Results 49 to 60 of 63
-
-
07-09-2014, 11:44 AM #50Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
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.
-
07-09-2014, 12:12 PM #51Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
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 12:19 PM.
-
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.Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.
-
-
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.
-
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
-
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
Ah, the witches are trying to score points for the fall elections.
:grbac:Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-11-2014 at 02:01 PM.
-
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
-
07-12-2014, 03:47 AM #58
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
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.
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").
My Ravens Blog: Brittany Rants About Football
Ravens-Redskins: Dissecting the Final Drive
"The days are long. But the years are short." - John Harbaugh
-
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
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 06:30 AM.
-
07-12-2014, 09:37 AM #60Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: SC strikes down contraceptive coverage in O BUMMER CARE
And by blind and tonedeaf, you mean devastating to your confused arguments. Yes, I agree.
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 02:22 PM.
Bookmarks