Ohio miners forced to attend Romney rally without pay...

[shoju]

The problem is that the government has its hands in marriage, which grants certain rights and privileges -- and then discriminates on who can participate in it. Many peoples religious convictions also define marriage as between a man and a women, such as the Catholic Church and protestant groups who adhere to scripture.

Well, I could tell you how they are contradicting themselves with their own scripture, and how they are wrong (or at least hypocritical depending on what part of the bible they use to defend it) for their stance on Homosexuality using the bible and nothing else, but that's really a topic for another time.

The government needs to get out of the business of marriage, and into the business of civil unions. Period. "Marriage" is technically a religious institution, as it's roots are in the judeo/christian faith. I can accept that. Get the Government out of that, and into recognizing and giving the same rights that married copules currently have to any "couple" and I'm good.

We don't want them to foist their definitions on us, but I don't think you should force your definition of marriage on them either. If two adults wish to sign a contract granting each other joint power of attorney, property rights, and etc. Then they should -- and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. If people wish to form a "family" to raise children within the laws of the state protecting children, then they should and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. I'd say we need to step back and re-address the wall of separation here.

I'm not forcing my definition on them. I'm not telling them that they have to marry someone of the same sex. I'm not telling them that their marriage means nothing. I'm not telling them that they are going to some nightmare place that may or may not exist when they die because of who they love.

As opposed to... The government forcing the Catholic Church to offer contraception in opposition to their beliefs. It makes about as much sense as forcing the peace corps to have a paramilitary wing.

If you don't want to deal with the laws of the land, then don't hire employees. Simple as that. If you choose to hire employees, and act "as a business" then yes. Your employees deserve the same insurance coverage that any other employee in the nation gets. Hiding behind being a guise of being religious organization is a load of foul smelling Offal.

If you work for a religious organization, then you should probably be willing to adhere to the stipulations of that organization. Otherwise, you are probably working for the wrong organization. Free association, again, is a two way street. The Catholic Church doesn't need to worry about catering to it's protestant or atheist employees, since it has the constitutionally protected right to "discriminate" based on religious orientation.

I absolutely disagree. People shouldn't take jobs with the fear of being relegated to a lesser degree of being an employee, because they end up working for a "religious" Company. Especially in the economic/employment climate of today's US.

Or, has he vowed to gut the $487 million government funding for PP (whose budget is about a $1.05 billion)? If he were to vow to abuse his power to destroy an individual or an organization, then it would be similar to Obama vowing to destroy private health insurance industry or using the power of government to go after Donald Trump.

He wants to GUT the budget of a company that does more work (For free, or donation I might add) of a company involved in women's health, because for some reason, the Religicans have decided that since Planned Parenthood gives you the information about abortion, that they are in some way shape or form the devil.

The truth of the matter is, that most religicans have absolutely NO IDEA what planned parenthood is all about. They see the name, and they see that "ZOMG DEEZ PEEPL R DOIN ABORSHUNZ" and they don't look any further than that. Sorry, My wife has used Planned Parenthood multiple times in our life. Once, yes, was when we found out that she was pregnant, and we had no insurance. So they helped us find an OBGYN, who was able to talk with us about the very real dangers that she was facing due to her T1 Diabetes, and being pregnant. They didn't push us to abortion. They didn't push us towards anything. They gave us ALL the information. And When she went for things that weren't pregnancy related, they gave her great "well woman" visits, at a price that she could afford.

And now, Mittens wants to come in and gut it, because he's too stupid to understand what Planned Parenthood is all about, and has bought into the religious propoganda.

Why is this different than someone vowing to cut food stamps, or military funding according to their ideas about what the government should fund? I'd say it makes a good sound bite that caters to the base of the Republican party who are rabidly anti-abortion -- but since Congress writes the checks, a president can suggest all he wants about defunding -- and, from the reality chair, it's not gonna happen.

Because, as I just laid out, It proves that he bought into the propoganda. Also, it shows that he flip flopped on the issue to be president, since as a governor, he has documented support, and donations to them.

Now you are talking... What are you willing to give up?

No. I'm not giving anything up. That's not the way this works, or at least, it's not the way it's supposed to work.

My kid... is a kid. And, so, sometimes he follows my teaching, and sometimes he doesn't. Ok, so let's do away with school lunch, and kids can go back to brown bagging it.

I hate posting Blogs as reference material But this is a pretty good cost estimate. Now, if you figure in where I live, The cost is greater.

My Elementary Aged Children pay $2.50 each per day, for $5 a day. (To be fair, they also get vastly superior school lunches, and free breakfast compared to the "public" elementary schools in the area. My kids attend a charter school.)
My High School Child would pay $2.75 per day. He normally just eats a la cart items, Salad, lean meat, etc... As an athlete, he's more interested in making sure that his dietary needs are met than the "average" student. (At the local public high school, and also receives free breakfast)

$7.75 per day. It would be cheaper to "Brown Bag" it, even if you passed along some sort of "assistance" to those families who can't afford it. The problem that you run into, is that Not every child is going to have parents who can help them pack a lunch, or care to help them pack a lunch, or have other extenuating circumstances. So by adding that back on the parents, you are only serving to exacerbate a hunger problem that is very real, and does affect children in the U.S.

And last time I checked, there is nothing that stops you from "brown bagging it", and not having to deal with the "School Lunch Gestappo".

Sorry, I didn't get the Seinfeld reference. I hated the show. (I seriously didn't understand what people found so funny)

They did. They've pretty much followed the principle of stare decicis, and only revisit old decisions if new information renders the precedent suspect. The SCOTUS is what enables the Constitution to remain a flexible legal basis since we can adapt our framework to the modern age. I do think the government has a role in determining at what point a human being deserves constitutional protections.

Sure they do. And they did. I bear issue with politicians who continue to make that a basis for their "platform" when running for office, and that is all the more important to me right now, when there are so many other things that need to be handled in this country. You want to debate RvW? Fine. Do so when there aren't other more pressing matters, like economy, jobs, etc... that are going on.

Why? Is it the governments job to ensure that all citizens have the same choices for caloric intake?

I was referencing health care, not caloric intake, so my response is the going to stay in that vein. Yes. I think that the government should make sure that every citizen has access to affordable, comprehensive, health care. Health Care shouldn't be "afforded". It should be a right. We shouldn't have people who die, because they can't afford to deal with very treatable, very non life threatening illness and disease. They shouldn't have to live in pain, or agony, because they can't afford to be taken care of by a doctor. I hold that as a right that should extend to every citizen of the world, not just the U.S. or Europe, or Asia, Or Canada, or Australia, or whatever. Every human being should be able to access care. We as human being should strive to make sure that this happens. We shouldn't sit and watch as people die. We shouldn't wish that they had more money to get the care they need. We should wish that the care was available to all.

It's a helping my fellow human beings type of stance. Right up until they do something that proves that they aren't capable of being part of society, like murdering 77 people. Then, they can die. Sorry, if bringing that up is a no no, but I wanted to explain my point.

I can't afford to eat the same quality of food as a rich person, so should the government give me a special allowance to level the playing field? Is it the governments role to ensure we all live equally, or just that the laws are applied equally? Do we stand for equal protection, or egalitarianism?

Living equally, and having equal access to health care are not even remotely the same thing.

What I mean by Liberty.

That is a pretty good definition of liberty. I still don't think that it stands in contrast.

And, fascists... Yes. I think our system is increasingly become fascist, and it's both the Democrats and Republicans who are doing it.

Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people through national identity. They are united by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture......

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme.

Hmmmm I'm not seeing where this is what the current Democratic platform is working towards. I think the first sentence is pretty interesting, since I feel at times that "American Exceptionalism" borders on this. I think the second sentence gives way to speak volumes towards the Tea Party, and religious movements who have become phobic of other cultures in the U.S.

And If I wanted to get "really" into it, I could say that your comments about the wealthy and their "Right" to have better health care and food, would fit in highly with the second section that I quoted.

So, yes, I think we are really becoming a fascist form of government, akin to pre-WWII Italy or Spain. Who owns GM? Who owns Amtrak? Who owns and sells the rights to use communications channels? How many banks does the US government own? Who owns Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac? Who up until recently owned 92% of AIG? The government is comfortable stepping into take over private corporations at will, and coercing them to surrender control. Right?

Would you have been OK with the U.S. had they not? I wouldn't have been. The Government stepped in and saved the U.S. from itself. Maybe they shouldn't have. But I'm glad that they did. Have you stopped to think of what would have happened had the Government not stepped in and bailed out GM, Chrysler, Amtrak, and the banking industry?

I have a problem with the government being involved in communication, but the problem is, TV and Radio can't be "governed" in the same way that ICANN "governs" the internet, and it's "Channels" Radio at least has too finite of an area to cover. TV is getting close to a point where it doesn't need government oversight, but it still isn't there yet.

And planned government violence... Consider Oliver Stone's interview of Nestor Kirchner, who said "I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war." Then, what happened?

I wont argue that point. For the most part I would agree.

The set of documents describe the association, but they aren't the entity. It's the association of stockholders who own the corporation, and employ the workers. The speech rights are given to the owners to defend their rights and interests. A private corporation may only have one person who owns 100% of the stock. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I don't like junk mail, or phone solicitations either, but I respect the rights of companies who are trying to advertise their products and make a profit.

They aren't. Dan Cathy was asked about his beliefs, and he exercised his rights to free speech. He gave his opinion, and because the corporation also uses their money to support causes they believe in, they were pilloried by the 24 hour news. They don't espouse their views in any other way than to donate money to organizations they believe in. Do you check on every product you buy as to what that corporation funds with it's donations? I don't. In fact, the way that Chick-Fil-A was treated reminded me of brown shirt tactics.

And I disagree. The corporation is the stack of documents. The people still have their rights, but it is being extended to the ability to exercise these rights as a company, that I have a problem with.

I have no problem with advertising. Advertise to your hearts content. Just don't get into "special interests", and Politics.

In my Opinion, Dan Cathy crossed the line when he started signing checks from Chick-Fil-A that were going to those companies. I don't care if Dan Cathy is a bigot. That's his idiocy. I have a problem that his company is being a bigot.

I check more than most, but I don't check all. I don't think anyone could check all. The problem that I have is, people shouldn't have to worry about whether or not the company that they are patronizing is working for against their rights. It shouldn't be an issue, because the company shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Edit: A short list of corporations you might also want to look into: Exxon Mobil, Urban Outfitters, Domino's Pizza, Walmart, Carl's Jr., White Castle, Wafflehouse. And, those are just the ones who have principle ownership who support organizations who are supposedly against gay marriage. By the time you are done with all your beliefs, you might be making your own soap.

I already go out of my way to not use Exxon, I don't wear Urban Outfitters, and I've not eaten at Dominos voluntarily in years. I've never heard of Carl's Jr, there isn't a wafflehouse within 80 miles of me. White Castle, is one of the tough ones, because as a college kid, I lived on it, and love it. I try to go whereever I can besides Walmart, but sadly, they have driven out most of the other businesses around here that would compete.

And like I said, No one should live in a society where they should feel the need to check and make sure that the companies they patronize are not being bigots, and on the other side of that, they shouldn't have to check and make sure that the company isn't undermining their religious beliefs.

Because the company shouldn't be allowed to. I have a serious problem with it. I have a serious problem that they can then (by way of donation) get tax breaks because of it.

If the owners, board, CEO, Director, etc... wants to have that stance, Fine. BY ALL MEANS, it's a protected right as a citizen of the United States. But the company is not a citizen, it's not even a person. It's a collection of papers that give a group of people the right to engage in commerce together.

From Wikipedia on Citizens United... "the majority found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." So, yes, according to the SCOTUS interpretation of constitutional law, the BRCA was censoring a group of people from exercising their rights to free speech.

And I'm in disagreement with them.

They aren't speaking for you. They are exercising free speech and defending their own rights. Even though I don't like coal at all, and think it is should be abolished, I believe in the right of the coal company to express its opinion on Romney vs Obama. They have the right to give people the day off (without pay) to attend the rally. They have the right to send out letter to all their employees suggesting that their future might be tied to electing one candidate over the other. We should also have the right to ignore them and vote for whomever we like, quit our job at the coal company, or sell our stock if we don't like what they are doing.

Where they erred was in intimidating/coercive behavior linking attendance at the rally to their future employment.

And I could possibly see a difference in this. A company working to protect its interests, its livelihood, its ability to stay in business could be acceptable. Not the way that they went about it, but it could be.

But as the laws are currently written, interpreted, and enforced, the same right that allows that, is the same right that allows a company to write checks to "hate groups" (the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled the group that Chick-Fil-A sponsors as a "Hate Group"). I'm just not ok with that.