TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:It just seemed a little odd to me for somebody to 'tweet' the Pope.
And more than a little worrysome to RECEIVE a tweet from the Pope.

I do not tweet, but it's gotta be better than poking him on FB, which I haven't done either and am not entirely sure of what it is anyway.

pbwalker wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Just a couple of quick points. Firstly, why should a woman be able to "choose" what to do with her body? Nobody gets that "right". For example you can't use your body to rob a convenience store. Now, you say that's because if affects the rights of others, but the right to "choose" also affects the rights of others, mainly the baby, but also the other family members. Perhaps a more on-point example would be that you aren't allowed to put illegal chemicals in "your body". So the government put all sorts of restrictions with what we can and cannot do with our bodies.

Secondly, for those that claim that gay marriage, etc. is fine with them as long as they don't get the bill -- well there is a bill, and in some cases they ARE paying it (or will be). Benefits are payable to public employee's families. Medical insurance and other benefits accrue to the spouse of the employee, and those benefits are paid by tax receipts paid by YOU. When the definition of "marriage" is expanded to include same-sex couples, those new spouses then become eligible to collect on those benefits. The same thing occurs when the benefits are expanded to include "partners" (in addition to spouses) of the employee.

Well, my company expanded it to partners and same sex spouses and my rates never went up. I'd also imagine rates for a married couple is lower than the rates for two single employees. And honestly, there is nothing we can do to keep the fed from spending our tax dollars on it.

I was speaking for PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, where the expense is paid by tax revenues. But even for private employees, if more people are insured, the costs are increased. If your didn't see any change in rates, the perhaps your employer picked up the difference? Leaving less for raises? Or perhaps otherwise you would have seen a small decrease in rates? Just because you didn't see a rate change doesn't mean it had no effect. And, unless both of you work for the same company, the "couples cheaper" argument is a false comparison. It would actually be comparing the expense of a single person (employee without a spouse, because "partners" aren't counted) to the expense of an employee with a spouse/partner.

I want to ensure I tread lightly on your first comment as I do not want to violate any forum rules. We're having a good, civil discussion here, and I've enjoyed it. I'll first say I am very much pro-life, and I don't agree with the "a" word at all. But I also realize it is not my choice, and it's something a woman (and sometimes spouse) have to decide upon. It's on them to live with. I would rather see adoption, but sometimes people don't have that option. But I go back to it being none of my business. I know people wonder how one can be pro-life and pro-choice, but I am.

My first argument was not actually a direct argument against abortion -- assuming that's what you meant by "a" word -- but rather a rebuttal for the argument often used to support it. Also, there is nothing in the forum rules that prohibit such reasoned discussions that I can find. That being said, you cannot possibly be both pro-life AND pro-choice, as they are opposing views. The closest you could come to that would be to say you don't care one way or the other -- you're neutral.

I will say I am not a religious person, but I understand the POV. I grew up Roman Catholic. I remember hearing birth control was frowned upon!

And great post snatchel!

Jaguar wrote:Random thoughts for today

I apologized to my 21 years old son today. My generation failed him.

My doctor ordered I get a PET scan. My insurance said they would only pay for a CT scan since I haven't endured chemotherapy in five years, and if it showed anything then I could get a PET scan. Who should I trust more with decisions on my health, the doctor or the insurance company? Rhetorical question, no need to reply.

C-dub wrote:

Glock_Tacular wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Glock_Tacular wrote: I was asking because I thought it was pretty well known that the Pentagon was not a plane. Sorry to get off topic. I'll open in another posting.

No, either you were trying to be sarcastic and it isn't coming across very well or you misread TAM's post. Planes crashed in those three locations, although he mistakenly placed the Pentagon in DC. I also thought it was in DC.

Glock_Tacular wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Skiprr, it's more than a disappointing day. It's a watershed day. A pivotal day. This is the day that so-called "Americans" (I will never again call them the "loyal opposition," for they are not loyal, they are treasonous) voted to become the United States of Greece. We are one more step along the road to the Balkanization of the nation.

Long live the Republic of Texas.

I've tried several times to respond. I'm reminded of the time I watched planes fly into buildings in NY and DC and a field in PA. Even then I had no doubt that the country would survive. For the first time in my life, I now doubt that it will.

I hope you just mean the NYC buildings.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Skiprr, it's more than a disappointing day. It's a watershed day. A pivotal day. This is the day that so-called "Americans" (I will never again call them the "loyal opposition," for they are not loyal, they are treasonous) voted to become the United States of Greece. We are one more step along the road to the Balkanization of the nation.

Long live the Republic of Texas.