I'll vote RP before I vote for any other candidate.

When I find people disagreeing with RP, its on issues he can't, as President, change.

It's the things RP talks about that people agree with that, as President, he can.

The reach of the military needs to be brought in and the engagement in conflict must come to an end. I haven't seen one in recent or distant years that was actually a National Security interest.

George Washington farewell speech was very clear about engaging in other countries' wars and we have been fighting theirs for too long.

The taxation and banking industries do not want RP. Warmongers don't either.

The only thing I'm not sure of is what RP will do if Congress would actually declare war because they want another war.

How many home schooled children are accepted by the schools for the sports programs because of their athletic ability?

Did the kid try out, fail, and complain that it was because they were homeschooled?

I can't imagine the school turning down an all-American player because they are homeschooled.

As a soccer coach, the kids I see today are learning soccer in camps that aren't connected at all with public or private schools.
Their level of play is so far advanced that by the time high school comes along, these kids will far exceed the normal crop.

With homeschooled wonders on the soccer field, somebody is going to want them.

I wonder if the law is to put them on teams, give them a chance to try out, to deal with discrimination, etc. I don't know.

But, I do know the school, if it has the chance, isn't going to turn down an Ace.

Flash mobs shouldn't broadcast their intent.

Bankruptcy court. Priority holders.

Span of different ages, elementary, middle, and high school.

Subject: Valentine Day Cards

To avoid hurting anyone's feelings, cards must be given to every student in the classroom.

Now, when I was in school, there were years I didn't get any. Years, I got one because I gave myself one, and then the good years.

But, I never had to lie about saying, "Be my Valentine" because of school policy.

This is just BS. However, I had to buy Valentines to cover every kid in the class. What a waste.

What is funny, to me, is that the older boys have commented about giving 'boys' cards and getting them from 'boys'.

Sorry, but they think its weird.

Now, with such open mindedness with parents today, you'd think kids wouldn't react like that. Go figure.

I see no issue of separation of Church and State here and I'm Catholic.

However, the consequence of assisting in another's sin is a sin.

Therefore, though others may see this strictly as a legal battle, the Church seriously must consider the soul, not the life, of the patient.

If they lead a person to sin, they should close the hospital.

This is not an issue of free speech because the Church operates a hospital that is open to the public. The health care laws apply to everyone.

Again, would closure of the hospital change the gov't's mind?
You could say that's not fair, but that's not against the law.

American Idol will not be on television anymore by the time it matters.

Its not what Catholic women or women of other faiths do. Its the government telling the people how there religion must act.

If a religion operates side businesses, why should that religion get special treatment in running those businesses? Other insurers have to cover birth control.

#41 | Posted by rcade

If the Church closes their hospitals, the other hospitals and insurers will do the job.

You're right. Tell the religious to make a choice.

Can the non-religious live with that possible choice? Are they willing to compromise or is personal demand more important than the consequence.

-The best thing to do is to close up their hospitals and lay off their employees.

that's sarcasm, I hope. They provide very needed healthcare. They are often times the non-profit hospital where the only competition is very for-profit. They take the less fortunate when the for-profits don't.

#62 | Posted by eberly

It was sarcasm. Unfortunately, like the gay adoption issues and catholic adoption agencies - force a choice on them.

I think the Church may very well close the hospitals and I hope they do. The consequences of the choices of gov't leaders is no different than personal choice.

Remember the cries of compromise - R's and D's should work together, compromise because the country needs it?

The church should close up shop and wait and see if the gov't thinks about compromise.

Better look for other hospitals...

"The best thing to do is to close up their hospitals and lay off their employees."

"If they do so, it will only show that serving humanity is not the goal of the Church. Despite their protests to the contrary, the catholic church exists solely to propagate its dumbass superstitions.

The course of action you're taking would only expose that fact."

Serving humanity is still done without owning a hospital. The church can still visit the sick there. They can choose not to be the employer.

Sounds like the adoption issue that buzzed around. Just get out of the business.

The Church helps a lot of people in other ways. Nobody will miss them.

The Amendment should have been:

"The State will not pass any laws recognizing marriage."

Force everything into contractual agreements.

All State benefits - based on individuality.

The Catholic Church must understand they can't stand against the gov't.

The best thing to do is to close up their hospitals and lay off their employees.

Stand by your convictions, but get out of the business.

I'm sure the people will find jobs somewhere else that'll give them the coverage they need.

The people seeking medical assistance can just go to the other hospitals.

Catholic Church hospitals - you're not really needed.

Law should be 100% supported or not passed at all.

Otherwise, the minority, even one person, is screwed.

The Whole Constitution and its Amendments were all passed by the majority to screw the minority.

Fishing is a right. I shouldn't need a license to fish.

Screw the majority.

The Constitution sets age limits on members of the House, Senate, and the White House. Yet none seem to be living up to the maturity the majority expected exists.

Majority ruled. Majority sucks.

Federal law- for rifles and shotguns and their ammo is 18, for handguns 21.

Majority Rules.

Too bad 18 year olds. No handguns for you. But, you may bleed your guts out on some godforsaken desert while carrying one.

Thank the majority, and usually the elderly, for screwing your rights and sending you to die on their behalf.

In Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) The Court, in finding that Congress lacked the power to compel states to guarantee persons over the age of eighteen to vote in state elections, indicated that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment does not give Congress the power to enforce a broader interpretation of the reach of the 14th Amendment than given by the Supreme Court. Because the Court found the denial of the vote to 18 to 20 years olds not to offend the Equal Protection Clause, Congress lacked the power under Section 5 to legislatively mandate that states allow persons in that age group to vote.

Age discrimination allowed under the 14th Amendment.

Age as a defense.
Age of maturity.

Both defined by the majority.

Why does the majority get to choose that only men can be drafted?

Selective Service - 18 years old - men only.

Drinking age shouldn't be 21.

If I can be drafted at 18, I should be allowed to drink at 18.

I can vote at the age of 18, I can't drink.

I can obtain a license, I can't drink.

The majority believes 18 isn't mature enough to drink - but mature enough to drive, vote, and die for their country.

So, why does the majority get to tell 18 years old that they can't drink?

People should be able to marry as many people as they want.

They should allow hundreds of people to marry each other.

There should be no limits to how many.

OR

Change the laws of beneficiary. My life insurance allows me to pick my beneficiaries. The law shouldn't dictate that it goes to a spouse but to the person(s) I name.

If I'm stupid enough not to name someone, let it go to next of kin or the State.

If I want more people under my insurance, then I should be allowed to include them and pay for them, too.

IMO, I have no problems changing the rules regarding how benefits are distributed. It should have nothing to do with marriage and have all to do with naming everybody I want (percentages given)

Question 1: Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million? a) 40,000, b) 250,000, c) 2,500,000, d) 1/4,000,000 or e) 4/1,000,000.

e. only 4 people out of 1,000,000 make a quarter million.

Question 2: Martin Luther King Jr. (insert the correct choice) for the poor of all races. a) spoke out passionately, b) spoke out passionate, c) did spoke out passionately, d) has spoke out passionately or e) had spoken out passionate.

Racist question. Anyway, it is none of the above. It's f)speaked out passionatedly.

Question 3: What would you do if your student sprained an ankle? a) Put a Band-Aid on it, b) Ice it or c) Rinse it with water."

Tell the cheerleader to take it out of her hoop earring when it's over

If you have a trillion dollar deficit and you propose a 10% tax to pay it, then you need ten trillion dollars to tax at 10% to cover the deficit.

A easy tax. Tax all political broadcasts that cost more than, say about $100,000, at a flat 30% rate.

Every time they spend $100,000 on a commercial, they pay $30,000 in taxes.