutions and make them pay taxes for the benefit of lobby like the rest of us do.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 09:09 PM
If access to birth control (which is not a matter of human health per se) is easy and cheap where's the fire? Why is the government pushing this on organizations that have long standing objections to birth control?

Wellness is not a matter of human health per se although it's increasingly popular with health plans. I would further argue that having babies is a dangerous thing for both the mom and child.

I would further argue that probably many people who might not otherwise be socially responsible may take advantage of a provided benefit of contraception where they otherwise might not. I have no empirical evidence that supports this but it's not unreasonable to make this assumption.

Again, it goes back to the suggestion that the RCC is playing in a ballfield where it doesn't belong.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 09:15 PM
If you insist that those who disapprove of birth control are theocratic whack jobs I'm not going to argue about it with you. I've said my peace. It's unfortunate but if that's the way you see it, OK. Nothign good can come from it.

Popular morality? You mean the kind of "popular morality" that made slavery and a host of other evils "socially acceptable"? The RCC is not obligated to make you feel better about your sins and has every right to object to this violation of their conscience.

Who specifically is lobbying the Obama Administration?

Mister D
03-07-2012, 09:23 PM
Wellness is not a matter of human health per se although it's increasingly popular with health plans. I would further argue that having babies is a dangerous thing for both the mom and child.

I would further argue that probably many people who might not otherwise be socially responsible may take advantage of a provided benefit of contraception where they otherwise might not. I have no empirical evidence that supports this but it's not unreasonable to make this assumption.

Again, it goes back to the suggestion that the RCC is playing in a ballfield where it doesn't belong.

Birth control is not a matter of human health at all. It's a matter of convenience for the most part. Women have babies all the time. That's why we're here.

That benefit is already provided and often free of charge particularly for the poor.

I seem to remember a similar line of argument from many of you but it was the government playing in a ball field where it doesn't belong.

Mister D
03-07-2012, 09:24 PM
I'll pick this up with you in the AM. I'll see you folks tomorrow.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 09:30 PM
If you insist that those who disapprove of birth control are theocratic whack jobs I'm not going to argue about it with you. I've said my peace. It's unfortunate but if that's the way you see it, OK. Nothign good can come from it.

As I stated earlier - I have zero problem with people/institutions who object to things like contraception because it runs against their moral grain. None whatsoever, it's none of my bidness.

It becomes my issue when that "morality" is forced on me or anyone who strongly objects that stance and that's exactly what is happening here.


Popular morality? You mean the kind of "popular morality" that made slavery and a host of other evils "socially acceptable"? The RCC is not obligated to make you feel better about your sins and has every right to object to this violation of their conscience.

The same "popular morality" that entitled the Catholic Church to torture and massacre infidels? The same "popular morality" that allowed popes to wage war over land and religious domination? Is that the one you're referring to?


Who specifically is lobbying the Obama Administration?

Catholics - more specifically the Catholic Church. Did they not protest when the original plan was laid out and did BO not amend the plan in light of the Church's protest?

That'd be lobby.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 09:34 PM
Birth control is not a matter of human health at all. It's a matter of convenience for the most part. Women have babies all the time. That's why we're here.

That benefit is already provided and often free of charge particularly for the poor.

I seem to remember a similar line of argument from many of you but it was the government playing in a ball field where it doesn't belong.

Sure it is, it's no different than wellness plans as I stated earlier, the RCC just doesn't object to wellness.

On your latter point, I have a well documented anti-Obamacare position. I'm not arguing for Obamacare, get rid of it. But it's here and what I'm arguing is the political power play that the CC is taking.

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 09:34 PM
I'll pick this up with you in the AM. I'll see you folks tomorrow.

Later. It's probably not going to be until Friday PM at the earliest that I'll be back on. Having a couple of toddies with a bud in Pittsburgh tomorrow night.

Conley
03-07-2012, 09:46 PM
I'll pick this up with you in the AM. I'll see you folks tomorrow.

What a p***y b**ch

:grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcM0DPH2bNo

Captain Obvious
03-07-2012, 09:49 PM
Get all that sand out?

:grin:

Conley
03-07-2012, 09:51 PM
Get all that sand out?

:grin:

I left for a few hours and y'all mofos gotta bring this shiz to Defcon 4.

I blame you.

:grin:

wingrider
03-08-2012, 01:40 AM
this is nothing more than a ploy by the Obama administration to garner the women vote, by the dems saying that rebublicans don't want you to have FREE birth control, it makes the masses think the repubs are evil and should not be voted for, what about Obama care itself lets look at a couple of things that have already happened under that fiasco.

Mammograms in 2009 a panel decided that mamogramns for women under 50 were not necessary and wouldn't be covered
so now if you get breast cancer its sorry about your bad luck..

now how about the tests for dectecting cervical cancer? this same panel said no to those tests also

now wha tis the real issue here,

breast cancer screening

cervical cancer test

or
free contraceptives.. hmmmmm decisions decisions

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/OnCallPlusBreastCancerNews/mammogram-guidelines-spur-debate-early-detection/story?id=9099145


http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/10/19/annual-cancer-screening-tests-urged-less-and-less/

Mister D
03-08-2012, 08:58 AM
Sure it is, it's no different than wellness plans as I stated earlier, the RCC just doesn't object to wellness.

On your latter point, I have a well documented anti-Obamacare position. I'm not arguing for Obamacare, get rid of it. But it's here and what I'm arguing is the political power play that the CC is taking.

Nonsense. It's simply not a matter of human health whether it's part of"wellness plans" or not. You tried to compare the Catholic objection to birth control to faith healing and the like but that analogy fails because healing denotes illness or a physical condition requiring a remedy. To wit, birth control is not a matter of health but almost entirely a matter of convenience.

The RCC has no formal political power. They made their objections known as they should. You act as if the RCC shouldn't be allowed to have a position on the issue. My guess is this is going to court and the government is going to lose...badly.

Mister D
03-08-2012, 08:59 AM
I left for a few hours and y'all mofos gotta bring this shiz to Defcon 4.

I blame you.

:grin:

It was well under control. :grin:

Mister D
03-08-2012, 09:00 AM
Later. It's probably not going to be until Friday PM at the earliest that I'll be back on. Having a couple of toddies with a bud in Pittsburgh tomorrow night.

Whenever. No biggie.

Mister D
03-08-2012, 09:00 AM
What a p***y b**ch

:grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcM0DPH2bNo

This chump disappears for hours on end and calls me out! :laugh: Stop busting my chops!

Conley
03-08-2012, 09:01 AM
This chump disappears for hours on end and calls me out! :laugh: Stop busting my chops!

:grin:

This reminds me of college, waking up hungover and seeing the place trashed. Bad Coonlevy!

Mister D
03-08-2012, 09:15 AM
As I stated earlier - I have zero problem with people/institutions who object to things like contraception because it runs against their moral grain. None whatsoever, it's none of my bidness. It becomes my issue when that "morality" is forced on me or anyone who strongly objects that stance and that's exactly what is happening here.

How is that happening? Morality is being focred on exactly no one. Moreover, we agree that birth control is readily available and often free of charge to anyone who wants it. Where's the fire?


The same "popular morality" that entitled the Catholic Church to torture and massacre infidels? The same "popular morality" that allowed popes to wage war over land and religious domination? Is that the one you're referring to?

Red Herring. We can start a thread in the new history section if you like. It's an interesting subject that I enjoy discussing. Anyway, you brought up popular morality as if it was supposed to make some sort of impression on me. It doesn't. Nor should it.


Catholics - more specifically the Catholic Church. Did they not protest when the original plan was laid out and did BO not amend the plan in light of the Church's protest? That'd be lobby.



So the mere act of expressing dissatisfaction or outrage over a government policy is what you mean by lobbying? "Lobbying" usually carries a much more negative connotation (conflict of interest, corruption etc.) but if all you mean is that the RCC dared express itself publicly like every other entity than I fail to see your objections to "lobbying" in this instance save for a deep-seated animosity toward the church. That animosity seems to be causing you to make things up about morality being forced on you.

Mister D
03-08-2012, 09:15 AM
:grin:

This reminds me of college, waking up hungover and seeing the place trashed. Bad Coonlevy!

Filthy black jew!