﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title>BLOG.THOMASPAINEPROJECT.ORG: Recent Comments</title>
	<updated>2012-02-13T23:36:21Z</updated>
	<id>http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/comments/atom.aspx</id>
	<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/comments/atom.aspx" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<generator uri="http://app.onlinequickblog.com/" version="2.6.6">Quick Blogcast</generator>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Catholics, Conscience and Contraception</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/11/catholics-conscience-and-contraception.aspx#comment-15918114" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-12:15918114</id>
		<author>
			<name>Sue</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-13T01:57:52Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-13T01:57:52Z</published>
		<content type="html">Check your other article - For God and Country, or Not. Reynolds vs. US (the Mormon polygamy case, ruled that a religious duty is not a defense against criminal indictment. I agree this is a huge slap in the face of Catholics and other people of faith, but there is precedent.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Catholics, Conscience and Contraception</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/11/catholics-conscience-and-contraception.aspx#comment-15917603" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-12:15917603</id>
		<author>
			<name>Shannon</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-13T00:15:21Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-13T00:15:21Z</published>
		<content type="html">Conservatives, in general, are against gay marriage. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The #1 argument about the birth control issue is that the government should not be meddling in religious affairs. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, how do conservatives see the birth control as meddling, but fighting gay marriage is not meddling? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Don't think they can have it both ways.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Catholics, Conscience and Contraception</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/11/catholics-conscience-and-contraception.aspx#comment-15917486" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-12:15917486</id>
		<author>
			<name>john</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-12T22:24:45Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-12T22:24:45Z</published>
		<content type="html">There are ways of doing this without offending the church, but respecting the principle of one law for everyone. I do not consider contraception to be as vital as heart surgery or diabetes management. It is a side issue. It should be available, and optional. Bob has it right - no woman is denied anything by keeping contraception an option. It is a freely available option.  No one is even saying that a Catholic cannot get abortion services. The church is just saying that they don't want their money in that pot. In the end it's a shell game, but forcing the church into a position where they must pay for and offer this side issue is rubbing their noses in it.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Catholics, Conscience and Contraception</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/11/catholics-conscience-and-contraception.aspx#comment-15917008" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-12:15917008</id>
		<author>
			<name>Randi</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-12T15:35:28Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-12T15:35:28Z</published>
		<content type="html">Look, a church cannot just defy the government. You would be howling if the Muslims didn't want to comply with a government order. you can't have it both ways.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Catholics, Conscience and Contraception</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/11/catholics-conscience-and-contraception.aspx#comment-15916993" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-12:15916993</id>
		<author>
			<name>crackerjack</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-12T15:27:28Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-12T15:27:28Z</published>
		<content type="html">Obama just keeps pushing this socialist agenda with no regard for what everyone else thinks - or even anyone else. The compromise is a sham. He needs to go.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on The DREAM Act: Act II</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2011/05/18/the-dream-act-act-ii.aspx#comment-15915803" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-12:15915803</id>
		<author>
			<name>long wedding gowns</name>
			<uri>http://www.sitdress.net/Wedding-Dresses-Wedding-Dresses-2011.html</uri>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-12T12:15:43Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-12T12:15:43Z</published>
		<content type="html">Wow! It's like you understand my mind! You seem to know so much about this, just like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with some pics to drive the message home a bit, besides that, this is good blog. A good read. I'll certainly return again.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on Catholics, Conscience and Contraception</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/11/catholics-conscience-and-contraception.aspx#comment-15914168" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-11:15914168</id>
		<author>
			<name>Raymond</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-12T04:18:53Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-12T04:18:53Z</published>
		<content type="html">This is not a win for Catholics, this is a "Cover Your Ass" tactic in an election year. This piece of pond scum wanted to pull out and a giant eraser and remove "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" from the 1st Amendment.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on It's Party Time</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/04/its-party-time.aspx#comment-15889873" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-08:15889873</id>
		<author>
			<name>samurai</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-08T23:54:15Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-08T23:54:15Z</published>
		<content type="html">Don't forget the Homeland Security. True conservatives are few and far between.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on It's Party Time</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/04/its-party-time.aspx#comment-15889823" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-08:15889823</id>
		<author>
			<name>Jennie</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-08T23:37:04Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-08T23:37:04Z</published>
		<content type="html">They say that the country is middle right, and that more people identify as conservative than liberal. Yet, the Democrats keep getting and holding power. That'sbecause they stick to their guns and wait for the GOP to fold. The GOP always folds because we have too many progressive Republicans. They lean towards progressive ideology and not conservative. The best example I can think of is George W Bush, who shoved through "No Child Left Behind" with Teddy Kennedy, and the Medicare prescription benefit (also with Kennedy, Ithink...). These are both progressive programs, and do not in any way represent limited government. If the GOP requires it's candidates to stick to conservative principles, there would be a clear choice - not what we have now, which is a few Tea Party candidates and various degrees of Obama.</content>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<title>Comment on It's Party Time</title>
		<link href="http://blog.thomaspaineproject.org/2012/02/04/its-party-time.aspx#comment-15889197" rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<id>tag:blog.thomaspaineproject.org,2012-02-08:15889197</id>
		<author>
			<name>Norm</name>
		</author>
		<updated>2012-02-08T18:11:04Z</updated>
		<published>2012-02-08T18:11:04Z</published>
		<content type="html">MSM spin this morning is that Santorum's win means conservative can't make up their minds AND that Mitt had the same Catholic requirement in Romneycare. This is even bengreported on Fox News. They are all in bed together.</content>
	</entry>
</feed>
