Buftex Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Now if you're confused as to why is so dark where you are its because your head is rammed up your own ass ****, that made me laugh!
Oxrock Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 1330731613[/url]' post='2393588']I have asked this before, in similar threads...and only one person even acknowledged it (thanks DC Tom)...do any of you guys have wives? Daughters? Sisters? Girlfriends? You do realize that contraception is not used solely for the prevention of pregnancy? From the continued ignorant comments, it is pretty clear that this is not common knowledge. I worked at a university health facility for almost 10 years, and there are many females who are not sexually active, who take contraception to regulate menstrual cycles, and cramps. Darryl Issa may have had a valid reason for excluding this woman from his little charade...err hearing, but it is ludicrous that his panel was made up exclusively of males... you can say this was an Obama distraction tactic, but these idiots ran with it, and ran with it hard. When Rush Limbaugh refers to this woman as a "slut" or "prostitute", it is a huge insult to a very large portion of American women. How many of you have wives, girlfriends, or daughters who take contraception, covered by their (your?) insurance? Are they "sluts" or "prostitutes". Does that make you guys johns? Pimps? What did the make up of the hearing have to do with Executive Branch oversight? You do know the hearing was about the power of the Executive branch to mandate (require, force) a company to provide a product or service free of charge, right? An if so, can they do so in a way that violates religious protections of the Constitution, right? It just so happens to be that the product is contraceptions.
Buftex Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 What did the make up of the hearing have to do with Executive Branch oversight? You do know the hearing was about the power of the Executive branch to mandate (require, force) a company to provide a product or service free of charge, right? An if so, can they do so in a way that violates religious protections of the Constitution, right? It just so happens to be that the product is contraceptions. Well, you may be right, but if it wasn't really about contraception, and only law, why was Bishop William Lori there to testify? Is Bishop Lori an expert on the constitution?
B-Man Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) And, in case you missed it, nobody is going to force the Catholic church to violate their own "faith"...even when it is in direct contrast with the majority of their followers. No. You again have bought the spin, or misunderstand the "accommodation". Catholic hospitals, Universities, and for that matter most Christian businesses will be forced to violate their teachings. by the way, the laughable argument that most Catholics don't follow the Church's policy so it shouldn't matter is pure sophistry. And you continue to try and focus the discussion on contraceptives, and conveniently forget the abortifacients, and sterilization that would need be covered, that most Americans do not agree with. . Edited March 3, 2012 by B-Man
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 Comment from an article on Drudge about a co-ed suing the college because her roomate was screwing all the time. Buffett Slumdog Billionaire The 1%!… Apparently the 99% are busy doing the nasty with Fluke! I think Georgetwon should just give Flujke her law degree. She has proven that she can sc rew a lot of people… March 2, 2012 at 6:54 pm | Reply | Report comment
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Changing our laws to force people to violate their own faith ...............how is that acceptable to any thinking person ? Faith is not applicable to law. Forcing women to abide by archaic nonsense is nothing any thinking person could support. As you have clearly never been with a woman, let me set you straight. A woman takes a birth control pill daily, regardless of sexual contact. You don't take a pill every time you have sex. Plus the debate isn't about condoms or any other OTC contrceptive, its for prescription medicine. Hopefully I have alleviated some of your confusion. Now if you're confused as to why is so dark where you are its because your head is rammed up your own ass That's exactly what I just said dipshit. Read what I wrote again and tell me how you get she takes a pill every time she has sex. Hopefully that alleviated some of your confusion. Now if your still confused as to why it's so dark it's because you have your head planted firmly in your own ass. 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. Those who are astounded by the fact that she is a women's rights activist obviously didn't even bother to watch her opening statement in front of Congress where she pretty much says she's a women's right's activist. 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. 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. 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. You could extend that logic to say that we should allow Islamic militants to kill Americans who they think may have insulted Muhammad because it's part of their faith. Edited March 3, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan
Doc Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Well, you may be right, but if it wasn't really about contraception, and only law, why was Bishop William Lori there to testify? Is Bishop Lori an expert on the constitution? Or sex (well...)?
B-Man Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 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. 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. 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. You could extend that logic to say that we should allow Islamic militants to kill Americans who they think may have insulted Muhammad because it's part of their faith. You were fine up until these two paragraphs Bfbf. 1. Employers and insurance companies have ALWAYS limited what medications and tests you can have. 2. The left keeps misstating this, we are NOT saying it is now alright to get between a woman and her doctor (thats the spin) The woman can have whatever she or the doc wants, but you do not have the right to make others compromise their faith just to pay for yours....big difference 3. your strawman that we would rather have the woman suffer than recieve treatment doesn't really even deserve a response, its simply not that "all or nothing" as you pretend to make it. .
Astrojanitor Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 That's exactly what I just said dipshit. Read what I wrote again and tell me how you get she takes a pill every time she has sex. Hopefully that alleviated some of your confusion. Now if your still confused as to why it's so dark it's because you have your head planted firmly in your own ass. 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. Those who are astounded by the fact that she is a women's rights activist obviously didn't even bother to watch her opening statement in front of Congress where she pretty much says she's a women's right's activist. 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. 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. 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. You could extend that logic to say that we should allow Islamic militants to kill Americans who they think may have insulted Muhammad because it's part of their faith. You are 100% right. Im reading this off my phone and didn't notice the "not." Im wrong and apologize. Now if you ever accuse me of being right wing again i'm going to forward you a picture of rush limbaugh violently masturbating to a tom clancy novel.
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 That's exactly what I just said dipshit. Read what I wrote again and tell me how you get she takes a pill every time she has sex. Hopefully that alleviated some of your confusion. Now if your still confused as to why it's so dark it's because you have your head planted firmly in your own ass. 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. Those who are astounded by the fact that she is a women's rights activist obviously didn't even bother to watch her opening statement in front of Congress where she pretty much says she's a women's right's activist. 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. 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. 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. You could extend that logic to say that we should allow Islamic militants to kill Americans who they think may have insulted Muhammad because it's part of their faith. Who is telling them they can't have them? It's an issue of forcing either the Catholic church to provide them through insurance, against their beliefs or forcing the public to pay for them. BTW, it's fun to see you and your brethren chewing on each other. The Janitor is another lib, plagued with the reading comprehension issue that most of you all have.
Oxrock Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 1330738650[/url]' post='2393672']Or sex (well...)? I'll answer Doc's since he quoted ButFlex's. He was there because of the violation of the constitution involved with this mandate is the violation of the free exercise clause. As far as the sex part goes, i don't think contraception is necessary in his line of work.
Astrojanitor Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Who is telling them they can't have them? It's an issue of forcing either the Catholic church to provide them through insurance, against their beliefs or forcing the public to pay for them. BTW, it's fun to see you and your brethren chewing on each other. The Janitor is another lib, plagued with the reading comprehension issue that most of you all have. Actually im plagued with a small screen on my phone. Also slightly plagued by paying more attention to my dog than to what Im reading. Much preferable to being plagued with outdated ignorant thinking and blind idiot dogma. At least I can buy a bigger phone.
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 Actually im plagued with a small screen on my phone. Also slightly plagued by paying more attention to my dog than to what Im reading. Much preferable to being plagued with outdated ignorant thinking and blind idiot dogma. At least I can buy a bigger phone. Stating facts is now blind ignorant dogma? My advice, keep playing with your dog. BTW, who gets to be on all fours?
Wacka Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Obama has managed to violate TWO amendments with this, the First and the Tenth.
Astrojanitor Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Stating facts is now blind ignorant dogma? My advice, keep playing with your dog. BTW, who gets to be on all fours? Your blind idiot dogma is the unquestioning support of an outdated institution that is openly harming employees by withholding financial access to prescription medicine. Individual health is more precious than an absurd idology ($5 says viagra is covered...but no, women are the sluts). People have the right to expect the service they pay for to actually provide the service they pay for. Since buying insurance independant of the employer is fiscally impossible for the bulk of the working force, the expectation of coverage is hardly out of order. But since you clearly have dog rape on the brain I suppose actually expecting you to think for yourself is kind of a tall order.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 You were fine up until these two paragraphs Bfbf. 1. Employers and insurance companies have ALWAYS limited what medications and tests you can have. 2. The left keeps misstating this, we are NOT saying it is now alright to get between a woman and her doctor (thats the spin) The woman can have whatever she or the doc wants, but you do not have the right to make others compromise their faith just to pay for yours....big difference 3. your strawman that we would rather have the woman suffer than recieve treatment doesn't really even deserve a response, its simply not that "all or nothing" as you pretend to make it. . I'm not pretending to make it all or nothing. One of the points she makes in her opening statement is that there has been no attempt to make an exception for birth control that is intended for health purposes BC that is only intended only to prevent pregnancy. Even when the university had an exception her friend had to fight tooth and nail with the insurance agency, most likely having to answer question after question about her sex life, only to walk away empty handed for coverage and ended up having her ovary removed.
Astrojanitor Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Obama has managed to violate TWO amendments with this, the First and the Tenth. Was someone jailed for speaking out against the government? I don't remember Obama sending Rush to the hoosegow. As for the religion angle, catholics can practice all the catholicism they want. But its not unlike mormons not being allowed to prqctice bigamy. Sometimes religious practice flys in the face of reason/law. Edited March 3, 2012 by Astrojanitor
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 You are 100% right. Im reading this off my phone and didn't notice the "not." Im wrong and apologize. Now if you ever accuse me of being right wing again i'm going to forward you a picture of rush limbaugh violently masturbating to a tom clancy novel. Dare I ask how you ended up owning a picture like that? LOL It's all cool bro. Who is telling them they can't have them? It's an issue of forcing either the Catholic church to provide them through insurance, against their beliefs or forcing the public to pay for them. BTW, it's fun to see you and your brethren chewing on each other. The Janitor is another lib, plagued with the reading comprehension issue that most of you all have. 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?
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 Dare I ask how you ended up owning a picture like that? LOL It's all cool bro. Somehow I get a picture of both of you watching that together and doing a cum swap. Not a "turn on" here.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Stating facts is now blind ignorant dogma? My advice, keep playing with your dog. BTW, who gets to be on all fours? Have you ever talked to a professional about your obsession with men in the 69 position, seaman, and people having sex with animals? Somehow I get a picture of both of you watching that together and doing a cum swap. Not a "turn on" here. See what I mean?
Recommended Posts