I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.
That's just scratching the surface.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.
>> ^heropsycho:

Lawsuits are a part of America---if you can sue someone then they can sue you. I wish this wasn't a video from the slanted Turks because I really would love the BS cut through. (Same reason I wouldn't like Fox to cover this story.)

(On a side note, the curfew is bullshit.)

Well, that was an easy one to disprove. Via Wikipedia:

Riots in the 1970s
1970 - Kent State shootings, May 1970, (Kent, Ohio, United States)
1970 - Hard Hat riot, Wall Street, May 8, 1970, (New York City, New York, United States)
1970 - Harakat Tahrir riots, June 17, 1970 El-Aaiun[citation needed]
1970 - Falls Curfew (Belfast, Northern Ireland on 3–5 July 1970)
1970 - Fatti di Reggio, July 1970, (Reggio Calabria, Italy)
1970 - Koza riot, December 20, (Ryukyu Islands, United States, later Okinawa Prefecture, Japan)
1971 - May Day Protests 1971, May 1971, (Washington, D.C., United States)
1971 - 1971 Springbok tour (Australia)
1971 - Camden Riots, August 1971, (Camden, New Jersey, United States)
1971 - Operation Demetrius (Northern Ireland on August 9–11, 1971)
1971 - Attica Prison uprising, (Attica, New York, United States)
1971 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
1972 - Bloody Sunday (Derry, Northern Ireland on 30 January 1972)
1972 - Operation Motorman (Northern Ireland on 31 July 1972)
1973 and 1974 - Athens Polytechnic uprising, Greek student riots and revolution at National Technical University of Athens, military junta overthrown, (Greece)
1973 - Oklahoma State Penitentiary Prison Riot, (McAlester, Oklahoma, United States)[citation needed]
1973 - Ageo incident, Tokyo Metropolitan Railways Riot,(Tokyo and Saitama, April 1973)[citation needed]
1974 - Cherry Blossom Festival at the Richmond Stadium, (Richmond, Virginia, United States)[citation needed]
1974 - Ulster Workers' Council strike (Northern Ireland, May 1974)
1974 - Ten Cent Beer Night, (Cleveland, Ohio, United States, June 4, 1974)
1975 - Chapeltown riot Leeds, West Yorkshire ,England
1975 - Nieuwmarkt riot, March - April 1975 (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
1975 - Livernois-Fenkell riot (Detroit, Michigan, United States)
1975 - European cup Final 1975, Leeds United riot in Paris
1976 - Vitoria Riots, March 3 (Vitoria, Basque Country, Spain)
1976 - Kobe Festival Riot by motorcycle gangs (Bōsōzoku), May 15 in Japan
1976 - Notting Hill Carnival Riot (London, England)
1976 - Soweto Riots (Soweto, South Africa)
1977 - 1977 Egyptian Bread Riots, January, 1977, (Egypt)
1977 - New York City Blackout riot, July 1977, (New York City, United States)
1977 - Sri Lankan riots of 1977, (Sri Lanka)
1978 - Rameeza Bee Riots, (Hyderabad, India)
1979 - Disco Demolition Night, (Chicago, Illinois, United States)
1979 - White Night gay riots, May 1979 (San Francisco, California)
1979 - Greensboro Riot/Shootings, Nov. 1979, (Greensboro, North Carolina, United States)
1979 - Southall Riots, (Southall, West London, England)

>> ^quantumushroom:

Of course, watching an atheist angered by a lack of morality in the populace is hilarious. People didn't regularly act this way 40 years ago. What changed?
Not everyone proclaiming to be a Christian follows Thou shalt not steal all the time, but more of them have values than the ones raised with....NOTHING.


So what's the reason that all these god-fearing, morally-informed-with-superior-'Christian'-values people engaged in riots? Ummm... maybe it is because the proximate causes of a riot are based on economic and societal conditions and not prevented by a 2000 year old book. Also worth noting in the list is included Bloody Sunday, which, if I remember correctly, was part of a conflict based on rival gangs within your beloved Christianity kicking the shit out of each other.

The Canadians here and anyone else paying attention to the G20 riot in Toronto last year shudder at this. Deja vu all over again. Saturday, the cops let the "black bloc" (white kids trashing storefronts) do their thing.

Sunday, the cops responded with the savage beatings/kettling actions.

Seeing it once looks like an awful mistake. Seeing it a second time... troubling.

>> ^marbles:

Police were ordered to stand down as London burned:
...
According to eyewitnesses to the initial riots in Tottenham, police were seen “standing back and allowing rioters to cause havoc,” a trend that continued during subsequent nights before Prime Minister David Cameron ordered 10,000 extra police officers to patrol London last night.
This has now been confirmed by sources within Scotland Yard who said police were ordered to “stand and observe” even as brazen acts of violent crime were committed against both people and private property, a directive which prevented them from arresting any of the troublemakers.
...
The police’s inadequate response quickly led to calls for martial law, curfews and the use of water cannons on streets in England for the first time, a power that Prime Minister David Cameron has now authorized.
Britain’s most widely-read newspaper The Sun ran a poll today which found that two thirds of Brits support the use of rubber bullets to deal with rioters, while 33 per cent supported the use of live bullets.
“Curfews are backed by 82 per cent, using tear gas got 78 per cent support and Tasers 72 per cent,” states the report.

Police were ordered to stand down as London burned:
...
According to eyewitnesses to the initial riots in Tottenham, police were seen “standing back and allowing rioters to cause havoc,” a trend that continued during subsequent nights before Prime Minister David Cameron ordered 10,000 extra police officers to patrol London last night.

This has now been confirmed by sources within Scotland Yard who said police were ordered to “stand and observe” even as brazen acts of violent crime were committed against both people and private property, a directive which prevented them from arresting any of the troublemakers.
...
The police’s inadequate response quickly led to calls for martial law, curfews and the use of water cannons on streets in England for the first time, a power that Prime Minister David Cameron has now authorized.

Britain’s most widely-read newspaper The Sun ran a poll today which found that two thirds of Brits support the use of rubber bullets to deal with rioters, while 33 per cent supported the use of live bullets.

“Curfews are backed by 82 per cent, using tear gas got 78 per cent support and Tasers 72 per cent,” states the report.

>> ^EMPIRE:

here's what I seriously don't understand about these riots... there's rampant pillaging and vandalism, and only today is the police pondering the possibility of using rubber bullets?? wtf? That should've been used 2 days ago.

How would baton rounds stop what you see in this video? It doesn't matter what the police use, its an issue of manpower. These scum know the Police is stretched, so they take advantage like the opportunistic vultures they are.


Why hasn't a heavy hand been used? Well, its partly political (Tories government is basically afraid of stepping on the lower classes and don't want to compromise the "image" of London before the Olympics - A little late for that imo) but also purely practical. The police can't risk seriously injuring or even killing a civi, criminal or not, it would likely incite more violence. Further more, things like Water Cannons just aren't useful against this type of Riot. This is almost "Guerilla" looting and arson.

Personally I feel that if this goes on they need to really consider a curfew, although I'm not sure how practical it would be to actually implement.

No, white shame.

I just spent the evening with someone who grew up in Texas. Somehow the topic of racism came up (I didn't do it! I swear!)

She said -- folks around here (meaning Pacific NW) don't believe the stories of what it was like in Texas, the rampant racism. As recently as the 1950s, all black people had to be home on their "side of the tracks" by 9 pm every night. There was a curfew on the books.

When I was born, there were still people alive who had been slaves.

We white people have a great deal to be shamed of.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

So is this what people call "white guilt"?

From Wikipedia:

The 2011 Egyptian protests are a series of street demonstrations, protests, and civil disobedience acts that have been taking place in Egypt since 25 January 2011. The demonstrations and riots began in the weeks after the successful Tunisian uprising, and many protesters are carrying Tunisian flags as a symbol of their influence. Specific grievances have centered around legal and political as well as economic issues: police brutality, state of emergency laws, lack of free elections, corruption, restrictions on freedom of speech, high unemployment, low minimum wages, insufficient housing, food price inflation, and poor living conditions. Mohamed ElBaradei, seen as the most likely candidate for an interim presidency, called for the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak as a possible objective.

As of January 29, at least 95 protester deaths had been reported (27 in Suez, 23 in Alexandria, 45 in Cairo), along with 10 policemen. 750 policemen and 1,500 protesters have been injured. The capital city of Cairo has been described as "a war zone", and the port city of Suez has been the scene of frequent violent clashes. The Egyptian government has attempted to break up and contain protests using a variety of methods. Anti-riot police groups have been responding to areas with shields, rubber bullets, batons, water cannons, tear gas and, in some cases, live ammunition. For the most part, the protest response has been non-lethal, although there have been fatalities. The government turned off almost all Internet accessand imposed a curfew, claiming that minimizing disruption from the protests is necessary to maintain order and to prevent an uprising of fundamentalist Islamic groups.

International response to the protests has generally been supportive with most governments and organizations calling for non-violent responses on both sides and peaceful moves towards reform. The protests have captured worldwide attention due to the increasing integration of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms that have allowed activists and onlookers to communicate, coordinate, and document the events as they occur. As the level of publicity has increased, the Egyptian government has made increasing efforts to limit internet access, especially to social media. On the eve of major planned protests on Friday, 28 January, a nationwide internet and mobile phone "blackout" began, though before dawn the following morning it was reported that the blackout for cell phones had ended.

So true, flying is not a right, it's a privilege, just like leaving your house whenever you want or speaking your mind.

"America is now under martial law
Stay in your home
Do not attempt contact with loved ones,
insurance agents, or attorneys
Do not attempt to think or depression may occur
Stay in your homes
Curfew is at 7 p.m. sharp, after work
Anyone caught outside the gates of their
subdivision sectors after curfew, will be shot
Remain calm
Do not panic
Your neighborhood watch officer will be by
to collect urine samples in the morning
Anyone caught interferring with the collection
of urine samples will be shot
Stay in your homes
Remain calm
The number one enemy of progress is question
National security is more important than individual will
All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal
No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission
Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor
Be happy
Obey all orders without question
Be happy
At last, everything is done for you"

Ya, bunch of BS. My Niece made Cheerleader this year in Highschool after the first preseason Friday night game they went to eat at Ihop. Cops came in and ticketed the whole squad. That was the first I had heard of the curfew here. Guess kids don't have any rights anymore.

This argument is always framed wrong by both sides. See, gays already have the same marriage rights as the rest of us: a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Opponents make this argument but then continue with another that's not true: that gays are asking for special rights. Gays are not asking for special rights, they're asking for new rights.

If these are "new" rights, then how did an activist judge magically discover them in the old Constitution? I appreciate your forthrightness. The actual activists simply claim these rights have been hidden in there all along like the right to an abortion.

These new rights would apply to us all. Straight or gay, we could all marry whomever we wanted, genders be damned. You should be happy to gain rights in a time when they are being whittled away in the name of safety. Just because you have no desire to utilize those rights doesn't mean they have no value. I don't own a gun but I'm glad I have the right to.This is not about sexual orientation; it's about freedom from government control over your personal life.

But marriage is not about any one personal life. It's about two lives intertwining on every level, including matters of the State.

What kind of "conservatarian" are you that thinks the government should have this sort of power?

A realistic one.


(re: Freedom from Religion)
It depends on how you interpret "freedom from religion". If you interpret it as meaning I should be able to live my life without ever being exposed to anything religious, then no. That's obviously ridiculous.

Glad you feel that way, but you're in a shrinking minority. Los Angeles removed a tiny cross from their city seal, and there's now a huge court batle over the Mojave Memorial Cross.

What it's supposed to mean, and what is protected by the First Amendment, is that I can live my life without having religious beliefs imposed on me by the government.

You may think so, but "Thou shalt not steal" is the basis for many of our secular laws. You cannot "escape" religion, it's intertwined with everything.

The government cannot tell me I can's go out after sundown on Friday or go to work on Sunday. They cannot make eating pork and shellfish illegal, at least not on religious grounds.

They cannot make you do these things on overtly religious grounds, but under certain circumstances they can make you do or not do all these things and more. How about curfews in a riot zone? Now we're back to the "Thou shalt nots" in varying forms.

Same-sex marriage was legal and common in the Roman Empire up until the Christians took power and made it illegal. They also had anyone who was in such a marriage executed.

If gay "marriage" is such a capital idea, why was it until 50 years ago virtually unheard of in almost every society? And in those ancient, wizened societies that threw off the shackles of Christian oppression, why did gay unions not return right away? Gay "marriage" throughout history has been less than a footnote. Polygamy at least has a long and varied history.

once again the majority of people seem to be missing the real point of this type of situation. The officer was angry, why was he angry? because his god complex was being threatened. after all, he is the defender of justice and peace, he should be obeyed at all times and without question. It was your parents responsibility to raise you till 18, and when you hit the mean streets of Toronto it became officer bobs job to parent and guide you. Do not disobey officer bob or he will put you in time out.

jesus fucking christ people. I've seen that sort of face before, that aggressive arm-crossed forward lean. the clenched teeth barely containing his anger my father used to act like that too my mom...and if she continued to talk back she would spend a few minutes in the bathroom cleaning herself up after he bloodied her nose.

Law enforcement is one thing, and its a good thing. But control freak sociopaths seem to be attracted to a job where you can carry a weapon and boss people around...imagine that. I'm sure though that when hes off his shift he's a great normal guy. so was my dad.

I would expect this sort of thing as normal now here in the U.S. but to see if happening in Canada every G20 is sort of disheartening. as long as people keep cowing down to more and more ridiculous demands, soon there will be nothing left. imagine a time where people are subjected to a curfew because the G20 is in town... its coming. your lowly proletariat concerns will not be allowed to disturb the actions of your masters. they have to meet in order to decide how best to manage you and your fellow cattle. a duly appointed representative will be by later to make certain you have food. do not leave your home on pain of arrest or death.

The sad thing is I don't believe there is any way for us as a people to avoid this future of subjugation. were too fucking stupid. we breed when we cant afford too. we vegetate in front of our versions of "ow my balls" and we aren't, as a people particularly concerned with anything at all until it directly affects us. and by then it is usually well and gone too late.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Adult curfews ≠ martial law.


Explain this statement to me. Maybe you don't understand martial law.. but they are saying anyone on public streets can be arrested. It 100% is martial law for 12am-7am. Do they have exceptions for driving or businesses? Are road blocks setup at the city limits to prevent traffic from travelling across city?

Are business like bars and hospitals and gas stations to all be closed at midnight.

I supposed this might be a no-loitering law, but from what they said it is a curfew. It would never last through any court challenge as they do not have this power except for emergency. Crime wave isn't emergency unless you can cite the public hazard. It also appears to be all-summer long kind of curfew.

This was in Kuwait.

Yeah alot of people here knew, I mean they been maintaining a airspace curfew on Iraq since 1991, plus who does shit to self destruct their power?

I never bought it.

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
What city was this? In Iraq?

BTW, not EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al certainly knew better. Many of us may not have known better, but definitely didn't see Iraq as the threat that was being sold to us. Hopefully, we (Westerners, generally) are all wiser for it today.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Remember at the time everyone actually thought Iraq had WMDs, so what March came a rollin' everything got serious, curfews started, gas masks were issued for essential people and sirens were installed all over the city.

So yeah that play got cancelled.

What city was this? In Iraq?

BTW, not EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al certainly knew better. Many of us may not have known better, but definitely didn't see Iraq as the threat that was being sold to us. Hopefully, we (Westerners, generally) are all wiser for it today.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Remember at the time everyone actually thought Iraq had WMDs, so what March came a rollin' everything got serious, curfews started, gas masks were issued for essential people and sirens were installed all over the city.

So yeah that play got cancelled.