The Hobby Lobby decision: brought to you by……liberals!

By 49 Comments 1,677 views

Hobby_Lobby

The Hobby Lobby decision is one of the more bitter pills liberals get to swallow. The more one delves into the Hobby Lobby decision the more entertaining it gets. Liberals have brought this upon themselves.

The decision bases much on a law called RFRA:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).

Let’s review RFRA:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person’s free exercise of their religion. The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993.[1] The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and was passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes.[2] It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress’s enforcement power. But it continues to be applied to the federal government, for instance in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized. In response to City of Boerne v. Flores, some individual states passed State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

Who brought RFRA to us? Chuckie Schumer.

Introduced in the House as H.R. 1308 by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993

You know how liberals are always whining about corporations not being “persons”? Well, that’s pretty interesting. Cue the Harvard Law Review

“Why for-profit corporations are RFRA persons”

As noted in the introduction, RFRA prevents unjustified interference with religious exercise by “persons.” The most natural reading of the term “person” in RFRA includes for-profit corporations. Congress passed RFRA in response to Employment Division v. Smith,12 which abandoned application of strict scrutiny to neutral laws burdening religious exercise.13 Because RFRA implements a previous constitutional rule, one could seek the meaning of “person” in constitutional precedent. As Justice Brennan explained, “by 1871, it was well understood that corporations should be treated as natural persons for virtually all purposes of constitutional and statutory analysis.”14 Thus, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that for-profit corporations are constitutional “persons.”15 Furthermore, the so-called “Dictionary Act,” which defines terms appearing in the U.S. Code, provides that, “unless the context indicates otherwise,” the term “person” includes corporations, partnerships, and other entities, “as well as individuals,” without regard to whether such firms or individuals are engaged in profit-seeking activities.16

Their conclusion?

Simply put, corporate law provides no reason for excluding for-profit corporations from RFRA.

Liberals have lost their minds over this and now are reduced to spewing idiocies. The stupidity is so rampant that there is simply not enough bandwidth to accommodate it. One of my favorites is how this ruling curtails women’s reproductive rights. From one the of the brain dead at Politico:

Conservative men and their disdain for women’s reproductive rights! You bigots on the right won’t stop until it becomes legal to own your wives like property

The ruling in no way affects women’s reproductive rights. That reminds me- when are women’s rights to reproduce ever curtailed? Why are they called “reproductive rights” at all? Should they not be called “Contraceptive rights” instead?

Anyway, here comes the best of all.

Hillary.

Clinton joins the ranks of the undead when she spouts this:

“Just think about this for a minute,” Clinton continued. “It’s the first time that our court has said that a closely held corporation has the rights of a person when it comes to religious freedom. Which means that the…corporation’s employers can impose their religious beliefs on their employees. And of course denying women the right to contraception as part of their health care plan is exactly that. I find it deeply disturbing that we are going in that direction.”

Fun fact: Hilary Clinton is a an absolute liar, but she knows that liberal sycophants are too stupid to learn anything on their own. Hobby Lobby still does provide contraceptive services. They objected to four out of twenty.

KELLY: The National Organization of Women came out today and said, this is outrageous, they said that basically what is happening here is Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to provide American female workers with any birth control. Your thoughts?

RIENZI: It’s not true, first of all. Hobby Lobby provides all sorts of standard birth control, it’s just a small handful of drugs and devices that can cause early abortions that Hobby Lobby doesn’t want to provide.

KELLY: So, it’s four contraceptions out of 20. Just to get the numbers right, correct? They object to four. Sixteen forms of birth control, Hobby Lobby is fine with his insurance company providing that to the female workers?

RIENZI: That’s right. And Hobby Lobby is a company that does a wonderful job taking care of its employees. It pays them starting salaries roughly twice the minimum wage. It provides excellent health benefits. There’s just a small sliver of things that this family cannot do. And the governments view, is that Hobby Lobby should be crushed with fines or it should be forced to kick all of its employees off insurance. That’s not helpful to the women who worked at Hobby Lobby or their families or anybody else.

So whenever you see a liberal asserting that Hobby Lobby is not offering contraceptive services you’ll know you’re seeing either an idiot or a liar.

No one is imposing anyone’s religious beliefs on anyone else. In fact, Hobby Lobby is being saved from having the beliefs of others imposed upon it. And no one is denying anyone right to contraception. Neither Hobby Lobby nor the Supreme Court has told anyone they can’t use contraceptives.

Anyone arguing otherwise is stupid or a liar or both.

And who was it that signed RFRA into law?

Bill Clinton.

Liberals enacted RFRA. RFRA is the basis for the Hobby Lobby ruling. Now liberals rail against themselves.

I am enjoying this no end.

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

49 Responses to “The Hobby Lobby decision: brought to you by……liberals!”

  1. 1

    Nanny G

    Liars and idiots….useful idiots in some cases….make up the Left.
    Just today I read that Media Matters (you know….George Soros) was FORCED to allow their own employees to UNIONIZE!
    Yup.
    Media Matters FOUGHT AGAINST unionization of their own employees!
    For YEARS!
    Then lost.
    There’s a hearty laugh.

    It does seem that the constant drumbeat of repetition of the lie that Hobby Lobby was denying all contraception from their female employees is part of a vain hope that everyone is as stupid as they are.
    But they forgot that ”throbbing memo” lesson.
    See it here:
    http://diaryofdaedalus.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/bushdoc.gif
    In fewer than 3 days CBS’ lies about Bush and the Texas National Guard were totally repudiated.
    Today with the web being what it is, these lies about Hobby Lobby won’t hold water even 3 days.

  2. 2

    Ronald J. Ward

    Interesting concept. The decision of a conservative appointed court that once again tips the scale to promote their Plutocratic, Social Darwinism, and anti-worker agenda should be exonerated because this case which was once again an assault on women was a product of liberals. Naturally!

    If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that electing conservatives or Republicans or teabaggers or whatever they are today does indeed have consequences which are only friendly to the mega donors.

  3. 3

    retire05

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that electing conservatives or Republicans or teabaggers or whatever they are today does indeed have consequences which are only friendly to the mega donors.

    How right you are. It is electing those you disparage who continue to fight for your First Amendment rights.

  4. 4

    Nanny G

    If you don’t need ”morning after” or other abortifactants you can get Philith and Gildagia, generic versions of Ovcon for $3.77 per month at club stores like Costco, Sam’s Club, or BJ’s.
    The same generic is available at Walmart, Safeway, and CVS for about $6 or $7.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/01/Birth-Control-Available-To-Women-For-As-Little-As-3-77-Per-Month

    As for ”teabaggers,” even Ron’s idol, Obama, called TEA party members that.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/28/Obama-Refers-to-Tea-Party-Members-as-Teabaggers
    Obama has had enough same-sex experience to know what a derogatory term that is.
    Maybe that’s also why Ronald has that term constantly on his brain, too.

  5. 5

    Pete

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Hilarious. You are actually arguing that it is the owners of Hobby Lobby who are responsible to pay for 4 abortificient birth control methods in violation of their 1st Amendment religious freedoms (as further defined.by RFRA) and that SCOTUS ruling against that position -which still leaves Hobby Lobby providing workers with 16 nonabortificient methods of birth control – is preventing women from taking a portion of their wages if they wish to purchase for themselves one of the 4 abortificient drugs or devices.

    And you really believe this is some kind of oppression of women? Really? You might have a philosophical leg to stand on if Hobby Lobby’s owners were actually impregnating their female employees against their wills as part of their employment, but you can’t scream “Stay out of our bedrooms!” on one hand, then demand on the other hand that Hobby Lobby’s owners sacrifice their religious principles on the altar of their employees’ off hours private sexual activity by forcing the owners to pay for abortificient drugs and devices.

  6. 6

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Pete: Well you know if all of that concoction and rhetoric was what I was arguing then 1) I think I could have argued that on my own and accordingly, 2) wouldn’t need you to give your version about, uh, what I was arguing.

    Your argument falls flat as if my argument was indeed what you find to be obvious, well then obviously we wouldn’t need you to reiterate what by your definition was obviously already stated. So if you’re argument has an iota of credence, it’s kinda redundant wouldn’t you say? Otherwise, it’s just another dose of the expected stupidity from the trolls. I suspect the latter.

    I’d say that Ginsburg’s dissent is an adequate argument and addresses in detail the many errors of the ruling.

    Regardless and as usual, you missed or deflected my point. Nothing new of course.

  7. 7

    Bill

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Interesting concept. The decision of a conservative appointed court that once again tips the scale to promote their Plutocratic, Social Darwinism, and anti-worker agenda should be exonerated because this case which was once again an assault on women was a product of liberals. Naturally!

    Hobby Lobby is evil because they only conceded (actually, they already provided) 80% of what the left wanted. 80%, Ronald.

    It is (always is) “give me all of it or you’re a woman-hating racist” with the left, and this is no exception. When the Supreme Court rules (amazingly) that the illegal mandate of Obamacare is a Constitutional tax, they got it right, the discussion is over, all debate is ended, so let’s just move on. However, when the vast overreach of this federal government is forced into retreat (if only a 20% retreat), we find ourselves in a plutocracy that is favoring only those advantaged with money and conservatism, waging war on, of course, women. My, how the tides to ebb and flow.

    The position of the left is not compromise or public assistance; it is control. All they care about is control, TOTAL control and, for their purposes, 80% control is not total control.

    Oh, unless I am misstating your position, Ronald. You be sure to correct me if I have that wrong. But, be sure to make clear what your actual position might be.

  8. 8

    retire05

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    The decision of a conservative appointed court that once again tips the scale to promote their Plutocratic, Social Darwinism, and anti-worker agenda should be exonerated because this case which was once again an assault on women was a product of liberals.

    Let’s take your own words; you seem to be saying that the Court, appointed by conservative presidents, tipped the scale to promote [their] Plutocratic, Social Darwinism and anti-worker agenda is being exonerated by those of us who are conservative because it is an assault on women created by liberals? (I had a hard time deciphering what you wrote because your command of the English language is so pathetic as you try to appear intellectual but come off merely confused)

    How so? And did you feel that the Court, which has far left wingers on it (Ginsberg, Sotomayor, et al) erred in deeming Obamacare Constitutional? I don’t remember you getting your Hanes in a wad over that case. And in fact, Obama said the SCOTUS had ruled, the debate was over, and we should move on after the ACA case was handed down. So it stands to reason that if that was his opinion, as a Constitutional law lecturer, about the ACA case, so it should be when it comes to ALL decisions by the SCOTUS.

    You, like Obama, seem to pick and choose which cases you deem worthy of your support.

  9. 9

    obamarhhea

    @Ronald J. Ward: ronald teabagee dragee ward is little perturbed today as he has a fat lip and bloody nose from being on the receiving end of some overzealous teabagging by this one who was yelling wingnut the whole time,you really should go see your doctor ,if you were able to keep your doctor that is

  10. 10

    Pete

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Please. My analysis of your hysterical rant was asking you to define how the SCOTUS ruling is “Plutocratic”, “Social Darwinism”, and “anti-worker”. Is it plutocratic to expect an employee who is being paid to use their wages to purchase something viewed by the employer as abortificient? You make these utterly ridiculous leftist claims that have absolutely no basis in reality, and I reframed your argument to attempt to obtain a clarification from you. Honestly, how is it social darwinism for SCOTUS to decide that an employer cannot be forced to pay for something that clearly violates their religious principles, especially in light of the fact that Hobby Lobby’ owners are paying for 4 times the number of birth control options for their employees than the 4 abortificient methods for which they have religious objections? Likewise, how is the ruling anti-worker? The ruling does not prohibit an employee from purchasing abortificient methods with their own money, nor give Hobby Lobby any power to force employees to continue pregnancy against their will. Using bogus descriptions of reality is, as we all know, a typical leftist tactic. Hand in hand with that is the leftist habit of dodging the actual issue in favor of hyperventilating rhetoric, which you regularly display here.

    Along those lines, do you believe that a catholic obstetrician has the right to refuse to participate in abortion or the prescription of abortificient methods?

  11. 11

    Nanny G

    Ronald ought to be more perturbed that Obama doesn’t allow ObamaCare to cover even ONE version of birth control that prevents spread of STDs including AIDS.
    Isn’t that ironic?
    And Obama is SO gay-friendly….supposedly.

  12. 12

    Ditto

    Should they not be called “Contraceptive rights” instead?

    Contraception is cheap It is probably the least expensive part of having a sexual relationship. If you can’t afford contraception, you can’t afford a relationship.

    What really is p*ssing Democrat progressives off about the SCOTUS decision is that: What they really wanted was for this to lead to is employer/government funded abortion. Obamacare’s contraception plan was intended to partially subsidize abortion. One step further on their slippery-slope to population control, something Progressives have been pushing us towards since the quite racist Margot Sanger came up with Planned Parenthood.

  13. 13

    This one

    Although the owners of these for-profit corporations oppose the contraceptive requirement because of their pro-life religious beliefs, the requirement they oppose will dramatically reduce abortions. … Imagine a million fewer unintended pregnancies. Imagine healthier babies, moms and families. Imagine up to 800,000 fewer abortions. No matter your faith or political beliefs, our hunch is that we can all agree that fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions would be a blessing.

    How pro-life can you be if you’re buying things from China? Hobby Lobby is funding millions of abortions in China. Hypocrites!

  14. 14

    bwax

    Hillary is right, a woman should be in charge of her own body. Ergo, she should decide before having sex whether or not to use a pregnancy prevention device. If she decides not to and gets pregnant, that is not a medical issue, it is a moral one. And I (we) should not be responsible for paying for her decision!

  15. 15

    john

    Women are the largest voting block in the USA How do you think this decision will effect their vote in 2016?
    of course you may have to pay for it. School, welfare healthcare for that child is guaranteed. Would you want it to perhaps starve ?

  16. 16

    Bill

    @john:

    Women are the largest voting block in the USA How do you think this decision will effect their vote in 2016?

    Depends wholly upon how the MSM wants to utilize and play it as there is absolutely nothing detrimental to women within it. The left only wants contentious issues with which to divide and conquer (and the MSM is a certified member of the left) not solutions to issues. It will be as big a voter issue as the left wants to make it, depending upon how much help the far left candidate they choose to foist upon us this time needs.

  17. 17

    ThunderGod

    @RJWard,

    If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that electing conservatives or Republicans or teabaggers or whatever they are today does indeed have consequences which are only friendly to the mega donors.

    Why is it that when one of you preprogrammed, brainwashed, vile cocksuckers wants to insult a normal person, you always resort to insinuating that your target is a fellow homophile? That sort of self-loathing is the least unhealthy part of your chosen “lifestyle.” Maybe you should “choose” to get some psychiatric help, instead of going to that next Gay Pride rally?

  18. 18

    Common Sense

    @john: It’s not an IT and that’s the key to the real issue!! IT is a Human Being with a right to life just as you have!! Likely we paid your way as well!!

  19. 19

    Bill

    @This one:

    Imagine a million fewer unintended pregnancies. Imagine healthier babies, moms and families. Imagine up to 800,000 fewer abortions.

    Imagine people acting responsibly and not relying on abortion as their first line of defense. Birth control is cheap; this is an issue because the left WANTS it to be an issue.

  20. 20

    Pete

    @This one:

    The very talented Jonah Goldberg can maybe show you just how incredibly stupid your position is on this issue:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381710/liberals-hobby-lobby-doublethink-jonah-goldberg

    If I like to dress up as a character from Game of Thrones on weekends, pretending to fight snow zombies and treating my mutt like she’s a mystical direwolf, that’s none of my employer’s business. But if I ask my employer to pay for my trip to a Game of Thrones fan convention, I am asking him to make it his business. If my employer refuses, that may or may not be unfair, but it’s his right. If, in response, I go to the convention and have the government force my employer to pay for my travel, that only makes things worse. It not only makes my private pursuits my boss’s business, it makes them the business of taxpayers and a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington.

    If you still cannot understand how childish, immature and delusional your collectivist philosophy is after reading such a succinct description of leftist inanity, then there is no hope for you to ever get a grasp on reality. In your case, I am not holding my breath…..

  21. 21

    Greg

    @This one, #13:

    How pro-life can you be if you’re buying things from China? Hobby Lobby is funding millions of abortions in China. Hypocrites!

    Yeah, but it’s OK in that case, because Hobby Lobby’s indirect support of mandatory abortions in China comes as a result of the operations of the free market. Any such free market side effects are subject to a special dispensation.

  22. 23

    Bill

    @Greg: Abortion in China is funded by the government, not business. Odd you can make that tenuous leap yet cannot understand how a Catholic entity that opposes abortion does not feel separated from their convictions simply because they pay for insurance that provides such services rather than them paying for it directly.

    But, of course, that’s not what the uproar is about, is it? It’s about loss of power.

  23. 25

    obamarhhea

    @Greg: so maybe the chinese should send sandra fluke a check every moth for 9 dollars so she can tie a mattress to her back and we a are even right

  24. 26

    Greg

    @Bill, #23:

    Maybe you’re unaware that the relationship between government and business in the People’s Republic of China is very different than it is in the United States. Many businesses in China are fully government run; these are the large scale infrastructure and strategic industries. Others are joint ventures between the Chinese government and the private sector, which includes Chinese and or foreign investors and companies. Then there are those which are fully private, but are still under the thumb of government to a degree greatly exceeding anything found in the United States.

    In addition to direct profits from the first two categories, the Chinese government imposes value added taxes and enterprise taxes that bring in revenue from the third category as well.

    Thus, if you’re doing business in China, or if you’re buying and selling Chinese products, you’re funding the Chinese government and all of its various activities. That would include the Chinese government’s abortion program, which is an aggressive governmental policy, not simply a freedom of choice as in the United States. You would also be funding it in a far more direct fashion than would ever be the case in the United States.

    There would seem to be an element of hypocrisy in Hobby Lobby’s willingness to overlook what their profit making activities support in China, while taking exception to contributing to a U.S. health insurance program that simply covers prescription meds which an employee may or may not take a freely made personal decision to utilize.

  25. 27

    Bill

    @Greg: Well, as you nit-pick that idiotic premise, why don’t you find out what the Chinese companies are that export to Hobby Lobby and tell me their relationship to the government and abortion.

  26. 29

    This one

    @Bill:Imagine people acting responsibly and not relying on abortion as their first line of defense. Birth control is cheap; this is an issue because the left WANTS it to be an issue.

    Oh, I forgot, you live in a perfect world. Wise up

  27. 30

    Bill

    @Greg: Well, unless you can produce the names of the companies Hobby Lobby does business with that supports abortion, it is not simply an insult; it is a precise description of the point.

  28. 31

    Greg

    It doesn’t actually matter which specific Chinese companies they’re doing business with. If they’re importing large volumes of products that are made in China, they’re providing a revenue stream to the Chinese government, which in turn utilizes its revenue to pursue, among other things, an aggressive program of population control that includes abortions. Visit any of their retail stores. They’re filled with products produced in China.

    The United States government doesn’t force people to have abortions. Neither do insurance companies that cover contraceptives. Maybe limiting insurance coverage for contraceptives to U.S. employees will make somebody feel righteous, but they might want to give some thought to what their business practices pay for elsewhere. If they’re going to make a moral issue out of healthcare coverage.

  29. 32

    Bill

    @Greg: Yet, if they did business strictly with US manufacturers (which, of course, is impossible, thanks to excessive governmental regulation and unions driving manufacturing out of the nation) then they would be providing funds to a federal government which funds abortion.

    So, liberals have ruined everything, haven’t they?

  30. 33

    Ditto

    @Bill:

    I agree with your assessment of Greg’s claim. If you are going to make such obtuse claims, that a business can not buy goods from a nation who has a particular viewpoint you disagree with, then you will create a never ending cascade of claims of hypocrisy against nearly everyone.

    If Greg supports homosexuality, then he shouldn’t buy any petroleum products made from Muslim nation produced oil. If he is going to claim he supports women’s rights, then he then needs to ignore products from these same Islamic nations (who treat women as chattel under Sharia law with forced genital amputation and “honor killings”,) as well as China who still has a limit to how many female babies may be allowed to live. If Greg support unions, than it behooves him not to drive or ride in any vehicle in which the platinum in the catalytic converter came from African platinum mines. Has Greg and his progressive friends boycotted all businesses who’s owners disagree with them on every single issue? Have these progressive wonks done in-depth investigation of all business owners to see where they stand? I seriously doubt it, which means that leftists who want to demand Hobby Lobby do so, do not themselves practice what they preach.

  31. 34

    Greg

    I thought the issue was Hobby Lobby’s assertion that the company shouldn’t have to pay for employee health insurance which provides contraceptives they consider to be abortifacients. I have difficulty reconciling their rationale with the fact that they knowingly purchase products from a source that utilizes revenue those sales generate to fund state mandated abortions.

    I would consider the second set of circumstances a much greater wrong, owing to the mandatory nature of the procedures their business with China supports. It’s anti-choice in the worst sort of way. They’re forcing women to terminate pregnancies who have no desire to do so.

    This suggests one of two things: Either they’re not particularly sincere about their reasons for not wishing to provide a full range of health insurance benefits to their employees; or, they are sincere in their objections, but larger profits provide sufficient reason to make them abandon their principles.

    What I buy or don’t buy isn’t the issue. I’m not the one who’s insisting he should receive special treatment than other businesses under the law on account of his religious principles.

  32. 35

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Ditto:

    (Bill), I agree with your assessment of Greg’s claim.

    I’m just wondering if there has ever in the history of FA been a regular loyalist (i.e. Ditto, Common Sense, Retire05, Redteam, Pete, J Ryder, Dr John, etc etc and any that I missed) that has disagreed with each other OR agreed with any counter arguments of anyone challenging any aspect of what you advocate. Along the lines of rational thinking and deducing the obvious, that’s rather telling.

    @Bill:

    thanks to excessive governmental regulation and unions driving manufacturing out of the nation

    Aside from Plutocratic advocating soundbites having nothing to do with the argument and defiant of history and reality on every front, that sounds like a statement straight out of the corporate billionaire bankrolled tea party playbook. The push as always is to deregulate corporations (exempt them from laws, give them the say instead of the EPA, OSHA, you know, the hell with fire, electrical, and building codes, Fed food inspections, haul anhydrous ammonia through busy neighborhoods in your pickup if you want to as long as you’re a “job creator”) while at the same time taking away any balance of blue collar worker negotiations along with ending overtime pay, child labor laws, minimum wage, etc. There’s simply no distinction coming from the corporate bobbing tea party advocates as there’s only this binary input that delivers an output of “unions = bad” and “deregulate corporate = good” . Period with no exceptions.

    But as always, there’s considerable dishonesty in Bill’s argument as the loss of manufacturing to overseas can be linked more to NAFTA (which I blame on Clinton), CAFTA (Bush), and the actual tax incentives for them to do so (which by and large today’s GOP refuses to yield on). When Whirlpool left Evansville IN to relocate overseas a few years ago and the mayor and union officials tried to work with them, they were told that the company couldn’t stay even if the employees worked for free. And then there’s the reality of today’s less than job friendly GOP who are obviously more interested in a failed economy in order to point blame at Obama and Dems.

    But the reality is that as union workers have declined, wages have declined and the U.S. has pretty much become the land of cheap labor while the wealth is being redirected to the top. That’s a rather nice return for the tea party investors. Unions are gaining traction in other parts of the world while those economy are picking up. Just yesterday, Germany enacted a minimum wage that is ear $12 an hour in U.S. dollars. Of course from the corporate tea party pawns like Bill, it’s cover ears and sing “la la la” and stick to your guns that “unions=bad” and giving corporate total control= good. Period.

    But in the same breath of “Heil Kochs” of taking from the workers and giving to the corporate we hear this “47% takers” and “Obama a food stamp president” while again, covering ears and singing “la la la” to the very consequences of deregulating and de-unionizing. We’ve entered an era of low wage full time workers unable to make ends meet so medium wage tax payers are subsidizing for Walmart, the banking industries, motel chains etc because, well, deregulate and lower wages. These folks, according to the tea party puppets that are now producing record profits for their employers are the new dead beats while those very billionaires should have lower taxes, less deregulation, and more rights to pay less, utilize child labor, or simply make choices that they know best.

    But again for the loyalist here, there’s no middle ground, and no balance because it’s just “tea party=good” and “Democrat=bad” and as long as we keep lowering regulations and taxes for the top, and killing unions entirely, then there is no problem. And if there is a problem, well, “la la la”.

    But back to tying this in to@Ronald J. Ward: , The NationalJournal articulates my prediction a bit better and why this decision might be that “eye opener” I argued.

  33. 36

    retire05

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    I’m just wondering if there has ever in the history of FA been a regular loyalist (i.e. Ditto, Common Sense, Retire05, Redteam, Pete, J Ryder, Dr John, etc etc and any that I missed) that has disagreed with each other

    If you did not suffer from chronic Analcranial Disorder, you would know the answer to that question, which is “Yes.” Although I doubt you would admit to it.

    But the reality is that as union workers have declined, wages have declined and the U.S. has pretty much become the land of cheap labor while the wealth is being redirected to the top.

    Wrong, again. The reason that union membership has declined is because union members are tired of their union being nothing more than an arm of the Democratic Party. No clearer example of this can be found in Wisconsin, when union members no longer had their dues deducted from their paychecks by the state, but were required to pay those dues themselves. Other union members are tired of seeing members, who should be fired, kept on the job because of union pressure. (i.e. the rubber rooms for NYC teachers, some of whom are waiting to go to court for child molestation)

    Just yesterday, Germany enacted a minimum wage that is ear $12 an hour in U.S. dollars.

    Oh, yeah, let’s emulate Germany. Their record on human rights is so stellar, right?

  34. 37

    Nanny G

    From the non-satiric NY Daily News:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stasi-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-step-back-article-1.1851680 “Noncompliant females will be stripped of their burqas and stoned to death.”
    And this tweet from Obama for America OFA
    Remember last week when a woman—not her boss—made her own personal health care decisions? #ThrowbackThursday pic.twitter.com/o0wnIoEEF6

    Liberals have gone ballistic over the Court’s decision.
    Someone likened it to a woman holding a job at a business which does not supply her free groceries as ”denying her food.”
    Paychecks are for those things you need and want.
    And your choices might vary.

  35. 38

    Bill

    @Greg: Actually, you and the rest of the left are having a major problem dealing with a slap-down of liberal overreach where a private business was already providing far more that just adequate healthcare objecting to the government forcing it to provide objectionable and unnecessary additional benefits. So, you have to somehow vilify Hobby Lobby for being a part of the world community we are all a part of, either willingly or unwillingly in order to misdirect the attention from yet another grandiose Obama failure.

    So, Hobby Lobby gives (was giving) the left 80% of what they wanted but that is not enough. They have to submit 100% or else they are villains that swap spit with Chinese abortionists killing little girls when little boys do not fertilize.

    It would indeed be great if domestic manufacturers could produce products that could be competitively marketed for a profit. But, alas, this has been taken care of by the left. So, we all have to simultaneously be whores and pimps. Just like Hobby Lobby. Just like you.

    And then Ward blathers on and says… nothing. Again. I got to Plutocrats and stopped, being overcome by a wash of deja vu… again. Look, I really understand the personal embarrassment you feel for supporting a wasted space of an empty suit community organizer. I was devastated when Nixon’s corruption; but at least I could confront and admit it.

  36. 39

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Bill:

    And then Ward blathers on and says… nothing. Again. I got to Plutocrats and stopped

    You say the most ridiculous things and as usual, contradict yourself in midstream. If you stopped after the 3rd word of my response, which you say you did, how can you make an honest assessment of my argument, which you say you can?

    Also, why does the word “Plutocrat” offend you when you advocate Plutocracy, Social Darwinism, and an Ann Ryan philosophy on a regular basis? From your very writings and the nodding accolades back and forth from your cohorts here, you (so by “you”, I’m referring to the general message being sold at FA, which you obviously support and the tea party which likewise, you obviously support)promote more deregulation for corporations, lower taxes for corporations, more “freedom of speech” of corporations by being able to pour more money into elections, you cheer an extreme corporate friendly and hostile worker SCOTUS, and you discourage higher minimum wages (or hell, any mw at all) and the right of workers to have a legitimate voice in wage and working conditions. In short, more power for corporations in government, less taxation, and can pretty much govern (or “regulate”) themselves while removing power from workers and if their taxes are increased, well that’s okay.

    Granted you prefer to whitewash that down with warm and fuzzy soundbites about all kinds of freedoms and how the market will prevail and a verse out of econ 101 but at the end of the day, aren’t those your beliefs? Are you so much of a coward and so dishonest that you run from the very ideologies that you promote?

  37. 40

    Pete

    @Greg:

    Because of how much I loathe Communist China’s abortion policies, I end up spending an inordinate amount of time whenever I go to any store looking for products that are not made in China. Unfortunately, in far too many cases, there are no such products available and I can either choose to go without the product, or have no choice but to buy the product.

    Perhaps if the US government would enact a more business-friendly tax and regulatory system, and the criminality of unions could be prevented, we would have the return of manufacturing to the US and would be able to avoid buying products from a communist country with a horrible forced abortion law.

    Regardless, Hobby Lobby has no legal recourse with regard to Chinese governmental policy – other than refusing to purchase any products from China – but the owners of Hobby Lobby, as US citizens, are entitled to the protections of US law. It so upsets you leftists when you cannot force someone to pay for your lifestyle choices that you do not mind blatantly lying about and smearing the people involved.

    Of course truth is never a concern of the devout leftist anyway….

  38. 41

    Pete

    I’m just wondering if there has ever in the history of FA been a regular loyalist (i.e. Ditto, Common Sense, Retire05, Redteam, Pete, J Ryder, Dr John, etc etc and any that I missed) that has disagreed with each other OR agreed with any counter arguments of anyone challenging any aspect of what you advocate.

    Hey…if I’ve been promoted to the rank of ‘FA Loyalist’ – does this mean I get a paycheck? Spiffy uniform? Key to the FA executive washroom? C’mon…at least can I learn the secret FA Loyalist handshake?

  39. 43

    Pete

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Your rhetoric isn’t best described as offensive. It is banal and pathetic marxism. Your concept of “worker’s rights” is ridiculous. When a worker takes his own resources and starts his own business, he has the right to decide how he wants to pay his workers and what benefits he can afford to provide, within the boundaries forced by the government. If a worker applies for a job at someone else’s company, the worker has the right to either accept or reject the job offered, including wages and benefits the employer offers. The worker always has the right to try to negotiate better pay and/or benefits, and the employer has the right to either agree or deline to accept such efforts. The worker has the right to cease working for the employer if the worker thinks he is worth more than what the employer is willing to pay.

    The worker does NOT have the right to harass in any way other workers who replace the original worker who decides to go on strike.
    The worker does not have the right to force any other worker into joining a union against their will.
    The worker does not have the right to force the employer to violate his religious beliefs to pay for things the worker can pay for himself.
    The worker does not have the right to force the employer to keep his business from moving to another more business friendly location.

    Your silly repetition of ‘plutocracy’ and ‘social darwinism’ only shows you never outgrew the childish need to be part of the brain dead “marxism is cool” crowd. If you really believe that collectivism is so wonderful, then tell us – in your opinion – how specifically should the alleged problem of income inequality be fixed? How is it that you think the economic system should be arranged so as to be “fair”? Should there be a limit on how much money any one person is allowed to make? If so, what should that limit be? Is there any limit on what the government should provide to people? How should the government handle the fact that there are still people going hungry in this country, while so many others are morbidly obese? Should the government just take over all food production and distribution? Isn’t that what someone who argues against “social darwinism” and ‘plutocracy’ should be agitating for? I mean people need food every day – so isn’t that more important than health insurance?

    Seriously, RJW…what would be your method for correcting the problems you see with the evils of plutocracy, social darwinism and the conspiracy of Randian Objectivism?

    Extra points for explaining how to march all us conservatives most efficiently to the firing squads….

  40. 44

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Bill: Once again Bill, you run from the very things you support. ? Why do you advocate things you are ashamed of? Once again, you can’t even be honest with yourself, making excuses for the very stand you’re taking.

  41. 45

    retire05

    @Pete:

    C’mon…at least can I learn the secret FA Loyalist handshake?

    Wouldn’t you rather have the Super Secret FA Decoder Ring?

    Oh, and did you notice how RJW posted almost 1/2 hour after you ask him to explain himself and you got totally ignored?

    You must learn not to challenge RJW and ask him difficult questions that he has not yet been briefed on by his handlers.

  42. 46

    Ronald J. Ward

    @Pete: You certainly dodged a lot of those relevant issues I accused you of covering your ears and singing “la la la” to.

    I think I’ll put you on ignore as toying with Bill meets my amusement quota.

  43. 47

    Bill

    @Ronald J. Ward: You have yet to clarify your OWN positions over which you accused me of lying so, until you do, you can pound sand until I respond to any of your inquiries. That’s how it’s going to work.

  44. 48

    Pete

    @Ronald J. Ward:

    Heheheh…what a childish little twerp you are. Really, I believe I already pointed out your Pee Wee Herman impression was not very good a few weeks back. Can you at least go back and ask your agitprop supervisor for a new schtick for your pathetic troll routine? Your nonsensical political spew gets called out, and you dodge answering anything by claiming no one is answering YOUR questions?

    State your questions, or point out the specific numbered post where you actually asked one. I will give you an answer after I feed my 7 conservative spawn as we celebrate the birthday of the greatest nation in the history of the human race…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *