13,861 Forum Posts by "Memorize"
At 6/19/12 10:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
This is the dumbest "reduction to Hitler" I've ever seen...and that covers a lot of ground.
I don't know, Obama did order the assassination of a 16 yr old American citizen who was having a barbeque in his cousin's back yard while at first trying to claim he was a 26 yr old Islam Extremist supporter.
Maybe not Hitler in terms of magnitude, but certainly a Hitler-esque tendency no different than Bush's indefinite detentions.
At 6/12/12 11:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I think you need to study the numbers just a wee bit more there...
I haven't seen so much denial since Walker won the recall.
At 6/12/12 11:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Yeah, that's not how American Democracy is supposed to work. The Bill of rights and the equal protection clause were included for a reason.
Unless you're either rich or middle class, then "equal protection" doesn't apply.
At 6/2/12 10:00 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Because until the baby can survive on its own, it is part of the mother's person, and the mother has the right to extinguish any part of her person.
But it's still not a person.
So if anyone killed the fetus, then it should only be considered theft or destruction of property, not a homicide.
If the mother cut off her own arm, it's not a crime. If you cut off her arm, it is.
And yet, according to the law, incorrectly labeled a homicide.
If only the issue were actually scientific (Hint: IT'S NOT)
It should be.
For instance: Killing a fetus is not the same as cutting off your own arm. Or do I have to explain to you how a fetus is separated as its own distinct individual by having its very own unique set of DNA (exactly how everyone does from both parents)?
At 6/1/12 04:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
There was one way you could have gone after the seed point, but instead you chose to insult and be generally rude.
Well when people are as stupid as you are, Cam... I find it to be rather fitting.
For instance...
At 6/1/12 07:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
In the case of murder or assault the one person who constitutes the two lives is not consenting. In the case of abortion, the one person consents.
If you're going to claim that a fetus isn't a "person/human/life" due to its biological development stage... then how the fuck does it automatically become those things just because the mother "WANTS" it to be?
Magic?
If a pro-lifer came in here and said that a fetus should be considered a Person because "it will eventually become one", you would obviously say "just because it will become one, it does not mean that it currently is."
So if a fetus is scientifically NOT a person, then why would it magically become one just because the "expecting" mother wants to "eventually" have the child?
I might own a table, but just because I call it a tv, it doesn't make it one.
I love how "scientific" you people claim to be, only to chuck the label out of the window for the sake of sympathy.
At 6/1/12 12:17 AM, MOSFET wrote:
Consider this, have you ever called a seed, from a plant, a plant? No, you don't. You call it a seed. Yet, the function of these seeds is grow into plants. Likewise, a fetus/blastocyst is not a "human" due to it's function.
Except that we actually do have different names for each of those seeds you fucking twit.
At 5/31/12 04:07 PM, MOSFET wrote:
So no, you haven't made this simple to understand, because you aren't logically connecting your statements.
No, you're just a fucking idiot who refuses to understand that the point he's making is that the fetus/blastocyst is "human" due to its function.
Allow me to make this simple enough for your dumb ass to understand (though considering how you have lower level of intelligence of even Peter Griffin... this might be a bit of a chore)
A human is a mammal.
A dog is a mammal.
Are humans and dogs mammals? Yes.
Is a dog a human? No.
The point he's making is, if one cell creates something different from another, or holds information that would create something different... then they are not the same thing.
Now have a miserable day... you fucking moron.
At 5/1/12 08:26 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
Heritage Foundation
Don't care.
Getting the Government more involved in Healthcare is a liberal position.
Worked out under Bush
Yeah, because that Stimulus to prevent the economy from crashing sure did keep the economy from crashing.
Auto Bail outHardly liberal and barely socialist in nature. Keynesian, maybe, but everyone was Keynesian up until recently.
Corporatism, which is a form of socialism.
Although I do like how you only call bank bail outs "friendly."
I love it when two of the exact same policies are treated so differently in tone.
Really not liberal the way it worked out.
LOL
In fact it was just way to friendly towards the banks. Not enough oversite or anything, just a hand out of money. It was a centrist half move.
Certainly explains how with a Republican President that more of them would support it.
If anything this could be a war hawk movie, but you'd have to get into more of the why & how it happened. I'd certainly say that the Libyan war was more liberal than the iraq war in execution; BUT, I wouldn't call it liberal.
I like how you consider getting Congressional authorization to attack a country that posed no threat a "hawk move", but by-passing congress to get permission from the Arab League to be "more liberal."
They're both basically the same, and they're both stupid.
Though the gullibility from you leftist types who actually believed Obama would be different, truly amuses me.
Again, not a liberal policy at all. Its just a security policy, one that even Bush might have made. It has nothing to do liberal ideas, but instead the progression of the war.
Convenient excuse to cover the ass of your Messiah.
Very un-liberal. In fact, its down right conservative.
Even though all the liberals voted for it at the time.
Again, very un-liberal. Its a very rightward move.
A move that no one on the right (or even Bush) claimed to have.
In fact, the only people I see defending it are liberals.
Don't get me wrong, I'd imagine the right doing the same if Bush did it.
Again, a very right side of the aisle position, although for his sake its mostly personal. I don't believe he'd actually veto a gay marriage bill if it came across his desk, even if he agreed with the people who wanted him to veto it on a personal level.
Despite ordering the Justice Dept to file against the Judge's motion to get rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' when a GAY REPUBLICAN GROUP won it.
Most liberals are considered hippies, and drugster hippies at that. I don't get what you're saying.
That the ban on pot started under FDR and all 4 of the liberal justices on SCOTUS ruled against a woman who grew pot in her own yard in a state where it was legal.
Um no. Big Government =/= liberal.
You're right.
But Liberals claim to want bigger Government, while Conservatives claim to want a smaller one.
I'm only going by what you claim to want.
There's conservative big government as well. It generally takes on McCarthiest shades. It generally supports wars of aggression or choice.
The irony of you using McCarthy when it was Lyndon Johnson who lied about Vietnam and got us into a war getting over 66,000 soldiers killed.
Obama is considered a "Great Guy" because he goes about the implementation in a different way.
You know what I said about being gullible before...
He doesn't our allies off, he's not combative, he doesn't flex his muscles for show, and he's generally an intelligent guy.
And yet he invades other countries, increases illegal drone strikes, renews the Patriot Act, claims he can assassinate American born citizens, all while refusing to take the nuclear option off the table for a piss poor, half baked nation like Iran who doesn't even have 1 nuke.
No, that's not flexing!
However, in the liberal community people aren't exactly happy with him.
No shit.
I didn't expect any consistency from you very people who only pretended to give a shit about civil rights, torture, and dying soldiers in pointless wars.
But I guess their lives were only worth getting a black guy elected.
After all, if you people truly cared, you'd still be protesting and demanding impeachment for getting more troops killed in his first 2 years in office than Bush did in all of his two terms.
We'd rather have a real liberal in charge who advanced a liberal agenda. That said, we'd rather have Obama, even if he is republican-light
See, this is why you're a fucking retarded, little bastard.
Practically everything Bush did was centered around big Government and more centralized Power. You people should absolutely love at least half of those things from Prescription Part D to federalizing Education.
The only reason why fucking stupid people like you can get away with calling other people "Extreme Republicans" is because your stupid ass considers him to be a moderate to begin with, when in reality he's a big Government, left wing, Republican.
At 5/1/12 04:58 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
You're welcome to point out all of Barack's liberal ideas though. Good luck. Most of the policy implemented in the last 4 years has been discarded heritage foundation junk, including, but not limited to, the so-called "obama care."
Obamacare
Stimulus
Auto Bail out
Bank Bail out
Expanding wars in Middle East
Increased border bombings in Middle Eastern Countries
Renewal of the Patriot Act
Claims and has targeted Americans for assassination (including a 16 yr old)
Against gay marriage
Continued Support of Drug war
A couple things to note here is that these are ALL big Government positions. And since big Government is something liberals claim to support, then I should consider all of these to be Liberal Positions.
The other thing is that all of these positions are almost identical to Bush, which begs the question: Why is Obama considered a "Great Guy" and Bush Horrible?
Let's face it. The only reason you get away with calling Obama a centrist is because you're using an idiot like Bush as an indicator.
At 5/1/12 11:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Like how you compensate for your inability to make a cogent point by randomly and indiscriminately insulting those who disagree with you?
Only to people who are truly as stupid as the both of you.
The world doesn't need jackasses who are either ignorant or selective with their beliefs.
Like you, who supports Government funding for something not in the Constitution, but actively campaigns against funding for something that is.
Or Gum here who still believes the media tilts overall to the right when numerous studies (that have been repeatedly posted to death) have indicated heavily otherwise.
The funny part is, he's seen ALL of these studies before in all the years we've been here, and he still ignores it simply because he doesn't like the facts.
It has nothing to do with him having an opinion. It has to do with his opinions being blatantly retarded.
If 2 + 2 = 4 and he runs around saying it really equals 5 and that it's his "opinion"; then his "opinion" is both wrong and stupid.
At 5/1/12 09:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:
My position on this is that our media is totally out of whack. They aren't a liberal organization. If anything their commitment to "balance" has made them out to be conservative, since they seem to be completely unwilling to actually point the finger where it belongs.
Even when I'm gone for a year, things don't change around here much.
For instance: You're still a fucking idoit.
At 4/29/12 12:21 PM, morefngdbs wrote: While those who protest abortion, do so loudly ,visably & vocally....they never present solutions to all these unwanted fetuses...like who will adopt them ?
All of that is entirely pointless.
None of this welfare nonsense matters. The only thing that does matter is whether or not a fetus constitutes a person.
You bringing up welfare and being a "burden" (purely hypothetical... i'm sure you wouldn't argue to put children in prisons based on their personalities and 'likelihood' of committing violent acts when they become older) is nothing more than a weak person's attempt to evoke sympathy over a factual argument.
It's only so you can avoid potentially being labeled a "killer/murderer/ supporter.
At 4/29/12 07:28 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
well 1, should health insurance be mandatory, 2, if he didn't have enough money to pay for his treatment what is a lawsuit going to do to get their money, and 3, why did they treat him if he didn't have the money to begin with?
Because someone thought it would be a good idea to pass laws requiring treatment for everyone.
At 4/24/12 11:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
What does Dredd Scott have to do with this issue?
I found it funny how you hid behind a Supreme Court decision, even though you obviously wouldn't just follow every decision they've made.
They both say that so long as two different things are given a base level of equality, they can be legally classified. This opens the door for one, dependin gon how it is treated, to become preferred over another, such was the case under segregation.
You know, you probly aren't worth anyone's time when you're incapable of seeing the difference between force and voluntarism.
Your insults and vulgarity are really making your side seem strong here.
It amuses me when you think I care.
Within the other law of the United States.
What Other Law?
Actually it is based on constitutionality. The right to association (and with it exclusion) is a Constitutional right with boundaries. Even private groups can be subject to these boundaries depending on the laws of the jurisdiction and the circumstances.
No.
If any law were made in any jurisdiction restricting that right, then it would be illegal.
Again, doesn't need to be a law. It merely needs to be a State Action.
You heard it here folks, the law doesn't matter.
And all people do. When a person's acts are imputed to the government, however, they are limited in what they can do.
You're still confusing the Government itself as a person.
When a person is acting as the State they do not. Those rights return the instant they no longer are acting as the State.
Wrong.
Those rights are only taken away if they specifically violate the rights of others and are found guilty by a jury of their peers.
Actually, I am doing the opposite. I am treating a person as the government.
lol, if you want to pretend to.
No. The State is always an entity.
Which makes you...
wait for it...
an idiot.
I like how you glossed over the Corporation example btw.
Prove it then. Show me you know something about the Law, not just that you can google and type insults.
Says the guy who linked me to Wikipedia.
At 4/24/12 12:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
To which the Courts have expnaded to include any state action, and rightfully so. Don't like it? Say how stupid the Supreme Court Justices are, not me.
I will tell you how stupid you are.
You wouldn't accept a decision by the Supreme court if it re-ruled favorably of Dredd Scott.
Mandated or not, the rationale is the same.
Yes... because COMPLETELY OPPOSITE forces... are EXACTLY the same.
Fuck you.
If they're private schools they have the right to do so, within reason.
Key phrase: "Within Reason"
Highly subjective and not based on Constitutionality.
An act by an official in their offical capacity IS an act of government.
Still not a law, and still does not harm others or tell them what they can/can't do.
Again, the government doesn't have the same rights that people do. The government is constrained by all of the rules of the First Amendment. The government cannot exercise free speech when it supports a religion.
You're right... the Government doesn't have any rights... but ALL people do.
Again, the State doesn't have First Amednment Rights.
But everyone, regardless of job title, do.
A govverment led prayer is a state action.
Except that's not what's even happening today.
The problem is that you're treating the Government as a person... it's not.
Not different than how a Corporation isn't a person (unless you agree with the Supreme court in saying it is... which I doubt you'll do).
There are ONLY individuals. And as such, they have those rights.
The choosing of one religion over another is a mform of de facto coerion and it places a great deal of pressure on those who are not a part of that religion to follow it or at least participate.
So it's ultimately my peer's fault that I started smoking?
The definition of individual is different in the criminal context than it is in the Constitutional Law context. Individual for terms of criminal law is purely biological. Individual in terms of Constitutional Law is a status.
Queue pulling a convenient excuse from your ass... GO!
Cause you know exactly what about law? Oh yeah, nothing.
Apparently more than the half-wit.
At 4/23/12 08:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The State can swear all it wants without violating anyone's first amendment rights. However, the State cannot support a religion without running afoul of the First Amendment. An official swearing is merely clumsily exercising their first amendment. An official participating in religion in their official capacity is the government participating in a religion which is against the free establishment clause.
"Shall make no law respecting the Establishment of Religion."
Learn how to read, you moron.
And Madison hated it. I have to agree with Madison.
But he didn't call it illegal, now did he?
I don't like it either. But I recognize the stupidity of telling people they can't do it.
So separate but equal is good for you?
Segregation was MANDATED by the state.
I bet you wouldn't be bitching like this over voluntary, all minority schools, or All-boys/All-Girls campus'.
I mean if something is equal by its classification there is no way it can have any inherent inequality to it. An official or a state actively participating in a religion in no way indicates that that religion is favored by the government and its laws.
I love how you compare Government force with that of voluntary actions.
A public official doing a personal prayer in their own time is an individual act. A public official leading a voluntary prayer is supprt of that religion.
But not an establishment of one, nor creation of a law.
Not to mention being voluntary and falling under the view of the 1st amendments "FREEDOM OF SPEECH/ASSEMBLY"
You don't have a right to be free from words of the State. You do have the right to be free from religious leanings of the State. I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the Freedom of Speech and how the Free exercise clause work.
No, you're just an idiot.
Because guess what a prayer is? Speech. Protected by... you guessed it, the first Amendment.
Saying a prayer is not a law.
Nor are you forcing participation.
And as someone who could care less about the existence of God or whether or not religion is "right", I find it rather pathetic how much you care so much about something that doesn't even matter, logically.
But in their official capacity they are not an individual, but part of the state.
Let me go shoot one of them when they're giving a speech on their official capacity, then tell me whether or not they were individuals.
This is all you can come up with? I provide you with a cogent difference and your dagger of an answer is "you're an idiot"? How's about you try to refute the point.
Because you're arguing with an analogy that I made that you purposefully stretched beyond its original meaning.
Either that or...
Once again: You're an idiot.
Seems like my half-wit is wholly owning you.
Only a half-wit would think so.
At 4/23/12 03:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
His beign a person doesn't change the fact that when he acts as a governor in his official capacity, his actions and his words represent the government.
A Government whose supreme law guarantees ALL PEOPLE freedom of Religion, Expression, Assembly, and Speech.
You're not honestly going to tell public officials that they can't "swear" while giving a Speech because someone may be offended.
No, you'll point to the first amendment to defend said politician.
No different than what I'm doing.
When a government official participates in a religious act, symbol, speech in their opfficial capacity it is no different than a governmental organization participating.
Funny how you still say that after I explained that the founders still did ALL the things you're 'against' while writing the Constitution.
Too Inconvenient for you? lol
WHen a government official participates in their capacity as an official, they ARE infringing on the rights of others.
Bullshit.
Infringing requires someone to harm, hinder, or hold back someone else.
In no way does doing something so damned vague as holding a voluntary prayer where no one is forced to participate even come close.
The rights of others to be free froma state that supports one religion over another.
A public official wanting to do a voluntary prayer on his/her own is not a support of religion.
You obviously have no idea what "Separation of Church and State" means.
In reference above, I'd bet you wouldn't say the same thing about public officials using "offensive language."
You wouldn't say that you "have a right to not be offended by someone's words, so I get to ban it."
Face it, government officials ARE the state when they are in their official capacity.
A state who guarantees EVERY INDIVIDUAL the bill of rights.
You're acting like those idiots who complained about a Mosque being built near Ground Zero.Not really.
Yes, really.
Seeing as the builders of the Mosque had no position in government and were not supporting one religion over another as a part of the government. There was no intermingling of state and religion in that issue.
It was an analogy.
You're an idiot.
And? A public official is still an arm of the State.
Once again: A state whose founding law Guarantees ALL PEOPLE the first Amendment.
Regardless of whether or not a worthless, overly sensitive, half-wit like you has your poor, little feelings hurt.
At 4/23/12 10:27 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
The fact that it is voluntary does little to change the fact that the Governor,
His being a Governor doesn't change the fact that he's still a person.
Like I said, the official acting in their individual capacity has individual rights. The official acting as an appendage of government does not.
Yes, it does.
So long as no one else's rights are being violated.
I'm sorry, but you don't have the right to ban what other people say or do (if it doesn't harm you) simply on the basis of you being a sensitive prick.
You're acting like those idiots who complained about a Mosque being built near Ground Zero.
To every person, not to itself.
A public official is still a person.
At 4/22/12 11:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
The Government has no first amendment rights. The government does not have the right to put up religious symbols.
But if a Governor or any public official wants to hold a VOLUNTARY prayer, guess what?
First Amendment rights still apply.
That depends. Are they participating as a person or as a public official?
It doesn't matter.
They're still individuals with those rights.
There is nothing stopping them from participating in their civilian capacity, however when in their official capacity it becomes very complicated. When in their pofficial capacity they are not only a person, but a agent of the government.
A Government that guarantees those rights to everyone.
At 4/22/12 06:39 PM, Rapacity wrote: Christianity in their policies. America is highly historically secular. America was founded upon freedom of and freedom from religion. The mob supports Christianity, but the Congress doesn't, or at least it didn't.
Discuss.
These same people also held prayers before their official meetings.
Hate to break it to you, but the first amendment also applies to public officials.
It always cracks me up when you rightly point out "Separation of Church and State", only to quickly turn around and deny people's basic rights of freedom of religion/expression based on the mere notion of your sensitive, stupidass being 'offended'.
At 4/19/12 01:06 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
So you mean to tell me that instead of going with what the vast majority of people think, we should listen to what 40% or less of what the American public thinks and put a stop to this overwhelmingly popular policy?
So the Patriot Act should've been passed when it did because it had popular support at the time?
At 4/18/12 08:41 AM, Ravariel wrote:
Eh, I'm not always happy about it (earmarks, etc) but I understand that in a democracy I don't get to choose where each and every one of my Tax dollars go. I deal.
And you're a pathetic waste of trash for "dealing."
Hypothetical.
Still true.
Hypothetical.
Still true.
I live in Michigan. The Auto bailouts were a smashing success.
Further proving you're own mental retardation.
Don't care, really. Lybia wasn't a war. Iraq I've gotten over.
Because using military planes to drop bombs with the stated goal of removing a regime only counts as a war only if you call it one.
I bet you'd also side with Harry Truman who said that Korea wasn't a war, only a Police action... with military force...
O hai thar!
You cited Wikipedia without explaining how anything listed proves your point.
Once again: You're fucking retarded.
Small number for the Federal Government. 50% of PPs budget.
Here I thought you were against Business colluding with Government.
But even still, if you truly wanted this head ache to go away, then why not use those Federal dollars for Organizations that don't perform abortions?
You still get all the funding you want all while being able to avoid the controversy.
But I bet you wouldn't go for that, because you're still a predictable, stupid fuck.
"Society."
You're "society" sounds a lot like organized religion.
We're actually saving you money. You can go ahead and spend more if you want.
1... you're not even giving me the option.
2... I'll ask again: How are those Trillions in unfunded liabilities working for you?
First off, because it's now "free", then just like how people abuse insurance by over-using it (and just simply using it) on routine doctors visits, they will abuse the "free" part and "purchase" more contraception than they would otherwise need.Umm... that's just retarded. Prescription contraception is just that: prescribed. By a doctor. There is no reason to "purchase" more than you need. Nor is there any benefit to doing so.
There's also no reason for most people to make a doctor visit every couple months while using their insurance for pay for it when it's already cheap... but guess what?
People still fucking do it.
Um, no.
Uh... yes, you damned idiot.
Contraception is not "pick one off the shelf and go home".
Certainly explains how people are able to already do that.
You're also not taking into consideration that businesses, like drug companies, will be able to jack up prices knowing that they'll be paid for.
You consult with your OBGYN or family doctor in order to determine which one is correct for you. Co-pays and deductibles still apply, also, so "free" is a misnomer.
I call Bullshit
Wow. That's a stretch. Any change in premiums would be negligible.
The fact that you admitted to it, just proves my point.
High school teenagers without jobs have an interesting method of affording things. It's called "Parents." I'm surprised you haven't met one yet. They're fairly common.
As stated in the article, something like Oral Contraceptives... are $9.
NINE FUCKING DOLLARS.
The Morning after pill is only $10 - $70.
BULLSHIT their parents are paying for their teenagers contraception.
And as the article points out (since you never bothered to define 'insurance' to us):
"This gets us to a broader question: how the definition of insurance has lost any meaning in the context of American health care. Insurance, traditionally defined, is meant to protect us from the risk of unexpectedly incurring catastrophic costs. Car insurance, for example, protects us against collisions, but doesn't cover our purchase of wiper fluid or gasoline. Homeowner's insurance doesn't cover the cost of air conditioning. And yet, now, we have a federal law that forces health insurance to cover something that is even cheaper than gasoline or air conditioning."
At 4/17/12 11:37 PM, Ravariel wrote:
Yeah, welcome to living in a democratic society. You have to pay for shit you don't want. It's the price of entry.
Once again: How do you feel about the Government using money for what you don't want?
Funding the NRA.
Subsidizing Faith based groups.
Bailing out favored industries.
Starting wars without declaring them.
I'm sure your pathetic, little excuse of "welcome to living in a democratic society" wouldn't be tolerated by you then, would it?
When a program's existence decreases costs to taxpayers, while increasing the health and well-being of people in the society, then there's not much "subjective" about it.
Except that it never happens.
How much were they off by Medicare, again?
Ha! Okay, I'll bite. Prove it.
I don't have to.
You're the one claiming we need to do it.
You're one of the types of people who implemented it.
Prove to me where you get the authorization from.
I think you need to educate yourself on the benefits of family planning, education, and prophylactics in general if you're really unsure where the connections lie. It's not a difficult journey.
You didn't answer the question.
Why? Because you can't. lol, you're that pathetic.
Again, welcome to this thing we call "society". If you want it to thrive, you spread the costs of public benefit around, so that those who are more likely to need it can afford it when they do.
How's that working out with our Trillions of unfunded liabilities?
Ooh, a red herring! Should I chase it?
Well, you're already a fucking idiot. It would amuse me if you gave it a shot since you'd probly respond in a way that had nothing to do with the point I was making.
Maybe for the other 90% of the shit they do?
Once again: If it's such a small number, why do they need it?
Those same people happily pay thousands of dollars to, and give millions in tax breaks to organizations that harbor and encourage pedophiles. Their feelings are irrelevant. See? I can do this, too!
Question: How is letting people keep their own money the equivalent to giving someone else's money to them?
Once again: You're a fucking moron.
An entertaining one at least.
So... contraception is good, but getting it to those who most need it and are least able to afford it is bad? Gotcha.
How am I responsible for other people's actions?
What's fair about punishing me for it?
I'll try to explain how you're stupidity on this issue is actually anti-woman...
As a small example: When we passed the Citizens with Disabilities Act, it was meant to help those individuals. But what happened? More disabled people became unemployed because employers began seeing them as potential liabilities , resulting in less of them being hired.
What do you think mandated contraception coverage would do?
First off, because it's now "free", then just like how people abuse insurance by over-using it (and just simply using it) on routine doctors visits, they will abuse the "free" part and "purchase" more contraception than they would otherwise need.
Secondly, because it's now "free", people will start buying the more expensive contraceptives (increasing premiums even further!).
Third, because women are now being covered by this, employers will see them as even more of a liability and will either A) be less likely to hire women, or B) reduce their pay to their male counter-parts.
And don't give me this Bullshit that birth control and contraceptives "aren't affordable." If high school teenagers without jobs can obtain them, then you don't have an excuse.
You really didn't listen to her testimony at all did you?
I did.
But as usual, you're the same from 2 years ago: A totally mentally inept, worthless little bitch who couldn't even muster up enough willpower to move 1 brain cell.
At 4/17/12 04:34 PM, Ravariel wrote:
PP has a very real public health benefit that is something they would have a difficult time doing without Federal help, as nearly half of their funding comes from that area. It would cost taxpayers more if PP were not around... it just wouldn't be as obvious a line to draw between cause and effect.
It doesn't matter if it's a public benefit. The only thing that does matter is if it's legal or not.
You still have to also deal with the fact that you're taking money from people who equate abortion to murder and using their money to fund those "murderers", regardless of how the money is spent.
Besides, "public benefit" is subjective. Anyone could also make the case that gun promotion is a public benefit by virtue of the Second Amendment (and legally speaking, this would have a much better chance of being argued since it's actually listed as a "right")
But even still, money to either organization is unconstitutional. Even to faith based groups.
The issue is HEALTH. Not sex, though, as I said, sex is a part of health (both physical and mental/emotional).
Explain to me how contraception equals insurance.
Explain to me how other people I've never met who voluntarily decide to do stupid things, is somehow my fault and I should have to pay for it.
PP also provides counselling to expecting mothers, resources that allow low-income families to feed, house, clothe and educate their children.
So do other organizations, and none of them were started by black hating, anti-Semites who spoke at KKK rallies.... your point?
Most of the crap they do that the right has a problem with is paid for out-of-pocket by clients or through charitable donations.
So why do they need Federal Assistance?
Yeeeah, no. Of course, I notice you mentioned nothing of the other examples posted, many of which had nothing to do with PP or abortion. Curious, that.
Those were the only ones I had an issue with.
At 4/17/12 07:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Not even close. I think you should take some time to research what Planned Parenthood actually does.
I know exactly what they do, you fucking idiot.
I never said abortion was their major concern. I even alluded to that when I said that the Federal dollars weren't supposed to go directly to abortions.
The point was that they still provide abortions. So telling people who consider abortion murder that they MUST have their tax dollars go to the very people whom they consider "murderers" will cause blowback.
The same way my money goes to subsidize big industries that outsource? The same way my money goes to pay for military campaigns that serve 0 tactical and strategic value? The same way my money goes to subsidize religious institution through their tax exemptions?
Considering I'm against ALL of those, aren't you just exposing your own hypocrisy in your support for some but not others?
Also, the last one doesn't make any sense and doesn't belong being categorized with the others. For the simple reason being that: Not taxing someone (letting them keep THEIR OWN money) =/= Giving other people's money to someone else.
One you should've put there was: Giving subsidies to faith based organizations.
But nice try. You're still an idiot.
This argument is a load of bullshit. You want to stop abortions, but then you get pissed about contraceptives?
No, I'm all for contraception.
What pisses me off is someone demanding that others pay for their contraception.
Especially someone who goes to a prestigious law school who will be making a starting salary of $160,000 upon graduation WHILE claiming to be a VICTIM because the school isn't giving her "Free" birth control.
You might as well try to fix the defecit by increasing spending and cutting taxes (oh wait, Conservatives already do that).
This isn't so much about a GOP war on women as it is Liberals demanding free shit.No. It's a war on women.
And you're still fucking retarded.
At 4/17/12 06:29 AM, Ravariel wrote:
What say you Newgrounds, is this an issue that could sink the GOP hopefuls, even as economic news continues to be sub-par?
1) Sandra Fluke isn't a slut. After all, a slut wouldn't force you to pay for their birth control.
2) Any organization, Planned Parenthood or otherwise shouldn't receive Federal Funding to begin with. I think it would be wildly entertaining to see how liberals would respond to a Federally Funded NRA.
I would put yourself into the shoes of those pro-life, mostly Republican individuals. First. you legalize abortion across the board... ok, that's fine.
Then, you use the government to forcibly take their money and fund abortion providers (regardless of whether or not that money is used for abortions isn't the point; you're basically giving THEIR money to the "murderers" as they see it).
And now on top of that, you're demanding they subsidize other people's sex lives. Which got major headlines when a woman who attends one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and who will make over $160,000 starting salary, claimed she was a "victim" because she didn't receive any free birth control provided by her school.
Considering these events, why are you surprised by religious groups and pro-lifers responding in the way they're doing?
It's called blowback. Kind of like how decades of interventionism lead to the Iran Hostage Crisis and later 9/11.
This isn't so much about a GOP war on women as it is Liberals demanding free shit.
At 4/9/12 09:53 PM, djack wrote:
I told you to repost...
lol, You're entertainingly predictable.
So I'll say it again: Take your whiny, worthless opinions and go Fuck yourself with them, haha.
At 4/9/12 09:41 PM, djack wrote:
I see you still don't understand...
I see you still don't understand that I don't give a fuck what a little shit like you says.
If you didn't want to have an actual discussion before: Then Fuck you if you want to have it now.
At 4/9/12 07:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
You understand that it's not us that has to disprove Zimmerman...but Zimmerman who has to prove himself...right?
Guilty until proven innocent.
Oh, sorry, it doesn't work that way.
You should already know this about our legal system... right?
But if we add that he was a neighborhood watch who was looking out for suspicious activity after a string of robberies in a Gated Community who went up to someone he didn't recognize....Which is entirely irrelevant to the facts in the case...
No, it is especially fucking relevant because it provides context.
You could say a dead body in someone's home is proof of murder, until you detail that the dead body was a robber who broke in.
See? Context.
They're both the same scene, but provide entirely different perspectives.
especially when you consider his watch has denounced his actions and pointed out repeatedly it violated their rules...
And yet you still can't say it was "illegal", can you?
Oh right, you don't believe in due process. Guilty until proven innocent! You don't have to demonstrate how anything he did was illegal.
I don't see how this information you just put in has anything to do with anything at all. It's not changing any of the facts, or shedding new light on things.
Except that it provides a vastly different narrative.
By leaving out information, you may not necessarily be lying, but you are ensuring the people's sympathy is pointed in your favor.
Zimmerman isn't a cop. So I don't know how you think you can make any kind of comparison between a guy in a neighborhood watch and an actual officer of the law.
I'll be sure to bring that up the next time a "good Samaritan" stops a robbery, rape, or murder.
Heaven forbid someone have the audacity to walk up to people and ask them questions.
Is that exactly what he did? I have no idea.
But what pisses me off is that you people are acting as if even if he did walk up to ask Trevon some simple questions, that by merely doing THAT, it was somehow paramount to an Assault.
Huh? Do you understand what the neighborhood watch is or what it does? Because if you think they "make sure no one gets robbed" then you really need to brush up on what it does (and this watch specifically, you know, the one that as I've pointed out over and over again has denounced Zimmerman's actions and reported this is a pattern of problematic behavior) and doesn't do.
I know exactly what it does.
But I would also prefer that if my place were being robbed, that my neighbor could try to stop it if I were away.
It's not a memorize post without an insult...stop that if you please :)
How about "No"
It doesn't prove he's telling the truth either. Just because we now have evidence of a wound doesn't answer the questions about how it was sustained or prove that Zimmerman's version of events is correct.
No, but it did prove that you people were WRONG about him having no injuries.
Instead of just admitting to that, you instead, dismiss it.
Suddenly the very video you were calling a "smoking gun" doesn't matter anymore according to you!
At 4/4/12 03:21 PM, djack wrote:
It's not my opinion,
"I'm sorry, I got to here and there was just too much stupid for me to finish. Can you come back and make a reasonably intelligent argument?"
At 4/3/12 11:31 PM, djack wrote:
I'm sorry, I got to here and there was just too much stupid for me to finish. Can you come back and make a reasonably intelligent argument?
Hahaha!
Sorry, I just thought it was funny that a whiny, little bitch like you actually believed that I cared about your worthless opinions.
