Devils Advocate;1632263 wrote:I don't have a problem with the Hobby Lobby decision for the most part.

The ACA will change the market place for jobs. People will actually start looking at benefits as part of their compensation packages. If you want your birth control paid for, you are free to find a job that pays for it.

On the other hand, I hope that this isn't a slippery slope thing that will allow employers to dis allow same sex marriage benefits, make all females wear dresses, Or allow someone to get fired for being sighted at a strip club or having a child out of wedlock.

I do find it interesting that Hobby Lobby's insurance pays for erectile dysfunction and boner pills.

jmog;1632379 wrote:You mean people aren't looking at insurance packages as part of their compensation already? I have done that for every job I have ever worked at.

believer;1632268 wrote:There's a distinct difference between being willing to support procreation & sexual health vs. being forced to provide the means to kill innocent unborn human beings on demand.

Devils Advocate;1632382 wrote:With the ACA, Many have never had insurance. it is something new to them.

The late 19th century and into early 20th century?
Been there done that and survived,

Manhattan Buckeye;1632398 wrote: It was an acknowledgment that they are immigrants and they are doing their best to assimilate yet still maintain their culture with mutual expectation of respect for both sides.

Manhattan Buckeye;1632398 wrote:For whatever reason, our current "immigrant" status with Mexicans and Central Americans and similarly in the UK with southern Asians have no adopted this approach, but rather one of expectation of accommodation and little to no respect for the host countries laws and customs. This will not end well, but at least it is worse in the UK than it is in the US. I think there is going to be a huge push-back there in the next few years if the economy doesn't improve that could even escalate into physical violence.

gut;1632455 wrote:Obama now officially the worst POTUS since WWII...looks like the rest of the population is starting to catch-up to what some of us have been saying for a few years.

Funny part is, for a guy who once talked about getting us out of the ditch he sure likes to dig a deeper hole. The worst he polls, the more he isolate and antagonizes. If the Repubs take the Senate I think Obama won't even pretend not to have checked out.

One wonders if he sees a Clinton-like legacy slipping away and he's committing to pandering to his base so that he can remain relevant beyond 2016. If Hillary got $15M or whatever for her book, I wonder how much "corporate welfare" they'll kick back to Barry.

ptown_trojans_1;1632368 wrote:The late 19th century and into early 20th century?
Been there done that and survived,

So, what is American and who decides?

Manhattan Buckeye;1633692 wrote:Read my post above, I'll give you the Cliff's note version. We survived earlier immigrations because the immigrants respected the country's laws and wanted to contribute to our great country (at the time) for mutual benefit. Today's immigrants see this as a lottery ticket and refuse to not only try to assimilate but overtly expect everything to be for their benefit. This won't end well. We're no longer a "melting pot" because these illegals refuse to melt, it would be as if they are ice cubes thrown into a hot stew.

gut;1632455 wrote:Obama now officially the worst POTUS since WWII.

HelloAgain;1633714 wrote:Does that mean he's also "officially" the fourth best? Assuming you're citing the same Quinnipiac poll....

Quite a paradox.

gut;1633719 wrote:LMAO...because a whopping 8% of idiots consider him to be the best?!?

HelloAgain;1633720 wrote:... the poll that "officially" named him the worst.

gut;1633741 wrote:Correct. Don't make yourself look foolish trying to claim otherwise.

HelloAgain;1633743 wrote:Yeah, I'd hate to look foolish by saying a lone poll of random Americans didn't make it official Obama was the worst President since WW2, 75% of the way through his Presidency.