3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 Dare I ask how you ended up owning a picture like that? LOL It's all cool bro. If your faith is negatively effecting the health of other people and preventing them from getting the medication they need maybe you should find a new faith. Like I said should we let militant Muslims kill Americans they feel have insulted Muhammad because stopping them is an affront to their faith? What the hell does this have to do with my faith? You stupid schit, I'm not preventing anyone from anything. You are just a stupid schit saying schit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrojanitor Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Somehow I get a picture of both of you watching that together and doing a cum swap. Not a "turn on" here. So whenever your moronic "points" run out of steam you immediately start thinking about things to ejaculate on? If only the church let you fantasize about women without being slutty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 What the hell does this have to do with my faith? You stupid schit, I'm not preventing anyone from anything. You are just a stupid schit saying schit. How old are you? This sounds like something a 12 year old would say. Let me put it in a way you might better understand. If the Catholic church is preventing people from getting needed medication because it is an affront to their faith they are acting in a manor that flies in the face of reason. A church is not above the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrojanitor Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 What the hell does this have to do with my faith? You stupid schit, I'm not preventing anyone from anything. You are just a stupid schit saying schit. Geez I sure hope you don't take you ball and go home, you're really adding so much to the conversation. Hey, ball! Get it? That's where semen comes from. Thats just for you. Its called reaching arcoss the aisle. Like reacharounds! Yeaaah now you get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 If your faith is negatively effecting the health of other people and preventing them from getting the medication they need maybe you should find a new faith. Like I said should we let militant Muslims kill Americans they feel have insulted Muhammad because stopping them is an affront to their faith? First. Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You're more than welcome to explain how the First Amendment doesn't apply to freely exercising the belief the contraception is a sin and the church should not be in the business of making parishioners sinners. You can follow that up by explaining how the Catholic doctrine of not providing communion to a parishoner who's an urepentant sinner (in this case, an open lesbian), is a civil rights violation that trumps the First Amendment. Then you can explain why the Catholic Church will be required to marry gay couples in...five or seven years. Welcome to the new America...where you can practice any religion you like, but treating sinners differently is a civil rights violation. (And never mind the fact that the Catholic Church is hypocritical and backwards in the extreme. We know. They only just pardoned Galileo. They have a First Amendment right to be hypocritical and backwards in the extreme.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 How old are you? This sounds like something a 12 year old would say. Let me put it in a way you might better understand. If the Catholic church is preventing people from getting needed medication because it is an affront to their faith they are acting in a manor that flies in the face of reason. A church is not above the law. How stupid are you? Nobody is preventing anything. They just object to paying you to blow the Janitor. After that we don't want to pay for you taking it up the ass. And don't even ask for k-y to be put on th WIC program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Who says as a taxpayer you are paying for it. Your money is going elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 First. Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You're more than welcome to explain how the First Amendment doesn't apply to freely exercising the belief the contraception is a sin and the church should not be in the business of making parishioners sinners. You can follow that up by explaining how the Catholic doctrine of not providing communion to a parishoner who's an urepentant sinner (in this case, an open lesbian), is a civil rights violation that trumps the First Amendment. Then you can explain why the Catholic Church will be required to marry gay couples in...five or seven years. Welcome to the new America...where you can practice any religion you like, but treating sinners differently is a civil rights violation. (And never mind the fact that the Catholic Church is hypocritical and backwards in the extreme. We know. They only just pardoned Galileo. They have a First Amendment right to be hypocritical and backwards in the extreme.) One involves withholding a sacrament offered by the church to the said parishoner. The other is withholding needed medical care by a doctor that has nothing to do with the church by proxy. How stupid are you? Nobody is preventing anything. They just object to paying you to blow the Janitor. After that we don't want to pay for you taking it up the ass. And don't even ask for k-y to be put on th WIC program. Is this the same person that said if they so choose I would make a fool out of myself again? If you have nothing to add to the conversation maybe you should go to bed. Then again, it's not a school night is it? So you don't have to be up in the morning. But I really suggest you see someone about these weird obsessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 One involves withholding a sacrament offered by the church to the said parishoner. The other is withholding needed medical care by a doctor that has nothing to do with the church by proxy. Is this the same person that said if they so choose I would make a fool out of myself again? If you have nothing to add to the conversation maybe you should go to bed. Then again, it's not a school night is it? So you don't have to be up in the morning. But I really suggest you see someone about these weird obsessions. You have said it all there Fatty, I'm laughing my ass off over you and yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 This whole thread is packed with right wing ignorance and stupidity. And I wanted to address that. This argument has to do what reproductive health. It's about having the access to needed medication that directly affects their reproductive health. I fail to see where she was asking the government to pay for her condoms. No, she was asking the government to pay for contraceptives that also have other uses for medical conditions. The government bill is specifically about providing free (which is another thing - how all other medications come with a co-pay? But birth control is free?) contraceptives, not any other "reproductive health services". Which brings up the obvious dodge that, if the church has their way, doctors will just start prescribing the pill for "PMS-related symptoms" or such. And again, that's beside the Catholic Church's backwardsness, who, if they had even a glimmer of a clue, would embrace birth control for the fewer abortions that would result. Morons. The point here is that you have an employer or an insurance company trying to tell someone that they can't have a medication simply because it's an affront to someone else's faith. I don't understand how the right can tell me they don't want Obamacare because it puts the government between me and my doctor and then turn around tell me that there should be a woman and her doctor because it violates their faith. More like you have an employer choosing to not provide insurance coverage options counter to their doctrine. No one's telling anyone they "can't have a medication". They can have all they want. It just won't be provided to them... If your faith involves allowing a woman to suffer with polycystic ovarian syndrome or endometriosis because you can't bring yourself to cover BCPs due to guilt isn't acceptable. Except when her OBGYN says "Birth control...no, but let's give you a prophylactic against the risk of endomitriosis." You know that would happen...they'd gain the system. No one's talking about a lack of access to medicine...no one's even talking about a lack of access to contraception...it's a lack of access to free contraception. (And by the way...how my medication has a copay? When do I get free meds?) You don't have to like it, you just have to live in a nation where the rest of us don't feel the same way. I'd rather live in a nation where people didn't just arbitrarily threw out the most basic founding principles of the nation because they were inconvenient. Or are you now arguing that was Bush right about establishing Gitmo and doing away with due process? 'Cause, y'know...same thing, a pesky Amendment guaranteeing rights is in the way of what "everyone" wants, so let's just ignore it and hope it goes away... Coming next to a theater near you: the First Amendment is a civil rights violation because the Catholic Church won't provide the sacrament of matrimony to homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Shoot me... But it is the other way around with the state getting innvolved in marriage. The state shouldn't recognize ANY "marriage." And if certian religions want to marry same sex... Fine. Don't give any marriage tax breaks too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 One involves withholding a sacrament offered by the church to the said parishoner. The other is withholding needed medical care by a doctor that has nothing to do with the church by proxy. No, one involves the church practicing according to their doctrine and being accused of a civil rights violation, and the is the church practicing according tho their doctrine and being accused of a civil rights violation. (My example is, in fact, worse...that's a direct claim that the distinction between "sinner" and "repentant" - a pretty core principle in any religion - is a civil rights violation, and that the church must provide sacraments to whoever demand them regardless of the church's belief.) Really, where do you get that the church is "withholding medical care"? No, they're providing insurance plans that don't provide coverage for specific medical prescriptions and procedures that go against church doctrine. They're not withholding any care. They're not a medical care giver. The worst they're doing is saying "We accept that you're going to sin, but we don't have to enable you." Which is - or used to be - their First Amendment right. And what's wrong with saying that people who don't like it can choose to not be Catholic or work for the church. I guarantee, the loss of revenue would bring the church back around pretty quick. And if it didn't. there's always "You already set a precedent for gargantuan hypocrisy by sheltering priests that were known pedophiles...with that precedent, this little bit of hypocrisy isn't much of a stretch." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 No, she was asking the government to pay for contraceptives that also have other uses for medical conditions. The government bill is specifically about providing free (which is another thing - how all other medications come with a co-pay? But birth control is free?) contraceptives, not any other "reproductive health services". Which brings up the obvious dodge that, if the church has their way, doctors will just start prescribing the pill for "PMS-related symptoms" or such. And again, that's beside the Catholic Church's backwardsness, who, if they had even a glimmer of a clue, would embrace birth control for the fewer abortions that would result. Morons. More like you have an employer choosing to not provide insurance coverage options counter to their doctrine. No one's telling anyone they "can't have a medication". They can have all they want. It just won't be provided to them... Except when her OBGYN says "Birth control...no, but let's give you a prophylactic against the risk of endomitriosis." You know that would happen...they'd gain the system. No one's talking about a lack of access to medicine...no one's even talking about a lack of access to contraception...it's a lack of access to free contraception. (And by the way...how my medication has a copay? When do I get free meds?) I'd rather live in a nation where people didn't just arbitrarily threw out the most basic founding principles of the nation because they were inconvenient. Or are you now arguing that was Bush right about establishing Gitmo and doing away with due process? 'Cause, y'know...same thing, a pesky Amendment guaranteeing rights is in the way of what "everyone" wants, so let's just ignore it and hope it goes away... Coming next to a theater near you: the First Amendment is a civil rights violation because the Catholic Church won't provide the sacrament of matrimony to homosexuals. Very clearly stated Tom. As to the bolded statement, we have pointed this out several times in the thread..................but it is just ignored. For political gain, dems keep repeating the mantra of "mean old (always white) men want to prohibit birth control, and those who tend to just read (and believe) headlines, parrot it back as we see here. They managed to change the argument from the government impeding religious liberty (thanks for reposting the First Ammendment by the way) to the campaign, market-group tested "war on women" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ok, question... Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, granted. But does anybody (myself included, unfortunately) who has ever referred to a woman as a "slut" casually behind her back deserve the right to such indignation in light of his comments? I have a feeling there are plenty of hypocrites out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ok, question... Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, granted. But does anybody (myself included, unfortunately) who has ever referred to a woman as a "slut" casually behind her back deserve the right to such indignation in light of his comments? I have a feeling there are plenty of hypocrites out there. Well the things that have come out about her tends to make a person question her. What else do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 jane you ignorant slut Ok, question... Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, granted. But does anybody (myself included, unfortunately) who has ever referred to a woman as a "slut" casually behind her back deserve the right to such indignation in light of his comments? I have a feeling there are plenty of hypocrites out there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Ok, question... Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, granted. But does anybody (myself included, unfortunately) who has ever referred to a woman as a "slut" casually behind her back deserve the right to such indignation in light of his comments? I have a feeling there are plenty of hypocrites out there. She's spending $3000/year on contraception. That's about ten trojans A DAY, every day. I think that qualifies as "slut". I also think that was Rush's point: if you're spending that much, you're either having a hell of a lot of sex, or might want to look at cheaper contraception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 She's spending $3000/year on contraception. That's about ten trojans A DAY, every day. I think that qualifies as "slut". I also think that was Rush's point: if you're spending that much, you're either having a hell of a lot of sex, or might want to look at cheaper contraception. Or a lot of acne! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Well the things that have come out about her tends to make a person question her. What else do you know? That's what I'm saying. Calling someone a slut isn't nice, but all the folks who are flipping out and calling Rush's comments an affront to all women...yeah, I'm suuuure they're always polite and decent regarding their conversation about loose women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 She does have clear complextion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts