Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score 1) 294

by PopeRatzo (#47417643) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

Oh, and you are absolutely wrong about Hobby Lobby being "just like it was a sole proprietorship". A closely-held corporation is not like a sole proprietorship. They are granted a level of exemption to liability by the government that sole proprietorships are not. That means there is a "veil" between the individual and the corporation.

Apparently, the five (male) justices on the Supreme Court who comprised the majority in the Hobby Lobby case believed that the veil is impervious to all but the Judgement of the Lord God Jehovah, based upon absolutely nothing but their own religious beliefs in the Lord God Jehovah.

As I said, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.

Comment: Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score 1) 294

by PopeRatzo (#47417605) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

When I talk about "they" I am not talking about a corporation, but Mr. and Mrs. Green who own Hobby Lobby.

But Mr and Mrs Green are not the ones paying for the employees' health care. Rather, those checks are from the corporation.

People are acting like Hobby Lobby employees are somehow harmed by not having their employer pay for something they never paid for in the first place.

Maybe you don't understand how employer health care works. The reason an employer provides health care is because an employee works for them. So, in a very real way, the value of the health care has already been earned by the employee. Thus, it's not Mr and Mrs Green paying for the health care at all is it? It's the employees who pay for it, with their labor (and also direct deductions from their paychecks). Employer health care is not charity.

Hobby Lobby is this era's version of Plessy v Ferguson. In a relatively short time, it will be looked back upon with embarrassment.

Comment: Re:Nuclear Power (Score 1) 99

by PopeRatzo (#47417511) Attached to: How Japan Lost Track of 640kg of Plutonium

You will notice that while Dr Cohen offered to consume as much plutonium as you would caffeine, he never actually did so.

The annals of the history of science are littered with cranks.

Dr Cohen also said that he believed uranium to be a renewable resource. Unless he's figured out a way to grow uranium, I'm sure you'll agree there is a finite amount of the substance. Dr Cohen did not believe that the amount of uranium on Earth was finite.

Crackpot.

Comment: Nuclear Power (Score 0) 99

by PopeRatzo (#47414071) Attached to: How Japan Lost Track of 640kg of Plutonium

Clean, safe and too cheap to meter.

Anybody who tries to use a misplaced 640 kilograms of plutonium to spread FUD about 1950's Energy Source of Future is just a damn liar.

But you have to admit, Japan has a pretty remarkable record with nukes. They must have it in their blood. At least the ones whose grandparents lived in Nagasaki.

Regarding the lost 1410 lbs of the deadliest substance on Earth, I'm pretty sure it has something to do with that giant lizard marching toward Tokyo (and no, I'm not referring to Shinzo Abe's economic policy).

Comment: Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score 1) 294

by PopeRatzo (#47410987) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

It's not their faith telling them they are abortifacients, It is the US Government Department of Health and Human Services. HHS says the 2 IUDs in question and the morning/week after pills in question keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Their faith says that life begins at conception, so being force to pay for something that keeps that life from implanting in the uterus is a violation of their religious belief.

So basically, you're just saying what I'm saying, "It's their faith that tells them these are abortifacients."

Further, when you talk about the "they" in "their religious beliefs", you are not talking about individuals, but a corporation. Now, we can argue whether or not corporations are people, my friend, but I'm pretty sure you will agree that "Inc" does not have religious beliefs.

As you can clearly see from the National Review article (and the National Review is the mothership for anti-abortion types), this is NOT about abortifacients, but about absolutely anything that someone can say violates their religious beliefs. And if you recall your history, you will note that at one time people found religious justification for owning slaves, refusing to serve blacks, gays, Catholics and Jews.

That's why Hobby Lobby is this era's Plessy v Ferguson. It will go down as one of those decisions about which people will someday say, "That wrong-headed case was decided during the bad old days". And not because of anything having to do with abortion.

I'm sure there were people back during Plessy, that made rational-sounding arguments just like yours for why segregating the races was God's will.

Comment: Re:yes but...yes in fact. (Score 3, Insightful) 294

by PopeRatzo (#47409755) Attached to: Wireless Contraception
It's about more than just "abortifacients". http://www.nationalreview.com/... Except, the four methods Hobby Lobby objected to are not "abortifacients". http://www.newrepublic.com/art... But I guess, if their faith tells them they're abortifacients, then abortifacients they shall be. Isn't that the whole point of the decision of the five (male) Supreme Court justices? And we already have cases being brought to use the Hobby Lobby precedent to allow all sorts of civil rights violations, nullification of laws, and even special exemption from taxation based on religious faith. It's going to be a few interesting years until Hobby Lobby is overturned, which it almost certainly will be, Hobby Lobby is the 21st century's Plessy v. Ferguson. But that's the whole point, right?

Comment: Smiley (Score 1) 175

by PopeRatzo (#47407265) Attached to: US Arrests Son of Russian MP In Maldives For Hacking
I'm pretty sure there's more to the story than we're getting out of either Russia or the US. And that goes double for what we're getting out of the Russian media (RT) and the US media. As sympathetic as I am to the Anonymous folks, their cries of "kidnapping" based only on what's coming out of Russia are a little premature. Does anyone here doubt that a Russian MP's son would be involved in a large-scale criminal enterprise stealing US credit card info? Is that really so improbable? I don't have a need for immediate information or immediate reaction on these things. We'll see what we see. Until then, I don't believe a damn thing in any of the reports. Both countries have very large, powerful and dishonest intelligence services who are expert at this crap. They had more than half a century of Cold War practice after all. And I've learned to tread lightly when it comes to RT or the US media.

The IQ of the group is the lowest IQ of a member of the group divided by the number of people in the group.

Working...