Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 31, 2014, 12:55:46 PM
-
Embarrassing.
-
Just go to 2:09 of the video and watch the waste of oxygen in the blue jacket make the case for Hobby Lobby.
Unbelievable how stupid these libtards are.
But, in the end, the Supreme Court will rule against Hobby Lobby because they already approved the unconstitutional crapcare law. Not because it is the correct ruling but because doing the right thing in protecting Hobby Lobby's rights would mean scaling back on that unconstitutional law and an admission of their original mistake.
Plus, I can see the justices bringing up all these "slippery slope" scenarios to justify their ruling against Hobby Lobby. Except, such "slippery slope" hypotheticals wouldn't even come into play if they hadn't ruled in favor of the unconstitutional law in the first place.
-
Just go to 2:09 of the video and watch the waste of oxygen in the blue jacket make the case for Hobby Lobby.
Unbelievable how stupid these libtards are.
But, in the end, the Supreme Court will rule against Hobby Lobby because they already approved the unconstitutional crapcare law. Not because it is the correct ruling but because doing the right thing in protecting Hobby Lobby's rights would mean scaling back on that unconstitutional law and an admission of their original mistake.
Plus, I can see the justices bringing up all these "slippery slope" scenarios to justify their ruling against Hobby Lobby. Except, such "slippery slope" hypotheticals wouldn't even come into play if they hadn't ruled in favor of the unconstitutional law in the first place.
I agree they created a mess. Never should have upheld it. This is just part of the fallout.
-
Hobby Lobby is a business...not a church. If it was ruled in their favor, you can bet that every business out there would claim the same shit.
Hobby Lobby is only concerned about their bottom line in the guise of "religious freedom". Fuck them and fuck every other flat earther who believes this garbage
-
Hobby Lobby is a business...not a church. If it was ruled in their favor, you can bet that every business out there would claim the same shit.
Hobby Lobby is only concerned about their bottom line in the guise of "religious freedom". Fuck them and fuck every other flat earther who believes this garbage
I take it you are not a fan
-
Hobby Lobby is a business...not a church. If it was ruled in their favor, you can bet that every business out there would claim the same shit.
Hobby Lobby is only concerned about their bottom line in the guise of "religious freedom". Fuck them and fuck every other flat earther who believes this garbage
It's a business owned by Christians. The business is concerned about its bottom line, like any viable business, but it's also concerned about faith. This is from the company website:
At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to:
Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.
store front imageWe believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.
Hobby Lobby is THE place to shop with everyday Super Selections and Super Savings! Store hours are Monday through Saturday from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and all Hobby Lobby stores are closed on Sunday.
http://www.hobbylobby.com/our_company/
-
Hobby Lobby is a business...not a church. If it was ruled in their favor, you can bet that every business out there would claim the same shit.
Hobby Lobby is only concerned about their bottom line in the guise of "religious freedom". Fuck them and fuck every other flat earther who believes this garbage
You obviously didn't watch the video.
You are making the same stupid point laid out by the idiot in the blue jacket. Are you two fools related?
If the government were to force businesses to not give any benefits to same sex couples, you would be squealing like a pig. But, remember, businesses are not churches, nor individuals, as you libtards like to point out.
-
You obviously didn't watch the video.
You are making the same stupid point laid our by the idiot in the blue jacket. Are you two fools related?
If the government were to force businesses to not give any benefits to same sex couples, you would be squealing like a pig. But, remember, businesses are not churches, nor individuals as you libtards like to point out.
Pretty sure he didn't watch the video.
-
Pretty sure he didn't watch the video.
I watched it...interviewing a bunch of morons doesn't sway my opinion.
-
I watched it...interviewing a bunch of morons doesn't sway my opinion.
Ok. I stand corrected.
-
I watched it...interviewing a bunch of morons doesn't sway my opinion.
Those same morons share your opinion.
-
How can a corporation have a religious belief?
Can a corporation go to heaven or hell ?
I bet that have a kick ass Wal Mart in heaven
-
I hope that same logic is applied if a law is passed that gives corporations the option to provide such coverage or certain benefits, because after all they are not churches, nor individuals.
They own themselves. They build themselves. No humans are leading those companies.
HEHEHEHE!!
Hope the left applies that logic if a corporate law that doesn't agree with them is passed.
-
Straw and Lurker shop for their knitting kits at Hobby Lobby I heard.
-
Straw and Lurker shop for their knitting kits at Hobby Lobby I heard.
;D ;D
-
They got it right.
Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge
Published June 30, 2014
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.
The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign.
"Today is a great day for religious liberty," Adele Keim, counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which represented Hobby Lobby, told Fox News.
The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case, finding the contraceptive mandate in its current form "unlawful." The court's four liberal justices dissented.
The Obama administration, months ago, already negotiated with religious-based schools, hospitals and other non-profits to reach an accommodation on the issue of contraception coverage. In the wake of Monday's ruling, the question now before the administration is how it might try to accommodate for-profit businesses that claim religious objections while also extending contraceptive coverage to female workers.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday afternoon that the decision "jeopardizes the health of women who are employed by these companies," but said the administration would respect the ruling.
"We will work with Congress to make sure that any women affected by this decision will still have the same coverage of vital health services as everyone else," he said. Earnest did not get into specifics, saying they are still assessing the decision and trying to determine which companies are affected.
Alito suggested two ways the administration could ensure women get the contraception they want. It could pay for pregnancy prevention, he said. Or it could provide the same kind of accommodation made available to non-profits -- by letting the groups' insurers or a third-party administrator take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.
The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners.
But Alito held that in the case before the court, the religious objections cited were legally legitimate, under a law that bars the government from taking action in certain cases that "substantially burdens" freedom of religion. He noted that fines for one company could total $475 million per year if they did not comply with the ObamaCare rule.
"If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would," Alito wrote.
The Supreme Court challenge was brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. The for-profit businesses challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans.
It was the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago.
Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court were those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000.
The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argued that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses.
The Obama administration had argued that a victory for the companies would prevent women who work for them from making decisions about birth control based on what's best for their health, not whether they can afford it.
Democratic leaders blasted the court's decision on Monday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tweeting: "It's time that five men on the Supreme Court stop deciding what happens to women."
In a dissent she read aloud from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "potentially sweeping" because it minimizes the government's interest in uniform compliance with laws affecting the workplace. "And it discounts the disadvantages religion-based opt outs impose on others, in particular, employees who do not share their employer's religious beliefs," Ginsburg said.
The Obama administration argued earlier this year that the case is not just about birth control, and that a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the businesses could undermine laws governing immunizations, Social Security taxes and minimum wages.
Alito clarified that the decision Monday is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
-
Wonder how this might impact upcoming elections by way of affecting the participation and voting of women?
I'm guessing that Hillary has been thinking about this, too.
-
I think it was straw at 2:07. Could be wrong though......
...but I doubt it.
-
Embarrassing.
Ah the classic "man on the street" interviewing Obama supporter videos.
Always good for a laugh. :D
-
I watched it...interviewing a bunch of morons doesn't sway my opinion.
Do you understand you agree with those morons? The only difference is you have time to think and type out your answer..lol.
-
Another interesting 5-4 decision by the Supremes that's well-worth a read. For the record, I largely agree with the decision, even if I think that the position of the owners of Hobby Lobby (i.e. that offering insurance to their employees that provides such coverage is tantamount to actually performing an abortion) is stupid.
-
Do you understand you agree with those morons? The only difference is you have time to think and type out your answer..lol.
No, they are completely wrong about why the law is in place. Unfortunately, every business can now claim "religious exemption" for anything....minimum wage, social security.
Unless a business is a church...they should follow the same rules as every other business. They shouldn't have the right to tell women how to take care of themselves as if it was Sharia Law
-
No, they are completely wrong about why the law is in place. Unfortunately, every business can now claim "religious exemption" for anything....minimum wage, social security.
Unless a business is a church...they should follow the same rules as every other business. They shouldn't have the right to tell women how to take care of themselves as if it was Sharia Law
Bad News for Obama is good news for America ;)
-
No, they are completely wrong about why the law is in place. Unfortunately, every business can now claim "religious exemption" for anything....minimum wage, social security.
Unless a business is a church...they should follow the same rules as every other business. They shouldn't have the right to tell women how to take care of themselves as if it was Sharia Law
Settle down drama queen. This has limited applicability. It won't apply to all corporations, nor will they able to assert religious beliefs for anything they want. Read the fucking opinion already...it'll take you a whopping 10 minutes.
-
Bad News for Obama is good news for America ;)
No, bad news for America too
Rather than having a private employer pay a few dollars for contraception now we can all pay more to help support all these unwanted kids. Also, the insurance companies get to pay a lot more for pre and post natal care and of course health care for all of these kids.
Of course, maybe a black market abortion system will just crop up like is starting to happen in Texas.
-
No, bad news for America too
Rather than having a private employer pay a few dollars for contraception now we can all pay more to help support all these unwanted kids. Also, the insurance companies get to pay a lot more for pre and post natal care and of course health care for all of these kids.
Of course, maybe a black market abortion system will just crop up like is starting to happen in Texas.
Drama Queen #2
They objected to 4 of the 20 medicines required by Obamacare. Yes - they're irrational with their religious beliefs, but there's still 16 other options being carried.
But yeah, let's act like we'll see a bunch of unwanted children now. ::)
-
Drama Queen #2
They objected to 4 of the 20 medicines required by Obamacare. Yes - they're irrational with their religious beliefs, but there's still 16 other options being carried.
But yeah, let's act like we'll see a bunch of unwanted children now. ::)
No drama Skippy. Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies
And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/
-
No drama Skippy. Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies
And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/
Why should we as a society have to pay at all? I can see the case for having catastrophic health insurance available to everyone via something like Medicare. But why should employers and employees be compelled to offer health care coverage and to accept such coverage respectively?
Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to be able to forego the insurance my employer provides and negotiate a higher salary instead. Then I can choose the insurance company I think best suits my needs - if I even want health insurance to begin with. For some women, that might be health insurance that covers birth control; for others it might not.
-
Why should we as a society have to pay at all? I can see the case for having catastrophic health insurance available to everyone via something like Medicare. But why should employers and employees be compelled to offer health care coverage and to accept such coverage respectively?
Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to be able to forego the insurance my employer provides and negotiate a higher salary instead. Then I can choose the insurance company I think best suits my needs - if I even want health insurance to begin with. For some women, that might be health insurance that covers birth control; for others it might not.
let them skip insurance and we can just all pick up the bill the emergency room
Seriously though, what's a few pennies worth of contraception to this company. I'm sure the insurance companies would rather provided pennies worth of contraception than thousands of dollars worth of pre/post natal insurance + ongoing costs after that.
This entire "religious freedom" argument is nonsense anyway. Corporations can't have a religious point of view.
Maybe a Jewish owned corporation should look at this ruling and require all of their employees to stop eating pork.
Same goes for Muslim owned corporations.
At the present time we have a conservative leaning court so we get conservative leaning decisions. If the next POTUS is a Democrat then we will get a liberal leaning court and more liberal decisions.
I personally haven't followed any of these decisions. I've got better things to do with my time
-
Why should we as a society have to pay at all? I can see the case for having catastrophic health insurance available to everyone via something like Medicare. But why should employers and employees be compelled to offer health care coverage and to accept such coverage respectively?
Speaking for myself, I'd much prefer to be able to forego the insurance my employer provides and negotiate a higher salary instead. Then I can choose the insurance company I think best suits my needs - if I even want health insurance to begin with. For some women, that might be health insurance that covers birth control; for others it might not.
I have no problem with contraception, but we should't be forced to provide it to anyone.
-
I have no problem with contraception, but we should't be forced to provide it to anyone.
I don't either. And if a company wants to provide it to employees, it should be able to, in the same that it's able to offer them free donuts, chips, coffee and soda, or discounts to a gym, or a local restaurant or whathaveyou. I do have a problem with a company being forced to provide such services to employees however.
let them skip insurance and we can just all pick up the bill the emergency room
False dichotomy. If the government wishes to cover catastrophic care, then it can do so through existing mechanisms, such as Medicare. A program aimed at providing such coverage would almost certainly meet with much broader support. But the government doesn't wish to do that. It wishes to cover everything and it wants to force health insurance down everyone's throat because of this "government knows best" mentality that has become prevalent.
Seriously though, what's a few pennies worth of contraception to this company. I'm sure the insurance companies would rather provided pennies worth of contraception than thousands of dollars worth of pre/post natal insurance + ongoing costs after that.
The pennies worth of contraception are not the relevant issue. Neither is the "pennies now, or thousands later" bit.
This entire "religious freedom" argument is nonsense anyway. Corporations can't have a religious point of view.
But the owners of that privately held corporation can - and some do.
Maybe a Jewish owned corporation should look at this ruling and require all of their employees to stop eating pork.
The better analogy would be: "this corporation is privately held and the owners are Jewish and they should not be forced to provide bacon if they wish to give their employees free breakfast." But you wouldn't want to use the better analogy would you?
Same goes for Muslim owned corporations.
I agree: corporations that are privately held by Muslims should not be forced to provide bacon if they choose to offer breakfast.
I personally haven't followed any of these decisions. I've got better things to do with my time
In other words: I don't know what the fuck is going on, and I don't want to know since I've got better things to do with my time, like make comments on this topic which I haven't followed and I know little about. ::)
-
;D
I don't either. And if a company wants to provide it to employees, it should be able to, in the same that it's able to offer them free donuts, chips, coffee and soda, or discounts to a gym, or a local restaurant or whathaveyou. I do have a problem with a company being forced to provide such services to employees however.
False dichotomy. If the government wishes to cover catastrophic care, then it can do so through existing mechanisms, such as Medicare. A program aimed at providing such coverage would almost certainly meet with much broader support. But the government doesn't wish to do that. It wishes to cover everything and it wants to force health insurance down everyone's throat because of this "government knows best" mentality that has become prevalent.
The pennies worth of contraception are not the relevant issue. Neither is the "pennies now, or thousands later" bit.
But the owners of that privately held corporation can - and some do.
The better analogy would be: "this corporation is privately held and the owners are Jewish and they should not be forced to provide bacon if they wish to give their employees free breakfast." But you wouldn't want to use the better analogy would you?
I agree: corporations that are privately held by Muslims should not be forced to provide bacon if they choose to offer breakfast.
In other words: I don't know what the fuck is going on, and I don't want to know since I've got better things to do with my time, like make comments on this topic which I haven't followed and I know little about. ::)
-
I don't either. And if a company wants to provide it to employees, it should be able to, in the same that it's able to offer them free donuts, chips, coffee and soda, or discounts to a gym, or a local restaurant or whathaveyou. I do have a problem with a company being forced to provide such services to employees however.
False dichotomy. If the government wishes to cover catastrophic care, then it can do so through existing mechanisms, such as Medicare. A program aimed at providing such coverage would almost certainly meet with much broader support. But the government doesn't wish to do that. It wishes to cover everything and it wants to force health insurance down everyone's throat because of this "government knows best" mentality that has become prevalent.
The pennies worth of contraception are not the relevant issue. Neither is the "pennies now, or thousands later" bit.
But the owners of that privately held corporation can - and some do.
The better analogy would be: "this corporation is privately held and the owners are Jewish and they should not be forced to provide bacon if they wish to give their employees free breakfast." But you wouldn't want to use the better analogy would you?
I agree: corporations that are privately held by Muslims should not be forced to provide bacon if they choose to offer breakfast.
In other words: I don't know what the fuck is going on, and I don't want to know since I've got better things to do with my time, like make comments on this topic which I haven't followed and I know little about.[/i] ::)
this just happened today and I haven't been following it or anything else that happened in the news today.
BFD
Part of the reason that companies incorporate is so that the the owners can avoid personal liability. If they want to avoid personal liability then I say they lose their ability to force their personal religious beliefs onto to their employees. This is a company and not a church or religious institution.
4 justices ruled against Hobby Lobby and If I actually feel like investing some time maybe I'll read Bader Ginsbergs dissent and comment on it here but it's not likely.
I also have less and less interest in this board and I'll post when/if it interests and entertains me to do so.
Just so there is no confusion I don't buy ANY of the religious arguments for any company or institution that doesn't want to comply with the ACA.
I'd be fine if employers were completely out of the insurance business and I believe they should be but that's not going to happen any time soon
-
Poor obama must be wishing for a refund from harvard law no?
this just happened today and I haven't been following it or anything else that happened in the news today.
BFD
Part of the reason that companies incorporate is so that the the owners can avoid personal liability. If they want to avoid personal liability then I say they lose their ability to force their personal religious beliefs onto to their employees. This is a company and not a church or religious institution.
4 justices ruled against Hobby Lobby and If I actually feel like investing some time maybe I'll read Bader Ginsbergs dissent and comment on it here but it's not likely.
I also have less and less interest in this board and I'll post when/if it interests and entertains me to do so.
Just so there is no confusion I don't buy ANY of the religious arguments for any company or institution that doesn't want to comply with the ACA.
I'd be fine if employers were completely out of the insurance business and I believe they should be but that's not going to happen any time soon
-
Poor obama must be wishing for a refund from harvard law no?
4 justices voted against Hobby Lobby
We have a conservative leaning SC
if anyone should get a refund for law school it's a closet queen who spends 24 hours a day making pretty much the same posts over and over again
-
Even a liberal is smart enough to figure out that buying your own fucking birth control is cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy
-
WTF am I saying..that would require a sense of personal responsibility and self-reliance....those are completely foreign concepts to the average "where's my check" Obama voter.
-
No drama Skippy. Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies
And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/
let them skip insurance and we can just all pick up the bill the emergency room
Seriously though, what's a few pennies worth of contraception to this company. I'm sure the insurance companies would rather provided pennies worth of contraception than thousands of dollars worth of pre/post natal insurance + ongoing costs after that.
This entire "religious freedom" argument is nonsense anyway. Corporations can't have a religious point of view.
Maybe a Jewish owned corporation should look at this ruling and require all of their employees to stop eating pork.
Same goes for Muslim owned corporations.
At the present time we have a conservative leaning court so we get conservative leaning decisions. If the next POTUS is a Democrat then we will get a liberal leaning court and more liberal decisions.
I personally haven't followed any of these decisions. I've got better things to do with my time
Just HOW does NOT paying for contraception equate to more pregnancies or emergency room visits?
-
Just HOW does NOT paying for contraception equate to more pregnancies or emergency room visits?
You see... when mommy and daddy love each other too much, well... sometimes they get stuck together and doctors must help make them love each other less. This is called penis captivus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_captivus).
-
Just HOW does NOT paying for contraception equate to more pregnancies or emergency room visits?
ok, this board is starting to get interesting at the moment
we're talking about a "relatively" small population (employee's of Hobby Lobby)
yes or no?
-
Not sure that matters...Court ruled "closely held" companies were exempt so in the end, the number of owners or shareholders is more important than the number of employees
-
ok, this board is starting to get interesting at the moment
we're talking about a "relatively" small population (employee's of Hobby Lobby)
yes or no?
ahhhh... that would be a NO. Again (think big picture), just how does NOT PAYING FOR it equate to more unwanted pregnancies and all that goes with it?
No drama Skippy. Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies
And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/
-
Some pretty extreme misinformation out there:
"The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354
-
Birth control when used for the purposes of preventing pregnancy is not being prescribed to treat a medical condition. The person is choosing to take the drug but it is not necessary for the health of the person. When a woman is prescribed birth control medication for a condition like excessive cramping it should be covered by medical insurance because its treating an actual medical condition.
-
No drama Skippy. Just pointing out that we will all get to pay more for these unwanted pregnancies
And as a modern society we will all get to enjoy the benefits of DIY abortions like is starting to happen in Texas
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/
The whole back alley abortions will become rampant is an old worn out slippery slope argument overused by the left.
-
Even a liberal is smart enough to figure out that buying your own fucking birth control is cheaper than an unwanted pregnancy
A liberal would just think that evil rich people should pay for both anyway
-
A liberal would just think that evil rich people should pay for both anyway
(http://www.dogpictures.co/pictures/We_Have_A_Winner.jpg)
-
Only certain birth control methods were exempt from being paid for.
Plan B, IUD's and one or two others.
As far as I know the lil' chickadee's can still get the pill and such. Not like the pill is all that expensive anyways.
-
Hmmm. Think I've just changed my mind about this issue:
Supreme Court Upholds Little Caesar’s Right to Feed Christian Employees to Lions
July 1, 2014 by Matt Horgan
(http://www.atlbanana.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/800px-Okonjima_Lioness-458x400.jpg)
WASHINGTON, DC–The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Roman-owned pizza chain Little Caesar’s was within its rights to place Christian employees in an arena and then unleash starved, vicious lions and lionesses upon them. The court cited religious freedom as its guiding principle. The 5-to-4 ruling opened the door to potentially thousands of Christian Little Caesar employees nationwide being immediately fed to the top predators of the African savannah.
Little Caesar’s argued that the persecution of Christians and the feeding of them to ravenous big cats was a “deeply held” religious belief, that the continued survival of the roughly 6,000 Christian employees, as well as the fact that they remained on company payroll, imposed a “substantial financial burden” on their religious liberty.
The 5 conservative Justices agreed. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, the author of the majority opinion, wrote:
"While it is debatable that some harm may come to any Christians fed to a lion or lioness, there is certainly demonstrable harm being done to these animals that are denied the tasty, nutrient-rich Christians that their diet requires."
A Christian employee of the company, Ed Broyles, expressed dismay at the decision. “They’re gonna fuckin’ feed me to a motherfucking lion? But I only ever go to church on like Easter!”, he said, shaking visibly and sweating. “Jesus H Christ on a cracker, I’ve got a fucking family!”
Little Caesar owner and CEO, Little Caesar himself, applauded the ruling. When asked how soon his company would begin killing off its Christian employees he responded, “Carpe Diem.”
http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court-upholds-little-caesars-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/ (http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court-upholds-little-caesars-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/)
-
Some pretty extreme misinformation out there:
"The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/30/reminder-hobby-lobby-provides-coverage-for-16-types-of-contraception-n1857354
That the ruling only applied to 4 of the 20 methods of birth control was my understanding, too, until I saw this today:
Justices act in other health law mandate cases
Associated Press
July 1, 2014 10:23 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.
Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.
Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.
They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.
More here:
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html)
-
"When I tell people I’m a feminist, they look at me like I’m a witch that set my hair on fire. I understand the reaction. The name conjures images for some of a conspiracy to elevate women and demote men, but true feminists encompass men and women alike. You, the reader, may even be a feminist. If you think the pressure placed on men to be strong and not show emotion is wrong, you’re a feminist. If you think women should be held to the same standards as men in sexual abuse and domestic violence cases, you’re a feminist. It’s all about defying patriarchal standards for both genders, and true proponents of the philosophy have managed to achieve a lot of good.
However, there is another breed of feminist with an agenda that runs counter to the principles of feminism, and they are as wrong as they are crazy. These women give feminists a bad name, much like how current liberals have bastardized the term, leaving us classical liberals to adopt the name ‘libertarian.’ This recent Hobby Lobby decision brought out the crazies in droves, and attempting to address their manufactured outrage is something you should do at your own risk. Those who have tried to do so on social media know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s like walking through a field of land mines that look and talk like Rachel Maddow.
I was accused of being a victim of libertarian propaganda and sending women back to the dark ages over my support of the Supreme Court decision. I was told birth control pills were “a human right.” As Inigo Montoya would say, they keep using that word. I don’t think it means what they think it means. I must have missed “birth control” the last time I perused the Bill of Rights. Yes, women have a right to buy birth control. No, others aren’t obligated to buy it for them. What should be a fairly simple concept is lost on women stirred into a frenzy by a media that relishes divisiveness.
While the majority of their comments were downright headache inducing, what particular roused my ire were their attempts to say that the company’s decision to continue covering Viagra and vasectomies for men was a double standard.
First, let’s clear up what is and isn’t covered under Hobby Lobby’s new plan.
It doesn’t affect:
• Most birth control pills
• Condoms
• Sponges
• Sterilization
The only drugs Hobby Lobby are choosing not to cover are intrauterine devices and the morning-after pills Ella and Plan B. They believe these drugs cause abortions by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus. They are not against preventative measures, as evidenced by their continued coverage of vasectomies for men and birth control for women.
As for their support of Viagra, it should not be that surprising, given their Christian stance. It’s right there in Genesis. “Be fruitful and multiply.” If there were a female equivalent to Viagra that Hobby Lobby denied coverage for, that would be another matter, but IUD’s and morning-after pills cannot be equated to a libido booster.
It hurts to see my female friends manipulated so easily by the left into thinking that a company’s decision to not cover IUD’s and morning-after pills is somehow an attack against women. It is not. The Supreme Court’s decision for Hobby Lobby is correct under the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This ruling states that these people cannot be forced to do something that violates their perceived moral responsibility.
The indignant response of women to this decision is especially disheartening when you look at what the government is doing to actual human rights. The government can threaten every American with incarceration at the point of a gun to pay taxes, which are used to bust down people’s doors in the middle of the night during a no-knock raid, order drone strikes on children overseas, or provide money and weapons to Syrian rebels. All Americans should be applauding the broad precedent set by this case, because it means that maybe one day, you, me, and everybody else will finally be free from having to pay our hard-earned money to support the state’s values of death, slavery, and the pursuit of misery."
-
The viagra comparison is thrown around a lot and its one of the poorest arguments. Viagra is not perscribed to a person unless they have a medical condition which requires it. Birth control perscribed for the purpose of preventing pregnancy does not treat a medical condition. A better comparison is peopecia for hair loss. Finasteride for prostate enlargement is a recognized medical condition and covered by insurance while using finasteride for hair loss is not covered by insurance.
-
this may sound weird but i'm honestly surprised at how disingenuous and downright dishonest liberals have been about this case. I honestly was starting to agree with a lot of their points until I actually started to find out the facts of the case. wow. this is all a bunch of bullshit.
-
this may sound weird but i'm honestly surprised at how disingenuous and downright dishonest liberals have been about this case. I honestly was starting to agree with a lot of their points until I actually started to find out the facts of the case. wow. this is all a bunch of bullshit.
Hey hey Bears, this new info from an AP article I've excerpted below doesn't impact your opinion about whether anyone should have birth control bought for them but you may be interested to learn that the ruling isn't as narrow as it seemed on Monday in that it now seems that the ruling does not only apply to only 4 of the 20 methods of birth control. (At least not for the closely-held businesses other than Hobby Lobby that are challenging the law in court.)
Associated Press
July 1, 2014 10:23 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
...
More at:
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html)
-
The viagra comparison is thrown around a lot and its one of the poorest arguments. Viagra is not perscribed to a person unless they have a medical condition which requires it. Birth control perscribed for the purpose of preventing pregnancy does not treat a medical condition. A better comparison is peopecia for hair loss. Finasteride for prostate enlargement is a recognized medical condition and covered by insurance while using finasteride for hair loss is not covered by insurance.
Are you saying that you think that healthcare insurance should pay only for treatment of a "medical condition"?
And by your reckoning, pregnancy is not a medical condition since one can't call it an illness?
Hmmm, it's got to be a little more complicated than that, otherwise a lot of preventive medicine, wouldn't it?
-
Are you saying that you think that healthcare insurance should pay only for treatment of a "medical condition"?
And by your reckoning, pregnancy is not a medical condition since one can't call it an illness?
Hmmm, it's got to be a little more complicated than that, otherwise a lot of preventive medicine, wouldn't it?
Pregnancy is a condition that requires medical attention. Preventing pregnancy is not. Illness is your word. I never used the term. Name a preventive medicine covered by insurance that is perscribed to prevent a condition someone doesnt have early signs for or is unlikely to get?
-
Pregnancy is a condition that requires medical attention. Preventing pregnancy is not. Illness is your word. I never used the term. Name a preventive medicine covered by insurance that is perscribed to prevent a condition someone doesnt have early signs for or is unlikely to get?
You're right, you did not use the word illness.
But you're contending that healthcare insurance shouldn't be covering the prevention of a condition that requires medical attention?
Can you please rephrase your last question? I'm not sure I understand. (But, as an old man, I'm just itching to use a colonoscopy as an example if I can, lol.)
-
You're right, you did not use the word illness.
But you're contending that healthcare insurance shouldn't be covering the prevention of a condition that requires medical attention?
Can you please rephrase your last question? I'm not sure I understand. (But, as an old man, I'm just itching to use a colonoscopy as an example if I can, lol.)
Im saying nothing of the sort. Name a preventative medicine that is prescribed to a patient by a doctor and covered by insurance to a person who has no signs of a potential medical condition? Anyone who is perscribed preventative medicine is given that medicine because they show symptoms whether early or not of a medical condition that requires medical intervention to prevent or treat. Birth control does not qualify.
-
this may sound weird but i'm honestly surprised at how disingenuous and downright dishonest liberals have been about this case. I honestly was starting to agree with a lot of their points until I actually started to find out the facts of the case. wow. this is all a bunch of bullshit.
Completely agree. Had the same experience.
-
Im saying nothing of the sort. Name a preventative medicine that is prescribed to a patient by a doctor and covered by insurance to a person who has no signs of a potential medical condition? Anyone who is perscribed preventative medicine is given that medicine because they show symptoms whether early or not of a medical condition that requires medical intervention to prevent or treat. Birth control does not qualify.
Hepatitis vaccinations and the like for overseas travelers. What do I win?
-
Hepatitis vaccinations and the like for overseas travelers. What do I win?
You don't win anything because you prove my point. The potential for a medical condition is there because the traveler may come into contact with a virus. I would argue that since the person is choosing to travel of their own free will he or she should pay for their own inoculation. Anyway, this is not a fair comparison to birth control.
-
You don't win anything because you prove my point. The potential for a medical condition is there because the traveler may come into contact with a virus. I would argue that since the person is choosing to travel of their own free will he or she should pay for their own inoculation. Anyway, this is not a fair comparison to birth control.
Hey mang, just trying to answer your question which was "Name a preventative medicine that is prescribed to a patient by a doctor and covered by insurance to a person who has no signs of a potential medical condition?"
And, seems to me, nearly all vaccinations would be an answer as would almost any check-up not prompted by some complaint.
-
Hey mang, just trying to answer your question which was "Name a preventative medicine that is prescribed to a patient by a doctor and covered by insurance to a person who has no signs of a potential medical condition?"
And, seems to me, nearly all vaccinations would be an answer as would almost any check-up not prompted by some complaint.
Mang? Arent you old? Its a horrible comparison because it has no relation to birth control. Wellness check ups arent comparable to birth control either. Vaccinations and check ups are done to maintain the wellness of the patient and/or determine a patients current state of health in order to to establish whether the patients current state of health has changed . Birth control for pregnancy prevention doesn't do any of this.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-voters-support-hobby-lobby-decision-10-point-margin_796030.html
:D
-
Mang? Arent you old? Its a horrible comparison because it has no relation to birth control. Wellness check ups arent comparable to birth control either. Vaccinations and check ups are done to maintain the wellness of the patient and/or determine a patients current state of health in order to to establish whether the patients current state of health has changed . Birth control for pregnancy prevention doesn't do any of this.
Yer movin' the goalposts, mang. But that's OK because this shouldn't just become an exercise in if Archer can come up with a comprehensive but succinct rule for what health insurance should cover (while making sure pregnancy prevention isn't part of it).
If you ask me, pregnancy IS a medical condition that some would like to avoid so birth control methods, especially the cheaper ones, SHOULD be covered by healthcare insurance. Especially since child birth IS covered and that's a hell of lot more expensive than birth control.
Oh well, as a dood (am I too old to write that in your seemingly not-so-open-minded world?, lol) it doesn't bother me much since I can't get pregnant.
How, though, do you think women will react to all of this? Get Out The Vote, indeed!
Sheesh, the fact that we're even discussing this is a victory of sorts for the left, don't ya think?
-
In the vast majority of cases, birth control isn't used to address a specific health condition. It's used by choice...the woman taking it's life will go on as before, unless she does the old boom-chicka-chicka...which is a another choice. My insurance won't cover me to buy twinkies so I can get fat, but they will pay for the drugs to keep me going if I become obese.
-
Hobby Lobby is a business...not a church. If it was ruled in their favor, you can bet that every business out there would claim the same shit.
Hobby Lobby is only concerned about their bottom line in the guise of "religious freedom". Fuck them and fuck every other flat earther who believes this garbage
Vince I believe Hobby Lobby (a privately held family corporation) has about 19 birth control RXs in their coverage. Its only the 4 that abort that they had a problem with.The cost each is about $9 for the user....not a back breaker. Has zip to do with the bottom line. Even Alan Dershowitz the Harvard Law liberal says that we are confusing emotional political belief with the Law. He agrees with the Supreme Court on this one. And I agree with Deshowitz. BTW I am an agnostic Libertarian not a "flat earther". Neither is Alan Dershowitz.
-
Harry Reid Issues Bizarre Threat About Hobby Lobby, Then Makes Absurd Gaffe About How US Gov’t Works
By Caroline Schaeffer
Rattling off a laundry list of legislation the Senate needs to tackle, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made it clear that he is dismayed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that Hobby Lobby has the right to opt out of government-mandated reproductive services on religious freedom grounds.
In classic Harry Reid fashion, it appears that the Senate Majority leader is unaware that there are three separate branches of government, and might be a bit confused about what the Supreme Court does.
We have so much to address over the coming weeks, Mr. President. Sportsmen’s bill denied, the highway bill, emergency supplemental, manufacturing legislation… we going to do something about the Hobby Lobby legislation, we need to correct.
Hobby Lobby… legislation? Senator Reid, I don’t think you know how this works. The Senate cannot undo a decision made by the Supreme Court, unless it wants to act outside of the Constitution. Not a problem for some in the Democratic Party, but there you have it.
Here’s a refresher course, Mr. Reid, in case you need some brushing up on high school civics.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/154671-uh-oh-watch-harry-reid-says-hes-going-something-hobby-lobby/
-
Yer movin' the goalposts, mang. But that's OK because this shouldn't just become an exercise in if Archer can come up with a comprehensive but succinct rule for what health insurance should cover (while making sure pregnancy prevention isn't part of it).
If you ask me, pregnancy IS a medical condition that some would like to avoid so birth control methods, especially the cheaper ones, SHOULD be covered by healthcare insurance. Especially since child birth IS covered and that's a hell of lot more expensive than birth control.
Oh well, as a dood (am I too old to write that in your seemingly not-so-open-minded world?, lol) it doesn't bother me much since I can't get pregnant.
How, though, do you think women will react to all of this? Get Out The Vote, indeed!
Sheesh, the fact that we're even discussing this is a victory of sorts for the left, don't ya think?
Im not moving any goal posts. Vaccinations are given because there is a legitimate health concern, particularly for the young and elderly. And there are no alternative treatments. Vaccination is the only option. The potential for a future health issue is highly likely otherwise. The same doesnt apply unless a woman has a condition where pregnancy can directly endanger her life or cause death. Exposure to a virus is generally beyond a persons control unless they live in quarantine. The same cant be said for pregnancy.
You can help yourself from having your little passive aggressive tantrums.
-
Harry Reid Issues Bizarre Threat About Hobby Lobby, Then Makes Absurd Gaffe About How US Gov’t Works
By Caroline Schaeffer
[...]The Senate cannot undo a decision made by the Supreme Court, unless it wants to act outside of the Constitution.[...]
This isn't entirely correct. To be sure, they can't just wave their hands and directly undo a decision but they aren't powerless either: Congress is free to draft and pass new laws, and the Supreme Court which could affect previous decisions. If they drafted the text carefully then they could essentially twist the Court's arm. Even in Constitutional case Congress can still act: it can begin the process to adopt an Amendment to the Constitution. An Amendment would change the calculus and could, potentially, completely remove the matter from the purview of the Court. You might find this paper (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3836/) to be of interest.
With all that said, ugh... Harry Reid. He's almost out the door, but it drives me crazy to think that he could have already been kicked out if it weren't for the insane primary voters that nominated a complete and utter nutjob like Sharron Angle. A sensible Republican candidate could have beaten Reid in 2010.
-
This isn't entirely correct. To be sure, they can't just wave their hands and directly undo a decision but they aren't powerless either: Congress is free to draft and pass new laws, and the Supreme Court which could affect previous decisions. If they drafted the text carefully then they could essentially twist the Court's arm. Even in Constitutional case Congress can still act: it can begin the process to adopt an Amendment to the Constitution. An Amendment would change the calculus and could, potentially, completely remove the matter from the purview of the Court. You might find this paper (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3836/) to be of interest.
With all that said, ugh... Harry Reid. He's almost out the door, but it drives me crazy to think that he could have already been kicked out if it weren't for the insane primary voters that nominated a complete and utter nutjob like Sharron Angle. A sensible Republican candidate could have beaten Reid in 2010.
If we're being technical, it is entirely correct because the Senate cannot pass a bill and get it to the president's desk without the House. The excerpt says "Senate," not "Congress."
Overall, though, I understand your point.
-
A Company Liberals Could Love
JULY 5, 2014
FOR a generation now, liberals have bemoaned the disappearance of the socially conscious corporation, the boardroom devoted to the common good. Once, the story goes, America’s C.E.O.s recognized that they shared interests with workers and customers; once wages and working hours reflected more than just a zeal for profits. But then came Reagan, deregulation, hostile takeovers, and an era of solidarity gave way to the age of Gordon Gekko, from which there’s been no subsequent escape.
There are, however, exceptions: companies that still have a sense of business as a moral calling, which can be held up as examples to shame the bottom-liners.
One such company was hailed last year by the left-wing policy website Demos “for thumbing its nose at the conventional wisdom that success in the retail industry” requires paying “bargain-basement wages.” A retail chain with nearly 600 stores and 13,000 workers, this business sets its lowest full-time wage at $15 an hour, and raised wages steadily through the stagnant postrecession years. (Its do-gooder policies also include donating 10 percent of its profits to charity and giving all employees Sunday off.) And the chain is thriving commercially — offering, as Demos put it, a clear example of how “doing good for workers can also mean doing good for business.”
Of course I’m talking about Hobby Lobby, the Christian-owned craft store that’s currently playing the role of liberalism’s public enemy No. 1, for its successful suit against the Obama administration’s mandate requiring coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and potential abortifacients.
But this isn’t just a point about the company’s particular virtues. The entire conflict between religious liberty and cultural liberalism has created an interesting situation in our politics: The political left is expending a remarkable amount of energy trying to fine, vilify and bring to heel organizations — charities, hospitals, schools and mission-infused businesses — whose commitments they might under other circumstances extol.
So the recent Supreme Court ruling offers a chance, after the hysteria cools and the Taliban hypotheticals grow stale, for liberals to pause and consider the long-term implications of this culture-war campaign.
Historically, support for religious liberty in the United States has rested on pragmatic as well as philosophical foundations. From de Tocqueville’s America to Eisenhower’s, there has been a sense — not universal but widespread — that religious pluralism has broad social benefits, and that the wider society has a practical interest, within reason, in allowing religious communities to pursue moral ends as they see fit.
But in the past, tensions over pluralism’s proper scope usually occurred when a specific faith — Catholicism and Mormonism, notably — unsettled or challenged the mostly Protestant majority. Today, the potential tensions are much broader, because the goals of postsexual revolution liberalism are at odds with the official beliefs of almost every traditional religious body, be it Mormon or Muslim, Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox Jewish, Calvinist or Catholic.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
If liberals so desire, this division could lead to constant conflict, in which just about every project conservative believers undertake is gradually threatened with regulation enforcing liberal norms. The health coverage offered by religious employers; the activity of religious groups on college campuses; the treatments offered by religious hospitals; the subject matter taught in religious schools ... the battlegrounds are legion.
And liberals seem to be preparing the ground for this kind of expansive conflict — by making sharp distinctions (as the White House’s mandate exemptions did) between the liberties of congregations and the liberties of other religious organizations, by implying that religion’s “free exercise” is confined to liturgy and prayer, and by suggesting (as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in her Hobby Lobby dissent) that religious groups serve only their co-believers, not the common good.
That last idea, bizarre to anyone who’s visited a soup kitchen, could easily be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Insist that for legal purposes there’s no such thing as a religiously motivated business, and you will get fewer religiously motivated business owners — and more chain stores that happily cover Plan B but pay significantly lower wages. Pressure religious hospitals to perform abortions or sex-reassignment surgery (or some eugenic breakthrough, down the road), and you’ll eventually get fewer religious hospitals — and probably less charity care and a more zealous focus on the bottom line. Tell religious charities they have legal rights only insofar as they serve their co-religionists, and you’ll see the scope of their endeavors contract.
But this is not a path liberals need to choose — not least because the more authentically American alternative does not require them to abandon their policy goals. (Obamacare’s expansion of contraceptive coverage, for instance, will be almost as sweeping if some religious nonprofits and businesses opt out.)
Rather, it just requires a rediscovery of pluralism’s virtues, and the benefits of allowing different understandings of social justice to be pursued simultaneously, rather than pitted against each other in a battle to the death.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-a-company-liberals-could-love-.html?_r=0
-
If we're being technical, it is entirely correct because the Senate cannot pass a bill and get it to the president's desk without the House. The excerpt says "Senate," not "Congress."
Zing! A technicality call! Excellent!
-
Zing! A technicality call! Excellent!
One technical point deserves another. :)
-
Im not moving any goal posts. Vaccinations are given because there is a legitimate health concern, particularly for the young and elderly. And there are no alternative treatments. Vaccination is the only option. The potential for a future health issue is highly likely otherwise. The same doesnt apply unless a woman has a condition where pregnancy can directly endanger her life or cause death. Exposure to a virus is generally beyond a persons control unless they live in quarantine. The same cant be said for pregnancy.
You can help yourself from having your little passive aggressive tantrums.
Ok, how about sunscreen? (Maybe sunscreen is not covered by insurance?)
Look, Archer, sorry if I hurt your feelings before but I don't feel like I'm having a passive-aggressive tantrum. (What is that, exactly?)
I think maybe you're just defensive because somehow you've taken it upon yourself to defend misogyny. I mean, first you threw in with rapists and now you're against women getting birth control. Seems like you have some issues with women, mang, lol.
On a serious note, I'm very sorry for whatever your mommy/wife/girlfriend did to you but I have to say that it had nothing to do with me so your vitriol is misplaced.
I'm not even female, fergawdsake.
Can we be friends now? ;D
-
Ok, how about sunscreen? (Maybe sunscreen is not covered by insurance?)
Look, Archer, sorry if I hurt your feelings before but I don't feel like I'm having a passive-aggressive tantrum. (What is that, exactly?)
I think maybe you're just defensive because somehow you've taken it upon yourself to defend misogyny. I mean, first you threw in with rapists and now you're against women getting birth control. Seems like you have some issues with women, mang, lol.
On a serious note, I'm very sorry for whatever your mommy/wife/girlfriend did to you but I have to say that it had nothing to do with me so your vitriol is misplaced.
I'm not even female, fergawdsake.
Can we be friends now? ;D
How am I defending misogyny? I'm not and you know it but you make the accusation anyway because you're frustrated and acting out when you don't get your way. Its these repeated tantrums that make it impossible to take anything you write seriously, especially after you accused another of the very type of behavior you all to often engage in yourself.
Again, you denied accusing others who disagree with you of being pro-rape but here you are doing it again. What we've learned is that you are an overly emotional person, a liar and a hypocrite with the maturity level of a child.
-
How am I defending misogyny? I'm not and you know it but you make the accusation anyway because you're frustrated and acting out when you don't get your way. Its these repeated tantrums that make it impossible to take anything you write seriously, especially after you accused another of the very type of behavior you all to often engage in yourself.
Again, you denied accusing others who disagree with you of being pro-rape but here you are doing it again. What we've learned is that you are an overly emotional person, a liar and a hypocrite with the maturity level of a child.
Oh, good one. lol
Anyway, seeing as how I've falsely accused someone (Shockwave) of being pro-rape and you have falsely accused someone (me) of rape, does that mean we CAN be friends? lol
-
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid might be the two dumbest members of Congress.