Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Washington Post)   Dems to GOP: "I heard you need more rope? Here take as much as you need. And be sure to tell people they're unclean while they're ovulating too"   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, GOP, Democrats, Terri Schiavo, democratic coalition, advice columnist  
•       •       •

10416 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Feb 2012 at 9:52 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



605 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-17 01:55:19 PM  

Vindibudd: ...flies off the handle about something completely irrelevant.



Like banning birth control, which isn't mentioned in the article.
 
2012-02-17 01:55:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: TheIndependent: Unfortunately they are the only party advocating for repeal of ACA so they will get my vote as that bill is an unmitigated train wreck.

In what respect?


The fact the this bills attempts to insure needs instead of risks. You pay for needs (birth control, etc.), you can not "insure" them. You can insure against the risk of getting into a car accident, breaking a leg, having some mystry disease. There is no financial model to save money by "insuring" a need (outside of group buying or something like that), but that is by it's very nature not insurance.
 
2012-02-17 01:56:03 PM  

Lord_Baull: Vindibudd: Lord_Baull:
The rest of that sentence you quoted: particularly if Romney is forced to embrace the conservative position.

In March, 2005, Romney signed an annual proclamation establishing a ''Right to Privacy Day" to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for unmarried people.

BOSTON GLOBE, 3/25/2005

Research is your friend.


I'm sorry, are you suggesting Romney hasn't flipped his position on this matter, or other right-wing wedge issues, since 2005? Keeping abreast of contemporary politics is your friend.


January 7, 2012

MITT ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can't imagine a state banning contraception. I can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were governor of a state-

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court had ruled on that ... (INAUDIBLE)

ROMNEY: -or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so, and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so. You're asking: Could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionlist here.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2012/01/08/debate-abcs-step hanopoulos-presses-romney-contraception-ruling#ixzz1mfPEOcqT
 
2012-02-17 01:57:23 PM  

Vindibudd: Can any one of you enlightened FarkProgs® point me to the Republican office holder or major presidential candidate who is advocating the banning of birth control? Citations please.


"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country" (new window)
 
2012-02-17 01:57:27 PM  

fracto73: Vindibudd: ...flies off the handle about something completely irrelevant.


Like banning birth control, which isn't mentioned in the article.


Not my fault that you can't read.
 
2012-02-17 01:59:02 PM  

Vindibudd: moralpanic: Vindibudd:
I believe I am the first to coin the term FarkProg® and I did it around July of last year. Please cite an earlier instance for me!

Ya, you're probably the only one. And it's not ® dumbass, it's supposed to be ©

I used the registered trademark in jest, unless you think I am going to $149 to register it and sell t-shirts or something. BTW, I actually own an honest to god actual real copyright, so I know the difference. Once again, Kneejerk reactionary FarkProg® flies off the handle about something completely irrelevant.


img37.imageshack.us
 
2012-02-17 01:59:11 PM  

Vindibudd: Lord_Baull:
The rest of that sentence you quoted: particularly if Romney is forced to embrace the conservative position.

In March, 2005, Romney signed an annual proclamation establishing a ''Right to Privacy Day" to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for unmarried people.

BOSTON GLOBE, 3/25/2005

Research is your friend.


A graph of Romney's various shifting positions on any subject since 2005 will bear a striking resemblance to a Spirograph drawing from the 70's.
 
2012-02-17 01:59:13 PM  

sprawl15: Either that, or he's the luckiest motherfarker I've ever seen.


The luckiest politician in American history is Bill Clinton. First the victory in Kuwait made George Bush the most popular president every recorded in polling (up to that point). This scares all the major contenders out of the Democratic nomination race leaving Bill Clinton to face the dying guy and Curly from the Three Stooges. Then the economy tanks and Bush's popularity nosedives. Hello, President Clinton. Then after a rocky first term the dot.com boom puts a halo on Clinton's head and he not only easily gets re-elected but the scandal doesn't even scratch him. His approval's in the 60s the day he gets impeached. Now that right there is some luck without even bringing up the, uh, obvious success he had with women dispute being pretty much a sweaty tub of lard.
 
2012-02-17 01:59:19 PM  

skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: You should lobby for that then, clearly the bill didn't go far enough.

actually, I think forcing employers to foot the bill for your birth control is stupid. Just wondering at the lack of wonder.


You'd rather the employer foot the bill for your pregnancy and maternity leave. Sounds stupider to me, but please explain how it isn't.

well, A) that's the employers decision to make because this is the US and you don't get paid maternity leave by law. B) insurance foots the bill for prenatal and childbirth. That's already covered so it's really no skin off the employers nose. C) if the only thing standing between you and unprotected sex is your employer's willingness to pay $10 a month for your birth control copay, you should probably work on being more responsible. In reality, I don't think that there is a rash of unintended pregnancies for these woman that will be eradicated by payment of a copay.



Is it your understanding, then, that maternity leave and prenatal care costs the employer nothing at all?
 
2012-02-17 01:59:39 PM  

Vindibudd: fracto73: Vindibudd: ...flies off the handle about something completely irrelevant.


Like banning birth control, which isn't mentioned in the article.

Not my fault that you can't read.



Oh, your trolling. Sorry to bring reality into it. I'll let you get back to it then.
 
2012-02-17 02:00:14 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Vindibudd: Can any one of you enlightened FarkProgs® point me to the Republican office holder or major presidential candidate who is advocating the banning of birth control? Citations please.

"One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country" (new window)


Yet and nowhere does he he actually suggest the banning of contraception. Isn't that amazing?
 
2012-02-17 02:01:19 PM  

ghare: All I can say is, if you're female and vote Republican you ought to go see a head doctor about the squirrels living in your brain.


There was a segment on NPR a few months ago, and they spoke about Michelle Bachmann's relative lack of popularity among tea party females. One woman gave an interview where she said that she loved Bachmann, but that she just didn't think "women had it in them to be leaders." They are out there, and they must have a miserable existence.
 
2012-02-17 02:01:24 PM  

fracto73: Vindibudd: fracto73: Vindibudd: ...flies off the handle about something completely irrelevant.


Like banning birth control, which isn't mentioned in the article.

Not my fault that you can't read.


Oh, your trolling. Sorry to bring reality into it. I'll let you get back to it then.


That's a negative, nowhere have I stated something that I didn't actually believe in this thread.
 
2012-02-17 02:02:18 PM  

bulldg4life: skullkrusher: no, the compromise was about employers which are affiliated with a religious organization not having to pay for the contraceptive coverage. I still 't see how this is an example of your boss coming between you and your doctor though.

Really? You don't see how your boss' religious views restricting your access to certain medical insurance coverage doesn't come between you and your doctor?

If my boss was a jehovah witness, could he ban me from having blood transfusions?


As someone who was down four pints a couple of years ago, I'm getting a kick everytime you bring this example up.
 
2012-02-17 02:02:22 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: Vindibudd: Lord_Baull:
The rest of that sentence you quoted: particularly if Romney is forced to embrace the conservative position.

In March, 2005, Romney signed an annual proclamation establishing a ''Right to Privacy Day" to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling legalizing birth control for unmarried people.

BOSTON GLOBE, 3/25/2005

Research is your friend.

A graph of Romney's various shifting positions on any subject since 2005 will bear a striking resemblance to a Spirograph drawing from the 70's.


Yet through all of his shifting positions, he has never advocated the banning of birth control.
 
2012-02-17 02:02:41 PM  

Antimatter: Oh man, the conservatives spin job is actually making things worse. Every day this goes on they look more and more anti-women's rights.

I suspect by the end of next week, they will be arguing against having to provide medical coverage to the children of unwed mothers, and by mid march, will be arguing against female voting rights.


Republican Strategy 2002-2012

1. Never apologize or admit error

2. Double down on the red-meat for the base

3. Goto 1

What we're seeing are the ultimate consequences of a short-term political strategy hitting critical mass in the long-term. And yeah I totally expect what you said. They can't stop the chain reaction now, they can only feed it. There's an event horizon of derp from which even logic itself cannot escape. Soon they'll be entombed in complete darkness with nothing for the rest of us to see but gravitation-bent reflections of reality and X-rays of single mothers and TSA-victims emitted from their collapse.
 
2012-02-17 02:04:19 PM  

moralpanic:
[img37.imageshack.us image 600x682]


Excellent contribution. That almost swayed my opinion.
 
2012-02-17 02:05:38 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein:
What we're seeing are the ultimate consequences of a short-term political strategy hitting critical mass in the long-term. And yeah I totally expect what you said. They can't stop the chain reaction now, they can only feed it. There's an event horizon of derp from which even logic itself cannot escape. Soon they'll be entombed in complete darkness with nothing for the rest of us to see but gravitation-bent reflections of reality and X-rays of single mothers and TSA-victims emitted from their collapse.


On the bright side, if we can find a way to safely approach the event horizon of the derp well, in theory it should act as a limitless source of spontaneous tax cuts.
 
2012-02-17 02:07:17 PM  

Vindibudd: Yet and nowhere does he he actually suggest the banning of contraception. Isn't that amazing?


So he calls it dangerous but has no desire to ban it? Isn't that kinda implied? Do you really need help reading between the lines here? Or should we just trust that President Santorum won't try and enact his little fundie social agenda?

Oh, and if anyone wants to laugh, the freepers are up in arms that Friess apologized for an 'innocent joke.' The beast is growing out of control and it's hilarious.
 
2012-02-17 02:09:14 PM  
Vindibudd
2012-02-17 01:33:57 PM

Can any one of you enlightened FarkProgs® point me to the Republican office holder or major presidential candidate who is advocating the banning of birth control? Citations please.


Republican frontrunner Rick Santorum wants to take away the right to use contraception:

[Santorum] believes states should be free to ban [contraception] if they want. He argues that the Supreme Court erred when it ruled in 1965 that married Americans have a right to privacy that includes the use of contraceptives.

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-17 02:10:05 PM  

Wasteland: herrDrFarkenstein:
What we're seeing are the ultimate consequences of a short-term political strategy hitting critical mass in the long-term. And yeah I totally expect what you said. They can't stop the chain reaction now, they can only feed it. There's an event horizon of derp from which even logic itself cannot escape. Soon they'll be entombed in complete darkness with nothing for the rest of us to see but gravitation-bent reflections of reality and X-rays of single mothers and TSA-victims emitted from their collapse.

On the bright side, if we can find a way to safely approach the event horizon of the derp well, in theory it should act as a limitless source of spontaneous tax cuts.


Oh yes, the Hawking curve theory.
 
2012-02-17 02:10:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: You should lobby for that then, clearly the bill didn't go far enough.

actually, I think forcing employers to foot the bill for your birth control is stupid. Just wondering at the lack of wonder.


You'd rather the employer foot the bill for your pregnancy and maternity leave. Sounds stupider to me, but please explain how it isn't.

well, A) that's the employers decision to make because this is the US and you don't get paid maternity leave by law. B) insurance foots the bill for prenatal and childbirth. That's already covered so it's really no skin off the employers nose. C) if the only thing standing between you and unprotected sex is your employer's willingness to pay $10 a month for your birth control copay, you should probably work on being more responsible. In reality, I don't think that there is a rash of unintended pregnancies for these woman that will be eradicated by payment of a copay.


Is it your understanding, then, that maternity leave and prenatal care costs the employer nothing at all?


no, however, your argument, that employers should be forced to pay the copay because it saves them money, isn't really very good though.
 
2012-02-17 02:11:07 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Vindibudd: Yet and nowhere does he he actually suggest the banning of contraception. Isn't that amazing?

So he calls it dangerous but has no desire to ban it? Isn't that kinda implied? Do you really need help reading between the lines here? Or should we just trust that President Santorum won't try and enact his little fundie social agenda?


Democrats think guns are dangerous, is Obama banning them? Having an opinion on something and banning it are two different things. I know this is really hard for you to understand, but you can do it!
 
2012-02-17 02:11:13 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: If BC was actually cheaper for the health insurers, you would think they'd include it in all policies anyway


Well, that's the problem. It pretty much is included in insurance policies. The only policy I ever had that didn't cover it was a catholic-owned insurance company.

FWIW - my understanding of the compromise is:

Employee: does my plan cover BC?

Insurance: No - your employer exempts it. If you are interested, let me offer you a rider to your current plan for $0. If you are interested this woudl be between you and us, and would not involve your employer at all.

Employee: great - sign me up.
 
2012-02-17 02:12:44 PM  

bugontherug: Vindibudd
2012-02-17 01:33:57 PM

Can any one of you enlightened FarkProgs® point me to the Republican office holder or major presidential candidate who is advocating the banning of birth control? Citations please.

Republican frontrunner Rick Santorum wants to take away the right to use contraception:

[Santorum] believes states should be free to ban [contraception] if they want. He argues that the Supreme Court erred when it ruled in 1965 that married Americans have a right to privacy that includes the use of contraceptives.

Link (new window)


Saying that a state has the right to do something and promising as president to do something is completely different. Or do you disagree?
 
2012-02-17 02:14:12 PM  

Vindibudd: ignatius_crumbcake: Vindibudd: Yet and nowhere does he he actually suggest the banning of contraception. Isn't that amazing?

So he calls it dangerous but has no desire to ban it? Isn't that kinda implied? Do you really need help reading between the lines here? Or should we just trust that President Santorum won't try and enact his little fundie social agenda?

Democrats think guns are dangerous, is Obama banning them? Having an opinion on something and banning it are two different things. I know this is really hard for you to understand, but you can do it!


Obama hasn't advocated taking away the right to own guns. Republican frontrunner Rick Santorum wants to take away the right to use contraception, even by married couples. The right to use birth control angers him, and he wants states to outlaw it if they want.

"[Santorum] he believes states should be free to ban [birth control] if they want. He argues that the Supreme Court erred when it ruled in 1965 that married Americans have a right to privacy that includes the use of contraceptives."

Link (new window)
 
2012-02-17 02:14:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: Lord_Baull: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: You should lobby for that then, clearly the bill didn't go far enough.

actually, I think forcing employers to foot the bill for your birth control is stupid. Just wondering at the lack of wonder.


You'd rather the employer foot the bill for your pregnancy and maternity leave. Sounds stupider to me, but please explain how it isn't.

well, A) that's the employers decision to make because this is the US and you don't get paid maternity leave by law. B) insurance foots the bill for prenatal and childbirth. That's already covered so it's really no skin off the employers nose. C) if the only thing standing between you and unprotected sex is your employer's willingness to pay $10 a month for your birth control copay, you should probably work on being more responsible. In reality, I don't think that there is a rash of unintended pregnancies for these woman that will be eradicated by payment of a copay.


Is it your understanding, then, that maternity leave and prenatal care costs the employer nothing at all?


Or better yet, why the fark should I have to pay $120 a year to buy into a universally accepted form of preventative care that conclusively saves society money in the long run, just because my employer has a philosophical objection. Or $3500 over a reproductive lifetime. That money could go into a retirement fund, or a college fund for the kids I plan.

You can be a church and hire only within your faith and compensate people with cash you hope they won't spend outside the faith, or you can be an employer with responsibilities.

shiat, even the Christian Science church provides benefits to their employees.

http://members.christianscience.com/careers/benefits/ (cut and paste it yourself, fark you)

This whole argument makes about as much sense as Jenny McCarthy denying her staff preventative vaccination coverage.
 
2012-02-17 02:14:47 PM  

Vindibudd:
Saying that a state has the right to do something and promising as president to do something is completely different. Or do you disagree?



So you'd like to shift the argument from "whether they'd try to ban it" to "how they would attempt to do so."

That didn't take long.
 
2012-02-17 02:15:17 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: One uncomplicated pregnancy and birth is more expensive than a lifetime of contraception. Its not just a little cheaper if you factor in the cost of the kids insurance.


Unfortunately, BC does not stop pregnancies. It stops unwanted pregnancies. They have shown that birth control (as well as abortion) does not tend to reduce the number of kids a woman has. It just prevents them until she wants to have them. (In other words - when you get knocked up at 16 you probably aren't as interested in having a kid when you're 28. If you don't get knocked up at 16, you are. Statistically speaking - not relevant in all cases obviously)
 
2012-02-17 02:15:51 PM  

Vindibudd: Saying that a state has the right to do something and promising as president to do something is completely different. Or do you disagree?


No, I do not agree. If elected, Rick Santorum will appoint federal judges and Supreme Court Justices who favor taking away the right to use birth control.
 
2012-02-17 02:16:51 PM  

raanne: Debeo Summa Credo: If BC was actually cheaper for the health insurers, you would think they'd include it in all policies anyway

Well, that's the problem. It pretty much is included in insurance policies. The only policy I ever had that didn't cover it was a catholic-owned insurance company.

FWIW - my understanding of the compromise is:

Employee: does my plan cover BC?

Insurance: No - your employer exempts it. If you are interested, let me offer you a rider to your current plan for $0. If you are interested this woudl be between you and us, and would not involve your employer at all.

Employee: great - sign me up.


This is bad because sluts should be punished with children they don't want and can't afford.
 
2012-02-17 02:17:15 PM  

Vindibudd: Democrats think guns are dangerous, is Obama banning them? Having an opinion on something and banning it are two different things. I know this is really hard for you to understand, but you can do it!


According to the NRA, he is going to. (new window)

The left is just playing the right's game. Don't be butthurt about it.
 
2012-02-17 02:20:25 PM  

skullkrusher: the part where male contraception is covered. It isn't. This is only women's contraception we're talking about. Men are still on their own. Oddly, this isn't an issue.


The only male contraception = vasectomy. The equivalent would be a getting tubes tied for a woman, and I don't think that is covered 100% either.

A condom isn't "male birth control" - a condom is used by both people - it is barrier protection - as in it creates a barrier between the TWO people having sex. Hence TWO people are using it.
 
2012-02-17 02:21:12 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: Or better yet, why the fark should I have to pay $120 a year to buy into a universally accepted form of preventative care that conclusively saves society money in the long run, just because my employer has a philosophical objection. Or $3500 over a reproductive lifetime. That money could go into a retirement fund, or a college fund for the kids I plan.


you have got to be shiatting me.
 
2012-02-17 02:22:08 PM  

Vindibudd: Yet through all of his shifting positions, he has never advocated the banning of birth control.


You mean that he's merely pandering to tards? You convinced me. Romney '12!
 
2012-02-17 02:22:25 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: Vindibudd: Democrats think guns are dangerous, is Obama banning them? Having an opinion on something and banning it are two different things. I know this is really hard for you to understand, but you can do it!

According to the NRA, he is going to. (new window)

The left is just playing the right's game. Don't be butthurt about it.


Incorrect. Obama has never advocated overturning Heller or its progeny. Republican frontrunner Rick Santorum has advocated overturning Eisenstadt v. Baird. The left is telling the truth. The NRA is lying. The left is not playing the right's game.
 
2012-02-17 02:22:41 PM  

raanne: A condom isn't "male birth control" - a condom is used by both people - it is barrier protection - as in it creates a barrier between the TWO people having sex. Hence TWO people are using it.


actually, it is male birth control in that it is the only form of birth control a man has complete control over its use.
 
2012-02-17 02:22:56 PM  

Vindibudd: bugontherug: Vindibudd
2012-02-17 01:33:57 PM

Can any one of you enlightened FarkProgs® point me to the Republican office holder or major presidential candidate who is advocating the banning of birth control? Citations please.

Republican frontrunner Rick Santorum wants to take away the right to use contraception:

[Santorum] believes states should be free to ban [contraception] if they want. He argues that the Supreme Court erred when it ruled in 1965 that married Americans have a right to privacy that includes the use of contraceptives.

Link (new window)

Saying that a state has the right to do something and promising as president to do something is completely different. Or do you disagree?


We're all sure you can passionately defend whatever you think the Constitution says. M'kay?
 
2012-02-17 02:26:24 PM  

Antimatter: Oh man, the conservatives spin job is actually making things worse. Every day this goes on they look more and more anti-women's rights.

I suspect by the end of next week, they will be arguing against having to provide medical coverage to the children of unwed mothers, and by mid march, will be arguing against female voting rights.


Yeah. The nuts and bolts of the contraception bill are important, but not nearly as problematic for the Republicans as the optics of Republicans appearing to hate the near-universal practice of birth control because they think women shouldn't have sex. The Foster Freiss quote is pretty much defining on this issue.

It was bad enough when there was a nebulous impression that Republicans dislike contraception. Now that impression has crystallized and been bolstered by comments that prominent Republicans have contempt for women who have sex.

Policy is important of course, but this is an election year and image management is even more important. The Republicans farked up, bad. Last week I was actually kind of mad about it because they were being very stupid, but now they've doubled down on the idiocy and I'm happy to watch this dramatic implosion in their election chances.

If this were anything other than American politics this would seem like the kind of monumental farkup that is the nail in the coffin of a political party. That doesn't happen much in American politics - these parties are continually rising from the ashes - but who knows, we could finally see it happen.
 
2012-02-17 02:29:40 PM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ghare: All I can say is, if you're female and vote Republican you ought to go see a head doctor about the squirrels living in your brain.

There was a segment on NPR a few months ago, and they spoke about Michelle Bachmann's relative lack of popularity among tea party females. One woman gave an interview where she said that she loved Bachmann, but that she just didn't think "women had it in them to be leaders." They are out there, and they must have a miserable existence.


Is Margaret Thatcher going to have to cut a b*tch?
 
2012-02-17 02:30:47 PM  
I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.
 
2012-02-17 02:32:13 PM  

skullkrusher: actually, it is male birth control in that it is the only form of birth control a man has complete control over its use.


"pulling out" was listed as a method of BC by my OBGyn. Granted its not a 100% effective one. Rhythm method is also a form of birth control.

Its disingenuous to list a condom as "male" birth control when both parties use it and are affected by it though. The truth is, outside of permanent surgery (well, semi-permanent) there is no male birth control.

I don't think you are going to find very many insurance companies willing to foot the bill for over the counter expenses though.
 
2012-02-17 02:33:08 PM  

moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.


He's been playing the Republicans like a fiddle since day one.
 
2012-02-17 02:33:31 PM  

moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.


neither. You don't have to be terribly lucky or masterful when your opposition is a stupid as his is. Just an average level of competence is enough to beat these farking circus monkeys :)
 
2012-02-17 02:34:20 PM  

skullkrusher: moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.

neither. You don't have to be terribly lucky or masterful when your opposition is a stupid as his is. Just an average level of competence is enough to beat these farking circus monkeys :)


Then what does that say about Romney who is losing to Santorum?
 
2012-02-17 02:35:15 PM  

bugontherug: Incorrect. Obama has never advocated overturning Heller or its progeny. Republican frontrunner Rick Santorum has advocated overturning Eisenstadt v. Baird. The left is telling the truth. The NRA is lying. The left is not playing the right's game.


Ok, fair point, but that's not what I meant. The left is taking a divisive social issue that the majority of people agree with (people in general, not just the members of the left) and painting the right as being on the wrong side of it. The right has done that for years against the left, on socialism, welfare, terrorism, health care, and about a hundred other things. They use the broad brush to paint their opponent, and it works exceptionally well cause it can be a bullet point and yelled at high volume without the need for explanation. Whether either side is being honest in the underlying assertion is irrelevant; the perception is the important part.

The left has wised up to the tactic. Contraception is an example of how the left is using the broad brush approach against the right. Health care reform is an example of how the approach can backfire. The GOP has no problem with Romneycare (state mandate) but they do have a problem with Obamacare (federal mandate). But, since they used a broad brush to paint the left as being for socialized medicine, they can't effectively argue the distinction without the 'base' calling them a liberal for supporting socialism.
 
2012-02-17 02:36:45 PM  

raanne: Its disingenuous to list a condom as "male" birth control when both parties use it and are affected by it though. The truth is, outside of permanent surgery (well, semi-permanent) there is no male birth control.


just stop. There is nothing "disingenuous" about listing condoms as male birth control. Men have 3 contraceptive options. Condoms, vasectomy and pulling out. There isn't a reasonable person alive who does not consider condoms a "male" contraceptive. Both parties are affected by the pill as well in that it helps prevent them from having a baby to take care of in 9 months.
 
2012-02-17 02:36:50 PM  

ignatius_crumbcake: bugontherug: Incorrect. Obama has never advocated overturning Heller or its progeny. Republican frontrunner Rick Santorum has advocated overturning Eisenstadt v. Baird. The left is telling the truth. The NRA is lying. The left is not playing the right's game.

Ok, fair point, but that's not what I meant. The left is taking a divisive social issue that the majority of people agree with (people in general, not just the members of the left) and painting the right as being on the wrong side of it. The right has done that for years against the left, on socialism, welfare, terrorism, health care, and about a hundred other things. They use the broad brush to paint their opponent, and it works exceptionally well cause it can be a bullet point and yelled at high volume without the need for explanation. Whether either side is being honest in the underlying assertion is irrelevant; the perception is the important part.

The left has wised up to the tactic. Contraception is an example of how the left is using the broad brush approach against the right. Health care reform is an example of how the approach can backfire. The GOP has no problem with Romneycare (state mandate) but they do have a problem with Obamacare (federal mandate). But, since they used a broad brush to paint the left as being for socialized medicine, they can't effectively argue the distinction without the 'base' calling them a liberal for supporting socialism.


Just take care to understand that both sides are not equally bad, and one should never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, vote Republican.
 
2012-02-17 02:37:10 PM  

skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: skullkrusher: HotWingConspiracy: One is a prescription medication, one is a condom. Once the "male pill" comes out, if ever, I would expect it will be covered.

yep, that still makes no difference to the point.

Yeah, it really does.

in what way? Stating it doesn't make it true. Women are given free contraception because of the bill. Specifically mentioned. Men are not - insurers are not required to reimburse men for condom purchases, employers do not have to offer insurance which pays for vasectomies, men can no longer pay for condoms using flex spending accounts as a result of the bill, nothing. The fact that one is a prescription and the other is not matters not one bit to the question of why women are specifically given access to contraception free of charge but men are not and, more interestingly, why no one seems to find this to be an issue.


First off, many BC pills provide health and wellness benefits besides not having babies. Reduced acne, hormone imbalance issues as girls go through puberty, menstruation issues such as extremely heavy or extremely light periods, inconsistent periods...

Secondly, my insurance doesn't cover Tussin either. OTC items rarely see any impact from insurance plans. I'm confused about why you're making this an issue

Furthermore, a years prescription of Orthotricyclen about 500 dollars without any insurance at all. (38 - 40 dollars for 28 tabs, which actually works out to 13 refills per year, instead of monthly). A years worth of condoms is probably what... (a study done by Trojan actually says that the average amount of sex in America is 84 times per year, so lets say 100 condoms at 50 cents apiece) 50 bucks. 10% the cost.

It *does* matter that it is a prescription when we are talking about prescription drug coverage. Doctors should be able to prescribe the drug they believe best suits the circumstances without needing a degree in claims processing. And a person with a prescription should be able to pick up that drug at the copay to which they agreed when they signed up for insurance.

This isn't just about men v women. I assume, as a man, that you feel as I do. I want women's junk to work right almost as much as they do. And sexually inactive women can need these drugs as much, if not more than sexually active ones.
 
2012-02-17 02:37:30 PM  

moralpanic: skullkrusher: moralpanic: I have a question, is Obama the luckiest SOB ever, or is he a Jedi Master playing on a completely different level then everybody else.

neither. You don't have to be terribly lucky or masterful when your opposition is a stupid as his is. Just an average level of competence is enough to beat these farking circus monkeys :)

Then what does that say about Romney who is losing to Santorum?


not much since they are performing for the same circus crowd.
 
Displayed 50 of 605 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report