Lets be fair now. Do you realize that you have told no less than 6 posters that they are misunderstanding the point of this issue. Could it be that YOU have totally missed the point. Some people can be so POSITIVE they are right, they go blind to the truth. Let me add one more to the side of fairness and say the church is very wrong on this issue and should not be allowed to stand in the way of womens rights.

NO, I have not missed the point; in fact, you did, and I am 100% right here.

This is a Constitutional issue. It's a First Amendment issue pertaining to Freedom of Religion.

The Roman Catholic church has a long held belief against the use of hormonal contraceptives. This form of birth control was banned by the Church since this drug's inception. The Church only allows it's married parishioners to use the "rhythm method" of birth control. (I say married only because the Church also teaches against pre-marital sex....duh)

The Church cannot prevent any woman, Catholic or otherwise, from purchasing these drugs and using them against it's teachings. They have no right to do that.

BUT, also the Church cannot, by law, be compelled to provide these pills to women. It's against the Church's religious beliefs to do so. It's really that simple.

Tell me what I don't understand and what point I'm missing where it concerns this First Amendment protection.

Well, with my background in law, I am 100% sure you are wrong. So there we go.

Explain, please

Again, something so simple and you get confused.

Please validate your opinion or stop attacking and being a wiseacre to other posters !

What opinion are you talking about. I haven't said anything to or about you Buck. Please explain.

Your response to RICHIE was extremely vague, perhaps on purpose. It does not seem to explain your point by simply saying...

"Well, with my background in law, I am 100% sure you are wrong. So there we go."

Sort of a demeaning brushoff....maybe you expound why you dismiss his post out of hand like you did.

Bucco, Villager II doesn't have a response to my explanation, so he's crying about it. He doesn't have one because I am correct in my explanation. There's no two ways about it.

The First Amendment is inviolable, and no machinations from the liberal establishment, or President Obama, or our liberal posters can change that.

Thanks for the support, it's appreciated.

Richie,

When you and Mrs. Lion got married, I am sure she realized she was marrying "Mr. Right" - but did she realize your first name was "Always"?

Is the group meeting at the watering hole at the usual time?

When I'm right, I'm right; and I'm right on this issue.

Instead of just mouthing off, show me where I got anything wrong on this First Amendment issue.

You know the one thing that I used to, and I really mean USED TO was the EXCHANGE OF IDEAS and thoughts. Folks dont always agree but made every attempt to validate their arguments, attach links from their readings, etc., and basically make the case for their feelings on subejcts.

I, personally, used to enjoy coming here to read and learn....many, many times I THOUGHT I knew how I felt about an issue, a candidate, etc. only to read some well thought out response and supplied links to find that I was in error. That change of heart many times was from postings from posters who are polar opposite of my way of thinking in general, and we also would have folks post to the forum their real life knowledge without showing an "ax to grind"

We have become here recently a forum on one liners and little smart aleck remarks, instead of proffering a real case for feelings. Folks who run for office are open to any and all criticisms, but NOT the personal comments calling them names that are offensive even in the playground.

I wish we could return to the actual sharing of ideas instead of the personal, little one sentence remark aimed at ridiculing anyone who may have a different view than the poster.

WHY this is now the case, i dont know. I do know that we have folks with duplicate screen names who come on here for one reason...just to incite...we have others who have been warned and actually thrown off who come back with another screen name to carry on the assault.
remarks that sometimes make the screen from other folks complaining about this area just fall on deaf ears, but they are correct. Why visit here to simply be confronted with the immature one liners that serve no purpose except I suppose to make the poster feel like the big guy on the playground.

I am not claiming to be an angel, but I do believe that my errors of judgement in posting have not taken the hard turn to be so personal and vicious as many lately.

Bucco,

I am sure RichieLion knows the jest I meant in the writing of the little post you took offense to. I have mentioned the same thing face-to-face with him at the watering hole.

He is a big boy and can take care of himself. Trust me, I would not p-ss him off either in writing or face-to-face because Richie is a good guy and he works out on a regular basis with free weights!

I am sorry that I offended you and that you have taken a disliking to me for my viewpoints and posts. Feel free to block my posts or just do not read them. I have no dislike for you and am sorry you feel that way toward me.

Hmmm, a little passive aggressive...?!

Buggy is correct when he points to our friendship outside this forum. He and I have the same debates (arguments?) in person. Buggy and I agree on almost nothing politically and revel in the discussion of all of it. But, life here in TV is good, and Buggy and I are enjoying all of it, with our wonderful wives and our great friends.

This forum is just that, a forum. We're not changing the world here, just having some fun with the news, and hoping against hope to maybe enlighten or even change a mind. I haven't succeeded in changing Buggy's mind about anything, but I haven't given up hope.

So, I thank Bucco for his support. The liberals are hard to keep at bay. Sometimes I'd like to toss them in the bay. But then Buggy and I toast our good fortune and our good health and our hopes for tomorrow. (My hopes are better than Buggy's, but don't tell him I said so)

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

Buggy is very fortunate to have friend with a heart of gold, like your's RichieLion! :beer3:

I agree that I am fortunate to have friends like RichieLion. I do not really understand the passive aggressive comment, though.

I am probably way out of line here,but....

I am sure that you and RICHIE are fast friends and that is great....but this is a PUBLIC forum. I may be living in the past or living within forums I have and am part of. Most exchange ideas and are not used to simply make little remarks to humor their friends.

I suppose the reason you come here will dictate how you feel,and obviously I am in the minority. I simply enjoy reading THOUGHTS, IDEAS....and actually going to links that are detailed on ideas. NOT simply engaging in conversation that maybe should be in your watering hole. I think I disagree with VK on many things but back in 2008 during the campaign, I learned a lot not only from his posts but from his links..he has a financial background that I am weak with.

None of this is personal....just my idea of what this forum was and again, in my opinion, should be.

I think it best if I say..hope you guys enjoy the barb exchange...enjoy !

Ask Mr. A. Right!

Wow, thank you so much Katz. Right back at ya!!

Well said Buggyone and I agree with you about Richie. I wish I would have said what you said the way you said it. WOW, that was a weird sentence. Anyway, Richie and I both got reprimanded yesterday for saying things the wrong way. I will copy your post down and use it next time I get the hair up on the back of my neck if that is OK with you.

Richie, you say it's a "Freedom of Religion" argument. I *think* I understand where you're coming from in that respect.

I think the basic disconnect comes from the definition of that.

Religion, to me, doesn't require operating a hospital or a school. To me, religion is what goes on in church and in someone's heart. Not to say we don't benefit from (locally speaking) St. Joseph's Hospital, Catholic Medical Center or Bishop Guertin High School.

I think the basic problem is the idea that, if you're drawing a paycheck from anone but the church, you have certain rights under the law. But if that paycheck comes from a diocese, suddenly you don't have those rights - even if you don't belong to that religion? There were laws in Ye Olde Days that prohibited members of certain religions from certain jobs depending on the official religion of the day (I.e. No Catholic Lawyers when the Protestants ruled in England). We've gone away from that and more towards the idea that religion is and should be a PRIVATE matter.

The idea that the Church can hide behind their robes to deny people coverage wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for some of the OTHER things they hide behind those robes for. Maybe some OTHER religion could take the heat on this one if that were the case.

Still, some places here in NH won't get his by the mandate because they self-insure and that's one loophole that I suspect will get used more and more.

It's good to see an attempt at civility among those with philosophical disagreements.

.... and, now, back to the topic of What happened to Newt...