RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom

RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 1:36:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Alright, if it were up to Rush and his supporters, women would have no right to birth control, or anything else. I guess that means they want to repeal the 19th amendment. This is an absolute distortion of the position. Ladies have a right to BC. They do *not* have a right to reach into my pocket to pay for it. That is what the issue is here. Not the "existence" of birth control. The matter of: do we force people who object to it on religious grounds to pay for it? ie; do we force people, by law, to "sin" (in their eyes) Peace and comfort, Michael

jlf1961 -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 1:44:09 PM)
Hypothetical Situation: Family has father who is under employed (big problem now) no insurance, and have three kids. Now, if they have another kid, they wont be able to afford the bills or expenses to raise the kid until dad finds a better job that suits his education. You want to tell them they cant have sex? That is kind of a part of a healthy husband wife relationship. Better yet, she gets knocked up and then they lose their home because of medical bills. Of course dad still has enough to cover a life insurance policy in case something happens to him I know, dad steps in front of a bus and insurance pays off. Problem solved. You still have not said how you people plan on feeding the billions that will be born before the next century.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 1:53:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 You still have not said how you people plan on feeding the billions that will be born before the next century. I had no intention of answering about millions of people I don't and will never know. I know that birth control pills are not the only method of birth control. They're also not prohibitively expensive but in your horror-story scenario, I'm guessing that BC pills would be considered un-attainable. I also know that this scenario has nothing to do with my bringing up that you were distorting the position (ie; straw-manning the mean old conservatives and perpetrating the lie that the media would like people to believe) Okay. I'll play. Spermicidal foam Condoms IUDs/cervical caps Vasectomy/Tubal ligation (covered by most insurance companies after 30 years of age/three children) Tubal ligation (interestingly, offered at a reduced cost by PP but they offer no help for vasectomies. It must be a war on men) Natural family planning (Rythm Method) Abstinence I see choices; lots of choices. Peace and comfort, Michael

Lucylastic -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 2:00:07 PM)
someone PLEASE repost that they DO cover mens vasectomies at PP he has me on ignore http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/vasectomy-4249.htm http://www.plannedparenthood.org/centralnc/vasectomy-20843.htm http://www.plannedparenthood.org/illinois/vasectomy-male-permanent-sterilization-38251.htm wilful lack of knowledge should be pointed out

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 2:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas You being a past abused spouse does not mean GOP men are abusing their spouses and so therefore are actually in a "war with women" even though they do things that show they have high esteem for them and care about them, as Rush and I previously explained, by marrying them Doesnt count because Gay marriage is still mostly illegal and the GOP doesnt believe in it.. so Marrying doesnt mean they esteem them it ust means its the only current legal and religiously acceptable option, raising families with them Doesnt count..because Last I checked Men cant pop out babies there for to follow ones religion, they must fuck and pop out children with women, taking them to dinner doesnt countusually believing that buying dinner means they get laid therefor possibly getting their partner pregnant and doing as their religion tells them and opening doors for them, and purchasing them gifts as Rush explained. This insult you have for me, and I can only speak for me and not Rush, is therefore completely unjustified and I question why it was necessary to bring your past personal marrage failure followed by an attempt to group me and other GOP men in with your abusive spouse and then follow that up with a personal attack on me, especially into a political discussion, in order to prove GOP men are in a "war with women". Are you instead in a "war against men"? That would explain much. Im have a strong hatred for misogynists... My absuive Ex bought me jewelry.. He also gave me the gift of 40 stitches one time.. I was just so lucky [8\|] He would buy me gifts after he beat me, he would be extra sweet and hold open doors after he beat me... He would go out of his way to be kind... After he beat me Its classic abusive behavior. quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas this is a free country and you get to pick what company you work for Sorry Aint to free when you have mouths to feed, some times you have to take any job available when theres a 9% country wide unemployment rate and your kids are hungry

BitaTruble -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 2:13:12 PM)
Personally, I'm feeling all the love. ::nod, nod:: "During a discussion of a far-reaching mandatory ultrasound bill, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) on Wednesday dismissed off-handedly the insinuation that the measure goes too far, saying, "You just have to close your eyes." "Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year." "Earlier this week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives also adopted a bill that would instruct doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer. The theory that abortion causes breast cancer has been rebuked by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who have all said the research is faulty." "The sweeping anti-abortion bill working its way through the Kansas Legislature would levy a sales tax on women seeking abortions, including rape victims." The bill will not tax miscarriages. Well, gee that's something, ain't it. [8\|]

slvemike4u -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 2:26:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet You can characterize allowing an employer to exclude birth control as "freedom of choice" if you want to, Arty, and I would expect nothing less. But, in Kansas, abortion cover age MUST be excluded from health insurance unless a woman buys a special abortion policy. So, an employer cannot include it in his general coverage, even if he wants to. How does that relate to freedom of choice? In that same state, abortion cannot be deducted for tax purposes as a health care cost, and, unlike other treatments, is subject to sales tax. There is definitely a war on women, and the weapon is money. Ok. One more. First, I am not "Arty". Second. How does excluding "birth control or abortion coverage" remove freedom because not paying for something is not taking away a freedom otherwise my freedom to drive would require my first employer or the taxpayer to buy me a car on my 16th birthday and keep it maintained for ever or buy me a new one. Let me assure you....from now on to the day hell freezes over...you are "arty" to me.....lol.

BitaTruble -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 3:20:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpiritedRadiance quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas this is a free country and you get to pick what company you work for Sorry Aint to free when you have mouths to feed, some times you have to take any job available when theres a 9% country wide unemployment rate and your kids are hungry It's a crock anyway. You don't get to 'pick what company you want to work for' otherwise I'd be working as a talent scout for the 49ers. You only get to apply at company's.. and if they are not hiring, you don't get to work there. If you're not qualified, you don't get to work there. If it's too far away, it's not feasible for you to work there. If it's not the right hours and you can't get a sitter, you don't have a way to work there. If it's not .. well, you get the picture. To make a statement that you get to choose where you work is short sighted at best. The unemployment rate for seniors is WAY over the national average. Bolded for truth! I wonder who has actually done the math to figure out how many penny's we're actually talking about it costing. (Oh, btw: I've done the math, actually, cuz I'm geeky that way.. I would be interested in seeing what the actual number in dollars and cents is for this alleged burden on the tax payers.) Anyone? Ferris? Anyone? I would share my results, but honestly, unless you do the math yourself (from information which is all available on the net) I doubt if anyone would believe just how small the total is on this issue. I will say this.. I wouldn't be able to buy even a single piece of Double Bubble with it if I saved up for a whole year. GOP is shooting itself in the foot with female voters over the price of a stick of gum. Sad.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 3:20:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr This is an absolute distortion of the position. That's just fucking hilarious, considering the crack-smoking delusional fantasy which comes next! quote: They do *not* have a right to reach into my pocket to pay for it. That is what the issue is here. People who say that they're paying for other people's insurance premiums are lying. You should consider their lack of honesty and honor when you judge their other statements. It's pretty clear this is just a poorly thought out, transparent lie. That's the pity. They're choosing to hang their hatred of woman, and their desire to reduce them to chattel breeding stock on something which is so stupidly fucking wrong, everyone is pretty much just laughing their balls off at anyone stupid enough to get behind this crackpottery. NO ONE PAYS FOR INSURED'S BENEFITS BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY, AND ONCE THEY CASH YOUR PREMIUM CHECK, IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY AT ALL.. ( go look up 'fungible' ) AND ALL PREMIUMS ARE PAID BY THE INSURED IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE.

jlf1961 -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 3:24:50 PM)
Actually, Birth control pills range between 15 and fifty dollars a month. For people on a tight budget that can be too much. For the people at or below the poverty level, $15 is too much to spare. By the some insurance companies cover Viagra BUT NOT any form of birth control. Oh, in some circumstances, depending on if the state covers outpatient medications, viagra is covered under MEDICAID.

Moonhead -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 3:26:48 PM)
Well, that's what this whole pissing match is about in the first place, isn't it?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 3:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, Birth control pills range between 15 and fifty dollars a month. For people on a tight budget that can be too much. For the people at or below the poverty level, $15 is too much to spare. By the some insurance companies cover Viagra BUT NOT any form of birth control. Actually, they go as low as $9 per month but that's not even the issue. Once again: The issue is: Do we force - by means of law - a religion to violate its own tenents? Do we violate the sanctity of religious freedom by forcing them - by means of law - to act as a conduit for what they consider to be sin? I gave a good analogy on another thread ... I believe that street drugs should be legal though I detest what they do to people and familes. I believe it is "your" right to put whatever shit you want to into your body. Would you favor a law requiring me to give you a ride downtown to go "cop"? No reasonable person would but that is what is being asked of religious-based businesses. It really is that simple, when you remove all the bullshit and spin (I guess they're synonymous). Peace and comfort, Michael

Moonhead -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Di (3/17/2012 3:35:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Do we force - by means of law - a religion to violate its own tenents? Do we violate the sanctity of religious freedom by forcing them - by means of law - to act as a conduit for what they consider to be sin? No, the issue is: do we allow a religion to dictate the behaviour of others who are not members of that religion to humour their beliefs however much it might inconvenience those who have a different set of beliefs? People are entitled to believe whatever absurd crap they want. They are not entitled to have anybody who believes otherwise humour them.

farglebargle -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 3:36:38 PM)
quote: The issue is: Do we force - by means of law - a religion to violate its own tenents? The issue is: WHERE DID YOU GET THIS STUPID FUCKING IDEA THAT ANYONE BUT THE INSURED PAID FOR THEIR INSURANCE CONTRACT WITH THE INSURER? I really want to know. You keep spouting this insanity, and I think you're poisoning the discussion with the continued shitting on the thread with it...

Lucylastic -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Di (3/17/2012 3:37:36 PM)
People are entitled to believe whatever absurd crap they want. They are not entitled to have anybody who believes otherwise humour them. WORD

SpiritedRadiance -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 3:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually, Birth control pills range between 15 and fifty dollars a month. For people on a tight budget that can be too much. For the people at or below the poverty level, $15 is too much to spare. By the some insurance companies cover Viagra BUT NOT any form of birth control. Oh, in some circumstances, depending on if the state covers outpatient medications, viagra is covered under MEDICAID. Again If i went to some place other then planned parenthood when my shot wasnt covered my shot of depo would be 375 dollars.. 30 for the script 30 for administration 315 for the medication

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 3:59:30 PM)
DS, you have a BMI of 28. That's overweight. That means people who are fit in your insurance risk pool have to pay increased premiums because of you and your bad food and exercise choices. Why do you get to reach in their pocket? Why is how much extra it is going to cost only an issue for reproductive care? quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr This is an absolute distortion of the position. Ladies have a right to BC. They do *not* have a right to reach into my pocket to pay for it. That is what the issue is here. Peace and comfort, Michael

Moonhead -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 4:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Why is how much extra it is going to cost only an issue for reproductive care? Because it makes the people arguing against it sound like they're making a rational argument, rather than believing that the renaissance and the various forms of social progress that followed it over the next five hundred odd years was a bad thing, I'd suspect.

tj444 -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Wom (3/17/2012 4:12:24 PM)
Arent those cancer sticks he is sucking on in his pics??? How much does it cost to treat someone for a preventable cancer and care??? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet DS, you have a BMI of 28. That's overweight. That means people who are fit in your insurance risk pool have to pay increased premiums because of you and your bad food and exercise choices. Why do you get to reach in their pocket? Why is how much extra it is going to cost only an issue for reproductive care? quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr This is an absolute distortion of the position. Ladies have a right to BC. They do *not* have a right to reach into my pocket to pay for it. That is what the issue is here. Peace and comfort, Michael

tazzygirl -> RE: Rush Suggests GOP Is Not Anti-Woman Because Republicans "Take Women To Dinner. They Buy Women Diamon (3/17/2012 5:25:16 PM)
quote: Once again: The issue is: Do we force - by means of law - a religion to violate its own tenents? Do we violate the sanctity of religious freedom by forcing them - by means of law - to act as a conduit for what they consider to be sin? We "force" them all the time. Sharia law Human sacrifices Polygamy Incest ... http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy25.html Drug use None of these are considered "a sin" by their respective religions.. yet they are banned and illegal. So, yes, we do tell religions what they can and cannot do everyday. Hopefully, someone will show you this. Its a shame you continue on so uninformed.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875