Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on February 10, 2012, 06:37:54 PM
-
I just cannot believe how shameless Obama is in lying to the public and getting away with it, without the media calling him on it.
The latest case in point is the controversy over the Catholic church refusing to pay for contraceptives for church employees. In steps Obama, parting the seas and finding a solution to satisfy both the church and female employees of the church. The Catholic church, he says, will not have to provide contraceptives to employees. Instead, the employees' health insurance companies will provide the contraceptives, for free.
Free! This is great!
Wait a minute. With this approach, female employees of the Catholic Church will still be able to have contraceptives --the use of which runs counter to the teachings of the church--paid for. The Church won't pay for them. The insurance companies will. And the insurance companies will spread the cost to all of their policy holders, so even people who have no affiliation with the Catholic church will be paying for contraceptives.
What a sleazy, duplicitous, lying bag of **expletive deleted**.
-
In an election year it just won't do to have every RC priest in the land reading seditious material from the pulpit (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57368259-503544/catholics-hear-anti-obama-letter-in-church/).
What a sleazy, duplicitous, lying bag of **expletive deleted**.
But we all knew that.
-
Yeah, saw this. Wtf?
Ok so the RCC won't have to pay for it...but they can pay the ins company (presumably more than otherwise) who can then pay for the birth control. words can not express the levels of jackassary displayed here.
-
Until We the People begin treating Big Media as The Enemy nothing is going to change. It is impossible to have a viable Republic with a hostile and mendacious Press. We are flying blind--and stupid--as things are. We all know this, but we continue to pretend that the media are not the eyes and ears of the body politic.
-
but they can pay the ins company (presumably more than otherwise)
We happen to have any clergy around? I'll wager they the RCC is self-insured. How's that going to go over?
-
Now that Obama is just about done with his assault on Catholic doctrine, his next wave of regulations will require Jewish schools & institutions to add ham sandwiches, bacon, and pork chops to their lunchroom menu . . .
-
I don't understand this, what does Obama have to do with anything? Is he a king handing down edicts now?
-
from the Declaration of Independence to dentured servitude in a mere quarter-millennium:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290806/church-obama-mark-steyn?pg=1
The president of the United States has decided to go Henry VIII on the Church’s medieval ass. Whatever religious institutions might profess to believe in the matter of “women’s health,” their pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, and immunities are now subordinate to a one-and-only supreme head on earth determined to repress, redress, restrain, and amend their heresies. One wouldn’t wish to overextend the analogy: For one thing, the Catholic Church in America has been pathetically accommodating of Beltway bigwigs’ ravenous appetite for marital annulments in a way that Pope Clement VII was disinclined to be vis-Ã -vis the English king and Catherine of Aragon. But where’d all the pandering get them? In essence President Obama has embarked on the same usurpation of church authority as Henry VIII: As his Friday morning faux-compromise confirms, the continued existence of a “faith-based institution” depends on submission to the doctrinal supremacy of the state.
Time for the RC Church to get its head out of its socialist, pro-illegal immigrant *expletive deleted*ss and back into the game of actual churching. That would include railing against the unAmerican acts by Barack the Unready.
-
I don't understand this, what does Obama have to do with anything? Is he a king handing down edicts now?
THAT'S a very good question. For the most part it's being ignored. Everyone WAS up in arms about forcing a church to provide contraceptives, now it's being foisted upon the insurance companies (meaning people who pay for coverage will see a hike in their bills) but NO ONE is asking how is it Obama is getting away with this sham! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
-
The very large (55,000 employees) Catholic healthcare system that I work for runs a healthcare insurance company. The employees of the system are covered through that company and it also covers several hundred thousand other people whose employers buy insurance from that company.
-
I don't understand this, what does Obama have to do with anything? Is he a king handing down edicts now?
Well, actually, now that you mention it, he is...for all intents and purposes...
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-wasnt-obama-in-contempt-of-court/
-
Here's a very good blog post written by a fellow I know who lived in Argentina. He sees many similarities to Peronism.
http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/02/obama-americas-peron.html
-
Or a banana republic without the republic.
-
from the Declaration of Independence to dentured servitude in a mere quarter-millennium:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290806/church-obama-mark-steyn?pg=1
Time for the RC Church to get its head out of its socialist, pro-illegal immigrant *expletive deleted*ss and back into the game of actual churching. That would include railing against the unAmerican acts by Barack the Unready.
done
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/11/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html
-
Obama got torched by Archbishop Dolan, who met with him in November.
Obama was non-committal, but led Dolan to believe that there was nothing to worry about.
When Obama announced that churches would have to agree to contraceptives via insurance, he allowed them one year to comply, and not right away.
Dolan caught Obama flat-footed and went immediately after him.
Sadly, this move by the RCC reeks with hypocrisy, as the only Catholics who have this opinion about birth control are the US Bishops and Rome.
About 60% of US Catholics approve the use of birth control, so the US Bishops miss the mark yet again.
The irony here is the RCC has never uttered any comments about Catholics in the US, and their healthcare choices.
The UCCB (United Conference of Catholic Bishops), of which Dolan is president, have, as of late, also been lying publicly in a spat with a very renown and respected Catholic Theologian to maintain their control.
I am no Obama fan, but the US Catholic Bishops can stick their opinions in their own ears.
-
Obama got torched by Archbishop Dolan, who met with him in November.
Obama was non-committal, but led Dolan to believe that there was nothing to worry about.
When Obama announced that churches would have to agree to contraceptives via insurance, he allowed them one year to comply, and not right away.
Dolan caught Obama flat-footed and went immediately after him.
Sadly, this move by the RCC reeks with hypocrisy, as the only Catholics who have this opinion about birth control are the US Bishops and Rome.
About 60% of US Catholics approve the use of birth control, so the US Bishops miss the mark yet again.
The irony here is the RCC has never uttered any comments about Catholics in the US, and their healthcare choices.
The UCCB (United Conference of Catholic Bishops), of which Dolan is president, have, as of late, also been lying publicly in a spat with a very renown and respected Catholic Theologian to maintain their control.
I am no Obama fan, but the US Catholic Bishops can stick their opinions in their own ears.
I don't think it matters a hill of beans whether Catholics use contraceptives or not. I think it is wrong for the govt. to tell Catholic based charities they have to provide contraceptives against Catholic teachings. If the individual Catholics don't like it they're free to leave the Catholic church and join another if it is that important.
I myself have nothing against contraceptives and other birth control devices. See your doctor about effectiveness and possible side effects.
I do, OTOH, have a big problem with "free stuff" that is mandated by .gov. Yeah I know birth control is not a big huge nasty chunk of change, it's the principle of the thing. Someone has to pay somewhere somehow somewhen, and the govt. says insurance companies pay. My @$$ THEY pay!!!!!!!!!!! YOU & I pay when we get our insurance bill. And my *&^##% insurance company has jacked my rates enough as it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Agitation for the sake of agitation. I'm sure he has a well- thought out political rationale for irritating a fairly reliable voting block. What that rationale is escapes me. He pulls these stunts having to face an electorate. I can't wait to see what he pulls when he no longer has to face the voter.
-
Agitation for the sake of agitation. I'm sure he has a well- thought out political rationale for irritating a fairly reliable voting block. What that rationale is escapes me. He pulls these stunts having to face an electorate. I can't wait to see what he pulls when he no longer has to face the voter.
Waitone, I don't think he saw the backlash coming. He and his handlers looked at the percentages of Catholics who favor contraceptives despite the Church's position, and figured it was a win-win. I don't think they counted on Catholics resenting government intrusion into their church. I really don't think Obama considers what he's doing on many issues as intrusion, and is thus surprised by reactions.
The damage control will be interesting. We'll probably get some video footage of him taking Communion or posing with the Virgin Mary.
-
Sorry - in your country the employer has to pay for contraceptives? Who is screwing who in that case?
*gets coat*
-
Obama got torched by Archbishop Dolan, who met with him in November.
Obama was non-committal, but led Dolan to believe that there was nothing to worry about.
When Obama announced that churches would have to agree to contraceptives via insurance, he allowed them one year to comply, and not right away.
Dolan caught Obama flat-footed and went immediately after him.
Sadly, this move by the RCC reeks with hypocrisy, as the only Catholics who have this opinion about birth control are the US Bishops and Rome.
About 60% of US Catholics approve the use of birth control, so the US Bishops miss the mark yet again.
The irony here is the RCC has never uttered any comments about Catholics in the US, and their healthcare choices.
The UCCB (United Conference of Catholic Bishops), of which Dolan is president, have, as of late, also been lying publicly in a spat with a very renown and respected Catholic Theologian to maintain their control.
I am no Obama fan, but the US Catholic Bishops can stick their opinions in their own ears.
So what does your anti religious authority structure rant have to do with government interference in matters of religious conscience? Check out Mark Steyn for why this matters:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/church-339789-one-catholic.html
-
He and his brain trust are just testing us--like any adolescents.
-
Waitone, I don't think he saw the backlash coming. He and his handlers looked at the percentages of Catholics who favor contraceptives despite the Church's position, and figured it was a win-win. I don't think they counted on Catholics resenting government intrusion into their church. I really don't think Obama considers what he's doing on many issues as intrusion, and is thus surprised by reactions.
The damage control will be interesting. We'll probably get some video footage of him taking Communion or posing with the Virgin Mary.
Your assessment is exactly correct - Obama completely misread this and dropped a big ball.
His unwillingness to recognize these things is a combination of arrogance and self-importance.
He is a legend in his own mind, and does not listen to his advisers, who are only human.
-
What a sleazy, duplicitous, lying bag of **expletive deleted**.
wait, how do you really really feel about him?
-
I don't think they counted on Catholics so many people, Catholic or otherwise, resenting government intrusion into their any church.
Fixed that.
-
Yup, he managed to anger just about every religion with a clinic or hospital of some kind.
To me it appears as if he views Churches as some kind of Union or community organization rather then a collection of people who hold mostly the same values and actually believe in God- to him ( imo ) a Church is someplace you go so you can get some votes from idiots who believe that nonsense.
That's why his old Reverend Racists was so quickly thrown under the bus.
-
it could be that this really angered him and he knows he isn't getting another term and he really wants to implement some kind of lasting socialist policy.
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court endorsed for the first time the “ministerial exception” to state and federal employment discrimination laws while rejecting the Obama administration’s argument that churches should be treated no differently than other employers.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2012/01/12/open-thread-some-good-news-religious-liberty#ixzz1m90joLS3
-
Actually, I would think that insurance companies and the Church would save money by providing contraceptive options to the employees. Birth control is waaay cheaper than covering the costs related to prenatal care, child birth, perinatal pediatric care, productivity lost due to maternity leave, additional future coverage of the infant/child.
So, insurance companies provide birth control, save money, the Church doesn't have to go against its beliefs by funding it and women who want birth control get it. ???
-
Except that the Church is paying the insurance company to provide birth control. They're still providing it, just through a middle man. I can see where the Church might have a problem with that, and I'm a fan of birth control.
-
the Church doesn't have to go against its beliefs by funding it
How do you figure? The RC Church has always been officially against artificial birth control. The compromise is nothing more than semantics.
More importantly, this whole argument moves the ball down the field for the administration. The federal government shouldn't even have a voice at the table in this discussion. This is the proverbial camels nose under the tent of religious liberty. They chose this issue due to its divisive nature in the RC Church, knowing that most other Christian organizations don't have doctrinal issues with birth control and that a majority of RC members ignore the churches teaching on the issue.
-
I thought that the Insurance companies would be absorbing the cost of the contraceptive treatment, with out increasing the cost of the employee's insurance policy? How does the Church pay for the contraceptives? If the women went out and bought the contraceptives out of their own pockets, with the Church's paycheck, would it still be a violation of the Church's right to not facilitate artificial birth control?
The federal government shouldn't even have a voice at the table in this discussion.
This I can agree with.
-
The issue is really this:
The federal government demands that all insurance policies pay for contraception.
As a bonus they get to degrade the separation of church and state and establish sovereignty over religious institutions. We of course will still have the right to practice our religion, as the federal government sees fit.
If you missed it, read the Mark Steyn article I linked to on the first page of this thread.
edited to add: as an aside, I'm not even a Roman Catholic and really have no issues with most birth control options.
-
I thought that the Insurance companies would be absorbing the cost of the contraceptive treatment, with out increasing the cost of the employee's insurance policy?
Do you really believe that a company of any sort can just "absorb" an additional cost without recouping that cost somewhere else? The companies will find a way to hide the cost for the contraceptives. If they can't do that, then they'll eliminate coverage for something else. Either way, they can't just eat the costs of this new mandate on top of other new costs that come along and expect to survive.
-
Do you really believe that a company of any sort can just "absorb" an additional cost without recouping that cost somewhere else? The companies will find a way to hide the cost for the contraceptives. If they can't do that, then they'll eliminate coverage for something else. Either way, they can't just eat the costs of this new mandate on top of other new costs that come along and expect to survive.
Of course I don't believe companies would do anything for free. But as I said before the issuing of effective contraceptives is a cost saving tradeoff: If giving "free" birth control to their clients will significantly decrease the probability of child birth claims popping up in the future, while these same clients sill continue paying for the full coverage of child birth services, the company makes money. Health insurance companies want you to pay for the insurance, but not actually use it. That's their profit margin.
-
The government should not mandate these things.
The RCC also needs to face the reality that they are whining about a trivial issue.
I have no sympathy for either of them.
They deserve each other, as neither represents the best interest of their people.
-
How about this idea? If you expect your employer to help you pay for something - don't work for an outfit well-known for being firmly opposed to that thing. Crazy, I know...
The government should not mandate these things.
The RCC also needs to face the reality that they are whining about a trivial issue.
I have no sympathy for either of them.
They deserve each other, as neither represents the best interest of their people.
Uh, what? How is it trivial? If the RCC is "whining about a trivial issue," then so are all the people going to their defense. What's trivial about government mandating that an organization pay for things it believes are violations of God's law?
-
The state and Federal governments have a rich tradition of mandating that healthcare insurance cover certain things. Mammograms, direct referrals without going through your primary care physician, minimum lengths of stay in the hospital, etc.
-
How about this idea? If you expect your employer to help you pay for something - don't work for an outfit well-known for being firmly opposed to that thing. Crazy, I know...
Uh, what? How is it trivial? If the RCC is "whining about a trivial issue," then so are all the people going to their defense. What's trivial about government mandating that an organization pay for things it believes are violations of God's law?
Gee, I guess that my bible must have left the passages out about not using birth control. Silly me!
It is a violation of the Catholic Church's law. Big difference.
No different than the churches who use marijuana in their 'worship' - churches can say anything that they want to.
The whining is by the church hierarchy, as most Catholic people do not share the same opinion.
-
Gee, I guess that my bible must have left the passages out about not using birth control. Silly me!
It is a violation of the Catholic Church's law. Big difference.
No different than the churches who use marijuana in their 'worship' - churches can say anything that they want to.
The whining is by the church hierarchy, as most Catholic people do not share the same opinion.
Nice way to mis-read the polls Mr. Axelrod.
The polls say that many RC's use birth control, not that they are fine & dandy with gov't dictating that birth control & abortifacients be provided by the RCC to RCC employees.
-
Trivial issue?
Wow, some people's misunderstanding about the Catholic Church is really apparent in this thread. :facepalm:
The Catholic Church doesn't establish its doctrine by the consensus of its members.
The Catholic Church doesn't hold that the use of contraceptives is a violation of its administrative law, but a violation of moral law. The issue that the majority of Catholics choose to violate a moral law as taught by the Catholic Church is a matter between those Catholics' own consciences and God.
-
For her part, the Church in the United States is called, in season and out of season, to proclaim a Gospel which not only proposes unchanging moral truths but proposes them precisely as the key to human happiness and social prospering (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). To the extent that some current cultural trends contain elements that would curtail the proclamation of these truths, whether constricting it within the limits of a merely scientific rationality, or suppressing it in the name of political power or majority rule, they represent a threat not just to Christian faith, but also to humanity itself and to the deepest truth about our being and ultimate vocation, our relationship to God. When a culture attempts to suppress the dimension of ultimate mystery, and to close the doors to transcendent truth, it inevitably becomes impoverished and falls prey, as the late Pope John Paul II so clearly saw, to reductionist and totalitarian readings of the human person and the nature of society.”
from this http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2012/02/because-my-pope-peaks-truths-like-this.html
-
The whining is by the church hierarchy, as most Catholic people do not share the same opinion.
Most people defending the RCC on this do not share its views on birth control. It's kind of like that trivial little idea of "I don't agree with a word you say, but I'll whine about your right to say it."
Gee, I guess that my bible must have left the passages out about not using birth control. Silly me!
It is a violation of the Catholic Church's law. Big difference.
No different than the churches who use marijuana in their 'worship' - churches can say anything that they want to.
So I guess the govt. could force churches to marry same-sex couples, right? We have plenty of churches that are already OK with that. Why should the weird traditionalists be any different?
-
This country is so fubar.
Rights are only important when it's your ox getting gored apparently.
-
Oh my! Here I am wanting to hold fistfuls coat and cheering him on.... .:facepalm: What is the world coming to! >:D
I even used punctuation! In his honor!
-
I even used punctuation! In his honor!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.blu-ray.com%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fimported%2Fjawdrop.gif&hash=25239477eacd8256fee38a80241cde5317dde060)
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhumor.beecy.net%2Fmisc%2Fhellfrozeover%2Fhell-froze-over.jpg&hash=278658953ee161b8b9885d00ec01e89fdab30a2d)
-
lol i hear ya i did have to go back and add it though if that helps >:D
-
I'm overwhelmed. Punctuation? That's even better than winning the whole internet. :O
-
I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organised and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst. It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades.
I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.
Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them".
-
There's a slight difference in working for a company that theoretically insists on women wearing burqas and everyone prays 5 times a day, and a government compelling a church run charity to provide a treatment that clashes with official doctrine.
It would certainly have been nice if the Catholic Church had been more efficient in expelling and punishing those amongst its leadership whom offended against children. Anyone familiar with the history of child abuse in modern America would agree with this....but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to uphold their principles. The fact that they failed in on instance doesn't argue in favor of them failing in other instances.
-
I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organized and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst. It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades. non-sequitur
I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.
Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them". Not from me. One of our most eroded rights is freedom of association.
-
I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organised and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst. It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades.
I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.
Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them".
Exactly the reason for my comments regarding the UCCB hypocrisy.
Looks like the WH is not backing down from their edict:
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-sticking-contraception-plan-171743278.html
"We put out the plan that reflects where the president intended to go. This is our plan," White House chief of staff Jacob Lew said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.
Lew said no religious organization will be required to pay for or facilitate the coverage that it disagrees with since the insurance companies are the ones who will pay.
Asked what incentive insurance companies would have to provide contraception, Lew - Obama's budget director until last month - said it would be cost effective just like other preventive healthcare coverage.
This is going to be pure entertainment value.
-
De Selby, that logic doesn't flow. You're better than that.
-
De Selby, that logic doesn't flow. You're better than that.
Care to explain? I was making the point, based on past threads here about "dhimmification" through airport foot washing and gloves for handling pork, that if these were muslim specific practices at issue, the mood might not be so much in favour of religious freedom. I think that is an entirely reasonable observation.
-
So it is OK for Fed.gov use its implied threat of violence to demand individuals purchase a good or service.
So it is OK for Fed.gov to use its power of coercion to dictate to employers what type of insurance they will provide.
So it is OK for Fed.gov to dictate to religious institutions what the boundaries are for the practice of their religion.
-
I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organised and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst. It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades.
I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.
Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them".
Is this a good time to point out that the whole issue is not simply about contraception, and not simply a problem for the RCC?
-
De Selby, clergy sex abuse and church-provided contraceptives are two completely different issues, and any attempt to link them for the purposes of discussing this issue is fallacious.
As for a Saudi company buying a US company, nobody is buying the church. I don't know why you made that part of your hypothetical. Nevertheless, the company would be absolutely within its rights to require women to wear burqas. The federal government might have a different opinion, though, although when it comes to Muslims, there's no guarantees.
-
Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them".
Not from me.
-
I also question, on this topic of religious freedom, if the APS consensus would be the same if this were a story about Saudi investors buying a major US employer and demanding that all female employees wear burqas, or that all employees join prayers five times a day.
Something tells me I'd be seeing a little more than "if you don't like it don't work for them".
What, exactly, are the bishops trying to force on the employees?
But, yeah, if it came down to it, I'm all for letting folk run their businesses as they see fit.
I just wish the US Conference of Catholic Bishops could be so well organised and effective in identifying and expelling child abusers within their midst. It's just a bit odd that they're taking a stand on the morality of birth control when they've been very keen to downplay and deny liability for the "poor judgment" that closeted and shuffled child abusers for decades.
So, because they tried to cover up a scandal, you think they are ready to abandon every other tenet of their faith? Or what am I missing?
-
If the Saudi government bought a US company, I would question them expecting their female employees to wear burkahs.
However, if a Mosquewere running a charity, and expected their female employees to wear burkahs, that would be a much different issue...
-
Is this a good time to point out that the whole issue is not simply about contraception, and not simply a problem for the RCC?
Yes, it is. There are way too many straw men running around here. I think it is also a good time to take note that this attack by Obama on the 1st amendment will likely be a glimpse of his method of attack on the second. Divide, send in the straw men, and conquer.
DD
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Chris
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Chris
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=How+many+angels+can+dance+on+the+head+of+a+pin%3F (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=How+many+angels+can+dance+on+the+head+of+a+pin%3F)
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Chris
87
DD
-
DD, your math is all wonky; it's 86!!!!! :laugh: [tinfoil] =D ;)
-
DD, your math is all wonky; it's 86!!!!! :laugh: [tinfoil] =D ;)
Read the question. It asks how many can dance on the head of a pin, not how many are currently dancing. Look closer. See the one off to the side with a little spoon? >:D
DD
-
Read the question. It asks how many can dance on the head of a pin, not how many are currently dancing. Look closer. See the one off to the side with a little spoon? >:D
DD
[tinfoil] Can't fool me!!! I saw that one too!!! [popcorn] [tinfoil] :laugh: :laugh: :angel:
-
It depends upon several factors: the size of the angels (petite, large, Rosie O'Donnel size), the size of the pin head, and the type of dance (waltz, break-dancing, swing, etc).
-
Petite, #16, Swing
-
Okay. It's 104.
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a .45acp cartridge?
-
How many angels can dance on the head of a .45acp cartridge?
They would be ninjas. And they would performing tactical rolls.
-
His goal (maybe not him personally, but his administration) is to get Catholic Charities to close up shop. Liberal progressives want everybody dependent on the government, and they can't accomplish that with non-profits providing aid to the needy. So they pass laws that religious NPO's (the most threatening kind) cannot abide with to put the competition out of business.
-
His goal (maybe not him personally, but his administration) is to get Catholic Charities to close up shop. Liberal progressives want everybody dependent on the government, and they can't accomplish that with non-profits providing aid to the needy. So they pass laws that religious NPO's (the most threatening kind) cannot abide with to put the competition out of business.
We have a winner. They do not want competition. Since the dawn of the Progressive Era, gov't has advanced and private institutions retreated. This is considered a feature by progressives.