February 2019

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    

« Key people | Main | Misquoted »

Feb 17, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

sean coon

hey, this is about the liberty of religious freedom, not women's rights!

Kim

They've really earned the "stupid" party label. Makes me wonder who is in charge of their PR.

polifrog

Sean, can you define what rights women lose that they don't currently have?

sean coon

yes, but you're ill-equipped to understand, so i'll spare my breath.

Ishmael

For those "gentlemen" who suggest that an aspirin between the knees is a good contraceptive: I think a perfect contraceptive for men is a clothespin on their junk.

polifrog

You have no answer because increasing gainful employment is a profoundly more tangible way to facilitate a woman's access to widely available contraceptives than funneling it through the insurance of the employed.

sean coon

wtf are you talking about? the discussion *is* about women with gainful employment.

polifrog

Sean:

the discussion *is* about women with gainful employment.

Yeah, the discussion is about women with jobs, not women without jobs.

That makes the debate on one side about "free" contraceptives for the employed, those most likely to be able to afford it.

That side of the debate should at the very least be about women and men without jobs, the very women and men who are less able to afford contraceptives or for whatever reason are unwilling to take advantage of free contraceptives at Planned Parenthood. Bizarrely it is not.

I mean, really, "free" contraceptives for women and men but only if you have or can get a job in an economy that provides no jobs or even worse, continuously fewer jobs relative to the total population?

Tone deaf.

bubba

"I mean, really, 'free' contraceptives for women and men but only if you have or can get a job in an economy that provides no jobs or even worse, continuously fewer jobs relative to the total population?"

Stop making sense, pf. That's not allowed here when there's demagoguery being promoted.

Ishmael

In other words - all roads lead to Obama.
Spare me.

polifrog

Ishmael:

In other words...


No other words needed. It is what it is.

A liberal party out of step with a nation in a depression.

sean coon

hilarious. you argue against this plan under the guise of stomping on religious freedom and then stop on a dime and argue *for* providing free contraceptive to the unemployed, particularly at planned parenthood, because those people are the least able to afford contraceptives.

why can't everyone be served as such? who are you to assume that an employed person can afford any one thing in particular? but ok, yes, let's have all women's contraceptive needs covered by either health insurance or planned parenthood, whether they're employed or not.

now tell me why me agreeing with you is wrong.

justcorbly

Exercise of our rights has nothing to do with our employment status.

Unless you think a tiny minority of *men* have a religious right to deny insurance coverage for *women* just because they say they object on religous grounds to the use that money is put to, then the entire "trampling on religious freedom" argument is specious.

Consider: The Catholic Church opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It opposes the death penalty. If Catholic bishops had refused to pay that portion of their taxes that went to fund the wars and the death penalty, claiming to do otherwise contravened their religious freedoms, does anyone imagine that the right would have stood by them?

No, of course not. This is all just selfish (and hamfisted) political exploitation by the kind of people who think it is funny to make crack whore jokes about dead singers. (Let's hear some tacky right-wing humor about that big fat drug abuser named Elvis, OK?)

polifrog

I am arguing priorities, Sean and with our nation in a depression offering free stuff to only those with jobs is tone deaf and crotch focused.

polifrog

justcorbly:

Exercise of our rights has nothing to do with our employment status.

Try and get your "free" contraceptives from your employer when you have no job and no prospect of a job. That is hamfisted discrimination.

sean coon

ok, i get it, you can't be taken seriously. thanks for clearing that up... again.

if i'm wrong, do me a favor a post a clear position on why planned parenthood should get more private and federal funding to provide poor women the health care they need to not only take care of medical issues, but protect themselves against STDs, unwanted pregnancies and potential resulting abortions.

i won't hold my breath.

sean coon

"Try and get your "free" contraceptives from your employer when you have no job and no prospect of a job. That is hamfisted discrimination."

garbage. without a job, one can't get *anything* covered by the average health insurance policy, let alone contraceptives. i guess you're in favor of a universal health plan. kudos!

David Hoggard

Okay. Now I get it.

"poli" is a caricature of a conservative.

Sue

At the risk of being slightly on topic, if this mockery of legislation passes, and ONE company decides they "morally" don't want to cover PSA tests for prostate cancer, wait'll you hear the screaming. And if they "morally" don't believe in Viagra for men past child-bearing years or unmarried men, or widowers, we'll have a constitutional crisis.

polifrog

I think you would rather not take me serious; I suspect it is easier.

However, I am serious when I point out that handing out goodies to those fortunate enough to have a job while discriminating against those without a job is not only evidence of an administration isolated from the ravages of a depression, but is additionally incredibly poor Keynesian based policy during a depression.

How isolated are you folks to ignore this? What has become of the Democrat party?

polifrog

Sue, you are correct to note the social ravages of ObamaCare. I have noted the same. Discussion swirls around not possible legislation that we can influence, but rather edicts that we can not influence.

I would only add that it is decidedly unAmerican to remove the influence of the citizenry from the creation laws they are subjected to.

Ishmael

Nothing to see here...please move along.

polifrog

In the interest of levity, I'd like to tell a joke but it is old and you may have heard it before. Bear with me.

Jane asks Jen, "You have any birth control?"

Jen, "Sure! Use an aspirin."

Jane, "An aspirin? How will that help?"

Jen, "Hold it between your knees."

polifrog

Ishmeal:

Nothing to see here...please move along.

If that is the case then you should be able to explain how the Obama contraception edict is not discriminatory, that it does not discriminate against the jobless, and that it does not discriminate against the jobless during a depression.

That aside, I don't think understand how to use that phrase.

David Hoggard

Your suspicion is wrong. It is not easier at all. How can anyone take you seriously on your objection to whatever it is you are now arguing against citing "poor Keynesian policy" when you have railed against Keynesian policies on these pages since your arrival?

Irrespective of what the subject is, you reliably and verbosely argue the opposite and stake out positions that - while perhaps making great sense to you and, sometimes Bubba adn cheri - are sometimes indecipherable to me. And then other times - hell, most times - you make sense, even though I may disagree.

bubba

"If that is the case then you should be able to explain how the Obama contraception edict is not discriminatory, that it does not discriminate against the jobless, and that it does not discriminate against the jobless during a depression."

Let's see if they want to take a shot at telling us why said edict is not .

Excerpt:

"In short, the birth-control mandate violates both statutory law and the Constitution. The fact that the administration promulgated it so flippantly, without seriously engaging on these issues, underscores how little it cares about either."

polifrog

David Hoggard:

Irrespective of what the subject is, you reliably and verbosely argue the opposite and stake out positions that..

Untrue. Must one agree with Keynes to recognize poor Keynesian policy? I don't think so. I don't agree with Keynes but I recognize that under Keynesian Theory it is best to funnel the free stuff to the poorest or the jobless. Obama's plan does not adhere to Keynes when it chooses to ignore the jobless in favor of the employed.

Furthermore, that I choose to limit my arguments to discriminatory economic madness of the Obama contraceptive edict does not indicate that I do not believe that the mandate is an affront to religion. It is. Rather, it should be read as a concession to Sean who seems to believe 10 sentences constitutes a "diatribe".

polifrog

Thanks for the link, Bubba.

David Hoggard

My diatribe threshold is 13 sentences, 10 sentences is a mere epistle.

I agree that one need not agree with Keynes to recognize an affront to his policies.

Maybe you are just too deep for me.

Billy Jones

polifrog, "A liberal party out of step with a nation in a depression."

If only the conservative party were any more in step. Anyone who believes in political parties is doomed!

greensboro transplant

But, hey Ed. anything to keep the public distracted from the serious issues.

The economy is in the crapper and Geithner admits the admin has no plan.

we fully backed regime change in egypt. the new govt is essentially holding americans hostage and has the muslim bros have threatened to cancel the peace accords with israel.

syrians are being slaughtered and the russians are blocking any sort of action to stop it. guess that reset button needs to be pressed again?

and, we've indicated that we're withdrawing from afghanistan and leaving the afghans to the mercy of the merciless. and, yes. obama claimed that afghanistan was the right war.

aside from the general state of the economy the real unemployment rate is probably ~ 15%.

Gas has gone up around $1.50 a gallon since the inauguration and he's blocked the keystone pipeline that would help. now the canadians are talking with the chinese.

food prices are outrageous and seem to be getting worse.

so, it's no wonder the admin is bringing up wedge issue after wedge issues. what else do they have to run on?


sean coon

seems to me that the admin made this move, but it was the church/GOP that turned it into an issue.

but you're right, GT, the economy is much worse now than it was in 2009, we should definitely try to control things in sovereign nations that we cannot control, and iraq was by far the right war. hell, after 10 years, we should've by now learned that leaving afghanistan is never an option.

damn obama and his tweaking of gas prices. i've always said that petrol shouldn't be government owned and operated. i just don't trust the fuckers, either party.

The comments to this entry are closed.