Heads Explode Over “Islam Is RIGHT About Women” Posters

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[daveman]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

 

[daveman]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

You're an idiot. Republicans pushed through women's voting rights that Democrats fought tooth and nail. And now, it's Democrats who hate the skirts off traditional women who raise their own children without anyone else's help.

Democrats believe women are nothing more than their genitals, concerned only with abortion and free birth control.

You never see liberal women protesting wearing brain costumes.

 

[Third Party]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

So you support the Democrat Party, which fights for the rights of cross dressing queers....I mean “transgenders”, to compete in sports against women. Wow, how great for girls, they can now get destroyed in sports by biological men and have no chance at winning.

But hey, Republicans are worse because they believe boys should be raised to become men, and girls should become women. How awful to teach boys they should someday get married to a woman and take of her, and raise their children together. Oh the humanity!

You are more concerned about some gender-related issues than with the fact that the republicans placed a female scumbag at DHS to oversee birth-control programs, involving hundreds of thousands of people and millions of taxpayer dollars, when she is so stupid as to want to keep as many people as possible ignorant of these matters so that she can increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and encourage the spread of STDs? What is her motive? What is the compelling government interest in allowing her to do this?

Who is the woman, and at least it is a woman. Do you really believe she wants to hurt people or is it more likely these are cost cutting measures?

 

[Third Party]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

This one went into default mode.
When all else fails blame "Republicans ", "Christians" and the" right wing patriarchy "

View attachment 280685

Sorry, the bottom picture bothers me. I may be wrong, but that's my honest opinion.

 

[Third Party]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

View attachment 280698 View attachment 280699

What would happen to them if they took off the headgear?

 

[wamose]

It doesn't matter to liberal women if Muslims think they're sub human because the Democratic party trumps that. Votes are what matters to them and anything else including well being, health and love of country don't mean squat. Democrats are unfit to rule

 

[Lysistrata]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

Well the Democrats love Islam so there's that. But it's useless trying to reason with you

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

 

[Lysistrata]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

So you support the Democrat Party, which fights for the rights of cross dressing queers....I mean “transgenders”, to compete in sports against women. Wow, how great for girls, they can now get destroyed in sports by biological men and have no chance at winning.

But hey, Republicans are worse because they believe boys should be raised to become men, and girls should become women. How awful to teach boys they should someday get married to a woman and take of her, and raise their children together. Oh the humanity!

You are more concerned about some gender-related issues than with the fact that the republicans placed a female scumbag at DHS to oversee birth-control programs, involving hundreds of thousands of people and millions of taxpayer dollars, when she is so stupid as to want to keep as many people as possible ignorant of these matters so that she can increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and encourage the spread of STDs? What is her motive? What is the compelling government interest in allowing her to do this?

Who is the woman, and at least it is a woman. Do you really believe she wants to hurt people or is it more likely these are cost cutting measures?

Yes. Her name is Valerie Huber, an "abstinence-freak"and she does want to hurt people. She wants to increase unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of STDs, at tremendous human and social costs. The federal government should remain neutral and play no part in pushing "morality" or a cult agenda. There is no legitimate reason for government to push any ideology on the American People and certainly no reason to waste our money on it. Moreover, she and her cronies have already wasted millions of taxpayer funds, and now the government is throwing $277 million more her way? The only role of government programs is to provide the American People with correct and unbiased information, on these or any other topics.

Pro-abstinence Trump official in complete control of federal family planning funds: report

Huber has never come out with a rational explanation for her actions as a government official, even though she spouts abstinence only, which some jackass has renamed as the neutral-sounding "sexual risk avoidance." One of the articles I read mentioned that she was incensed that her son was told at school not to have sex before marriage, but if he did, to use a condom. I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy or an STD on anyone, but does this woman have a no brain that she wouldn't want her son to protect himself? Everybody knows that teenagers are raging hormone factories.

It's okay to discuss abstinence as a part of a comprehensive curriculum that is supported by medical and scientific evidence, so that people can choose among their options. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood's website contains a discussion of abstinence, along with information on other types of contraception, including failure rates.

Censorship has no place in our society, particularly when it endangers the health and welfare of some of our society's most vulnerable people.

I think that if Huber were to take her "abstinence-only" message to the average military base, college, or club, she would be laughed off the planet.

 

[SweetSue92]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

Well the Democrats love Islam so there's that. But it's useless trying to reason with you

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

By "rational" you mean talking about my love of "frankie" all the time and me "servicing my master" right? or is that only when your meds wear off?

 

[Third Party]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

Well the Democrats love Islam so there's that. But it's useless trying to reason with you

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

I don't think Democrats support freedom of religion. They poo poo the Catholic ban on abortions and the Evangelical protests. I have not yet seen them criticize Islam

 

[Third Party]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

So you support the Democrat Party, which fights for the rights of cross dressing queers....I mean “transgenders”, to compete in sports against women. Wow, how great for girls, they can now get destroyed in sports by biological men and have no chance at winning.

But hey, Republicans are worse because they believe boys should be raised to become men, and girls should become women. How awful to teach boys they should someday get married to a woman and take of her, and raise their children together. Oh the humanity!

You are more concerned about some gender-related issues than with the fact that the republicans placed a female scumbag at DHS to oversee birth-control programs, involving hundreds of thousands of people and millions of taxpayer dollars, when she is so stupid as to want to keep as many people as possible ignorant of these matters so that she can increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and encourage the spread of STDs? What is her motive? What is the compelling government interest in allowing her to do this?

Who is the woman, and at least it is a woman. Do you really believe she wants to hurt people or is it more likely these are cost cutting measures?

Yes. Her name is Valerie Huber, an "abstinence-freak"and she does want to hurt people. She wants to increase unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of STDs, at tremendous human and social costs. The federal government should remain neutral and play no part in pushing "morality" or a cult agenda. There is no legitimate reason for government to push any ideology on the American People and certainly no reason to waste our money on it. Moreover, she and her cronies have already wasted millions of taxpayer funds, and now the government is throwing $277 million more her way? The only role of government programs is to provide the American People with correct and unbiased information, on these or any other topics.

Pro-abstinence Trump official in complete control of federal family planning funds: report

Huber has never come out with a rational explanation for her actions as a government official, even though she spouts abstinence only, which some jackass has renamed as the neutral-sounding "sexual risk avoidance." One of the articles I read mentioned that she was incensed that her son was told at school not to have sex before marriage, but if he did, to use a condom. I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy or an STD on anyone, but does this woman have a no brain that she wouldn't want her son to protect himself? Everybody knows that teenagers are raging hormone factories.

It's okay to discuss abstinence as a part of a comprehensive curriculum that is supported by medical and scientific evidence, so that people can choose among their options. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood's website contains a discussion of abstinence, along with information on other types of contraception, including failure rates.

Censorship has no place in our society, particularly when it endangers the health and welfare of some of our society's most vulnerable people.

I think that if Huber were to take her "abstinence-only" message to the average military base, college, or club, she would be laughed off the planet.

I agree that government should not be in the morality business. I don't care if girls spread their legs for anything wearing pants, but they AND their partners HAVE to pay for it, including child welfare. Not one red cent for education either way, abortions, condoms, pills, hospital stays, or unemployment, Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Lysistrata]

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

So you support the Democrat Party, which fights for the rights of cross dressing queers....I mean “transgenders”, to compete in sports against women. Wow, how great for girls, they can now get destroyed in sports by biological men and have no chance at winning.

But hey, Republicans are worse because they believe boys should be raised to become men, and girls should become women. How awful to teach boys they should someday get married to a woman and take of her, and raise their children together. Oh the humanity!

You are more concerned about some gender-related issues than with the fact that the republicans placed a female scumbag at DHS to oversee birth-control programs, involving hundreds of thousands of people and millions of taxpayer dollars, when she is so stupid as to want to keep as many people as possible ignorant of these matters so that she can increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and encourage the spread of STDs? What is her motive? What is the compelling government interest in allowing her to do this?

Who is the woman, and at least it is a woman. Do you really believe she wants to hurt people or is it more likely these are cost cutting measures?

Yes. Her name is Valerie Huber, an "abstinence-freak"and she does want to hurt people. She wants to increase unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of STDs, at tremendous human and social costs. The federal government should remain neutral and play no part in pushing "morality" or a cult agenda. There is no legitimate reason for government to push any ideology on the American People and certainly no reason to waste our money on it. Moreover, she and her cronies have already wasted millions of taxpayer funds, and now the government is throwing $277 million more her way? The only role of government programs is to provide the American People with correct and unbiased information, on these or any other topics.

Pro-abstinence Trump official in complete control of federal family planning funds: report

Huber has never come out with a rational explanation for her actions as a government official, even though she spouts abstinence only, which some jackass has renamed as the neutral-sounding "sexual risk avoidance." One of the articles I read mentioned that she was incensed that her son was told at school not to have sex before marriage, but if he did, to use a condom. I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy or an STD on anyone, but does this woman have a no brain that she wouldn't want her son to protect himself? Everybody knows that teenagers are raging hormone factories.

It's okay to discuss abstinence as a part of a comprehensive curriculum that is supported by medical and scientific evidence, so that people can choose among their options. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood's website contains a discussion of abstinence, along with information on other types of contraception, including failure rates.

Censorship has no place in our society, particularly when it endangers the health and welfare of some of our society's most vulnerable people.

I think that if Huber were to take her "abstinence-only" message to the average military base, college, or club, she would be laughed off the planet.

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

Well the Democrats love Islam so there's that. But it's useless trying to reason with you

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

I don't think Democrats support freedom of religion. They poo poo the Catholic ban on abortions and the Evangelical protests. I have not yet seen them criticize Islam

Refusing to make some specific religious dogma into public policy that would apply to all Americans is not "poo poo[ing]" anything. It's just saying everyone should be free to make their own decisions according to their beliefs, regardless of whether they embrace a certain religion or do not follow any religion. That's a level playing field.

We all don't want to give one dime to some group or other. You seem to have a very weird, very dirty view of heterosexuality, particularly female heterosexuality. Have you only had relationships with people you pay? You apparently think that Americans' husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends spend their lives in back alleys, which is pretty disgusting.

Please address the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" education ("sexual risk avoidance"). Please address what the legitimate government interest is in paying for the spread of a "moral" message that is supported by some religious groups and is not supported by a great number of Americans, in lieu of paying for complete, unbiased information that is supported by the the conclusions of our nation's medical professionals. I don't want to pay for this shit.

Why not go and ask your buddies whether they have followed this message in all of their personal decisions. I still think that the "abstinence-only" message would be laughed off of every military base, college campus, and club in the country. Bet you voted for the orange whore, one of the biggest sluts of the last hundred years.

 

[Third Party]

So you support the Democrat Party, which fights for the rights of cross dressing queers....I mean “transgenders”, to compete in sports against women. Wow, how great for girls, they can now get destroyed in sports by biological men and have no chance at winning.

But hey, Republicans are worse because they believe boys should be raised to become men, and girls should become women. How awful to teach boys they should someday get married to a woman and take of her, and raise their children together. Oh the humanity!

You are more concerned about some gender-related issues than with the fact that the republicans placed a female scumbag at DHS to oversee birth-control programs, involving hundreds of thousands of people and millions of taxpayer dollars, when she is so stupid as to want to keep as many people as possible ignorant of these matters so that she can increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and encourage the spread of STDs? What is her motive? What is the compelling government interest in allowing her to do this?

Who is the woman, and at least it is a woman. Do you really believe she wants to hurt people or is it more likely these are cost cutting measures?

Yes. Her name is Valerie Huber, an "abstinence-freak"and she does want to hurt people. She wants to increase unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of STDs, at tremendous human and social costs. The federal government should remain neutral and play no part in pushing "morality" or a cult agenda. There is no legitimate reason for government to push any ideology on the American People and certainly no reason to waste our money on it. Moreover, she and her cronies have already wasted millions of taxpayer funds, and now the government is throwing $277 million more her way? The only role of government programs is to provide the American People with correct and unbiased information, on these or any other topics.

Pro-abstinence Trump official in complete control of federal family planning funds: report

Huber has never come out with a rational explanation for her actions as a government official, even though she spouts abstinence only, which some jackass has renamed as the neutral-sounding "sexual risk avoidance." One of the articles I read mentioned that she was incensed that her son was told at school not to have sex before marriage, but if he did, to use a condom. I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy or an STD on anyone, but does this woman have a no brain that she wouldn't want her son to protect himself? Everybody knows that teenagers are raging hormone factories.

It's okay to discuss abstinence as a part of a comprehensive curriculum that is supported by medical and scientific evidence, so that people can choose among their options. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood's website contains a discussion of abstinence, along with information on other types of contraception, including failure rates.

Censorship has no place in our society, particularly when it endangers the health and welfare of some of our society's most vulnerable people.

I think that if Huber were to take her "abstinence-only" message to the average military base, college, or club, she would be laughed off the planet.

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

Well the Democrats love Islam so there's that. But it's useless trying to reason with you

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

I don't think Democrats support freedom of religion. They poo poo the Catholic ban on abortions and the Evangelical protests. I have not yet seen them criticize Islam

Refusing to make some specific religious dogma into public policy that would apply to all Americans is not "poo poo[ing]" anything. It's just saying everyone should be free to make their own decisions according to their beliefs, regardless of whether they embrace a certain religion or do not follow any religion. That's a level playing field.

We all don't want to give one dime to some group or other. You seem to have a very weird, very dirty view of heterosexuality, particularly female heterosexuality. Have you only had relationships with people you pay? You apparently think that Americans' husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends spend their lives in back alleys, which is pretty disgusting.

Please address the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" education ("sexual risk avoidance"). Please address what the legitimate government interest is in paying for the spread of a "moral" message that is supported by some religious groups and is not supported by a great number of Americans, in lieu of paying for complete, unbiased information that is supported by the the conclusions of our nation's medical professionals. I don't want to pay for this shit.

Why not go and ask your buddies whether they have followed this message in all of their personal decisions. I still think that the "abstinence-only" message would be laughed off of every military base, college campus, and club in the country. Bet you voted for the orange whore, one of the biggest sluts of the last hundred years.

I like sex, but my views are different than yours. In my high school graduating class, none of the girls were pregnant. I don't see why you or I should pay for someone else's night of fun. I have a wife so you are right, I pay for sex one way or another. I believe in freedom of religion so believe the way you want-I don't want to pay for that either, drop a fiver in the collection plate on Sunday. And my buddies have said things about girls that would make you cringe, which I DON"T approve.

 

[daveman]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

View attachment 280698 View attachment 280699

What would happen to them if they took off the headgear?

In America? Nothing from the government. A beating from the husband, maybe.

In a Muslim nation? Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[daveman]

Well, you can't support a woman hating group if you are a woman, can you? Bet some guy opening the door for you doesn't look too bad now, does it?

I don't know what the door opening thing is about, but women always have to be careful about whom we support. This is why I will never vote for a republican. The republican party's record of sexism and misogyny is absolutely awful. And some of these "religious" cults that the republicans suck up to are rife with sexism and misogyny, as well. Not to mention their treatment of LGBTs.

Well the Democrats love Islam so there's that. But it's useless trying to reason with you

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

I don't think Democrats support freedom of religion. They poo poo the Catholic ban on abortions and the Evangelical protests. I have not yet seen them criticize Islam

And they won't. They're too busy trying for force religious institutions to fund abortions.

Well, not Islamic ones, of course. Muslims don't have to be under the leftist boot.

 

[Lysistrata]

You are more concerned about some gender-related issues than with the fact that the republicans placed a female scumbag at DHS to oversee birth-control programs, involving hundreds of thousands of people and millions of taxpayer dollars, when she is so stupid as to want to keep as many people as possible ignorant of these matters so that she can increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and encourage the spread of STDs? What is her motive? What is the compelling government interest in allowing her to do this?

Who is the woman, and at least it is a woman. Do you really believe she wants to hurt people or is it more likely these are cost cutting measures?

Yes. Her name is Valerie Huber, an "abstinence-freak"and she does want to hurt people. She wants to increase unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of STDs, at tremendous human and social costs. The federal government should remain neutral and play no part in pushing "morality" or a cult agenda. There is no legitimate reason for government to push any ideology on the American People and certainly no reason to waste our money on it. Moreover, she and her cronies have already wasted millions of taxpayer funds, and now the government is throwing $277 million more her way? The only role of government programs is to provide the American People with correct and unbiased information, on these or any other topics.

Pro-abstinence Trump official in complete control of federal family planning funds: report

Huber has never come out with a rational explanation for her actions as a government official, even though she spouts abstinence only, which some jackass has renamed as the neutral-sounding "sexual risk avoidance." One of the articles I read mentioned that she was incensed that her son was told at school not to have sex before marriage, but if he did, to use a condom. I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy or an STD on anyone, but does this woman have a no brain that she wouldn't want her son to protect himself? Everybody knows that teenagers are raging hormone factories.

It's okay to discuss abstinence as a part of a comprehensive curriculum that is supported by medical and scientific evidence, so that people can choose among their options. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood's website contains a discussion of abstinence, along with information on other types of contraception, including failure rates.

Censorship has no place in our society, particularly when it endangers the health and welfare of some of our society's most vulnerable people.

I think that if Huber were to take her "abstinence-only" message to the average military base, college, or club, she would be laughed off the planet.

Well the Democrats love Islam so there's that. But it's useless trying to reason with you

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

I don't think Democrats support freedom of religion. They poo poo the Catholic ban on abortions and the Evangelical protests. I have not yet seen them criticize Islam

Refusing to make some specific religious dogma into public policy that would apply to all Americans is not "poo poo[ing]" anything. It's just saying everyone should be free to make their own decisions according to their beliefs, regardless of whether they embrace a certain religion or do not follow any religion. That's a level playing field.

We all don't want to give one dime to some group or other. You seem to have a very weird, very dirty view of heterosexuality, particularly female heterosexuality. Have you only had relationships with people you pay? You apparently think that Americans' husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends spend their lives in back alleys, which is pretty disgusting.

Please address the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" education ("sexual risk avoidance"). Please address what the legitimate government interest is in paying for the spread of a "moral" message that is supported by some religious groups and is not supported by a great number of Americans, in lieu of paying for complete, unbiased information that is supported by the the conclusions of our nation's medical professionals. I don't want to pay for this shit.

Why not go and ask your buddies whether they have followed this message in all of their personal decisions. I still think that the "abstinence-only" message would be laughed off of every military base, college campus, and club in the country. Bet you voted for the orange whore, one of the biggest sluts of the last hundred years.

I like sex, but my views are different than yours. In my high school graduating class, none of the girls were pregnant. I don't see why you or I should pay for someone else's night of fun. I have a wife so you are right, I pay for sex one way or another. I believe in freedom of religion so believe the way you want-I don't want to pay for that either, drop a fiver in the collection plate on Sunday. And my buddies have said things about girls that would make you cringe, which I DON"T approve.

It may be many nights of "fun." The majority of Americans who have heterosexual sex have it with people with whom they are in relationships, boyfriends and girlfriends, husbands and wives. People don't have sex just to have babies, you know. Your quote in #32 (I see that I messed up the quotes) that "I don't care if girls spread their legs for anything wearing pants" seems to imply that Americans are promiscuous people, both women and men, which is pretty offensive.

Freedom of religion should also mean that we don't pay for the advancement of religious dogma, which Huber and her ilk are doing and using public money to do. There is no legitimate reason for the government to grant her views primacy over others and abandon a policy of neutrality, so the previous millions and the award of $277 million must be examined. It smells like waste, fraud, and abuse.

I don't agree with you. I'm okay with paying for treatment of conditions related to pregnancy, for treatment of STD's, for contraceptive exams, etc. in military and VA hospitals, for instance, despite the fact that these conditions are connected to "fun."

BTW: I think that your wife also pays for sex. If she performs the duties of a "housewife," she surely does.

 

[Third Party]

Who is the woman, and at least it is a woman. Do you really believe she wants to hurt people or is it more likely these are cost cutting measures?

Yes. Her name is Valerie Huber, an "abstinence-freak"and she does want to hurt people. She wants to increase unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, abortions, and the spread of STDs, at tremendous human and social costs. The federal government should remain neutral and play no part in pushing "morality" or a cult agenda. There is no legitimate reason for government to push any ideology on the American People and certainly no reason to waste our money on it. Moreover, she and her cronies have already wasted millions of taxpayer funds, and now the government is throwing $277 million more her way? The only role of government programs is to provide the American People with correct and unbiased information, on these or any other topics.

Pro-abstinence Trump official in complete control of federal family planning funds: report

Huber has never come out with a rational explanation for her actions as a government official, even though she spouts abstinence only, which some jackass has renamed as the neutral-sounding "sexual risk avoidance." One of the articles I read mentioned that she was incensed that her son was told at school not to have sex before marriage, but if he did, to use a condom. I wouldn't wish an unwanted pregnancy or an STD on anyone, but does this woman have a no brain that she wouldn't want her son to protect himself? Everybody knows that teenagers are raging hormone factories.

It's okay to discuss abstinence as a part of a comprehensive curriculum that is supported by medical and scientific evidence, so that people can choose among their options. Incidentally, Planned Parenthood's website contains a discussion of abstinence, along with information on other types of contraception, including failure rates.

Censorship has no place in our society, particularly when it endangers the health and welfare of some of our society's most vulnerable people.

I think that if Huber were to take her "abstinence-only" message to the average military base, college, or club, she would be laughed off the planet.

Supporting freedom of religion is a whole lot different than "loving" a particular religion. You should know this if you are a teacher. You should know this if you are rational.

I don't think Democrats support freedom of religion. They poo poo the Catholic ban on abortions and the Evangelical protests. I have not yet seen them criticize Islam

Refusing to make some specific religious dogma into public policy that would apply to all Americans is not "poo poo[ing]" anything. It's just saying everyone should be free to make their own decisions according to their beliefs, regardless of whether they embrace a certain religion or do not follow any religion. That's a level playing field.

We all don't want to give one dime to some group or other. You seem to have a very weird, very dirty view of heterosexuality, particularly female heterosexuality. Have you only had relationships with people you pay? You apparently think that Americans' husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends spend their lives in back alleys, which is pretty disgusting.

Please address the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" education ("sexual risk avoidance"). Please address what the legitimate government interest is in paying for the spread of a "moral" message that is supported by some religious groups and is not supported by a great number of Americans, in lieu of paying for complete, unbiased information that is supported by the the conclusions of our nation's medical professionals. I don't want to pay for this shit.

Why not go and ask your buddies whether they have followed this message in all of their personal decisions. I still think that the "abstinence-only" message would be laughed off of every military base, college campus, and club in the country. Bet you voted for the orange whore, one of the biggest sluts of the last hundred years.

I like sex, but my views are different than yours. In my high school graduating class, none of the girls were pregnant. I don't see why you or I should pay for someone else's night of fun. I have a wife so you are right, I pay for sex one way or another. I believe in freedom of religion so believe the way you want-I don't want to pay for that either, drop a fiver in the collection plate on Sunday. And my buddies have said things about girls that would make you cringe, which I DON"T approve.

It may be many nights of "fun." The majority of Americans who have heterosexual sex have it with people with whom they are in relationships, boyfriends and girlfriends, husbands and wives. People don't have sex just to have babies, you know. Your quote in #32 (I see that I messed up the quotes) that "I don't care if girls spread their legs for anything wearing pants" seems to imply that Americans are promiscuous people, both women and men, which is pretty offensive.

Freedom of religion should also mean that we don't pay for the advancement of religious dogma, which Huber and her ilk are doing and using public money to do. There is no legitimate reason for the government to grant her views primacy over others and abandon a policy of neutrality, so the previous millions and the award of $277 million must be examined. It smells like waste, fraud, and abuse.

I don't agree with you. I'm okay with paying for treatment of conditions related to pregnancy, for treatment of STD's, for contraceptive exams, etc. in military and VA hospitals, for instance, despite the fact that these conditions are connected to "fun."

BTW: I think that your wife also pays for sex. If she performs the duties of a "housewife," she surely does.

Why do you agree to pay for other people's problems THEY caused? They will never learn. No, not all Americans are sex crazy-I was jazzing up the post. So we agree to disagree. But, I don't want money going to religious stuff.