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.

(Daily Kos)   Sluts vote. GOP just now realizing this   (dailykos.com) divider line 730
    More: Obvious, GOP, Associated Press-GfK, Health Care, International, voting bloc, Carly Fiorina, sluts, Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell  
•       •       •

24175 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2012 at 9:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-08 11:27:20 AM  
Julie Cochrane: I remember ...

buck1138

Do you also remember a time when the republican party didn't treat women like second class citizens?

Giv her a break, she's from SW VA, they's a lot of of hillbillies in them thar hills.
 
2012-03-08 11:28:05 AM  

CanisNoir: The Why Not Guy: Link to that study, please, because your claim goes against everything I've ever seen.

I've linked it in multiple previous threads and people ignored them. I'm done doing the leg work. You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once.


Because everyone knows if you restrict contraception, that people just won't have sex.
That's just comon sense, horny people are THE most rational humans in existence. Especially teenagers. Yup, I bet if we make contraception illegal there will be no more pre-marital sex, ever.
 
2012-03-08 11:28:23 AM  

buck1138: Do you also remember a time when the republican party didn't treat women like second class citizens?


Second class citizens would be an improvement over the way the GOP is treating women today.
 
2012-03-08 11:28:59 AM  

CanisNoir: You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once.


One is axiomatic, the other is counterintuitive. The one making the claim that is outside of generally recognized logic and common sense should bear the burden of proof. In other words, the one making the claim that water is wet, really shouldn't have to cite to a source.
 
2012-03-08 11:29:10 AM  
Btw, I'm mocking you, I have no intention of responding to whatever you say.
 
2012-03-08 11:29:12 AM  

CanisNoir: I've linked it in multiple previous threads and people ignored them. I'm done doing the leg work. You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once.


No one has ignored it. The one study you cite only talks about teens, and the most damning conclusion is that "increased access to contraception may not reduce the rates of unplanned pregnancies in teens."

Considering the fact that the scope of the contraceptive discussion in this country is not limited only to teens, that one study you cite is immaterial. This is brought up to you in every thread that you cite that waste of time in, and you ignore that observation every time. Physician, heal thyself.
 
2012-03-08 11:29:41 AM  

CanisNoir: The Why Not Guy: Link to that study, please, because your claim goes against everything I've ever seen.

I've linked derped it in multiple previous threads and people ignored them laughed at the fabrications. I'm done doing the leg work being picked on by you meanies. You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once sense and I really hate that.


Revised for accuracy
 
2012-03-08 11:30:54 AM  

Jake Havechek: Julie Cochrane: I was a voter in 1994. I remember the 1994 AW ban.

Yeah, this has so much to do with 2012.


Exactly how far into the dim past do you think 1994 was? 1994 had the Internet, big guy. Man had been on the moon for a quarter-century.
 
2012-03-08 11:31:02 AM  

CanisNoir: The Why Not Guy: Link to that study, please, because your claim goes against everything I've ever seen.

I've linked it in multiple previous threads and people ignored them. I'm done doing the leg work. You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once.


Its based upon this:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/planned-parenthood-falsely-correlates - access-to-contraceptives-and-increased-abortions/

Which is based on personal polls in the US.

In direct contrast you have my link

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

which is based upon actual public health statistics correlated with the introduction of widespread modern birth control.

/one is science
//the other is politics
 
2012-03-08 11:31:09 AM  

CrispFlows: Theaetetus: Yes, but it's entirely wrong.
Shooting someone for protesting is illegal, even if they say mean things to you.

Not protests, I'm referring to idiots that crosses the line into actual physical assault - If there are people willing to bomb the clinics, who's to say there isn't anyone willing to assault women attempting to walk into the clinics?


If someone is a suicide bomber, shooting them may not necessarily help.

Most rapists are well known by their victims, and most people are unwilling to shoot someone they think is a friend. Plus, the victims are usually intoxicated or drugged, and so may not be able to use any weapon.
I doubt the rapists are safe after the incident - the woman may shoot them later in fear for the occurrence of the same crimes at a later time.


That would be premeditated murder, then.

And not only do people tend to be hesitant to shoot even their abusive spouse, guns are not usually keyed to a single person. In fact, having a gun in the house drastically increases the likelihood that domestic violence will end in the death of the victim.
And who may I ask typically holds the permit?


Isn't that irrelevant, since the person pulling the trigger doesn't have to first match their signature to the permit?

No, your argument only has one purpose - giving you an ability to argue that women who don't own guns are somehow responsible for their own rapes or assaults, because they didn't "do enough" to protect themselves.

And that puts you right in the "slut" camp with the GOP. Congratulations. Now piss off.

I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth - All I'm saying that women should not be regarded as the weaker sex and they are just as capable as men when it comes to handling guns. I'm referring to possible deterrence to the violations of women's own rights due to higher likelihood of them carrying weapons.

And most definitely, I don't ever think victims holds any responsibility to the crimes - no - I pin the responsibility onto the ones that committed the crimes.


Suuuuure, you are. Trolling used to require some skill, not just repeating old tropes.
 
2012-03-08 11:31:32 AM  

The Homer Tax: It's a good thing that nothing has changed in *20 years* or you would look like a complete jackass for clinging to that outdated meme.


Also a hundred years ago, or just a bit more than that, there was a very long list of municipalities, big and small, where it was flat out illegal to have a gun on your person unless you were a law enforcement official. And the second amendment was viewed purely as a federal matter, if a municipality wanted to regulate guns out what wazoo, then that was their business.
 
2012-03-08 11:31:43 AM  

CanisNoir: The Why Not Guy: Link to that study, please, because your claim goes against everything I've ever seen.

I've linked it in multiple previous threads and people ignored them. I'm done doing the leg work. You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once.


Hell, this article is just from today:

Link (new window)
 
2012-03-08 11:32:04 AM  
I'm ok with sluts voting. But, sluts owning guns?

Well, that's a different story. And, I will not stand for my tax dollars being used to buy these sluts ammunition or guns.
 
2012-03-08 11:32:10 AM  

RexTalionis: Does anyone else hate it when websites put stuff like "More below the fold" in their articles? What fold? This isn't a broadsheet, it's a website, there's no damn fold!


They do that at DailyKos, started with the main page posts. They'll actually have an introductory paragraph or two, for the main page, then the "Below the fold" when you click the link. It carried over to the rest of the site, just because.
 
2012-03-08 11:34:37 AM  
To be fair, I don't want to pay for anyone's Cialis/Viagra/Trojans/penis pump anymore than I do female birth control... Further, if you wish to buy your own abortions/birth control, be my guest as I don't want to pay for your kids either.

If, however, we are going to pay for everyone sex aids... I would then offer the fact that after having a few beers, I tend to last longer, so please buy me beer.
 
2012-03-08 11:35:20 AM  

Julie Cochrane: I was a voter in 1994. I remember the 1994 AW ban.


There was an attention whore ban?? That blockade probably held up for all of 5 minutes.
 
2012-03-08 11:35:32 AM  

Julie Cochrane: So I've got one party that wants to confiscate my guns, and another that wants to lock me in a chastity belt. Some damn choice.



Just to point out, one of those parties also believes in compromise, often to the point of even alienating their voting base. The other steadfastly does not and says so very very loudly and gets really red-faced about it.

Also keep in mind that most of the people "wanting to take your guns away" are less concerned about your guns and more concerned about the guns out there killing people. There are more ways to talk to someone other than just shoving your fingers in your ears and screaming "NO!" at the top of your lungs and being accusatory.

/gun owner
 
2012-03-08 11:35:50 AM  

CanisNoir: The Why Not Guy: Link to that study, please, because your claim goes against everything I've ever seen.

I've linked it in multiple previous threads and people ignored them. I'm done doing the leg work. You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once.


Jebus, people, just give him a farking link. It's not like 5 seconds of googling doesn't produce a list as long as my arm!

HERE! (new window)

and HERE! (new window)

and HERE! (new window)

and HERE! (new window)
 
2012-03-08 11:36:21 AM  

CanisNoir: I've linked it in multiple previous threads and people ignored them. I'm done doing the leg work. You're making the claim that greater access decreases unwanted pregnancies and abortions, let's see your work for once.


Whatever you say, sugar. Unlike you, I back up my claims. Here are excerpts from a collaboration between the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, as published in the journal Lancet. Numerous CDC studies have shown similar results here in the United States - access to contraception reduces abortion rates. CDC studies have also shown that access to contraception does not lead to young people having sex more often or earlier, so it's a win/win.

"The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available, said Sharon Camp, chief executive of the Guttmacher Institute."

"In Eastern Europe, where contraceptive choices have broadened since the fall of Communism, the study found that abortion rates have decreased by 50 percent, although they are still relatively high compared with those in Western Europe.".

"In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception."
 
2012-03-08 11:36:28 AM  

hubiestubert: To be fair, sluts voting wouldn't be a problem, if only they had a strong man in their lives, giving that life meaning and direction. A man that they could see as a shining beacon of God's Grace, a strong voice of reason to light their way to the voting booth, erasing the cares and worries of reading on issues. That is why we should pity the sluts. Not just because they will burn in Eternal Hellfire, not because their lives are devoid of grace, not because their hoo haws are pits in which sin collects and infects the world unless tamed by a Godly man with iron will and steely determination, but that their lives are devoid of any meaning without a single man to give their life meaning.

That's why, Lamar Alexander will be submitting the Women's Health Care Reform Act which will finally relieve women of these nagging woes. The Women's Health Care Reform Act will simultaneously repeal the 19th Amendment--which is the cause of much of women's woes by a build up on national hysteria--but will also apportion women to households equally, so that no woman will go without the voice of a strong man to give her life definition. Women's education will likewise be folded in this omnibus legislation, because the education that women receive today obviously causes a lot of breast cancer, and in compassion to our sisters, we must relieve them of their burdens. Allow them to return to a natural order, where they waited for orders from their fathers and brothers, or husbands. Too long, we have allowed Liberals and Communists to lead our women astray from home and hearth, and what do they have to show for it? Sky rocketing rates of breast cancer, long periods where their wombs go unfulfilled and are empty, and many, so many, damned for Eternity for questioning their fathers.

We can change that. We can change America for the better, if only you embrace us, and God's plan.


*applause.jpeg*
 
2012-03-08 11:37:16 AM  

Julie Cochrane: I was a voter in 1994. I remember the 1994 AW ban. I remember the various buybacks and problems and propaganda and the attempts to "close the gun show loophole" through the years.

(snip)


And yes, I read your entire post--just snipping so this one's not a wall o' text. But there's something about your post that doesn't make sense. Not all Democrats are Feinstein. Suggesting reading or bowling instead of hunting doesn't mean Clinton was going to take our guns (and he never did). Yet you vote along party lines strictly due to their general view on gun control. What if you had a Democratic candidate that was pro-2nd Amendment? Would you vote for him then? What if the candidate didn't make the 2nd Amendment an issue at all? Would he automatically be disqualified for your vote because he didn't specifically say, "I'm not going to take your guns".

My senator is a Democrat and is in agreement with current gun control laws but that's not why I voted for him. He's also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and support programs I agree with. His Republican contender was also in agreement with current gun control laws but was against pretty much everything else. You'd vote for the Republican, even though his & the Democrat's views were identical on gun control, "just in case" the Democrat changed his mind?
 
2012-03-08 11:37:20 AM  

Julie Cochrane: I was a voter in 1994. I remember the 1994 AW ban. I remember the various buybacks and problems and propaganda and the attempts to "close the gun show loophole" through the years.

I remember Diane Feinstein getting on TV and saying that if she could get the votes to say, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in," she would. (At the time she was speaking of semi-auto rifles with politically incorrect cosmetic features---they made up the name "assault weapons" to make a bunch of regular plain old rifles sound scary.)

I remember Bill Clinton saying hunters and shooters should just "read a good book or go bowling."

I remember how the only reason they let the 1994 AW ban sunset and expire was because there were so many Republicans in office that the Democrats didn't have the votes.

The 1994 AW ban also banned the normal factory magazines that came with one of my pistols---12 round. If I wanted extra magazines I had to buy specially manufactured ones that had been artificially blocked to only carry 10 rounds.

And the federal government sure did fight hard against Heller when the USSC finally stood up and had some balls about the 2nd Amendment.

But yeah, I'm just imagining that those bastards are anti-gun. Sure I am.

The entire history of the anti-gun movement has been that anything they get is "just the first step" towards the next thing they want, and whatever locality where they've had the votes, they've gone to confiscation except for a very small favored few. (Example: New York's (the city) Sullivan Law)

And that's the analogy to the WCTU---no matter what the temperance movement got passed to restrict alcohol, it was just the first step until they got prohibition. MADD has always reached for "the next step" against drunk driving---again, no matter how much temperance law they get, it's never enough. The anti-smoking people, same thing. And the pro-lifers, in being anti-sex, it's the same thing.

I do have to admit that in being pro-sex that I'm in favor of "fre ...


I'll admit that in 1994 Democrats were rather anti-gun as a party.

But 1994 was 18 years ago. Things have changed.

For example, in 2004, a bill was introduced in the Senate to extend the assault weapons ban. It failed 8-90-that is, a majority of both parties voted against it.

Plus, there's this:

Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

H.R. 6257 was introduced by Mark Kirk (R Ill.-10) on 12 June 2008 and sought to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban for a period of ten years, as well as to expand the list of banned weapons. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on July 28, 2008. It had four co-sponsors supporting it: Michael N. Castle (R Del.-1), Mike Ferguson (R N.J.-7), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R Fla.-18) and Christopher Shays (R Conn.-4).

This bill never became law, as it was still in Subcommittee when Congress ended the 110th Session on 3 January 2009.[16]


No, those Rs aren't Ds in that paragraph.

Nothing Obama has done has extended gun control. In fact, in two instances (carrying weapons on Amtrak trains and in Federal parks) he has actually loosened the rules.

Admittedly, there are still some very anti-gun Democrats. But there are also anti-gun Republicans, and plenty of pro-gun Democrats. Tarring the whole modern Democratic party with the anti-gun label is simply false.
 
2012-03-08 11:37:30 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Will a Second Amendment person in this thread please answer these questions?
The GOP has made it clear that to them the party is more important than any individual Republican. If Obama were to suddenly reverse all of his actions with respect to gun rights, although he is no longer up for office again, actions like this would practically hand the white house to the GOP in 2016.

A) Do you believe that Obama only cares about himself and not the democratic party?

B) What evidence do you have that Obama, who has loosened gun restrictions up until now, is planning on doing the exact opposite from 2012 on?

C) Why would Obama, being a constitutional scholar, attack the second amendment?


A) "Democratic Party," please. Obama's hatred for guns is greater than his desire for his party to do well in 2016.

B) Eric Holder mentioned reinstating the assault weapons ban in 2009, which means that they are totally going to do it in 2013.

C) Because the 2nd amendment is not clear at all about what rights it allows citizens. If it was clear, we wouldn't be arguing about it to this very day. The people that wrote the 2nd amendment really needed to spell things out better. Maybe they were drunk when they wrote it.
 
2012-03-08 11:37:38 AM  

This text is now purple: blah blah blah


So, no, then...

Thanks!
 
2012-03-08 11:37:46 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: Wadded Beef: BillCo: Another rant completely devoid of fact and content. And they even quote NPR. Certainly no bias there.

Sounds to me like somebody has a sandy vag.

NPR has a huge bias toward the left? Who told you that?

Unbiased Fox News I bet.

/just came here to say if a woman's votes for the GOP she is voting against her own interests which wouldn't surprise me since the poor have been voting Republican for years.

//had a woman in my office tell me the other day she didn't follow politics but will vote for who her husband tells her to vote for. My response was "why should he get 2 votes to my one?" She wasn't amused.

///I'm glad I married an educated slut who can think for herself and make great sandwiches


To be fair, I suppose in BillCo world (Planet Momsbasement) a steady diet of Fox News would push him so far to the fringe right that anything centrist (i.e. NPR) would technically be "far left" even though it resides in the middle. Case in point, if you were in Virginia then Illinois would be considered quite a bit west. It's still no excuse for staying put in the far right, though. Then again, Bill probably has a hard time branching out to learn something new when his worldview immediately scurries under the fridge every time a light turns on.

Congrats on marrying well! Here's to educated "sluts." I'm going to marry one that went to college n' stuff. And she listens to NPR too.
 
2012-03-08 11:38:17 AM  

TheIndependent: To be fair, I don't want to pay for anyone's Cialis/Viagra/Trojans/penis pump anymore than I do female birth control... Further, if you wish to buy your own abortions/birth control, be my guest as I don't want to pay for your kids either.

If, however, we are going to pay for everyone sex aids... I would then offer the fact that after having a few beers, I tend to last longer, so please buy me beer.


Your problem is you don't like insurance. Thats fine. You don't have to have it. If you enroll in insurance you are pooling your risk with everyone else in the same risk pool. You are paying for someones sex, cancer treatment, broken arm, stomach surgery, etc. The alternative is needing enough cash on hand to always cover all your needs. If you get hit with an expensive and agressive type of cancer good luck.
/The choice is yours.
//this is what a society is people, if you want out, go camping and just...stay out there.
 
2012-03-08 11:38:44 AM  
Bill Gluckman is down with the biatches and the hoes
 
2012-03-08 11:39:01 AM  

The Homer Tax: This text is now purple: Indirectly, yes. Heller invalidated the national park prohibition against guns.

The fark it did, stop talking out of your ass.


Funny, the park rangers seemed to think Heller applied.
http://www.npca.org/assets/pdf/NPCA_Heller_Letter_4_4_08.pdf

Although the change in rules re: guns in national parks came under Bush.
 
2012-03-08 11:39:42 AM  

TheIndependent: To be fair, I don't want to pay for anyone's Cialis/Viagra/Trojans/penis pump anymore than I do female birth control... Further, if you wish to buy your own abortions/birth control, be my guest as I don't want to pay for your kids either.

If, however, we are going to pay for everyone sex aids... I would then offer the fact that after having a few beers, I tend to last longer, so please buy me beer.



Contraception, as it can prevent both disease and pregnancy, is a MEDICAL issue. Insurance coverage is supposed to be for MEDICAL issues.

I'm not sure why this soars so high above most people's heads (particularly Republicans who only seem to want their hard-earned money used to kill people) but it really isn't that complicated...
 
2012-03-08 11:41:46 AM  
They do more than vote, subby
 
2012-03-08 11:42:02 AM  

This text is now purple: Exactly how far into the dim past do you think 1994 was? 1994 had the Internet, big guy. Man had been on the moon for a quarter-century.


In 1994, what we now know as "ObamaCare" was called the "Republican Health Care Reform Proposal." 20 years ago, Obamacare was the conservative method for saving out health care system. Today it's Unconstitutional Socialism.

A lot can happen in the political sphere in 20 years.
 
2012-03-08 11:43:04 AM  
Goddammit, my wife take birth control AND I'm not getting the increased slutiness.
 
2012-03-08 11:44:38 AM  

Geotpf: Nothing Obama has done has extended gun control. In fact, in two instances (carrying weapons on Amtrak trains and in Federal parks) he has actually loosened the rules.

Admittedly, there are still some very anti-gun Democrats. But there are also anti-gun Republicans, and plenty of pro-gun Democrats. Tarring the whole modern Democratic party with the anti-gun label is simply false.




Julie and her ilk love to morph anti-gun into gun grabbing. It's a tactic that only works on the weak-minded. Not a fan of concealed carry? You're a gun grabber! Think gun sales should be regulated? You're a gun grabber! Back ground checks? You're a gun grabber!
 
2012-03-08 11:45:28 AM  

The Why Not Guy: "In Eastern Europe, where contraceptive choices have broadened since the fall of Communism, the study found that abortion rates have decreased by 50 percent, although they are still relatively high compared with those in Western Europe.".

"In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception."


How do you parcel out the economic factors there? Because the other correlation is that poor people have many pregnancies and apparently many abortions, but that goes away when you look at a rich population. Is the change contraception or prosperity?
 
2012-03-08 11:46:14 AM  

danvon: Keep farking that chicken guys. Even better, let's kick it up a notch. Let's make her look like a fat witch and further lie about her statements before congress.

Today's cartoon from that beacon of journalistic integrity, the NY Daily News.

[assets.nydailynews.com image 635x522]


Do they really want to get sued? It sure as hell seems like it.


Golf clap for the strawman-iest of cartoons this week.
I get where there coming from. Why should we draw a line between paying for birth control and very literally shoving something into a woman's uterus? Good on you, NY Daily News.
 
2012-03-08 11:47:04 AM  

Geotpf: But 1994 was 18 years ago. Things have changed.

For example, in 2004, a bill was introduced in the Senate to extend the assault weapons ban. It failed 8-90-that is, a majority of both parties voted against it.

Plus, there's this:

Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008

H.R. 6257 was introduced by Mark Kirk (R Ill.-10) on 12 June 2008 and sought to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban for a period of ten years, as well as to expand the list of banned weapons. This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on July 28, 2008. It had four co-sponsors supporting it: Michael N. Castle (R Del.-1), Mike Ferguson (R N.J.-7), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R Fla.-18) and Christopher Shays (R Conn.-4).

This bill never became law, as it was still in Subcommittee when Congress ended the 110th Session on 3 January 2009.[16]

No, those Rs aren't Ds in that paragraph.

Nothing Obama has done has extended gun control. In fact, in two instances (carrying weapons on Amtrak trains and in Federal parks) he has actually loosened the rules.

Admittedly, there are still some very anti-gun Democrats. But there are also anti-gun Republicans, and plenty of pro-gun Democrats. Tarring the whole modern Democratic party with the anti-gun label is simply false.


Look, you obviously don't understand. 18 years ago her perception on this issue was set, and just because things have changed drastically, she'll never change her mind. That would admit that she is and has been wrong about the Democratic party at some point in the past.

Things can't change in 18 years. That's why we have political parties in the first place, so that you don't have to think about who to vote for after your first time registering. See your error?

/Very persuasive though.
 
2012-03-08 11:47:09 AM  

maudibjr: Goddammit, my wife take birth control AND I'm not getting the increased slutiness.


heh. I just find it depressing one of the most common side effects of hormonal contraceptives is a decrease in libido.

/sad chinchilla
 
2012-03-08 11:49:37 AM  

SphericalTime: That would admit that she is and has been wrong about the Democratic party at some point in the past.


Don't you mean the Democrat party?
 
2012-03-08 11:50:04 AM  

CanisNoir: your salary is determined by the employer based upon what they want to pay you. Health Care and what it covers factors into that. So if they want a plan that doesn't cover contraception to be part of the salary package, they should be able to offer that, just as they could say a position pays 50k a year instead of 55k a year.


The problem comes up where this runs into the employer mandate.

If we want to have guaranteed issue (the ability to get covered without regard to pre-existing conditions), we have to have a mandate, or the whole thing falls apart from adverse selection.

To have a useful mandate, you have to have minimum coverage provisions to determine what "counts" as providing coverage. (Else anyone could fulfill the mandate by buying McDonald's-style mini-med plans that don't cover anything, defeating the purpose).

As to whether contraception should be part of that minimum-standard coverage, there's room for debate. But we have to have minimum coverage regulations else guaranteed issue falls apart (and without that, health care of any sort is well out of the reach of many, including me).
 
2012-03-08 11:50:24 AM  

NightOwl2255: Julie and her ilk love to morph anti-gun into gun grabbing are farking gullible idiots who don't realize that they're being used in a great many ways.


ftfy.

Seriously. It's no small coincidence that whenever a Democrat is elected, gun companies, Republicans and the NRA start this nonsense about gun grabbers. We'd still be hearing this bullshiat if Obama had Ted Nugent's love of guns.

Fear sells.
 
2012-03-08 11:51:52 AM  

maudibjr: Goddammit, my wife take birth control AND I'm not getting the increased slutiness.


Well, to be fair, YOU'RE not getting the increased slutiness...
 
2012-03-08 11:52:00 AM  

macadamnut: Almost makes you wonder if they're throwing this whole election season on purpose...
...as if it were easier to score political points by attacking public policies from the sidelines than by actually enacting and enforcing public policies.

But that would be ridiculous...


Absolutely, they have to balance a fine line between not winning the Presidency, and maintaining enough congressmen to filibuster. They got a little ahead of themselves in 2010 and found that being the congressional majority is hard work. Its tough to balance that perfectly, give them a break.!
 
2012-03-08 11:52:14 AM  

This text is now purple: Although the change in rules re: guns in national parks came under Bush.


No, it didn't. The ability to carry in federal parks was an amendment was to the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act signed into law May of 2009, going into effect I believe 9 months later in Feb of 2010.

Do yourself a large favor and stop lying. Just stop it. You look pathetic.
 
2012-03-08 11:52:16 AM  

Lando Lincoln: Uchiha_Cycliste: Will a Second Amendment person in this thread please answer these questions?
The GOP has made it clear that to them the party is more important than any individual Republican. If Obama were to suddenly reverse all of his actions with respect to gun rights, although he is no longer up for office again, actions like this would practically hand the white house to the GOP in 2016.

A) Do you believe that Obama only cares about himself and not the democratic party?

B) What evidence do you have that Obama, who has loosened gun restrictions up until now, is planning on doing the exact opposite from 2012 on?

C) Why would Obama, being a constitutional scholar, attack the second amendment?

A) "Democratic Party," please. Obama's hatred for guns is greater than his desire for his party to do well in 2016.

B) Eric Holder mentioned reinstating the assault weapons ban in 2009, which means that they are totally going to do it in 2013.

C) Because the 2nd amendment is not clear at all about what rights it allows citizens. If it was clear, we wouldn't be arguing about it to this very day. The people that wrote the 2nd amendment really needed to spell things out better. Maybe they were drunk when they wrote it.


Not sure is serious... or just very scared and stupid.
 
2012-03-08 11:52:30 AM  

Julie Cochrane: I am always willing to listen to his or her personal opinions about guns and self-defense and carry issues and the 2nd Amendment, and willing to listen to the thoughts that underlie those opinions, and willing to have a friendly discussion of the issues.


And then vote Republican like an automaton.
 
2012-03-08 11:52:48 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: Will a Second Amendment person in this thread please answer these questions?
The GOP has made it clear that to them the party is more important than any individual Republican. If Obama were to suddenly reverse all of his actions with respect to gun rights, although he is no longer up for office again, actions like this would practically hand the white house to the GOP in 2016.

A) Do you believe that Obama only cares about himself and not the democratic party?

B) What evidence do you have that Obama, who has loosened gun restrictions up until now, is planning on doing the exact opposite from 2012 on?

C) Why would Obama, being a constitutional scholar, attack the second amendment?


I don't. I'm concerned about the judicial philosophy of anyone he might appoint to the Supreme Court. "Concerned" is not the same thing as "certain it would be bad."

The thing I like about strict constructionists is that if you have judges who interpret the constitution as meaning what it says, as informed by the debates and discussions of the Congress and the ratifying legislatures at the time it was passed, then you know what you're going to get. If you don't get what you want, you can pass an amendment and change the constitution and get it to say what you need it to say.

Strict construction by the judiciary means strong checks and balances on the judiciary.

If you have judges who interpret the constitution on a "living document" model, what the hell does that even mean? It appears to mean whatever the justice wants it to mean and can possibly stretch or twist it to mean, regardless of what the text says. "Living document," in any case, gives the judiciary a lot more scope and a lot more power.

So, then if you have "living document" justices and you don't like the result you get from them, and you pass an amendment to change the constitution and get it to say what you need it to say.....how can you really keep the judiciary from "living documenting" your new amendment's language away as much as they can from what you, in your Congressional debates and ratification debates carefully hammered the Amendment out to mean, as a careful and well-thought-out and long fought political compromise?

I gave people one major issue important to me and they said, "Oh, single issue voter, single issue voter."

There are a lot more reasons than just guns why that one issue was/is important to me.

It's not just about the guns.

And it's not the usual conservative hatred of Roe v. Wade. I'm pro-choice and I think Roe is good law. I think Lawrence Tribe's article in the Harvard Law Review making a 9th Amendment case for it would have been a better holding, though.

I think strict construction is important because I think there will always be irresolvably contentious issues, and I think the only real way to hold the country together without violence is to hold out hope to people of a peaceful political victory for their side--someday. And strict construction means if you can get enough of a supermajority to agree with your position that you can get 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to go along with it, you can have it.

So in America, whatever opinion it is you've got, no matter how minority, no matter how vile or crazy I think it is or your neighbors think it is, if you can peacefully persuade that big a share of your fellow citizens to go along with you---not just get a temporary, transient shift in the political winds---you can have it.

I think that idea is fundamental to self-government.

And I'm not sure Obama does.

But I still may end up voting for him anyway, because he may end up being the less scary, obnoxious, and objectionable of the Big Two candidates.
 
2012-03-08 11:53:12 AM  

NightOwl2255: Julie and her ilk love to morph anti-gun into gun grabbing. It's a tactic that only works on the weak-minded. Not a fan of concealed carry? You're a gun grabber! Think gun sales should be regulated? You're a gun grabber! Back ground checks? You're a gun grabber!


To be fair, the same thought processes happen around abortion - keep throwing annoyances into the process until people give up, or something.

Though Tom the Dancing Bug goes overboard a lot, they had a cool cartoon not long ago about that: what if the President was forced to wait 36 hours, while looking at pictures of civilian casualties, before ordering invasions?
 
2012-03-08 11:53:18 AM  

This text is now purple: How do you parcel out the economic factors there? Because the other correlation is that poor people have many pregnancies and apparently many abortions, but that goes away when you look at a rich population. Is the change contraception or prosperity?


I think they're more closely connected than you realize. Wealthier means more likely to be able to afford contraception, and should mean more likely to be educated on its proper use. So if wealthier nations have lower abortion rates, I'd say contraception is a big reason why.
 
2012-03-08 11:54:02 AM  

Vodka Zombie: I'm ok with sluts voting. But, sluts owning guns?

Well, that's a different story. And, I will not stand for my tax dollars being used to buy these sluts ammunition or guns.


Oo, good idea! I'm a(n old, former) slut and I should use my disability money to buy a gun and some bullets. Perfect, thanks!
 
2012-03-08 11:54:48 AM  
Came for pictures of sluts. Leaving dissapointed.
 
Displayed 50 of 730 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | 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