Can some FARK conservative please explain to me how

a) 10 men have the right to discuss how a woman can plan her family
b) the right-wing view of contraception is an example of small, inobtrusive government
c) this is an example of fiscal responsibility when, by limiting contraception, you're virtually guaranteeing more health care cost burdens shouldered by the taxpayer?

Pincy: lordaction: But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?

Be sure not to lose those instructions for breathing. Something tells me you'd die without them.

Being a liberal must be so easy. When confronted with an argument you just hurl personal insults and don't need any facts.

Jake Havechek: lordaction: But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?

You probably need an instruction manual for your dick.

They want equality as long as it benefits them...

Alimony, grossly inflated child support, child custody preferences etc.

Yes, please

Selective service, spousal support to poor men, most dangerous occupations?

No, that's your f-ing job!

Philip Francis Queeg: colon_pow: When the hearing began this morning, the Democratic women on the committee walked out.

they wanted to change the debate from Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State to a hearing on contraception. exactly what is done on fark every day lately.

You are actually right. The Obama administration decision on contraception has nothing to do with the separation of Church and state.

but it has everything to do with the State mandating what the church must do. so, i'm thinking you're looking at it a bit differently somehow.

then again, why mandate insurance to provide contraception? pills cost maybe 20/mo. we spend about that on vitamins. why not mandate insurance providers to cover those? does your auto insurance cover carwash? oil change? insurance protects against unforseen and expensive accidents/illness.

on the other hand, forget about it. you can't handle that sort of reasoning... carry on.

lordaction: Pincy: lordaction: But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?

Be sure not to lose those instructions for breathing. Something tells me you'd die without them.

Being a liberal must be so easy. When confronted with an argument you just hurl personal insults and don't need any facts.

That you consider what you wrote an actual argument tells me that you really do need those instructions.

HellRaisingHoosier: Dammit, they are successfully changing the national narrative again. Away from what needs to be focused on.

It's the farking 21st Century! I mean, why are we still debating contraception when we still have huge wealth disparity in the country that needs to be addressed.

Way to ignore morality.

Woman farking whenever they want is immoral, but they get away with it. This needs to be fixed.

People choosing to be poor is also immoral, but it's fairly self regulating. They're punished by their poverty. Really, the only thing that would need to be addressed is that perhaps they're not poor enough. They have refrigerators.

Godless liberals sure have strange priorities.

Philip Francis Queeg: Amagi: FTFA:

"When the hearing began this morning, the Democratic women on the committee walked out."

Alright, this makes sense. Important issue affecting women. You see that the rethuglicans are stacking the witnesses. Do you then decide to?

A. Stay there and represent your constituents, values, and trade some barbs with the witnesses like you were elected to do and meet this adversity and rise above it.

B. Storm out the place leaving no one to represent your point of view as a woman. Instead of rising to the occasion, you then issue passive aggressive press statements "UNFAIR...WAAAAAH!"

How about people elect some women with big honking ovaries who can actually fight?

[i399.photobucket.com image 233x316]

But this committee isn't actually doing anything. There is no legislation under consideration. It's all theater. There is literally nothing to fight for in that committee room.

Committee hearing are almost always political theater, they are there for you to make effective soundbites, ask stinging questions, and voice your point of view. Represent your people, damn it!

Amagi: Jake Havechek: lordaction: But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?

You probably need an instruction manual for your dick.

They want equality as long as it benefits them...

Alimony, grossly inflated child support, child custody preferences etc.

Yes, please

Selective service, spousal support to poor men, most dangerous occupations?

No, that's your f-ing job!

I'm confused as to why you think "child support" and "child custody" are issues that only benefit women. Why, it's almost as if you believe that men cannot get custody or support. 'Course, that would tie in with your idiotic belief that men cannot get alimony either.

colon_pow: Philip Francis Queeg: colon_pow: When the hearing began this morning, the Democratic women on the committee walked out.

they wanted to change the debate from Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State to a hearing on contraception. exactly what is done on fark every day lately.

You are actually right. The Obama administration decision on contraception has nothing to do with the separation of Church and state.

but it has everything to do with the State mandating what the church must do. so, i'm thinking you're looking at it a bit differently somehow.

then again, why mandate insurance to provide contraception? pills cost maybe 20/mo. we spend about that on vitamins. why not mandate insurance providers to cover those? does your auto insurance cover carwash? oil change? insurance protects against unforseen and expensive accidents/illness.

on the other hand, forget about it. you can't handle that sort of reasoning... carry on.


So, it appears that you are against the government requiring a church to do anything then, right?

Should Churches have to follow building codes?

Should churches have to report evidence of child molestation to the government?

Should churches have to pay the employer portion of payroll taxes for their employees?

Should churches be banned by the government from executing those they deem to be heretics?

Philip Francis Queeg: But this committee isn't actually doing anything. There is no legislation under consideration. It's all theater. There is literally nothing to fight for in that committee room.

Excatly. This is an issue the Republicans can grandstand on which will appeal to their evangelical base, but won't resonate much in the larger population except among women's groups (which won't be voting Republican anyway); low risk, decent reward.

Cletus C.: I have a tip for those women.

I see your tip and raise you one shaft...

Pincy: lordaction: Pincy: lordaction: But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?

Be sure not to lose those instructions for breathing. Something tells me you'd die without them.

Being a liberal must be so easy. When confronted with an argument you just hurl personal insults and don't need any facts.

That you consider what you wrote an actual argument tells me that you really do need those instructions.

Lack of self-awareness is a symptom of cognitive dissonance. Self-parody is a symptom of republicanism.

Theaetetus: Amagi: Jake Havechek: lordaction: But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?

You probably need an instruction manual for your dick.

They want equality as long as it benefits them...

Alimony, grossly inflated child support, child custody preferences etc.

Yes, please

Selective service, spousal support to poor men, most dangerous occupations?

No, that's your f-ing job!

I'm confused as to why you think "child support" and "child custody" are issues that only benefit women. Why, it's almost as if you believe that men cannot get custody or support. 'Course, that would tie in with your idiotic belief that men cannot get alimony either.

I see I have gone over the heads of everyone here.

Theaetetus: DozeNutz: Ok, well, does the unborn have a choice? Its going to live and become a person.

I'd like a citation for your claimed 0% miscarriage rate.

Did you know an unborn baby has inheritance rights?

Did you know the difference between vested and unvested rights?

Did you know the doctor can get sued if it injures an unborn baby?

Did you know that the suit is going to be in the name of the parents, not the alleged fetus?

But if its unwanted, those legal rights are not there. So where is the justice in that?

Where does it make sense to grant every miscarriage legal rights?

2 sets of laws because a child is unwanted?

Actually, it's one set of laws. As noted above, you're wrong about your understanding of the laws regarding fetuses.

So abortion = miscarriage in legal terms?

I do not get how an unborn baby being taken out and killed, is not murder. Because its not a person? It has the DNA of a person, but somehow age has something to do with it. Can you refute that an unborn baby is not a person? We are all defined by the characteristics of our DNA. Therefore, scientifically, its a person. I abhor abortion, its murdering little babies. For me, there is no justification for innocent murder. Just the fact that it is unwanted does not change the fact is it a person, or has rights. If you asked a person that would have been aborted in the womb after he was born if they wished they were aborted, I'd bet they choose life.

Its better to have lived than not have lived at all amirite? Who cares if you are poor or disenfranchised, life is a gift. There is always someone worse off, and its always better to be living than to be dead IMO.

Theaetetus: I'm confused as to why you think "child support" and "child custody" are issues that only benefit women. Why, it's almost as if you believe that men cannot get custody or support. 'Course, that would tie in with your idiotic belief that men cannot get alimony either.

Kind of like how some people seem to think that hate crime laws only protect gays and black people.

OgreMagi: Me: You suffered serious brain damge recently, didn't you?

just throwing this out there, but have you ever had an opportunity to talk with somebody into a whacko cult thing? not necessarily 'i cut off my balls so i can ride the comet' type cult, but at least 'I sold everything i own, but Leader gave me a bag of rice. I love Leader' level of crazy?

i think i've had the exact conversation you described several times (i call it 'Thanksgiving Dinner'), and it kinda struck me just how similar it was to talking to a cult zombie. the biggest difference i could find was one was over the top happy/smiling/blissed while they repeated their buzzwords, the other...increasingly angrily. like the angrier they said it, the more true it makes it.

vernonFL: colon_pow: this is not about contraception..

The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Actually it wasnt.

It was more of a divergent virw about whether states could override the federal government. When lincoln was electe president, he won mostly in the north. The south then felt more isolated because lincoln didnt carry a single south state (i think).

The emancipation proclimation added fuel.

My question is: When did the GOP start admitting there even WAS separation of church and state?

I thought that was a liberal myth? Liberty university teaches that to their JD candidates. Conservatives on FARK have argued that.

So do we finally have agreement that there IS in fact a constitutionally required separation of church and state?

"Women are not people, they are devices built by our Lord Jesus Christ for our entertainment."

InmanRoshi: TravisBickle62: Christian women are chattel, it says so right there in the Bible

Women don't do themselves any favors by being "unclean" once a month, either.

I just can't trust something that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.

Deneb81: My question is: When did the GOP start admitting there even WAS separation of church and state?

January, 2009...

DozeNutz: keylock71: DozeNutz:
He is taking away freedom of choice.

Well, social conservatives shouldn't have a problem with that considering their stance on Abortion...


"Freedom of choice is what you got.
Freedom from choice is what you want."

Ok, well, does the unborn have a choice? Its going to live and become a person. Did you know an unborn baby has inheritance rights? Did you know the doctor can get sued if it injures an unborn baby? But if its unwanted, those legal rights are not there. So where is the justice in that? 2 sets of laws because a child is unwanted? Its called law because its universal to everyone. Rule of man is what monarchs and dictatorships are made of.

So? Just learn to mind your own f**king business, like other grownups, and you won't have to worry about it.

timujin: It is inconceivable to me that you believe tomorrow's hearing has no bearing on the reproductive rights of women. This Committee commits a massive injustice by trying to pretend that the views of millions of women across this country are meaningless, worthless, or irrelevant to this debate.

Look, sugartits, sit down and listen. This isn't about women's reproductive "rights." It's about Obama's war on religion in general and on Christianity specifically. He wants to use U.S. law to fight religious doctrine, a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The panel consisted of religious leaders because those are the people who are supposed to make these decisions.

10/10

DORMAMU: vernonFL: colon_pow: this is not about contraception..

The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Actually it wasnt.

It was more of a divergent virw about whether states could override the federal government. When lincoln was electe president, he won mostly in the north. The south then felt more isolated because lincoln didnt carry a single south state (i think).

The emancipation proclimation added fuel.

And Lincoln made the stupidest decision ever in NOT letting the South go.

Imagine how better off the rest of the US would be without the Confederate States. Less poor, dumb, fat people. And we'd probably have a single payer health system by now.

kronicfeld: colon_pow: but it has everything to do with the State mandating what the church must do.

Churches are excepted from the regulation. Strange that you'd comment without knowing the most basic facts.

Don't even bother.

These people really think that the hospitals and universities = "the church."

DozeNutz: I do not get how an unborn baby being taken out and killed, is not murder. Because its not a person? It has the DNA of a person, but somehow age has something to do with it.

"somehow age has something to do with it?" Yes, I think having an age less than zero might have something to do with it.

Bwahaha, oh wow, so predictable.

So this is the bald face lie that liberals are going to perpetuate on people who don't know better?

This was not a hearing on contraception. At all. Period. It was a hearing on whether Obama had the Constitutional authority to do what he did last week.

randomjsa: Bwahaha, oh wow, so predictable.

So this is the bald face lie that liberals are going to perpetuate on people who don't know better?

This was not a hearing on contraception. At all. Period. It was a hearing on whether Obama had the Constitutional authority to do what he did last week.

So those guys on the panel were all Constitutional scholars?

Theaetetus: Amagi: Jake Havechek: lordaction: But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?

You probably need an instruction manual for your dick.

They want equality as long as it benefits them...

Alimony, grossly inflated child support, child custody preferences etc.

Yes, please

Selective service, spousal support to poor men, most dangerous occupations?

No, that's your f-ing job!

I'm confused as to why you think "child support" and "child custody" are issues that only benefit women. Why, it's almost as if you believe that men cannot get custody or support. 'Course, that would tie in with your idiotic belief that men cannot get alimony either.

Men are much less likely to receive custody of children in divorce due to many factors including how the courts are stacked against them-for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. The system is completely broken.

Men can receive temporary alimony if their spouse has higher income...however, judges frequently inform them to find jobs as soon as possible. Women frequently continue to get alimony until they die or marry again or the original husband dies.

Must be nice to be that blissfully ignorant?

kronicfeld: colon_pow: but it has everything to do with the State mandating what the church must do.

Churches are excepted from the regulation. Strange that you'd comment without knowing the most basic facts.

well you should call that senate hearing and tell them that it's all ok now and that they can go home.

vernonFL: Civil War

you're just going drop that pile of tardcandy and run away cackling, aren't you?

randomjsa: It was a hearing on whether Obama had the Constitutional authority to do what he did last week.

Then why were bishop, the reverend, and the rabbis there? Are they constitutional scholars?

Also, it's not the job of the Legislative branch to determine constitutionality.