Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 63
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE



    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    Hobby Lobby does cover contraception. And tubal ligation. There is no hypocrisy at all regarding vasectomies. Anyone who imagines "odious hypocrisy" where there is none, or who lies about it to fool others who are too ill-informed to make their own opinions is certainly worthy of being called out.



    No one said common birth control is an abortifacient, and now I am forced to believe you aren't even reading the plain English in front of you. I really think you need to actually do some research instead of going to partisan political sites and gobbling up propaganda then repeating it in forums interested in intelligent discussions. Your blurb above has literally nothing to do with Hobby Lobby case. Nothing.



    Oh look! A vapid retort that does not in any way address any argument. Just a bunch of empty words and a few impotent insults at the end. Do you know how ignorant and senseless you just made yourself sound?



    You clearly have no idea what you are talking about as this response obviously fails two separate ways.

    I already addressed why vasectomies and Viagra are not in any way, shape or form abortifacients. So fail #1 for you.

    And of course, I already addressed why demanding that someone subsidize your bedroom activities precludes you from accusing them of entering your bedroom uninvited. So fail #2 for you.



    You are right about the Constitution not giving people the right to force their beliefs on others, unfortunately for you, there is no instance of that occurring here. Not in the least. The Constitution established a protection for religion from government interference. That is what we are talking about here, a relationship between the government and the people (the Green family), the employees are entirely irrelevant to the Constitutional/RFRA argument here.

    As much as this might surprise you, I am an atheist, though not a cartoonish militant one like many others. I was not raised in a religious household and have been to a church maybe four times in my life (when staying with friend as a child, couple of weddings and a baptism). But unlike you and a depressing percentage of others, I am able to view logical and legal arguments/issues on their merits, without willingly ignoring facts, laws or realities that are inconvenient to my desired outcome. And this case is as obvious as it gets, as long as one uses the law, the RFRA, and not their own personal desires, to decide the case.



    Again, you are acting as if the judges were just sitting there and deciding the case based on their desires of the end results, instead of judging the case using facts, logic and the relevant laws of the land (RFRA). I realize that disgraceful leftist justices are prone to do exactly that, but expecting all the justices to be disgraceful is your problem, not the problem of the justices you are complaining about.

    No one was imposed on at all, except Hobby Lobby being imposed on by the government (until the court overturned the illegal imposition). You do not have a "right" to have a third party give you something. And the government is not unlimited in its ability to demand a citizen pay for (or do) something.

    Read the last paragraph as many times as necessary to absorb what it says.



    Nope, the morons are still the ones that swallow arguments claiming that undoing a mandate first enforced in 2012 suddenly makes us go back not to 2011, but 50 years further. But considering your obvious confusion about this case, from soup to nuts, I am not surprised in the least that you arrived at the wrong conclusion here as well.



    And a whole lot of nothing to finish off the flailing.

    No inconsistent logic (except coming from you), no slippery slop concerning the RFRA (or no slipperier than any other decision that requires strict scrutiny), and yep War On Women is an absurd meme meant to influence dimbulbs (note: I am not saying that the meme is not effective, as the country has plenty of dimbulbs) .
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  2. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,819

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    To be fair to aka, there's PLENTY of zealots on the right that are also believing the rhetoric surrounding this case.

    Seems as though there are plenty of folks on both sides of this one that will favor rhetorical nonsense over the actual facts of the case.

    And that's a shame. Because this is a rather important case.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #51

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    I am more concerned with propaganda and flat-out lies about the case than I am with rhetoric. Yes, both sides frequently use rhetoric.

    I haven't really seen any propaganda or lies coming from defenders of religious freedom regarding these cases, then again I haven't been looking very hard.

    I have seen plenty of propaganda, lies, and logical mistakes coming from those unhappy with the decision (almost to a pundit/column/article). And I haven't been looking very hard here either, it is just that everywhere I turn it is there.

    The only legitimate arguments about this case that can be had are related to whether the RFRA applies to groups of people (corporations) and whether the groups of people in this case (Hobby Lobby, et al) have been "substantially burdened" by the mandate. Those are it. The "least restrictive" means test clearly and undeniably fails, as the government has already offered at least one less restrictive way to accomplish its goal (let alone simply providing the products directly itself)

    Arguments about hypocrisy and misogyny are pure, baseless propaganda. If anyone actually believes the Green family (which contains plenty of women) is fighting this not because of its religious beliefs, but because it "hates women" and "likes men," then that person is a fool. Period. I am sorry to say that, but it needs to be said.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-09-2014 at 11:19 AM.




  4. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    27,219
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Regarding birth control being over the counter...


    I can see both sides of this, but many still need to understand that birth control is a chemical combination of hormones, so not every type is going to work for every woman and in a lot of cases, some of them can do more damage than help (multiple periods, moods, behavior, and so on).

    Having them be prescription-based makes women go to the doctor, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because a doctor is going to be able to offer much more sound advice on the type of birth control to use.


    Then again, you can go to your local vitamin shop and get bottles of testosterone boosters.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  5. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Regarding birth control being over the counter...


    I can see both sides of this, but many still need to understand that birth control is a chemical combination of hormones, so not every type is going to work for every woman and in a lot of cases, some of them can do more damage than help (multiple periods, moods, behavior, and so on).

    Having them be prescription-based makes women go to the doctor, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because a doctor is going to be able to offer much more sound advice on the type of birth control to use.


    Then again, you can go to your local vitamin shop and get bottles of testosterone boosters.
    Lots of stuff my doctor tells me to take are over the counter. Just today he told me to take Tylenol when my back acts up.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  6. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,864
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    My doc gave said the same thing for my back spasms but I get 250 mg of Aleve and take two of them. Works every time. I used them for tooth aches too. Doc said Aleve is almost as strong as a prescription drug.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  7. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,864
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Ah, the witches are trying to score points for the fall elections.

    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-11-2014 at 01:01 PM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  9. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    Ah, the bitches are trying to score points for the fall elections.

    Yup. Same old tired move, propose some ridiculous bill and then when no one votes for it or votes not you can say "they didn't vote to support women's rights. Thus, the war on women the useful idiots fall for.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  10. #58

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    I see HR has already given a polite summation of why your stance is horribly confused and ignorant. I'll address your specific mistakes in the next post.
    The only thing in your point-by-point response (which I'll get around to addressing, maybe, soon) that shocked me was your atheism. Everything else was as blind and tonedeaf as I expected.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Was it the ease of access part you object to, or that someone else pay for something for you part?
    Not sure how serious you are with this, but access and the incorporation of a widespread, healthy contraception method into standard benefits are both meaningful to me. However, in this instance, I am more riled (as I have already outlined) by the internal inconsistency of logic on Hobby Lobby's part, the formation of a slippery slope (what other things won't religious people have to do if, whaaa, they don't wanna?), and the fact that women's bodies continue to be a site of war in this country (despite the fact that some horribly misinformed individuals here, whose opinions are clearly not worth respecting, seem to think anti-women politics is an "absurd" "meme").

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Thoughts on Ray Rice: http://brafootball.wordpress.com/




  11. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,864
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    The only thing in your point-by-point response (which I'll get around to addressing, maybe, soon) that shocked me was your atheism. Everything else was as blind and tonedeaf as I expected.

    Pot meet kettle.

    Not sure how serious you are with this, but access and the incorporation of a widespread, healthy contraception method into standard benefits are both meaningful to me. However, in this instance, I am more riled (as I have already outlined) by the internal inconsistency of logic on Hobby Lobby's part, the formation of a slippery slope (what other things won't religious people have to do if, whaaa, they don't wanna?), and the fact that women's bodies continue to be a site of war in this country.



    Nobody conducted war on women. There was never one word in this forum
    vs women until Galen's daily threads attacking Sarah Palin which Im sure
    you concurred with until you came along and mentioned war vs women. Everyone paid $9.99 for their condoms til OBY came along. He's the one who started a war an illegal one as SCOTUS just said.

    Anyway, HOBBY LOBBY employees, have no fear. You can still get them cheap
    at Walgreens abeit a couple of dollars more thanks to OBYs inflation and
    escalating economy that has him rated as the worse president ever. See worse
    president thread. Condoms are still cheaper than gas.

    BTW, in case they don't know where to look for them once in a drug store, here's a good tip as to where. You'd be surprised how many don't know where to find them.


    __________________________
    Don't worry - it's in different places in different stores. Even experienced buyers have to search for it, if they haven't been to the particular store. Sometimes they are near the feminine products; for some reason in my local store they are on the toothpaste aisle. No one really cares if you are buying condoms; there's no need to feel self conscious. Just do it! (And then do it!)
    ______________________________


    http://www.walgreens.com/store/c/con...9-tier2general


    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-12-2014 at 05:30 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  12. #60

    Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE

    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    The only thing in your point-by-point response (which I'll get around to addressing, maybe, soon) that shocked me was your atheism. Everything else was as blind and tonedeaf as I expected.
    And by blind and tonedeaf, you mean devastating to your confused arguments. Yes, I agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by akashicrecorder View Post
    Not sure how serious you are with this, but access and the incorporation of a widespread, healthy contraception method into standard benefits are both meaningful to me. However, in this instance, I am more riled (as I have already outlined) by the internal inconsistency of logic on Hobby Lobby's part, the formation of a slippery slope (what other things won't religious people have to do if, whaaa, they don't wanna?), and the fact that women's bodies continue to be a site of war in this country (despite the fact that some horribly misinformed individuals here, whose opinions are clearly not worth respecting, seem to think anti-women politics is an "absurd" "meme").
    There is no "internal inconsistency" no matter how much you keep bleating it while covering your ears. None. Literally none. And of course this has already been pointed out to you.

    The only person here who is 'horribly misinformed' and undeniably deserves no 'respect' is, of course, you. You are the reason why shameless politicians stoop to such embarrassingly (to the rest of us) low levels of discourse and blatantly divisive propaganda.

    And frankly you would be better served by trying to address the arguments that have been made rather than post stuff like the above which is nothing more than a series of inane insults combined with the repetition of old, now-trashed arguments.

    I wish I could say I await your actual response, when you 'get around to it,' but I already know it will be a waste of time based on your post above and the unchanging realities of the issue.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-13-2014 at 01:22 PM.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland