opinion

From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on Smart v. Stupid

U.S. Constitution: Bishops don’t get a veto

A civics lesson for John Boehner and the bishops

While Catholic bishops try to steamroll the Constitution, Republicans gleefully follow behind.

Read the full story »







Comments are temporarily disabled on TucsonSentinel.com while we upgrade our system.

have your say   

13 comments on this story

1
84 comments
Feb 9, 2012, 11:19 pm
-0 +3

Thanks, Jimmy.

2
172 comments
Feb 10, 2012, 3:00 pm
-0 +3

Excellent commentary. Thank you.

3
318 comments
Feb 10, 2012, 6:16 pm
-4 +0

Yes thanx jimmy, because once again you have emphatically joined the rank and file marxists and their agenda to infiltrate every aspect of american life all for the sake of power. And with every smart v Stupid blog you fly your flag of true stupidity. Obama and company can sue states, yet citizens cant protest edicts proclaimed by the administration? Your hatred for religion is quite obvious. This isnt a civics lesson. Pure Jimmy Zuma left wing basura.

4
84 comments
Feb 10, 2012, 6:41 pm
-0 +3

Well, buddhaboy, if the Catholic or other religious hospitals want to enjoy the benefits of public, taxpayer money then they are going to have to play fair.  That means they don’t get to make up their own rules to decide what is best for their workers and patients.  On the other hand, if they want to opt out of public funds and set up a private hospital, it is well within their right to run it how they want.

5
318 comments
Feb 11, 2012, 7:33 am
-2 +0

Play fair…. where does it end.  As judge Andrew Napalitano has recently written.. Jews have to eat pork, muslims have to own dogs???  Where does it end? Very slippery slope. I dont think the exectuive branch of our government was set up to singlehandedly issue rule after rule to the citizens. Play fair, I would define pertaining to this administration would mean “you people are stupid, we know the right way and we will tell you how to act and behave.” Thugs in suits, with the DOJ as the enforcer.

6
318 comments
Feb 11, 2012, 7:42 am
-2 +0

Zumas illustration on top right of page is really indicative of his intolerance for anything he does not believe in. What an immature jerk. Oh jimmy you are just so radical. Try that with an islamic lean and you are in trouble JZ. Growup

7
84 comments
Feb 11, 2012, 10:58 am
-0 +3

buddhaboy wrote:

Jews have to eat pork, muslims have to own dogs???

I don’t believe that, please cite your source for these laws.  A quick google search for Andrew Napolitano reveals he was only a judge until 1995, but since 1998 has been working for Fox News, and is now their senior judicial analyst.  That network and its employees have no credibility.  In fact, at one point the company appealed and won a court decision saying they are legally allowed to lie and distort the truth.  So please do your diligence and let me know when you find the laws that require Jews to eat pork and Muslims to own dogs.

The issue here, as I see it, is churches taking public funds to run their schools and hospitals but also wanting exemption from the laws.  However, it seems Obama is shifting the burden from churches to insurers, which seems appropriate.  Obama shift seeks to defuse birth-control fight

8
318 comments
Feb 12, 2012, 11:46 am
-2 +0

Scar.. please reread. As Napolirano recently wrote in an opinion piece.  His point was where does the federal control end.  There are no laws about puppies and pigs.  Cmon. Napolitano is far from a conservative, and yes he works for the dreaded FOX news. ( i would assume you prefer Rachael and Keith). So sorry he was only a judge til 1995 (whats your point). Fox new only has no credibilty in your view.  Surprise scar there are gazillions of people out there that depend on Fox for a different opinion from main stream media and MSNBc. Insurance companies must now cover free contraceptive no copay situations?  Just another rule handed down by the Sheriff of Nottingham.  Do ya think the insurers will eat this or raise their rates??

9
84 comments
Feb 12, 2012, 12:42 pm
-0 +2

My point was, that as a judge he did not declare that Jews had to eat pork, as you implied in your distorted statement.  He has not been a judge since 1995.  If you had said ‘Fox News senior judicial analyst’ that would have been factual.

No I don’t watch nor read nor pay heed to any of the mainstream news sources, of which Fox is included.  The fact is, however, they distort the truth and lie more than any mainstream news source.

The insurance companies have gouged our health care system to that of a third world country, yet we spend more on health care than any other country in the world.  I guess if you are happy with a system where millions of children are uninsured, by all means fight this reform.  By the way, raising rates, I believe, is also illegal under the new laws.

10
318 comments
Feb 13, 2012, 4:08 pm
-2 +0

Scar… When one has held a position of some relevance, they are called that even after they no longer hold that position (governor, etc.) JUDGE. Settledown . Again Napalitano wrote an opinion article taking the point of view that he feels the executive branch has overstepped its authority with this ruling. In other words he used .. Whats next, Jews have to eat pork, Muslims have to own dogs.  Thats all Scar…An opinion expressed by someone that has been a judge.  Nothing more. All children are covered by insurance in this country. All children have health care. Sorry if I misled you.  Do you think insurance companies have never raised their rates? My former employer had to suspend any health insurance for his employees after 20 years of increasing costs. Wiped out, no health insurance.

11
84 comments
Feb 13, 2012, 6:09 pm
-0 +2

Again, with sources cited from the US Census Bureau, it is written on wikipedia that there are about 7,500,000 uninsured children in the US: Uninsured children and young adults.  God, stop with your nonsense.
Under the new rules insurance companies are forbidden to raise rates for preexisting conditions, not sure if family planning would fall into that category now that they are required to cover it.

12
318 comments
Feb 13, 2012, 9:26 pm
-2 +0

childrens parents may be uninsured Scar, but all children in this country may receive health care, funded in a large part on tobacco taxes.  “Family planning” as you putit is not a condition, its achoice. Please excuse my nonsense.  I bow to your ignorance. Im listening to a great informative Bill Orielly. Later scar got to go to work. ( Angina is a condition)............

13
84 comments
Feb 14, 2012, 10:11 am
-0 +1

buddhaboy said:

childrens parents may be uninsured Scar, but all children in this country may receive health care, funded in a large part on tobacco taxes.

The program you are referring to is called SCHIP and does not cover all children.  In fact, under queen Brewer’s rule, Arizona has become the only state to cancel its SCHIP program.  Further: “Despite SCHIP, the number of uninsured children continued to rise, particularly among families that cannot qualify for SCHIP. An October 2007 study by the Vimo Research Group found that 68.7 percent of newly uninsured children were in families whose incomes were 200 percent of the federal poverty level or higher.”

— 30 —

{/exp:weblog:entries}

Best in Internet Exploder