I have no more cool clam digging stories to tell people, what else can I talk about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
LOL <3 Super Mad, because I ran out of Muscle Milk today.
Printable View
I have no more cool clam digging stories to tell people, what else can I talk about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
LOL <3 Super Mad, because I ran out of Muscle Milk today.
I don't consider her a slut, just the spokesperson for sluts.
But really, this person should expect to be ridiculed and it's extremely satisfying given that she's being used as a political football. This is like the outrage social conservatives receive. The fact that she's being used as a pawn by a political party I despise makes it more entertaining.
Why should she be ridiculed when 99% of Americans have used contraception? Or how about the many Americans whom use a medical device or pill to make there day to day lives eaiser?
Her lobbying efforts are no worse than the other vultures who hang around DC
But she is a woman and she is having sex. SO ITS BAD
I know its unfair, but for what it is worth I don't think single mothers should ever be demonised, and that both the government and society should support them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Women are to me a strange and mysterious species and I don't know anything about all their goings on. But I'm still going to give a horrendously male-centric opinion on what I think of their sex life and life decisions.
U mad?
If they are at college they are old enough to know what they are doing. I mean the girl from the OP is like a ho activist, lobbying the entire political system to fund her sex life.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
You're missing the point and making undue inferences. That's a rather simplistic interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
No, the bad part is she can afford to go to law school at Georgetown, but expects to have recreational sex on somebody elses dime. That's her responsibility. Life is full of difficult financial choices, get used to it honey. Maybe she could ask Mom & Dad to help pay for it...or, *gasp* get a job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
My fiance's birth control is $9 every month without insurance at Target. She has one of those evil Catholic health care plans. You know, the ones that cover everything except birth control with minimal co-pays while most of us are paying 80% coinsurance. This discussion is a joke and it is about the Federal government imposing it's will on a free people and subverting the 1st Amendment. I hope the church cancels the plans and pays the fine so that the newly "liberated" employees can go find much better plans on their own. I'm sure that these people will be sending thank you letters to the President himself.
The thing that I love about the Church is that it might actually take this route. They closed up their adoption agencies in Massachusetts due to conscience differences. Maybe the government can go back to feeding us to the Lions. We did pretty well back then and they collapsed for a time.
It's great that we can have a debate almost entirely predicated on Rush Limbaugh, but without crediting him.
I am stunned by the responses in this thread. Are you anti abortion? Nodding right now? Then support easy access to birth control. Abstinence education is empirically proven to be less effective than nothing, so if you've got a better idea, slap it on the table.
Seriously, I thought we were done with debating the morality of birth control in this country. What other settled issues shall we revisit? Sanctity of property? The right of the Federal government to build highways? What the fudge is going on here?
I support easy access to birth control, Lemur. I don't support the government subverting Religious liberty. You're too smart to honestly believe that most Republicans are against birth control. Birth control isn't abortion. The only people attempting to debate the morality of Birth control is the left and Rick Santorum. Get a grip. Everyone else will come around when they realize that the morning after pill is not an aborto-facient.
The Church is different. They shouldn't be forced to pay for government programs that they believe to be immoral. Separation of Church and State works both ways. You want to break the walls down, be prepared for inflow and outflow, and that isn't good for anyone I thought you knew that by now. It's fun to play hardball when you're the pitcher isn't it? I'll remember that next inning when you're up to bat.
Indeed. Show me the Catholic University or the Catholic Hospital that does not take State or Federal money, and you'll have a fair point. In the meantime, they should provide their Jewish lady doctors with standard healthcare.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
When they stop paying for employee health care and start paying the fine, they will probably save money and the government gets their contributions back -everybody is happy. Their employees will get free health care from the government, right?
The Catholic church will teabag all of your faces in the end. Remember; Don't take a hostage unless you are prepared to shoot it. The last time the Church did what was best for it politically they were complicit with child molestation. I hope they've learned their lesson and instead decide to follow their convictions and let the government pay for these newly liberated workers. They can give a pay bump if they'd like to keep the better employees. Fortunately, these poor workers will never have to suffer under such difficult conditions as $9 monthly birth control pills ever again.
Great job these past 4 years, BTW. You've really outdone yourselves. It's great watching you pat yourselves on the backs and do so much better than those dastardly Republicans. Where's the beef? Who is talking about birth control? Ask yourselves. The GOP is running from the argument because they aren't arguing about it. They saw a weakness in the executive order on 1st Amendment grounds and exploited it. That exchange, I believe, was net GOP much to the chagrin of the democratic strategists who thought that only the theocratic loonies would come out swinging.
Contraception is a base grabber for the left and has been a winning argument for them just like Abortion is a base grabber for the right and is a winning argument for them. The left is talking about their culture war issues right now because they are weak and we know that they are weak. They can tell us that the economy is getting better all they'd like, but they'd better keep the smoke and mirrors up until November, or the Emperor has no clothes.
I believe that the GOP is moving toward a Ron Paul type vision of the country. We are getting away from the Santorum's of the party. You guys can keep shadow boxing with the GOP of the 1990's, but it is moving and will move even further next time around.
When a rhetorical question from a nonsensical premise falls in the woods, does anyone hear it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Not at all clear what any of these sentences mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
See Blunt Amendment, see the Issa hearings on birth control, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
You're free to believe anything you like, but I would be interested to hear what evidence you see for this shift. Candidate Paul is pulling in smaller percentages as the primary progresses.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
This is really the crux of the issueQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The Ron Paul people and the OWS people are really one in the same. They want massive change, as long as it doesn't affect them. They have taken all the beauty out of politics and made it some sort of life and death struggleQuote:
I believe that the GOP is moving toward a Ron Paul type vision of the country. We are getting away from the Santorum's of the party. You guys can keep shadow boxing with the GOP of the 1990's, but it is moving and will move even further next time around.
Would you care to complicate it up for me? Preferably with some hot wax and chainsQuote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I agree this is the worst way they could have conveyed there messageQuote:
No, the bad part is she can afford to go to law school at Georgetown, but expects to have recreational sex on somebody elses dime. That's her responsibility. Life is full of difficult financial choices, get used to it honey. Maybe she could ask Mom & Dad to help pay for it...or, *gasp* get a job.
For anyone who argues that this is a strictly 1st Amendment religious liberty issue, please explain the Blunt Amendment, which would carve out an exception for any form of healthcare that any employer objected to on any religious grounds. Think about that. Let that sink in.
So if your employer declares that he is a faith-healing worshiper of Baal, you are allowed to get whatever treatments he deems fit. And if the board of directors are Christian Scientists? Good luck, pal. This amendment received overwhelming Republican support in the Senate. Details:
Introduced by Missouri Republican Roy Blunt and cosponsored by Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown in the heat of the debate over making contraception coverage mandatory as part of preventive health care for women, the amendment looked like a good vehicle for Republicans seeking to make the debate about big government trampling on religious freedom. But polls have since shown that the religious-liberty argument has been undercut by successful Democratic efforts to characterize it as a war against women, and comedians portraying it as the GOP’s war against sex. [...]
The Blunt amendment goes beyond religious institutions, allowing any employer that, for example, disapproves of smoking or drinking to potentially withhold treatment for those behaviors. After weeks of overreach on women’s issues, including a debate over invasive probes as part of a bill in Virginia requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound, you would think that Republicans would be looking for a way to get back to the economic issues that were supposed to define this election year.
But it's ok that you have to follow the religious doctrine of your boss because free markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
But now it's not about birth control? Now it's about your opposition to Religious conscience?
Don't work for a crazy boss. You can quit and get your own health insurance through exchanges.
I'm not even clear who you're speaking to or what point you're addressing. Take a deep breath, marshal your arguments, try again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Nobody is saying that churches, temples, synagogues or sky altars need to buy any health insurance at all for anyone. HOWEVER, if the local Synagogue invests in a lumber mill, they have to obey every normal law that applies to lumber mills. If the Jehovah's Witnesses invest in Payless Shoes, they are required to obey the law of the land when operating Payless Shoes. This is not weird, anti-religion or in any way shutting down their belief system.
I happen to know a Christian Scientist who owns a business. And you know what she has to do? Buy health insurance for her employees, even though she believes medicine is a lie. Would you like to argue that she should be exempt?
The Catholic Church chooses to operate multi-million dollar hospitals and universities, not to mention many related businesses. Many of those businesses pay taxes. TAXES! ON A RELIGION! OH THE TYRANNY!
Almost every hospital takes money from the feds and the state. Just about every university does the same. If they want to operate them as entirely religious entities, hiring only Catholic staff, and taking no money from Caesar, that would be a different story. But if they likee the public money, and they likee the trained specialists and experts who don't happen to be Catholic, they can play by the same damn rules as everybody else. End of story.
Is this what Lemur was talking about:
http://todayonthetrail.today.msnbc.m...unned-outraged
I don't know why this issue has to be framed in the context of religious freedom. The idea behind Obamacare is to ensure that no one is financially ruined by unforeseen medical issues. While contraception is prescribed by a doctor, I don't believe that it falls under that mandate. (Obviously I'm speaking of contraception prescribed solely for contraceptive and not medicinal purposes.) $1000 per year in birth control is a lot of money and I'm just not sure society should carry that burden. (Maybe that's why the cost estimates for Obamacare recently jumped $100+ billion.) Being sexually active is a choice, not an untreatable condition.
Hyperbole much? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If we might get back the original topic..... Congressional Democrats trotted this women out to be their emotional appeal- having her talk about how women are struggling to pay for contraception. The problem was that they chose law students attending a prestigious school to make their examples. What you were left with was a woman complaining that she and her peers couldn't afford to have consequence free sex while enrolled in one of the top law schools in the country.... that's not really the most sympathetic cause that I can think of.
The fact of the matter is that contraception is already both readily available and inexpensive. There's no there there.
In regards to 'free contraception'; I do not like it when a right to buy something gets turned into an entitlement to have something provided to you by others.
I do not like forcing religious institutions to purchase that which they consider morally objectionable. If you don't like it, work someplace else.
Of course it Obamacare had actually increased consumer healthcare choice and not doubled down on the federal penalty for buying insurance privately this wouldn't be much of a problem.
CR
And if you think that's how it's playing in the country at large, you're experiencing epistemic closure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So if the Hare Krishnas buy a majority stake in Taco Bell, they should be able to omit any healthcare they please, as per the Blunt Amendment. Seriously? And the invisible hand of the market will sort it out? This is your proposal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
No religious institution is being asked to meet minimal standards for healthcare. None. Not a single one. However, their subsidiaries, which are not religious institutions, but rather religious-affiliated businesses, are being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else. These are the wet sticks the GOP is desperately rubbing together to ignite a war on religion.
Nevermind that 26 states already have such a requirement in place. Nevermind that a majority of Catholic-affiliated businesses already offer contraception as part of their plans.
When Xiahou says "there's no there there," I fear he is uncannily correct, although not in the way he intends.
Can you come up with any real life examples besides the Church not wanting to pay for contraception?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Yes. Getting a bit of the free market involved in insurance would be a good thing.Quote:
And the invisible hand of the market will sort it out? This is your proposal?
Requiring contraception be insured is silly. Insurance is for use against accidents and unforeseen circumstances, not against willful actions.Quote:
No religious institution is being asked to meet minimal standards for healthcare. None. Not a single one. However, their subsidiaries, which are not religious institutions, but rather religious-affiliated businesses, are being asked to play by the same rules as everyone else. These are the wet sticks the GOP is desperately rubbing together to ignite a war on religion.
CR
Can you come up with any reason why my hypothetical is invalid? Once you declare that religious-affiliated businesses can exempt anything they don't like, you open up possibilities. There's no such thing as a special Catholic-only law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
In this case, the free market being, "Don't like the denial of basic health insurance elements? Don't work for that group, losers!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Tell it to the 26 states that already do so. Tell it to anyone who likes seeing abortion rates steadily drop. Tell it to the hundreds of Catholic-affiliated business that already insure birth control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Your possibilities are, frankly, absurd and disconnected from rational discussion of this law. If a Christian Scientist decides not to insure their employees, people won't work for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Nope. It'd be not taxing private insurance, or taxing employer provided insurance as well, and thus not locking people into their employer's insurance policy, and thus giving them the possibility to choose from insurance options all over the place without suffering a financial penalty. And it'd solve this whole contraception issue as well.Quote:
In this case, the free market being, "Don't like the denial of basic health insurance elements? Don't work for that group, losers!"
:inquisitive: Okay...Quote:
Tell it to the 26 states that already do so. Tell it to anyone who likes seeing abortion rates steadily drop. Tell it to the hundreds of Catholic-affiliated business that already insure birth control.
Doesn't make it any less silly.
CR
Actually Lem, this whole thing is a strawman, contrived theater, and started by by the Obama administration to scare women into believing that if the Republicans win the Whitehouse their access to birth control will be taken away. That is bs, but he can't run on his record so class warfare it will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Sebelius: Private Health Insurance Industry in Death Spiral So what ever happened to the President's promise that you could keep your current health care coverage if you wanted it? This administration wants to eliminate all except for what the government provides.
The issue isn’t about birth control — it’s about the federal government’s power to force a religious institution like Georgetown University to bend to its will and take actions that are fundamentally at odds with its core values. Religious groups are faced with an untenable choice: violate conscience or drop coverage and face penalties for doing so. Beyond religious freedom, Obamacare lands another unconstitutional blow against liberty in America with its unconstitutional individual mandate to buy health insurance. A judgment on that awaits the action of the Supreme Court. Together, the two dictates — and the others to follow under Obamacare — should be a sign to Americans that the federal government is reaching an event horizon — a point of no return — beyond which individuals will be forever subsumed to the will of the state. Once this door is knocked down, the rights the Constitution protects will be stamped with an asterisk that disclaims, “subject to the will of the federal government.”
And saying something doesn't make it so. The Blunt Amendment, as written, would give any employer exemption from any medical coverage based on his or her "faith." And who decides what constitutes faith? If the Board of Walmart declares that their religion forbids dental care, what recourse would anyone have? It's a matter of faith and religious freedom, thanks to the GOP. You can declare that my hypotheticals are "absurd" all you like, but you also cannot construct a logical argument to defend the Blunt Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving Marxist president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
I'm sorry, have you been forced to change your health plan? Has anyone you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Yes, I've really noticed the forced collectivization lately, the elimination or private enterprise, the millions of people forced onto collective farms where they starve because of misallocation of resources. Clearly Obama is JUST LIKE the Khmer Rouge, except with a little less mass murder. (OR MAYBE NOT!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
Hosa, I love you man, but you're repeating things you heard elsewhere, and you haven't even read this thread. I have responded to this point at length. (Hint: What's the difference between a religious institution and a business subsidiary of a religions institution?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
This is horribly offensive, and frankly tiresome. Could you please stop implying that people who criticize Obama are somehow racist? I'm really sick of it.Quote:
So the wily, rascally Obama administration somehow lured Republicans into holding all-male birth control hearings with Issa. And the conniving :daisy: president also secretly convinced the GOP to write and support the Blunt Amendment. WE ARE ALL UNDER HIS SPELL!
Those who support Obama cannot help it. It is much more effective than their weak arguments just to scream racism. Of course if he was a white woman you would be a sexist. They use any excuse they can to dismiss your argument instead of answering it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou