Lucky Forward
Member
CNN did have the jobs report as a headline for a while...
...but, predictably, FOX buried it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/fox-news-job-figures-downplayed_n_5555037.html
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
CNN did have the jobs report as a headline for a while...
...but, predictably, FOX buried it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/fox-news-job-figures-downplayed_n_5555037.html
CNN did have the jobs report as a headline for a while...
...but, predictably, FOX buried it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/fox-news-job-figures-downplayed_n_5555037.html
It's Fox. They wanted their views to know the REAL unemployment rate was 12%. (Part time workers. People not looking for jobs, etc.)
It dropped to 12%? Unemployment numbers are like the tide. They go up. They go down. You can't explain that.
Black Mamba
Member
My grandmother died today. She raised me as much as my parents did so I'm pretty devatastated. I've spoken on gaf before how she was fighting Alzheimer's. Choked on her breakfast. She barely remembered me before she went. She no longer is suffering but it still sucks. Fuck that disease.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Thus corporations are more protected against their religious rights being stepped on since there is nothing above them apart from the government that has the possibility of burdening their exercise of religion. Private workers have no protections against their employers (not speaking about discrimination). Workers have this extra layer, so to speak, that has the ability to place extra burden on their ability to exercise their religion. In other words... in the grand scheme of things, corporate religious liberties are more protected than individual religious liberties. Yes, I know that technically there are no extra laws protecting companies that don't also protect individuals, but companies do not have to worry about any other 'layer' or whatever you want to call it.
My condolences.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I am very sorry to hear that. Alzheimer's is a pretty devastating disease. My condolences.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Sorry dude
but yeah memory diseases are the worst because they deny you what makes you human. The connections you make through your life. I really hope we cure it soon.
My deepest sympathies.
My grandmother passed earlier this year. She also had Alzheimer's. She had no clue who I was the last time I saw her. I'm glad she was able to remember her children though; in the end they cared for her constantly. I'll always respect my mother, aunts and uncles for that.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You have my sympathy, Mamba. I lost my grandfather this last November; he picked up C. Diff after being hospitalized for a fall, but at that point his Alzheimer's was so advanced he could only sometimes recognize my grandmother.
It's the worst way to go that I can possibly imagine, losing your memories and your self while everyone around you watches.
It's the worst way to go that I can possibly imagine, losing your memories and your self while everyone around you watches.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Sorry dude
but yeah memory diseases are the worst because they deny you what makes you human. The connections you make through your life. I really hope we cure it soon.
It also puts a major drain on the family since there comes a point where they can't take care of themselves or even do very basic things like cleaning themselves or putting food in their mouths. It's pretty horrible.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Sorry to hear, Mamba.
RustyNails
Member
Fuck Alzheimers, MS and Cancer. Deepest sympathies.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
But you're distinguishing between employees and non-employees (a category which includes employers), not corporations and natural persons. Of course employees are subject to more control than non-employees--that's part of how we determine who is an employee. But corporate employers enjoy no advantage over natural-person employers in this respect. (And you're overlooking that even corporations can be required to do something they'd rather not do when negotiating with other businesses.)
Ultimately, I don't see how the distinction you're drawing matters.
Damn. I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you and your family enjoy the long weekend in her memory.
benjipwns
Banned
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-case-for-mitt-romney-in-2016-108532_full.html
One documentary and suddenly everyone loves the woman hating anarchist post-truth robot.
One documentary and suddenly everyone loves the woman hating anarchist post-truth robot.
I'm sorry Mamba, that's rough.
Armoured Priest
Member
My deepest condolences.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Wait, real UE is down to 12%? I've been away too long. Last I checked it was like 18%.
Rhomega Beta
Member
My grandpa and his sister (who I never met) died from Alzheimer's. My grandpa was rambling and ranting about random things before the end, but my parents were able to rush over and see him a month before he died while I stayed home and took care of the dogs. I'm worried about my dad since he has memory problems of his own, and even I worry about getting it myself, since I plan on living single and childfree.
Romney recovery.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I wonder how much participation rate talk we'd be getting if Romney was president and we just had five months of 200k+ jobs created.
cartoon_soldier
Member
We would have talked about nothing else other than Benghazi
"Look at all of these tax cuts and jobs we created! "
Lucky Forward
Member
speculawyer
Member
That is what Jesus would do . . . protest children.
RFRA might not, but the Civil Rights Act just might lol.
I predict you'll have another snarky response along the lines of the decision not addressing the CRA. So, whatever.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm sorry Mamba. My grandma was diagnosed with Alzheimer's recently. She's been a little off the last couple of years. It's my greatest fear to see that happen to anyone else, especially my parents.
None from you, assuredly.
(posted in the "Based Ginsburg.." thread. This is going to get interesting.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/u...aception-rule-for-christian-college.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/u...aception-rule-for-christian-college.html?_r=1
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I'd like to see these forms. What makes them not just a notice to the government that it needs to handle contraception for people employed by the college?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
How many times does this have to be said this doesn't have to do with RFRA or corporate rights. This is the Catholic males deciding contraception is icky
It is narrow. Its just about contraception. The slippery soap about other religions is why is 'narrow' that hasn't changed,
cooljeanius
Member
Must be another case of people ignoring Jesus and only paying attention to the parts of the Old Testament that said to avoid foreigners, and then mistakenly applying those parts to themselves, not realizing that to the ancient Israelites, they probably would have been the "foreigners" to avoid themselves...
You draw a nice parallel. Some Americans treat mexican illegal immigrants like Israeli's treat Palestinians.
Black Mamba
Member
Thanks to everyone for the well wishes. It's been a rough few hours. We were very close. Even though I knew it was coming you still get taken aback by it. I am thankful I saw her this weekend and was able to let her know I love her. She had been under the care of my mother the last few years and I would help when I could.
To those who mentioned how hard the disease is on the family, it is very true. It's honestly the worst disease because it robs you of your self indentity and is so difficult on those you love. Sadly she died right in front of my mom rather than in her sleep. Choked on food.
When it comes to this disease, I have seen every hellish aspect of it up close. It is a disease you are never actually prepared for and what it actually does is different than what you expect. It's so much more than memory loss. Those that have been through it understand.
I've seen it all so if anyone here ever needs someone's brain to pick because they're going through it, shoot me a PM wih any questions. So many people helped my family; we all need help.
To those who mentioned how hard the disease is on the family, it is very true. It's honestly the worst disease because it robs you of your self indentity and is so difficult on those you love. Sadly she died right in front of my mom rather than in her sleep. Choked on food.
When it comes to this disease, I have seen every hellish aspect of it up close. It is a disease you are never actually prepared for and what it actually does is different than what you expect. It's so much more than memory loss. Those that have been through it understand.
I've seen it all so if anyone here ever needs someone's brain to pick because they're going through it, shoot me a PM wih any questions. So many people helped my family; we all need help.
TheLaughingStock
Member
CNN did have the jobs report as a headline for a while...
...but, predictably, FOX buried it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/fox-news-job-figures-downplayed_n_5555037.html
Forbes, Wahington Post, and BI also gave it the spotlight.
Disgusting. And entirely targeted at women.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I thought they stated that the narrow ruling was supposed to be for emergency contraceptives only, not all contraceptives? So then, shouldn't these companies/organizations also technically have issues with covering vasectomies as another poster stated?
RustyNails
Member
this guy
PhoenixDark
Banned
Mitt v Hillary could be interesting in the sense that you'd have two very rich candidates who aren't good at displaying a variety of emotions or "working a room."
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Of course, and I already alluded to federal laws offering protection against religious discrimination in employment. And your prediction is spot-on (though I'll speak plainly, without snark). Hobby Lobby is not about those laws; it's about the RFRA. Because of that, it provides little (likely no) guidance in interpreting and applying antidiscrimination laws.
I saw what you did there. I'm not sure which comment you were referring to (before your edit), though, so I can't make a fitting response.
I think that sentence I've bolded is key. At some point, there is a line separating actions which are perfectly innocent from those which involve immoral complicity in wrongdoing. The question is, who will draw that line? What you seem to be suggesting is that the courts should draw the line on behalf of religious believers. That really does open the door to the government giving preferential treatment to certain religious views, in a way that I think the RFRA's test does not. In such a system, a court could find that, though a challenger has a sincere religious belief as to where that line is, his sincere religious belief is wrong, and the line is really somewhere else. This isn't the kind of judgment that courts (or any branch of government) should be making.
As an aside, there actually was a case in which a pacifist objected to working on military production and sought to challenge a denial of unemployment benefits under the First Amendment (before the Court changed its free-exercise doctrine and Congress tried to revive it with the RFRA). You can read a bit more about that case here.
Oh damn, sorry to hear that dude. My grandpa had alzheimer's too, so I know what you're going through. My condolences.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
You belittled some poster for pointing out how these companies seem to have no qualms covering vasectomies. I took out the three or so words referring to that because I changed my mind on calling you out. What I did there was that I had decided not to be confrontational, but it seems like you want me to address this. You basically replied to his comment with snark stating something to the effect of not even the FDA states that vasectomies prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Does the FDA state that normal contraceptive pills prevent implantation of a fertilized egg?
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=119079908
http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=119083451
His comment wasn't even directed at you, yet you called it stupid as if he was attacking you.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Perhaps I should have made clearer that my disdain was directed at HuffPo, not the poster. I thought it was clear that I was referring to the HuffPo article, though, since he didn't actually make an argument in his comment.
The HuffPo article argued that there was some inconsistency in Hobby Lobby refusing to cover the challenged contraceptives while continuing to cover Viagra and vasectomies. But Hobby Lobby's complaint with the challenged contraceptives is that they can terminate a pregnancy. While there is some dispute over whether the challenged drugs do or may operate in the way Hobby Lobby feared (though the government did not dispute it), there is absolutely no dispute that Viagra and vasectomies do not. So there's no inconsistency in refusing to cover the former while still covering the latter, and this should be clear to anyone (even the Huffington Post) with a modicum of accurate information about Hobby Lobby's challenge. The HuffPo piece also strongly implied that Hobby Lobby was being sexist by refusing to cover the challenged contraceptives while permitting coverage of Viagra and vasectomies. I responded to that charge, as well.
Now, there appears to be some additional confusion here. The second sentence of your last post doesn't follow from the first. Why would the scope of the Supreme Court's opinion affect anyone's religious beliefs regarding vasectomies? Even ignoring that non sequitur, I never criticized the idea that some people would object to covering other forms of contraception, including vasectomies. My understanding is that Catholics have a very stringent view on the morality of any form of contraception, so it would make sense for them (among others, I'm sure) to challenge a legal requirement to cover any form. I was simply correcting the mistaken view of HuffPo that there was some inconsistency in Hobby Lobby's position.
I don't think this works. Clearly people are terrible at figuring out what actually represents a substantial burden to their religious liberty. That it's basically the death of religious liberty is a common argument levied against court decisions overturning bans on gay marriage. Now, it wouldn't work there in any case, because the courts are finding that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage, but I feel like if courts can't tell people that they're wrong about something being a substantial burden then the Supremes really did just open the door to opt-outs for practically any law people don't like.
I'd been assuming that general taxes of which some small/indeterminate amount goes to things people object to can clearly not be a substantial burden, or at least must always be something like the least restrictive option (by which we just mean the least burdensome). But I'm not sure how to interpret you now such that that's still the case. I read you now as saying that the courts shouldn't second-guess someone who objects to paying taxes on the grounds that some of them go to something which the courts concede is not a compelling government interest and which offends the person's conscience. Or something which the person finds more burdensome to support via taxes than via some other method, rendering taxes no longer the least restrictive option where that person is concerned.
benjipwns
Banned
It's probably been mentioned but the Federal Government and the Supreme Court in particular have already established opt-outs for specific religions. The Amish in particular.
During the military slavery era the courts also spent an endless amount of time hashing out just who was and wasn't a valid conscientious objector. (In ways that oddly seemed to come to positive approvals of groups the state liked and negative for those it didn't.)
I've always found this to be a paradox of sorts because how can the state establish any religious opt-outs without deciding to recognize religions or not establish them without intruding on the right to practice. So I can understand why the whole set of precedents is a mess.
During the military slavery era the courts also spent an endless amount of time hashing out just who was and wasn't a valid conscientious objector. (In ways that oddly seemed to come to positive approvals of groups the state liked and negative for those it didn't.)
I've always found this to be a paradox of sorts because how can the state establish any religious opt-outs without deciding to recognize religions or not establish them without intruding on the right to practice. So I can understand why the whole set of precedents is a mess.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked