I understand their reasoning and I don't agree with them. Insurance benifits are part of HL's compensation to employees. Prior to ACA HL piad for all forms of contraceptives, including the ones now baned. This means that HL considered contraception to be a part of compensation. You can't restrict a portion of compensation in one area without increasing compensation in another area and then say you haven't reduced ones ability to provide the goods and services they desire--which was the essence of the argument HL made. And you do realize the supreme court was split ideologically right? So if there was one more liberal judge and the ruling was overruled? Would it still be constitutional? I doubt that is what you would be saying is it...

The constitution is way too vague, there would be so much infighting that no one would ever be able to reach a platform. Here is an example, the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here are my questions:

1) Who regulates a well regulated militia.
2) Is the right to bear arms unconditional or dependent on a well regulated militia?

See the problems just a snippit of one part of the constitution brings. Most "constitutionalists" don't even know the second amendment has two clauses preceeding the right to bear arms and sure as hell don't want their militia to be regulated.

Now tranfer this to the rest of the constitution and you don't stand a chance...

Yeah, they think for themselves. Can't have that can we...

"
This leaves me scratching my head: for whom is this a "Franz Ferdinand" moment? Don't we at least need to find out who shot down the plane and maybe why before the avenging of some stale old European monarch?

Was this a fake drop or real drop?

Not true? You poor sob, right wing media has stripped you of any ability to think for yourself hasn't it. Poor thing let me help you. The federal budget runs from Oct 1 to Sept 30 of the following year. Now how is it a president can be elected in November (after the budget has taken effect), take office Jan 20th, and still be able to write a budget for the current year? Now rub those two little brain cells of yours together and think!!! Ain't possible is it. This is why federal budgets run the year following the election to the year after leaving office. It's that way for every president not just Bush...

You've already established that you support a balanced budge when a democrat is in office. That's not where you need to put your actions.

Bull, YoY for revenue growth under Reagan was only 5.2% and the 8 years prior was 15.5%. You can't sit there and cut revenue growth by 10% per year and then clap your hands cuz weeze doubled revenue growth in 8 years. That was anything but an accomplishment.

Bush may have left office but his budget didn't. Each budget is prepaired for the next year--as such, Bush debt numbers start until the 2002 budget or 6,228,235,965,597.16. and his last budget was 2009 or 11,909,829,003,511.75. I trust you can do the math..you disgusting SOB!

I don't know what you've been smoking but same me some.

>>snip<<
Nazism is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups.
>>end<<

Unless you can explain how an ideology can be both left and right I do believe you are mistaken.

Here are some of the characteristics that made up the Nazi ideology.

1) Highly nationalistic.
2) Highly militaristic.
3) Anti-Marxism, Anti-Communism, Anti-Liberalism
4) Anti Labor unions,
5) Belief in Social Darwinism over equality.
6) The idealization of tradition, folklore, and classical thought.
7) A strong belief in corporatism.

These are just a few but are any of these ringing a bell?



And conservatives have yet to meet a war they didn't like. Your love of blood is well established. That's not what's being debated. As for Israel, when it reaches a point of genocide then no--you don't have an unlimited right. With the Palestinians you have the innocent embedded with the guilty and when more innocent lives are lost than guilty then you've met the end of your right to self-defense...

Oh BS If you really approved of what Newt did then why did you stand for it when Bush cut taxes and increased spending! Reagan proved that the only thing you get when you do that is more debt yet conservatives were more than happy even when debt under Bush almost doubled. There wasn't any whining until a democrat was in office and he was trying to deal with the deepest recession since the depression. So again, why the hypocrisy. If you really want to deal with debt you can't do it by yourself and you will never get democratic support if you continue to play hypocrites...


Gosh, 1.5 BILLION, that's a whole bunch isn't it. As for your 20 million I really prefer not to use O'Reilly's numbers but even with his numbers the US seems to have absorbed those numbers without too much of a problem. And really, the problem with illegal immigration lies with business--so long as US businesses hire them they will continue to come and that is one of those simple facts that you seem so impressed with. Until you deal with businesses you can build all the fences you want and it won't keep them out....



Yeah, but conservative have blown so much smoke out their asses about this it's impossible to see where that point is. So far it only seems to appear with democrat in office. Until you show some consistency it's hard to take you seriously...


Hey look, I am all for paying ones bills but that's a big part of what the 2000 election was about and the choice was tax cuts instead of paying down debt. So please, until conservatives can start to back their mouths up with some actions stop boring us. You really are just wasting every ones time...

Bush raised debt from 6.3T to 11.9T for an increase of 5.6T. You only shed tears when debt doubles? The question remains: why do conservatives only worry about debt when a democrat is in office!

Sorry to jump in on this but here in Texas, about two years ago, we had the town of West nearly wiped off the map when a fertilizer storage plant exploded and then just a few months ago we nearly had the same thing happen in the town of Athens when another fertilizer storage plant, again in the middle of town, caught fire and nearly exploded. Now here is my question: you say you guys aren't against regulation but we can't even get our conservative TP representatives to regulate these places and get them out of populated areas. If you won't pass a regulation to protect people just what the hell is a regulation a conservative TP will support?


Let me ask you. Under ever republican president debt has shot through the roof and conservatives never said a peep. Why is it you guys are only worried about debt when a democrat president is in office?


Our borders have always been under invasion. Save for the age of some of these how is this anything new?

Here is my question: conservatives have appearently had the goods on Obama for years yet nothing has ever been done to impeach him. When Clinton lied it was a matter of months if not weeks when he was up on charges. What the hell are cons. waiting for? You do realize he will be out of office in a couple years don't you!

It worked during the 90's and when Bush cut taxes in 2001 it had little if any impact on the economy and economic growth. Tax cuts for the wealthy only work when the economy is in a demand push position and the economy needs capitalization. When Bush cut taxes businesses were flush with cash and in no need of capitalization. Tax cuts are not a one size fits all proposition. Something conservatives don't seem to understand....

Yup, and I am still talking about who can apply International Law and who can't. Don't conservative stand for Rule of Law? So why is it you don't in this case?