• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Obama Scraps Birth Control Mandate

Curt James

Elite Member
Elite Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
14,747
Reaction score
4,238
Points
0
Location
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, USA
YouTube Video

In an abrupt reversal, President Obama has dumped his controversial plan to make religious-run institutions offer insurance coverage for birth control, but he's insisting instead that insurance companies provide it to women employees directly. (Feb. 10)
 
Way to go pussy. Obama basically gives up on everything. The guy is never willing to fight.
 
Way to go pussy. Obama basically gives up on everything. The guy is never willing to fight.

the dems have been spineless for decades.

Catholics have been using birth control for decades as well, something like 95% of them.

you don't see the large catholic family's of 7-12 kids anymore like you used to. plenty of my friends from Philly are Irish & Italian catholics with many siblings, not a one of them has more than 2-3 kids.

anybody that doesn't see the overcrowding problem with planet earth let alone the economic effects and does nothing to address this problem isn't very forward thinking.
 
i honestly dont think it was giving up. religious rights MEANS that the state cannot make ANY LAW which forces a religion to break one of their moral laws, (the right to practice your religion freely). seperation of church and state goes BOTH WAYS 9even tho seperation of church nd state was NEVER in the constitutioni, but it was in the socialist russian documents specifically and only adopted during roosevelts time in the 40s.

I, as an organization, have the right to choose the benefits I want to give employees whatever they might be. that is the real issue, Obama just lined himself with the documents the founding fathers put togehter.

Obama has done shit in hte time he has been in office, with a majority of democrats, tells you something, even his own dont support him 100%
 
the dems have been spineless for decades.

Catholics have been using birth control for decades as well, something like 95% of them.

you don't see the large catholic family's of 7-12 kids anymore like you used to. plenty of my friends from Philly are Irish & Italian catholics with many siblings, not a one of them has more than 2-3 kids.

anybody that doesn't see the overcrowding problem with planet earth let alone the economic effects and does nothing to address this problem isn't very forward thinking.


i NEVER use birth control ever other than the rythym method!

no one has 7-12 kids anymore unless they are welfate mothers it seems now a days.... Families are smallerand I dont see 100% correlation to using a condom or the pill . Another issue is that most catholic families arent really practicing catholics, I see how ichurches are half full, the kids arent going to church and parents only go on easer and christmas. we have one child out of choice and we dont us birth conrol (condoms, pills, iud, anything artificial)

i woldnt say the economic effects in the united states would be hurt by people who are americans having kids. Lets deal with illegal immigrants first who come here, drop kids, get on welfare while holding down several jobs then rape the system of benefits that only citizens ought to have (or a naturalized person who becomes an american) Most dont pay tazxes but are a burden on the system.

Why get married (become a citizen and come here legally) when you can drink from the cow for free.
 
i honestly dont think it was giving up. religious rights MEANS that the state cannot make ANY LAW which forces a religion to break one of their moral laws, (the right to practice your religion freely). seperation of church and state goes BOTH WAYS 9even tho seperation of church nd state was NEVER in the constitutioni, but it was in the socialist russian documents specifically and only adopted during roosevelts time in the 40s.

I, as an organization, have the right to choose the benefits I want to give employees whatever they might be. that is the real issue, Obama just lined himself with the documents the founding fathers put togehter.

Obama has done shit in hte time he has been in office, with a majority of democrats, tells you something, even his own dont support him 100%



God damn, you fucking retarded. Wow!
 
i NEVER use birth control ever other than the rythym method!

no one has 7-12 kids anymore unless they are welfate mothers it seems now a days.... Families are smallerand I dont see 100% correlation to using a condom or the pill . Another issue is that most catholic families arent really practicing catholics, I see how ichurches are half full, the kids arent going to church and parents only go on easer and christmas. we have one child out of choice and we dont us birth conrol (condoms, pills, iud, anything artificial)

i woldnt say the economic effects in the united states would be hurt by people who are americans having kids. Lets deal with illegal immigrants first who come here, drop kids, get on welfare while holding down several jobs then rape the system of benefits that only citizens ought to have (or a naturalized person who becomes an american) Most dont pay tazxes but are a burden on the system.

Why get married (become a citizen and come here legally) when you can drink from the cow for free.

Here is the study that everyone is referencing regarding Catholics and contraception

illegals only take the crappy jobs that Americans don't want to do and are low paying on top of that. Not many aspire to wash dishes, pick vegetables or cut grass for a lifetime. those that lost jobs to illegals probably should have taken their education more seriously when they were younger. they have a greater negative effect on state budgets than the federal since states have annual balanced budget requirements. at any given time only 2-3% of the US population receives direct cash transfers from the fed gov. the welfare reform act of 1996 limited payments to a lifetime maximum of 60 months total at $400/month or $24k.

the US has a very large active workforce at almost 180M, the total US population of 300M + is 25% of the OECD total population. the BLS unemployment rate is just over 8% since jobs that are off-shored don't get reported the real unemployment rate is probably double that at 16%. and on top of that 25% of the US workforce is under-employed which means the worker is typically:

1). a degreed individual working in a position that does not require a degree

2). a worker that is only working part time but desires full-time employment

the US economy is based on a large service sector. low interest rates out of the central bank has a negative effect on retirement income tied to bonds, etc. this forces many elderly people to either stay in the workforce longer or return to work. this means less job turnover for non-college bound US youths after high school. US youths from 18-24 are enrolled in college at record levels right now at almost 50% while the federal student loan default rate for graduates is near 10%.

the fastest growing sectors of the US service sector are low wage from $8-$14 hr.

Data from the SSA shows that 70% of the total US workforce earns less than $45k or $17K once adjusted for inflation in 1980s dollars. in 1980 the average median income was $19k.

Recent economic study's show that since the early 80's there are less jobs for US workers to return to after each recession for both both non-college educated and educated workers (obviously much less for this group). The past 2 US recessions (2001 & 2007) have been followed by jobless recovery's, this will be the trend from now on and it is a very disturbing pattern.

the US has both a large pool of excess labor and a low rate of unionization at only 11% of the workforce both of which push wages down lower. illegals are not the problem, the problem is a very unbalanced service sector based economy in the US where the majority of the national income goes to the FIRE sector but does not employ a major share of the workforce.

the low-wage neo-liberal economy that the US has designed and been following for the past 30 years is a complete failure for those not in the top 20% of wage earners.
 
LAM, when are you going to realize that DEY TCK'OR JOBS!!


lol
 
LAM, when are you going to realize that DEY TCK'OR JOBS!!


lol

guest workers from south of the border took the crappy ones, that's for sure.

for us IT folks India is taking our high level jobs. my whole R&D group got laid off in 2001, most of our R&D projects got sent to India. at the time I thought it was going to be temporary but obviously the director in charge of our group knew otherwise as he let me take about 500K worth of traffic generators as a parting gift.

the fed gov caused this problem and is obligated to fix it but officials in DC only work to serve the status quo at this point. I have a folder on my desktop with all the economic papers that I read last year, there must be a tad over 900 files in there from economists in the US and as many from outside. economists in the US are highly paid and none of them want to bite the hands that feeds them so they beat around the bush when making conclusions in many of the papers. as with most things the cause is not one or two things but the cumulative effect of trade agreements and anti-labor policy's that have empowered firms over the worker the past 3 decades.

there are only so many good paying jobs to go around with such a large workforce.
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
Way to go pussy. Obama basically gives up on everything. The guy is never willing to fight.

This, we agree on. The first two years he took office, he was able to do as he pleased with a democratic controlled house and senate. Now, he's really showing his true disregard for our constitution since the GOP took control of the house. He is tossing out executive orders like they're candy and virtually back tracking on every "proposal" his administation has issued.

I'm loving sitting back and watching this guy self-destruct by the minute. :coffee:
 
He is tossing out executive orders like they're candy and virtually back tracking on every "proposal" his administation has issued.

ah that's because the GOP controls the House and now all of a sudden they are requiring a super-majority in the Senate. the GOP always changes the rules when they aren't in power, like a bunch of children and the spineless democrats let them get away with it.
 
ah that's because the GOP controls the House and now all of a sudden they are requiring a super-majority in the Senate. the GOP always changes the rules when they aren't in power, like a bunch of children and the spineless democrats let them get away with it.

Really? I thought it'd be just the opposite. Obama has been the most unconstitutional president in history and it's the GOP that lets him get away with it. No repercussions, no consequences.
 
Obama has been the most unconstitutional president in history

How do you figure? I suggest reading the paper from the Cato Institute below, because the shredding of the US Constitution surely didn't start with him and isn't going to end with him. increasing fascism/authoritarian rule is a function of the right and the proliferation of neo-conservatism policy that has dominated the US since the 80's.
 

Attachments

How do you figure? I suggest reading the paper from the Cato Institute below, because the shredding of the US Constitution surely didn't start with him and isn't going to end with him. increasing fascism/authoritarian rule is a function of the right and the proliferation of neo-conservatism policy that has dominated the US since the 80's.

This is no way invalidates secdrl's point of Obama having done the most to remove constitutional rights.
 
Last edited:
I agree with LAM. Just about every president since the constitution was written has moved the country away from the principles set by the constitution.
 
This is no way invalidates secdrl's point of Obama having done the most to remove constitutional rights.

opinions are subjective and therefore non-facts. the POTUS simply making executive orders in itself is not a constitutional violation. the continued loss of rights can not simply be quantified simply by the numbers of legislation, the stage for this was set by his predecessor and the passing of the Patriot Act.

legislation is passed for specific reasons, there is always a desired effect that will benefit specific groups of individuals. so who benefits from the police state, the MIC. vast amounts of monies (tax dollars) are being spent on electronic tech/surveillance and para-military forces (dogs of war) to "protect" us from an imaginary enemy. after the fall of the USSR the records from the national security archive plainly stated in the original defense planning guide and testimony from security officials that the US has no formidable opponents and needs to keep it that way. the next thing you know "terrorists" were out to get the US and the fight changed from communism to radical Islam.

who benefited from warring in the middle east, the MIC. trillions spent yet we are no safer today than we were a decade ago, safety is an illusion. but defense contractor stocks have increased by 3-4x since the early 2000's.

and what about the US v Nixon in '74? the false pretenses that the US entered the Vietnam war and sold a nice yarn to the public via the media to get the public behind the effort in the beginning. an apparently everyone has forgotten the shredding of the US constitution and deception of the US public during the 80's by Reagan and GHB for what was done during the Iran-Contra operations even though gov officials claimed the Boland Amendment had not been violated, Olie North took the fall for that one.


you still think the POTUS works for you? that office serves the needs of the MIC, the US financial sector and large firms. whether it is legislation that empowers the MIC, financial sector or large firms for the past 40+ years in the US every POTUS has screwed over the vast majority of the people to benefit the few. the MIC is more powerful than the POTUS, why else do you think Ron Paul gets zero media coverage.
 
opinions are subjective and therefore non-facts. the POTUS simply making executive orders in itself is not a constitutional violation. the continued loss of rights can not simply be quantified simply by the numbers of legislation, the stage for this was set by his predecessor and the passing of the Patriot Act.

So when another president stripped some constitutional rights from the America public, it's a fact, but when Obama does it, it's opinion.

Got it.
 
So when another president stripped some constitutional rights from the America public, it's a fact, but when Obama does it, it's opinion.

Got it.

no, he did it nobody would debate that but the stage was set by his predecessor when the Patriot Act was passed. Obama, McCain, Romney, etc. it doesn't matter who is POTUS these things are going to continue, the MIC is going to make that money and if it comes at the expense of grandma's medicare, etc. best of luck to her.

you guys act as if the past has no effect on the present or future and that the people on the far right that started the country down this path is actually going to "fix" anything. big labor money is gone in the US and has been since the 80's, it's why the Dems have also moved to the right in terms of legislation and jumping on the neo-liberal train, that's where the money is come campaign finance time for re-election cycles.
 
Back
Top