Die Wahrheit Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/north-dakota-senate-candidate-voted-to-make-aborti Turn child molestors free but send woman to prison for making a choice about their health. Shameful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) http://www.buzzfeed....-to-make-aborti Turn child molestors free but send woman to prison for making a choice about their health. Shameful! You post a link containing the transcript of a government bill and call it less government. This is an example of Totalitarianism based on religion. It is Big Government that sends innocent people to prison. Edited September 5, 2012 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Wahrheit Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 You post a link containing the transcript of a government bill and call it less government. This is an example of Totalitarianism based on religion. It is Big Government that sends innocent people to prison. I agree. I was making a point that the right wingers are always screaming that they are for less government intrusion but their actions and legislation speak otherwise. Another example of telling the people one thing but doing the opposite. Blatent hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) I agree. I was making a point that the right wingers are always screaming that they are for less government intrusion but their actions and legislation speak otherwise. Another example of telling the people one thing but doing the opposite. Blatent hypocrisy. You mean like left wingers who scream about not having the government force its views on others while requiring Catholic institutions to pay for birth control? Or those who wail about "corporate welfare" from the federal government while defending the GM bailout? Only the blessedly ignorant or the hopelessly stupid believes that either side always lives up to its professed beliefs in word, thought and deed. Generally, it's best not to place oneself in either category. Edited September 5, 2012 by grbeck 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Wahrheit Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 You mean like left wingers who scream about not having the government force its views on others while requiring Catholic institutions to pay for birth control? Or those who wail about "corporate welfare" from the federal government while defending the GM bailout? Only the blessedly ignorant or the hopelessly stupid believes that either side always lives up to its professed beliefs in word, thought and deed. Generally, it's best not to place oneself in either category. Give me a break. Over 80% of catholic woman use birth control. So I guess they (catholic women) know whats best for them and not their priest. Catholic churches hire individuals other than just catholic so they should cover birth control for them through their insurance companies. Catholic churches pay lobbyist to go to Washington to push their agenda on everyone else but they don't want to be treated as a public company. Please, Jesus didn't have to buy laws. Get the church out of politics or make them pay taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 (edited) Give me a break. Over 80% of catholic woman use birth control. So I guess they (catholic women) know whats best for them and not their priest. Catholic women using birth control is an entirely different matter from forcing a Catholic-affiliated institution to provide coverage for birth control services to employees or students. Last time I checked, Catholic women were free to go to Walmart or Walgreens and get it without permission from the church. Of course, they may have to use their own money, but so do lots of other people. Learn to compare apples to apples next time. Catholic churches hire individuals other than just catholic so they should cover birth control for them through their insurance companies. Catholic churches pay lobbyist to go to Washington to push their agenda on everyone else but they don't want to be treated as a public company. Please, Jesus didn't have to buy laws. Get the church out of politics or make them pay taxes. You appear not to understand how the concept of "employment" works. Whether a Catholic organization employs non-Catholics is irrelevant as to whether it should be required to cover the cost of birth control for employees as part of its benefits package. The people who work for the organization should have been aware of its policies on various matters, including employer coverage of birth control. Those who disagree with this particular policy are always free to seek employment elsewhere. When you can show me where people are forced to work for Catholic organizations against their will, and have no choice as to whether to seek employment elsewhere, you'll have a point. Until then, you don't. Edited September 5, 2012 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 If a woman uses birth control, she is not Catholic, because the Catholic religion does not allow it. They will take her money, but will not recognize her. Religion requires strict obeyance and total belief. That is what religion is by definition. That is why all religions are wrong, and probably evil as well. "Religious right" is an oxymoron because religion is like totalitarianism; big government; strictly left wing. Religious people get more flack if they are politically left wing, because they are in conflict with the authority, which is also the same as a religion. Therefore, they largely join the more right-winged party which does not interfere with peoples' personal beliefs, no matter how stupid they are. The problem arises when they try to push their ideas on the right winged government. This should never be allowed to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Why is it NOT the height of hypocrisy to tell the government to stay out of peoples' bedrooms, then inviting it there saying government should force others to pay for birth control? Anyone know what Sandra Fluke had to say at the DNC? I really want to know more about why her looks and attitude aren't adequate birth control by themselves. Edited September 6, 2012 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Wahrheit Posted September 6, 2012 Author Share Posted September 6, 2012 Catholic women using birth control is an entirely different matter from forcing a Catholic-affiliated institution to provide coverage for birth control services to employees or students. Last time I checked, Catholic women were free to go to Walmart or Walgreens and get it without permission from the church. Of course, they may have to use their own money, but so do lots of other people. Learn to compare apples to apples next time. You appear not to understand how the concept of "employment" works. Whether a Catholic organization employs non-Catholics is irrelevant as to whether it should be required to cover the cost of birth control for employees as part of its benefits package. The people who work for the organization should have been aware of its policies on various matters, including employer coverage of birth control. Those who disagree with this particular policy are always free to seek employment elsewhere. When you can show me where people are forced to work for Catholic organizations against their will, and have no choice as to whether to seek employment elsewhere, you'll have a point. Until then, you don't. Don't give me that crap! An organization that is paying politicians to push their personal beliefs on others and at the same time are benefitting from tax payers while engaging in cover ups. Hypocrisy at its finest. Pratice what you preach before you start crying foul. They will and should provide coverage just like any other company. The NUNS don't even agree with this nonsense. Old men are at it once again! Rewriting God's laws to fit into MANS agenda.. You have your head so far up the tea party ass that any and every lie they push you will be for it. Get some values of your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Didn't man write "God's laws" in the first place? :poke: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Don't give me that crap! An organization that is paying politicians to push their personal beliefs on others and at the same time are benefitting from tax payers while engaging in cover ups. Again, you need to learn to stick to the subject at hand if you want to have any credibility on this subject. Whether the Catholic Church should receive tax-free status in view of its lobbying activities is a completely different subject than whether Catholic-affiliated institutions should be forced to provide coverage for birth control services as part of an employee benefits package. At any rate, if the federal law will force Catholic-affiliated institutions to do something, their representative, in this case the Catholic Church, has every right to lobby against it. You need to learn that key distinction before posting on this subject again, or else stick to discussing cars. Hypocrisy at its finest. Pratice what you preach before you start crying foul. Again, you appear to be confused. Forcing Catholic-affiliated institutions to provide coverage of birth-control services is forcing your views on them. Which, in view of the squawking over how pro-life Republicans want to force their views on others, is hypocrisy at its finest. Don't like the policies of that organization? Then don't work there or go to school there. DUH! In the meantime, if you want to "practice what you preach," I'd suggest not forcing an organization to do something against its values, even if you happen to like that policy. The NUNS don't even agree with this nonsense. Another irrelevant point. A few dissenting nuns doesn't mean ALL nuns disagree with the church's view on this subject. At any rate, if these nuns really disagree with the church's view, they are free to leave the church and the sisterhood. You have your head so far up the tea party ass that any and every lie they push you will be for it. Get some values of your own. This is too rich, given that you simply regurgitate the tired feminist-liberal talking points on this issue, without having obviously thought them through. Instead of link-bombing partisan nonsense and parroting the party line, how about becoming better informed on this issue? Edited September 6, 2012 by grbeck 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Anyone know what Sandra Fluke had to say at the DNC? I really want to know more about why her looks and attitude aren't adequate birth control by themselves. Because when the left does it, it's for your own good, silly! Anyone know what Sandra Fluke had to say at the DNC? I really want to know more about why her looks and attitude aren't adequate birth control by themselves. I saw her speaking, but didn't hear what she had to say, while flipping through the channels. I didn't think she was unattractive. If I saw her walking down the street in Harrisburg, I wouldn't have thought that she stood out one way or another (meaning, she isn't exceptionally beautiful or ugly). She looked like a typical, nicely made-up, early 30s professional woman or law student. Whether her words and attitude cancelled out her looks is another matter entirely. I didn't stick around enough to judge that. Edited September 6, 2012 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I agree. I was making a point that the right wingers are always screaming that they are for less government intrusion but their actions and legislation speak otherwise. Another example of telling the people one thing but doing the opposite. Blatent hypocrisy. Those are social conservatives. I can't stand their hypocrisy either. Fiscal conservatives (libertarians) are the ones who want free markets and less government. There's a big dfference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Those are social conservatives. I can't stand their hypocrisy either. Fiscal conservatives (libertarians) are the ones who want free markets and less government. There's a big dfference. Thank you for pointing this out! The sooner the Republican party embraces the latter and ditches the former, the better off we'll all be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I didn't think she was unattractive. If I saw her walking down the street in Harrisburg, I wouldn't have thought that she stood out one way or another (meaning, she isn't exceptionally beautiful or ugly). She looked like a typical, nicely made-up, early 30s professional woman or law student Who for some reason expects a total stranger to pay for her birth control rather than share the cost with her sexual partner. It takes a lot of looks to overcome that (at least for me it does). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) (Bad, smartphone) Edited September 6, 2012 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carguy Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Why should I have to pay for somebody else's choice to have sex. If someone wants to have sex for recreation let the 2 parties involved pay for it. I like to target shoot for my recreation. If birth control is free then the government should pay for 20,000 rounds of ammo for me to have my fun. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Why should I have to pay for somebody else's choice to have sex. If someone wants to have sex for recreation let the 2 parties involved pay for it. I like to target shoot for my recreation. If birth control is free then the government should pay for 20,000 rounds of ammo for me to have my fun. I like the way you think....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 If a woman uses birth control, she is not Catholic, because the Catholic religion does not allow it. They will take her money, but will not recognize her. Religion requires strict obeyance and total belief. That is what religion is by definition. That is why all religions are wrong, and probably evil as well. "Religious right" is an oxymoron because religion is like totalitarianism; big government; strictly left wing. Religious people get more flack if they are politically left wing, because they are in conflict with the authority, which is also the same as a religion. Therefore, they largely join the more right-winged party which does not interfere with peoples' personal beliefs, no matter how stupid they are. The problem arises when they try to push their ideas on the right winged government. This should never be allowed to happen. Your repeated attempts to portray yourself and conservatives as the righteous and us progressives/liberals as evil tyrants is comical. A dictatorship is a dictatorship, not a liberal nor conservative idea. Repressive regimes are about power not political parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Who for some reason expects a total stranger to pay for her birth control rather than share the cost with her sexual partner. It takes a lot of looks to overcome that (at least for me it does). Peggy Noonan summed her up perfectly: What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool. (emphasis added) Ouch... Edited September 7, 2012 by grbeck 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Peggy Noonan summed her up perfectly: What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool. (emphasis added) Ouch... Unfortunately, she's not alone. Edited September 7, 2012 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Your repeated attempts to portray yourself and conservatives as the righteous and us progressives/liberals as evil tyrants is comical. A dictatorship is a dictatorship, not a liberal nor conservative idea. Repressive regimes are about power not political parties. It is the left who are saying that Hitler was right wing. I am so sick of it. NAZI is short for National Socialist German Workers' Party. A big obtrusive government like NAZI Germany cannot be right wing because the right wing of the political spectrum is small government. That makes Hitler and his ilk left wing. NAZI Germany, Red China, and Stalin's Soviet Union are all examples of Socialism run amok. Instead of admitting it, their religious ferver causes the socialists to lash out and call them right wing. Nothing evil could ever be the result of their pure religion. Do they ever sit down and think in an unbiased way about what they spout just because it is brainwashed into their minds like a religion? It is hard to convince people that their long-held beliefs are wrong. I don't believe in having beliefs for that reason. Edited September 8, 2012 by Trimdingman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 A big obtrusive government like NAZI Germany cannot be right wing because the right wing of the political spectrum is small government. That makes Hitler and his ilk left wing. So you believe. I don't believe that small or even nonexistent government is only rightwing. I would suggest that people on both sides have small government ideas and even extremists. It is hard to convince people that their long-held beliefs are wrong. I don't believe in having beliefs for that reason. The irony of this statement must be lost on you, because numerous people have tried to get you to change your beliefs on this made up right-left paradigm you invented and cling to dear life over. And for someone with no beliefs you sure do offer your opinions a whole lot. If i didn't believe in anything why would i challenge others to share my views, because i wouldn't have any? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 I can see the perspective of birth control pills as a luxury, not a medical necessity. Personally I'd be fine if they weren't covered. But then you'd have the poorest of the poor poppin' 'em out one after another after another...... Is that what you really want? Think it through man! As for those of you who find target shooting more fun than sex ..... you're really reinforcing my negative stereotypes about conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) I can see the perspective of birth control pills as a luxury, not a medical necessity. Personally I'd be fine if they weren't covered. But then you'd have the poorest of the poor poppin' 'em out one after another after another...... Is that what you really want? Think it through man! Correct me if I'm wrong, but every time someone has suggested that people on public assistance should be on mandatory birth control, all hell is raised. Something about individual rights. As for those of you who find target shooting more fun than sex ..... you're really reinforcing my negative stereotypes about conservatives. I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. But would never, EVER relent or unduly restrict my personal right to own one Edited September 8, 2012 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.