By all means, Mr. Candidates,.Please explain to us how, when and where President Obama took away the religious freedoms of the Polygamist sect of the Mormans. And If Newt and Santorum can't answer it, how about Mr. Romney?

I call hypocrisy on at least one of the candidates who's wrapping himself in religious piety. Catholics have some specific views on the sanctity of marriage and they don't involve ditching two wives when they're sick in favor of younger, hotter models.

@Randy1949 So Catholics don't believe in forgiveness? I thought that's what Christ was all about? So Jesus forgives, but people don't-isn't that what you are saying?

"I will restore and protect religious freedom. We are one nation under God and that must be maintained."

Oh yeah, he's going to regret saying that in the general election of a center right country.

@SweetyPy -- My understanding of Catholicism is that to me forgiven one has to make a perfect act of contrition. I somehow doubt that Mr. Gingrich is the least bit sorry. Jesus said 'Go and sin no more.' In Gingrich's case he might have said, 'Go and get a clue.'

At the very least, this man has no business telling me what's a valid marriage and what isn't.

@Randy1949 -

I'm with you on Gingrich - how can he honestly expect anyone to take him seriously when he starts preaching family values! Sorry Newt, but you wrecked that one for yourself and must now lie in the bed you made.

I'm a Catholic and my Religous Freedom is never in stake in any election.Shame for this candidates for this cheap shots,and using our belives for their own benefits.

Romi, you mean like when a politician invokes God to urge congress to pass his jobs bill?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-says-god-wants-to-see-us-help-ourselves-with-jobs/

Or when he cites the teachings of Jesus Christ to promote his hard left plan to raise taxes on the people already paying the most?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/jesus-tax-rich-obama-article-1.1016370

Strangely, the almighty doesn't seem to have a problem compelling Catholic charities to violate the basic tenets of their faith and provide contraceptives. When big spending liberals summon the almighty to justify more big government programs you don't have a problem but when a conservative mentions God it’s the dawn of a Christian theocracy.

Walker gets about 1/3 as much money from Koch as the democrats get from union bosses and Washington special interests. What's your point?

Clark, have you ever heard of Super PACs and Americans for Prosperity? The Koch brothers have poured millions into AFP, which is actively working to save Scott Walker's job (R-ALEC). The Kochs also gave $50,000+ to the Republican Governor's Association, which gave to Walker and other R-ALEC governor's races.

Research those sidewinder donations, make the comparison and report back please.

@Bren -

Let's be fair here - AFP is a completely autonomous grassroots organization that the Koch Bros happen to contribute to, but by no means do they control AFP's direction. Example - the 1,000+ people that attended last week's Summit in Wisconsin are AFP!

You apparently have no problem with the Democrats receiving large donations from organized labor but denounce Falk's pledge to the public sector unions - don't you find this a bit hypocritical in your current rant demonizing the Koch Bros?

Gottcha!

The Koch Brothers are financing Walker, and have funded the opposition to the Unions in Wisconsin. Romney is also a recipient of the Koch Brothers dirty money. ANYONE who wants to see what these two Evil Brothers are up to, and where they are from, their History, and their Agenda, is can Google them, and their Nazi connections.Lets put it this way, THEY are not America's Friends. For your own good, INVESTIGATE ! I don't care which Party you support. If you love your Country, then defend it against these Men.

Bren, are you familiar with George Soros and the Open Society Institute that spends millions to fund leftist/progressive organizations? Why is it different when liberals spend millions to promote their leftist ideology?

Analyze the 30 Soros funded organizations listed at this site for their obvious liberal bias and influence in the political arena and get back to us.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Organizations%20Funded%20Directly5.htm

The Koch Brothers have Evil intentions. These guys smell to high Heaven. Google their Nazi Connections, their affiliations, their Agenda is pretty clear. They are NOT your friends, quite the opposite.

Louise is obviously ready to be fitted for that tin foil hat now. You are aware the Nazis were typical of the Leftists of their day?

@Adam Wienieski...Are you out of your mind? Nazis were right wing nationalist fascists. You can't get any more right wing than that. They were also a dictatorship as was the Soviet Union, but their political ideology was completely different.

Mr., uh, Hoffa?

Being "fair here" would, of course, involve being "honest here." And you cannot seriously think that your statement per Americans for Prosperity being "an autonomous grassroots organization" contributed to by the Koch Brothers but in no way influenced or, for that matter, "controlled" by the Koch Brothers meets any standard of, well, "honesty."

What I seriously hope is that you are kidding, that you do not seriously believe the statement you made and that you do not seriously expect any of us to believe it. After all, my friend, Americans for Prosperity was, well, founded by the Koch Brothers (it derived from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which was, of course, founded by the Koch Brothers). It is not now and has never been what you laughably and incredibly call "an autonomous grassroots organization." It was founded by, is to a great extent funded by, and is absolutely controlled by the Koch Brothers. I mean, you silly, silly boy, do you think APF would take a stand not approved by the Koch's? And, how long do you think it's leadership group would last if it did?

God Almight, man! There is an entire world of thinking people out here!

Actually Lyle the Nazis were ardent socialists. They believed in state control of wages, prices, private property and employment. They demanded the confiscation of inherited wealth and excessive profits. The word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch.)

Fascist movements were and are left wing. Left wing ideologues have dissociated themselves from the horrors of fascism by claiming it was "right wing" when it was only to the right of Stalin's Russia.

Here's how the head Nazi described his political philosophy in May, 1927. "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

Except for the murder, bigotry and genocide there is very little in the Nazi agenda a contemporary progressive would object to.

@ Rusty Inman -

1) Name one political/ideological organization that is not in some way backed by big money.

2) What makes the Koch Bros money so much worse than any other big money financiers?

3) AFP's support of some candidates doesn't necessarily line up with the Koch Bros outspoken libertarian political ideology, and yet the group still exits today - how could that be if your little rant was as true as you believe it to be?

Thanks!

@Adam Wienieski...Time for you to go back to the history books. Fascism is a close relationship between business and government. The only people to lose their inheritance were the Jews. Hitler nationalized a number of industries for the war effort and to pull the nation out of the depression he created a number of public works projects such as the building of the autobahns. A number of the businesses flourished under the Nazis and are still in business today.

@Adam -

Thanks for setting Lyle straight on the Nazi issue - couldn't have said it better myself!

BTW - Very nice write up and quote!

@Lyle -

And how exactly are quasi or fully nationalized corporate entities, such as Volkswagen was under the Nazis, not an inherent product of socialist policy initiatives?

Yes, Lyle, but how did Hitler come to power, why was he freely elected by the German people to lead the country? Hitler was hardly the tool of business he was more of a leftist than a nationalist who portrayed himself as a defender of the little guy. I'm afraid you've fallen prey to the revisionist history propagated by leftist academics that scrubbed Hitler's Germany of its national socialist foundations after the war.

Modern liberalism has its roots in early 20th century fascist politics. If you want to see a close relationship between business and government at work look no further than Solyndra and the other green energy debacles unfolding before us.

@Adam Wienieski...The truth be known, and this isn't revisionist, Hitler wasn't clearly conservative or socialist; he was a German Nationalist. Even the Nazi Party was split between socialists and conservatives. Early on in the 1920s he approached the masses as a socialist, however when they came to power in 1933 he became conservative and entered into a close alignment with conservative industrialists and business. Eventually he moved to the right and in keeping with conservative ideology believed in Social Darwinism and a class system based on merit and achievement within Aryans. He believed in the German Order.

Mr. Hoffa

1. Did I, anywhere in my, uh, rant--as you so laughingly referenced it--assert that there were political/ideological organizations not in some way backed by Big Money? Well? Indeed, was there anything in my post that either implied or might allow for the inference that I believed there were political/ideological organizations unaffiliated with Big Money? Well? Down here in the South, we would, at this point, ask if you might not be reading something into my comments.

2. Did I, anywhere in my comment, in any way assert or imply that the Koch Brothers were any better or any worse than other Big Money "financiers" who fund political/ideological organizations? Well?

3. My goodness, as much as your first two questions were indicative of the fact that you either did not read my, uh, "little rant" or simply chose to apprehend it in a curiously defensive way, your third question is really rather simplistic, politically unsophisticated, and disappointing. But, sigh, since I feel obligated to respond, allow me to simply say that AFP, in regard to its support of candidates, faces the same dilemma as any organization of its sort. It supports that candidate closest to its prevailing ideology, even if he/she, for whatever reason, "falls short" of "true believer" status.

My goodness, you really don't believe the Koch's run AFP, do you? Even my GOP friends sitting here in my den are laughing about that!

Now, for us, back to basketball.

Mr. Hoffa, AFP is in no way a grassroots organization and you know it. Please. Adam, yes I'm familiar with George Soros and the Open Society Foundations, I am a subscriber. The OS takes great interest in improving quality of life around the globe. I have receive no information that OS is a seditious organization bent on warping the Constitution to favor multinational corporatists as I hold that ALEC is.

Concerning the Nazis, this was an English acronym for NSDAP, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, (National Socialist German Worker's Party). The party was created by far-right fascists and anti-communist militants. The intent was to draw ordinary people away from the communist party.The Nazi party believed itself apart from traditional political viewpoints (right, left, moderate/center), but many believe that the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany represented the extreme far-right of the political spectrum.

@Rusty Inman -

1. No, you didn't expressly state such. However, the tone of your post did in fact infer that big money backing political ideology was somehow inherently bad.

2. No, you didn't expressly state such. However, once again, the tone of your post did in fact infer that you were somehow siding with those commentators above that appear to be predisposed with the notion that the Koch Bros are inherently evil.

3. "I mean, you silly, silly boy, do you think APF would take a stand not approved by the Koch's?" Well, if they're as hard line as you asserted in the aforementioned statement, then how exactly do you reconcile such with the position you're now taking about sometimes having to settle for close enough - after all, wouldn't true hard liners like the Koch's simply manufacture the perfect candidate that would conform to all of their personal preferences instead of merely settling for close enough? And yet you claim that I'm the one that's being "simplistic, politically unsophisticated, and disappointing!" HA! Try again!

"My goodness, you really don't believe the Koch's run AFP, do you?"

OK fine, you got me - the Koch Bros really do run AFP, just like Allen Glick really ran Argent Corp. back in the '70's through the early '80's (something Hoffa knows plenty about)!

@Bren -

I'd hardly call the Nazi regime "the extreme far-right of the political spectrum." I thought that 'the extreme far-right' was typically characterized by anarchy and a laissez faire economic system. The Nazis, by contrast, were obsessively orderly and controlling to the point of creating a near dystopian state. Remember the Gestapo and SS? Individuality and personal freedoms took a backdoor to what was best for mother Germany. The collectivism of the perfect Aryan society marked by the equality of outcome was the key social agenda, not the promotion of individual pursuits and equality of opportunity. No, the Nazi's were clearly closer to 'the extreme far-left of the political spectrum.'

Cheers!

"Walker gets about 1/3 as much money from Koch as the democrats get from union bosses and Washington special interests. "

You really don't know what you're talking about. We'll be outspent by vulture capitalists by ten to one. Pull your head out of you know where.

Even if they did. Unions represent your interests.

Of course Hitler and the Nazis were conservatives. The first people they rounded up were Socialists and Communists.

@Lyle, so now Hitler wasn't a "right wing" national fascist until after gaining power in 1933, how convenient for revisionist historians trying to bury the truth. What they keep running away from is the fact that Nazism evolved out of the progressive socialist and collectivist ideals that swept America and Europe from roughly 1890 to the 1920's taking different forms under Woodrow Wilson, Mussolini and Lenin. Fascism was simply a nationalist form of extreme socialism.

What are modern progressives afraid of? For starters Hitler got his Eugenic ideas from American leftists; overt racism was "progressive" in the early part of the 20th century. The sordid history of the American Left will continue when I return.

Don- your liberals have had control of the country for four years. We have unprecedented national debt, still very high unemployment rates and a current president that makes promises while microphones are still on. He has a horrible legacy going and I feel bad for him if he gets another 4 years.

Clark, which president started term with a recession that has since been called the worst since the Great Depression? Which president inherited nascent corporate bailouts? Come now, let's stick with the facts.

@upset father...You have no idea, we have not lost our religious freedom. We have just limited the imposition of said beliefs on others using the government.

upset father, when was the last time you were barred from entering a church?

@Bren -

Actually, the preferred fashion would more closely mirror that which is seen in the 'Labyrinth' (1986) masquerade ball scene featuring David Bowie and Jennifer Connelly.

Mr. Hoffa, while exquisite, your choice might not match that of the arbiters of "religious freedom." I'm thinking less Labyrinth and more Crucible: http://www.broadwaycostumes.com/shows/crucible.htm

For those not 17th Century fashion-forward, those puckered manpris in the center of the linked page are "breeches."

@Bren -

And here I was getting all excited for stand-up collars, Tina Turner-esque wigs, and eye shadow/liner!

Thanks for bursting my bubble with the drab fashion sense!

Couldn't we at least go medieval with ruffled shirts and the like?

We'll have to ask Mr. Santorum. Sweater vests!

@Bren -

Hoffa's diggin the sweater vests - I could live with that!

Then maybe you conservative women can pay for your own obstetrical care. Why should my insurance premiums cover your personal choices?

@Randy1949 -

What law specifically mandates that your insurance premium cover conservative women's obstetrical care, as I'm personally unaware of that one?

@Stormy -

It's been liberal heavy most of the day today because conservatives have been attending events throughout the day. The Waukesha County GOP is currently having their Lincoln Day Dinner with the candidates in attendance. I wish I could have attended this great event as well as others throughout the day, but unfortunately, I had other obligations to tend to :-(

Glad to hear that you were at least able to take in an event and enjoy it - that's GREAT!!!

Whew! Your "guys" as you call them (unless I don't believe they would be "yours" for less than a $5,000 campaign donation--?) represent the political party that caused the recession. However, Newt was selling books and dvds, Romney was living off Bain earnings, Santorum's been hawking the right-wing lecture circuit since losing his Senate seat in PA by double-digits, and Paul Ryan has been worshiping at the altar of unapologetic passport bride and adulteress Ayn Rand and finding ways to experiment with other people's opportunity for a healthy old age.

Please explain the logic model that has Republicans making partial insurance premium payments on the policies of women who purchase hormonal birth control? I've heard this meme repeatedly and still can't figure out how this would work. Would women send their Walgreens receipts to the GOP for reimbursement? That might be easiest. Or perhaps these women should contact their local GOP representatives and schedule a meet-up at the appointed pharma counter. Perhaps easiest for everyone, Local Republican Party HQs could open pharma counters to dispense the birth control (with prescription, of course!). That way they would cut out the middleman Walgreens. Wait, that sounds Socialist...forget that...

Stormy, perhaps you can answer the question for me--which "Faith" is the right faith? What will happen to the people with the wrong "faith?"

Anyone ever visited Albi, France, a seat of the Albigensian Crusade?

@Bren -

"Anyone ever visited Albi, France, a seat of the Albigensian Crusade?"

I can't say that I have, but from your little rant, it's apparent that you visit the Daily Kos on quite the regular basis!

"Please explain the logic model that has Republicans making partial insurance premium payments on the policies of women who purchase hormonal birth control?"

I'm afraid I don't understand this question, as why would a partisan political party make a partial premium payment on other women's insurance policies that are supposedly purchasing their own birth control? That just doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. Could you rephrase?

So your'e trying to convince us that our eyes and ears aren't really seeing and hearing the ridiculous claims made by the stooges? Might you cite examples of when and where Republican policies have created the Utopia you apparently believe takes place when Republicans are in office? And we don't even have to start with the past eight years of a Republican administration.

@BassGreat -

You're confusing conservatives with Republicans. Not all Republicans are or have enacted a true conservative style of leadership or policy. GW Bush was not a true conservative. Of the candidates remaining in the current field, Ron Paul and Santorum are probably the closest to being true conservatives.

Bren, a pre-Reformation Christian theocracy similar to 13th century Albi, France would be closest in character to which violent and totalitarian political creed disguised as religion today? (Hint: think the gates of Vienna in 1683.)

Mr. Hoffa, a number of "conservatives" have expressed the concern that "they" are being asked to pay for women's/liberal women's hormonal contraceptives. Since no one else believes this, I must assume it's they are referring to the GOP, hence my question. Sometimes I simply can't resist finding the dark humor in the situation. ; )

The takeaway from the Albigensian Crusade was the Inquisition. The Albigensian/Cathar heretics in Europe (and southern France was a hotbed) threatened the authority of the Catholic Church. The heretics' belief system was different, you see. They were violently put down.

someone that sounds like you would brag about attending such a ridiculous embarrassing moment in U.S. history.

@Randy1949 -

Then purchase a health plan from an insurance pool that doesn't cover obstetrical care or self insure - pretty simple solution, right? No one is forcing you to belong to a plan that insures such events and there's no law that I'm aware of that requires every plan to insure such events, is there?

So again, I'm not really certain of the point you're trying to make here. After all, freedom of choice is what's at stake in the whole forced birth control coverage controversy with Obama and organized religion.

@JRH -- And where, my friend, is such a plan to be found? Not here in Wisconsin.

@Randy1949 -

Maybe you've just stumbled upon a gold mine! If there isn't something already out there to fit your needs or desires, then you can always create your own - that's the beauty of America! Put together a prospectus, attract investors, file the paperwork, and start your own insurance provider premised upon such a plan. The opportunity is yours should you choose to pursue it! Again, no one is stopping you but yourself!

$$andSense -

It's the currently sitting President that has made it a "divisive factor," not the current crop of candidates. Did you even read the article?

Yes I read the article. So like fish swallowing the bait, the candidates are buying into religion as the deciding factor as to who is fit to lead the US?

And some women like to pop one out every year and have their delivery paid for. Just because it's a 'choice' doesn't mean it isn't legitimate health coverage.

You call grown women 'girls'? I would say that some women are still fertile at the age of 45, and late pregnancy can be extra risky. But mostly women of that age are starting to need yearly mammograms. Each stage of life has its preventive needs. Those mammograms and pap smears were covered under the same provision that the birth control was. Men would have their prostate exams covered. A stitch in time saves nine.

@Randy1949 -

Can you name one woman that deems herself to be a conservative that "likes to pop one out every year and have their delivery paid for?"

I think your confusing liberal women with conservative women, as a true conservative woman either has insurance or self insures while the liberal woman expects everyone else to pay for it.

@Stormy Weather.... I have a problem with your comments where you compare nails and hair with birth control. Did your husband give you permission to write comments on the Patch? BTW, if you "Church Ladies" have your way, there won't be any Planned Parenthood for inexpensive women's healthcare.

What I don't understand about conservative women is why they continually vote against their own self interests. You'll let men and husbands control your fecundity and your freedoms. Using patriarchal religious systems to justify your status as chattel goes beyond all logic. Why do you insist that all your sisters should also be chained as chattel?

@Lyle -

"What I don't understand about conservative women is why they continually vote against their own self interests. You'll let men and husbands control your fecundity and your freedoms. Using patriarchal religious systems to justify your status as chattel goes beyond all logic. Why do you insist that all your sisters should also be chained as chattel?"

And where exactly in Stormy's statement does she express or even infer that women should be treated as chattel?

Nice try, but try again!

@JRH...Religion has been used and continues to be used to control women's fecundity. Religious principles and beliefs expressed in a structural moral system are the antithesis to women's reproductive freedom. Religion is controlled by men and men are the primary beneficiary of controlling women's fecundity; thus, men remain in the position of power. What Stormy Weather doesn't understand is that by limiting women's reproductive freedom, she is placing the shackle of chattel onto her own and her sister's ankles.

@Lyle -

How exactly is Stormy advocating for "limiting women's reproductive freedom," by merely expecting the woman to exercise self responsible and sufficiency while in engaging in such freedom?

If others are forced to pay so that a woman might be able to practice her "reproductive freedom," then aren't we financially enslaving others and treating them as chattel in prioritizing a deference towards such freedom?

Come on - REALLY???

It would appear that both of our games are suffering on this board if you honestly thought anyone would buy that assessment and justification!

@Randy1949 -

If the conservative woman is paying their insurance premium in a plan that covers such events, just as I'm sure Mrs. Santorum is, then they are in fact paying their own way. As stated before, if you don't like those kinds of plans just because you plan on always being childless, then do something about it and start your own insurance company offering childless plans - you could just be on to something here! No one is stopping you from doing so, are they?

No, JRH, they are not, or else they'd be paying everything out of pocket. They're letting the premiums of people without so many children with such high costs subsidize them. No one can predict a child with an illness, but a little restraint might result in five or so fewer hospital deliveries.

@Randy1949 -

It sounds to me like your real gripe here is with insurance plans and how they're currently set up. So get the government out of the way and let the marketplace determine insurance plans and the coverage they'll provide at certain premium levels. Problem solved, correct?

@JRH -- The marketplace has already determined that an insurance company will cover a person my age for a thousand bucks a month with a ten thousand dollar deductible. The marketplace would really rather not cover a person my age. Period.

Randy - Here is the ultimate birth control - Stop paying unmarried women when they pop out babies! I don't mind helping a young girl who has made a mistake. I won't even complain too much if it happens again, but I don't believe in supporting women who have 3, 4, 5, 6, babies by different fathers. If they get pregnant the 3rd time, they can pay for their own abortion (their choice), or pay for their own baby. Crack down on irresponsible parents - If they don't take care of their children, start the process sooner and remove the children from the homes... Once you remove the money aspect many of these women and their baby daddys will figure out how to prevent pregnancies!

@Randy1949 -

You shifted the discussion from birthing to infirmity. Not really fair, but I'll play along. That's why Hoffa actually supports a national single payer system, but it must be done right. Something along of the lines of what Lee Iaococca suggested in his 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone' would be a step in the right direction, but definitely not Obamacare!

@Stormy Weather -- I agree unmarried people shouldn't behaving babies they can't support. But this discussion was about insurance plans for employees, some of them married (who have every right to enjoy a marital life on their own terms) having a basic preventive service covered under the medical plan. For which they no doubt pay an employee contribution.

@JRH...C'mon, you're off your game tonight. Randy is correct that if we are in an insurance plan that provides for obstetric services, including birth and delivery it is calculated in the risk pool. Years ago I sold health insurance and the only state that didn't require obstetrical services automatically included in a plan was Utah. In Utah they had to buy a separate rider, but that has since changed and they even include it now. Quite simply, high fecundity increases costs to everyone.

@JRH -- "You shifted the discussion from birthing to infirmity. Not really fair, but I'll play along. That's why Hoffa actually supports a national single payer system,"

Well I'll be dipped. You're actually right. The ACA is only a mild improvement on what we had before. It wasn't what any of us had hoped for or what we need to solve the problem. But that's politics for ya.

@Lyle -

What law states that insurance companies must cover obstetric services in all health policies that they write? If there is in fact a law requiring this, it should obviously be done away with as an unconstitutional regulation of the industry.

@upset father -- There are side effects to every prescription drug. There are risks/side effects to every medical procedure. There are definite risks in pregnancy -- gestational diabetes, ecclampsia, stroke, death . . .

Why can't the "partner" buy his own condoms and use them? Since when it the sole responsibility for birth control placed upon women? This whole ridiculous campaign blames women for Planned Parenthood, birth control and anything else related to pregnancies outside of marriage. Women's healthcare is far more expensive than men's and yet no one goes after the providers only the insurance companies, who have been forced to raise rates and be selective about coverage due to the extortionist healthcare costs of the providers. Somehow, the gop would find a way to blame women for this as well. Planned Parenthood has been a boon to women with little or no health coverage, yet the reiigious zealots in the gop see them only as abortionists. Too much time has been wasted on this and their so called "religious freedom" being taken away by the current administration. More important issues like taxes, jobs, the environment and protecting our precious natural resources, international issues have fallen by the wayside while these people bicker about religious freedom and birth control. November can't come too soon for me.

Latex allergies are nothing to be dismissed. There's also breakage. If condoms were so wonderful, I don't think the Pill would have been developed, nor would it be so popular.

Have you checked your plan?

Bill, the clown parade is currently in office. The Obama / Biden tandem makes me wonder what "idiots" voted them in office. Where is Biden today? He is an embarrassing gaffe a minute.

The only thing President Obama is 'attacking' is the practice of religious institutions being secular when it suits them (doing business with the general public and engaging in politics) and then insisting on their sectarian protections (tax breaks) when it's convenient and profitable.

You do business with the public, hire the public, then you do it according to the workplace rules laid out for the general public. There was an exemption for actual churches, and that should have been enough. Again, I call giant hypocrisy on these people.

@Nona Brock -- I would think that, being the ones who bear the brunt of an unintended pregnancy, women would like to have the control in their hands. You're also implying that women don't enjoy sex as much as men do.

Ah yes, MrsPeel, my #1 fan! Your admiration of "the GREAT HOFFA" continues to grow I see. I really should try and come up with a colored 8x10 that I could autograph and send to you. Really, I'm flattered, but there's no need to call Hoffa "GREAT," as that goes without saying and Hoffa is a truly humble kind of guy!

As to AFP, an organization is only as strong as the membership that comprises the organization. AFP is much bigger than just Charles and David Koch, as the 1000+ that were in attendance at last weekend's AFP Summit in Milwaukee, including yours truly, conclusively proves. And one thing I didn't see in the parking lot were any Rolls Royces, Bentleys, or Aston Martins - go figure, right? That is the 'grassroots' element to which I was speaking of - did I really have to explain that, especially to my #1 fan?

Signed - the GREAT HOFFA! ;-)

Like the woman in that car insurance commercial said, "You (repugs) make my hair numb." I agree with you, NoToWalkersCronies, but I don't trust people who post under pseudonyms, "Hoffa" being the least trustworthy. Yes, I'm guessing he gets paid per post. Of course, your nom de plume fits under the same umbrella. The difference is that I agree with you. :-) And I don't think you are a Koch employee. Now, excuse me. It's a rainy Sunday morning and I am going to exercise my religious freedom by NOT attending an organized religion fest and retiring to my third bedroom office to grade papers and do report cards. It's the end of the marking period in Racine Unified. Oh, and I'm also going to "unfollow" this. Remember? Numb hair? Have a great day everybody!

Wow, all this love for Hoffa - it's good thing for you boys that there's enough of Hoffa to go around!

@Ron Clone -

I'm guessing that a predisposition to logical rational argument and the truthful realities of situations isn't a prequalification to earning a teaching position within the RUSD, is it? That's partially why the District is currently facing the problems that it does! Don't worry, once Mr. Dey is elected to the Board of Education this coming Tuesday, the house cleaning will begin and the District will begin to heal once the cancerous elements are swiftly removed. I just hope you have a backup or contingent plan in place, as Hoffa hates to see people unemployed for very long!

Cheers!

"Wow, all this love for Hoffa - it's good thing for you boys that there's enough of Hoffa to go around!"

Aw Jimmy, I'm feeling disenfranchised :( What about us girls?

@mau -

You know I save the very best of Hoffa for the ladies! ;-)

Keith, make up another fictional list. Playing on racism. Racism is your own unresolved guilt.

@upset father -- That's like saying that iodine and toughing it out are your generic option for treating infections. It so happens that twice in the last fifteen years my physician has seen fit to prescribe antibiotics for me that cost thirty dollars a pill, because s/he felt that was the best protection there was. Suppose your doctor diagnoses high cholesterol and prescribes Lipitor for you? It's pricey. Do you want someone else saying that because high doses of niacin are cheaper you should make do with that? Do you want your kid toughing out an ear infection simply because your employer thinks antibiotics make us soft? Medicine has given us these things for a reason -- to make our lives healthier and better.

You also seem to be ignoring that this provision would deny contraceptive coverage to married couples who happen to work for religiously affiliated institutions. So, they should just not have sex either if they don't want to end up with nine kids? It isn't all about unmarried women.

@Stormy Weather -- You have managed to convince me that St. Paul was right in at least one regard.

Religious freedom for whom, I might ask? Does an individual lose his or her freedom of conscience simply by working for the wrong boss? It would be one thing of the job market were such that we could all pick and choose, but it isn't.

@Stormy Weather -- And I see you're not smart enough to remember gasoline prices at this point back in 2008 and the pundits at Fox falling all over themselves to explain how the President had absolutely no control over it.

Our President stopped the market in its free-fall plunge and got us moving back upward, too slowly for some, but better than just pouring on more of the same. For that, I am grateful to him.

And finally, it's '_you're_ not smart enough.' Shall I blame public, private, or home schools for that?

@upset father -- Jeez -- don't you comprehend that that we pay for everyone else's activities one way or another? Either through higher insurance premiums, higher medical costs, or through taxes in the case of the truly indigent. Anyone with insurance pays indirectly for all of Mrs. Santorum's deliveries. They pay for the months of neo-natal ICU care the Duggars' baby required. I'd rather 'pay' for a years worth of BC pills than that.

I'm married. I've been monogamous since 1975. There was a time when our insurance plan through work covered oral contraceptives -- just like any other prescription drug. HIV and other STDs were never a concern for this married couple, but effective family planning was.

What a load of manure.

How about you take responsibility for a President who turned a surplus into a huge deficit, gave us the 2008 recession, gave us the same gasoline prices we're seeing now, and held hands with a Saudi prince? It's your side that makes a big deal about the color of his skin.

Oddly enough, I'm spending my day taking care of a child too -- my little grandson, while his parents work to make their house livable again after a fire. We're raising him liberal, just like his dad. :)

@Randy1949 -

What surplus are you speaking of exactly?

And who's making a deal out of Obama's skin color exactly, as both the article and the comments from conservatives appear to focus on his ineptitude. In fact, the first comment playing the race card in relation to Obama on this board appears to come from Keith Schmitz, and it's no secret what side of the fence he falls on, is it?

@JRH -- I'm talking about the federal budget surplus that GW Bush decided to first give back in rebates and then in tax cuts. Are you saying that didn't happen?

Yes, I know we were at the end of the Dot.com boom, but that made giving money back even stupider, given that we're supposed to have our panties in a twist about deficits now. Back then, they didn't matter. Now, OMG -- the sky is falling!

I don't know about Schmitz. I was addressing Stormy Weather's charge that the president was guilty of furthering the racial divide. I'm not sure how. I haven't seen him doing it.

@Randy1949 -

Well, 9/11 changed everything for good ol GW, didn't it? And if it wasn't as big of deal as it turned out to be, then Obama would have ended the war on day 1 of his administration as he originally promised when campaigning, right? And yet, I still see troops on the battlefield, not to mention his further expositions into Northern Africa.

Again, the only reason Clinton experienced any surpluses was because of the raids he allowed by Congress on the supposedly segregated SS fund. The only President we've had in modern times that truly balanced a budget, ran a surplus, and used that surplus to pay down some of the accumulated debt early was Carter, but even he had a tax problem caused by high levels of spending.

@JRH -- If, as you say, 9/11 changed things for GW Bush, then wasn't it kind of stupid to go ahead with tax rebates and tax reductions right at the time he's increasing spending? Even more stupid if, as you say, the Clinton surpluses came from raids on Social Security.

@Randy1949 -

When a liberal (Obama) attempts to 'stimulate' the economy, they have government spend vast sums of money. When a conservative (GW Bush) attempts to 'stimulate' the economy, they return some of the tax revenues to the people from which it was collected from and allow them the freedom of choice of how to spend the money.

After 9/11, the world slipped into a small recession, so Bush returned some money to the people and allowed them to do with it as they saw fit, thus avoiding falling deeper into recession. How did Obama's government stimulus work out again - in fact, I believe the President himself laughingly said "shovel ready wasn't as shovel ready as we expected," remember? So where did almost $1T of purely borrowed money go exactly? At least with Bush, it wasn't borrowed money and we know exactly where it went - right back into our pockets! That's not to say that Bush didn't have a deficit/debt causing spending problem, as he clearly did, but on that singular issue, I'll take the Bush approach over the Obama approach any day of the week - wouldn't you? Or do you honestly believe that the government better knows how to spend your money than you do?

Class dismissed!

Seriously, upset father, I hope I die in my sleep like my father did, or in my own bed, taken care of by family like my grandfather.

Assuming you aren't so lucky, do you intend to pay for the nursing costs during your dotage and your final illness completely out of your own pocket? Generally, the costs of that get spread around to the rest of society.

Let me ask you how come conservatives use the insurance they get through their jobs to take care of their needs and then act like it's courageous self-reliance? You honestly remind me of Ayn Rand's idiot hero in Anthem, who runs away from the Collective, finds a house already built and still standing in the wilderness, complete with still intact library and a full wardrobe of clothing for his girlfriend and then pats himself on the back for doing it all on his own. And then he builds an electric fence to keep the Evil Collectivists out. I hope he had the sense not to pee on it.

No, upset father, there are some things that are beyond your control. No one wants cancer or Alzheimers, but they happen. No one wants to lose a job and be unable to save for retirement as well as they'd hoped to, but it happens. No one wants to be without health insurance, but that happens too, for a variety of reasons.

I hope you can make your own future, but you need to realize it's possible to do everything right and still have outside influences make a comfortable future impossible on your own.

I can say the same. in fact, I can say that throughout my life I've shared my resources with others for the good of society, sometimes even more than I was able, only to be told I'm on my own now and should have planned my life better.

@Jory Pradjinski...Sorry Jory, but your references just don't cut it. Anything and everything can be taken out of context. Obama is only following the constitution and separating church and state. Next thing you'll be claiming is he's a Muslim.

@Jory -- Perhaps we should re-examine the ability of religious entities to make use of tax breaks to operate secular institutions and businesses. You want to accept the money from secular clients in hospitals and schools, and accept the efforts of your non-religious employees, then you need to follow the rules and stop hiding behind religion when it suits you.