Lord_Baull: Flaming Yawn: /beginning to think you're a left winger with some obsession to make right wingers look as ridiculous as possible


if so, he's doing a fine job of it.

Considering how many right wingers continually make themselves look extremely ridiculous, it seems like it would be a waste of time for anyone to do this.

ImpendingCynic: MeinRS6: Has the constitution been amended already? You can get that done in a snap.

Can you? The 27th amendment took 200 years.

If only your sarcasm meter was as finely tuned as your expert historical knowledge. ;-p

I picture Uncle Sam sitting depressed at a dimly lighted basement card-table, holding in his hand a power drill with which he slowly removes random chunks of his brain, one-by-one.

From that conservative rag, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Taking out donations to religious organizations, Conservatives still give more (based on percentage of income) than Liberals.

They also volunteer more of their time.

Conservatives give to churches, no doubt. But the Liberals give to things like the arts, schools and universities. Neither are much of "direct help to the poor".

Face it my Fark Progressive friends, conservatives give more time and money to charity.

My point being - they're not as evil as some of you make them out to be.

Overfiend: From that conservative rag, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html


I bolded the parts that should have been obvious to you.

Lord_Baull: Overfiend: From that conservative rag, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html


I bolded the parts that should have been obvious to you.

You guys just don't let reality get in the way of your political beliefs do ya? Did you even read the article, or did ya google it to see if it is true?

Okay, Tea Baggers - you win. You get the GOP. Take them - they're yours.

We get the Country.

Overfiend: Lord_Baull: Overfiend: From that conservative rag, the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html


I bolded the parts that should have been obvious to you.

You guys just don't let reality get in the way of your political beliefs do ya? Did you even read the article, or did ya google it to see if it is true?


this just in: one man's opinion is now reality...

Login: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 805931
Account created: 2012-08-06 14:33:26
Submitted links approved: 9
Name: John Doe


I think I just found a modmin's alt.

Riothamus: I think I just found a modmin's alt.

No, I've just lurked for a long time and submit a lot of links when I'm bored.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Riothamus: I think I just found a modmin's alt.

No, I've just lurked for a long time and submit a lot of links when I'm bored.

Well somebody's had to submit and greenlight all this right-wing nutjob diarrhea lately...

Riothamus: Well somebody's had to submit and greenlight all this right-wing nutjob diarrhea lately...

Three of them are my fault, the submitting part anyways.

Why all this fuss over the last 30-odd years (BUT NOT BEFORE) about life beginning at conception?

Diogenes: impaler: The thing is, how do you state it is truly a human being, then say it's ok to kill because of the actions of its father?

It's not for me to reconcile the issues for the FRC or others who believe a fetus is a full human being, entitled to all the rights and protections of a born person.

But given they do believe it's a human being, then they need to be willing to accept and admit that if they intend to be truly consistent in their belief about fetal personhood, they have to accept that it requires a woman to be victimized twice -- once by her attacker, and once by the state. Their beliefs have consequences, and they cannot be exempt from them.

Whose rights matter more in your opinion? A grown human or a fetus? Do the rights of an unwilling woman have any standing?

The other side of the issue, too--where do they really think a woman's rights begin and end? Because it suspiciously sounds like they're saying they want to limit a woman's rights once she gets pregnant.

Again: They need to be willing to state this and explain why they think it.

USA Today headline: Social Issues Intrude on GOP.

Isn't that like announcing that a fish got wet?

vernonFL: Its not just abortion, its birth control. That was really how the 'war on women' thing started.

They also fought against the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act.

It is a war on women.

machoprogrammer: I never understood, and I am serious here, how is ban on abortion a "War on Women?"

Isn't a ban on abortion also bad for the guy who got her pregnant?

I am big time pro choice, by the way, but just wondering how this works. I find it similar to the feminists who say the government not giving out free birth control (not condoms, mind you) is a "war on women" and not a "war on men" as well for the same reasons.

Maybe because feminists never said that.

Stop listing to Rush.

machoprogrammer: I never understood, and I am serious here, how is ban on abortion a "War on Women?"

Isn't a ban on abortion also bad for the guy who got her pregnant?

I am big time pro choice, by the way, but just wondering how this works. I find it similar to the feminists who say the government not giving out free birth control (not condoms, mind you) is a "war on women" and not a "war on men" as well for the same reasons.

The feminists never asked for free birth control from the government. They asked that employer not be allowed to block covering birth control (which they have to pay the co-pay for anyway) from their company health plans (which the costs are deducted from the employees paycheck).

The republicans want employers to be to be able to deny women reproductive choice, or make their female employees tell them why they need birth control. Women have not been allowed to serve on the congressional committees on these contraceptive debates. In many state legislatures, they have not even been allowed to testify in these debates. Representatives and pundits of the GOP have have publically implied or called women who want birth control sluts.

They want to ban abortion, even morning after pills, to the point of forcing women who have been raped to bear their rapist's child. (Ditto for incest.)

Texas cut all funding for Planned Parenthood which provided not only abortion and birth control, but pelvic exams and breast cancer screening to low income women.

They have attempted to pass Personhood Acts in state legislatures, defining that a fetus is a person at conception and dictating that a fetus be brought to term, even at the risk of the mother's life. Even if bearing the baby would kill the mother, it must be born.

If they can't ban abortion, the republicans want women who want even first term abortions to go through an unnecessary, invasive and painful medical exam before they will allow it to happen.

The Republicans also fought against the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, and won. Scott Walker repealed Wisconsin's Equal Pay Act.

Yes, It's a War on Women.