Rick Santorum Wants Your Sex Life to Be 'Special'

[idb]

Me too!

 

[frazzledgear]

"They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

No one, in my opinion, has the right to tell me how to think. And when words, such as "supposed and should and shouldn't " are spoken to, or at, me, it implies that someone else knows what is better for me, than I do, for myself. I tune that person out.

Why is it when a conservative shares his own opinion , people like you get your hackles us? The man did NOT say he believed it was the proper role of government to force anyone to do this or punish them if they fail to. But when certain behaviors have negative or positive consequences for society, it IS the proper role of elected officials to discourage the one and encourage the other -using WORDS, not the law. The man not only does NOT support using the force and power of government to force citizens to do this -he would oppose any legislation that tried to do so. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have an OPINION about which is the better course for society and why. A stable society is always in the best interests of government and the nation, therefore encouraging people to make better decisions for themselves BECAUSE it benefits society as a whole is always proper. Not FORCE them to make better personal decisions -but ENCOURAGE them to do so.

Promiscuity is a known social ill that carries NUMEROUS NEGATIVE social and health consequences for society as a whole and a hell of a lot of individuals on the personal level. Is it really something you think elected officials should remain neutral about and shouldn't discuss their OPINION about the advisability of people making other decisions instead? Just because a conservative has an OPINION does NOT mean he supports the creation of a law so government can FORCE or PUNISH people in order to force people to do it. But that is EXACTLY what the left is trying to pretend -in order to cover their own beliefs that government should be controlling the minutiae of your life. Santorum only shared his OPINION but would oppose any law that attempted to force people to actually abide by it! I have all sorts of opinions about what I think are wise and not so wise decisions -but would never support the use of government to try and force people to do one and punish them for doing the other! NOT THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. You want to sleep with the entire football team -have it. But when things don't go your way afterwards, we will have a discussion about which if us owes your out of wedlock kid more and who should foot the numerous bills to treat your STDs.

Now consider THAT with what liberals believe -they believe it is the proper use of government to force citizens to behave as the ruling elite liberals wants -that it is the proper role of government to control what we eat and drink for example. Not just encourage us to make healthier choices in our own diets -but should be FORCED to do so and punished when we fail to do so. It is what the totalitarian loving left always does. Only the left supports what happened to that pre-schooler recently. The one who had her perfectly good lunch of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice yanked away during a lunch inspection with a government official on site -and forced her to eat chicken nuggets instead is a mild example. But worse yet, she was specifically told the reason for it was because her mommy had given her a BAD LUNCH, sowing the seeds of distrust between parent and child who asked her mother why she would give her a "bad" lunch that had to be thrown out - and leaving that kid with the impression that government cared more about her than her own mother. Which is obscene. WHO THE FUCK DIED AND MADE THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL DICTATOR? Liberals believe that is the proper use of government even if they think the official might have gone a tad too far in deeming a perfectly normal lunch "bad". And believe it is the proper use of government when a mayor bans all restaurants from using a certain LEGAL FOOD PRODUCT because HE has decided people are just too stupid to decide what they will eat so HE will do it for them and outlaw legal food substances he has decided HE doesn't want others to eat. Doesn't want to just not eat them himself -but doesn't want ANYONE ELSE in "his" city to be allowed to eat it either. WHO THE FUCK DIED AND MADE HIM CHANCELLOR, HUH? Several cities -all headed by Democrats of course, are attempting to inflict punitive tax rates on certain legal food items to punish people for buying them - by hitting them right in the wallet for making "bad" decisions about what they choose to eat and drink. WHO DIED AND MADE THEM MINI-DICTATORS?

All those involve government DOING something to people in an attempt to FORCE them to do what the ruling elite has demanded they do or involves using the force of the law to punish people for not doing it. Way beyond just sharing an opinion. Using the force and power of government to FORCE compliance, now THAT the left can get behind and claim it is all for their own "good" -as defined by the ruling elite, not the individual. Stripping me of power and control over MY OWN LIFE in the name it is for "my own good" is always an abuse of power. Now compare that to Santorum simply SHARING an opinion in the hopes it encourages someone else to re-think their own course of action. Not to use government to FORCE compliance but WORDS to ENCOURAGE people to make a different choice -but as a free people, certainly free to decide whatever they want in the end.

So while liberals definitely believe they have the right to use the force and power of government to FORCE people to do what they demand or be punished for it, right down to punishing you for having a soda pop -at the very same time they go into hysterical hissy fits if anyone expresses a negative OPINION about the social ills that come with having a sex life worthy only of a rodent. The real question here is: WHY? Why is the left INTENT and HOT to control what someone EATS -but gives both tacit and overt approval of a behavior known to cause long term problems to society and in fact is a social ill?

Unless you have read the books the far left hold near and dear all of which detail and lay out the game plan for taking and keeping power, you would not know there is a reason why the left supports a promiscuous society -but not drinking a soda pop. It has zero to do with what is good for you or what is good for society as whole -because promiscuity is a known health hazard that raises your risk of getting dozens of diseases, some of which are potentially life threatening, some of which can leave him/her permanently disfigured, impaired or infertile and even increases your odds of a life struggling with poverty as well as for your children -and therefore is far, far more dangerous than drinking soda pop when the mood strikes. So why would the left support the tacit and overt encouragement of this behavior when it provably brings ZERO benefit to society, but results in numerous negative -and destabilizing -consequences instead? I urge everyone to read the books treated as bibles by the left and are written by leftists and see if you can find out why the left would encourage and WANT more people engaging in a behavior known to be damaging to the individual and society alike -yet think you deserve to be punished for drinking a soda pop.

Claiming elected officials should pretend they have no opinion at all or are neutral about a behavior that damages the individual and society alike - would be like insisting elected officials remain neutral about whether it is good for kids to drop out of school or not.

 

[BluePhantom]

you keep missing the point BluePhool......Planned Parenthood is a government-funded agency along with government educational programs that are enabling teenage sexual activity and not doing the job they should be doing.

Are you really under the impression that if teenagers didn't have access to rubbers they wouldn't fuck?

....and Santorum has every right to address these policy issues in his own style....you just get bent out of shape because it's a Christian-style approach and so your rationality flies out the window...like koshergrl says you can't see past your own paranoia....

Wearing rubbers is not an issue policy!!! Do I believe the government should be funding their distribution? No. Is Santorum within his rights to say he is personally opposed to contraception? Sure. Does he or anyone else have the right to determine for the nation what is moral and what is not? Fuck no. Is he correct that morality and contraception is, as he says, "an important public policy issue?" No way.

You're so busy defending a perceived attack on religion you are overlooking that I support the right of a religion to establish the tenants of their faith.....however, you seem to have the opinion that just because a church says "this is what is moral and this is what is immoral" everyone has to abide by that. Guess what? They don't. People are free to follow or not to follow what the damned church says and society has a funny way of deciding for themselves what is moral and what is not.

as i've said before.....promoting promiscuity among the young affects our society in all kinds of terrible ways.....one important example is the diseases that have become rampant....teenagers lives are even at stake...

the fact that the explosion of disease coincides with promiscuity should not be lost on you.....that is, if you are rational....

The fact that wearing rubbers reduces the rate of transmission of a disease shouldn't be lost on you. But like I said before: you endorse the "people just shouldn't fuck at all" line of thought. Good luck with that one catching on.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Why is it when a conservative shares his own opinion , people like you get your hackles us?

People like whom? Aqua Athena, whom is pretty damn conservative?

The man did NOT say he believed it was the proper role of government to force anyone to do this or punish them if they fail to. But when certain behaviors have negative or positive consequences for society, it IS the proper role of elected officials to discourage the one and encourage the other -using WORDS, not the law.

That is, at best, a stretching apologetic. No, it's not the role of elected officials to encourage behavior through words. As far as I'm concerned, if it's not worthy of legislation (or being in opposition thereof) it's beyond the proper realm of politicians. My life is my life, to live as I see fit. I don't break any laws. I have a job, support myself, pay my taxes, contribute to my community otherwise as best as I can. If I choose to drink myself silly, it's nobody's business other than my own. If I choose to have sex with 20 different consenting women a month, that's my business. No elected official should, within the capacity of his office, have anything to say about it.

The man not only does NOT support using the force and power of government to force citizens to do this -he would oppose any legislation that tried to do so.

Which is exactly why he supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

A stable society is always in the best interests of government and the nation, therefore encouraging people to make better decisions for themselves BECAUSE it benefits society as a whole is always proper.

You're twisted in the head. Society is not here for government, government is here for society. You may as well be saying that a compliant customer is best for business, so business should encourage customers to be compliant and to never complain.

Not FORCE them to make better personal decisions -but ENCOURAGE them to do so.

Yes, "encourage" by supporting such foolish notions as abstinence only sex education and opposing funding for family planning education that doesn't fit that. There's a key for a healthy society. Instead of teaching teens how to use condoms and prevent the spread of diseases, let's "encourage" them to just not have sex at all. Because we all know that it's reasonable and completely within the normal functioning of human nature to expect people to just not have sex ever until they're married.

Promiscuity is a known social ill that carries NUMEROUS NEGATIVE social and health consequences for society as a whole and a hell of a lot of individuals on the personal level.

Humans have been promiscuous for millions of years. So far, we seem to be doing okay. You seem to have a very unhealthy and ill-adjusted attitude toward sexuality. Trying to suppress sexuality is as effective as simply trying to ignore hunger and thinking that you'll get by fine, because gluttony is evil. What our country REALLY needs is to encourage HEALTHY attitudes about sexuality.

Just because a conservative has an OPINION does NOT mean he supports the creation of a law so government can FORCE or PUNISH people in order to force people to do it.

You mean, like when conservatives have opinions about gay marriage, segregation, or abortion?

Santorum only shared his OPINION but would oppose any law that attempted to force people to actually abide by it!

Completely false. This indicates that you really know nothing about Santorum. As a matter of fact, Santorum has explicitly rejected your suggested notions:

In contemporary Western debates, this idea of unity between faith and political allegiance often puts Opus Dei-inspired politicians on the right.

Santorum was a forceful champion of this view. He told NCR that a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, enshrined in John Kennedy’s famous speech in 1960 saying he would not take orders from the Catholic church if elected president, has caused “much harm in America.”

“All of us have heard people say, ‘I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it’s not right for somebody else?’ It sounds good,” Santourm said. “But it is the corruption of freedom of conscience.”

I have all sorts of opinions about what I think are wise and not so wise decisions -but would never support the use of government to try and force people to do one and punish them for doing the other! NOT THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. You want to sleep with the entire football team -have it. But when things don't go your way afterwards, we will have a discussion about which if us owes your out of wedlock kid more and who should foot the numerous bills to treat your STDs.

In other words, you're saying that the government should behave like a parent to the people. Yes, a truly conservative position.

Only the left supports what happened to that pre-schooler recently. The one who had her perfectly good lunch of a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice yanked away during a lunch inspection with a government official on site -and forced her to eat chicken nuggets instead is a mild example.

http://www.orkugifs.com/en/images/Laugh-out-loud_1427.gif

That incident in question was in conservative North Carolina, in conjunction with a state law introduced and passed by Republicans. You really know your stuff.

At this point, since it's so easily clear that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about, I see no need to continue on decimating the rest of your pointlessly long winded diatribe. But suffice it to say, your position holds about as much water as a colander.

 

[oreo]

"They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

No one, in my opinion, has the right to tell me how to think. And when words, such as "supposed and should and shouldn't " are spoken to, or at, me, it implies that someone else knows what is better for me, than I do, for myself. I tune that person out.

I think this is Santorum's idea of SEX in the 21st century---

HEY--I am a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE--& this social right-wing freak nutcase scares the BG's out of me too!

 

[IndependntLogic]

"They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal... but also procreative."

No one, in my opinion, has the right to tell me how to think. And when words, such as "supposed and should and shouldn't " are spoken to, or at, me, it implies that someone else knows what is better for me, than I do, for myself. I tune that person out.

I think this is Santorum's idea of SEX in the 21st century---

HEY--I am a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE--& this social right-wing freak nutcase scares the BG's out of me too!

LOL! Well done sir!

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, cuz we all know that modeling moral behavior and encouraging young people to be monogamous and hold off on sex is the same as dictating to people what they should do in their bedrooms.

Plus, it's just such a BAD idea.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yeah, cuz we all know that modeling moral behavior and encouraging young people to be monogamous and hold off on sex is the same as dictating to people what they should do in their bedrooms.

That has got to be the stupidest thing that's ever been said.

Plus, it's just such a BAD idea.

Yes, it is a bad idea, because it doesn't work, and just causes all kinds of nasty consequences and side effects. It's much better to teach young people about sex, to encourage healthy attitudes with offer factual information to empower them to make their own decisions about their own sex lives, and to encourage them to be safe about the sex they are going to have anyway.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Yeah, cuz we all know that modeling moral behavior and encouraging young people to be monogamous and hold off on sex worked so well for Bristol Palin!

is the same as dictating to people what they should do in their bedrooms.

Plus, it's just such a BAD idea.

Okay we get it. You have no sex life. Those of us who do, would prefer Mr. Santorum not tell us we shouldn't have sex unless we're willing to pop out more babies.

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah, cuz we all know that modeling moral behavior and encouraging young people to be monogamous and hold off on sex worked so well for Bristol Palin!

is the same as dictating to people what they should do in their bedrooms.

Plus, it's just such a BAD idea.

Okay we get it. You have no sex life. Those of us who do, would prefer Mr. Santorum not tell us we shouldn't have sex unless we're willing to pop out more babies.

when did he tells us that?

Offering ones opinion does not mean onje is telling you what to do.....unless you are weak minded and easily persuaded...and constantly walking around with the feelingh of being a subordinate to those with a microphone.

Did I just describe you?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Yeah, cuz we all know that modeling moral behavior and encouraging young people to be monogamous and hold off on sex worked so well for Bristol Palin!

is the same as dictating to people what they should do in their bedrooms.

Plus, it's just such a BAD idea.

Okay we get it. You have no sex life. Those of us who do, would prefer Mr. Santorum not tell us we shouldn't have sex unless we're willing to pop out more babies.

when did he tells us that?

Offering ones opinion does not mean onje is telling you what to do.....unless you are weak minded and easily persuaded...and constantly walking around with the feelingh of being a subordinate to those with a microphone.

Did I just describe you?

Well let's see. When GOP candidates are campaigning on social issues and have been publicly talking about eliminating things like birth control from insurance coverage altogether, anyone but a complete fcuking moron could connect the dots as to why people might be concerned.
Hmmm. Could that last sentence describe you?

 

[Jarhead]

Okay we get it. You have no sex life. Those of us who do, would prefer Mr. Santorum not tell us we shouldn't have sex unless we're willing to pop out more babies.

when did he tells us that?

Offering ones opinion does not mean onje is telling you what to do.....unless you are weak minded and easily persuaded...and constantly walking around with the feelingh of being a subordinate to those with a microphone.

Did I just describe you?

Well let's see. When GOP candidates are campaigning on social issues and have been publicly talking about eliminating things like birth control from insurance coverage altogether, anyone but a complete fcuking moron could connect the dots as to why people might be concerned.
Hmmm. Could that last sentence describe you?

wow. And your name has the word logic in it?
Talk about irony.

Listen up skippy....government forcing an insurance company to offer a service that goes against the religious beliefs of the owner of that company is tyranny...if not worse.

And any politician that campaigns in favor of eliminating such a mandate is a true American that understands what "freedom of choice" is all about.

So take your "independent logic" and start doing some independent thinking.

The logic part? Doubt that will ever come to fruition with you.

 

[IndependntLogic]

when did he tells us that?

Offering ones opinion does not mean onje is telling you what to do.....unless you are weak minded and easily persuaded...and constantly walking around with the feelingh of being a subordinate to those with a microphone.

Did I just describe you?

Well let's see. When GOP candidates are campaigning on social issues and have been publicly talking about eliminating things like birth control from insurance coverage altogether, anyone but a complete fcuking moron could connect the dots as to why people might be concerned.
Hmmm. Could that last sentence describe you?

wow. And your name has the word logic in it?
Talk about irony.

Listen up skippy....government forcing an insurance company to offer a service that goes against the religious beliefs of the owner of that company is tyranny...if not worse.

And any politician that campaigns in favor of eliminating such a mandate is a true American that understands what "freedom of choice" is all about.

So take your "independent logic" and start doing some independent thinking.

The logic part? Doubt that will ever come to fruition with you.

Awwww. You're upset. Okay look here missy, the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans. Not only that, they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable". No slippery slope there! (Have a Liberal Elitist explain the concept to you).
And the tryanny you refer to? You know that was in place during the entire Bush presidency, don't you? Nah. You don't. Intelligent people know that but drones think this is a "new issue".

That's fine. The GOP doesn't need the votes of women this year. Or young people. Or Independents & Moderates. Or minorities. Or... oh shet! Thanks to the whackjobs out there who have hijacked the party, the GOP is going to LOSE!

 

[Jarhead]

Well let's see. When GOP candidates are campaigning on social issues and have been publicly talking about eliminating things like birth control from insurance coverage altogether, anyone but a complete fcuking moron could connect the dots as to why people might be concerned.
Hmmm. Could that last sentence describe you?

wow. And your name has the word logic in it?
Talk about irony.

Listen up skippy....government forcing an insurance company to offer a service that goes against the religious beliefs of the owner of that company is tyranny...if not worse.

And any politician that campaigns in favor of eliminating such a mandate is a true American that understands what "freedom of choice" is all about.

So take your "independent logic" and start doing some independent thinking.

The logic part? Doubt that will ever come to fruition with you.

Awwww. You're upset. Okay look here missy, the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans. Not only that, they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable". No slippery slope there! (Have a Liberal Elitist explain the concept to you).
And the tryanny you refer to? You know that was in place during the entire Bush presidency, don't you? Nah. You don't. Intelligent people know that but drones think this is a "new issue".

That's fine. The GOP doesn't need the votes of women this year. Or young people. Or Independents & Moderates. Or minorities. Or... oh shet! Thanks to the whackjobs out there who have hijacked the party, the GOP is going to LOSE!

Do you actually read what you write skippy?
Lets start with this....

"the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans"
That is not true. AT ALL. Seems MSNBC misled you once again.

They are campaigning against the government mandate that insurance companies would HAVE to offer it and offer it for free....

Now this...

"they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable"

And exactly what is wronbg with that? That is what freedom of choice is all about. It is one of the things that makes this country great.

Curious....

Are you saying that if a Kosher Man opens a restaurant, it would be OK if the government told him he MUST serve bacon if a customer wants it?

 

[IndependntLogic]

wow. And your name has the word logic in it?
Talk about irony.

Listen up skippy....government forcing an insurance company to offer a service that goes against the religious beliefs of the owner of that company is tyranny...if not worse.

And any politician that campaigns in favor of eliminating such a mandate is a true American that understands what "freedom of choice" is all about.

So take your "independent logic" and start doing some independent thinking.

The logic part? Doubt that will ever come to fruition with you.

Awwww. You're upset. Okay look here missy, the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans. Not only that, they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable". No slippery slope there! (Have a Liberal Elitist explain the concept to you).
And the tryanny you refer to? You know that was in place during the entire Bush presidency, don't you? Nah. You don't. Intelligent people know that but drones think this is a "new issue".

That's fine. The GOP doesn't need the votes of women this year. Or young people. Or Independents & Moderates. Or minorities. Or... oh shet! Thanks to the whackjobs out there who have hijacked the party, the GOP is going to LOSE!

Do you actually read what you write skippy?
Lets start with this....

"the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans"
That is not true. AT ALL. Seems MSNBC misled you once again.

They are campaigning against the government mandate that insurance companies would HAVE to offer it and offer it for free....

Now this...

"they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable"

And exactly what is wronbg with that? That is what freedom of choice is all about. It is one of the things that makes this country great.

Curious....

Are you saying that if a Kosher Man opens a restaurant, it would be OK if the government told him he MUST serve bacon if a customer wants it?

Okay. I'm going to stop with the insults. You threw the first volley and I returned fire. But I find it petty and would prefer to try to go back to a rational discussion. Whether you do or don't is up to you.

So let's look at the "morally objectionable" thing as proposed by the fellow in FOX yesterday. The problem that Megan Kelly (who in addition to being hot, is one of the most objective reporters on any network) brought up is that it doesn't specify grounds for finding something "morally objectionable".

So if Blue Cross finds bone marrow transplants "morally objectionable", they can just exculde it (which at an average price of $400,000.00, that would love to do!). So could ANY self-insured or private insurer. So what Kaiser has been sued for denying to people (BM Transplants) because they called a standard procedure "experimental", they can now call "morally objectionable". The loophole is big enough to drive a truck through.
Do you want a Muslim company to be able to put Sharia ahead of Federal law? How about Christian Scientists? They would cover what? Prayer only?
Santorum and Romney, along with the GOP in general, are making huge points with their base but terrifying the crap out of everyone else and driving those votes directly into the "D" category. And they are seen as extreme because nothing they are making a fuss abot now, is actually a new issue. We all know that all of these things have been covered since 200 or before.
The GOP needs to get away from Social Issues and focus on just a couple things: The Economy and... The Economy.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, cuz we all know that modeling moral behavior and encouraging young people to be monogamous and hold off on sex worked so well for Bristol Palin!

is the same as dictating to people what they should do in their bedrooms.

Plus, it's just such a BAD idea.

Okay we get it. You have no sex life. Those of us who do, would prefer Mr. Santorum not tell us we shouldn't have sex unless we're willing to pop out more babies.

What does that have to do with anything?
What is wrong with you people? You seem incapable of understanding the written, or spoken, word.

 

[Jarhead]

Awwww. You're upset. Okay look here missy, the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans. Not only that, they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable". No slippery slope there! (Have a Liberal Elitist explain the concept to you).
And the tryanny you refer to? You know that was in place during the entire Bush presidency, don't you? Nah. You don't. Intelligent people know that but drones think this is a "new issue".

That's fine. The GOP doesn't need the votes of women this year. Or young people. Or Independents & Moderates. Or minorities. Or... oh shet! Thanks to the whackjobs out there who have hijacked the party, the GOP is going to LOSE!

Do you actually read what you write skippy?
Lets start with this....

"the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans"
That is not true. AT ALL. Seems MSNBC misled you once again.

They are campaigning against the government mandate that insurance companies would HAVE to offer it and offer it for free....

Now this...

"they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable"

And exactly what is wronbg with that? That is what freedom of choice is all about. It is one of the things that makes this country great.

Curious....

Are you saying that if a Kosher Man opens a restaurant, it would be OK if the government told him he MUST serve bacon if a customer wants it?

Okay. I'm going to stop with the insults. You threw the first volley and I returned fire. But I find it petty and would prefer to try to go back to a rational discussion. Whether you do or don't is up to you.

So let's look at the "morally objectionable" thing as proposed by the fellow in FOX yesterday. The problem that Megan Kelly (who in addition to being hot, is one of the most objective reporters on any network) brought up is that it doesn't specify grounds for finding something "morally objectionable".

So if Blue Cross finds bone marrow transplants "morally objectionable", they can just exculde it (which at an average price of $400,000.00, that would love to do!). So could ANY self-insured or private insurer. So what Kaiser has been sued for denying to people (BM Transplants) because they called a standard procedure "experimental", they can now call "morally objectionable". The loophole is big enough to drive a truck through.
Do you want a Muslim company to be able to put Sharia ahead of Federal law? How about Christian Scientists? They would cover what? Prayer only?
Santorum and Romney, along with the GOP in general, are making huge points with their base but terrifying the crap out of everyone else and driving those votes directly into the "D" category. And they are seen as extreme because nothing they are making a fuss abot now, is actually a new issue. We all know that all of these things have been covered since 200 or before.
The GOP needs to get away from Social Issues and focus on just a couple things: The Economy and... The Economy.

you may want the GOP to stay way from moral issues now....but if they simply "let things happen" you, yourself, will ulitmately be disappoointed.

They did not bring up the issue of birth control...it was buried in the healthcare law and came out recently....so it HAD TO BE addressed.

You see, I am a true proponent of the free market. It works. It always has.

If a company does not want to offer a service, such is their choice...and should be their choice. And you know what happens? Someone else does, and that copmpany gets a larger chunk of market share.

We dont want government telling us what we MUST sell. I have no issue with government telling us what we CANT sell....that keeps the greedy in check....but when it comes to telling us what we MUST sell...the key word being MUST....? That is over the line. That is tyranny.

If you want a BLT and a restaurant doesnt sell it becuase it is Kosher...what will you do? Go to another restaurant, of course. That is the free market at its finest.

If you want birth control and your carrier doesnt cover it....what should you do? Go to another carrier....or pay for it out of pocket if you are otherwise happy with the carrier.

If your employer doesnt pay you what you think you deserve, what will you do? Look for a higher paying job. If you deserve more, you will get it elsewhwere...and if you dont, then maybe you dont deserve it.

Free market...not government...is the answer.

So all that being said....and here is where it gets good.....

I am pro choice...and further more...I have no issue with birth control....I disagree wholehearetedly with Rick Santorum as it pertains to BC....but I also know what he said and what he feels....it is his personal faith....but he is not telling ANYONE they must follow his way.....

At least he was honest...anmd it pisses me off how the left is taking what he said and making it as if he plans to mandate all foolow his ideology. It is BS and taking away from what is going to be a very impoortant time in our history.

In essence, we have the likes of MSNBC and FOX deciding where our country goes.

And it is very dsiturbing to me.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Do you actually read what you write skippy?
Lets start with this....

"the Candidates are campaigning on having it removed from ALL insurance plans"
That is not true. AT ALL. Seems MSNBC misled you once again.

They are campaigning against the government mandate that insurance companies would HAVE to offer it and offer it for free....

Now this...

"they are saying that any company should be able to refuse anything they find "morally objectionable"

And exactly what is wronbg with that? That is what freedom of choice is all about. It is one of the things that makes this country great.

Curious....

Are you saying that if a Kosher Man opens a restaurant, it would be OK if the government told him he MUST serve bacon if a customer wants it?

Okay. I'm going to stop with the insults. You threw the first volley and I returned fire. But I find it petty and would prefer to try to go back to a rational discussion. Whether you do or don't is up to you.

So let's look at the "morally objectionable" thing as proposed by the fellow in FOX yesterday. The problem that Megan Kelly (who in addition to being hot, is one of the most objective reporters on any network) brought up is that it doesn't specify grounds for finding something "morally objectionable".

So if Blue Cross finds bone marrow transplants "morally objectionable", they can just exculde it (which at an average price of $400,000.00, that would love to do!). So could ANY self-insured or private insurer. So what Kaiser has been sued for denying to people (BM Transplants) because they called a standard procedure "experimental", they can now call "morally objectionable". The loophole is big enough to drive a truck through.
Do you want a Muslim company to be able to put Sharia ahead of Federal law? How about Christian Scientists? They would cover what? Prayer only?
Santorum and Romney, along with the GOP in general, are making huge points with their base but terrifying the crap out of everyone else and driving those votes directly into the "D" category. And they are seen as extreme because nothing they are making a fuss abot now, is actually a new issue. We all know that all of these things have been covered since 200 or before.
The GOP needs to get away from Social Issues and focus on just a couple things: The Economy and... The Economy.

you may want the GOP to stay way from moral issues now....but if they simply "let things happen" you, yourself, will ulitmately be disappoointed.

They did not bring up the issue of birth control...it was buried in the healthcare law and came out recently....so it HAD TO BE addressed.

You see, I am a true proponent of the free market. It works. It always has.

If a company does not want to offer a service, such is their choice...and should be their choice. And you know what happens? Someone else does, and that copmpany gets a larger chunk of market share.

We dont want government telling us what we MUST sell. I have no issue with government telling us what we CANT sell....that keeps the greedy in check....but when it comes to telling us what we MUST sell...the key word being MUST....? That is over the line. That is tyranny.

If you want a BLT and a restaurant doesnt sell it becuase it is Kosher...what will you do? Go to another restaurant, of course. That is the free market at its finest.

If you want birth control and your carrier doesnt cover it....what should you do? Go to another carrier....or pay for it out of pocket if you are otherwise happy with the carrier.

If your employer doesnt pay you what you think you deserve, what will you do? Look for a higher paying job. If you deserve more, you will get it elsewhwere...and if you dont, then maybe you dont deserve it.

Free market...not government...is the answer.

So all that being said....and here is where it gets good.....

I am pro choice...and further more...I have no issue with birth control....I disagree wholehearetedly with Rick Santorum as it pertains to BC....but I also know what he said and what he feels....it is his personal faith....but he is not telling ANYONE they must follow his way.....

At least he was honest...anmd it pisses me off how the left is taking what he said and making it as if he plans to mandate all foolow his ideology. It is BS and taking away from what is going to be a very impoortant time in our history.

In essence, we have the likes of MSNBC and FOX deciding where our country goes.

And it is very dsiturbing to me.

While I disagree with much of it, it is a rational post.

Thank you for your service btw.

 

[Jarhead]

Okay. I'm going to stop with the insults. You threw the first volley and I returned fire. But I find it petty and would prefer to try to go back to a rational discussion. Whether you do or don't is up to you.

So let's look at the "morally objectionable" thing as proposed by the fellow in FOX yesterday. The problem that Megan Kelly (who in addition to being hot, is one of the most objective reporters on any network) brought up is that it doesn't specify grounds for finding something "morally objectionable".

So if Blue Cross finds bone marrow transplants "morally objectionable", they can just exculde it (which at an average price of $400,000.00, that would love to do!). So could ANY self-insured or private insurer. So what Kaiser has been sued for denying to people (BM Transplants) because they called a standard procedure "experimental", they can now call "morally objectionable". The loophole is big enough to drive a truck through.
Do you want a Muslim company to be able to put Sharia ahead of Federal law? How about Christian Scientists? They would cover what? Prayer only?
Santorum and Romney, along with the GOP in general, are making huge points with their base but terrifying the crap out of everyone else and driving those votes directly into the "D" category. And they are seen as extreme because nothing they are making a fuss abot now, is actually a new issue. We all know that all of these things have been covered since 200 or before.
The GOP needs to get away from Social Issues and focus on just a couple things: The Economy and... The Economy.

you may want the GOP to stay way from moral issues now....but if they simply "let things happen" you, yourself, will ulitmately be disappoointed.

They did not bring up the issue of birth control...it was buried in the healthcare law and came out recently....so it HAD TO BE addressed.

You see, I am a true proponent of the free market. It works. It always has.

If a company does not want to offer a service, such is their choice...and should be their choice. And you know what happens? Someone else does, and that copmpany gets a larger chunk of market share.

We dont want government telling us what we MUST sell. I have no issue with government telling us what we CANT sell....that keeps the greedy in check....but when it comes to telling us what we MUST sell...the key word being MUST....? That is over the line. That is tyranny.

If you want a BLT and a restaurant doesnt sell it becuase it is Kosher...what will you do? Go to another restaurant, of course. That is the free market at its finest.

If you want birth control and your carrier doesnt cover it....what should you do? Go to another carrier....or pay for it out of pocket if you are otherwise happy with the carrier.

If your employer doesnt pay you what you think you deserve, what will you do? Look for a higher paying job. If you deserve more, you will get it elsewhwere...and if you dont, then maybe you dont deserve it.

Free market...not government...is the answer.

So all that being said....and here is where it gets good.....

I am pro choice...and further more...I have no issue with birth control....I disagree wholehearetedly with Rick Santorum as it pertains to BC....but I also know what he said and what he feels....it is his personal faith....but he is not telling ANYONE they must follow his way.....

At least he was honest...anmd it pisses me off how the left is taking what he said and making it as if he plans to mandate all foolow his ideology. It is BS and taking away from what is going to be a very impoortant time in our history.

In essence, we have the likes of MSNBC and FOX deciding where our country goes.

And it is very dsiturbing to me.

While I disagree with much of it, it is a rational post.

Thank you for your service btw.

Thanks...but curious...

What do you disagree with and why?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Everyone who keeps repeating the lie about insurance companies being forced to offer coverage for birth control, SHUT UP NOW, AND POINT TO A SINGLE EXAMPLE. Insurance companies want to offer coverage for health care. Why? Because there is a demand in the market.

This isn't about insurance companies being forced to sell a product they don't want. It's about employers being able to prevent their employees from buying health insurance that covers normal and routine medical treatments.