The gift that keeps on giving

Here’s my premise. Obama wants the Republican Party to nominate anyone but Romney and if he can’t stop Romney from being the nominee, he wants to ensure there is as much damage to him as possible between now and the convention.

You may have noticed the other day that Obama called on a fight over abortion that really came from out of the blue. He put forward a proposal that even religious organisations will have to provide health care with contraception and abortion included which led to a dust up and then partial retreat. The religious wing of the Republican Party rose up en mass whose net effect amongst other things has been to encourage support for Rick Santorum and to diminish support for Romney for whom such issues are peripheral both to his campaign and in his appeal for votes.

For myself, a candidate’s views on abortion and contraception must be as far from a personal concern when I vote as it could possibly be. It’s not that I have no view; it is that when I think of what I want from an American President, no position taken by any likely Republican candidate is ever going to influence my decision. Would that were true for everyone else.

Abortion for the Democrats is the gift that keeps on giving. There is an Alinskyite Marxist in the White House who has undoubtedly pulled punches in his first term to maximise the likelihood of winning a second term. He is possibly the worst economic manager in American history and is overseeing a series of foreign policy disasters that have left the US in an incomparably weakened position in relation to every major issue in the world today.

Yet for all that Obama is still the favourite to win in November. I have been astonished at the ability of the Obama administration to manipulate the electorate almost at will. I have quoted the following passage from Peggy Noonan before and will have reason to do so no doubt from now till November. Put everything Obama does and has done into the context of this kind of analytical ability:

The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The ‘Analytics Department’ is looking for ‘predictive Modeling/Data Mining’ specialists to join the campaign’s ‘multi-disciplinary team of statisticians,’ which will use ‘predictive modeling’ to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. ‘We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions.’

It is this kind of data mining that in my view almost certainly guides every action taken by this administration. Add to that a media totally sewn up, and you must wonder how Romney manages even to stay in the race.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

755 Responses to The gift that keeps on giving

1 2 3 4
  1. Adrien

    Here’s my premise. Obama wants the Republican Party to nominate anyone but Romney

    Of course. Romney’s got the best chance.

    You may have noticed the other day that Obama called on a fight over abortion that really came from out of the blue.

    No it didn’t.

    Given Romney has expressed the views of PJ O’Rourke type conservatives (‘I may kill the baby, I will kill the boy’) in the past and given that this is a litmus test for the wrecks of car salesmen who have become a major factor in American politics it is entirely predictable that Obama would play it. What’s interesting is he’s playing it now.

    Mayhaps attempting a provocation for the GOP faction that descends in spirit from those who prosecuted John Scopes? Wedge tactics to split the Right?

    The religious wing of the Republican Party rose up en mass whose net effect amongst other things has been to encourage support for Rick Santorum

    Yep.

    For myself, a candidate’s views on abortion and contraception must be as far from a personal concern when I vote as it could possibly be.

    Exactly! But for others it’s paramount.

  2. C.L.

    Steve, I hate to break this to you, but the idea that Obama brilliantly provoked the contraception/abortion fight to bolster Santorum is precisely the Obama Fan Club nonsense coming out of the Daily Kos.

    Obama did what he did to bolster his own base and give vent to his own wacko prejudices.

    It had nothing to do with Santorum. Obama and his team know that Santorum won’t come close to being nominated. All that’s left later this year is advertising gold for Romney when he reminds voters of Obama’s extremism. Barry has actually strengthened Romney because his one problem with Christian Republicans is his Mormonism but that will be forgotten completely, so eager will evangelicals and Catholics be to get rid of the hatemongering loon in the White House.

    Epic own goal.

  3. C.L.

    For myself, a candidate’s views on abortion and contraception must be as far from a personal concern when I vote as it could possibly be.

    And the current controversy has nothing to do with anyone’s personal views of contraception.

    That’s another Obama love media distraction.

    It has to do with whether you believe the state has the power to shut down religious organisations and trample on people’s freedoms.

  4. JamesK

    Jeez!

    Talk about twisting into a theoretical pretzel of intrigue

    There is no question it was done with malice aforethought.

    But Obummer is alienating a quarter to a third of the electorate in some key swing states and possibly the whole country on a First Amendment rights issue – who broke for him 54% in the last presidential elections – to win young single wimmin who already poll 80% for him and to cause the whole GOP movenemnt catholic and non-catholic, religious and atheist alike to unify in opposition to him and Steve Kates thinks it’s all part of some cunning plan?

    And not just a unified Republican opposition but a sizeable number of liberal catholics as well?

    The pastor Obama chose for his inaugural – no catholic needless to say – said he’s willing to go to jail in opposition to Obama’s mandate for God’s sake.

    There is not a single employed person in America working for religious institutions that are deprived of abortifacient pills or contraception that Obama is gonna rescue.

    In a country of 320 million.

    Nary a one.

  5. Adrien

    There is no question it was done with malice aforethought

    Oh you’re so brilliant.

  6. JamesK

    Oh you’re so brilliant.

    Policy and Politics of Contraception Rule Fiercely Debated Within White House

    There really is no need to repeatedly demonstrate your small-mindedness as well as your foolishness Adrien.

    We know

  7. Jim Rose

    wedge politics is about packaging a bundle of policies that are popular with those that might change their vote. the views of the majority are secondary.

    why obama wants to turn-off catholic democrats is odd. even those that a pro-choice would be annoyed on church and state grounds.

  8. JC

    why obama wants to turn-off catholic democrats is odd.

    Not really. He’s true to his beliefs. He’s a far left wing radical who wouldn’t know how to compromise.

  9. C.L.

    Adrien wants desperately to believe that Obama The Great Leader And Political Genius did this on purpose to anger Catholics, boost Rick Santorum, get rid of Mitt Romney and beat Rick and his slutty wife.

    If you believe this, my advice to you is to lay off the drug abuse ASAP.

    Here’s the simplest and most accurate cartoon on the subject.

  10. “ONLY IN AMERICA”
    Arguement about some compulsory contraception insurance. Please correct me if I am wrong with any of my points. Insurance is for an unforseen circumstance. This would mean that only single people and females of child bearing age are at risk of this possible event. So first point is how can it be insurance if it is compulsory for example for a 55 year old lady to take it out or a man who has had a vesectomy. So we can assume that based on statistics at least 50% of the population should not get this insurance because they already are married or too old etc. Second point a condom costs about $1 so unless they do it 20 times a day it is not a significant cost and therefore no need for insurance.

    But for me it gets even more weird. What is the arguement against it? Is the arguement that it is just absolutely stupid and make no sense, no the arguement is about some religious freedom issue. If this arguement is taken to the enth degree then nobody should pay tax because the government is secular and will spend money on something you dissagree with.

  11. JC

    Adrien wants desperately to believe that Obama The Great Leader And Political Genius did this on purpose to anger Catholics, boost Rick Santorum, get rid of Mitt Romney and beat Rick and his slutty wife.

    Lol.. Odumbo the genius.

    Imagine Bill Clinton falling for that one? He would have fired the adviser on the spot if they came up with that idea.

  12. C.L.

    Ouch.

    Iowahawk is brilliant.

  13. JamesK

    Since steve Kates has a heroine in Noonan, perhaps he should read her a little more:

    Here’s a segment from her most recent WSJ op-ed :

    “An update on the furor surrounding ObamaCare and the Catholic Church. The Obama White House was surprised by the pushback but hopes it will blow over. Their thinking: The Catholics had their little eruption, letters were read from pulpits, the pundits came out, and then the pols. But life goes on, new issues arise, we’ll hunker down, it’ll go away. Meanwhile, play for time. Send David Axelrod out to purr about possible new negotiations.

    That would be a trap for the church. Any new talks would no doubt go past Election Day, at which time, if the president wins, he’ll be able to give the church the back of his hand.

    The short-term White House strategy is to confuse and obfuscate, to spread a thick web of untruths about the decision and let opponents exhaust themselves trying to fight from under the web.

    The church must be resolute and press harder. Now is the time to keep pounding—from the pulpit, in all Catholic publications and media, in statements and meetings. For how long? As long as it takes. The president and the more radical part of his base clearly thought the church was a paper tiger, a hollow shell, an entity demoralized and finished by the scandals of the past 20 years.

    Now is the time for the church to show it’s alive. How?

    • Educate. Unconfuse the issues. Take a different aspect of the ruling and its deeper meanings every week, and pound away.

    • Reach out. This is bigger than the Catholic Church. Go to the mainline Protestant churches, evangelicals, synagogues and mosques. Plead for vocal, public and immediate support: “If the church is forced to go against its conscience, religious liberty in America is not safe. If religious liberty is not safe, you are not safe.”

    • Know your people. Mr. Obama carried secular Catholics overwhelmingly in 2008. But churchgoing Catholics were evenly split, 51% to 49% for John McCain. These are the voters the president could lose by huge margins over the ruling. And he will, if they fully understand it. Such a loss could determine the 2012 outcome. He knows it, you know it. Have faith in the people in the pews. Give it to them straight, week after week, and they’ll back the church overwhelmingly. The White House is watching. Pound away.

    • Call for Democratic support. Religious liberty should not be a partisan issue. Republicans have come to the fore, but it’s better for the church if Democrats do too. They’re starting to come over. Make clear from the pulpit that members of both parties are absolutely essential in this fight. “All hands on deck.”

    You can win. Keep the faith. Literally: Keep it”

  14. Sea Wolf

    JamesK is on the money. This is a First Amendment issue. To argue about access to contraception is nonsensical. This is about Government trying to force a religious institution to do, and pay for, something it finds abhorrent. Not just Catholics have objected to this.

    JC’s point (9:04pm) is also well made. This is an act of political naivety. The Supreme Court has just ruled 9-0 against the federal government after it intervened into a dispute over a church’s ability to fire an employee. This would have no chance even in the current Supreme Court – another two justice picks for Obama and that probably won’t be the case. Then you can kiss the Republic goodbye.

  15. Republican Watcher

    Steve,

    Your premise about Romney and Obama being worried about him doesn’t match with history. Since the 1960’s the candidates who have won elections are those who inspire their base. The “movement” then captures independent voters in a wave of enthusiasm. Obama is the perfect example, but Clinton in ’92 and Reagan in ’80 were basically considered incapable of swaying indies at this stage of the cycle.

    There are exceptions of candidates who fired their base but failed to ignite independents. Goldwater in ’64 and McGovern in ’72 come to mind. However, I can’t think of a successful candidate who failed to ignite the base but won enough independents to get over the line. Maybe Bush Snr in 1988, but he was running on the vapors of the Reagan legacy which kept the base energized.

    When I look at the Romney / Santorum / Gingrich field I would honestly say Romney would be the very weakest candidate v Obama. If he can’t inspire his own side to get out to vote for him he won’t get anyone else out to vote for him either

  16. Jim Rose

    sea wolf,

    what is freedom of religion? Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not constitutionally required to do so.

    the U.S. supreme court has held that First Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws:

    “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

    The Court had held that religious beliefs do not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for the draft, and pay of Social Security taxes.

    an individual’s religious beliefs does not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate, and the law is not specifically directed at religious practice.

    the religious seeking accommodations for their faith and practices can take their chances in democratic politics just like the rest of us.

    It may fairly be said that leaving the granting of religious accommodations to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices are not widely engaged.

    that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

  17. Jim Rose

    sea world, the right to fire minister issue is more than you think:

    according to Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for a unanimous Court: “The purpose of the exception is not to safeguard a church’s decision to fire a minister only when it is made for a religious reason.

    The exception instead ensures that the authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful—a matter ‘strictly ecclesiastical,’—is the church’s alone.”

    many decisions of the Court confirm that it is impermissible for the government to contradict a church’s determination of who can act as its ministers.

    Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.

    By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes on a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments.

  18. Les Majesty

    So it’s the fault of Barry and the lamestream media that the GOP put forward a pack of bellends as candidates?

  19. JamesK

    To back up Republican Watcher, the turn-out in the state primaries that Romney has won so far are ~20% down on 2008.

    Romney needs to change his tune.

    Going negative on Santorum would be the exactly wrong decision to take

  20. For myself, a candidate’s views on abortion and contraception must be as far from a personal concern when I vote as it could possibly be.

    Same here.

    Their views on protecting and upholding the Constitution of the United States, however…

  21. Les Majesty

    precisely the Obama Fan Club nonsense coming out of the Daily Kos.

    Funny thing is that in terms of his tone, his humourless paranoia, his lack of perspective, his naïveté, and his underlying revulsion for the democratic process whenever it produces an outcome he doesn’t prefer, Kates always reminds me of daily kos circa 2004, except they had Bush Derangement Syndrome and he has Barry Derangement Syndrome.

  22. Les Majesty

    I doubt if Barry actually workshopped this entire thing beforehand – i.e. he didn’t actually think I’ll pick a fight and then back off.

    But you do make your own luck. Even if he didn’t have it all planned out ahead, I think the Pres might have known instinctively that this was not going to be viewed by most voters as a fight over religious freedom but rather a fight over access to contraception, and that is a winning argument for the Dems every single time.

    It isn’t a religious freedom point, unless you think “religious freedom” means that the corrupt and petulant institution of the Roman Catholic Church should be able to force its wacky views regarding contraception on the public at large, including non-believers, in contravention of duly enacted and manifestly reasonable laws for the protection of public health.

    If you do think, you weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway so he knew he could win this fight.

    If, on the other hand, you are a woman aged 18-35 who wasn’t sure who she would vote for, or if she was even going to vote at all, then you think this issue is about restricting women’s access to birth control.

    Which will get you out and voting.

    And puts Romney on the spot in the debates.

    I absolutely guarantee that Romney will get a question in the presidential debates about contraception and Griswold v Conn and appointment of supreme court justices.

    Thanks to Santorum and the current debate about “religious freedom”, Griswold is a legitimate debate item now.

    Santorum thinks it was wrongly decided.

    How does Romney come out either for, against or indifferent overturning Griswold without losing somebody’s vote?

  23. Anonymous

    There is an Alinskyite Marxist in the White House

    Gloriously mad.

  24. JamesK

    The GOP have just gotta pray that the woeful catholic church who were ‘hot’ for Obummercare follow Peggy Noonan’s advice.

    Otherwise if it does simply become a contraceptive issue Obummer will win tho’ it will be nowhere near as valuable as Kates fears it is.

    Access to contaception is a non-issue in the punters’ minds.

  25. It isn’t a religious freedom point, unless you think “religious freedom” means that the corrupt and petulant institution of the Roman Catholic Church should be able to force its wacky views regarding contraception on the public at large

    The Catholic Church isn’t trying to get condoms and abortion pills banned, mate.

    It just doesn’t want to be forced to hand them out “for free”, in contravention of the conscience clause of the US Constitution.

    You can still have your condoms, and you can still throw your “girlfriend” an abortion pill if y’all couldn’t work out how to use contraception and a few days after “the act” she wants to kill any babies y’all might have created.

    Just don’t expect the Catholic Church to foot the bill.

  26. Since the time of the Civil War, birthright Friends have been granted “conscientious objector” status when it comes to wars. Anabaptists are exempt from paying Social Security taxes and, more lately, from participating in Obamacare, because both violate their religious dictates.

    Why is it only Catholics that Obama chooses to piss on?

  27. JC

    It isn’t a religious freedom point, unless you think “religious freedom” means that the corrupt and petulant institution of the Roman Catholic Church should be able to force its wacky views regarding contraception on the public at large, including non-believers, in contravention of duly enacted and manifestly reasonable laws for the protection of public health.

    Really Les. Is that because they disagree with the Administration?

    So you think they should be forced to provide abortions for staff even though they disagree with it.

  28. JC

    Les

    Griswald is totally and completely irrelevant in this case. There is absolutely no infringement to marital privacy or otherwise.

    The church is not instructing people how they can spend their income.

    However the Administration is attempting to mandate products or procedures in private insurance contracts which go right against the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church.

    There isn’t a leg to stand on here.

  29. JamesK

    Why is it only Catholics that Obama chooses to piss on?

    We’re the ones the leftists love to hate.

    Jews think they are different cos they’re a religion and a race but catholics are tribal and we won’t see some leftist Leviathan piss on our scheming clandestine elite.

    They’re ours.

  30. I hate to say it but it’s not Obama’s fault that the religious whackos of the republican party go nuts over abortion. They lost that fight decades ago and it’s time to let it go.

  31. wreckage

    in contravention of duly enacted and manifestly reasonable laws for the protection of public health.

    Bullshit. They’re not asking to not pay healthcare costs, they’re asking to be permitted to pay for health insurance that doesn’t bundle abortions or contraceptives.

    Let me spell this out. There is no way whatsoever that buying a health insurance that doesn’t bundle contraceptives and abortions should ever be made illegal.

    If anyone can tell me why it should be illegal to buy healthcare that doesn’t bundle contraceptives and/or abortions, please go ahead.

    Remember, you don’t have to make a case for contraceptives, or for abortions. Let’s take for granted that they’re awesome. You have to make a case for health insurance that excludes them being illegal.

  32. wreckage

    They lost that fight decades ago and it’s time to let it go.

    Why?

  33. dover_beach

    I hate to say it but it’s not Obama’s fault that the religious whackos of the republican party go nuts over abortion. They lost that fight decades ago and it’s time to let it go.

    One could say the same thing about lower taxes, legalising drugs, etc. and yet libertarians whackos…

  34. JamesK

    They lost that fight decades ago and it’s time to let it go.

    The only religious whacko is you Yobbo.

    You can’t stop sharing your pig-ignorant radical secularist views of religion particularly christians at every turn and everything you do write on the topic is deranged.

    When I say ‘write’, I mean the nasty ignorant and vitriolic one or two line comments typical of your effortless contributions.

    You obviously have ‘issues’ with the Catholic Church whilst the Church is blissfully unaware of your pig-ignorantly lived existence.

    I wish I was as fortunate

  35. JC

    Here’s my premise. Obama wants the Republican Party to nominate anyone but Romney and if he can’t stop Romney from being the nominee, he wants to ensure there is as much damage to him as possible between now and the convention.

    Can’t see a problem with that opinion. Romney does quite well in polls against Odumbo and would likely beat him.

    You may have noticed the other day that Obama called on a fight over abortion that really came from out of the blue. He put forward a proposal that even religious organisations will have to provide health care with contraception and abortion included which led to a dust up and then partial retreat. The religious wing of the Republican Party rose up en mass whose net effect amongst other things has been to encourage support for Rick Santorum and to diminish support for Romney for whom such issues are peripheral both to his campaign and in his appeal for votes.

    Odumbo did pick a fight. It is also true it came from nowhere and it also true it may have galvanized support for Santorum over this issue prompting people that would not have voted to go out and vote.

    For myself, a candidate’s views on abortion and contraception must be as far from a personal concern when I vote as it could possibly be. It’s not that I have no view; it is that when I think of what I want from an American President, no position taken by any likely Republican candidate is ever going to influence my decision. Would that were true for everyone else.

    Fair enough comment.

    Abortion for the Democrats is the gift that keeps on giving.

    Perhaps, perhaps not.I’m not so sure but the opinion isn’t outrageous.

    There is an Alinskyite Marxist in the White House who has undoubtedly pulled punches in his first term to maximise the likelihood of winning a second term.

    Well of course he is an Alinsky marxist twerp, Everyone knows that. He even did the same job, if you call it that, as a community organ grinder that had before he stole the white house from Hillary.
    That part is true. What is also true is that he hung around with Rev Wright for 20 years and even was married by him.

    He is possibly the worst economic manager in American history and is overseeing a series of foreign policy disasters that have left the US in an incomparably weakened position in relation to every major issue in the world today.

    Pretty much true. He is perhaps the worst prez in the history of the Republic although I think FDR was bad.

    Yet for all that Obama is still the favourite to win in November.

    That much is true. The betting markets certainly skew that way.

    I have been astonished at the ability of the Obama administration to manipulate the electorate almost at will.

    It certainly is true that this Class A clown has gotten away with it.

    I have quoted the following passage from Peggy Noonan before and will have reason to do so no doubt from now till November. Put everything Obama does and has done into the context of this kind of analytical ability:

    The other day a Republican political veteran forwarded me a hiring notice from the Obama 2012 campaign. It read like politics as done by Martians. The ‘Analytics Department’ is looking for ‘predictive Modeling/Data Mining’ specialists to join the campaign’s ‘multi-disciplinary team of statisticians,’ which will use ‘predictive modeling’ to anticipate the behavior of the electorate. ‘We will analyze millions of interactions a day, learning from terabytes of historical data, running thousands of experiments, to inform campaign strategy and critical decisions.’

    Nothing wrong with that.

    It is this kind of data mining that in my view almost certainly guides every action taken by this administration. Add to that a media totally sewn up, and you must wonder how Romney manages even to stay in the race.

    It’s an okay opinion. I don’t agree with it, but it doesnt mean it can’t hold valid.

    I don’t quite see your problem Les.

  36. One could say the same thing about lower taxes, legalising drugs, etc. and yet libertarians whackos…

    You’re absolutely right DB. The US libertarian party has a history of the same sort of infighting over issues that only libertarians care about. The nomination of Gary Johnson is the most sensible thing they have ever done.

  37. JamesK

    Wow…. nominating Gary Johnson is the most “sensible thing” the Libertarian Paty has ever done according to contemplative heavyweight Yobbo.

    How dumb can ya get…..

  38. C.L.

    They lost that fight decades ago and it’s time to let it go.

    Actually, they’ve won it.

    Handily.

    Dick Morris is now claiming that the Democrats realise that the pro-abortion argument is a complete loser for the party because all national polls now show majorities against abortion on demand. (By up to 10 points). He says team Obama is deliberately shifting the culture warfare to contraception because they think they can make hay on that. He also claims that George Stephanopoulos was briefed on the strategy – which explains his bizarre contraception questions at the New Hampshire Republican debate.

  39. I don’t have any issues with any church James. I just fail to understand why people think it’s a good idea to make government policies based on a fairy story written 2000 years ago.

  40. C.L.

    I thought you’d oppose gubbermint forcing private businesses to provide free stuff, Yobbo.

    Would you be OK with compulsory Chevy Volts?

  41. JamesK

    I don’t have any issues with any church James

    Your previous post and your regular contributions make a liar of you Yobbo.

    If people over for over 5000 years from different traditions point to a singularity and describe it as ineffable and as the ‘peace that passeth all understanding’ and if as a result the religion practices ‘compassion’ or ‘service to others’ why do0n’t you simply say thank you?

    Did some priest come around and intervene as you tried to root ur asian bird last night?

  42. dover_beach

    I just fail to understand why people think it’s a good idea to make government policies based on a fairy story written 2000 years ago.

    Except that people are not expressing their opposition to requiring all health insurance plans — including those offered by Roman Catholic universities and hospitals — to include free birth control for women “based on a fairy story written 2000 years ago”.

  43. I just fail to understand why people think it’s a good idea to make government policies based on a fairy story written 2000 years ago.

    How about making government policies based on an amendment to the Constitution ratified about 220 years ago?

  44. Seriously: If Americans want to repeal the First Amendment to the US Constitution, any one of them is free to get the ball rolling.

    It cannot, however, be nullified by Executive Order.

    No matter how much Obama and his acolytes might wish it so.

  45. JamesK

    Some libertarians aren’t vehement radical secularist anti-religious bigots.

    Judge Andrew Napolitano for instance who reired from Fox Business.

    He gave a final, inspirational monologue on Monday night discussing the founding of his country and the importance of liberty. He began his conclusion with this statement:

    “Whether you believe we are the highest order of natural selection, or whether you believe, as I do, that we were created by God in his image and likeness, you know in your heart that these ‘natural yearnings’, as St. Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Jefferson called them, are our natural rights, are apart of our humanity and cannot long be denied us.”

  46. Sea Wolf

    Okay, Jim. I was being simplistic. Do you agree with the thrust of my comments?

  47. Evolution is an observable natural process. Saying you don’t believe in it is like saying you don’t believe in rain or tides.

    In other words, retarded.

  48. dover_beach

    Evolution is an observable natural process.

    You cannot observe evolution like the tides or rain; you can only infer it from what is observed.

  49. Bullshit. You can watch 2 animals breed and give birth to offspring that is different to either of them, that is the essential process behind evolution and you can certainly watch it in action.

  50. Winston Smith

    Yobbo, you made a stupid argument and lost. Get over it.

  51. Oh come on

    I am not a creationist, nor a proponent of “intelligent design”; but I’m not a believer in evolution, either.

    To my mind, it beggars belief that a human being shares a common ancestor with a protozoan. Natural selection; now this I have no problem with. It’s observable. It explains minor variations in species. However, it doesn’t (to my mind) explain how something as complex as the human eye or brain could develop from the primordial sludge.

    Accidental, favourable mutations are supposed to do the heavy lifting in terms of the evolution of major organs and the like, right? Has this ever been observed? Has an accidental, favourable mutation ever been observed in an organism and been passed down to its offspring? I’m not aware of this.

    So where do we come from? Well, by my reckoning, the omnipotent, omniscient creator in the sky sounds about as (im)plausible to me as the evolutionary explanation.

    I simply don’t know.

  52. Has an accidental, favourable mutation ever been observed in an organism and been passed down to its offspring? I’m not aware of this.

    Try “antibiotic resistance”.

  53. OCO you realise that the process takes place over hundreds of millions of years right?

    People have bred animals and plants with favourable mutations in a matter of decades to produce something completely different – that’s where everything you eat comes from. Every single domestic animal and every piece of plant matter that you eat has come from an organism that is descended from a very different ancestor only a thousand or so years ago.

    E.G. Modern domestic cattle are descended from a different animal known as Aurochs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs. They only became extinct a few hundred years ago.

    Is it really so hard to believe the same thing could happen accidentally when it has had hundreds of millions of years to take place?

  54. .

    Some libertarians aren’t vehement radical secularist anti-religious bigots.

    We’re not. Do as you please within civil law. The church and state must have strict separation.

    Just because Yobbo is an athiest doesn’t mean he is a bigot.

  55. Chris M

    For myself, a candidate’s views on abortion and contraception must be as far from a personal concern when I vote as it could possibly be.

    Sickening, but this is what much of our society has degenerated to.

  56. “Has this ever been observed? Has an accidental, favourable mutation ever been observed in an organism and been passed down to its offspring? I’m not aware of this.”

    Of course it has, one very prominent example is the sickle cell anemia mutation that gives resistance to Malaria.

  57. JamesK

    Just because Yobbo is an athiest doesn’t mean he is a bigot.

    I’ll say again:

    “Some libertarians aren’t vehement radical secularist anti-religious bigots”

    I’ll add that not all leftists are vehement radical secularist anti-religious bigots

    The bigot is one with a chip on his shoulder but not all individuals with a chip on their shoulders are bigots.

    Keep up with this lark and there might ne a nutsery rhyme in it dot.

  58. Pingback: » Obama “undoubtedly pulled punches in his first term to maximise the likelihood of winning a second term” - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

  59. .

    The bigot is one with a chip on his shoulder but not all individuals with a chip on their shoulders are bigots.

    Does this actually make sense to you? Do you think someone can think religion as silly without being bigoted?

  60. JamesK

    Do you think someone can think religion as silly without being bigoted?

    don’t be silly dot.

  61. JC

    Has this ever been observed? Has an accidental, favourable mutation ever been observed in an organism and been passed down to its offspring? I’m not aware of this.”

    Yobbo Says:

    Of course it has, one very prominent example is the sickle cell anemia mutation that gives resistance to Malaria.

    Well how do you explain Homer in the natural selection process, Yobbo? How has he helped the human genetic gene pool?

  62. Les Majesty

    This thread is hilarious.

    Sorry, but there is nothing in the 1st amendment that gives citizens a right to ignore laws that offend their conscience.

    Quakers, catholics and pacifists who believe violence is never justified and is a violation of god’s teaching still have to pay taxes to fund the SEALs and ICBMs.

    Native Americans who use peyote ritually are still subject to federal drug laws.

    I’d be interested to see if anyone can produce a link to a credible legal commentator who thinks that there is any prospect of the new contraceptive insurance funding rules can be overturned on first amendment grounds, or even get Scalia and Roberts to vote in favour of overturning on first amendment grounds.

    But go on fighting against Obama to restrict access to contraception.

    Let’s see how that works out in November.

    Just don’t blame the lamestream media or Obama cheating when your guy – whether it’s soulless douchebag Romney or principled nutbag Santorum – gets wiped out.

  63. Les Majesty

    Well how do you explain Homer in the natural selection process, Yobbo? How has he helped the human genetic gene pool?

    Grow a brain, JC. Are you really putting Homer forward as an example of intelligent design?

  64. .

    Native Americans who use peyote ritually are still subject to federal drug laws.

    Not quite.

  65. .

    Do you think someone can think religion as silly without being bigoted?

    don’t be silly dot.

    Either, you cannot be serious James or why bother bringing it up? Maybe you’d like to actually answer the question.

  66. “Do you think someone can think religion as silly without being bigoted?”

    Are you calling me a bigot? If you are a bigot you are intolerant. Whilst I may find religion silly and religious people find my view silly that is ok so long as we can at least accept the others point of view.

  67. .

    I’d be interested to see if anyone can produce a link to a credible legal commentator who thinks that there is any prospect of the new contraceptive insurance funding rules can be overturned on first amendment grounds, or even get Scalia and Roberts to vote in favour of overturning on first amendment grounds.

    Forcing people to privately fund procedures or technology they don’t wish with or without a conscience decision to is obviously ultra vires and thus void. With a conscience decision it is a slam dunk.

    Maybe you can find a legal notable who says the opposite, you slipperty turd, les.

  68. Les Majesty

    Here’s what Scalia thinks:

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion “would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind.” Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.

    http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1213/

    So go on guys, keep up your first amendment fight. It’s a loser. DOA.

    The political stupidity of Obama’s opponents is breathtaking.

  69. Les Majesty

    Scalia a good enough legal notable for you Mark?

  70. Sorry, but there is nothing in the 1st amendment that gives citizens a right to ignore laws that offend their conscience.

    There is no law in the United States that says that Person A has to provide free abortion pills, in direct contravention of their religious convictions, to Person B.

    If semi-automatic weapons were determined to be a “basic human right” in the US, the government would likewise have trouble forcing Amish or Quaker elders to provide them “free” to members of their community.

  71. Les Majesty

    C’mon guys, stop ranting. Let’s see some legal authority for your argument that this is a first amendment violation.

    GO!

  72. Les Majesty

    There is no law in the United States that says that Person A has to provide free abortion pills, in direct contravention of their religious convictions, to Person B.

    If semi-automatic weapons were determined to be a “basic human right” in the US, the government would likewise have trouble forcing Amish or Quaker elders to provide them “free” to members of their community.

    Yes and if grandma had wheels she’d be a streetcar.

    Can you think of an example that has anything to do with reality or the actual facts we are dealing with?

  73. Gab

    compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.

    I don’t understand. What conduct is being prohibited?

  74. .

    Scalia did not write that, his words have been twisted.

    Military service, child neglect, payment of taxes etc are not congruent or even relevant.

    You cannot find a relevant legal authority, only the twisted words of some far left website.

    Can you think of an example that has anything to do with reality or the actual facts we are dealing with?

    Indeed les, man up.

  75. Les Majesty

    There is no law in the United States that says that Person A has to provide free abortion pills, in direct contravention of their religious convictions, to Person B.

    Yes but there are plenty of laws that say pacifists and Quakers have to pay their pro rata share of the expense of placing warheads on ICBMs.

  76. These arguements are silly. What about the going against it because it is forcing the purchase of insurance which may in many cases be for an event that can’t happen. That is extortion by insurance companies using government laws. Surely the insurance companies would have some conscience about this. For example it may mean that nuns, old people, infertile people etc. must be insured for contraception.

  77. Les Majesty

    Ok, Mark here are Scalia’s actual words:

    A long line of our decisions has held that an individual’s religious beliefs do not exclude him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate, for example, laws prohibiting polygamy, laws regulating the use of child labor, laws requiring individuals to perform military service, and laws compelling individuals to pay taxes.

    The only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections such as freedom of speech or the right of parents to direct the education of their children.

    We reject respondent’s argument that governmental actions burdening religion must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

    The government’s ability to enforce its criminal laws like its ability to carryout other aspects of public policy cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objective spiritual development.

    To make an individual’s obligation to obey such a law, contingent upon the law’s coincidence with his religious beliefs except where the state’s interest is compelling permitting him by virtue of his beliefs to become a law unto himself, it contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

    Precisely because we value and nurture religious diversity in this country, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect in interest of the highest order.

    The rule respondent’s favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions and civic obligations of every conceivable kind, nor is it possible for us to limit the impact of respondent’s proposal to situations in which the religiously inspired conduct is central to the individual’s religion.

    Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.

    This is not to say that Oregon may not, if it wishes, exempt the religious use of peyote from its criminal prohibition.

    It assuredly may.

    A number of other states have done so, but to say that it may is not to say that it must.

    We reaffirm today what Justice Frankfurter wrote for the Court in 1940 “conscientious scruples have not in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

    The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.”

  78. Les Majesty

    Ok, I’ve cited Scalia writing for the majority of SCOTUS in support of my position.

    Anyone got any contradictory precedent they would like to point me to?

    Or are you all just talking out of your collective arse?

    Thought so. Thanks for playing.

  79. jtfsoon

    I agree with Les. This is just bad policy but it’s silly to claim that it can be invalidated on 1st amendment grounds. if this law could be invalidated on 1st amendment grounds, many other laws would and we’d have a libertarian utopia in the US

  80. Yes but there are plenty of laws that say pacifists and Quakers have to pay their pro rata share of the expense of placing warheads on ICBMs.

    Yes, and individual citizens who are against abortion are taxed to pay for others’ free abortions. “Render unto Caesar…”

    That is not the same as forcing a Catholic organization to hand out “free” abortion pills or forcing an Amish community to hand out “free” semi-automatics.

  81. Les Majesty

    Military service, child neglect, payment of taxes etc are not congruent or even relevant.

    Scalia thought they were relevant when he wrote the opinion of the court, dummy.

  82. Les Majesty

    That is not the same as forcing a Catholic organization to hand out “free” abortion pills or forcing an Amish community to hand out “free” semi-automatics.

    Yes, but no one is forcing anyone to hand out free abortions or weapons so your example is silly and irrelevant.

    You don’t have the facts or the law on your side so you are just being silly.

  83. .

    Scalia’s words are irrelevant.

    Ok, I’ve cited Scalia writing for the majority of SCOTUS in support of my position

    No, you don’t at all. You have tacked this controversy onto something completely different.

    the state is free to regulate, for example, laws prohibiting polygamy, laws regulating the use of child labor, laws requiring individuals to perform military service, and laws compelling individuals to pay taxes

    These are nothing like forcing private organisations to privately fund and distribute services and technology they find contrary to their religious beliefs.

  84. .

    Yes, but no one is forcing anyone to hand out free abortions

    Okay Les.

    Tell us exactly what the Catholic Church is being forced to do and if they aren’t, why bother brining up the opinion of Scalia?

  85. Les Majesty

    These are nothing like forcing private organisations to privately fund and distribute services and technology they find contrary to their religious beliefs.

    But that’s not what is happening.

  86. .

    But that’s not what is happening.

    Okay Les.

    Tell us exactly what the Catholic Church is being forced to do and if they aren’t, why bother brining up the opinion of Scalia?

  87. Gab

    Scalia decision is about upholding an existing law prohibiting drug use. WTH has it to do with forcing religious organisations to hand out contraceptives and abortifacient?

  88. Yes they do already fund services contrary to their beliefs. If they are currently required to provide healthcare I am pretty sure it will still cover you if you for example get an STD or fall over drunk and injure yourself.

  89. Les Majesty

    TH has it to do with forcing religious organisations to hand out contraceptives and abortifacient?

    But that’s not what is happening.

  90. .

    Okay Les.

    Tell us exactly what the Catholic Church is being forced to do and if they aren’t, why bother brining up the opinion of Scalia?

  91. JamesK

    This thread is hilarious.

    Sorry, but there is nothing in the 1st amendment that gives citizens a right to ignore laws that offend their conscience.

    Les that’s apthertic presmise wrt to obummer’s mandate.

    Richard Epstein, celebrated constitutional scholar:

    “This conditional grant offers the president the perfect way to expand his influence without having to endure the rigors of the political process on such a poisonous dispute. But the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions should apply here, as it did in the Witt case. A direct legislative order to engage in conduct antithetical to their religious convictions would be in flat violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the “free exercise of religion,” which is far broader and more comprehensive than the religious right to “worship,” to which the president grudgingly acquiesces. The mandate should go and the religious groups should receive government support on even terms with all other groups, even those that support legalized abortion.”

    Now some may disagree but it rather puts your ridiculous “nothing in the 1st amendment” drivel as a means to shutter debate.

    So even obummer’s laughable “accommodation” which apart froom being an affront to intelligence, provides no legal cover.

  92. I don’t see how it’s much different than mandated maternity leave. My personal beliefs tell me that if someone doesn’t turn up to work for a year then they shouldn’t get paid. But the government doesn’t care what I believe.

  93. Les Majesty

    Yep, and if Yobbo is an employer who thinks extramarital sex is sinful, he still has to pay his unmarried female employee who gets pregnant and takes leave.

    He is funding her sinful activities. No first amendment violation.

  94. Les Majesty

    If I run a hotel and think that the Bible prohibits race-mixing, I still have to provide a room to the mixed couple that asks for one.

  95. “This thread is hilarious.”

    I agree and it will be even more hilarious if Obama loses an election due to forcing insurance on the supply of condoms which in itself is hilarious because it must mean sex is an accident that needs insurance.

  96. .

    Tillman is dodging a question now because it has him by the balls.

    Okay Les.

    Tell us exactly what the Catholic Church is being forced to do and if they aren’t, why bother brining up the opinion of Scalia?

  97. Les Majesty

    If I run a hospital in a state that prohibits discrimination against gays, I can’t fire a lesbian nurse.

  98. .

    It would be even more entertaining if Tillman would answer my question.

  99. “If I run a hotel and think that the Bible prohibits race-mixing, I still have to provide a room to the mixed couple that asks for one.”

    In many countries the rules are not all that different must be married and can’t have a non denominational marriage let alone gay marriage. So you would have to check they are married.

  100. Les Majesty

    Tell us exactly what the Catholic Church is being forced to do

    Not much:

    Mr. Obama said that the compromise would take the Catholic institutions out of the equation by relieving them from either paying for coverage for contraceptives or providing any referral to their employees for the coverage. Instead, insurance companies would be required to pay for the contraceptives, and to arrange it. The insurers will agree, the White House said, because it is more expensive for them to pay for pregnancies than to pay for contraceptives.

    Churches and houses of worship that object to birth control coverage are already exempted. The compromise applies to primarily Catholic institutions, such as hospitals, universities and charities, that employ and serve large numbers of non-Catholics.

  101. JC

    The insurers will agree, the White House said, because it is more expensive for them to pay for pregnancies than to pay for contraceptives.

    And you believe this to be the case… I mean insurance companies checked the actuarial tables and confirmed that it is cheaper in the long run.

    Yes or no?

  102. .

    If you’re right, your reference to Scalia was irrelevant.

    What about Catholic insurers? Are they covered by the exemption as well?

    Clearly the exemption was made because anything you wrongly inferred Scalia supported would obviously be unconstitutional and sink Obamacare.

  103. .

    The insurers will agree, the White House said, because it is more expensive for them to pay for pregnancies than to pay for contraceptives.

    This is the same guy responsible for Keystone, Solyndra and tripling the deficit.

  104. Les Majesty

    I mean insurance companies checked the actuarial tables and confirmed that it is cheaper in the long run.

    Uh yes JC. it is much cheaper to give birth control pills and IUDs than to pay for a pregnancy and child care.

    I don’t think they even needed to look at the actuarial tables to work that out.

    The insurance companies are delighted to hand out free birth control to their insured.

    That is an absolute no-brainer. In fact, this entire argument is a no-brainer. Which is why it’s so funny to me to see all these Barry-haters tie themselves in knots on something that is a legal and political loser.

  105. .

    That is an absolute no-brainer. In fact, this entire argument is a no-brainer. Which is why it’s so funny to me to see all these Barry-haters tie themselves in knots on something that is a legal and political loser.

    Except that you contradicted yourself on the legal stuff.

    A no brainer that Solyndra Barry, Keystone Barry and deficit tripling Barry came up with. Yeah right.

  106. Les Majesty

    If you’re right…

    I’ll take that as an admission that you were unfamiliar with the law and the facts when you started bloviating.

    No need to apologise. I’ll take it as read.

  107. Les Majesty

    So just to recap… we are still waiting for any legal precedent suggesting the new contraception rules would violate the first amendment.

    [crickets]

  108. Les Majesty

    Except that you contradicted yourself on the legal stuff.

    No you are lying.

  109. Gab

    we are still waiting for any legal precedent suggesting the new contraception rules would violate the first amendment.

    Well it would seem you are correct. If religious backed insurance companies are also exempted. Obama backed down as it was a Constitutional issue then.

  110. JC

    This is a very good illustration .. the whole sorry mess.. why odumbocare is a fucking abortion.

    As sorry as our insurance system is and it is a sorry mess, it is still miles better than what Odumbo hatched up requiring employers to foot the insurance bill and mandating shit they want in there.

    One other pertinent thing about medical insurance in the US.

    If an employer is large enough they are very likely to self insure for the most part. It’s a complex arrangement they have with the carriers. Employers are charged administration fees for doing the work and have all sorts of contractual agreements that protect the employer over an above a certain hit.

    So in effect the Catholic Church would be directly paying for things it doesn’t believe while there isn’t much of a buffer between itself and the carrier.

    Les or others used the argument that certain groups are pacifists etc but still have to pay for the military through their taxes. That basically true. However religious organizations are tax exempt in the US so the linkage isn’t as direct as it seems.

    There is a way out of this. The Catholic Church has said it will stop funding medical insurance which means Medicare will take a pretty big hit.

  111. JC

    Uh yes JC. it is much cheaper to give birth control pills and IUDs than to pay for a pregnancy and child care.

    You can’t say that at first hand. You really need to look at it. Show me the evidence, which I asked Mrs Steve Stepford to provide and all he could say was that da president said so.

  112. C.L.

    Barack’s white mamma managed.

  113. JamesK

    One other pertinent thing about medical insurance in the US.

    If an employer is large enough they are very likely to self insure for the most part. It’s a complex arrangement they have with the carriers. Employers are charged administration fees for doing the work and have all sorts of contractual agreements that protect the employer over an above a certain hit

    Actually many catholic organisations self-insure to avoid getting state mandated policies in the few states that have such mandates without the religious exception clauses that are the norm

  114. JamesK

    Is see Les is repeating a lie to himself in a pathetic exhibition that presumably hopes to convinnce others that the lie is true.

    It’s not a good look.

  115. JC

    Actually many catholic organisations self-insure to avoid getting state mandated policies in the few states that have such mandates without the religious exception clauses that are the norm

    Interesting. I heard about this on one of the MSNBC program vids but wasn’t entirely sure what it was about.

    Mathews was arguing the point that it was dishonest to suggest Odumbocare replicated the state systems accommodating the Catholic Church and it was dishonest of the Administration lackey to even suggest it.

  116. .

    I’ll take that as an admission that you were unfamiliar with the law and the facts when you started bloviating.

    No need to apologise. I’ll take it as read.

    No. It means that we were asking honest questions and you were making it up as you went along.

    …and that was IF you were right. Which James suggests you are not, and you refused to answer questions from me about Catholic insurers.

    we are still waiting for any legal precedent suggesting the new contraception rules would violate the first amendment.

    Why? You quoted an irrelevant case to “prove” the opposite.

    Uh yes JC. it is much cheaper to give birth control pills and IUDs than to pay for a pregnancy and child care.

    Rubbish. This assumes most people who get pregnant and carry to term do so by accident.

  117. JamesK

    Poor chris the focus of his onanistic adulation has offended the memory of his dead mother.

    He’s bewidered.

  118. Gab

    What’s even more bewildering is why Obama came up with this crazy scheme in the first place. Are condoms and abortifacients so expensive in the US as to be unaffordable?

  119. JamesK

    Don’t worry obummer, the liberal catholics are more liberal leftists a than catholic, the black rights movement are more leftist than black, the feminists are more leftists than the rights of women, the homosexal lobby are more leftists than gay rights etc

  120. JamesK

    What’s even more bewildering is why Obama came up with this crazy scheme

    wedge issue.

    He underestimated (? – we’ll see) the bishops.

    He’s the classical thug.

    The bishops backed him strongly with Obummercare despite his history of infanticide.

    He didn’t count on Benedict and his letter to the bishops before Obummer even tried this on.

  121. C.L.

    Gerson in WaPo:

    These events have all the hallmarks of an epic White House screw-up… disaster… crisis of his own creation… blunder… absurdly disconnected from reality… a single miscalculation…

    Obama’s epic blunder on birth-control mandate.

    Worst president ever.

    Rasmussen: Catholics dump Obama.

  122. This assumes most people who get pregnant and carry to term do so by accident.

    No, it doesn’t, if you gave it more than a nanaosecond of thought.

  123. JC

    It’s a fucking wedge issue alright. Odumbocare is wedging so mnay he’s ending up with only the rusted ons.

    What an imbecile.

  124. JC

    Mrs. Steve Stepford

    You couldn’t provide any evidence yesterday and you’re now trying to plagiarize someone else.

    Have you no shame?

    The washing please. Now.

  125. .

    This assumes most people who get pregnant and carry to term do so by accident.

    No, it doesn’t, if you gave it more than a nanaosecond of thought.

    Come on then moron, give us the assumptions, given your regional TAFE Diploma in the arts qualifies you as an actuary.

  126. A good explanation of how the Catholic bishops’ (and generic Right wingnuts) moral objections to the compromise do not stand up to scrutiny under Catholic moral reasoning.

  127. JamesK

    Gerson from Cl’s link:

    “If Obama is playing a political chess game, he has just sacrificed his queen, a rook and all his bishops. It would have to be a deep game indeed”.

    Gerson os basically sayin’ Steve Kates is a bed-wetter

  128. Les Majesty

    What an awesome thread.

  129. C.L.

    Devout pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ Steve claims the US hierarchy, Benedict XVI, Joe Biden and Chris Matthews are “right-wing” nuts, quotes USA Today.

    Ahahahahaha.

  130. Polling from NYT/CBS:

    On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, and nearly as many, 59 percent, said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control.

  131. C.L.

    If Obama is playing a political chess game, he has just sacrificed his queen, a rook and all his bishops. It would have to be a deep game indeed.

    I think it was Mark Steyn who said Obama isn’t a chess man.

    Nor even checkers.

    It’s tic-tac-toe.

  132. Actually many catholic organisations self-insure

    A Baptist group which runs a boarding-house and school which I contribute to self-funds, and they’re not thrilled about this either.

    Community members voluntarily give them money to help support and educate pregnant teenaged girls who don’t want to kill their babies. If those same funding community members wanted to voluntarily pay to kill babies, they’d do so. But they don’t. So….

  133. JC

    So Step, USA Today is now. Possibly the most left rag in the country.

    Have you no fucking shame. Look Stepford, this isn’t a debate in that rural TAFE you went to where the average IQ equaled the number of people in the class. You’re in the big leagues. So sending us to the Daily Kos, Rachael Maddow, or LeftToday is not going to cut it as an authority piece, you pathetic idiot.

    Have you washed the kitchen floor yet?

  134. Time blog article explaining why costs of providing contraception coverage to insurers is, at best, minimal.

    Lots of links in it for JC and dot to ignore.

  135. JC

    Polling from NYT/CBS:

    On contraceptive coverage, 65 percent of voters in the poll said they supported the Obama administration’s requirement that health insurance plans cover the cost of birth control, and nearly as many, 59 percent, said the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers should cover the cost of birth control.

    Well that’s good then, right? He shouldn’t compromise and ought to run with this as part of the ptatform… Because the NYTimes poll says it’s a good idea.

    I’m with you on this Stepford. He should go hard on this.

  136. I sometimes wish Christian groups weren’t so selfless. If the Christian “Atlas,” who takes care of so many people in all manner of need, were to “shrug” ….

  137. .

    Ah right, Time magazine

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TT81o4hL4c

    TIME Announces New Version Of Magazine Aimed At Adults

  138. JC

    Stepford:

    From you link.

    Actually, not really. The truth is that both insurers and employers who self-insure save money in the long run by covering contraception. So much money is saved that it makes financial sense to waive co-pays and deductibles. A 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health estimates that not providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing such coverage.

    Contraception is expensive only if you think of birth control in terms of the individual woman’s upfront costs, rather than looking long-term at the “net cost” to the insurer and factor in all the dollars saved when customers don’t become pregnant.

    Read more: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/#ixzz1mPNGlzrC

    This more or less what I said yesterday, you ignorant twat and it would support my argument.

    Carriers are going to experience cost front loading with the possibility of better margins down the road. However to suggest that carriers will not raise prices shows an inept understanding how businesses operate.

    If cost of providing insurance rises in the short term, carriers will raise the price of their premiums in order to protect short term earnings.. and yes they are important… If margins increase longer term they will most likely lower the cost of premiums on that alone all things being equal.

    However to suggest that costs won’t rise even in the short term is not only dishonest, it’s basically appealing to ideological dumb fucks like you Stepford.

  139. C.L.

    Steve and USA Today versus:

    Province of Anchorage:

    ?1. Archbishop Roger Schweitz, of Anchorage, AK
    ?2. Bishop Edward Burns, of Juneau, AK
    ?3. Bishop Donald Kettler of Fairbanks, AK

    Province of Atlanta:

    ?4. Archbishop Wilton Gregory , of Atlanta, GA
    ?5. Bishop Robert Guglielmone, of Charleston, SC
    ?6. Bishop Peter Jugis, of Charlotte, NC
    ?7. Bishop Michael Burbidge, of Raleigh, NC
    ?8. Bishop Gregory Hartmayer, of Savannah, GA

    Province of Baltimore:

    ?9. Cardinal-designate Edwin O’Brien, of Baltimore, MD
    ?10. Bishop Paul Loverde, of Arlington, VA
    ?11. Bishop Francis DiLorenzo, of Richmond VA
    ?12. Bishop Michael Bransfield, of Wheeling-Charleston, WV
    ?13. Bishop Francis Malooly, of Wilmington, DE

    Province of Boston:

    ?14. Sean Cardinal O’Malley, of Boston, MA
    ?15. Bishop Salvatore Matano,of Burlington, VT
    ?16. Bishop George Coleman, of Fall River, MA
    ?17. Bishop Peter Libasci, of Manchester, NH
    ?18. Bishop Richard Malone, of Portland, ME
    ?19. Bishop Timothy McDonnell, of Springfield, MA
    ?20. Bishop Robert McManus, of Worcester, MA

    Province of Chicago:

    ?21. Francis Cardinal George of Chicago, IL
    ?22. Bishop Edward Braxton, of Belleville, IL
    ?23. Bishop Daniel Conlon, of Joliet, IL
    ?24. Bishop Daniel Jenky, of Peoria, IL
    ?25. Bishop Thomas Doran, of Rockford, IL
    ?26. Bishop Thomas Paprocki, of Springfield, IL
    Province of Cincinnati:
    ?27. Archbishop Dennis Schnurr, of Cincinnati, OH
    ?28. Bishop Richard Lennon, of Cleveland, OH
    ?29. Bishop Frederick Campbell, of Columbus, OH
    ?Monsignor Kurt Kemo (apostolic administrator), of Steubenville, OH
    ?30. Bishop Leonard Blair, of Toledo, OH
    ?31. Bishop George Murry, of Youngstown, OH

    Province of Denver:

    ?32. Bishop James Conley, Apostolic Administrator of Denver, CO
    ?33. Bishop Paul Etienne, of Cheyenne, WY
    ?34. Bishop Michael Sheridan, of Colorado Springs, CO
    ?35. Bishop Fernando Isern, of Pueblo, CO
    Province of Detroit:
    ?36. Archbishop Allen Vigneron, of Detroit, MI
    ?37. Bishop Bernard Hebda, of Gaylord, MI
    ?38. Bishop Walter Hurley, of Grand Rapids, MI
    ?39. Bishop Paul Bradley, of Kalamazoo, MI
    ?40. Bishop Earl Boyea, of Lansing, MI
    ?41. Bishop Alexander Sample, of Marquette, MI
    ?42. Bishop Joseph Cistone, of Saginaw, MI

    Province of Dubuque:

    ?43. Archbishop Jerome Hanus, of Dubuque, IA
    ?44. Bishop Martin Amos, of Davenport, IA
    ?45. Bishop Richard Pates, of Des Moines, IA
    ?46. Bishop Walter Nickless, of Sioux City, IA

    Province of Galveston-Houston:

    ?47. Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, of Galveston-Houston, TX
    ?48. Bishop Joe Vasquez, of Austin, TX
    ?49. Bishop Curtis Guillory, of Beaumont, TX
    ?50. Bishop Daniel Flores, of Brownsville, TX
    ?51. Bishop Michael Mulvey, of Corpus Christi, TX
    ?52. Bishop Alvaro Corrada (apostolic administrator) of Tyler TX
    ?53. Bishop David Fellhauer of Victoria, TX

    Province of Hartford:

    ?54. Archbishop Henry Mansell, of Hartford, CT
    ?55. Bishop William Lori, of Bridgeport, CT
    ?56. Bishop Michael Cote, of Norwich, CT
    ?57. Bishop Thomas Tobin, of Providence, RI

    Province of Indianapolis:

    ?58. Bishop Christopher Coyne, Apostolic Administrator of Indianapolis, IN
    ?59. Bishop Charles Thompson, of Evansville, IN
    ?60. Bishop Kevin Rhoades, of Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN
    ?61. Bishop Dale Melczek, of Gary, IN
    ?62. Bishop Timothy Doherty, of Lafayette, IN
    Province of Kansas City:

    ?63. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, of Kansas City, KS
    ?Father Barry Brinkman (apostolic administrator) of Salina, KS
    ?64. Bishop Michael Jackels, of Wichita, KS

    Province of Los Angeles:

    ?65. Archbishop Jose Gomez, of Los Angeles, CA
    ?Roger Cardinal Mahoney (emeritus), of Los Angeles, CA
    ?66. Bishop Armando Ochoa, of Fresno, CA (also apostolic administrator of El Paso)
    ?67. Bishop Tod Brown, of Orange, CA
    ?68. Bishop Gerald Barnes, of San Bernadino, CA
    ?69. Bishop Robert Brom, of San Diego, CA
    ?70. Bishop Richard Garcia of Monterey, CA

    Province of Louisville:

    ?71. Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, of Louisville, KY
    ?72. Bishop Roger Foys, of Covington, KY
    ?73. Bishop Richard Stika, of Knoxville, TN
    ?74. Bishop Ronald Gainer, of Lexington, KY (better link needed)
    ?75. Bishop Terry Steib, of Memphis, TN
    ?76. Bishop David Choby, of Nashville, TN
    ?77. Bishop WIlliam Medley, of Owensboro, KY

    Province of Miami:

    ?78. Archbishop Thomas Wenski, of Miami, FL (also apostolic administrator of Pensacola-Tallahassee)
    ?79. Bishop John Noonan, of Orlando, FL
    ?80. Bishop Gerald Barbarito, of Palm Beach, FL
    ?81. Bishop Felipe Estevez, of St Augustine, FL
    ?82. Bishop Robert Lynch, of St Petersburg, FL
    ?83. Bishop Frank Dewane, of Venice, FL

    Province of Milwaukee:

    ?84. Archbishop Jerome Listecki, of Milwaukee, WI
    ?85. Bishop David Ricken, of Green Bay, WI
    ?86. Bishop William Callahan, of La Crosse, WI
    ?87. Bishop Robert Morlino, of Madison, WI
    ?88. Bishop Peter Christensen, of Superior, WI

    Province of Mobile:

    ?89. Archbishop Thomas Rodi of Mobile, AL
    ?90. Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham, AL
    ?91. Bishop Joseph Latino of Jackson, MS

    Province of New Orleans:

    ?92. Archbishop Gregory Aymond, of New Orleans, LA
    ?93. Bishop Ronald Herzog, of Alexandria, LA
    ?94. Bishop Robert Muench, of Baton Rouge, LA
    ?95. Bishop Sam Jacobs, of Houma-Thibodaux, LA
    ?96. Bishop Michael Jarrell, of Lafayette, LA
    ?97. Bishop Glen Provost, of Lake Charles, LA
    ?98. Bishop Michael Duca, of Shreveport, LA

    Province of New York:

    ?99. Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, of New York, NY
    ?Edward Cardinal Egan, of New York, NY (emeritus)
    ?100. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, of Brooklyn, NY
    ?101. Bishop Edward Kmiec, of Buffalo, NY
    ?102. Bishop Terry LaValley, of Ogdensburg, NY
    ?103. Bishop Matthew Clark, of Rochester, NY
    ?104. Bishop William Murphy, of Rockville Centre, NY
    ?105. Bishop Robert Cunningham, of Syracuse, NY
    ?106. Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, NY

    Province of Newark:

    ?107. Archbishop John Meyers, of Newark, NJ
    ?108. Bishop Joseph Galante, of Camden, NJ
    ?109. Bishop Arthur Serratelli, of Paterson, NJ
    ?110. Bishop David O’Connell, of Trenton, NJ
    ?111. Bishop Paul Bootkoski of Metuchen, NJ

    Province of Oklahoma City:

    ?112. Archbishop Paul Coakley, of Oklahoma City, OK
    ?113. Bishop Anthony Taylor, of Little Rock, AR
    ?114. Bishop Edward Slattery, of Tulsa, OK

    Province of Omaha:

    ?115. Archbishop George Lucas, of Omaha, NE
    ?116. Bishop William Dendinger, of Grand Island, NE
    ?117. Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, of Lincoln, NE

    Province of Philadelphia:

    ?118. Archbishop Charles Chaput, of Philadelphia, PA
    ?119. Bishop John Barres, of Allentown, PA
    ?120. Bishop Mark Bartchak, of Altoona-Johnstown, PA
    ?121. Bishop Lawrence Brandt, of Greensburg, PA
    ?122. Bishop Joseph McFadden, of Harrisburg, PA
    ?123. Bishop David Zubik, of Pittsburgh, PA (Twice!)
    ?124. Bishop Joseph Bambera, of Scranton, PA
    ?125. Bishop Donald Trautman of Eire, PA

    Province of Portland:

    ?126. Archbishop John Vlazny, of Portland, OR
    ?127. Bishop William Skystad (apostolic administrator) of Baker, OR
    ?128. Bishop Michael Driscoll, of Boise, ID
    ?129. Bishop Michael Warfel, of Great Falls-Billings, MT
    ?130. Bishop George Thomas, of Helena, MT

    Province of Saint Louis:

    ?131. Archbishop Robert Carlson, of Saint Louis, MO
    ?132. Bishop John Gaydos, of Jefferson City, MO
    ?133. Bishop Robert Finn, of Kansas City-Saint Joseph, MO
    ?134. Bishop James Johnston, of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO

    Province of Saint Paul and Minneapolis:

    ?135. Archbishop John Nienstedt, of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, MN
    ?136. Bishop David Kagan, of Bismarck, ND
    ?137. Bishop Samuel Aquila, of Fargo, ND
    ?138. Bishop John LeVoir, of New Ulm, MN
    ?139. Bishop Robert Gruss, of Rapid City, SD
    ?140. Bishop Paul Swain, of Sioux Falls, SD
    ?141. Bishop John Quinn, of Winona, MN
    ?142. Bishop Paul Sirba of Duluth, MN
    ?143. Bishop Michael Hoeppner, of Crookston, MN

    Province of San Antonio:

    ?144. Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller, of San Antonio, TX
    ?145. Bishop Patrick Zurek, of Amarillo, TX
    ?146. Bishop Kevin Farrell, of Dallas, TX
    ?147. Bishop Kevin Vann, of Fort Worth, TX
    ?Bishop Armando Ochoa (apostolic administrator) of El Paso, TX
    ?148. Bishop James Tamayo, of Laredo, TX
    ?149. Bishop Placido Rodriguez, of Lubbock, TX
    ?150. Bishop Michael Pfeifer, of San Angelo, TX

    Province of San Francisco:

    ?151. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco, CA
    ?152. Bishop Joseph Pepe, of Las Vegas, NV
    ?153. Bishop Randolph Calvo, of Reno, NV
    ?154. Bishop Jaime Soto, of Sacramento, CA
    ?155. Bishop John Wester, of Salt Lake City, UT
    ?156. Bishop Patrick McGrath, of San Jose, CA
    ?157. Bishop Stephen Blaire, of Stockton, CA
    ?158. Bishop Larry Silva of Honolulu, HI

    Province of Santa Fe:

    ?159. Archbishop Michael Sheehan, of Santa Fe, NM
    ?160. Bishop James Wall, of Gallup, NM (better link needed)
    ?161. Bishop Thomas Olmsted, of Phoenix, AZ
    ?162. Bishop Gerald Kicanas, Tuscon, AZ

    Province of Seattle:

    ?Archbishop Peter Sartain, of Seattle, WA
    ?163. Bishop Joseph Tyson, of Yakima, WA

    Province of Washington:

    ?164. Donald Cardinal Wuerl, of Washington, DC

    Archeparchy of Philadelphia (Eastern Rite)

    ?165. Bishop Richard Seminack, Eparchy of Chicago, IL
    Metropolita of Pittsburgh (Eastern Rite) + Sui Iuris:

    ?166. Archbishop-elect William Skurla, ArchEparchy of Pittsburgh (currently bishop of Passaic) (better link needed)
    ?167. Bishop Gerald Dino, Eparchy of Phoenix, AZ
    ?168. Bishop John Kudrick, Eparchy of Parma, OH

    MILITARY SERVICES

    ?169. Archbishop Timothy Broglio, of Military Services, USA

    SPECIAL MENTION: “The Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in North America just issued a formal statement of protest against the HHS mandate in which the Assembly, representing all 53 Orthodox bishops in North America, references their complete agreement with the statements of the USCCB.”

    ? And Pope Benedict XVI

  140. JC

    But, but USA Today is America’s national daily. It’s influence is extraordinary.

  141. Adrien

    You cannot observe evolution like the tides or rain; you can only infer it from what is observed.

    Oh rubbish Dover.

  142. Les Majesty

    How many of those bishops voted in favour of giving Gingrich an annulment so he could keep screwing his mistress and remain in his adopted Church’s good graces?

    Sorry, CL, but like 99% of the rest of the population (including all the Catholic chicks who insist their boyfriends wear rubbers when they fuck) I don’t turn to a bunch of bishops for moral guidance.

  143. dover_beach

    Bullshit. You can watch 2 animals breed and give birth to offspring that is different to either of them, that is the essential process behind evolution and you can certainly watch it in action.

    And we still must infer the process. That includes you as well, Adrien. BTW, nice attempt to divert attention from your earlier stupid statement, Yobbo.

  144. Alan Moran

    Just to keep Romney inperspective there’s this from Marginal Revolution

    The joke going around last week was that a liberal, a conservative and a moderate walk into a bar. “Hi Mitt,” says the bartender. Here’s Mitt proving the point:

    “This week, President Obama will release a budget that won’t take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis,” Romney said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. “The president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors.”

    Hat tip on this one to Paul Krugman

  145. JamesK

    I don’t turn to a bunch of bishops for moral guidance.

    No Les.

    You turn too an even more capricious and hypocritical source.

    Your own desires and prejudices

  146. Adrien

    If the commentary on this thread is any guide Obama’s wedge tactic is working wonders. Let’s just go down the sliding scale shall we?

    Imagine Bill Clinton falling for that one?

    I suggest you read Clinton’s interview in Esquire Joe. He is selling Obamanomics. And he’s gonna continue to do so right thru this year. He is going to sell the notion that Obama’s policies are the best response to the Republicans foolhardy and wasteful wars and greed and all the rest. And along with FDR-era type Americans pull together schtick it’s something you should take seriously. It plays.

    Adrien wants desperately to believe

    Again CL project his own madcap requirements for an Absolute Ideology with an Absolute Leader at its centre. He’s never been able to understand anyone who makes up their own mind or makes observations from a disinterested point-of-view.

    He’s also, despite years of acquaintance, failed to register that I have no loyalty to the Democrats or anyone else. I’m interested in this election for the same reason Bismark was interested in the Civil War: technique.

    And last and least that greatest of single celled organisms James K who links to a story by Jake Tapper in order to prove what really went on in the White House. Jake Tapper is one Obama’s prime mouthpieces. What are you proving you big donkey’s arse?

    So as to demonstrate the remarkable and penetrating nature of his assertion that Obama threw the abortion spanner in the GOP works on purpose to cause trouble. Wow!

    Look at this thread you people. Even Ann Coulter, who usually trades in the irascible, has called for a calm and sober approach in this election. Because of course she knows that the whole Obama is a Commie Kenyan Indonesian Gay Jihadist thang sounds batshit and evasions into cultural politics will split the Right.

    And what have we got? Well here at Catallaxy an argument about evolution. He’s playing you and you don’t even see it.

  147. Adrien

    And we still must infer the process.

    And that make a difference how?

  148. C.L.

    United States bishops: Obama lying and we’ll take him to court to stop his wacky jihad…

    http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm

  149. Next up from Dover Beach, tides are caused by God because gravity is only a theory.

  150. C.L.

    …the whole Obama is a Commie Kenyan Indonesian Gay Jihadist thang…

    Sounds like the whole Bush is a Skull ‘n Bones oil monster thing – which was official Democrat PR for 8 years.

    Again CL project his own madcap requirements for an Absolute Ideology with an Absolute Leader at its centre. He’s never been able to understand anyone who makes up their own mind or makes observations from a disinterested point-of-view.

    LOL. Adrien is claiming that Absolute Ideologist Obama is protecting the right of people to ‘make up their own minds.’

    Um no. That’s exactly what he’s banning.

  151. .

    Obama as a Marxist is entirely plausible.

    Conspiracy theorists need to mention 1. QE II 2. Reptilians 3. Bush and Kerry are related and 4. a hollow earth for me to tune out.

    Well actually only one of the above.

  152. C.L.

    Hey, it worked out well for Obama that his unmarried MOM didn’t have a state-provided IUD or franger.

    Obama actually believes it would be better if he hadn’t been born.

    No comment.

  153. JamesK

    Look at this thread you people

    Isn’t Adrien’s breath of vision breathlessly intelligent?

    7 months from a general election and with the GOP candidate far from being selected, Obummer makes committed enemies of people who used to support him whilst us nutter right wing extremists are falling into his trap………

    if only we possessed Adrien’s nutty leftist vision.

    Okay, oakay…. so Adrien probably sez he’s libertarian like so many around here.

  154. I reckon JC might be a reptile as he shows about as much compassion for others as a reptile would.

  155. JamesK

    an actual general election campaign

  156. JamesK

    I reckon JC might be a reptile as he shows about as much compassion for others as a reptile would.

    That’s not fair kelly.

    He cares deeply about m0nty

  157. JC

    Where’s the lack of compassion, Kelly? Describe it to me, so I become a better person in your eyes.

    Don’t confuse intolerance with idiots and lack of compassion.

  158. dover_beach

    And that make a difference how?

    Because we don’t need to infer what we can observe. The sun rises and sets are observations; that the earth spins on its axis is an inference from this and other observations.

  159. .

    Yep we’re everywhere Kelly. JC and I hail from Nabiru, as you earthlings know as Planet X.

    May we have some of your DNA for our research?

    You can buy a genuine colloidal silver orgene blaster which will repel us, available from our website, at only 14.99 each.

    This conspiracy theorist gag is too much fun.

  160. JC
    Just like to stir you sometimes. I would say Steve and Monty must be buffaloes if it makes you feel better as they seem to be big and stupid but really tough hides.

  161. Gab

    If you want compassion, kelly, best you head off to a new age blog.

  162. I like the entertainment and find it a amusing the number of different names I have been called at times.

  163. JamesK

    best you head off to a new age blog

    What?

    You mean it isn’t?!!!!

    I’ve been duped

  164. dover_beach

    Next up from Dover Beach, tides are caused by God because gravity is only a theory.

    I never said that evolution is merely a theory, Yobbo; nevertheless the claim that you’ve observed it remains ridiculous and repeating juvenile tropes isn’t going to suggest otherwise.

  165. JC

    I would say Steve and Monty must be buffaloes

    Dunno about Steford, but Monster certainly is. The lug is at least 40 kilos overweight and when I tell him to lose the pounds and dress a little better to attract the opposite sex, he get upset with me.

    if it makes you feel better as they seem to be big and stupid but really tough hides.

    Dunno about their hides as I really don’t much care one way or another.

  166. Les Majesty

    And we still must infer the process

    How do we know the moon generates the tides? All causative associations are based on inferences. Read your Hume.

  167. Les Majesty

    You turn too an even more capricious and hypocritical source.

    Your own desires and prejudices

    JamesK, in your view is thinking for oneself a venial or a mortal sin?

  168. Les Majesty

    Sounds like the whole Bush is a Skull ‘n Bones oil monster thing – which was official Democrat PR for 8 years.

    Yep, and that didn’t work for daily kos then and it won’t work for the bishops today.

  169. Les Majesty

    Bushitler was a stupid rhetorical device for the left in 04.

    Obamarxist is a stupid rhetorical device for the right in 12.

  170. Yobbo; nevertheless the claim that you’ve observed it remains ridiculous

    You haven’t explained why it’s ridiculous Dover. Evolution results purely from minor genetic differences between parent and offspring. This is easily observable anywhere in the natural world. It’s how you get a Chihuahua from a wolf over a few thousand years, and it’s also how you get a modern human from an Australopithecus over a few million.

  171. dover_beach

    How do we know the moon generates the tides? All causative associations are based on inferences. Read your Hume.

    Les, why are you addressing this to me and not Adrien and Yobbo?

  172. For d-b: a nice post at a scienceblogs about watching speciation occur.

  173. dover_beach

    Evolution results purely from minor genetic differences between parent and offspring.

    Yes, but evolution is more than this; all you’ve observed so far is minor genetic difference between parents and offspring.

    It’s how you get a Chihuahua from a wolf over a few thousand years, and it’s also how you get a modern human from an Australopithecus over a few million.

    That is an inference.

    But, anyway, you diverted attention from your initial stupid and unsupported statement by diverting our attention with evolution. I have no problem with evolution.

  174. Bring Back Tillman

    Small mouthed snakes have replaced large mouthed snakes down the east coast of Australia. Because a snake with a small mouth can’t swalllow a cane toad. Evolution observed in action.

  175. dover_beach

    For d-b: a nice post at a scienceblogs about watching speciation occur.

    Still requires inferences. May be I should add that the fact that inferences need to be made is not in any way embarrassing.

  176. Bring Back
    What are you on about. Maybe you have been eating a few cane toads yourself to get the haluconogenic effect.

  177. dover_beach

    Small mouthed snakes have replaced large mouthed snakes down the east coast of Australia.

    Other way around, I would have thought, given what you said below.

    Because a snake with a small mouth can’t swalllow a cane toad.

    Inference.

    Evolution observed in action.

    You mean: evolution inferred by a series of event.

  178. .

    Calm down Kelly. Graeme Bird is not here. We’re not not not licking toads. There will be no lying on this blog.

    Tillman answered no questions posed to him. Squib.

    Obama as a Marxist is perfectly plausible.

  179. Bring Back Tillman

    Other way around, I would have thought, given what you said below.

    Not the other way around. Because cane toads are toxic. Snakes with large mouths (or heads, actually) died.

    You mean: evolution inferred by a series of event.

    Snakes with large heads died out. Snakes with small heads thrived. Observed fact. Evolution.

  180. The only evolution about reptiles regarding cane toads is not to eat them. There are still plenty of toads around the sunshine coast but no reptiles die anymore because for whatever reason or however they have worked out not to eat cane toads. A goanna or a python can swallow a toad of any size.

  181. I’m inferring you’re talking about inferences for no good reason.

  182. It may have been possible to kill off a vulnerable population when toads first arrived but if the population was not vulnerable already it only caused a dip in the population.

  183. dover_beach

    The insurance companies are delighted to hand out free birth control to their insured. That is an absolute no-brainer. In fact, this entire argument is a no-brainer.

    Then why was a government mandate necessary for a ‘no-brainer’?

  184. JC

    I think DB has a decent point. What we’re seen is a lot of tiptoeing in regards to evolution however I also think there’s a huge piece of the puzzle missing here that we’re just not getting.

    John H spoke about this some time ago. I think it revolved around sudden changes that occur outside of what can be called evolution.

    Sure we see lots of evidence that I call tiptoeing, that is what’s called I think horizontal evolution where say insects develop resistance to pesticides and crap like that.

    We see lots of different varieties of cats and dogs too. However they are still dogs and cats.

    I’m talking about straight up and down shit where you can arrive at an entirely new species.

    I’m not being anti-science in this stuff but I think more work needs to be done and no area of science deserves cred simply because it’s the easy way out. Look at the abortion we call climate science. Make these fuckers work for their living and get them to prove their assertions.

  185. Bring Back Tillman

    I remember reading about this some time ago. However, google has provided what may very well be peer reviewed science on the subject.
    Snake Heads

    That the snake heads shrank is fact. That it was caused by eating cane toads is inference. In much the same way that when I let go of my pencil, it is observed to fall to the ground. But we can only infer that the fall was caused by gravity.

  186. JC

    Bring Back:

    What you’re describing is tip toeing. And in fact your example is really positing an opposite conclusion than the one you thought. Those varmints died out because they couldn’t evolve.

  187. dover_beach

    Not the other way around. Because cane toads are toxic. Snakes with large mouths (or heads, actually) died.

    Yes, but being from down south I’m unfamiliar with these creatures.

    That the snake heads shrank is fact. That it was caused by eating cane toads is inference. In much the same way that when I let go of my pencil, it is observed to fall to the ground. But we can only infer that the fall was caused by gravity.

    Precisely my point.

  188. “I’m talking about straight up and down shit where you can arrive at an entirely new species”

    With some animals that have had a geographic separation for about 500 000 years they are considered separate species. They can still breed but the success rates of the offspring breeding is low. Like how you can make a liger (lion crossed with tiger) it can’t breed.

  189. JC

    And the big mouth creatures lived because they had fucking mouths. How is that an example of evolution? It’s chance and luck.

    We don’t know enough about this stuff. We may may end up fitting all the pieces in the puzzle at some stage but we don’t know enough now.

    I also posit that it was this branch of science that gave those in climate science an opportunity to begin pushing alarmism and climate predictions which are essentially nothing other than pseudo science.

    As I said these fuckers need to be made to prove their assertions all the way and until then we should remain sceptical. It doesn’t mean we need to take a hard line contrary view. Just have no opinion in their claims until they prove it.

  190. JC

    With some animals that have had a geographic separation for about 500 000 years they are considered separate species. They can still breed but the success rates of the offspring breeding is low. Like how you can make a liger (lion crossed with tiger) it can’t breed.

    Dude, there are african lions and even Indian ones and shit like that. I dunno if they can breed. These aren’t new species.

  191. Many people have also been pointing out on the blogosphere that Catholic institutions who use insurers who for other businesses provide cover for contraception or abortion are already providing indirect financial support for the provision of those services. Insurance money is pooled.

    Have the Bishops thought to tell all institutions to take this into account? Have they in fact condemned those Catholic institutions that have complied with State based mandate and provided cover for contraception? (Several have in several states, but no one seems to have a comprehensive list.)

    Seems to me they are playing a game of moral outrage based on numbers.

  192. JamesK

    JamesK, in your view is thinking for oneself a venial or a mortal sin?

    To paraphrase a legal aphorism Les, a man who relies on himself for moral guidance a fool for a guru/ spiritual counselor/ moral philosopher

  193. JC

    Many people have also been pointing out on the blogosphere that Catholic institutions who use insurers who for other businesses provide cover for contraception or abortion are already providing indirect financial support for the provision of those services. Insurance money is pooled.

    Not true. It’s a fabrication.

    States systems are not what Odumbo is replicating.

    look Stepford, why the fuck are you getting involved in this discussion at all. Just state what you believe and leave it at that, although no one gives a rats anyway.

    However we know exactly what you’re doing. You’re running around in between left wing sites picking up this or that argument that you think we haven’t seen before plagiarizing it and posting that crap up here.

    stop it and go do the afternoon chores.

  194. JamesK

    Seems to me……..

    …if you ask me

    Lol

  195. dover_beach

    Catholic institutions who use insurers who for other businesses provide cover for contraception or abortion are already providing indirect financial support for the provision of those services

    What a ridiculous argument.

  196. a lion and a tiger are different species but they can produce offspring. I think the definition of species is about viability of offspring. I know you are bit of a neanderthal but so am I and I can work it out. Look at this page ” non-African humans have 1-4% more in common with Neanderthals than do the genomes of subsaharan Africans.

  197. JamesK

    However we know exactly what you’re doing. You’re running around in between left wing sites picking up this or that argument that you think we haven’t seen before plagiarizing it and posting that crap up here

    Should steve be rewarded wiv da cat’s official bedwetting-commenter-in-residence award?

    Say a Sinc approved official gold star next to his gravatar?

  198. JC

    ….non-African humans have 1-4% more in common with Neanderthals than do the genomes of subsaharan Africans. “

    For a number of reasons. The neanderthals were in cold climes and didn’t move into Africa and I’m sure they were also cut off during the glacial periods.

  199. JC so do you think you are a pure bred neanderthal? If you do not then we are a new species.

  200. d-b: well that’s a convincing argument.

    From that USA today article:

    The second objection is that the faith-based institution will be sending its money to an insurance company that provides objectionable coverage, and so the religious group’s dollars will still be subsidizing a sinful practice.

    One response is that health care premiums do not “belong” to the institution but are actually part of an employee’s compensation, like their paycheck. Just as an employer deducts withholding for taxes, it is sending the employee’s money to a health insurance company for coverage. An employer has no control or culpability if an employee buys condoms with either her paycheck or her insurance plan.

    In addition, insurance works by pooling risk and premium dollars, and anyone who buys a policy from an insurance company is indirectly paying for the birth control — or chemotherapy or Viagra or heart bypass surgery — of other clients of that company, just as those clients indirectly pay for treatments you will need.

    As Boudway put it: “It is very difficult, not to say impossible, to avoid remote material cooperation with evil in a complex modern economy. … If one does business with a company that offers its employees insurance that covers contraception, that, too, is remote material cooperation with evil (though the cooperation is more remote).”

    Look, d-b, you don’t find Catholic ethicists worrying about pin-pricks in condoms used by husbands for (fertility treatment) to be ridiculous.

    Your standards of what is ridiculous is not a safe guide.

  201. jtfsoon

    By definition, the sub-saharan Africans are the ones who didn’t wander out of Africa. Hence any mutations that could only be picked up by leaving Africa they didn’t get.

  202. Ellen of Tasmania

    I don’t pretend to be well-versed on either the U.S. constitution or science, but thought I would proffer a couple of thoughts anyway.

    Peter Schiff has a slightly different perspective here, in ‘There is no such thing as free birth control.’ (He doesn’t think it should be viewed only as a religious rights issue.)

    With regard to LM’s comments like this:
    “If I run a hospital in a state that prohibits discrimination against gays, I can’t fire a lesbian nurse.”

    I tend toward the Libertarian frame of mind, and wonder why someone shouldn’t have the right to hire or fire whomever they want. If I want to open a restaurant that refuses to serve red-heads, I think that private property rights should respect that.

    Yobbo doesn’t like fairy stories written 2000 years ago, but seems happy to concede that frogs turn into princes. (I think it’s the time factor that helps him out.) I think the evolution debate would be helped along if both sides were able to tease out the obvious differences between micro and macro evolution. I don’t believe the most ardent of creationists refute micro-evolution.

    And, if I may finish up with a little C.S. Lewis:

    “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.”

    Wishing all my fellow Catallaxian ‘accidents’ a lovely Wednesday.

  203. JC

    Neanderthals and those of the African continent were difference species though. That could easily be explained by isolation during the glacials and horizontal evolution doing its thing.

    ————-

    I read a theory once that could have caused vertical evolution to stand on it’s head.

    The theory suggested that the different species evolved as a result of different life forms being introduced through numerous meteor strikes bringing with them different strands of basic life with them.

    I find that more plausible than an fish suddenly getting out of the water and developing feet and/or wings.

  204. It wasn’t mutations picked up, I think it was more interbreeding with neanderthals when we were subspecies. That is my guess anyway.

  205. jtfsoon

    Both, Kelly.

    My point is that the non subsaharan Africans were more exposed to all the stuff that was bouncing around outside Africa including the possibility of scoring a Neanderthal

  206. JC

    JC so do you think you are a pure bred neanderthal? If you do not then we are a new species.

    Kelly, you idiot. It’s a myth that neanderthals were stupid.

    It’s actually quite the opposite.

    They were supposed to be really smart fuckers, but because they tended to live in family groups and not in tribes. The African gossipy, more gregarious and far more violent types overwhelmed them and raped a lot of their women, so we’ve ended up with a hybrid.

  207. C.L.

    The funniest thing is that devout pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ Steve originally crowed about the Obama jihad, then dismissed demands for a compromise, before moving effortlessly on to crowing about the ‘compromise.’

    He’ll say anything to protect his beloved Obama – whose beclowning on this issue is considered historic even by Chris “Tingles” Matthews.

  208. “fish suddenly getting out of the water”
    It probably took millions of years that is not sudden and is just as implausible having mamals like a dugong which most closet relative is an elephant going into the water.

  209. jtfsoon

    what sick fuckers our ancestors were to want to ‘score’ a Neanderthal …

  210. JC
    You are starting to sound racist now. I don’t actually think they were any more or less intelligent but it does conjor up the stereo type. People still do this there has been no real change in human brain size for more than 100 000 years but we think we are smarter due to what is only accumulated knowledge and an explosion of that knowledge since written language.

  211. C.L.

    what sick fuckers our ancestors were to want to ‘score’ a Neanderthal …

    The face of ‘climate change’ is married.

  212. Ivan Denisovich

    As I said these fuckers need to be made to prove their assertions all the way and until then we should remain sceptical. It doesn’t mean we need to take a hard line contrary view. Just have no opinion in their claims until they prove it.

    http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=5825acf3-9d6a-4147-9e92-9bceda163f31&p=1

    http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=bd4f58f7-be2f-4088-8121-55a9596c651a

  213. dover_beach

    d-b: well that’s a convincing argument.

    The argument is ridiculous because the same nonsense claim could be made about anyone paying for any good or service by another who then goes on to spend that money on a good or service the purchaser finds unconscionable.

    Look, d-b, you don’t find Catholic ethicists worrying about pin-pricks in condoms used by husbands for (fertility treatment) to be ridiculous.

    An erroneous inference about a misleading claim.

  214. AndrewL

    what sick fuckers our ancestors were to want to ‘score’ a Neanderthal …

    What makes you think it was consensual? Neanderthals were much stronger.

  215. JC

    It probably took millions of years that is not sudden and is just as implausible having mamals like a dugong which most closet relative is an elephant going into the water.

    I don’t even pretend to know much about this stuff, however I recall reading that there was a very sudden explosion of new life forms over a relatively short period of earth time. Whereas before that the evidence showed a far less in both life forms and variety.

    One explanation for it was that it may have coincided with a massive number of comets and meteors slamming in to the earth at the time, for which there has been some plausible evidence.

    That’s why I think exploding the comet theory is more valid to me than fish getting out of the sea and suddenly coming up with wings and feathers.

    However unlike Bird I’m not going to abuse anyone if they choose not to believe it. Not even you Kelly and you richly deserve it.

  216. JC

    What makes you think it was consensual? Neanderthals were much stronger.

    You mean like a couple of Neanderthal females captured by a bunch of horny darker fellas with spears and clubs.

    You reckon they would have been able to fight them off. Really?

  217. The idea the original life may have arrived by asteroid or comet seems like a reasonable possibility but still has to start with some slime in the sea and fish crawling out of the water as you put it before you reach the higher forms of life. Sudden could be 20 million years.

  218. Steve originally crowed about the Obama jihad, then dismissed demands for a compromise, before moving effortlessly on to crowing about the ‘compromise.’

    I think you’ll find I said there would be a compromise and that Obama could have saved himself some grief by going straight to it from the start. (In fact, some reporting since said that Obama always did favour the Hawaiian style model, but had been talked out of it.)

    CL, when it comes to your claims as to what my positions are, you routinely lie. Either that or imagine things out of thin air which you then sincerely believe. It’s the ongoing forensic puzzle of this blog guessing which of these explain your mental state best.

  219. C.L.

    No, I don’t lie, Steve.

    You’re a pro-abortion phony ‘Catholic’ on record calling the American bishops “extremists.”

    Everyone here now laughs at everything you write.

    You hate the Catholic Church.

    As for mental states, you’ve now spent about three months talking about semen and contraception.

    As I’ve said many times, you’re a morally ill person.

  220. JC

    The idea the original life may have arrived by asteroid or comet seems like a reasonable possibility but still has to start with some slime in the sea and fish crawling out of the water as you put it before you reach the higher forms of life. Sudden could be 20 million years.

    Yes, but the theory I read wasn’t one accidental comet hitting, it was countless and over oceans of time. In other words different life forms started with different causes and at different times.

    None of this shit has been proved accept horizontal evolution, which only a few people doubt.

  221. It is more likely the African’s at that time were like Europeans of recent times and couldn’t look after themselves and had to go to the neanderthals for food. Good example of this is Burke and Wills Quote from Wills “We have been unable to leave the creek. Both camels are dead and our provisions are done. We are trying to live the best way we can, like the Blacks, but find it hard work.” Yeh bloody hard work you didn’t make it.

  222. JamesK

    But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.

    Great post from Ellen

    Sounds like mere materialism thoughts suffer the same fate as the cartesian evil god who fools us into believing we have some substance or independent reality which thought experiment leads Rene to discount the existence of such a god as incompatible with his (Rene’s) conceiving of it and therefor to accept his own reality

    ‘Course many theologians advance the idea that the false belief in one’s own independent reality is the orginal sin bestowed on us from the generations preceding.

  223. JamesK

    Just one more brief comment on ellen’s post.

    I don’t think it’s a matter of Yobbo not liking stories written 2,00 years ago or 5,000 years ago.

    The issue is Yobbo actively despising people who do like them.

  224. From Slate:

    Do Republicans really want to make contraception their big front in the war over national healthcare? That’s the thrust of new bills from Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. I wonder if it’s a good strategy. Contraception isn’t abortion: It prevents unwanted pregnancies rather than ending them. And everyone uses it—after last week’s flap with the bishops, the stat about 98 percent of Catholic women using birth control at some point should be tattooed on our foreheads. Will the GOP really get people to rally around the idea that providing free access to birth control is a plot by the federal government to take over our lives?

    Rubio and Blount’s bills are pitched to employers. Rubio’s would allow employers to deny coverage of birth control for a religious or moral reason, and Blunt would let employers out of paying for any kind of health care that runs counter to their beliefs. We’re not talking about Catholic-run Georgetown University any more—we’re talking about Domino’s Pizza. And under Blunt’s bill, could a Christian Scientist employer who doesn’t believe in modern medicine deny any kind of coverage at all?

    What’s at stake here is what it means to have national, near-universal health care. If any employer can opt out of covering birth control or any other not even controversial care, then we’ll never have an agreed-upon menu of basic services that everyone receives.

  225. JamesK

    Contraception isn’t abortion

    Except if ur a leftist and confusion suits you

    Like steve.

  226. JC

    What’s at stake here is what it means to have national, near-universal health care. If any employer can opt out of covering birth control or any other not even controversial care, then we’ll never have an agreed-upon menu of basic services that everyone receives.

    Oh my god. The horrors of competition and market differentiation of product and lines of service.

    Obviously that stupid fucker from Slate must eat boiled cabbage each day because he doesn’t realize there are other veggies.

    As I said, Stepford spends his time combing left wing sites thinking we don’t know the arguments.

  227. Gab

    Don’t listen to Kelly, Stevie. You can get condoms online for free.

  228. The horrors of competition and market differentiation of product and lines of service.

    The point is, if you have a health insurance system tied to employee benefits (not an ideal situation, granted, but maybe one they figure is too hard to dismantle now?) employees shouldn’t be stuffed around in basic coverage by the whims of employers.

    The employees do not have the benefit of competition.

  229. JC

    The employees do not have the benefit of competition.

    They’re not paying for it, you dope!

  230. jtfsoon

    The employees do not have the benefit of competition.

    Jesus you are one economic illiterate steve.

    So every employer in the US is a monopsonist?

  231. dover_beach

    What’s at stake here is what it means to have national, near-universal health care.

    Nonsense. Condoms, abortifacient, and the like are not heath care.

  232. Infidel Tiger

    Free chapstick and toothpaste for all.

  233. Gab

    I would have thought free moisturiser for all, IT.

  234. Lube, you’re forgetting the lube, IT.

    As for Jason: what’s being said? At a time of high unemployment, workers who score a job offer are going to be able to risk knocking it back to look for a job with a better health plan attached?

  235. Gab
    No way in the world moisturiser is more expensive than condoms and if it contains any alcohol like perfumes do it may make the muslims unhappy.

  236. jtfsoon

    steve
    what’s being said? Are recessions a normal thing?

    In 90% of economic life, all US employers are monopsonists? this is a pretty Marxist view of looking at economic life for someone who calls himself a conservative

  237. JC

    Nonsense. Condoms, abortifacient, and the like are not heath care.

    I can’t believe Stepford is peddling for stuff in the US we don’t get on the PBS here. At least I’ve never read Stepford suggesting condoms ought to be on the Australian PBS. Have you steve?

    I wonder if US petrol stations, bars, 711’s, airport toilets will all have to provide for medical insurance claims if someone buys a pack of condoms?

  238. Infidel Tiger

    I would have thought free moisturiser for all, IT.

    Moisturiser is a very personal thing. I’d prefer to keep the government out of this part of my life.

  239. Gab

    Condoms, abortifacient, and the like are not heath care.

    As CL says, it is if you believe pregnancy is an illness.

  240. Some contraception is indeed on the PBS, JC.

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.