Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

none

Thomas Paine wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed! The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.

Sounds good. Can you give me a specific example?

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds good. Can you give me a specific example?

Arnold, nothing to do with the above post, just found you and wanted say, do you think Obama should pick and choose his battles with a little more thought? I'm telling you, the Catholic Church, from whom he needs votes, made him blink today. Gotta say, when the Catholic Church with the backing of those who fear Obama is getting in their religious freedom speaks, that'll get his attention. Must be hard to pedal backwards.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Sounds good. Can you give me a specific example?

guess not....

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, nothing to do with the above post, just found you and wanted say, do you think Obama should pick and choose his battles with a little more thought? I'm telling you, the Catholic Church, from whom he needs votes, made him blink today. Gotta say, when the Catholic Church with the backing of those who fear Obama is getting in their religious freedom speaks, that'll get his attention. Must be hard to pedal backwards.

You are probably right. Google "Catholic Universities and contraceptives" and see how many of their insurance policies include birth control. Seems to be pretty widespread. But in the final analysis, if you make a mistake, change it. He did.

Frank Ferguson wrote:

<quoted text>
You are probably right. Google "Catholic Universities and contraceptives" and see how many of their insurance policies include birth control. Seems to be pretty widespread. But in the final analysis, if you make a mistake, change it. He did.

Yeah, he changed it all right.
Instead of forcing Catholic Universities to provide contraceptives, under the power afforded to him through Obamacare, he's now going to force healthcare providers to provide the contraceptives.
At the end of the day, the outcome is the same, only the Catholic Church can say, "we didn't provide it, the healthcare providers did."
I personally have a problem with govt "forcing" private businesses to do anything!

Pro-American wrote:

<quoted text>
I personally have a problem with govt "forcing" private businesses to do anything!

So Pro, are you saying that government should not regulate any private business? Forcing the food industry to certain regulations and "forcing" them to comply to certain standards, is this a good or bad thing for the government to do? Is it a bad thing for government to inspect restaurants for sanitation and possible serious infections and disease passed on to the public through their food? Do restaurants volunteer for this inspection, or are they forced in order to remain open for business?

Makin bacon wrote:

<quoted text>
Arnold, nothing to do with the above post, just found you and wanted say, do you think Obama should pick and choose his battles with a little more thought? I'm telling you, the Catholic Church, from whom he needs votes, made him blink today. Gotta say, when the Catholic Church with the backing of those who fear Obama is getting in their religious freedom speaks, that'll get his attention. Must be hard to pedal backwards.

You are right.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
So Pro, are you saying that government should not regulate any private business? Forcing the food industry to certain regulations and "forcing" them to comply to certain standards, is this a good or bad thing for the government to do? Is it a bad thing for government to inspect restaurants for sanitation and possible serious infections and disease passed on to the public through their food? Do restaurants volunteer for this inspection, or are they forced in order to remain open for business?

Now you're bring irrational. Do you not think there's a difference between food and contraceptives?
Eating is a necessity, sex isn't.

You didn't qualify that. You said you had a problem with government 'forcing' private business with anything. But, let's take it a step further. Oxygen and water are necessities in order to live. Do you think that clean air and clean water regualtions are necessary to ensure the public's health?

Should private business toxic emissions be regulated or not?

Pro-American wrote:

<quoted text> Yeah, he changed it all right.
Instead of forcing Catholic Universities to provide contraceptives, under the power afforded to him through Obamacare, he's now going to force healthcare providers to provide the contraceptives.
At the end of the day, the outcome is the same, only the Catholic Church can say, "we didn't provide it, the healthcare providers did."
I personally have a problem with govt "forcing" private businesses to do anything!

I am sure if the mail was all privatized, you may say the government cannot force them to deliver mail to all?

The catholic church ......an infallible pope....I don't get it.

not quite here wrote:

The catholic church ......an infallible pope....I don't get it.

Not to be disrespectful to anyone's religion, but I am sure that some of the Popes of the past probably could have benefited with some effective birth control measures.

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to be disrespectful to anyone's religion, but I am sure that some of the Popes of the past probably could have benefited with some effective birth control measures.

ooooohhhhhh!!!

yaya toure

lol

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>I am sure if the mail was all privatized, you may say the government cannot force them to deliver mail to all?

If the US mail was privatized it would be profitable.

The Enemy Within wrote:

<quoted text>
If the US mail was privatized it would be profitable.

worked for the post office 20 years....post office is charged with delivering mail.to all locations...profitable or not.....fed x and UPS don't go anywhere its not profitable....they don't serve all locations....also forty cents or so is a great price to get mail delivered anywhere in the country....in fact its too low....would have to charge one dollar more to make a profit...that's still a low price to get something delivered all over the country....ithink it cost a penny or so to mail something in 1900...... Not much of an increase in 112 years is it ?? Go to fed x and see what you can mail for 42 cents or so....

Enemy within.....your statement on the post office was wrong. Read my previous post. The post office isn't allowed to charge a realistic rate for mail. Privatizing the post office would insure a dramatic increase in.rates....so they could post a PROFIT.....and they would not deliver everywhere....not cost effective.....