Honest question: Why is it so important for liberals.......

Honest question: How come they call it "taking a dump" when you're not actually "taking" it anywhere? They should call it "leaving a dump!" FUNK THAT.

/ClassicBeavisandButthead
 
Why do Progs believe they'll be better off with government running their lives, are they THAT pathetic?
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Well, the obvious answer is the more women on birth control the fewer abortions will be performed. The reason the GOP made a big deal about insurance covering birth control is ... drum roll please ... without abortion how could GOP demagogues get the social conservaties to vote against their best interests.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Well, the obvious answer is the more women on birth control the fewer abortions will be performed. The reason the GOP made a big deal about insurance covering birth control is ... drum roll please ... without abortion how could GOP demagogues get the social conservaties to vote against their best interests.
So no one should be able to opt out of birth control coverage ( if they want insurance) in order to prevent more abortions....that is the weakest excuse for abridging a liberty interest I have yet heard.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Well, the obvious answer is the more women on birth control the fewer abortions will be performed. The reason the GOP made a big deal about insurance covering birth control is ... drum roll please ... without abortion how could GOP demagogues get the social conservaties to vote against their best interests.
So no one should be able to opt out of birth control coverage ( if they want insurance) in order to prevent more abortions....that is the weakest excuse for abridging a liberty interest I have yet heard.

Um, why not respond to my post and not make shit up. Oh, of course.

If the GOP were opposed to abortion, they would have put anti abortion legislation on the table when they held both houses of Congress and GWB was President. Today the House has focused on abortion - and ignored real job legislation - because they know the GOP can only win if there exists wedge issues to exploit.

The evidence is clear, and BTW, it seems the Liberty Interests of women are the only liberty issue under attack today - yet the right continues the drum beat of God, Guns, Gays and Abortion.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Well, the obvious answer is the more women on birth control the fewer abortions will be performed. The reason the GOP made a big deal about insurance covering birth control is ... drum roll please ... without abortion how could GOP demagogues get the social conservaties to vote against their best interests.
So no one should be able to opt out of birth control coverage ( if they want insurance) in order to prevent more abortions....that is the weakest excuse for abridging a liberty interest I have yet heard.
everyone has the right to opt out on birth control....they just don't have to get it for themselves....don't take it if it is against your religion, simple as that....
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

I thought the ACA only required that employer provided health care plans provide contraception - not that all health care plans provide it.
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

The problem with your OP is that you start off with an ignorant over generalization and premise. Are all conservatives a homogenous group and think exactly the same? How are they allegedly " remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control"?
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

Well, the obvious answer is the more women on birth control the fewer abortions will be performed. The reason the GOP made a big deal about insurance covering birth control is ... drum roll please ... without abortion how could GOP demagogues get the social conservaties to vote against their best interests.

no....it's against freedom of religion....and our Constitution.....goals of lefties....

religious conservatives don't believe in abortion.....they believe in promoting life and marriage....not the death of unborn innocents and "free sex" without marriage....

so religious schools choose to not provide birth control/abortifacients in their insurance coverage....attendees have the choice to not attend the school if it's a big problem for them...

obviously Obama doesn't believe in the rights of religious people to choose their own type of insurance coverage.....

thus Obama is a top-down dictator.....who spits on our Constitution.....:mad:
 
Last edited:
Nice try. You mean like me having to pay mandated taxes to support a standing army. Money I could use on something of my own interest and be tightfisted like you and its my money I earned it. Nice argument but it doesn't hold water.
And before all of the right wing nuts start screaming about patriotism and the constitution, read it first.





To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.
 
Last edited:
Nice try. You mean like me having to pay mandated taxes to support a standing army. Money I could use on something of my own interest and be tightfisted like you and its my money I earned it. Nice argument but it doesn't hold water.
And before all of the right wing nuts start screaming about patriotism and the constitution, read it first.





To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

supporting an army is in the Constitution just like freedom of religion.....

supporting birth control isn't....

nice try...
 
Nay, read the constitution again a little slower and all the words. Ok!
Nice try.


Nice try. You mean like me having to pay mandated taxes to support a standing army. Money I could use on something of my own interest and be tightfisted like you and its my money I earned it. Nice argument but it doesn't hold water.
And before all of the right wing nuts start screaming about patriotism and the constitution, read it first.





To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

supporting an army is in the Constitution just like freedom of religion.....

supporting birth control isn't....

nice try...
 
Nay, read the constitution again a little slower and all the words. Ok!
Nice try.


Nice try. You mean like me having to pay mandated taxes to support a standing army. Money I could use on something of my own interest and be tightfisted like you and its my money I earned it. Nice argument but it doesn't hold water.
And before all of the right wing nuts start screaming about patriotism and the constitution, read it first.

supporting an army is in the Constitution just like freedom of religion.....

supporting birth control isn't....

nice try...

try it yourself...

Article 1,Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

1ST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
 
To remove the freedom of Americans to purchase insurance that does not cover birth control? I mean, that what this whole issue with Sandra fluk is all about isn't it? It's not about access- contraceptives are readily available. And they are inexpensive. And they are, for women only, covered by most insurance policies. So why do they insist that all insurance policies must cover womens( not men's) contraception? How is our country better served by removing the freedom to buy a policy that does not cover contraception?

This is an honest question, so in this entire thread, where I am asking for input from lefties, i will refrain from properly referring to you as OWS parasites.

What really is it any business of yours?

That's pretty honest.

Women should have the choice of whether they want these sort of services or not.

It's up to the indivdual. Not a religion.
What business is it of mine? I am the one paying for my policy! I am a citizen that previously had the right not to purchase birth control coverage. I agree that women should have the right to these services. That is not even at issue. No one is banning contraceptives, or even arguing that policies must not include such coverage. But millions of citizens quietly exercised a freedom that is all but erased. Clearly, that freedom means nothing to you, but to many others it is extremely important. Women will have the choice whether they want these services no matter what. Why do you want to remove my ability to make that decision? That is what makes it my business.

You are paying for your policy. You aren't "purchasing" birth control for anyone. Just like you aren't "purchasing" viagra for anyone. But both those items are available to people purchase THEIR policy.
 
Nay, read the constitution again a little slower and all the words. Ok!
Nice try.


supporting an army is in the Constitution just like freedom of religion.....

supporting birth control isn't....

nice try...

try it yourself...

Article 1,Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

1ST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and you understand none of that, whining eagle. try reading the words in bold
 
Nay, read the constitution again a little slower and all the words. Ok!
Nice try.


supporting an army is in the Constitution just like freedom of religion.....

supporting birth control isn't....

nice try...

try it yourself...

Article 1,Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

1ST Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

As should you..

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It's a Constitution for ALL AMERICANS.
 
What really is it any business of yours?

That's pretty honest.

Women should have the choice of whether they want these sort of services or not.

It's up to the indivdual. Not a religion.
What business is it of mine? I am the one paying for my policy! I am a citizen that previously had the right not to purchase birth control coverage. I agree that women should have the right to these services. That is not even at issue. No one is banning contraceptives, or even arguing that policies must not include such coverage. But millions of citizens quietly exercised a freedom that is all but erased. Clearly, that freedom means nothing to you, but to many others it is extremely important. Women will have the choice whether they want these services no matter what. Why do you want to remove my ability to make that decision? That is what makes it my business.

You are paying for your policy. You aren't "purchasing" birth control for anyone. Just like you aren't "purchasing" viagra for anyone. But both those items are available to people purchase THEIR policy.

the religious school group is the one that negotiates with the insurance providers as to what is included in their group policy.....they do not want to advocate birth control/abortion by including them in their policies....duh
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top