ACLU suing United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

ACLU_logo.jpg


ACLU suing United States Conference of Catholic Bishops… because Catholic hospitals don’t allow abortions. According to ACLU Newspeak, abortion equals liberty, by golly, and those doggone proles in the Catholic Church must stop committing thoughtcrimes or face the three stages of reintegration.

This post was last modified on December 5, 2013

J.P. Travis: Born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976 graduate of University of Michigan, father, grandfather, husband, founder and CEO of Travelyn Publishing (http://www.travelynpublishing.com/), and passionate anti-government believer in individual liberty.

View Comments (379)

  • Another morning, another several TDs to bury the troll spam.
    Mission accomplished, to quote a President that makes the current resident look like a complete joke. :)

  • Woah been gone for a few days and this become a monstrous thread... I wonder whose fault is that.

    So I am in Panama right now... enjoying all the wonders of socialism YaY!

    • Tour a banana plantation while you're down there. Pretty amazing process. Also wild
      to see all the shacks and lean-to homes with satellite dishes on top of em, huh?

          • Oh Ollie, let me take you there, let me take you around the world, visiting every third world hospital in South America, and we can play Naughty Nurse Nellie and the Priapic Patient, like we did that weekend in Cannes. Oh God, what a woman you are! Oh God! how you showed those Frenchwomen something about not shaving! How I miss the cold, gentle caress of your sphygmomanometer, and you make me eat those Skittles . . . .

          • Naughty Nurse Nellie????? Sounds like a movie I watched once years ago when I drank more than I should have....

          • Actually, when I was a kid I had a book of cartoons called "Nurse Nellie's Naughties." I don't think they were actually dirty though. Shoot! Now I'm gonna have to go look for that!

            OK, not a lot!

            Here's the pic of the cover of the original:

            https://s-media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/40/35/50/40355004ceae9f3c89fb29ad88032ced.jpg

            Whoo hoo! a third one! http://www.amazon.com/Calling-Nurse-Nellie/dp/B002MA7TGO

            maybe these ARE a bit racier than I remember!

            and here's the cover of the one I had: http://flic.kr/p/7ZA7TA

            Seems there was also a Marvel comics series with the same name but has nothing to do with this.

          • Ahh, the things we lose over the years.

            I once had a original copy of the complete works of "Willie and Joe' cartoons by Bill Mauldin.

            Not as racy perhaps, but I wish I still had it.

          • One of the very best books ever produced. My dad has that book and when he asked us kids what we wanted specifically from his estate when he died, I said that book. Never in the history of warfare has the infantry grunt's life been so accurately portrayed. He said during WWII they could hardly wait for the weekly military newspaper with the Mauldin cartoon. Nothing is better for morale than knowing other people appreciate your plight and can find humor in it.

  • Which post or poster are you referring to here, Rose?

    I know how crabby you get if I respond to your posts without your permission, so I thought maybe I'd have you clarify first.

    • That post was directled especially for you, which you would know if you had enough snap to follow the thread.

      • Hard to tell, since it didn't appear to respond to my post directly before it.

        Goodness, you're crabby. You bitch at me if I assume you're posting to me; you bitch at me if I try to clarify before responding. Did someone urinate in your corn flakes this morning or something?

  • So 88 separate idiotic posts by the troll.....88 in one thread! I wish I had a dollar for every thumb down I just did, after a couple weeks of the troll I could retire...

    • You forget that, in these liberal vs conservative discussions, I'm representing liberalism all by myself, whereas you've got 30 or 40 chums to help you argue the right wing position. So OF COURSE I'm going to be posting a lot. Lots of misconceptions to correct, and lies to expose. ;>)

      • You don't even represent Liberals in general. You represent your particular concept of what is good for the nation, and especially for the knuckledragging conservatives. So its only fair you have no one else to back you retarded statements,

      • Lots of misconceptions to correct, and lies to expose.

        Which is why it takes 30-40 of us. No one person has the time to expose all your bullshit.

        TURDS!

        • Does anyone else hear an annoying buzzing?
          Mr Admin or Mr Editor, is there anything you can do about the gnat?

          • That's your hearing aid acting up, Poopajoe. I've been wanting to mention it to you, but I was too polite. ;>)

        • Which is why it takes 30-40 of us. No one person has the time to expose all your bullshit.
          **************
          Uh huh. Right. Sure thing. Is that why you keep voting down my posts and rejoicing when they disappear, instead of "exposing (their alleged) bullshit"?

          Face reality, Poopajoe: you CAN'T refute much of what I'm saying. That's why you hide it.

          • EVERYONE on this site has refuted your posts at one time or another. Just because you decline to admit they have been refuted, it doesn't make it so.

          • I'm not talking here about "one time or another," Rose. I'm talking about this particular discussion.

            But it's ever so nice for you to try to jump in and rescue Poopajoe. Next time, though, maybe it would be better not to spin what I actually said in order to make your case.

          • Let me rephrase my post so that it is excrutiatingly clear. Many people on this particular thread, as well as others have rufuted your attempts at making a point and debunked you ridiculous comments repeatedly. That is the truth, regardless of jpw YOU try to spin it.

          • BTW Rose, even though nearly EVERY poster on this thread has roundly kicked it's ass, refuting it, and proving our points, despite it's constant attempts to spin our points, as well as rewriting our statements, I have promised not to reply to my bitch again. No matter how stupid a comment it makes, no matter how many times it tries to claim victory because I don't reply, I won't reply to it. It's a complete waste of time, because it's too fucking stupid to see the truth, and too fucking brainwashed to admit we've made excellent points. The whole MO of it is to deny, deny, deny. We could say the sky is blue, and it will say we never said that. It's a complete fucking waste of time and energy, and even though you and I and everyone else here knows you have beaten it to a pulp, it will keep making retarded assed statements to try and draw you into it's argument again. PLEASE stop answering it. Believe me, I know it's tough to ignore such stupidity, but we must!

          • Thanks Dean, I try.
            One thing my bitch refuses to realize is that when she is presented with actual reasoned arguments, saying that what it thinks doesn't agree with our points, isn't a real debate tactic, nor is it evidence, support, or refutation, it's merely denial. That's why I refuse to "talk" with it any more. It's the dumbest thing on this board.

          • Clue for you, Poopajoe: the way to "kick ass" in a discussion is (1) to refute the facts or logic presented, or (2) to present alternate facts that your opponent can't knock down.

            Name calling, swearing, gloating, giggling, "hiding" one's opponent's argument and then screaming "TURDS" has nothing to do with winning a debate. That's called "acting stupid."

            Just so you know. And, for heaven's sake, will you learn the difference between "its" and "it's"?

          • Nice try, Rose, but the fact remains that yelling "TURDS!" (to hide my posts instead of making any effort to refut what I'm saying) is extremely fashionable among some posters here.

            Now, you can try to spin that until the cows come home, but the fact remains that yelling "TURDS!" and TDing my post is just another way of saying, "We can't refute what she's saying, so let's hide it."

          • Please show where I have called turds. I've earned a few,, but I didn't gloat.. Quit projecting your childish complaints on us. Didn't anyone ever teach to ignore insults?

  • This is what Olivia does to the discussion. I want to reply to Alien but I don't want to wade upward through dozens of pages of Olivia crap to find the last reply button.

    Alien, a slave market cannot be defined as a free market for the simple reason that one of the human parties in every transaction is a slave. It is in the very nature of the definition of a free market that all parties are making an unpressured decision for their own benefit, and clearly the human being sold is not free from outside pressure. This is germane, because the same thing is happening with Obamacare - when the government tells you that you must buy health insurance it is not, by definition, free enterprise no matter how much they use buzzwords about the private health insurance market.

    • My take on this is that the slaves are the product. Their willingness to participate is no more relevant than that of cattle in beef or dairy markets. Once the slaves' human concerns are out of the picture, the suppliers and buyers follow all the usual economic laws.. that is, up until non-market forces step in to shutdown the immoral enterprise

      I agree that the exchanges are a new kind of experimental quasi-market, and based on what I've seen so far, not attractive to me at all, compared to insurance I already consume.

      • Many slavers had quit slaving before the civil war. None were forced to quit by their governments, they just finally woke up to the travesty they were committing, regardless of the fact that slavery was common across the globe. The Christian hymn Amazing Grace was written by one such slaver after he quit the slave trade. Slavery was dying out in America in general until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. With the increase demand for cotton to feed the industrial mills in the north, huge numbers of cotton pickers were in demand, Many smaller farms did that with family and friends. But the plantations needed hundred, and to pay workers to do the work was prohibitively expenses, So the slave trade began growing again, Was it right? No. But you cannot judge people from a completely different time and place through 21st century eyes.

      • They are definitely a product, but they are also human beings and clearly they are not experiencing free enterprise. This is how arguments for state control always proceed: the socialists (and I'm not calling you a socialist) provide twisted examples of free enterprise that don't work and defenders of free enterprise having to point out that their examples are not free enterprise at all. Almost every example of corporate malfeasance happens with government involvement - GE lobbying the government to outlaw our favorite light bulbs so they can sell more expensive light bulbs, mortgage companies wildly over-extending themselves and thereby destroying the economy by using federal government guarantees to make untenable mortgage deals, etc.

        • I'm not getting in the middle of this disagreement, I just have a comment to JP. The rub is that in the times when slave markets existed, the ones being traded were not recognized to be human. SO in a discussion of free markets at the time, the humaness cannot be used. Just saying. And I refer to ALL slave markets, not just the ones in the US.

        • I'm upvoting because the discussion is interesting. I'm not the only one who views the matter of slave trade being a "free market" through the lens of government regulation. Contemporary to that time, we even had Constitutional debate pinned on the question of slaves being Persons or Property. In the sense that the laws of supply and demand were unrestricted by governments for centuries, after the Portuguese discovered the lucrative trading potential in West African slaves and the New World, it emerged and remained a "free market" until moral imperatives demanded government force intervene.

          This doesn't mean free markets are bad. It's not an argument against freedom in markets. Markets should be as free as possible, as long as their participants operate within some moral constraints. I believe that such constraints are unavoidable. Most debate involves defining those constraints.

          • Notice that you used the word "government" to defend the notion that slave markets are examples of free enterprise. Without government stepping in to twist fair exchange beyond recognition, nobody in their right mind would push a slave market as an example of free enterprise. Essentially, what the sellers are selling is a stolen product (someone's freedom), so the original transcation was a theft and all ensuing transactions are theft (of the slave's right to his own labor).

            Thievery is not EVER a fair example of free enterprise for purposes of determining whether free enterprise works.

          • Which was Lincoln's position. He felt every man (and by extension woman) should get the benefit of his own labor. His plan was to load up the slaves and send them back to their homelands in Africa.

          • Notice that you used the word “government” to defend the notion that slave markets are examples of free enterprise. Without government stepping in to twist fair exchange beyond recognition, nobody in their right mind would push a slave market as an example of free enterprise.
            ****************
            When the market is completely unregulated, businesses will do whatever they can to gain an advantage over the competition---and some aren't opposed to considering unsavory or unethical means.

            That's one big reason that slave labor (including slave labor of children) exists today in various countries around the world, and also why it has existed here in the U.S. It's also a big factor in why so many U.S. businesses shut down their stateside factories, and relocated them in third-world countries.

            An unregulated free market is only as ethical as its least ethical businesses. Why? Because the final goal of all businesses is to make money, and as much money as possible. If the only way for a business to keep going is to compromise its ethics a bit (provided there's good reason to believe it won't get caught doing so), then at least some businesses are going to do it.

          • "When the government is completely unchecked, citizens will do whatever they can to gain an advantage over their neighbors just to survive---and some aren't opposed to considering unsavory or unethical means." Touchè

          • I never said that government should be completely unchecked. But there ARE those here, who say that the government should not regulate commerce AT ALL.

          • I only mentioned government regulation because there was *none* at the time. The premise hinges on the market for slaves having been free of government regulation.

            Thievery is a good angle on the discussion. I've seen someone use the analogy of bank theft to argue the absurd premise that the robbers are engaged in a free market.

            The counter is that bank theft is a crime, killing the free market characterization. Back then, taking a person against their will was not always criminal. Tribes did it, nations did it during war. The act of enslavement commoditized human beings for sale. It's horrible, but once assumed and the supply is established, market forces took over. Governments didn't decide that the New World needed slaves and make investments in the transport. Plantation owners needed labour and some chose the slave market to fill the need. They did this because it was profitable, with the result being generally the export of labor intensive agricultural products back to the old world.

    • Woot! Another nine thumbs down, and the troll’s posts get buried.
      :)
      *****************
      Yeah, hide those posts of mine! Can't have any facts or logic getting in the way of those right wing prejudices and misconceptions, right? :>P

        • No, you won't. If I post a remark today that it's December 16, you'll immediately vote it down and brag about doing so. If Alien (who actually does agree with some point I make here) responds with "Yes, it IS December 16," you'll thumbs-up his post and agree.

          It's so silly.

          • Hey, hey! I've agreed with some of your points before (when YOU were talking, not repeating talking points), but I don't do the thumb thing, up or down... flip the bird occasionally maybe. But agreed with you, much to the chagrin of some here I might add. So do I get a pat on the head too or am I beyond redemption? And if you're asking yourself, "when?", it was when you still posted personal opinion, not being an echo. Rare granted, but it happened.

            And please, please don't blow this by asking for citations, I remember... do you?

          • Well, I'm glad to hear it, Ghost. I'm (obviously) not one to require a lot of group support or approval during a discussion, and I know that my position on most issues isn't too popular here. Thanks for being honest.

          • I'm always honest here, as much as being human allows. Throw bombs to start a spat or be downright pissy? Yep, I've done it. Your turn, posting blather and then giggling at the responses has never happened?

          • Oh, I admit I giggle at some responses here, just as everyone else does. (Even though a few on this thread have accused me of having no sense of humor.)

            Blather? I don't think my posts are blather, but blather is in the eyes of the beholder. It's inevitable that right wingers are going to accuse liberals of posting mindless drivel, and vice versa----sometimes because we just don't understand what the other person is getting at; other times because we honestly think the other person isn't seeing the big picture.

          • Right wingers, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah eat shit and die scrunt....your not funny, have no sense of humor, or even much of a functioning brain....

          • Nice dodge, I quit, my Christmas Spirit is over. Would it have given you stomach cramps and 'hot-wings butt' to admit even a little? Is that what you call compromise and reaching across the aisle? Fred Flintstone died off with Dino swinging that club ya know.

          • Really? Tom Laughlin died today?.

            I just looked it up. I didn't know he was 82! I never would have thought he was that old.

  • Gee, *SOMEONE* needs to get a life!
    When I get back here 12 hours since my last post and find 135 emails from IHTM, I know who's been sitting home spamming the board all day!

    • As a matter of fact, we're having a blizzard here, so Christmas shopping is delayed for a while today.

      But I didn't respond out of boredom. I responded because I have a habit of speaking up against bigotry and hypocrisy. Go figure, huh?

      • You have a habit of babbling nonsense just to annoy the hell out of people who believe differently than you in any way. You have a habit of "translating" our posts, which I for one, hate as much as I hate my Kindle rewriting my posts. You come here with nothing but your own opinions, then attack us for our beliefs and opinion that are based in documented, verifiable fact. Yes, I think you joined these extra threads because you are bored, and because you weren't garnering enough attention on the Doctor's office sign thread. How sad it must be to be so lonely and have such poor self esteem that you think "correcting" (arguing) makes you feel important.

Related Post
  1. DALLAS POLICE SHOOTING: ‘ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE ASSAULT VEHICLE AND TROOP TRANSPORT’
  2. Kim Jong-un was a child prodigy
  3. Top GOP Leader Promises Total Amnesty In 2015