Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes. it's simply awful that women seeking abortions be reminded that the inconvenient clump of cells inside them is actually a human being. She might then take advantage of her freedom of choice and make the wrong choice -- not having an abortion.You must be joking. Government, since I got out of high school, has deregulated everything that was intended to make life, business, labor, the ecology, and banking some things that work for the betterment of citizens lives. You know, the "we" in the people.
Meanwhile, the ones who advocate this "limited" approach to governance also insist that this "small government" be travel sized for convenient intrusion into the actually INDIVIDUAL uterus, anus, and what remains of the lives left standing after those scorched earth policies are done.
Way to hold two diametrically opposite views at the same time, applied ass backwards, and pretend your consistent, or sane.
Utter and complete bullshit.
In 1960, 17 states had sodomy laws - today zero states do. Abortion is actively promoted by the government and HEAVILY subsidized (which is the real fight - it's all about money with PP raking in billions of dollars from the abortion mills.)
You leftists concoct the most outrageous lies, then tell them with a straight face.
Intrusion into the uterus and anus when ALL laws regarding homosexuality are gone and billions in taxpayer money go to support big abortion.
What you claim is exactly 180° from the truth.
Guess why 30 states had NO sodomy laws in 1960?
PP spends pennies on the dollar on abortions.
Guess what law the right wing proposes now in many states? An internal sonogram to show the heartbeat of a baby before a woman can have an abortion. Do you know what that involves? That is putting a large metal machine into a woman's vagina for a long time, moving it around and taking tests with it.
Talk about immoral.
I'm just giving you a hard time over that bullshit post about the $200 dinner blow job.
It's an example to illustrate that there is no victim in the transaction. And the dinner scenario happens all over the nation every weekend night. We don't call it prostitution, but a rose by any other name....
The only problem is, not every woman voluntarily engages in that activity which is why human trafficking is becoming such a large problem.
That only strengthens my argument. Having the sex trade underground protects human traffickers by keeping things in the shadows. An open and regulated business community cuts the profit out of the criminal elements and exposes the entire industry to public scrutiny.
As well as trafficking in underage sex slaves. The Netherlands halved their red light district when an investigation revealed that many of the women were't there voluntarily, nor were they paid.
Do you have a link for this?
Which is another reason why you won't see a downtick in the more gruesome forms of violence for many many years to come.
The best that legalized prositution can end up with is legal prostitution and not a single change in illegal prostitution.
How would illegal prostitution compete with the legal counterpart?
The underground porn rackets are virtually gone, porn has gone Hollywood.
You'll have to remind me where she's restricted from purchasing her own insurance and contraceptives.So she can't refuse a guy's advances and expects everyone else to pay for her lack of control and diminished self image. I guess when you see yourself as a tool you become the tool. Speaks volumes as to her sense of pride and self worth. Sad testament to what we have become as a society.
Asshole, she is a lesbian. She doesn't need BIRTH CONTROL, she needed the complementary HEALTH aspects that those meds ALSO provided.
HOW many times does that little point need to be made?
THIS is the reason your puritanical and primitive superstitions should be kept out of science in general, and HEALTH CARE in particular.
Your financial acumen is similarly suspect, but you're not alone. It is a covered benefit UNDER INSURANCE WHICH IS PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL except where the group that the PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE is sold within chooses to try to stick its nose into in order to restrict benefits.
Yes. it's simply awful that women seeking abortions be reminded that the inconvenient clump of cells inside them is actually a human being. She might then take advantage of her freedom of choice and make the wrong choice -- not having an abortion.Utter and complete bullshit.
In 1960, 17 states had sodomy laws - today zero states do. Abortion is actively promoted by the government and HEAVILY subsidized (which is the real fight - it's all about money with PP raking in billions of dollars from the abortion mills.)
You leftists concoct the most outrageous lies, then tell them with a straight face.
Intrusion into the uterus and anus when ALL laws regarding homosexuality are gone and billions in taxpayer money go to support big abortion.
What you claim is exactly 180° from the truth.
Guess why 30 states had NO sodomy laws in 1960?
PP spends pennies on the dollar on abortions.
Guess what law the right wing proposes now in many states? An internal sonogram to show the heartbeat of a baby before a woman can have an abortion. Do you know what that involves? That is putting a large metal machine into a woman's vagina for a long time, moving it around and taking tests with it.
Talk about immoral.
I don't remember mentioning all that, but I do remember this: "Both of them, but mostly the woman (and all the other women - and girls - who will be beaten, addicted, trafficked, raped, and killed in the process of dehumanization that your little transaction represents)."
Do you remember that? Maybe you overlooked it the first time.
I thought it was you talking about your dates. I owe you an apology. Sorry.
It's a poll, you retard, that proves Cammie's wrong.Democrats love sex and brag about it
.Republicans love sex and lie about it
Primetime Live Poll: More Republicans Satisfied With Sex Lives Than Democrats - ABC News
The poll analysis includes a breakdown by many subgroups, including region, age and even political party affiliation, which is the topic of results released today:
Of those involved in a committed relationship, who is very satisfied with their relationship?
Republicans -- 87 percent; Democrats -- 76 percent
Who is very satisfied with their sex life?
Republicans -- 56 percent; Democrats -- 47 percent
The poll analysis also reveals who has worn something sexy to enhance their sex life:
Republicans -- 72 percent; Democrats -- 62 percent
When asked whether they had ever faked an orgasm, more Democrats (33 percent) than Republicans (26 percent) said they had.
Isn't that a hoot. Is this what you do all day long? Speculate about other people sex lives?
I don't remember mentioning all that, but I do remember this: "Both of them, but mostly the woman (and all the other women - and girls - who will be beaten, addicted, trafficked, raped, and killed in the process of dehumanization that your little transaction represents)."
The best you can do is a slippery slope logical fallacy?
Do you remember that? Maybe you overlooked it the first time.
Pathetic, seriously.
Of course I have a link.
Amsterdam: an end to the red light district? - Telegraph
There is a feeling in Amsterdam that the City Council is finally determined to get to grips with a burgeoning sex, drugs and money laundering industry in the red light district increasingly controlled by eastern European mafias, particularly from Bulgaria and the Ukraine.
Meanwhile, ordinary Amsterdammers have been shocked by an upsurge in cases of human trafficking of girls for the sex industry. There is a strong sense in the city the exploitative reality of the red light district has little to do with traditional Dutch tolerance.
"There had been warning signs starting in the 1990s that organised crime was basically using the area as its living room," says Lodewijk Asscher, deputy mayor of Amsterdam and the head of Project 1012.
You should know that hollywood porn is over. Dead, gone underground overnight. A week or so ago a law was passed requiring the sex workers had to use condoms. The only porn left in Los Angeles is illegal.
I don't remember mentioning all that, but I do remember this: "Both of them, but mostly the woman (and all the other women - and girls - who will be beaten, addicted, trafficked, raped, and killed in the process of dehumanization that your little transaction represents)."
The best you can do is a slippery slope logical fallacy?
You're a retard with internet access. Did you really think you had a point?Yes. it's simply awful that women seeking abortions be reminded that the inconvenient clump of cells inside them is actually a human being. She might then take advantage of her freedom of choice and make the wrong choice -- not having an abortion.Guess why 30 states had NO sodomy laws in 1960?
PP spends pennies on the dollar on abortions.
Guess what law the right wing proposes now in many states? An internal sonogram to show the heartbeat of a baby before a woman can have an abortion. Do you know what that involves? That is putting a large metal machine into a woman's vagina for a long time, moving it around and taking tests with it.
Talk about immoral.
The Right wants to make women give birth to an unwanted child so they can put it to death using lethal chemicals when it's 20-25 years old. Everything about the things Republicans do and or believe in makes no sense or logic whatever. It's kinda like the Taleban in a suit and tie.
There's no slipperly slope. No one is saying that if we legalize prostitution it will lead to illegal prostitution. We are starting out with the valley of the slope. Will legalizing prostitution climb up the slippery slope? No. The answer is no. Sorry.
That's why legalization was such a failure in Australia. It didn't help.
You've been offering solid arguments, he has not. All he offered was a logical fallacy that should we not crack down on the harlots all girls will be sex slaves.
I thought it was you talking about your dates. I owe you an apology. Sorry.
I'm faithfully married. The only dates I have are with my lovely wife. And I don't discuss our sex life.
You'll have to remind me where she's restricted from purchasing her own insurance and contraceptives.So she can't refuse a guy's advances and expects everyone else to pay for her lack of control and diminished self image. I guess when you see yourself as a tool you become the tool. Speaks volumes as to her sense of pride and self worth. Sad testament to what we have become as a society.
Asshole, she is a lesbian. She doesn't need BIRTH CONTROL, she needed the complementary HEALTH aspects that those meds ALSO provided.
HOW many times does that little point need to be made?
THIS is the reason your puritanical and primitive superstitions should be kept out of science in general, and HEALTH CARE in particular.
Your financial acumen is similarly suspect, but you're not alone. It is a covered benefit UNDER INSURANCE WHICH IS PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL except where the group that the PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE is sold within chooses to try to stick its nose into in order to restrict benefits.
Or you can just go ahead and admit she wants free shit paid for by other people.
What a total idiot ...... The containment system in Perth, Australia has been a brilliant success...NOW I KNOW YOU ARE TALKING COMPLETE UNEDUCATED SHIT,moreover keep living in the dark ages.......Australia and Australians are just more progressive.......also legalization in the Netherlands too has been a great success.There's no slipperly slope. No one is saying that if we legalize prostitution it will lead to illegal prostitution. We are starting out with the valley of the slope. Will legalizing prostitution climb up the slippery slope? No. The answer is no. Sorry.
You've been offering solid arguments, he has not. All he offered was a logical fallacy that should we not crack down on the harlots all girls will be sex slaves.
That's why legalization was such a failure in Australia. It didn't help.
The Amsterdam article is interesting, and I'll do some research for other perspectives.
To own a brothel in Perth,you must be a person of repute,this eliminates the criminality and criminal element of which you clearly explained Katz....thank you for your post.stevenBoth of them, but mostly the woman (and all the other women - and girls - who will be beaten, addicted, trafficked, raped, and killed in the process of dehumanization that your little transaction represents).
How is she a "victim" when she voluntarily engages in the activity? That makes no sense. No one was hurt, everyone got what they wanted. The transaction had less affect on the health of either participant than buying a McDonald's greaseburger.
The ONLY argument you have is that you morally object to their behavior - which begs the question of who put you in charge?
The only problem is, not every woman voluntarily engages in that activity which is why human trafficking is becoming such a large problem. As well as trafficking in underage sex slaves. The Netherlands halved their red light district when an investigation revealed that many of the women were't there voluntarily, nor were they paid.
Which is another reason why you won't see a downtick in the more gruesome forms of violence for many many years to come.
The best that legalized prositution can end up with is legal prostitution and not a single change in illegal prostitution.
it's all wonderful and peachy keen, all of your faith in the private market, but it has never ever been that dreamworld that you suggest....insurance is in the business of making money, not saving lives....their obligation is to make their shareholders money, and if that means not covering a procedure or test then that's what the insurance companies would do.... and have done.so, no matter what, you are against any regulation of Health Care Insurance policies....this has nothing to do with "religion"? So you do not think that insurance should be regulated at all regarding the insurance companies having to cover mammograms, or gynecology exams or prostate exams starting at certain ages etc etc etc??? You think they can package any kind of plan they want and call it "insurance" even if it covers NOTHING?I agree with you and that is well said.
Except individuals do not have the right to force their birth control "needs" on their employer's insurance carrier.
Where in the law is that one?
Well, if that is what you are saying....I disagree with you.
Noted that you disagree, but mammograms and gynecology exams and prostate exams would be far more affordable if government would stay out of healthcare altogether. The really core difference between modern American liberalism and conservatism is that liberals tend not to trust people to do the right thing unless they are forced to. Conservatives trust people to do the right thing when it is in their interest to do so. Which insurance policy would you purchase if you had complete choice in what coverages to buy? The woman who has had a double mastectomy has no use for mammograms. It would be great for her to be able to omit that from her coverage in return for lower insurance premiums. Ditto for the guy who has had his prostate removed though he will want coverage for periodic PSA tests. If I am past child bearing age or have had my tubes tied or have had a hysterectomy, it would be a huge savings to be able to buy insurance that does not cover pregnancy and child birth. Child birth has become one of the most expensive routine medical costs purely due to government meddling in insurance coverages while failing to rein in the legal profession who capitalizes on that big time and too often does so unethically.
Let the people and the states work things out with the insurance companies. When there is a need and a market, there will be insurance companies to provide the coverage. Keep the federal one-size-fits-all process out of it altogether. When the federal government can dicate what you must buy, it has absolute power to also tell you what you can't have.
We do not want to give that kind of power to the federal government.
