Slut Or Not??

[Uncensored2008]

What I find amusing are the absurd claims that morality is a left/right issue.

I don't know about morality, but I do know that the modern American left is utterly devoid of ethics.

Look at the outrageous lie Barb posted a couple of messages back. This is "Big Lie" level, tell something so absurd that people are flabbergasted. Claim that in a nation that performs 42 million abortions a year that "Republicans are intruding in a woman's uterus." Barb lies because the party operates on lies, she want's to stir up fear and anger. That's just standard procedure for the left - lying is part of the program. The American left has purged any hint of integrity from itself.

How many times have we seen someone on BOTH sides of the political spectrum do something immoral?
Especially in politics.
Same for all of society. Most of this stuff used to be swept under the rug and hush hushed. In the age of computers and such this is what we get.
And what is immoral to some folks is not to others. Many find that being openly homosexual is immoral. I believe it is absolutely moral to be who and act like you were born and be honest about it. Some believe not believing in God is immoral. Many believed that drinking one sip of alcohol was immoral. Many claim that being Catholic is immoral. Many claimed that smoking weed was immoral but not tobacco. On and on and on. Crime is down so claims that we are moving further into immorality are baseless and without any fact.
Immoralty at it's core is crime. You can not legislate personal habits and Thank God for that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Thank you for your most objective option about what my side is totally opposed to. And thanks to Gadawg for applauding you for it.

(Wanders off muttering. . . .)

don't go away mad...

What do we see at the national level?
If you don't like the representation, switch sides, (we make one hell of a devils food cake, and potato pancakes) or become independent.

I'm not mad. Just amazed at some of your inability to see the hypocrisy when you do exactly what you accuse others of when you accuse them.

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with representation or political party or any other clearly identifiable group, but I don't expect everybody to see that.

It has everything to do with what personal liberty, unalienable rights, and social contract are all about. The Founders did not presume to use the Federal government to dictate anybody's morality via the Constitution. And though to a man they believed the Constitution would work only for a mostly religious and moral people, not using the Constitution to dictate religin or morality was 100% intentional.

At the same time, they left it to the individual states and local communities to set up whatever religious or moral standards they did or did not wish to have short of violating anybody's unalienable rights. So we had a country in which hell raising, prostitution, promiscuity, drunkenness, gambling, and very little if any law was not only condoned, but promoted in some places.

But in most of America, closing businesses on Sunday as a day of church going and/or rest, traditional marriage as a prerequisite for having kids, chastify, courtesy, manners, civility, decency, and concern for one's neighbor were established as the norm. The idea that it was acceptable for an unmarried college student to go before Congress to demand that it see that she receive free contraceptives would have been unthinkable.

The Founders believed that true freedom allowed the people to form either or both or different such societies as they saw fit.

Note: The above is not at all subjective. It is fact.

In my opinion there is a growing segment of our society who would condone the first kind of community but would not permit the second. And it is reasonable to suspect, even believe, that this may be an intentional trend to divide and further conquer society to make it easier to further concentrate power in the hands of those who want it.

Perhaps that is a subjective opinion. But it absolutely is a subjective opinion for those who pooh pooh it or condemn me for holding it but who cannot rebut it.

Excellent!

 

[Barb]

So she can't refuse a guy's advances and expects everyone else to pay for her lack of control and diminished self image. I guess when you see yourself as a tool you become the tool. Speaks volumes as to her sense of pride and self worth. Sad testament to what we have become as a society.

Asshole, she is a lesbian. She doesn't need BIRTH CONTROL, she needed the complementary HEALTH aspects that those meds ALSO provided.

HOW many times does that little point need to be made?

THIS is the reason your puritanical and primitive superstitions should be kept out of science in general, and HEALTH CARE in particular.
Your financial acumen is similarly suspect, but you're not alone. It is a covered benefit UNDER INSURANCE WHICH IS PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL except where the group that the PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE is sold within chooses to try to stick its nose into in order to restrict benefits.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How much screaming about the first amendment and / or states rights was done in opposition to those changes?

Who cares? It doesn't alter the fact that you were openly lying in the most outrageous of manners.

The fact is that you are a perfect demonstration of the fact that your party has zero integrity. You want to win, so you'll say whatever you think will make you win. That what you say is an absurd lie doesn't even slow you for a second, you don't give a fuck, expanding power for the party is the ONLY objective - ethical dissemination isn't even a consideration to you. Truth, lies, half-truths, it's all the same - you say that which serves the party - which is the ONLY consideration.

I find that highly shameful.

 

[Katzndogz]

So she can't refuse a guy's advances and expects everyone else to pay for her lack of control and diminished self image. I guess when you see yourself as a tool you become the tool. Speaks volumes as to her sense of pride and self worth. Sad testament to what we have become as a society.

Asshole, she is a lesbian. She doesn't need BIRTH CONTROL, she needed the complementary HEALTH aspects that those meds ALSO provided.

HOW many times does that little point need to be made?

THIS is the reason your puritanical and primitive superstitions should be kept out of science in general, and HEALTH CARE in particular.
Your financial acumen is similarly suspect, but you're not alone. It is a covered benefit UNDER INSURANCE WHICH IS PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL except where the group that the PAID FOR BY THE INDIVIDUAL INSURANCE is sold within chooses to try to stick its nose into in order to restrict benefits.

She used a lesbian that she knows who needs BC for another medical condition as an example. Fluke isn't a lesbian herself.

In any case, it would be a simple matter to restrict BC to those who take it for health conditions other than contraception.

I wouldn't deny anyone contraception. It's their choice. I used contraception back in the day. I just paid for it myself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Guess why 30 states had NO sodomy laws in 1960?

Who cares?

The fact that NO state has such law today is proof that Barb was lying through her fucking teeth when she claimed that the Republicans are intruding into the anus. This is because she has no integrity. Fealty to the party is not integrity.

PP spends pennies on the dollar on abortions.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

Planned Parenthood rakes in billions of dollars a year from abortion. It is a massive business and all about money.

Guess what law the right wing proposes now in many states?

In "many states."

There you go again - zero integrity.

An internal sonogram to show the heartbeat of a baby before a woman can have an abortion. Do you know what that involves? That is putting a large metal machine into a woman's vagina for a long time, moving it around and taking tests with it.
Talk about immoral.

Yeah, abortion is non-intrusive....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Whether I think sex is depraved or not isn't the issue. Does the government have the right to force one person to accept another's sexual habits and pay for it.

Absolutely not.

Does an apartment owner have the right to say he won't rent to an unmarried couple?

I'm a Libertarian. The property owner has the right to rent or NOT to rent to any damned person they please - for any or no reason.

Did the military make an independent decision that allowing open homosexuality would contribute to the nation's defense? Should insurance companies providing services to religiously based organizations have provide coverage for contraception?

The nation is moving quite quickly into degeracy and depravity because legislation imposing immorality upon the unwilling is happening quite quickly.

I don't see it as degeneracy, but as authoritarianism. The democrats are authoritarians who seek to micromanage the lives of the subjects.

Two parties have a right to decide what is in an insurance policy, the buyer, and the seller. Fuck Obama, fuck the fascist democrats, they have no right to stick their thuggish noses in.

 

[Foxfyre]

Uncensored, let's make a slight amendment and say that the buyer and seller have the right to agree on what will be covered by the insurance policy. The buyer and nobody else should be able to tell the seller what he has to sell any more than the seller or anybody should be able to tell the buyer what he has to buy. But what they agree to is absolutely not the business of the federal government.

Edit: And now in retrospect, I think that is pretty much what you were saying.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored, let's make a slight amendment and say that the buyer and seller have the right to agree on what will be covered by the insurance policy. The buyer and nobody else should be able to tell the seller what he has to sell any more than the seller or anybody should be able to tell the buyer what he has to buy. But what they agree to is absolutely not the business of the federal government.

Edit: And now in retrospect, I think that is pretty much what you were saying.

If it wasn't what I was saying, it's what I meant to say...

 

[Foxfyre]

Uncensored, let's make a slight amendment and say that the buyer and seller have the right to agree on what will be covered by the insurance policy. The buyer and nobody else should be able to tell the seller what he has to sell any more than the seller or anybody should be able to tell the buyer what he has to buy. But what they agree to is absolutely not the business of the federal government.

Edit: And now in retrospect, I think that is pretty much what you were saying.

If it wasn't what I was saying, it's what I meant to say...

And now, after reading what I wrote you said it better and mine could be interpeted 180 from what I intended. Let me amend:

Not the buyer nor anybody else should be able to tell the seller what he has to sell. Not the seller nor anybody else should be able to tell the buyer what he has to buy.

When the government presumes to tell the seller what he must sell or the buyer what he must buy, nobody has any rights at all.

And taking that principle a step further, if a town wants a hell fire environment with all manner of vices, rowdiness, sex, vulgarity, crudeness, or whatever, the Constitution was intended to allow the people complete freedom to form that manner of society in their community. They should not have the right to impose it on the next community.

If a town wants blue laws, wants to keep the 'vices' or abortion clinics outside the city limits, and wants to promote polite language and a peaceful, civil, aesthetically pleasing environment, maybe including a religious display in the center of the public square, the Constitution was intended to allow the people complete freedom to form that manner of society in their community. They should not have the right to impose it on the next community.

When any segment of people and/or the federal government have the power to dictate what sort of society the people must have or may not have, again we have no rights at all.

 

[peach174]

Guess why 30 states had NO sodomy laws in 1960?

PP spends pennies on the dollar on abortions.

Guess what law the right wing proposes now in many states? An internal sonogram to show the heartbeat of a baby before a woman can have an abortion. Do you know what that involves? That is putting a large metal machine into a woman's vagina for a long time, moving it around and taking tests with it.
Talk about immoral.

A large metal machine?
View attachment 17730

Its needlessly intrusive, and intentionally so. A rape, if you will, and even if you won't. It is what it is, and your support of it tells much about you as a person.

Yep!
I fully support, that a woman has the right to be completely and fully informed about what she is getting rid of. That is is not just a lump of flesh.

 

[Cammmpbell]

It sounds like a great idea - but I suspect my wife would object should my students follow suit....

I think most wives might have something to say about something like that.

But that is part of our changing culture isn't it? There was a time when a woman with what the guys described as having 'round heels' was indeed deemed a 'slut' however popular she might have been. Now such a woman is considered 'emancipated'. I don't know at all what Miss Fluke's sex life might be or whether she is a slut or not, but even if she is, the fact that so many here think the government should force insurance companies to provide contraceptives says a whole lot about what is the new normal.

The nation as a whole is moving toward degeneracy by normalizing depravity on many different levels.

LMAO!

That normal left to us by ancient camel herders who believed in witchcraft and thought the earth was flat

The Republicans are war mongers and cut taxes for the corporations and the wealthy. Why is it that the bible is so important to them about social issues but completely ignored when spending and the military are front burner issues. When are we going to turn our swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks......then study war no more

 

[Gadawg73]

I think most wives might have something to say about something like that.

But that is part of our changing culture isn't it? There was a time when a woman with what the guys described as having 'round heels' was indeed deemed a 'slut' however popular she might have been. Now such a woman is considered 'emancipated'. I don't know at all what Miss Fluke's sex life might be or whether she is a slut or not, but even if she is, the fact that so many here think the government should force insurance companies to provide contraceptives says a whole lot about what is the new normal.

The nation as a whole is moving toward degeneracy by normalizing depravity on many different levels.

LMAO!

That normal left to us by ancient camel herders who believed in witchcraft and thought the earth was flat

The Republicans are war mongers and cut taxes for the corporations and the wealthy. Why is it that the bible is so important to them about social issues but completely ignored when spending and the military are front burner issues. When are we going to turn our swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks......then study war no more

More middle class taxpayers benefited from the Bush tax cuts than the wealthy by far. Many were taken off the tax roles for federal income taxes completely and now only 50.7% of taxpayers pay federal income tax.

 

[Dragon]

More middle class taxpayers benefited from the Bush tax cuts than the wealthy by far. Many were taken off the tax roles for federal income taxes completely and now only 50.7% of taxpayers pay federal income tax.

Those taken off the income tax roles were hardly middle class.

It's true that more middle class people benefited than wealthy people (because there are more middle-class people to begin with), but not true that the middle class benefited more, which is the proper question.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The nation as a whole is moving toward degeneracy by normalizing depravity on many different levels.

LMAO!

That normal left to us by ancient camel herders who believed in witchcraft and thought the earth was flat

The Republicans are war mongers and cut taxes for the corporations and the wealthy. Why is it that the bible is so important to them about social issues but completely ignored when spending and the military are front burner issues. When are we going to turn our swords into plowshares and spears into pruninghooks......then study war no more

More middle class taxpayers benefited from the Bush tax cuts than the wealthy by far. Many were taken off the tax roles for federal income taxes completely and now only 50.7% of taxpayers pay federal income tax.

Yeah...ordinary Joe a six pack a week. Million dollar bill a new Mercedes. Who are you trying to schit:

 

[theliq]

That's not going to change! Look at it this way. Has the number of street whores influenced the price, in any way, of high end call girls? If you don't want to pay the asking price, there are plenty of places to go. It's like saying the more movie theaters there are, the less stage shows will charge.

Well the Bunny Ranch can charge those outrageous prices because they are one of only legal brothels in the US, if the business was legal and more legal places like the Ranch started popping up everywhere, they would have to lower their prices because you wouldn't have as many people flying out there to get laid and for all those freaky bachelor parties they have.

Oh please! You can't be that naive! If you can't get a high end whore for your bachelor party just go to a fairly decent hotel and ask the concierge! Most bartenders in upscale bars know who they are too. Look in the phone book under escort services or massage services. When I graduated law school we hired one for our favorite professor. We hired her right out of the yellow pages! As a bonus, the whole class got the strip show. She didn't even charge extra.

Legalized prostitution won't solve any problems, not even by making nationwide bachelor parties more affordable. Should it be legal? I don't much care, saying it should be legal because it will have some benefit is just false pretenses.

Of course legalized prostitution makes a massive difference...YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ARE A LAWYER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it beggars belief that you would hold such views,there is clear a documentary evidence and the actual physical on the ground proof.

Reasons include.....elimination of Pimps,continued health care for the women (and NO rubber NO fuck policy) check ups every week to prevent STD's from the MALE Clients......now none exsistance of personal or physical abuse and violence against the prostitutes.......NO CURB CRAWLING as women are not allow to walk the streets,creating safety for themselves.......almost total elimination of drug taking by the femme of the night..............drug pushers are harshly deal with by security.(Beaten Up,I believe it only happened on one occasion,and word soon got around)

You sound almost immature in the way you described "Bachelor Parties and a prostitute for your Alma-Ata"...............You are the type no doubt as a male that thinks it is OK to name call these women as WHORES,SLUTS etc., yet you take NO THOUGHT THAT YOU ARE PAYING TO WHAT IS A FORM OF ABUSE,and who is the REAL WHORE??????I'll tell you straight........YOU ARE, YOU PATHETIC voyeur sorry lawyer???? Your posts are a shame,which is exactly what YOU are, you creep. Now bend over and see how I kick your sorry ASS.....SLUT.
theliq What sort of Dickhead is Katzudags anyway

 

[Gadawg73]

A large metal machine?
View attachment 17730

Its needlessly intrusive, and intentionally so. A rape, if you will, and even if you won't. It is what it is, and your support of it tells much about you as a person.

Yep!
I fully support, that a woman has the right to be completely and fully informed about what she is getting rid of. That is is not just a lump of flesh.

You are sick dude.
Why is it that is is men that always want to pass these laws to demand women have children they do not want and in most cases do not know how to care for?
Amazing.
No law stops abortion. Never has and never will.
I oppose abortion but oppose allowing government the power to pick and choose who gets an abortion and who doesn't.
Only a damn fool believes laws stop abortion. When abortion was illegal rarely was a woman ever prosecuted. The ones with cash always found a doctor to "well, it was in the best interest of the health of the mother" every time.
WELL DUH.
A doctor to conform his diagnosis analogous to the amount of cash in one's pocket is as easy to find as stink on dookey.
Amazing how naive and gullible Americans are.

 

[Gadawg73]

More middle class taxpayers benefited from the Bush tax cuts than the wealthy by far. Many were taken off the tax roles for federal income taxes completely and now only 50.7% of taxpayers pay federal income tax.

Those taken off the income tax roles were hardly middle class.

It's true that more middle class people benefited than wealthy people (because there are more middle-class people to begin with), but not true that the middle class benefited more, which is the proper question.

A family of 5 can make 62K a year and get free lunches for their kids at school.
The effective tax rate for making 62K a year with 3 kids with child tax credits, contributions to IRAs and deductions puts that family off of paying federal income tax.
62K a year is middle class.

 

[Gadawg73]

The wealthy, 250K AND ABOVE IN INCOME received a little under 1 trillion in decreased taxes from the Bush tax cuts over 10 years.
Everyone else under 250K in income received 1.4 trillion in tax decreases as a result of the Bush tax cuts.
That is fact. The great myth is that the wealthy got the bulk of the tax cuts. That is complete BS.
And I have never made more than 120K in a year in my life.
Amazing how rumor is spread and lies are accepted as fact.

 

[Gadawg73]

More middle class taxpayers benefited from the Bush tax cuts than the wealthy by far. Many were taken off the tax roles for federal income taxes completely and now only 50.7% of taxpayers pay federal income tax.

Those taken off the income tax roles were hardly middle class.

It's true that more middle class people benefited than wealthy people (because there are more middle-class people to begin with), but not true that the middle class benefited more, which is the proper question.

Let us take a look at what happened with the Bush tax cuts:
The Bush tax cuts put the rich paying more taxes after they were initiated than any time in the prior 20 years.
1990 the richest 1% paid 25% of all income taxes and in 2005 they paid 45% of all income taxes.
The richest 5% went from paying 44% of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60% of all income taxes in 2005.
In 1980 the top income tax rate was 70% and the top 1% paid 19 % of all income taxes. They cut it in half.
Wall Street Journal analysis. 12/7/07