If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Nation)   Republican panelists at the House contraception hearing were all men. Some women seem to have a problem with this   (thenation.com) divider line 152
    More: Fail, Elijah Cummings, contraceptives, rights of women, Catholic bishop  
•       •       •

3799 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Feb 2012 at 1:36 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-02-16 01:38:07 PM
10 votes:
The GOP's proposed amendment would allow any employer to impose Sharia Law as related to health insurance on any employee, regardless of the employee's religion.
2012-02-16 01:40:12 PM
7 votes:
Why would you be a republican if you were a woman, that is your first problem.
2012-02-16 01:43:43 PM
6 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

NOT a "How-to" book, dammit!
2012-02-16 03:32:05 PM
5 votes:

DozeNutz: I abhor abortion, its murdering little babies.



THEN DON'T FARKING GET ONE
2012-02-16 02:16:21 PM
5 votes:
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.
2012-02-16 03:29:25 PM
4 votes:

DozeNutz: Theaetetus: DozeNutz: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.

And? If you asked me whether I'd like to have a billion dollars, I'd say yes. Therefore, I have a right to it?

Your arguments are farking dumb. A billion dollars? cmon man, that is a lame ass analogy. I hope you like sharing consciences with the likes of Hitler and Stalin though.


And that is how the mind of an alt-troll works. Playing a character is SO fun!
2012-02-16 03:06:26 PM
4 votes:

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. 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.


No. Therefore, scientifically, it's human.
"Personhood" is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. And, under US law, you are not a person until you're born.

I abhor abortion, its murdering little babies.

Again, no. You may abhor abortion, but it's certainly not "murdering little babies". That'd be infantcide, which everyone abhors.

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.

And again, no. It's not because it's unwanted, but because it's not born yet - that's why it's not a person and has no 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.

And? If you asked me whether I'd like to have a billion dollars, I'd say yes. Therefore, I have a right to it?
2012-02-16 02:15:39 PM
4 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 01:42:15 PM
4 votes:
It still boggles my mind that this is the issue the Republicans are trying to turn into the culture war wedge issue.

Access to birth control, which is broadly popular and completely uncontroversial among pretty much every group of Americans (outside of a handful of out-of-touch bishops and evangelicals).

"Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?"

Overall: 66% support vs. 26% opposed

Republicans support it by 50-44.
Independents support it by 64-26.
Moderates support it by 68-22.
Women support it by 72-20.
Catholics support it by 67-25.
Weekly Churchgoing Catholics support it by 48-43.


The GOP has picked a losing battle, and the harder they push on this, the bigger the backlash from moderates is going to be. This is going to backfire on them in a huge way.
2012-02-16 04:40:27 PM
3 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Obama beat McCain 58-43 in with women in 2008. Apparently the GOP thinks 43% was too high.


The GOP would have a huge group of conservative people voting for them, if only they'd stop picking on Mexicans.
The GOP would have a huge group of conservative people voting for them, if only they'd stop picking on women.
The GOP would have a huge group of conservative people voting for them, if only they'd stop picking on the elderly.

It's like the GOP is intentionally catering to the most backwards, bigoted group of people in our country.
2012-02-16 04:38:38 PM
3 votes:

macil22: I don't see why this is being made into a religious rights issue. I disagree with the feds even having the authority to force insurance companies to cover contraception. If women want contraception covered then they can take their business to companies who will offer it.

Why can't women be expected to buy their own birth control anyways?


Why can't men be expected to buy their own Viagra?
2012-02-16 04:19:15 PM
3 votes:
Republicans just walked into another Terry Schiavo moment. They've way over reached to their religious fringe base and alienated mainstream Americans.
Ant
2012-02-16 03:24:33 PM
3 votes:

DozeNutz: Ok, well, does the unborn have a choice?


www.advancedfertility.com

Me: Hey, Blastocyst, what do you think about this?

Blastocyst: ...

Me: Surely you have something to say?

Blastocyst: ...

Nope. The cluster of 100 cells (that pro-lifers would have you believe is an actual person) has no opinion on this
2012-02-16 03:05:40 PM
3 votes:
Churchie won't hesitate to tell me how to live my life, then screams bloody murder when I return the favor.
2012-02-16 02:41:36 PM
3 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:39:44 PM
3 votes:

Lord_Baull: 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?


d) the bishops object that this mixes church and state when at the same time their charities rely on the government for two-thirds of their funding.
2012-02-16 02:36:32 PM
3 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:30:15 PM
3 votes:

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?
2012-02-16 02:13:36 PM
3 votes:

DozeNutz: 2 sets of laws because a child is unwanted?


It's not an unwanted child until it's born. Then the Republicans don't want to hear a damn thing about it.
2012-02-16 02:08:48 PM
3 votes:
I am a Quaker. I am religious against war. I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that go toward war.

I am a Christian Scientist I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that goes toward medicine or medical research. I should not have to pay medicare. I should not have to pay it for my employees either.

I am a Rastafarian I should not have to pay the portion of taxes that goes toward marijuana law enforcement.

I am a druid I should not have to pay the portion of taxes that goes towards forest service logging operations.

I am a Hindu I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that goes towards cattle grazing on public land. Or research grant for animal husbandry.

I see how this could get out of hand.
2012-02-16 01:57:39 PM
3 votes:
We all know what this is really about for the Republicans...

www.middle-ages.org.uk

/Take up the cross and kill the nonbelievers!
2012-02-16 01:52:01 PM
3 votes:
Catholic Charities USA receives 67 percent of its funding from the government. (new window, PDF, WTF)
2012-02-16 01:41:27 PM
3 votes:
Well, duh... The GOP hates women.
2012-02-16 01:38:06 PM
3 votes:
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.
2012-02-16 05:18:44 PM
2 votes:

Raoul Eaton: 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.

I call Poe's Law on this, if someone hasn't already.

//Not going to pore through 6 pages to find out.


Most of the time I call myself out in the post, just to not be labelled a troll, but this was so obviously stupid that I just let it roll.
2012-02-16 04:38:08 PM
2 votes:
Obama beat McCain 58-43 in with women in 2008. Apparently the GOP thinks 43% was too high.
2012-02-16 04:35:01 PM
2 votes:

LMark: yert I am a Quaker. I am religious against war. I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that go toward war.

I am a Christian Scientist I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that goes toward medicine or medical research. I should not have to pay medicare. I should not have to pay it for my employees either.

I am a Rastafarian I should not have to pay the portion of taxes that goes toward marijuana law enforcement.

I am a druid I should not have to pay the portion of taxes that goes towards forest service logging operations.

I am a Hindu I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that goes towards cattle grazing on public land. Or research grant for animal husbandry.

I see how this could get out of hand.

I am a Jew. I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that goes towards subsidies for hog farmers.


You miss an obvious one: I am an atheist. I should not have to pay the portion of my taxes that go to Faith-based subsidies.
2012-02-16 04:10:53 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: Ant: Life starts at conception, right?

I think so though I don't want to force my philosophical beliefs on someone else. As a result, I do not favor a ban on abortion. However, in arguing against the pro-life position, we're better off not using dishonest methods. Abortions of blastocysts aren't very common because it has usually reached the embryonic stage before the woman even knows she is pregnant.


It's definitely life, but is it a person? It certainly has the potential to be, but the woman carrying it definitely is a person already. I think we can saftely reduce abortion rates by examining why women get abortions in the first place and trying to address those socio-economic issues instead.
2012-02-16 04:04:45 PM
2 votes:

macil22: I don't see why this is being made into a religious rights issue. I disagree with the feds even having the authority to force insurance companies to cover contraception. If women want contraception covered then they can take their business to companies who will offer it.

Why can't women be expected to buy their own birth control anyways?


Because the federal appeal's court has already ruled that providing health insurance but NOT providing birth control is discriminating against women, and is therefore in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

www.thoughts.swalrus.org
2012-02-16 03:54:04 PM
2 votes:

Stile4aly: Churches aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care and need not subscribe to an insurance plan that offers it. Church affiliated organizations (notably hospitals and charities) aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care, they must simply subscribe to a plan that does for which the insurance company picks up the tab. The choice to use the care is left to the individual.

In what way is this at all controversial?


It's not controversial at all. In fact, it's broadly popular in every poll taken on the subject so far.

The only reason it's in the news now is that Republicans think they can get some political traction out of mis-representing what is going on as a "war on religion."

I think they're pretty wrong, and this whole thing is going to back-fire on them big time. They're just going to wind up pissing off moderates and independents, who've got no problems with birth control.

But the GOP is desperate. They see Obama's rising poll numbers, they see dropping unemployment, and they look at their own candidates and see a bunch of lightweights and clowns. They're going to be grasping at straws from now until November, so expect a bunch of breathless reporting on nontroversies on Fox News.
2012-02-16 03:46:53 PM
2 votes:

Amagi: 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 assuming that the following applies to you, based on your attitude. However, if they don't, then they're an open letter to douchebags like yourself.

First off, selective service? Doesn't apply anymore - at least not until a draft.

"Dangerous occupations?" No one is forcing any man to get a dangerous job - the best paying jobs are usually found in offices and boardrooms - somewhere you see FAR more many men than women.

But back to the crux of your biatchfest:

Look, I'm sorry you chose to marry a woman who was a horrible biatch to you. I really am. But, based on your attitude, I don't think she started off that way. It was more of an evolution to the point where she didn't want to deal with your misogynistic shiat anymore.

Can't blame her, really.

You should have known the rules going in. It's not her fault for taking what the law says she's entitled to. And if we talk about child support...you're an absolute scumbag if you won't pay for your kids. And don't play the "B-b-b-but she just buys clothes for her whoring around with my child support money." Well, it's none of your farking business - that money may just reimburse her for what she pays. If the kids are eating, have clothes and a roof over their head, you can just STFU about what she does with the child support check.

I have an idea: know the woman you plan to marry (it's not difficult to know if a woman has character if you look beyond fake boobs and sexual prowess). Or, don't get farking married at all, and definitely don't knock anyone up. Try thinking with more than just your dick.

YOU made choices. Now YOU have to deal with the consequences.
2012-02-16 03:43:47 PM
2 votes:
Churches aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care and need not subscribe to an insurance plan that offers it. Church affiliated organizations (notably hospitals and charities) aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care, they must simply subscribe to a plan that does for which the insurance company picks up the tab. The choice to use the care is left to the individual.

In what way is this at all controversial?
2012-02-16 03:41:39 PM
2 votes:
"In honor of your 'Birth Control Hearing', we're having a hearing on whether mandated colonoscopies should be scheduled twice a year or once a month, and whether we should also mandate circumcision. I'm afraid no men are qualified to take part."

/Problem solved.
2012-02-16 02:58:20 PM
2 votes:
The GOP hates women. I don't know why there is even a single female voter who votes Republican. Sure, there are a bunch who would have to lie and say they voted GOP to keep their husbands from beating them senseless, but how can any woman hate their gender so much as to actually vote these people into office?

An all-male panel on female contraception is the sort of thing that you'd expect from a backward, fundamentalist theocracy. There was a time when America was better than that.
2012-02-16 02:55:45 PM
2 votes:

imontheinternet: The five-person, all-male panel consists of a Roman Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Reverend, a rabbi and two professors.

Let's just tell them to shove a cork in it, and call it a day. So, I hear you Washington guys call your altar boys "pages."


I grew up catholic in a Washington DC suburb, so my attendance at the yearly "March for Life" was more or less mandatory (no kidding, we got the day off from school and they bused us down) In my early teens (mid 1980's) after never giving the issue much thought before, I began to get increasingly incomfortable about the fact that all the leaders of "movement" all the people who got national air time, were angry, middle-aged men. There seemed to be few women in the leadership ranks and far fewer still who were of child-bearing age.


plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, I suppose
2012-02-16 02:43:49 PM
2 votes:

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?
2012-02-16 02:35:11 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:34:13 PM
2 votes:
My pedophile priest denounces contraception.
2012-02-16 02:28:37 PM
2 votes:

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 wasn't a personal insult, it was concern for your well-being.

You're a mouth breathing moron, stupid in a way that actually causes pain in other people and content to live shrouded in your protective cloak of ignorance and bigotry.

Now that's a personal insult.
2012-02-16 02:19:13 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:18:10 PM
2 votes:

palelizard: Equating societal obligations (paying taxes to support the government which provides services) to benefits of employment (types of healthcare coverage) is disingenous at best.


And continuing to pair affordable health insurance with employment is medieval.
2012-02-16 02:17:28 PM
2 votes:
""Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State"

It's about Goddam time the Republicans covered this.



Funny thing is: they will protest until the end that there is NO SUCH THING as 'Separation of Church and State' when it suits them.

Hypocritical asshats.
2012-02-16 02:13:49 PM
2 votes:
Christians in this country so desperately want to be persecuted that they've calibrated their persecution gauges way too low, to the point that someone wishing them "Happy Holidays" ends up registering at holocaust levels. Easy access to birth control? THIS IS WORSE THAN THE ROMANS THROWING CHRISTIANS TO THE LIONS!!!!! BLAAAARGBLLLLL!
2012-02-16 02:10:54 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:07:33 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:03:36 PM
2 votes:
How the fark is Issa even in Congress? He's lied about his military service, he's a car thief, and an arsonist. An ethics investigation wouldn't be inappropriate...

Worst yet, he's from Cleveland.
2012-02-16 02:02:07 PM
2 votes:
I don't see how any social conservative can honestly say this isn't about sex. If it was about preventing abortions, they would be 100% FOR contraception, would they not?
2012-02-16 01:54:40 PM
2 votes:

Doc Daneeka: It still boggles my mind that this is the issue the Republicans are trying to turn into the culture war wedge issue.


No, quite the contrary - Obama is trying to turn this into a wedge issue. He would absolutely love to have this fight. The louder and longer it goes, the more support he gets and the more the voters are going to hate the GOP.

It boggles the mind that the Republicans took the bait. But not only did they take the bait, they went full derp.

Buh da buh ba baaa, I'm lovin it.
2012-02-16 01:52:59 PM
2 votes:
You seem to think this is about women. It isn't. They say it's about the War on Christianity. It isn't really that either. In reality it's just another arm of the "liberals and minorities are oppressing you!" campaign that social conservatives have been waging for years since they realized that most people didn't buy their bullshiat. The actual issue or people involved are irrelevant. The fact that Catholics and women in general are fine with the new rules doesn't matter because they aren't the audience. This panel is for these conservative politicians to stand up and say that they will protect the old, scared bigots from the scary new world in exchange for their vote.

Why would a woman, who actually is interested in the issue, be involved in that?
2012-02-16 01:50:20 PM
2 votes:

imontheinternet: The five-person, all-male panel consists of a Roman Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Reverend, a rabbi and two professors.


Ugh. They should stick to walking into bars together.
2012-02-16 01:49:33 PM
2 votes:

BSABSVR: Doc Daneeka: The GOP has picked a losing battle, and the harder they push on this, the bigger the backlash from moderates is going to be. This is going to backfire on them in a huge way.

You think that now, but wait until the GOP brings back the depravity of married couples on TV sleeping in the same bed. THAT's what tips this into a winner of a plan.


Pretty much. Social Conservatives are trying to re-fight a culture war battle that they lost 50 years ago.

Contraception hasn't been controversial to the general public since the 60s, for crying out loud.
2012-02-16 01:49:05 PM
2 votes:
Representative Elijah Cummings: A hearing stacked with last-minute witnesses who offer no competing views only contributes to the perception that our Committee is fostering a circus-like atmosphere intended to further politicize this debate.

Elijah, you should know better. You've been in congress since 1996. Your colleagues in the House have called their hearing "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" Why the flying fark would you expect these misogynistic assholes to allow competing views?

The sooner you realize that the GOP congress is dominated by despicable pieces of shiat who don't give two shiats about anyone but themselves and their wealthy friends in business, the less devastating that realization will be for you.
2012-02-16 01:48:12 PM
2 votes:

patrick767: This morning, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is holding a hearing titled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" The topic, as you might guess, is the recent administration decision to mandate birth control coverage.

Well it's nice to know the noble congressmen taking an objective view going into their "hearings".

timujin
This isn't about women's reproductive "rights." It's about Obama's war on religion in general and on Christianity specifically

You can't possibly believe something this stupid, so I'll go ahead and call "troll".


shhh, I'm working here.



/look, I rarely troll, but this is such a stupid situation I couldn't help it.
2012-02-16 01:46:32 PM
2 votes:

Headso: Why would you be a republican if you were a woman, that is your first problem.


It's strange. But I think a lot of people spew platitudes about how things should be, right up until that issue hits them. Then they flip. But what I see a lot of is that they may flip and act the other direction while at the same time saying the exact same thing they've been preaching.

Hypocrisy? Yes. But they can't see that.
2012-02-16 01:44:28 PM
2 votes:
What's fun is the Evangelicals support this move, the Catholics do not. So what are these Catholics doing? I think they are hoping to increase their church attendance by maybe picking of Evangelicals to become Catholics. Is that even possible?

Also, how many men on that panel raped a boy?
2012-02-16 01:43:59 PM
2 votes:

pacified: The GOP's proposed amendment would allow any employer to impose Sharia Law as related to health insurance on any employee, regardless of the employee's religion.


Well yes. You see, religious freedom as defined by the GOP is about older white guys who are far removed from your personal experiences making decisions based on what they deem to be moral, not as the L-L-L would have you believe, about you personally having the right to worship (or not) as you see fit. That's actually a war on religion, and leads us down a path of secularism plus Shariah, where older brown guys who are far removed from your personal experiences are making decisions based on what they deem to be moral. All because the gays refuse to condemn Islam and women fornicate for pleasure.
2012-02-16 01:41:39 PM
2 votes:
This morning, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is holding a hearing titled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" The topic, as you might guess, is the recent administration decision to mandate birth control coverage.

Well it's nice to know the noble congressmen taking an objective view going into their "hearings".

timujin
This isn't about women's reproductive "rights." It's about Obama's war on religion in general and on Christianity specifically

You can't possibly believe something this stupid, so I'll go ahead and call "troll".
2012-02-16 01:40:55 PM
2 votes:
Why would women be there, the committee already had plans to go out for dinner. No need to tell the womenfolk what they wanted to be prepared for them.

Besides, it's not like republican men are interested in sex with women anyhow.
2012-02-16 11:55:01 PM
1 votes:
The people who insist this is a "religious freedom" and not a birth control issue remind me of people from the South who insist that the Civil War wasn't over slavery but "state's rights" ..... Yeah, a State's Right TO OWN SLAVES.

This latest brouhaha comes on the heals of a 2010 Congress that campaigned on the economy and creating jobs, but once sworn in focused almost exclusively on attacking women's health and abortion. This is also at a time with Rick Santorum, a man who's entire political identity is founded on repealing reproductive rights, has won 4 out of the 9 GOP Presidential Primaries and is currently the leader in all national polls.

The GOP want to take your reproductive rights away, particularly if you're a woman. They can sugarcoat it and wrap it in whatever wrapper they want, but that's what they do every single time they get an ounce of power. You can only judge people by their actions. I would respect them more if they would just own up to it from the outset, lay it out on the table, and let the American people decide of that's what they want. Instead they resort to Trojan Horse politics.
2012-02-16 07:21:47 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: timujin: colon_pow: unexplained bacon: colon_pow: buying bcp is like buying extended warranty on your new tires, i.e., something different than your auto insurance.

how so?

how is it any different than any other prescription pill?

where did you even get that idea? got a link or something?

the point is, smaller, inexpensive health care items shouldn't be a part of health care insurance. when compared to auto insurance, the analogy is: do you submit a claim to the insurance company if you need to change your oil? huh?
same goes for health ins. why include basic health maintenance kind of thing?

I was going to make a joke about colonoscopies, but it was just too obvious.

Still, no more insured colonoscopies it seems, since that's "basic health maintenance". Or any other pill you take regularly, like heart pills, since that's "basic health maintenance" as well. The really should cover "emergency pills," either, like pain pills or antibiotics. I mean, it'd be like having your insurance pay for an emergency tire change. Those are analogous, smaller, inexpensive items, right?

i have a high deductible plan, so i do pay for that sort of thing.


your insurance sucks so you figure everyone's should?
2012-02-16 06:59:05 PM
1 votes:

timujin: colon_pow: unexplained bacon: colon_pow: buying bcp is like buying extended warranty on your new tires, i.e., something different than your auto insurance.

how so?

how is it any different than any other prescription pill?

where did you even get that idea? got a link or something?

the point is, smaller, inexpensive health care items shouldn't be a part of health care insurance. when compared to auto insurance, the analogy is: do you submit a claim to the insurance company if you need to change your oil? huh?
same goes for health ins. why include basic health maintenance kind of thing?

I was going to make a joke about colonoscopies, but it was just too obvious.

Still, no more insured colonoscopies it seems, since that's "basic health maintenance". Or any other pill you take regularly, like heart pills, since that's "basic health maintenance" as well. The really should cover "emergency pills," either, like pain pills or antibiotics. I mean, it'd be like having your insurance pay for an emergency tire change. Those are analogous, smaller, inexpensive items, right?


i have a high deductible plan, so i do pay for that sort of thing.
2012-02-16 05:54:33 PM
1 votes:

J. Walter Weatherman: ohioman: Knara:

but when did derpublicans ever know what they were talking about?


I have a theory. Even the most reactionary, out of touch Republicans have to know that an overwhelming majority of people have no problem with birth control, so why waste so much time on these ridiculous hearings and purposely take the vastly less popular side?

I think they know there will be real problems getting the base turned out to vote for whichever empty $10,000 suit they end up nominating in November.They fear the economy slowly recovering and losing the narrative on that front. So, I think we're in for months of this "Obama is at war with Religion" bullshiat and the rhetoric will only get worse. I looks to me like we're witnessing the birth of a new set of social issues designed to get idiots to vote against their own economic interests again.

...then again, maybe Republicans are just a bunch of schmucks who blindly oppose the black guy in the white house for no good reason and i'm over thinking all of this...


i have a theory. some people don't recognize a constitutional issue when it's right in front of their face.
when they turn around it's gonna bite them in the butt.
2012-02-16 05:39:42 PM
1 votes:

ohioman: Knara:

but when did derpublicans ever know what they were talking about?



I have a theory. Even the most reactionary, out of touch Republicans have to know that an overwhelming majority of people have no problem with birth control, so why waste so much time on these ridiculous hearings and purposely take the vastly less popular side?

I think they know there will be real problems getting the base turned out to vote for whichever empty $10,000 suit they end up nominating in November.They fear the economy slowly recovering and losing the narrative on that front. So, I think we're in for months of this "Obama is at war with Religion" bullshiat and the rhetoric will only get worse. I looks to me like we're witnessing the birth of a new set of social issues designed to get idiots to vote against their own economic interests again.

...then again, maybe Republicans are just a bunch of schmucks who blindly oppose the black guy in the white house for no good reason and i'm over thinking all of this...
2012-02-16 04:54:14 PM
1 votes:

unexplained bacon: colon_pow: buying bcp is like buying extended warranty on your new tires, i.e., something different than your auto insurance.

how so?

how is it any different than any other prescription pill?

where did you even get that idea? got a link or something?


the point is, smaller, inexpensive health care items shouldn't be a part of health care insurance. when compared to auto insurance, the analogy is: do you submit a claim to the insurance company if you need to change your oil? huh?
same goes for health ins. why include basic health maintenance kind of thing?
2012-02-16 04:45:24 PM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Mike Chewbacca: The GOP would have a huge group of conservative people voting for them, if only they'd stop picking on Mexicans.
The GOP would have a huge group of conservative people voting for them, if only they'd stop picking on women.
The GOP would have a huge group of conservative people voting for them, if only they'd stop picking on the elderly.

It's like the GOP is intentionally catering to the most backwards, bigoted group of people in our country.

They're going to go down hard.

And that was 56-43. My mistake.


Yes. And I should mention that the group they're catering to is shrinking. They're essentially catering to a dying demographic and telling everyone else, "We don't want your kind here" and so "those kinds" go join the Democrats.
2012-02-16 04:44:46 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: I don't. and you derped out my explanation. (which was a bit insulting, by the way) buying bcp is like buying extended warranty on your new tires, i.e., something different than your auto insurance.


i43.photobucket.com


Dude, you're good. That's the best thing I've read yet.
2012-02-16 04:39:23 PM
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: QED. And under the HHS rule (actual or as proposed by the President), that (meaning the undifferentiated source of the funding) has to be the case, because there can't be a separate charge for the birth control benefits.


My religion says I'm not allowed to pay for boner pills for old guys. Where do I sign up for my exemption?
2012-02-16 04:36:36 PM
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: Thus a religious organization, here the Sisters of Life, which is consecrated to the task of building a culture of life (as they see it - knowing that you might reject that, but we're talking about privately-held religious beliefs here), would have to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

The example I like is this. Let's mandate the consumption of bacon because, as we all know, it's the single greatest edible substance ever, capable of curing everything from hangovers to leprosy. Then, when Jews and Muslims object, let's pillory them for wanting to ban bacon and denying their members the right to eat what they want.


Wow. So much dumb.
2012-02-16 04:32:55 PM
1 votes:

More_Like_A_Stain: That was the last guy. This guy is the "Messiah". Do try to keep up.


Wait, aren't they both presidents? Both guys? What's the big difference between them that could provoke this change in attitude?
2012-02-16 04:23:36 PM
1 votes:
If I have a religious objection to killing people for any reason, does that mean the government should be forced to either stop all wars or stop taxing me?
2012-02-16 04:17:37 PM
1 votes:

AuBricker: Dahnkster: AuBricker: Account created: 2012-02-14 12:19:20

[i257.photobucket.com image 581x721]

How could I resist joining this pack of mavens and madmen (and, hopefully, madwomen)?


We need a button for 'poor life choices'.

/welcome
//make sure you see the receptionist about your complementary kitten
2012-02-16 04:14:47 PM
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: Philip Francis Queeg: Garet Garrett: Thus a religious organization, here the Sisters of Life, which is consecrated to the task of building a culture of life (as they see it - knowing that you might reject that, but we're talking about privately-held religious beliefs here), would have to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

No they wouldn't have to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Their insurance company would. And even that's ONLY in the case that one of the sisters or their other employees CHOSE to use contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.

Oh, the contraception and abortion-inducing drugs are paid for by the insurance company! I see...so that has nothing to do with the premiums paid by the Sisters. I get it. It comes from the magic money-making machine they have in the back room.


Do you understand how insurance premiums work? Are you under the impression that the premiums the Sisters pay only fund the healthcare that they and their employees receive?
2012-02-16 04:10:41 PM
1 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: What's the moral difference between:

1. Directly paying for a woman's birth control by funding her insurance.

and

2. Indirectly paying for a woman's birth control by not funding her insurance but making her buy it on the side with the money you paid her.

It's okay if you're indirectly paying for birth control?


For most Catholics it isn't an issue either way.

We're talking about a pretty small number of Catholics who are making a lot of noise, and the GOP, who are making noise because they're catering to their base, trying *desperately* to get them interested in a Presidential race that's populated by imbeciles, bigots and morons (granted, that's what the base is mostly comprised of as well, but they don't *think* they are -- it's ways the other guy).
2012-02-16 04:05:52 PM
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: Thus a religious organization, here the Sisters of Life, which is consecrated to the task of building a culture of life (as they see it - knowing that you might reject that, but we're talking about privately-held religious beliefs here), would have to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.


No they wouldn't have to pay for contraception and abortion-inducing drugs. Their insurance company would. And even that's ONLY in the case that one of the sisters or their other employees CHOSE to use contraception and abortion-inducing drugs.
2012-02-16 04:00:26 PM
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: Came here to see if anyone bothered to notice that the dimwits who left (Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Norton) to protest the absence of women on the panel, in doing so, managed to miss the two women on the second panel, including a medical doctor.

But it worked; you guys lap it up just like you're expected to.


Two women on the secondary panel. Yep, that's a fair way to represent 51% of the population.
2012-02-16 03:58:58 PM
1 votes:

DozeNutz: Theaetetus: 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. 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.

No. Therefore, scientifically, it's human.
"Personhood" is a philosophical term, not a scientific one. And, under US law, you are not a person until you're born.

I abhor abortion, its murdering little babies.

Again, no. You may abhor abortion, but it's certainly not "murdering little babies". That'd be infantcide, which everyone abhors.

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.

And again, no. It's not because it's unwanted, but because it's not born yet - that's why it's not a person and has no 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.

And? If you asked me whether I'd like to have a billion dollars, I'd say yes. Therefore, I have a right to it?

Your arguments are farking dumb. A billion dollars? cmon man, that is a lame ass analogy. I hope you like sharing consciences with the likes of Hitler and Stalin though.


Uh, Hitler forbade his loyal Aryan female followers the right to abortion -- he was on the "pro-life" side of the issue. Likewise, abortion was illegal in the Soviet Union for most of its existence. But don't let that stand in the way of your argument. If Hitler and Stalin were on my side, I would tend to be dishonest about it too.
2012-02-16 03:53:37 PM
1 votes:

fsbilly: How the fark is Issa even in Congress? He's lied about his military service, he's a car thief, and an arsonist. An ethics investigation wouldn't be inappropriate...

Worst yet, he's from Cleveland.


He sounds a bit over-qualified!

farm5.staticflickr.com
2012-02-16 03:52:52 PM
1 votes:
img.photobucket.com

You guys are on the right path. Maybe bring in a few rapists for the next hearing.
2012-02-16 03:51:01 PM
1 votes:

Stile4aly: Churches aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care and need not subscribe to an insurance plan that offers it. Church affiliated organizations (notably hospitals and charities) aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care, they must simply subscribe to a plan that does for which the insurance company picks up the tab. The choice to use the care is left to the individual.

In what way is this at all controversial?


That bolded bit is the problem.

We can't have personal choice. Freedom of religion trumps personal freedom.

A pastor can proudly and publicly discriminate against black people if he doesn't want them in his church. Try that when you run a restaurant and see how it works out.

If you can tie any ridiculous, ignorant, hateful belief to religion, you're covered!

Don't you know anything about how America works?
2012-02-16 03:46:37 PM
1 votes:

Stile4aly: Churches aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care and need not subscribe to an insurance plan that offers it. Church affiliated organizations (notably hospitals and charities) aren't being forced to pay for reproductive care, they must simply subscribe to a plan that does for which the insurance company picks up the tab. The choice to use the care is left to the individual.

In what way is this at all controversial?



Because it is from a democrat. Republicans wouldn't criticize this if a republican did it, and the churches opinion wouldn't really matter if the GOP wasn't using it for political ends.
2012-02-16 03:42:06 PM
1 votes:

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.



How is a bishop an expert on constitutionality? How many law professors and scholars were present?
2012-02-16 03:40:13 PM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: I was referring to the late Senator Kennedy.


You should have said that rather than incorrectly pointing to one of the thinnest, most educated states, then. ... And you can say a lot about Teddy (and I'll agree probably), but the man wasn't dumb or poor.
2012-02-16 03:33:10 PM
1 votes:

Amagi: Must be nice to be that blissfully ignorant?


Dude, I'm sorry that your ex-wife got custody. Maybe you should have hired a lawyer, instead of relying on the stuff you read on that angry-ex-husbands' website.
Ant
2012-02-16 03:27:33 PM
1 votes:

DozeNutz: Because its not a person? It has the DNA of a person


So do your skin cells
2012-02-16 03:23:54 PM
1 votes:

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. 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.


1. A baby is born. Therefore, an "unborn baby" is an oxymoron.

2. No one endorses what you envision - a baby being pulled out just before birth and killed. Even "partial-birth abortion" - which is a bullshiat term - is only used in rare cases when there is a risk of death to the mother. But I guess you're fine with her dying just in case the baby survives.

3. At what point does a fertilized egg turn into "a baby?" Is it "a baby" when it's an 8 week old embryo, has a tail, and is indistinguishable from the embryo of a dog or chicken?

Which embryo is human? (new window)

/Yes, I see what he's doing
2012-02-16 03:18:05 PM
1 votes:

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.


Those legal rights are the rights of the mother, not the embryo or fetus. If she intends to give birth, he has affected her legal rights. Actually, the fact that you bring it up shows that it's a case of choice - she can choose not to have a baby, and she can choose to give birth to a child. He can't interfere with that choice.

If an unborn child has rights, then why do we date ourselves from our date of BIRTH? Why can't someone vote when he's 17 years and 3 months old, or drink when he's 20.25?

And law is, by definition, the rule of man.
2012-02-16 03:14:23 PM
1 votes:

theorellior: OgreMagi: I respectfully point you to the state of Massachusetts.

I dunno, I've been here 4 years and people are a lot thinner than in Texas.



It's one of the thinnest and most educated and I think that was OgreMagi's point. Could be wrong, though.

www.uscollegesearch.org

1.bp.blogspot.com
2012-02-16 03:12:06 PM
1 votes:

DozeNutz: 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.


Not meaning to be demeaning...

What about aborting an ectopic (in the fillopian tube) pregnancy? Is aborting that murder?

Genuinely curious.
2012-02-16 03:09:03 PM
1 votes:

Ant: timujin: This isn't about women's reproductive "rights." It's about Obama's war on religion in general and on Christianity specifically.

There's a war on religion? Where do I enlist?


At your local ACORN or Democrat Party office, of course.
2012-02-16 03:08:30 PM
1 votes:
colon_pow:


pills cost maybe 20/mo.[citation please]

I'm going to refrain from hurling insults, because I suck at doing so, but it is so farking obvious you've never had to pay out of pocket for BCPs in your life.

why mandate insurance to provide contraception?.. [derpity do dah, derpity dey] insurance protects against unforseen and expensive accidents/illness.


There, you answered your own question. Do you get it now?
2012-02-16 03:08:02 PM
1 votes:
a402.idata.over-blog.com

image.spreadshirt.com
2012-02-16 03:06:54 PM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: I respectfully point you to the state of Massachusetts.


I dunno, I've been here 4 years and people are a lot thinner than in Texas.
2012-02-16 03:04:56 PM
1 votes:

Magorn: Griswold v. Connecticut is at the door, says its got a heaping helping of biatchslap for the GOP


I was wondering whether anyone would mention Griswold. It's one of the court cases where that evil, non-Constitutional right to privacy is mentioned by the SCOTUS.
Ant
2012-02-16 03:04:24 PM
1 votes:

timujin: This isn't about women's reproductive "rights." It's about Obama's war on religion in general and on Christianity specifically.


There's a war on religion? Where do I enlist?
2012-02-16 03:03:59 PM
1 votes:
Democrats on the panel were told they were allowed only one witness. They selected a young female Georgetown student, Sandra Fluke, who was going to discuss about the repercussions of losing contraceptive coverage. But Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman, rejected her as "not qualified."

Ya know I think they ought to have their next meeting on pavement but using somen in bikinis as furniture. Just to set the tone. Maybe slit the throat of the first biatch to raise an objection, maybe put a couple negros on crosses for atmosphere. If they are going to act like this then they might as well farking own it, run with it.
2012-02-16 03:03:13 PM
1 votes:
What's this here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It looks like the citizens of the nation are free to believe what they want, but no special consideration can be given to any particular religion, lest the government be seen as favoring an established faith.

Is that what you meant, colon_pow?
2012-02-16 03:02:38 PM
1 votes:
I'm okay with allowing a very narrow religious exemption for entities which are explicitly religious in nature. i.e. the church will not need to provide contraception to priests, nuns, deacons, or any other member who is employed in a directly religious role.

I am entirely against religious organizations engaged in public activity being exempt from health insurance requirements. Things such as schools and hospitals are open to the public and are not directly engaged in religious activity, so there is no reason to grant a religious exemption, especially considering employees of these entities need not share the same moral beliefs.

Now, if only there was some way to decouple health insurance from employment status so we avoid this problem entirely... hmmm... how could we do that?
2012-02-16 02:55:57 PM
1 votes:

Amagi: 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?


No, not ignorant, but apparently from about 50 years in the future relative to you. See, here in the 21st century, permanent alimony is barred by statute in many states, and even where it's not, it's applied only to people who were married in your time period in the past and have been married for decades and decades, with an agreement between the spouses that one will forgo any type of employment or advanced education and will instead keep house.

But when dealing with divorces with couples from any time in the past few decades- er, sorry, future few decades, for you- then alimony is only temporary and the recipient is directed to find a job as soon as possible.

So, I agree with you - the family court system of the 1950s is quite broken, but the good news is that we've solved all of the problems years ago. Or "will have solved all of the problems" in a few years for you.

Incidentally, here's a tip for you... In a few years, there will be a thing called a "Super Bowl" between the American Football League and the National Football League. In the first two, bet on Green Bay. Cheers!
2012-02-16 02:55:49 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: Philip Francis Queeg: colon_pow: theorellior: Deneb81: 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?


Let's ask colon_pow, who seems to be the most exercised by this question. I look forward to his comments on this issue.

read the first amendment.
that's the best advice you're gonna get on this subject.

your welcome

So are you going to respond to my questions about what the Government can and cannot tell churches they can do?

i already did.


So the government cannot ban churches from executing those they consider heretics then. Excellent.
2012-02-16 02:54:57 PM
1 votes:

NateGrey: Rush is really concerned about this issue.

Women are 51% of the electorate. Continue attacking them Republicans.

Here is a another idea for Republicans in this thread:

ASK YOUR MOM HER POSITION on this issue.


in this issue she is mostly doggy style. In earlier issues she did a lot of reverse cowboy.
2012-02-16 02:52:21 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: colon_pow: theorellior: Deneb81: 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?


Let's ask colon_pow, who seems to be the most exercised by this question. I look forward to his comments on this issue.

read the first amendment.
that's the best advice you're gonna get on this subject.

your welcome

So are you going to respond to my questions about what the Government can and cannot tell churches they can do?


i already did.
2012-02-16 02:50:52 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: theorellior: Deneb81: 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?


Let's ask colon_pow, who seems to be the most exercised by this question. I look forward to his comments on this issue.

read the first amendment.
that's the best advice you're gonna get on this subject.

your welcome


So are you going to respond to my questions about what the Government can and cannot tell churches they can do?
2012-02-16 02:49:54 PM
1 votes:

theorellior: Deneb81: 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?


Let's ask colon_pow, who seems to be the most exercised by this question. I look forward to his comments on this issue.


read the first amendment.
that's the best advice you're gonna get on this subject.

your welcome
2012-02-16 02:46:27 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:45:13 PM
1 votes:

Deneb81: 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?



Let's ask colon_pow, who seems to be the most exercised by this question. I look forward to his comments on this issue.
2012-02-16 02:42:29 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-02-16 02:41:46 PM
1 votes:

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.


Actually, yes, it was. The "The Civil War wasn't about slavery" is Southern revisionism at its best. Half the South seceded before Lincoln was even in office. The Emancipation Proclamation was delivered a good 18 months after the Civil War started. How can something that happened after the war started add fuel to the fire that caused the Civil War?
2012-02-16 02:41:43 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:41:34 PM
1 votes:
It was a hearing on government overreach. The left is shiatting derp these days
2012-02-16 02:40:25 PM
1 votes:
Democrats on the panel were told they were allowed only one witness. They selected a young female Georgetown student, Sandra Fluke, who was going to discuss about the repercussions of losing contraceptive coverage. But Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman, rejected her as "not qualified."

And to think it was only 2 short weeks ago that a 14 year old was testifying in front of a state Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee about how it would be a super swell birthday present if they didn't allow gay marriage.
2012-02-16 02:38:39 PM
1 votes:
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?
2012-02-16 02:33:07 PM
1 votes:

lordaction: Being a liberal must be so easy.


No, it's hard because we have to make our own decisions about right and wrong rather than just following orders like good little Christian soldiers.
2012-02-16 02:31:45 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:29:13 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:27:41 PM
1 votes:

OgreMagi: A recent argument I had with a member of the right wing derp brigrade (more commonly known as "republican") went along these lines (the argument was about birth control for the poor, not medical insurance)

Me: Since you are opposed to both abortion and welfare, why are you trying to stop free and low cost birth control for the poor?

Him: It's about personal responsibility!

Me: You're not going to stop people from farking, so why not spend a few dollars now for some condoms instead of paying for abortion or another welfare baby later?

Him: it's about personal responsibility!

Me: Looking at from a purely financial point, doesn't the birth control option make the most sense?

Him: it's about personal responsibility!

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

At that point I permanently stopped talking to him. He was family, too.


If you ever talk to him again, tell him that government subsidies for birth control will stop lots of black people on welfare from having more babies. Then, sit back, and enjoy the show. Watching a person play out an internal battle between their religious judgmental nature and their racist worldview is incredibly entertaining.
2012-02-16 02:26:45 PM
1 votes:

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.


"Arguments" that run completely outside of the current realm of discussion need not be acknowledged with anything other than ridicule. As such, ridicule is quite frequently all you seem to deserve.
2012-02-16 02:25:01 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:24:28 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:23:43 PM
1 votes:

Coach Urban Meyer: Wuzza-wuzzup, loony libs? The funky fact of the matter is, Da Cool Coach loves what Rep. Issa is frontin' with! You silly socialists and your freaky feminists can stick it, this is about religious freedom, which is awesome and patriotic, not you clowns who can't stop sticking your hoo-hoo-diddies into other people's cha-chas, if ya feels what Da Cool Coach is rip-rappin' at ya! These priests are definitely rockin' dudes I'd love to hang out with! You hippies can stick it where da sun don't shine, ya clowns!

ConservoMentum '12, libs! Here it comes! Just like that SPREAD of TRUTH! Urban out.


Judging by lack of response, I think I'm the very last person on Fark to put you on ignore. Correcting that mistake now.
2012-02-16 02:23:23 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:23:18 PM
1 votes:
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?
2012-02-16 02:20:53 PM
1 votes:

GoldSpider: palelizard: Equating societal obligations (paying taxes to support the government which provides services) to benefits of employment (types of healthcare coverage) is disingenous at best.

And continuing to pair affordable health insurance with employment is medieval.


No. Medieval would mean no medical coverage - period. If you want a doctor, you better be rich and well connected. Of course, the doctor is more likely a barber who will bleed you to death.

Your analogy is stupid.
2012-02-16 02:19:12 PM
1 votes:

SisterMaryElephant: Dear GOP,

I am a slut. A big farking slut. I'll fark just about anything. I had a babby at 18, and I'm really sorry to say that I didn't go on welfare and pop out more babies.

I had an abortion at 23? 24? somewhere around there.

I'm wondering where my SCARLETT A should be placed? Does it go in the middle of my forehead, the side, or on my cheek. Do I need more than one? Do you sell them in bulk, cuz I plan to keep on farking.

Oh, and what should I do with all these pesky little babbies you wanted?

Sincerely,
Your friendly slutty neighborhood tease (yeah, I wear shorts outside, too)


Pictures or GTFO.
2012-02-16 02:16:54 PM
1 votes:
Dear GOP,

I am a slut. A big farking slut. I'll fark just about anything. I had a babby at 18, and I'm really sorry to say that I didn't go on welfare and pop out more babies.

I had an abortion at 23? 24? somewhere around there.

I'm wondering where my SCARLETT A should be placed? Does it go in the middle of my forehead, the side, or on my cheek. Do I need more than one? Do you sell them in bulk, cuz I plan to keep on farking.

Oh, and what should I do with all these pesky little babbies you wanted?

Sincerely,
Your friendly slutty neighborhood tease (yeah, I wear shorts outside, too)
2012-02-16 02:14:56 PM
1 votes:
A recent argument I had with a member of the right wing derp brigrade (more commonly known as "republican") went along these lines (the argument was about birth control for the poor, not medical insurance)

Me: Since you are opposed to both abortion and welfare, why are you trying to stop free and low cost birth control for the poor?

Him: It's about personal responsibility!

Me: You're not going to stop people from farking, so why not spend a few dollars now for some condoms instead of paying for abortion or another welfare baby later?

Him: it's about personal responsibility!

Me: Looking at from a purely financial point, doesn't the birth control option make the most sense?

Him: it's about personal responsibility!

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

At that point I permanently stopped talking to him. He was family, too.
2012-02-16 02:14:13 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-02-16 02:12:44 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: this is not about contraception.
but please continue being intentionally obtuse, it really looks good on you.


Your established pattern of intellectual dishonesty disqualifies you as a credible source of information.
2012-02-16 02:12:17 PM
1 votes:

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.


The only important thing is that he has one.
2012-02-16 02:08:50 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-02-16 02:07:03 PM
1 votes:

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


Look at how stupid you are.
2012-02-16 02:05:31 PM
1 votes:
But feminists tell me that there are absolutely no differences between male and female. Why would they have a problem with this?
2012-02-16 02:03:26 PM
1 votes:

minnesotaboy: We all know what this is really about for the Republicans...

[www.middle-ages.org.uk image 247x280]

/Take up the cross and kill the nonbelievers!


You know, this might end up turning this country more secular in the long run. How awesome would that be? Maybe this is their last gasp attempt at lunacy on the national stage?

Maybe this is their battle for Acre?
2012-02-16 01:59:12 PM
1 votes:

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."
2012-02-16 01:58:57 PM
1 votes:

colon_pow: this is not about contraception..


The Civil War wasn't about slavery.
2012-02-16 01:56:02 PM
1 votes:
www.thenation.com
The five-person, all-male panel consists of a Roman Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Reverend, a rabbi and two professors.

They've got a black and Jew on the panel? James G. Watt approves of that diversity.

upload.wikimedia.org
2012-02-16 01:54:14 PM
1 votes:
Doc Daneeka
Actually, pretty much everyone (including Catholics) support this, except for Evangelicals.

Yep, they are supporting something in the name of Catholics that most Catholics don't even want.

Evangelicals once again prove that they are the group most easily controlled by right wing propaganda.
2012-02-16 01:53:40 PM
1 votes:
this is not about contraception.
but please continue being intentionally obtuse, it really looks good on you.
2012-02-16 01:53:21 PM
1 votes:

Headso: Why would you be a republican if you were a woman, that is your first problem.


See, I've been thinking about the converse of that very idea. Conservatives assign higher status to white men, while liberals maintain that everyone should be pretty much equal.

I've always been pretty liberal. But it suddenly occurred to me, watching the argument for allowing women rights to their own bodies that they've had for generations: Conservative white guys can just, like, DO THAT. And get away with it.

"Bam! You're oppressed, 'cause white men know better! Don't believe me? Just ask that other white man there, or our white male God."

That is so awesome!

And they even have non-white males following them! Groupies! That stay in the kitchen and make sammiches, or just wish they were white men, too!

So, as a white man, what incentive do have to NOT be conservative?
2012-02-16 01:51:09 PM
1 votes:
Serious miscalculation here. This is a losing issue that everyone but the most mentally retarded agrees on, and stirring up the fundies at this point in the electoral process only increases the chances that the GOP is going to Santorum all over itself.
2012-02-16 01:50:46 PM
1 votes:
I love it! The GOP is giving Obama and the Democrats so much ammunition for this Fall. If the Presidential election is not a landslide for Obama then the Democrats are truly incompetent.

Keep it coming Republicans. Please continue to be honest about what you really think about most of us Americans.
2012-02-16 01:48:04 PM
1 votes:

Doc Daneeka: pacified: What's fun is the Evangelicals support this move, the Catholics do not.

Actually, pretty much everyone (including Catholics) support this, except for Evangelicals.

[publicreligion.org image 640x395]


WTF is the problem with white people?
2012-02-16 01:45:44 PM
1 votes:

Doc Daneeka: The GOP has picked a losing battle, and the harder they push on this, the bigger the backlash from moderates is going to be. This is going to backfire on them in a huge way.


You think that now, but wait until the GOP brings back the depravity of married couples on TV sleeping in the same bed. THAT's what tips this into a winner of a plan.
2012-02-16 01:45:40 PM
1 votes:
I have a tip for those women.
2012-02-16 01:45:27 PM
1 votes:
The five-person, all-male panel consists of a Roman Catholic Bishop, a Lutheran Reverend, a rabbi and two professors.

Let's just tell them to shove a cork in it, and call it a day. So, I hear you Washington guys call your altar boys "pages."
2012-02-16 01:44:55 PM
1 votes:

pacified: The GOP's proposed amendment would allow any employer to impose Sharia Law as related to health insurance on any employee, regardless of the employee's religion.


I believe they're calling it "Ultra Red White and Blue Freedom Law" though
2012-02-16 01:44:29 PM
1 votes:

I_Am_Weasel: IXI Jim IXI: Vasectomies for everyone!

(gulp!)

Is that from the Oprah episode that never aired?


"Look under your seat with the strange hole in the bottom!!"
2012-02-16 01:43:16 PM
1 votes:
Some broads seem to have a problem with this

Who farkin' cares?
2012-02-16 01:43:01 PM
1 votes:
When we have a hearing on turkey pot pies, we'll let you know, Toots.
2012-02-16 01:42:40 PM
1 votes:

palelizard: Why would women be on the panel?


Better if they're on the pill.
2012-02-16 01:41:06 PM
1 votes:
Why would women be on the panel?
2012-02-16 01:40:04 PM
1 votes:

IXI Jim IXI: Vasectomies for everyone!

(gulp!)


Is that from the Oprah episode that never aired?
2012-02-16 01:38:00 PM
1 votes:
Vasectomies for everyone!

(gulp!)
 
Displayed 152 of 152 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report