My Photo

« Having a bad day Friday open thread | Main | Misconceptions »

March 16, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e2016302e5495e970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Describe for me the world in which this makes sense:

Comments

Look at what Rush did as a tactic. All the media scrambled to point out the outrageous statement he made. Everyone was shocked. Advertisers suspended advertisements.

In the midst of all this my wife, without batting an eye, says to me that nobody should have to pay for this woman to have sex.

And all the while everyone is shocked at Rush calling this girl a slut and demanding a video tape.

I've explained the real issue to my wife a couple times, but I doubt she really understands.

Yes, Rush is a horrible person who said horrible things. But this is an age old tactic--hide the lie in a bombastic statement. The bombast makes us all shudder and point and on and on. All the while, the lie gets mainlined.

The question seems to be, at least partially, "What is responsibility?"

In the world of early 20th century, with no contraception available, a "responsible" woman would only have sex in marriage. (This applied to a "responsible" man, too, but he would not be caught if irresponsible.) This is natural: only within marriage, the unavoidable offspring could be brought up in relative economic and social security.

On the other hand, with the pill available, a "responsible" person would take care that no STD's are spread and no unwanted offspring is begotten. Dr. Science takes correctly the position that this is what "responsibility" means with the modern technology. Of course, this definition of responsibility expands woman's sexual and social autonomy considerably, which is a bad thing from the conservative POV.

As a man, I would say that for me "responsibility" means using condom with females I do not completely trust, mainly for the sake of STD's. With a long-term partner, pill is a much better way of family planning. And this is how the conservative attack on women hurts men: if a poor woman cannot afford the pill, the sexual enjoyment and autonomy of her male partner is also diminished. Thus, the conservatives are not only hurting poor women but their poor male partners, too.

Of course, from an authoritarian point of view, this is just a good thing. Regulating people's intimate behaviour in detail is the hallmark of any competent cult leader.

"And this is how the conservative attack on women hurts men: if a poor woman cannot afford the pill, the sexual enjoyment and autonomy of her male partner is also diminished. Thus, the conservatives are not only hurting poor women but their poor male partners, too."

This is true, but in a "so what?" kind of way.

If a poor woman can't afford dining out, the gustatory enjoyment and autonomy of her dates is also diminished. Thus not subsidizing restaurants not only hurts poor women, but also poor men. But not a lot of people are going to view this as a reason food stamps ought to cover Olive Garden.

You really are better off with the, "Sometimes the pill is used for other medical purposes aside from contraception." argument. It doesn't require the listener to believe that folks are entitled to have their jollies subsidized. Which is, of course, the view Rush was attacking in his usual crude way.

So, so this isn't good just from an authoritarian POV, (In fact, authoritarians can and do take the opposite tack, or else this wouldn't be in the news at the moment!) it's also good from a, "Do whatever the hell you like, but foot the damn bill yourself!" point of view.

A very common point of view outside the left...

Look at what Rush did as a tactic. All the media scrambled to point out the outrageous statement he made. Everyone was shocked. Advertisers suspended advertisements.

Looked at more neutrally: there's no publicity like bad publicity.

folks are entitled to have their jollies subsidized

Even an unwitting instrument of the Right Wing Noise Machine like myself can recognize that birth control pills are not "jollies". Why can't you?

folks are entitled to have their jollies subsidized

What subsidy are you talking about? Students pay insurance premiums, so they'd be subsidizing themselves. Are you referring to the cross subsidy by which students who never take birth control pay for those who do? If so, how is that different from students who never ski paying for the mending of bones broken by student skiers?

If a poor woman can't afford dining out, the gustatory enjoyment and autonomy of her dates is also diminished. Thus not subsidizing restaurants not only hurts poor women, but also poor men. But not a lot of people are going to view this as a reason food stamps ought to cover Olive Garden.

Nobody is talking about government money or taxpayer subsidies, Brett. Sandra Fluke and her fellow students are required, as a condition of enrollment at Georgetown, to purchase health insurance from them, at a substantial cost. They would like that insurance to cover reproductive health. It currently does not.

So just what on Earth are you on about?

Did you even RTFA?

Do you ever RTFA?

Or do you start from a conclusion (THIS IS DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD THOUGHTCRIME) and work backwards?

(Don't answer, it's rhetorical.)

NB: What kills me is that this is also true of all the employment-based health insurance to which this bogus "religious freedom" argument has been applied. First off, it isn't, like, a birthday present or something. A health plan is part of your compensation, and the employer should have no more say over how it gets spent -- whether on Viagra, Depro-provera or Prozac -- than he/she does over your paycheck.

Second, at just about ever decent-sized employer I know, you don't have the option not to take the insurance plan, unless you can provide solid evidence that you have health insurance via other means. If you cannot do so, your employer will enroll you and will take the employee contribution out of your check. So, again, they require you to take it, then want to tell you how you can use it? LOL nope.

Can't disagree with Doctor Science in the slightest.

But let's not forget that the War Against Women is also being fought on the domestic violence front: From yesterday's NYT:

"The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence."

Of course, Republican lawmakers claim oppose the bill on the grounds that it's being expanded to help the loathsome illegal immigrants (who apparently deserve to be battered) and same-sex couples (similarly deserve domestic abuse).

But more telling is Phyllis Shlafly's reaction (remember? She's the guardian of "traditional marriage"): "Last month on the conservative Web site Townhall.com, the conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly called the Violence Against Women Act a slush fund 'used to fill feminist coffers' and demanded that Republicans stand up against legislation that promotes 'divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.'"

I can only hope that Republicans true colors are becoming more and more obvious to people who think that they're harmless so that they'll be voted out of office.

(It's okay with me, Brett, if you think that contraception is all about someone's "jollies" even though it reduces the infant mortality rate in countries where it is widely available. People who are middle aged and, have children, and still don't get it that sexuality is a part of intimate expression, not just "jollies," will never be convinced.)

BTW, the GOP is 100% dedicated to losing most of the female vote this year, and possibly forever.

Arizona wants to make it legal for employers to engage in panty-sniffing, then fire all the slutty girls.

Wisconsin wants to use the law to call single parenthood child abuse and also recommends that battered women try to just remember the good times and stick it out.

And the national GOP has decided to, for the first time, get pissy about renewing the Violence Against Women Act, because it includes provisions for Native American women and same-sex couples, and also an expedited visa process for abused undocumented immigrants.

Brett may have a point to the effect that coverage for birth control pills should not be compulsory, but so far he's not making it.

AFAIC, this is a dispute that's completely between the employees and the employer. It's not clear to me that either the federal government or Rush Limbaugh should have any kind of interest in the matter.

It's not clear to me that either the federal government or Rush Limbaugh should have any kind of interest in the matter.

Right now, the government offers substantial tax breaks to companies who pay their employees with health insurance rather than just cash. Given that the companies are claiming a government benefit, it seems perfectly reasonable that they have to abide by minimum government standards, like, say, the notion that your insurance product has to pay for drugs that treat PCOS.

I mean, it would be absurd if companies could claim the tax break while offering their employees "insurance" that didn't pay to treat actual medical problems in the real world.

"Do whatever the hell you like, but foot the damn bill yourself!" point of view.

Do you even understand what health insurance is? Do I get to say I don't have to pay premiums because someone broke his leg while skiing? Can I say that my co-worker should have used better birth control (that obviously you think she -- because why would her husband have to pay for it? -- should foot the bill all on her own) so she didn't get pregnant so I don't have to pay into the pool that pays for her prenatal care, hospital bills, or well baby visits?

Health insurance in Libertopia: you pay for every treatment yourself, and if you can't afford it, you stay sick or die.

When I tried to point out at another blog that Brett was simply handwaving away that birth control and other preventative coverage was a workaday part of the risk management/cost control tactics of every insurance company, his response was "I'm not writing a master's thesis here."

He seems to genuinely not understand how health care plans work, which makes me wonder why he doesn't simply start a competing company if he's got such a handle on how to do it better.

Brett's argument isn't even a good one from the fiscal conservative point of view, if one is being at all realistic. Contraception is cheaper than an unplanned pregnancy. Are people simply not going to have sex if they can't afford contraception, or are they going to take their horny chances?

Compartmentalized thinking abounds.

Or what MM said. (I know it didn't take me 12 minutes to write my last comment.)

A very common point of view outside the left

when you write shit like this (which you always do), it forces the reader to choose between two options:
1) you're a troll
2) you have never met anyone who would describe themselves as being of "the left"

neither option gives the reader any reason to take you seriously.

i'm sure this isn't the first time someone has said this to you.

Maybe the Olive Garden-food-stamps analogy would make sense if a meal at Olive Garden would eliminate the need to eat for the next year, at which point I imagine it would be very fiscally responsible for food stamps to cover meals at Olive Garden.

(I only eat there when my in-laws perdictably give us a gift card. The food is soooo friggin' salty that I think they're trying to kill me.)

I was thinking as I read this post all this obviously stupid crap from Republican politicians wouldn't make any difference to male Republican voters becuase they would either rationalize it away or say that they don't agree but are going to vote R anyway. You all know the line because you've heard it right here on obWi: "I Know that Palin/Santorum/every other Republican politician is crazy. but I'm not one of those Republicans (I just vote them into office)"

Female Republican voters might actually be moved by this issue since it is an attack on them or their daughters or female relatives.

SO the men who don't really care about anythig except keeping their tazes low and their federally funded services high will keep on voting R regardless of the the harm to women just as they kept on voting R regardless of the harm to everyone else.

Female R voters who never cared about the harm Republicans do to their fellow Americans are suddenly having a thought or to about it since the harm is now aimed at them or their female relatives and acquaintences.

Are people simply not going to have sex if they can't afford contraception, or are they going to take their horny chances?

We both know, from several millenia of written history, that in all societies, the latter is true for the vast majority of population. I'm sure that Brett knows it, too.

The whole point of making contraception unaffordable and unaccessible for low and middle class is to cause the social structures built around the unavailability of contraception to return:
* impossibility of responsible premarital sex
* as a result, severe curtailing of women's personal autonomy and social freedom
* resulting in increased power of men, especially fathers and other male relatives.

This is a Kulturkampf of sorts. Wide-spread use of contraception is an integral part of our culture and our way of life. Fight against its availability is a fight against modern liberal society.

Do you even understand what health insurance is?

Many libertarians both do not understand insurance and, in many cases, are against the concept of insurance. While insurance and libertarianism are not wholly incompatible, the "collectivist" nature of insurance itself is abhorrent to them in an instinctual sense, so it becomes difficult to have discussions about it with them.

* impossibility of responsible premarital sex
* as a result, severe curtailing of women's personal autonomy and social freedom
* resulting in increased power of men, especially fathers and other male relatives.

Don't forget the goal of populating a large, cheap, and exploitable work force. The less control families have over their numbers, the more desperate for any work the laborers will be, and the less they will be able to afford to educate their children, giving rise to more generations of cheap labor. It's a long game strategy.

Brett, your "jollies" argument is also wrong - or else, why isn't the catholic church / Rush Limbaugh decrying the fact that employers are compelled to pay for Viagra?

Isn't that enough to show that what these people are upset about is specific to women?

Lastly, what's wrong with paying for jollies? I don't like that you characterize sex as though it's a joke. Sex is very serious - especially for women, who run the risk of pregnancy. Also, to use an example that another post mentioned, when a skier gets into an accident and the insurance company pays a premium for his treatment, isn't that company paying for his "jollies?" What's wrong with a consensual contractual arrangement whereby risk spreading for "jolly" enjoyment is agreed upon?

While insurance and libertarianism are not wholly incompatible, the "collectivist" nature of insurance itself is abhorrent to them in an instinctual sense, so it becomes difficult to have discussions about it with them.

I get so tired of hearing or reading sentences that begin "Why should I have to pay for..." that I want to respond, "You don't have to pay for anything. Hop on a log and paddle out to the middle of the ocean."

But that's not very nice, is it?

Why did I make this about "paying for your jollies"? Because that's the basis on which Lurker defended it: Not because contraceptives might be used to regularize periods, or treat some other condition, but because, if you didn't subsidize them, some poor woman might have a lousy sex life.

I suggested he might want to defend it on other terms. I still do.

Nobody is keeping the students from paying for contraceptives with their own money, any more than the fact that the university doesn't pay for the CDs means it's prohibiting listening to music.

This is, pretty unambiguously, about forcing religous institutions to violate their own convictions. It's about the left's determination that nobody gets to have convictions that matter except them.

We both know, from several millenia of written history, that in all societies, the latter is true for the vast majority of population. I'm sure that Brett knows it, too.

I don't actually know that he does. Or, even if so, millions of like-minded people out there certainly only understand this in a highly "compartmentalized" way, as hairshirthedonist notes.

Because this form of thinking seems to be to be essentially pandemic in the whole Republican/libertarian/conservative sphere. The idea is apparently to take it as given that if the consequences/risks are unpleasant enough, people will simply cease to engage in "irresponsible"/"undesirable" behavior X. Human nature and the testament of 10,000 years of history simply don't hold a candle to such an obviously logical assumption.

So, when people predictably continue to behave like human beings rather than profit-maximizing robots, well, f*** 'em. And if the sum total of that situation makes us collectively worse off than we would be if we took a little corrective, collective action (to, say, provide easy access to birth control), well f*** us all. It's more important to be ideologically pure. Government only makes things worse. Etc. Etc.

It's obviously not just lady parts, either. Though I expect that is a particularly crucial -- and nasty -- cornerstone of the whole mode of thinking.

Think of retirement security ("screw pensions/social security, responsible people should just save their money!"), health care ("responsible people would just set aside money for medical expenses! why do we call it insurance when it pays for routine checkups!), and social welfare of all kinds ("responsible people would just buy rice cookers and then become self-made millionaires! Food stamps just make people poorer!"). Even things like public education fall under this kind of attack.

(There are obviously racist and/or sexist overtones to all of it, but it wouldn't surprise me if a substantial segment have simply forgotten that it was all supposed to be just a dogwhistle talking point and have bought into it completely.)

Lastly, what's wrong with paying for jollies? I don't like that you characterize sex as though it's a joke. Sex is very serious - especially for women, who run the risk of pregnancy. Also, to use an example that another post mentioned, when a skier gets into an accident and the insurance company pays a premium for his treatment, isn't that company paying for his "jollies?" What's wrong with a consensual contractual arrangement whereby risk spreading for "jolly" enjoyment is agreed upon?

This.

I also think it's deeply strange to talk about sex as "jollies" at all. As if it's just a risky hobby some people partake in, like skiing. I mean, it's not as if sex is some kind of (nearly) universally practiced basic biological activity or anything.

No. It's something really weird which should obviously not be part of standard medical care.

Phil:

You're doing it again. Talk about the argument, not about the person making the argument. I will delete any further comments of yours that include ad hominem attacks, even if I agree with the rest of the comment.

Is it possible to put comments into moderation on this thing? *poke poke*

Brett, would you mind answering the question I asked you about subsidies? To wit:

What subsidy are you talking about? Students pay insurance premiums, so they'd be subsidizing themselves. Are you referring to the cross subsidy by which students who never take birth control pay for those who do? If so, how is that different from students who never ski paying for the mending of bones broken by student skiers?

Nobody is keeping the students from paying for contraceptives with their own money, any more than the fact that the university doesn't pay for the CDs means it's prohibiting listening to music.

On the other hand, it would not seem unreasonable for student health insurance to cover an ear checkup to look for loud music-induced hearing loss, and, if necessary, hearing aids or other treatment.

Likewise, say, a liver checkup for a college-age binge-drinker. And if there were a magic pill which could make either alcohol consumption or loud music relatively harmless, that would seem like a very smart investment for a health plan.

So, Brett, what makes sex (which is probably an even more universal activity than excessive drinking or listening to loud music) so special?

(Also "prohibiting" seems like maybe an interesting Freudian slip. Who's talking about prohibiting unauthorized sex? Who even thinks that reducing access to birth control is even going to somehow reduce the incidence of sex?)

"Nobody is keeping the students from paying for contraceptives with their own money, any more than the fact that the university doesn't pay for the CDs means it's prohibiting listening to music."

Is it unclear to you that Sandra Fluke pays roughly $47,000 in tuition to Georgetown, which also buys her health insurance?

In what way is she not paying for birth control with her own money? Keep in mind that (typically, I think) people who buy birth control also pay copays for it. I have a feeling that your argument, in order to address the fact that Sandra Fluke is paying for health insurance, will boil down to not liking the concept of insurance. But I am eager to be proved wrong!

"This is, pretty unambiguously, about forcing religous institutions to violate their own convictions. It's about the left's determination that nobody gets to have convictions that matter except them."

You are conflating two things - 1) being forced to do something you don't approve of, and 2) being forced to pay for someone else doing something you don't approve of. But those are distinct things. No one is making the Catholic church use birth control. Instead, the Catholic Church as an employer is being forced to abide by the insurance requirements that apply to other employers.

There's two hurdles the religious argument has to get over to make any sense -

1) Acting as an employer is secular - render unto Caesar, etc etc. Does the Bible actually say somewhere that, not only can you not use contraception, you cannot subsidize the use of someone else's contraception? Where in Catholic dogma does it say that?

2) Even if the Bible did say "thou shalt not be forced to cover contraception as part of prescription drug benefits in thy health insurance coverage," why should we respect that religious belief? What if the Bible said it's against Christian dogma to drive under 90 mph? What if the Koran said it's a sin to allow your neighbor to play the flute at 3 p.m.?

Oh, and yes, just as Brett avoided Turb's question, he also avoided the fact that the Catholic church, Rush Limbaugh, and he are AOK with being forced to pay for Viagra, which point I would love to see debated more.

Brett:
Why did I make this about "paying for your jollies"? Because that's the basis on which Lurker defended it: Not because contraceptives might be used to regularize periods, or treat some other condition, but because, if you didn't subsidize them, some poor woman might have a lousy sex life.

If you go back and look at Lurker's comment @04:31, that's not what ze is saying at all. Lurker says that contraceptives are necessary for responsible, safe planning of a woman's family -- which is to, of her *life*.

The only person who's enjoyment is brought up is her male partner. Contraception is about a man's "jollies", but about a woman's *life*.

Phil:

You're doing it again. Talk about the argument, not about the person making the argument. I will delete any further comments of yours that include ad hominem attacks, even if I agree with the rest of the comment.

OK, legit question: Why am I the only person here who gets publicly policed this way? You completely disappeared from comments on this post where a whole bunch of this went on, a great deal of it at my expense. What is your beef w/me, Doc?

I should add, a great deal of it was at your expense as well, Doc.

render unto Caesar, etc etc

Certainly I'd be fine with rendering unto Caesar all birth controls that have his face on them.

;)

Contraception is about a man's "jollies", but about a woman's *life*.

I would like to disagree. The contraception using medical devices or medicines affecting the female reproductive system is, for the man about his enjoyment, as it allows much more enjoyable intercourse than the use of condom. Actually, it is even unfair to the woman, because she needs to carry the risk of (very unlikely) medical complications of contraception.

However, contraception as a whole is about family planning in general. And that is quite as much about the man's life than about woman's life. Even for the man, contraception of some type is necessary for the planning of one's life. And this right to enjoy family life in privacy of one's home is quite as much the right of man as the right of woman.

And have no doubt: when the "pill" has become unaccessible for women, the conservatives start fighting the condoms. The reproductive freedom is not a gender issue. It's a human rights issue.

It is an affront to religious freedom that Catholic (or other religious) institutions (other than churches) should have to pay less for health insurance coverage for their employees when that coverage includes contraception under the category of preventive medicine.

They are being "forced" to underpay for health insurance which will cover contraception for their employees, who may or may not use contraception according to their own judgement, which may or may not be informed by their own religious convictions, about which their employer should have no knowledge or input.

That's what's at issue here, as a matter of religious (or, more generally, moral) freedom.

when the "pill" has become unaccessible for women

When's that scheduled to happen?

If they can find enough pharmacists willing to claim a conscience exemption to dispensing it. Not nationwide, obviously, but I bet it could happen in some of your smaller states.

When's that scheduled to happen?

When are you going to die? If you don't know, does that mean that you're immortal?

Historically, there's been a reasonably successful effort to eliminate abortion access by imposing lots of restrictions. Recent events suggest that some of the same groups behind such efforts also dislike contraception, so I'm not sure why it is unreasonable to think about a world where they replicate their success limiting abortion access to contraception.

I mean, Congressional Republicans have been pretty clear that they believe that *any* employer should be able to stop paying for birth control, so this is hardly a fringe position voiced only by powerless losers....

If they can find enough pharmacists willing to claim a conscience exemption to dispensing it.

This might happen when all pharmacists are Catholic. In other words: in your dreams.

Protestants, in general, have absolutely no problem with birth control.

Recent events suggest that some of the same groups behind such efforts also dislike contraception

Please tell me just how close we are to getting legislation passed, in any state, that makes the sale of birth control illegal.

Please tell me just how close we are to getting legislation passed, in any state, that makes the sale of birth control illegal.

Why?

Is that question relevant to the general question of access? Has anyone here suggested that birth control would be legally banned, as opposed to sufficiently hindered so as to reduce its accessibility?

I mean, abortion is inaccessible to many women in the US...but it is completely legal.

This is, pretty unambiguously, about forcing religous institutions to violate their own convictions.

As pointed out ad nauseum here and elsewhere, no, it is not. The Church is not forced to be an employer. The Church is not forced to provide health insurance to its employees. If the Church wishes to engage in the secular sphere, it has to play by the secular rules.

I know this is a terrible blow to those who insist on the maintenance of socially outdated heirarchies that usually begin and end with male domination, and further insist that politics conform to their antequated and morally reprehensible beliefs.

Fortunately you are losing this battle. To bad for you.

When are you going to die? If you don't know, does that mean that you're immortal?

This isn't a serious question, I hope.

Uh, oh. Committed the "too" quawk quo fallacy.

This might happen when all pharmacists are Catholic. In other words: in your dreams.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/16/pro-life-pharmacies-refus_n_107389.html> It appears we have a growing trend of Catholics going into the pharmacy business, eh?

This might happen when all pharmacists are Catholic. In other words: in your dreams.

If you live in a rural area and don't have lots of time and money, then it takes only one pharmacist to deny you access to birth control. Now, if you have lots of time and money or if you live near many pharmacies, then things are different.

Protestants, in general, have absolutely no problem with birth control.

No, that is wrong. For example:

An evangelical college has sued the federal government over the thin conscience protections in the national healthcare law. The same day the school filed the suit, an array of evangelical leaders sent another letter to the White House contesting the current conscience protections and urging President Obama to expand those protections.
Has anyone here suggested that birth control would be legally banned

Fair question. No.

sufficiently hindered so as to reduce its accessibility

How do you see this working? There's an order of magnitude more women who need to be prevented from getting their birth control pills, at any old pharmacy they choose. Which, incidentally, there are two orders of magnitude more of those than abortion providers.

But I suppose anything that can happen, will happen. So we might as well get braced for it. Mobs of scythe-waving pinkos are coming for our guns!

If you live in a rural area and don't have lots of time and money, then it takes only one pharmacist to deny you access to birth control.

Yep. That's why I specified it could happen in a small state. Not everyone lives where there's a dozen Walgreen's and CVS stores within a 15 minute drive.

I mean, abortion is inaccessible to many women in the US...but it is completely legal.

Indeed.

It appears we have a growing trend of Catholics going into the pharmacy business, eh?

Yes! By which I mean: no.

Trend consisting of one sourced datum, which currently is out of business.

For example:

I think if you read your example, it's contraception and abortifacients. I'd bet a double-sawbuck that it's the abortifacients that are causing the problem.

Oops, don't need to. From your link:

“Colorado Christian’s religious beliefs forbid it from participating in, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion,” the school’s lawsuit reads. “The government’s mandate unconstitutionally coerces Colorado Christian to violate its deeply held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines and penalties.”

Also:

Last Wednesday, a spectrum of religious leaders—from Evangelicals for Social Action as well as Focus on the Family, Prison Fellowship, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Agudath Israel of America, and dozens of others—wrote the president on the matter. The Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, which represents 137 Protestant schools, also signed on.

“It is emphatically not only Catholics who deeply object to the requirement that health plans they purchase must provide coverage of contraceptives that include some that are abortifacients,” they wrote Obama. “It is not only Catholics who object to the narrow exemption that protects only seminaries and a few churches, but not churches with a social outreach and other faith-based organizations that serve the poor and needy broadly providing help that goes beyond worship and prayer.”

So, there's that.

Not everyone lives where there's a dozen Walgreen's and CVS stores within a 15 minute drive.

Why 15 minutes? We once lived where we had to drive a half hour to the nearest pharmacy.

Or...why not US Postal Service? You know that you can get prescriptions by mail, yes?

Teh crazies are going to have a hard time picketing USPS, UPS and FedEx simultaneously, along with all the pharmacies.

"As pointed out ad nauseum here and elsewhere, no, it is not. The Church is not forced to be an employer. The Church is not forced to provide health insurance to its employees. If the Church wishes to engage in the secular sphere, it has to play by the secular rules"

Yeah, I understand: Want to minister to the sick? Do it on my terms, or not at all. Want to minister to the poor? Do it on my terms, or not at all. Want to educate people? Do it on my terms, or not at all.

Want to do anything at all? Do it on my terms, or not at all.

You believe in religious liberty... in the privacy of people's heads, and nowhere else.

That's what I mean by saying that the left won't permit anybody but themselves to have convictions that matter. Because if you don't dig a hole and bury yourself in it, the left demands you live on their terms.


I think if you read your example, it's contraception and abortifacients. I'd bet a double-sawbuck that it's the abortifacients that are causing the problem.

If people are upset only about abortofacients, then they should complain about abortofacients. But if they complain about contraception in general (or contraception and abortofacients), then it is clear that they object to non-abortofacient contraception as well.

See, if the Blunt amendment specified that any employer could refuse to pay (through insurance) for abortofacient drugs, you might have a claim. But it didn't. Because that's not really the issue.

Brett: Yeah, I understand: Want to minister to the sick? Do it on my terms, or not at all. Want to minister to the poor? Do it on my terms, or not at all. Want to educate people? Do it on my terms, or not at all.

How far does this go? If it was a belief of Church X that runs Hospital Y that Ethnic Group Z was sub-human and therefore refused to treat or hire any members of Z at Y based on that belief, is that ok? Or is that forcing people to "do it on my terms"?

I'd bet a double-sawbuck that it's the abortifacients that are causing the problem.

Yeah. Right.

From past experience, I'm guessing these religious groups definition of what constitutes an "abortifacient" (or what constitutes an abortion for the purposes of defining an abortiffacient) might be somewhat larger than the definition a medical professional might use.

For example, those who think pregancy begins at conception consider use of morning after pills "abortion". And of course morning after pills contain roughly the same hormones as regular birth control pills do, just at a higher dose.

So there you go. Birth control pills are "abortifacients". And it's "just the abortifacients" that are causing the problem.

I think if you read your example, it's contraception and abortifacients. I'd bet a double-sawbuck that it's the abortifacients that are causing the problem.

Well, except that there's an increasing belief in the pro-life community that birth control causes abortions. Which erases that distinction.

This a really tiresome discussion. There is no war on women, just like there is no war on the church. Sandra Fluke has every right to be an activist in pursuit of a change in policy in the Catholic employer ranks. They have a right to defend their religious stance.

The rest is a huge red herring based on Rush Limbaugh being a d*&K and an idiot.

Until the PPACA was passed there was no requirement for any employer to provide birth control as a part of an insurance plan, and they mostly all did. It still wasn't required until Sebellius said it was and the employers still provided it. The idea that there is a war on women in any widespread sense is simply not supportable.


And this:

Second, at just about ever decent-sized employer I know, you don't have the option not to take the insurance plan, unless you can provide solid evidence that you have health insurance via other means. If you cannot do so, your employer will enroll you and will take the employee contribution out of your check.

isn't historically true, at all. In fact, historically, if you didn't sign up in time you couldn't until the next enrollment period. You could avoid paying for it by simply doing nothing. Then they became more adamant that you specifically turn it down so they wouldn't be forced to provide it as an exception if the employee came back after the enrollment period and demanded it.

I would need a cite to believe it is true today if it has become true since PPACA passed.

As an aside, many plans didn't and stil don't cover Viagra.

it is clear that they object to non-abortofacient contraception as well

Assertive argument is assertive.

It may very well be that there's a quite different version of things than can be had from Turbulence's assertion of what a few casual paragraphs in Worldmag certainly must mean. Or not. But if you're going to pick one of those, you have to substantiate it without coming up with Calvinball rules to help you.

You believe in religious liberty... in the privacy of people's heads, and nowhere else.

Yes, because all us lefties are trying to force people to use contraceptives and trying to prevent religious leaders from teaching their belief systems. WTF?

CCDG: The rest is a huge red herring based on Rush Limbaugh being a d*&K and an idiot.

Hmmm, one might wonder why Rush thought it was okay to go on with the whole slut/sex tape/lying/etc. stuff about Fluke for three days. One might also ask why prominent national GOP politicians felt they had to walk back any criticism of him almost immediately.

It's a mystery, I guess.

Thank you, jack and evilrooster, for pointing out that a nontrivial portion of the religious right considers not only the morning-after pill, but even the ol' Pill, to be an abortifacent.

That's what I mean by saying that the left won't permit anybody but themselves to have convictions that matter.

Right, that's why the antiwar left has been so successful. Where's my conscience exemption?

"Describe a world for me in which this makes sense", AND "what makes sex ..... so special?"

Questions for the ages. May I answer in French?

So, a Catholic Priest, a male libertarian with multiple personalities, Sandra Fluke, and a male evangelical snake charmer/preacher board a three man canoe and take turns paddling vigorously for the rapids downstream.

On the way, a bottle with an old copy of Cosmopolitan Magazine (large bottle, the three-litre Wild Turkey vessel; the magazine was placed there by a Mormon snipe hunter on a bender) tucked inside bobs up against the canoe and one of them retrieves the magazine and opens it to Helen Gurley Brown's column, which poses a question.

The question: How do you achieve sexual gratification without benefit of contraception?

The Priest answers: "By the grace of God, I condemn the vice of contraception and suffer the little children to come unto me, especially those pouty altar boys."

The libertarian answers: I masturbate while wearing a condom because I'm afraid of giving myself something and then I'd have to see my doctor for treatment, who would have to consult my insurance company regarding coverage of the condition, which is against my rules regarding one hand washing the other.

Sandra Fluke answers: Frankly gentleman, I don't give a damn about sex any longer after being raped by Georgetown University for $47,000 annually, excluding textbook expenses and contraceptive coverage, and then passed along for sloppy seconds to a horde of gibbering, drooling, right-wing blowhards who gobble boner pills and wear condoms underneath their pants just in case they get lucky. Now, if the question is about my friend with the female condition, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.

The male evangelical snake charmer/preacher, grimly looking ahead, pompadour mussed, answers: First, I don't want to talk about it because it's not a fit subject for company; secondly, we've got some paddling to do if we're going to reach the Abyss up ahead by nightfall, which, by God, I'm praying we do; and thirdly, if I get out of this via rapture and you don't, I get the motel room with the vibrating double bed, the disco/porn channel/free lube/complimentary fleshlight luxury package, and the open Watts line to call my SuperPAC and make sure the my flock's money is going to whichever Republican candidate most thoroughly eradicates Planned Parenthood.

_______________

As to the Olive Garden, food stamps or not, I'm not sure I want some fat, horny, Church Lady/Man franchise general manager, male or female, deciding to put salt petre in the water while wearing a double holster with a dildo on one side and a speculum in the other coming up to me and my wife and/or girlfriend at our table and asking us if there's anything more they can do for us while they check the small print in our server's health insurance policy, which Olive Garden probably doesn't supply anyway, viewing the expenses of cancer affliction much the same way as they do the expense of contraception .... as overhead.

By the way, the vegetable primavera was fit only for livestock. And that dildo your holstering doesn't look sufficiently al dente, so why don't they take it back to the kitchen, consult their spiritual and constitutional advisors, and then the three of them take a flying leap off Gof8ckyourself
Overlook.

Any time I meet a person with religious convictions, I know, like Groucho, they've got others too, whether we like the first ones or not. Either way, they feel violated.

As to Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin, et al, advertising boycotts and Comedy Central are all very good in a civilized society, but since that is not the world we live in that can in any way be described as making sense, I recommend punching them as hard we can, breaking their jaws and many other of the large bones in their smug faces because, in the end, the only measure they will understand, is violence.

Like one of the good Catholic priests, among the many, most of them Irish, despite my little joke above, like Spencer Tracy at the end of "Boys Town" finally did to put a stop to the bullies.

As to the funny questions regarding scriptural prohibition against health insurance covering contraception, driving too slow or playing the flute at 3:00 pm. (that's O.K., but keep it down at 3:00 am), I'm with whomever the fisherman Thomas McGuane meets in a fishing camp who chortles about the Italians: "They love their little popes, but then they put their condoms on they f*ck like rabbits!"

I think even the rabbits should have health care coverage, even if they do have a hare up their as*es.

Speaking of rabbits, Phyllis Schafly (and Helen Gurley Brown, come to think of it) once recommended that wives dress up in bunny costumes and meet their husbands at the front door as the latter return home from work.

I favor her health insurance company being forced to cover her choice of contraceptive, just in case Newt Gingrich rings the doorbell dressed as the milkman and she decides to vote for him as a prophylactic against the demon seed in the White House.

Rick Santorum would like to make birth control illegal while Mitt Romney has said he intends to defund the largest health clinic in the country that supplies birth control to low-income women. When these two men are the front-runners of the Republican primary, meaning one of them will be selected by their party as the most qualified person to be the President, you cannot claim with a straight face there isn't a war on women's access to contraceptives.

Ugh, one might also wonder why every single right-wing dead-ender blogger felt they had to try to top Rush to come up with the most vile epithets to describe Fluke, and why they all lied consistently and repeatedly about the content of her testimony. (And are still doing so.)

This is, pretty unambiguously, about forcing religous institutions to violate their own convictions.

From here:

Students attending Georgetown are required to have health insurance, and their coverage is required to meet a certain standard.

If they don't have that coverage, they are required to buy into Georgetown's plan.

That plan is underwritten by United Health Care. As far as I can tell, UHC is not a religious institution.

The school is not paying for the insurance, they are not directly providing the insurance, and they are not providing the care. The student's money, presumably, goes to United Health Care and/or to the folks directly providing medical goods and services.

It's completely unclear to me how Georgetown has anything to say about what is, or is not, in a medical plan that is underwritten by someone else, and paid for by someone else. That would seem to be a matter for the other two parties to sort out.

I'm not seeing what Georgetown is being asked to do that has anything, whatsoever, to do with their religious convictions. At most, they appear to be using their institutional leverage to steer students to UHC.

Is that covered in the Bible somewhere?

Other than possibly getting some kind of vig off of UHC's fees, I don't see that they're a party to the transaction, at all.

russell, I don't think you understand. Let me break it down for you: THE LEFT!!!!111!!!

"....meaning one of them will be selected by their party as the most qualified person to be the President, you cannot claim with a straight face there isn't a war on women's access to contraceptives"

I can, Santorum on the subject

Speaking to Bill O’Reilly, the candidate put his position in blunt enough terms that the issue should be put to bed:

Well, the states have a right to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it. Someone asked me if the states have the right to do it? Yes. They have the right to do it, they shouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t vote for it if they did. It doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to do it. As you know, Bill, you’re a Catholic, Catholic Church teaches contraceptive [sic] is something you shouldn’t do. So when I was asked the question on contraception I said I didn’t support it.

Romney believes that Planned Parenthood shouldn't continue to receive federal funds, having nothing to do with banning contraception, or even Planned Parenthood.

However, Obama is moving to defund the Texas Womens health plan, which does provide contraception, because they won't pay Planned Parenthood. Now that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

CCDG wrote:

"This a really tiresome discussion. There is no war on women, just like there is no war on the church. Sandra Fluke has every right to be an activist in pursuit of a change in policy in the Catholic employer ranks. They have a right to defend their religious stance.

The rest is a huge red herring based on Rush Limbaugh being a d*&K and an idiot."

Yes, I think his father ignored his mother's vigilance regarding the rhythm method.

Thus, here we are.

Slart wrote:

"I think if you read your example, it's contraception and abortifacients. I'd bet a double-sawbuck that it's the abortifacients that are causing the problem."

I see someone else has already pointed out Santorum's (last I looked, second in a Presidential primary in the greatest Nation on Earth) repeated threats against ALL contraception.

True, his audiences, are made up of women of all denominations dosed to the gills with prophylactic hormones prescribed by doctors for whatever reason and probably paid for by their healthcare providers, including the gummint ones, and men who, if they could suddenly be built to also get pregnant, instead of getting just others pregnant, would be caught jumping the counters at CVS' and Walgreen's around the country wearing ski masks and litle else and grabbing as many birth control pills as they could and then rush home and barricade themselves in an upstairs bedroom, skip work and spend three days checking out their new lady parts.

But, again, the conversation is top down from the usual suspects, and thus, here we vent.

Brett, once again, would you mind answering the questions I asked you in my first comment on this thread?

If those questions are too difficult for you, just let me know.

However, Obama is moving to defund the Texas Womens health plan, which does provide contraception, because they won't pay Planned Parenthood. Now that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This is precisely backwards. Rick Perry wanted the federal money for the Medicaid Women's Health Program, but not to let Planned Parenthood have any of it. Medicaid rules forbid states from interfering with womens' choice of provider for mammograms, cancer screening and other services, so long as those providers are qualified Medicaid providers.

Perry insisted that Planned Parenthood be excluded, so Medicaid said, "Well, then, you can't have the money."

Painting this as something Obama is doing is partisan hackery of the most transparent and tortured sort.

I mean, who do you think should get to pick your doctor, you, or Rick Perry?

Yes, Romney has spun like a dervish on the Planned Parenthood issue, but if Erick Erickson and Moe Lane criticized him for NOT sticking a thermonuclear bomb up his keester and launching himself and his warhead at womanhood's collective vagina to solve the problem once and for all, he'd offer that up on FOXnews too.

Not that I think he would actually do it if elected President.

Not that I think he would actually not do it if elected President.

I think whenever he stops spinning, at whatever number the pointer is aimed is what will become policy.

I'd bet a double-sawbuck that it's the abortifacients that are causing the problem.

Well, except the morning after pill is not an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient>
abortifacient

Let's make it a Franklin.

Slarti, Phil's point about the Texas efforts to defund Planned Parenthood helps explain why mail-order pharmacies aren't really the answer here. You can't get BC without a prescription. If you can't find a primary care doctor that you can afford -- remember, there's a shortage of primary care doctors, especially in poorer and rural areas -- then you can't get BC, period. If Perry is successful in his let's-defund-Planned-Parenthood scheme, then a bunch of people will lose easy access to BC.

They will lose this access even though the US Postal service is still running. This is how multi-pronged attacks work: you try lots of things to impede access to BC. Some of them work, some of them don't, but overall, you increase the cost of getting BC and thus reduce the number of people who can use it.

They have a right to defend their religious stance

It's not a religious stance for a secular institution to claim that they can defy a health insurance regulation, particularly when they are not a health care provider.

Until the PPACA was passed there was no requirement for any employer to provide birth control as a part of an insurance plan, and they mostly all did.

This is totally wrong. Plenty of states had such requirements in place, and they proceeded with a minimum of controversy. It was only when a certain woman was barred from arguing in favor of it at a congressional hearing and then when the right waged a full-bore attack on her for days for doing so later that it became an issue.

Santorum and Perry not providing Federal funds to Planned Parenthood because they offer contraceptive services is like a Christian Scientist President or Governor defunding Medicare and Medicaid because they pay for prostate cancer treatment.

Obama taking my money from Texas is the way it should be done.

Take the missiles and all military installations out of there too.

Redeploy pointed at Governor Perry's crotch.

However, Obama is moving to defund the Texas Womens health plan, which does provide contraception, because they won't pay Planned Parenthood.

The above assertion is pure craptackular spinola verging on mendacity.

when I was asked the question on contraception I said I didn’t support it.

Thank you, my point is made. Given his voting record on access to birth control, reproductive services, and so on during his time in the Senate, his actions underline this belief.

Romney said he would defund PP. Since no Federal dollars are allowed to be spent on the 3% of PP services that are abortion-related, what precisely do you think he is promising during his campaign that he will defund, and what effect do you think it would have? I've used Planned Parenthood services in the past for access to low-cost health screenings and birth control. They provide an important service that is not available for many women from other sources. Attacking them means attacking all the women who use PP for their health care and access to affordable birth control for cheap political points. If Romney wants to be a viable moderate candidate, all he has to do is to make a statement acknowledging that private disagreements with birth control options are best made between the patient and the doctor, the end. He could sew up the Republican women's vote with one speech. Instead he's stumping that he'll pull money from the one place many women can even get pills. Read the NYT article Dr. Science linked to. Women are listening.

"Women are listening"

Yes, women are listening to the hair on fire factually incorrect charges that are sensationalized in these blogs.

"I wouldn't vote for it" is a pretty straightforward statement. Federally defunding Planned Parenthood barely dents PP's budget, it doesn't get rid of it.

AAARRGGHH the world is ending in a war on women! Nothing better for the DEms to keep shouting.

And I love the patient choosing a doctor argument in Texas, everyone who has any kind of insurance faces that issue. Pulling fed funds is pulling fed funds, it's a fact. No matter how you want to spin it.

"I wouldn't vote for it" is a pretty straightforward statement.

Yes, it's what we call a "lie". Go read his voting record. It's public.

Federally defunding Planned Parenthood barely dents PP's budget,

You mean, one-third of PP's operating budget?

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


The Right has been engaging a war on women for years. Personhood amendments, criminalizing miscarriages, conscience clauses for pharmacists to not dispense medicine (but curiously, they dispense Viagra), fighting against domestic violence legislation, and when we object, calling us sluts and prostitutes and the best that the leading political figures on the Right can come up with is, well, I wouldn't have said those exact words.

Privilege means you don't have to notice your neighbor's house is on fire, but standing outside your own and complaining that she's yelling too loudly about the heat does not make you look as suave as you might think.

If there were no right-wing jihad against Planned Parenthood, the Medicaid funding wouldn't have been an issue. Plain and simple. But Rick Perry has decided he knows what's better for Texas women than they do.

Yes, women are listening to the hair on fire factually incorrect charges that are sensationalized in these blogs.

Maybe you can mansplain it to them.

Yes, women are listening to the hair on fire factually incorrect charges that are sensationalized in these blogs.

Women know what it's like to have access to medical services taken away - it's happened to plenty of them in the case of abortion services. Women know exactly what's going on here. They've paid higher rates for medical insurance for a long time. They've had to fight for full medical coverage of hospital stays related to childbirth. They really don't need the "sensationalism" of blogs to tell them what many of them have experienced in one form or another. And older women remember when contraceptives were denied. This is nothing new.

Yes, women are listening to the hair on fire factually incorrect charges that are sensationalized in these blogs.

I find it difficult to believe that you are in a better position to make the correct judgment about the issue than the women who are directly affected by it. You are sticking to your formulaic, "both sides are just as bad, and this Republican thing isn't a big deal," so it strikes me that it is less than likely that you are being led to the correct conclusion, since all you're doing is filling in the blanks of a pre-written narrative an ideology you hold, while the women outraged by this are just basing their judgments on what they see.

Want to do anything at all? Do it on my terms, or not at all.

You believe in religious liberty... in the privacy of people's heads, and nowhere else.

That's what I mean by saying that the left won't permit anybody but themselves to have convictions that matter. Because if you don't dig a hole and bury yourself in it, the left demands you live on their terms.

In which Brett totally ignores the questions posed to him about insurance, how it works, and why this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT, while getting in a big 'ole whine about the oppression of The Left.

Yes, women are listening to the hair on fire factually incorrect charges that are sensationalized in these blogs.

Marty, I'm sorry, but are you living under a rock? Have you missed the laws that are being proposed all across the country (VA, WI, AZ, TX) and the GOP Presidential candidates getting in on the act (not just Santorum. Romney's vow to shut down PP)? Rush is only part of this. The whole Rightwingosphere is up in arms about paying for jollies, as Brett so artfully put it.

The Right just can't resist scolding the slutty slut sluts. Meanwhile, make sure that Viagra's covered! Get hurt bunge jumping? No problemo. Want contraceptives for responsible family planning? YOU DIRTY SLUT! I won't have any of my insurance premiums subsidizing your jollies! You must, of course, continue subsidizing* MY legitimate health needs.

* - used in the Right Wing sense, which means when we all pay premiums, and one of us accesses healthcare, the payout for the care means the rest are subsidizing that person.

"Women are listening."

Yet, as Phil has pointed out on occasion regarding these issues, it's we men, with the exception of Dr. Science and a few other of the women left here at OBWI, who do all the talking.

My grandmother used to sit quietly at the dinner table as the men raged stentorian over the issues of the day and if asked, Naomi, what do you think?, she'd bat the question away with both hands and make a "blooey" sound with her mouth and start clearing the table, followed by the other women, with the exception of my second cousin Mary, known as a spinster in the parlance of the time, but who had opinions.

Then we'd hear my grandmother muttering in the scullery once the door swung shut from the dining room ... something about that blamed Roosevelt.

My grandfather, lower jaw dropped in the I've-been-snubbed-again open position, would close his mouth, his dentures clacking together like the N-E-S-T-L-E-S Nestles Makes The Very Best dog's shut-mouth coda, look around the table and say: "Gentleman ... and Mary ... brandy and cigars? You kids can go outside and chase the dog chasing the car."

Only parts of that story are true, but I forget which.

Sex never came up, though I was so young I can't be sure, given that today, when I watch movies from my grandparents time, the sexual innuendo is as thick as a topical cream.

The Right just can't resist

In a thread where Brett is getting repeatedly woodshedded for harping on "the left", this seems particularly out of place.

I'm just going to start linking every instance of "the right" to Redstate. Don't make me pull this car over.

It was a deliberate tit-for-tat for his "The Left" actually.

Fair enough, I'll desist.

"I find it difficult to believe that you are in a better position to make the correct judgment about the issue than the women who are directly affected by it."

I certainly should not be discussing this. As a man I can't look at facts and hyperbole and determine the difference.

I also am curious to know the facts around how many women are directly effected by this, directly being your word, since the vast majority of women in the middle class and up have coverage for this, and a large number of poor women have access through other programs.

And I certainly expect that women will decide what they believe based on facts, but we are all just commenting on a blog so I get to have an opinion whether you believe it is valid or not.

In fact the last person that told me I did'nt have a right to have an opinion on a subject because of who I am hasn't spoken to me since. So stand in line.

It was a deliberate tit-for-tat for his "The Left" actually.

I think as long as there is parity between tits and tats, all is good, Rob.

What?

I just noticed this, in the New York Times, for anyone who's forgotten how recently access to contraception became legal and think that being worried about its future is "hair on fire." It was in 1965, the same year that the Supreme Court held that a married couple had a right to receive counseling and prescriptions for birth control. Before that decision, using and prescribing contraception was a crime in many states.

No jollies, for sure. Also, no jobs. No freedom. Some people remember and don't want to go back.

CCDG, it isn't because you're a man that you don't have a right to your opinion. It is because your opinions are uninformed and consistently fit into a pre-determined narrative and then you go on to claim that the people opposite your formulaic belief are the deluded ones.

Who am I going to believe? The guy who is constitutionally incapable of ever taking a moral stand on right-wing idiocy in policy because he doesn't think they do much that's wrong, or someone directly affected by the policy who doesn't have a personal stake in a "both sides to it, this isn't a big deal" narrative that you are obsessed with?

Before that decision, using and prescribing contraception was a crime in many states.

How many is "many"? They should be easy to name.

All I can find on da innerwubs is that Connecticut was the last state to have such laws on its books. But my Google skills are not yet maxed, it appears.

...or more alarmingly: maybe my Google skills ARE maxed, but at some low level. Maybe a pair of +6goo glasses are in order.

I don't know whether this is tit or tat, but Pat Robertson clears something else up:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/03/16/world-gone-mad-3/

The lady who asked Robertson the question via the mailbag must have been put up to it by her husband, who could be heard yelling "Halleluyah!" from the bedroom when Robertson divined the answer.

I'm curious about Robertson's habit of having a woman read the mailbag questions to him on the air, like Ed McMahon reading the answers to Johnny Carson's swami-coiffed The Great Whomever.

I get the feeling Robertson pulls his female cohost aside afterwards, his crotch tightening, and encourages her to keep those questions coming and my, I love the way you blush.

I suppose if he had a guy co-host things would be worse, with both of them bursting into laughter and faking stuff shooting out of their noses with those gag spray noodle cans.

"It is because your opinions are uninformed and consistently fit into a pre-determined narrative and then you go on to claim that the people opposite your formulaic belief are the deluded ones."

Funny, I post a direct quote from a presidential candidate, seperating his personal beliefs from what he believes government should do, and it gets "He's lying".

Yet, I am the one applying a formulaic belief? Well, to some extent I am, just as the people who disagree with me are.

The difference, IMO, ........

[deleted much longer comment]

never mind

As a man I can't look at facts and hyperbole and determine the difference.

Funny, I post a direct quote from a presidential candidate, seperating his personal beliefs from what he believes government should do, and it gets "He's lying".

Based on his voting record as a senator, demonstrating what he really thinks government should do, mind you, as opposed to an empty and baseless "He's Lying."

There is a difference between assertion and argument, if one bothers to look.

I do look forward to Santorum, or any other sour-mouthed church lady running for that matter, winning the nomination so that just after the individual receives the Limbaugh Show endorsement for President, Rush can go to a commercial break featuring an adultery hookup web site plying its wares.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast