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.
How dishonest of you to leave out the "lay employee" part. And Ms. Fluke was at the hearing to point out just that.....that the Church already covers employees, so it is discriminatory and not legal to exclude students.
I am not surprised that rightwingers would pretend not to understand the issue; or actually not understand the issue.
Issa's Committee could NOT let Fluke address it and have Fluke publically embarrass the Church by airing such dirty laundry. Laundry you dishonestly claim does not exist.
Regards from Rosie
Huh?
It is not discrimination to give employees something you do not offer students. The simplest proof of this is that every university in this country actually pays thei employees to come to school, and none of them offer the same compensation to students, even if they spend more time there than the employees. In fact, they actually charge students to come to school.
That makes you dumber than Fluke, which is quite a challenge. She at least knew she was misrepresenting the facts, you believe her.
Oh no - a double shot. This is like the worst false comparison ever.
They're paying the employees because they're employees facilitating the school's ability to provide a service, i.e. education. They're charging the students because they are the buyers of that service. Buyer; seller -- know the difference. Holy shit I'd hate to be your accountant...
I might take this quote in bold to put in my signature. It's hilarious.![]()
yes, i found rush limbaugh's attack on sandra fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the republican party. That none of the republican presidential candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.
Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of republican senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted democrat.
The only female demographic to vote for romney in large numbers was married white women. So by all means, continue to refer to ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex. Every time you do, it reminds women that republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting republican is voting against their economic best interests. Women vote with their pocket books too.
just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).
.
I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of. That explains his expression --
I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it. Because it's irrelevant. A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.
I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no. I can't imagine why one would want that. My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness. Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.![]()
You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever. Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics. We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.
Again, the dodge. I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated". I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.
Christianity is about sharing the "good news". It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket". Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose. It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't). Just in case you are interested in "truth".
BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history. But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.
No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"
What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"? Or a "Christian neighbourhood" Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way? I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares? What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here. This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it. And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.
Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization. Or maybe the other way round. Either way, entirely irrelevant here.
(/offtopic)
Again, the dodge. I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated". I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.
Christianity is about sharing the "good news". It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket". Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose. It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't). Just in case you are interested in "truth".
BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history. But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.
No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"
What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"? Or a "Christian neighbourhood" Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way? I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares? What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here. This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it. And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.
Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization. Or maybe the other way round. Either way, entirely irrelevant here.
(/offtopic)
You are the one that attacked Christians. I was pointing out that the very people that "cry" about Christianity "choose" to live in neighborhoods where there are many Christians (atheists will not set up their own neighborhoods, wonder why?). Those neighborhoods seem to be more stable, more safe, the homes better maintained than neighborhoods where non-Christians are the majority. Yet you never consider "why" you "choose" to live among Christians. Its okay, I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.
And the last paragraph was pointing out a historical fact: when religion is forcibly removed from a society, the murders are tremendous. Again, I expect no intellectual honesty from you on this matter, just superficial nonsense to justify your "choice" not to pay attention to the LORD.
No, it makes one more strawman torched.
New at this?
The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed)."
And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.
My lack of god, you are new at this.
I didn't "ignore a legitimate question"; I highlighted an illegitimate one. Nobody said anything about women needing or not needing guns; you just made that up. That's what "strawman" means; something you just make up, then attribute it to some opponent (in this case a disembodied blanket) and then attack your own point.
Can't believe I have to explain this. Methinks you need a new name, because this one's way ironic.
And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.
"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.
And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.
"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.
Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke
Because he told them to. Period.
October 14, 2011Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke
Because he told them to. Period.
Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke
Because he told them to. Period.
"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.
Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?
I haven't proffered "ideas" here. You have. Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic. You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.
This thread was about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant. I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible. Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.
Thread hijacked: check. The end.
October 14, 2011Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke
Because he told them to. Period.
RUSH: I say it, you believe it, with no questions.
Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?
I haven't proffered "ideas" here. You have. Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic. You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.
This thread was about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant. I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible. Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.
Thread hijacked: check. The end.
Again, you wanted to bring Christianity into it. I was just following up on your comments to see how you really felt (it appears that you are just fine with using Christians, but you do not want them to be able to use the first ammendment).
Rush "mocked" Sandra Fluke. He was not as vile as many on the left (entertainers, politicians, political activists that called conservative women far worse than "slut" without them standing in front of congresss asking the gov't to ensure their contraceptives are paid for by "others"). You will not respond to the obvious condescending comments towards women made by the left (which implies that you support that insulting rhetoric).
It appears that "you" are the one that does not want to deal with reality or answer the hard questions. I have answered the questions about Sandra Fluke. Like a dutiful little zombie, you ignore the insults to women made by the left, and offer your undying loyalty to them, no matter that they do things far worse, than call women demanding that others pay for their contraceptives "slut".
Again, you have shown that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest. You have shown that obvious humor offends you when it targets your pet idealogy. I am amused.
The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).".
The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).".
No woman needs to own a gun, nor does any man, unless they live on a farm and need to put down an animal from time to time, or they live in a remote area and hunt for their food.
Why do you oppose people making their own choices?
Why do you oppose people making their own choices?
I don't oppose people making their own choices. I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.
I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world. Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping. I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.
Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell. The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.
Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.
"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.
Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?
I haven't proffered "ideas" here. You have. Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic. You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.
This thread was about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant. I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible. Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.
Thread hijacked: check. The end.