Letter From CEO of Hobby Lobby inregard to Obamacare

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


No kidding, if we had the kind of government these guys wanted the United states would be even more divided than europe and far more impotent.
 
He ran unopposed. What do you make of that then? The Democrats couldn't find anyone worth running against him in a State that favors Obama? Don't blame the short comings of the Ohio Democrats on him.
 


..Im not blaming anyone, chill out. Fact: More people voted for democrats in the house. Its also not unusual to run unopposed, well technically he did run against someone just not a democrat.

How come Republicans didnt challenge Marcia Fudge in Ohio? Or one of the other dozen or so congressmen who ran unopposed?

Theres lots of politics in politics.
 
Congress remained the same. Many incumbents won reelection against challengers. 2/8 seat changes when dealing with dozens really isn't much. Control of Congress remains the same, therefore it would simply state that what they are doing should continue. If there was a major shift in elections, then the message would be clear to change paths. That didn't happen.

And I am not making sense? Seems to me you're trying to pick a personal argument with me. Funny, as I've never made anything personal, yet you're attempting go that route. So Mingo, change course. 😉
 
Riser I still dont know what you are talking about, im not making anything personal, am I?

More people voted for dems in congress yet republicans have control, sorry if you take offense?
 

That is because they have a choke hold on all of the big cities. Those people are not all of America.
 
You know Democrats are targeting farm subsidies and farming assistance with the overall aim to get more people out of farming.

When a combine costs $250,000 new and you want to write some of that off on taxes, or the government is paying you to not produce certain crops, they're screwing people over by taking that away. They want more people to move into the cities and less people out being self sufficient.

My family has a lot of farm land and some of things they want to do will make it nearly impossible to continue farming and producing food. They manipulate crop prices, want to run up charges on having animals on the farm.. to the point where having cattle will cost more than what the market will pay for it. My aunt was lookign at getting $25 profit per cattle slaughtered. Not even worth it. Then forcing farmers to produce certain crops and ignore other ones, or sell at set prices.. it's all crap. Just another thing to drive out the self sufficient in this country.
 
I think it's sad you believe my views on government to be "fringe" because the views I hold are what were taught to me in elementary school, in High School, and through into college. These views have been reinforced as I matured into adulthood and exercised my rights and responsibilities as a citizen to petition my government, interact with my State and Federal Senators/Congressmen, and live under the protections guaranteed under the Constitution.

What's funny is that as progressive thought entered the mainstream narrative and popular culture, it erased the individual as the base line for self governance and replaced it with career politicians, it removed the States from electing their representatives to the Federal government and replaced State legislation with Federal oversight. This narrative change, this progressive indoctrination, may be the reason why I was taught Civics in school and you and/or your generation was not; which would explain our fundamental differences between how we view the role of the federal government.

By calling my views "fringe" you push aside your birthright as an American citizen in favor of centralized government planning and control over your freedoms and liberties.
 
My father worked in a Union all his life. I never knew either of my parents to be politcal growing up but I remember watching the election of Reagan the second time. I remeber the TV being turned off before it was called and that was that.

I find it interesting that I grew up and believe what I do without having the background that Chunky did with classes on Civics.

I took American government in High School. My teacher was extremely good and very fair. I never knew his politcal leanings.

When I had to register for a political party, I was told I had to register as a Democrat. I didn't really know what either stood for, didn't quite care. As time went on I started realizing that things I personally agreed with aligned with the Republican party moreso than the Democrats.

Over the weekend I was out at a Christmas Party.. and a guy I know walks up and says to me, "Good to know we work hard so 30% of these people can come out and party." Meaing they were probably all welfare/SSetc people.

Funny, he works in financing and gives loans to people on gov't assistance and often drug users. He can give the loans because they're getting gov't checks and that money is guarenteed. His other half is a social worker and helps people get gov't money. It is amazing how often someone gets their check on the 1st or 3rd, runs over to his office to take out a bigger loan and run off to buy drugs.
 


I wonder if you will ever start posting about the subjects instead of attacking perceived causes for differing opinions.
 


He has a really long winded way of saying " Its progressives and I know because school"

If only school really prepared us for the real world :pfff: .
 



The Green family has said it has no moral objection to the use of "legitimate" contraceptives and will "continue" covering them for its employees.
 


There is no such thing as an abortion causing drug being covered. Check back a few pages and we talked about these drugs not being able to terminate a viable pregnancy. So its this mans ignorance that is the problem.

 
Compromise with a party who has negative aspects all the time.Obama is trying to help the poor and middle class and seniors which congress is not doing.They want to help the rich !
 

And who said that they would veto Plan B for the fiscal cliff debate? I'll give you a hint: It isn't Bush. That plan consisted of NO cuts and just raising taxes on people making a million dollars in up. Proposed by that rich loving Republican Boehner and had enough votes to pass in the Senate and House. AND it was supported by Pelosi (something seemingly impossible). Seems Obama wants his way or everyone gets fiscally screwed.
 


You're being manipulated by the Democratic Party Marv. I do agree with you that the Democrats are making it out that the Republicans only want to protect the rich. The Democrats are making them look bad. Hear me out - it isn't that the Republicans right now want to protect the rich. No, they don't want taxes raised on ANYONE unless and/or until spending cuts can be determined.

Basically, Democrats are demonizing Republicans over it and changing their message. I don't personally think taxes should be raised until spending cuts are hashed out, or at least some are on the table. Then put them together and raise taxes on the high income, $1 million and up, and toss in some spending cuts. That would be fair in my opinion. Personally, I'm strongly against taxes being raised, but I understand compromise and we can raise taxes. Revenue levels should be noted by Republicans so in a year they can throw it back in the Dem's faces showing that it didn't make a difference.
 
Way I see it is, the more they can get up front, and this is at you democrats, the EASIER their jobs will be when it comes to cuts, if there are going to ever be cuts.
Now, defend those lazy dems all you want, make anyone else look bad, a sure sign of a lazy person, where theyll defend their actions, or lack thereof, by deflection
 
There has to be compromise among both parties not only one side but both sides have to reach an agreement or we all going down the tubes.
 
I agree Marv that there needs to be compromise. Republicans are willing to immediately vote on a higher tax for those making $1 million or more. I would consider this a compromise to not raising taxes at all.

On the other hand, what have the Democrats compromised on? They're insistent on raising taxes on people making $250k or more. I have not seen anything else come from them, not even spending cuts or any other solutions.

I agree with Boehner's position to demand the Senate act first and pass the bill down to the House. The Democrat controlled Senate wants to push their agenda without compromise, I would say that it is the Senate that needs to act first then.
 
Like Ive been saying all along, all this pie in the sky is going to cost, and all those whove thought it was a free ride wont be happy, because promising pie in the sky has costs, and just leveraging even 250K individuals wont be enough, and in the end, it will still hit home