Reply With Quote
Darrin have you been paying attention to the economic numbers lately? Stuff like unemployment, manufacturing, consumer indexes etc?
he didn't say that.
Darrin have you been paying attention to the economic numbers lately? Stuff like unemployment, manufacturing, consumer indexes etc?
I'm curious. I have Native American blood, and Black blood in my veins, even though I am primarily German, Scottish, and Norwegian. No Brown or yellow blood....
Does that mean I can make fun of Blacks and Native Americans, but not Latinos, or Asians?
How so?geez, you're so full of
I think a three day tirade of vitriol against someone who spoke rather mildly about health issues to a congressional hearing can't really be equated to a bad word or ten on someone who routinely gains national publicity for vitriolic political attacks.
If you can't see the difference, that is your problem, not mine.
The GOP doens't hate women. They don't have a "war on women". I disagree with that.
They hate poor people, and have a War on the Poor.
"Poor people" does include no small number of women, though, so I can see how one might make the mistake.
Should Louis C.K. be fired? Should advertisers drop his show on FX? Should he apologize to Sarah Palin for calling her the c-word? Will he be judged the same way Rush was? Will anyone care?
Are we human or are we dancer?
No one will care.
Except you.
How does the GOP hate poor people? Do you really believe that?
Rush Limbaugh's Show Filled With Free Ads; Sponsor Exodus Continues
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1334705.html
I still haven't seen anything yet, as to what the normal turnover is of sponsors.
The evangelical right and women have a lot of conflict. those are just tags to be on generalizations anyway. Linking sex and morality as they do in how they do limits reproductive freedom. Then you have Paul repeatedly in the new testament essentially saying women are subservient with no rights beyond those that their husband gives them. A lot of evangelicals support that notion to all manner of degree.
Alot of people I talk to that use contraception still respects the idea that a religious group can be against it. I don't think this is going to be that much of a win as the dems think it will.
Except in the areas the dems were going to win anyways.
Yeah, women don't count anyway, right?
To me the biggest irony about this whole situation is this:
You have the Obama administration saying these en ies have to include birth control in their prescription plans. Now, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church may have gotten bent out of shape, but most Catholics to whom I have spoken have no problem with this. I have even spoken to priests who personally will tell you that they believe that religious freedom means the Church should not impose its beliefs on others. I have found it odd that people who speak of religious freedom in this matter seem to care about the rights of organized religion, as opposed to the individual rights of the people to practice what they do or do not believe. Isn't it the individual's freedom that is more vital? I am just surprised at the number of people, especially supposed conservatives, who believe in the right of an organization to impose its beliefs and practices on an individual simply because that person is an employee or a student. Would they feel the same were it a non-Christian religion?
the individual right is not in question. No one is trying to outlaw birth control. The catholic church, who does not believe in birth control, does not want to pay for it with regards to their ins utions. I agree with them
priest that rape children should shut the up.
Speaking from experience?
Well said. It has been interesting to me that Santorum lost the Catholic vote in the last couple of elections. A lot of Catholics ignore the Church's hierarchy.
"have to include birth control in their prescription plans"
Many Catholic run orgs have been covering b/c in their insurance plans for years.
The pedophile-protecting bishops never objected until now.
"Would they feel the same were it a non-Christian religion"
it's not even a Christian angle, it could be, what the Repugs/Bishops want, abrogating coverage in a contract simply because of ethical or moral objections (Christ doesn't have to be in the picture), where the employer is not even party to contract ( which between the insurer and the employee).
"have to include birth control in their prescription plans"
Many Catholic run orgs have been covering b/c in their insurance plans for years.
The pedophile-protecting bishops never objected until now.
"Would they feel the same were it a non-Christian religion"
it's not even a Christian angle, it could be, what the Repugs/Bishops want, abrogating coverage in a contract simply because of ethical or moral objections (Christ doesn't have to be in the picture), where the employer is not even party to contract ( which between the insurer and the employee).
They are NOT paying for it. The insurance is paid for by the student and is not subsidized by the university.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
