Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The left supports choice...as long as you make the left-approved choice.The left is about choices, expanding traditional gender roles. Women having the opportunity to work and have a family, or to be a stay at home mom, or to work full time and have the husband be the stay at home parent.
You're digging out obscure writings from thirty plus years ago, PC. Why is that?
Yes, I'm sure your pants-wetting would be of France-like proportions.You're 'fear' is revealed by failure to address the rest of my post
The rest of your post deserved no address. Nor does this one.
Very few things genuinely frighten me, and believe me you do NOT want to be one of them. You really don't.
And there's no fire risk when using a condom.apparently not on the left. They're worried about getting free condoms over the economy.
Today free condoms. Tomorrow a free Volt.
Poor analogy.
They're still making condoms.
That explains a lot. Zinn was full of crap. He made no secret that his ideology colored his "history".Books that have influenced my views include the People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn...
Are you intimidated? Why should you be? A gun is a tool, like a hammer. As a tool, an inanimate object, it is acted upon; it does not act.PC has a profile pic of herself with a handgun. Is that supposed to intimidate us?
Know the history of progressivism. Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.PC's logical fallacies:
All liberals are fascists like Hitler.
Impossible. I've been repeatedly assured that Church employees are specifically told what they can and can't do with both their money and their genitals.Really? The Catholics said anyone who works for the Church can't buy their own contraceptives?If you want to work for a religious based organization, then once you collect your wages and benefits, the gov't should protect you from that religious organization's attempts to control how you spend it.
Or buy your own insurance that covers them if you want to for that matter. I worked for the Catholics for three and a half years, and I cannot recall being told that I could not do ANYTHING. Except place a banner across the front of the hospital. (I was in charge of public relations among other things.) But anything extra curricular, nope. Nothing verbally expressed. Nothing in the personnel policy. I was free as a bird to buy and use all the contraceptives I wanted during that entire time.
Depends on who you ask. If you ask leftists, you're not competent to make your own choices, and should be dictated to by leftist-controlled government.The left supports choice...as long as you make the left-approved choice.The left is about choices, expanding traditional gender roles. Women having the opportunity to work and have a family, or to be a stay at home mom, or to work full time and have the husband be the stay at home parent.
You're digging out obscure writings from thirty plus years ago, PC. Why is that?
Good point. Is not whether to include contraceptives in insurance converage a choice? Who supports choice? Those who think that should be left to the entity and its insurance company to decide? Or those who think the government should mandate one or the other?
There is if you do it right.And there's no fire risk when using a condom.Today free condoms. Tomorrow a free Volt.
Poor analogy.
They're still making condoms.
Sorry, but I think the religious right's position is defensible on this one. The non religious and anti-religious won't come to the defense of the First Amendment religion clause, but the initial issue was a blatant and intentional attack on that clause. The Administration was loising big time on that issue because most fair minded and Consittutional conscious Americans saw the dishonesty and oversteeping of government authority on that one and the danger to all our freedoms if it was allowed to stand.
So they used Fluke to change the debate to a women's health issue. And everybody is now focused and talking about that and no longer seeing it as a Church/State issue. That isn't Santorum's fault.
There was no court case here. All this amounted to was a publicity stunt.
And the religous right wing kooks wanted just as much or more publicity so they entered into the fray as well.
Love ya there but if you do not know that everyone of the Republicans entered into this fray for political gain only then you are as naive as they were on this one.
Fox, in the real world of politics and the law you have to know when and how to pick your battles.
This was no First Amendment battle. This was a side show publicity stunt set up by the Democrats. The Republicans bit and fought a pissin contest battle with blanks in their guns.
No offense. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the non religous or anti religous. This was ALL ABOUT POLITICS.
When the State presumes to dictate to a religious group that they MUST go against their religious convictions, that is clearly both a violation of the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. It was a no brainer for anybody, religious or not, and no court in the land that respected any part of Constitution would have upheld that.
And when the Administration realized they couldn't win on that one, they tried to put the burden on the insurance companies. That didn't fly either because those of us who defend the First Amendment also saw that the same issues applied and it was still government overstepping its authority to require a private industry to sell a specific product. That is the whole issue that will be debated by SCOTUS re Obamacare. And when the Administration saw they weren't scoring any points there either. . . .
So they recruit Fluke, a brilliant diversionary tactic to distract the gullible and create a new and more sellable thesis.
And I don't care who does the speaking, if they are on the right side of the issue, their motives are their own business.
Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of the motives for doing either.
Prostitution should be legalized.
Of course! Sandra Fluke needs a real job.
While I personally can't see anything wrong with legalizing prostitution, I can't see any major benefit either. If prostitution were not only legal, but considered like any other normal legal business, I would not want to see men and women looking for work be penalized for turning down work in a whorehouse either. Can't you see some whore trade school popping up and advertising on television!
Will whores be allowed to discriminate? Suppose a whore doesn't want to engage in acts with the same sex. Are they punished? Will their license be revoked? What's to be done with street wakers who don't want to keep books and pay taxes? Now they are picked up for solicitation, kept until morning and let go. After licensing they could be prosecuted for tax evasion. What about the casual hooker? The woman who just wants to pay the rent, she ran short, turning a few tricks once in a while bridges the gap. Does SHE need a license for part time whoring? Will a licensed whore who teaches kindergarten during the day keep her job? How about minors? Will a 15 year old boy with Daddy's credit card get to go to a legal brothel or is he still limited to the next door neighbor.
This is one of those things that looks good on paper but doesn't work as well in real life. The best that can be said is that there will be legal brothels AND all the problems with illegal prostitiution that we have now.
Well I could think of a few benefits of legalizing the business, for starters we will take the business away from the pimps and gangsters on the street, and be able to get these girls cleaned up, alot of the street walkers are beaten regularly and get hooked on drugs by their pimp, as a way to keep power over her. Keep in mind Germany had legalized prostitution and they make billions off of it, look at how big our country is, thats alot of revenue, besides if you think prostitution is disgusting and perverted, just don't frequent the establishments, plaine and simple, besides making something illegal doesn't take it away anyways.
.
apparently not on the left. They're worried about getting free condoms over the economy.
Today free condoms. Tomorrow a free Volt.
Poor analogy.
They're still making condoms.
PC's logical fallacies:
All liberals are fascists like Hitler.
Leftists, not liberals.
And the leftists in the Obama camp are fascists. This is just a matter of established fact.
Well. . . .let's say Marxist more than Fascist though of course some Facist tactics are necessary in the game plan for Marxism too. Forcing an insurance company to provide a specific coverage could fall within the scope of either. And if we are absolutely fair, there may be a few ideologues in there who are genuinely ideologically convinced that Obama is the "One" who will save us and if we will just give him his way, we will have the closest thing possible to Utopia on Earth. (They would have to be blooming idiots by now, but we cannot be intellectually honest and say they could not possibly exist.)
Make a contraceptive for me that requires a prescription, and I'm sure the catholic church will say no. They say no to condoms.Today free condoms. Tomorrow a free Volt.
Poor analogy.
They're still making condoms.
Name all the "male only" prescriptions that are banned from insurance policies sponsored by institutions.....
You must get terribly frustrated when people laugh at you for barking orders.Today free condoms. Tomorrow a free Volt.
Poor analogy.
They're still making condoms.
Name all the "male only" prescriptions that are banned from insurance policies sponsored by institutions.....
In the leftist dictionary, or the real one?Leftists, not liberals.
And the leftists in the Obama camp are fascists. This is just a matter of established fact.
Well. . . .let's say Marxist more than Fascist though of course some Facist tactics are necessary in the game plan for Marxism too. Forcing an insurance company to provide a specific coverage could fall within the scope of either. And if we are absolutely fair, there may be a few ideologues in there who are genuinely ideologically convinced that Obama is the "One" who will save us and if we will just give him his way, we will have the closest thing possible to Utopia on Earth. (They would have to be blooming idiots by now, but we cannot be intellectually honest and say they could not possibly exist.)
I wish you guys would look up the definition of words before trying to use them and save yourself humiliation like this.
33 advertisers has dropped rush.
The majority is Behind Sandra.
OP is a slut, tbqh. (Using Rush's logic, of course)
Democrats love sex and brag about it
.Republicans love sex and lie about it
