Ron Paul says Rush's apology was about $

[Damocles]

So what it if is? You're missing my point. Their using their first ammendment rights as an excuse to deny women their inalianable right to self determination. I heard the same kinds of arguments used back in the 60's, about the Civil Rights Act, and I heard that argument back in the 70's about forced integrration. That it was denying people (conservative white people) their first ammendment rights. They were wrong then and they are wrong now and if you don't believe me take up my challenge and ask the women of this board what THEY THINK this issue is about.

If Religious institutons want to participate in civil trade then they have to adhere to the same civil laws we all have too. That means they have to respect womens rights to determine for themselves what their health care needs are and what should be covered by their insurers. Stop hiding behind this religious freedom charade. By doing so you are saying that a persons religious freedom trumps another persons civil freedoms. That is totally absurd!

That is utter nonsense. The church's argument wasn't to make it illegal or impossible to obtain, it was to simply not force the church to pay for that which is against their basic precepts. It would be much like saying the church must perform same sex marriage then saying that they can't refuse because it is in the nation's interest. Much like an employee of theirs could obtain an abortion, just not one paid for by the church....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That is utter nonsense. The church's argument wasn't to make it illegal or impossible to obtain, it was to simply not force the church to pay for that which is against their basic precepts. It would be much like saying the church must perform same sex marriage then saying that they can't refuse because it is in the nation's interest. Much like an employee of theirs could obtain an abortion, just not one paid for by the church....

Really? Do you think that this is utter non-sense to Rana? Christiefan? Darla? Annie? IceDancer? LadyT?

Isn't the Catholic Church engaged in Pulbic business? By not paying for contraceptive coverage are they not economically denying female employees access to health care? Isn't that discrimination? Besides, a compromise had been made so that the insurance companies pay for contraceptive coverage, and not the Church but they and the right wing politicians are fighting even that compromise as a "war on religion". If the Catholic Church is soooooo principled about this, they why don't they just simply pull out of public business and stick to religion?

You also keep evading my question. What are womens thoughts about this Damo? Have you asked them? Are you as concerned about their freedoms as you are the Churches? Do their thoughts about their reproductive rights matter or does a mans religious freedoms trump hers?

Also, how comes it's an issue now? For years now about half the States have required no religious descrimination against women where contraception has been concerned. Why is it an issue now when it become part of reform at the federal level but not at the State level? Why the lack of consistency here?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Really? Do you think that this is utter non-sense to Rana? Christiefan? Darla? Annie? IceDancer? LadyT?

Isn't the Catholic Church engaged in Pulbic business? By not paying for contraceptive coverage are they not economically denying female employees access to health care? Isn't that discrimination? Besides, a compromise had been made so that the insurance companies pay for contraceptive coverage, and not the Church but they and the right wing politicians are fighting even that compromise as a "war on religion". If the Catholic Church is soooooo principled about this, they why don't they just simply pull out of public business and stick to religion?

You also keep evading my question. What are womens thoughts about this Damo? Have you asked them? Are you as concerned about their freedoms as you are the Churches? Do their thoughts about their reproductive rights matter or does a mans religious freedoms trump hers?

Also, how comes it's an issue now? For years now about half the States have required no religious descrimination against women where contraception has been concerned. Why is it an issue now when it become part of reform at the federal level but not at the State level? Why the lack of consistency here?

Unfortunately, institutionalized, cultural misogyny works best with female collaborators. And there are always female collaborators. The problem for the Republican party is that they already underperform with women. The women who will be, and who are, turned off by this assault on women are suburban independent women. They can swing elections. This is why the R's are running scared. These women are not ideologues. The minute Rush's assault on a college woman went viral and was played on the network nightly news, they were in big trouble. These women don't like being called whores by a big fat pig. Whereas some female collaborators enjoy that, especially since they think it's about "other women". You know, slutty liberal women. Independent suburban women don't think like that. And now, no matter how busy they are, it's seeped in that in the year 2012, there's a battle over birth control.

I can bang my head against the wall here all day long. You see that damo is still yammering about the Catholic church even though the Blunt amendment had nothing to do with the Catholic church. It's a fools game. But what SF and Damo and Bravo etc, say here, doesn't matter.

They're not independent suburban women. It's those women who are going to kick their balls in come November.

But I'll still kick them for fun here. Even though it's irrelevant...

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

As far as the Catholic Church goes, since Damo insists on talking about them, of course they are against birth control! Did you know that medical plans in most Catholic institutions cover viagra? Do you know why?

cause when you are fucking little boys in the butt, you don't need birth control... but viagra comes in handy.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

But how does NAMBLA...err, I mean, how do the Bishops feellllllllllllll about this? I'll need to know how NAMBLA, I mean, the Bishops feelllll about this. If women having access to birth control via their insurance policies, which the women pay for, bothers them, then what can we doooooooo? We have to say no. We have to think of how the Bishops feeeelllll.

The Bishops feel like fucking a little boy up the butt. Any volunteers? Seeing as how you're so concerned...

 

[Damocles]

Really? Do you think that this is utter non-sense to Rana? Christiefan? Darla? Annie? IceDancer? LadyT?

Isn't the Catholic Church engaged in Pulbic business? By not paying for contraceptive coverage are they not economically denying female employees access to health care? Isn't that discrimination? Besides, a compromise had been made so that the insurance companies pay for contraceptive coverage, and not the Church but they and the right wing politicians are fighting even that compromise as a "war on religion". If the Catholic Church is soooooo principled about this, they why don't they just simply pull out of public business and stick to religion?

You also keep evading my question. What are womens thoughts about this Damo? Have you asked them? Are you as concerned about their freedoms as you are the Churches? Do their thoughts about their reproductive rights matter or does a mans religious freedoms trump hers?

Also, how comes it's an issue now? For years now about half the States have required no religious descrimination against women where contraception has been concerned. Why is it an issue now when it become part of reform at the federal level but not at the State level? Why the lack of consistency here?

Yes, I do not think little enough of any of you to think you believe that if you don't get something free that your rights were "taken" from you. Turning entitlement into "right" is to the advantage of big government, but it isn't a valid argument.

Reality: Birth control is obtainable at frickin' Walmart without insurance help at $9 per month. Fluke was more than exaggerating when she said it cost her $3000 per year (or did she say month, I can't remember). I can't imagine what kind of birth control costs that much, but it isn't the pill.

More Reality: There are quite literally thousands of schools you can choose to go to instead of choosing to go to one that you know will not cover this particular commodity.

You have a right to birth control, nobody is arguing that it should be made illegal (not even Santorum is arguing that). Nobody even seems to be arguing that you shouldn't be able to get help with it through insurance, they are solely stating that you can't force others to pay for it (without medically compelling reasons).

 

[Damocles]

But how does NAMBLA...err, I mean, how do the Bishops feellllllllllllll about this? I'll need to know how NAMBLA, I mean, the Bishops feelllll about this. If women having access to birth control via their insurance policies, which the women pay for, bothers them, then what can we doooooooo? We have to say no. We have to think of how the Bishops feeeelllll.

The Bishops feel like fucking a little boy up the butt. Any volunteers? Seeing as how you're so concerned...

I never saw them argue against a policy that the women pay for, it was policies that they were to pay for that caused the issue.

 

[Damocles]

Unfortunately, institutionalized, cultural misogyny works best with female collaborators. And there are always female collaborators. The problem for the Republican party is that they already underperform with women. The women who will be, and who are, turned off by this assault on women are suburban independent women. They can swing elections. This is why the R's are running scared. These women are not ideologues. The minute Rush's assault on a college woman went viral and was played on the network nightly news, they were in big trouble. These women don't like being called whores by a big fat pig. Whereas some female collaborators enjoy that, especially since they think it's about "other women". You know, slutty liberal women. Independent suburban women don't think like that. And now, no matter how busy they are, it's seeped in that in the year 2012, there's a battle over birth control.

Yes, I believe that Rush's insane attack on the woman was detrimental.

I can bang my head against the wall here all day long. You see that damo is still yammering about the Catholic church even though the Blunt amendment had nothing to do with the Catholic church. It's a fools game. But what SF and Damo and Bravo etc, say here, doesn't matter.

They're not independent suburban women. It's those women who are going to kick their balls in come November.

But I'll still kick them for fun here. Even though it's irrelevant...

Again, I would never think so little of you to believe that you actually think that without free stuff your rights were curtailed.

I have a right to own and bear arms, but the government doesn't need to force my company to give me free weapons and ammunition to ensure that right. They only need to avoid making laws against them.

Nobody is trying to take your birth control away, not even Santorum.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, I do not think little enough of any of you to think you believe that if you don't get something free that your rights were "taken" from you. Turning entitlement into "right" is to the advantage of big government, but it isn't a valid argument.

This has to do with employer sponsored health insurance for which an employee pays for the premium both out of pocket and as an alternative to wages or school offered insurance for which students pay the premium.

Reality: Birth control is obtainable at frickin' Walmart without insurance help at $9 per month. Fluke was more than exaggerating when she said it cost her $3000 per year (or did she say month, I can't remember). I can't imagine what kind of birth control costs that much, but it isn't the pill.

Reality: Some birth control may be available at Walmart for $9 a month, but you don't get to decide which type of birth control a woman ought to use. That is something to be decided by a woman and her doctor and there are different types of birth control that cost different amounts.

And she said over the course of law school, which is typically three years. So it was neither per year nor per month. It was per three years or roughly $83 per month. Can you imagine a prescription drug costing $83 per month without insurance? I sure can.

More Reality: There are quite literally thousands of schools you can choose to go to instead of choosing to go to one that you know will not cover this particular commodity.

More reality: there aren't quite literally thousands of law schools. There are quite literally a few hundred. And there are only quite literally 25 or so elite law schools. Of those 25 or so elite law schools, there is one in Washington D.C. So really, if you want to go to an elite law school in D.C., your options are Georgetown or Georgetown.

You have a right to birth control, nobody is arguing that it should be made illegal (not even Santorum is arguing that). Nobody even seems to be arguing that you shouldn't be able to get help with it through insurance, they are solely stating that you can't force others to pay for it (without medically compelling reasons).

You keep saying that, but you ignore the part where individuals pay for the insurance.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Yes, I believe that Rush's insane attack on the woman was detrimental.



Again, I would never think so little of you to believe that you actually think that without free stuff your rights were curtailed.

I have a right to own and bear arms, but the government doesn't need to force my company to give me free weapons and ammunition to ensure that right. They only need to avoid making laws against them.

Nobody is trying to take your birth control away, not even Santorum.

You are really attempting to ghettoize women. Your constant refrain of "Free free free" is an attempt to turn employee benefits into welfare...but only women's benefits. It's beyond offensive. You offend me and any thinking woman.

Health insurance is not "free stuff". It is paid for with a combination of cash contributions from the woman, and her labor. How dare you.

Further, you know nothing about birth control and your glib claim that any woman can walk into wal mart and get 9 dollar birth control shows this. Walmarts, IN SOME BUT NOT ALL STATES, offer a very limited choice of GENERIC birth control pills for 9 dollars. Most birth control pills are not covered by this. A woman often will go through two or three different kinds of pills, or more, before finding the one that works for her. Issues like breakthrough bleeding which is extremely common, or constant bleeding, often arise and her pill must be changed until she finds the one that works for her. This is between her and her doctor, is very often NOT generic, and YOU have nothing to say about it so keep your ill-informed nose out of it mister.

As far as nobody taking away my birth control... well you're never going to be able to take away either my birth control or my right to an abortion. Ain't going to happen. Ain't going to happen for the socio-economic class who the right wing elected pukes making these laws are screwing on the side either.

Now I do insist that my health insurance cover my birth control as they do other basic, preventative, health care. However, if you whackos got your way, I'd still have birth control. This is about the women who choose between birth control and enough food for their kids. We know that insurance companies providing full coverage for birth control saves money by lowering health care costs. We know this happens because women who do not have full coverage, who have to pay high copayments, choose to forgo birth control some months. Many of them get pregnant. So in fact your claim that no one wants to take away WOMEN'S birth control is absolutely untrue.

While you will cry and weep if gas goes to 5 dollars a gallon and have no problem understanding how this is placing a burden on working class people (working class men???) you pretend ignorance over how the cost of birth control is a burden on many women.

Your bullshit doesn't matter in a way, because again, this failed. We moved forward not backward, despite the best efforts of you and yours, full coverage for birth control is now a requirement. but it does matter because the woman-haters never stop. They never relent.

They keep coming.

And so you keep women busy fighting battles that have already been won. Maybe so we can't win new ones. You'd be surprised how much energy we have though. Don't count on it.

 

[Damocles]

This has to do with employer sponsored health insurance for which an employee pays for the premium both out of pocket and as an alternative to wages or school offered insurance for which students pay the premium.




Reality: Some birth control may be available at Walmart for $9 a month, but you don't get to decide which type of birth control a woman ought to use. That is something to be decided by a woman and her doctor and there are different types of birth control that cost different amounts.

And she said over the course of law school, which is typically three years. So it was neither per year nor per month. It was per three years or roughly $83 per month. Can you imagine a prescription drug costing $83 per month without insurance? I sure can.




More reality: there aren't quite literally thousands of law schools. There are quite literally a few hundred. And there are only quite literally 25 or so elite law schools. Of those 25 or so elite law schools, there is one in Washington D.C. So really, if you want to go to an elite law school in D.C., your options are Georgetown or Georgetown.




You keep saying that, but you ignore the part where individuals pay for the insurance.

No, I'm not ignoring that part. The church was arguing against insurance it pays for, not for insurance she would pay for... Since she chose to go to a specific college that she knew would not cover this particular medication (like some don't cover chantix, but my right to take it once prescribed is not curtailed) she fully understood that this particular cost may be there. Available to her were many options, not the least of which would be Planned Parenthood which would provide that same medication according to a sliding scale.

The medication is available, her right to take it was not curtailed any more than my right to own a weapon is curtailed when my employer isn't forced to buy me a gun.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, I'm not ignoring that part. The church was arguing against insurance it pays for, not for insurance she would pay for... Since she chose to go to a specific college that she knew would not cover this particular medication (like some don't cover chantix, but my right to take it once prescribed is not curtailed). Available to her were many options, not the least of which would be Planned Parenthood which would provide that same medication according to a sliding scale.

The medication is available, her right to take it was not curtailed any more than my right to own a weapon is curtailed when my employer isn't forced to buy me a gun.

So you're basically going to just ignore everything I wrote, claim you aren't ignoring it and then reassert the same thing that you said before. OK. Knock yourself out.

By the way, the GOP is losing on this one and badly. It'd be a whole lot smarter to just get on board.

 

[Damocles]

So you're basically going to just ignore everything I wrote, claim you aren't ignoring it and then reassert the same thing that you said before. OK. Knock yourself out.

By the way, the GOP is losing on this one and badly. It'd be a whole lot smarter to just get on board.

LOL. What?

I went through and answered the two major "concerns" in your post and you just pretend that they weren't covered... I'm good with that, but just wanted to point it out.

You said that her choices were limited to only the "25 elite law schools" and that because of that we are so compelled to give her something for free that we should ignore the 1st Amendment rights of others? That's nonsense, just complete nonsense.

 

[Bonestorm]

LOL. What?

I went through and answered the two major "concerns" in your post and you just pretend that they weren't covered... I'm good with that, but just wanted to point it out.

You said that her choices were limited to only the "25 elite law schools" and that because of that we are so compelled to give her something for free that we should ignore the 1st Amendment rights of others? That's nonsense, just complete nonsense.

Since you're just going to ignore the various bullshit statements you made, I guess I'll be nice and do the same. In any event, students pay for the fucking insurance. The church doesn't. The school doesn't. The students pay for it. They don't get anything for free.

And I previously explained to you why the 1st Amendment is not violated by requiring all sponsors of health insurance plans to provide for basic preventing care, including birth control, but you've ignored that, too. Do I need to quote Justice Scalia for you?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Unfortunately, institutionalized, cultural misogyny works best with female collaborators. And there are always female collaborators. The problem for the Republican party is that they already underperform with women. The women who will be, and who are, turned off by this assault on women are suburban independent women. They can swing elections. This is why the R's are running scared. These women are not ideologues. The minute Rush's assault on a college woman went viral and was played on the network nightly news, they were in big trouble. These women don't like being called whores by a big fat pig. Whereas some female collaborators enjoy that, especially since they think it's about "other women". You know, slutty liberal women. Independent suburban women don't think like that. And now, no matter how busy they are, it's seeped in that in the year 2012, there's a battle over birth control.

I can bang my head against the wall here all day long. You see that damo is still yammering about the Catholic church even though the Blunt amendment had nothing to do with the Catholic church. It's a fools game. But what SF and Damo and Bravo etc, say here, doesn't matter.

They're not independent suburban women. It's those women who are going to kick their balls in come November.

But I'll still kick them for fun here. Even though it's irrelevant...

It's not that they can swing elections they DO swing elections. It's a bit of a misnomer to define our political paradigm as conservative vs. liberal. It's really rural vs urban and suburbia is where the greatest number of independent voters are and the elections are won or lost.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Unfortunately, institutionalized, cultural misogyny works best with female collaborators. And there are always female collaborators. The problem for the Republican party is that they already underperform with women. The women who will be, and who are, turned off by this assault on women are suburban independent women. They can swing elections. This is why the R's are running scared. These women are not ideologues. The minute Rush's assault on a college woman went viral and was played on the network nightly news, they were in big trouble. These women don't like being called whores by a big fat pig. Whereas some female collaborators enjoy that, especially since they think it's about "other women". You know, slutty liberal women. Independent suburban women don't think like that. And now, no matter how busy they are, it's seeped in that in the year 2012, there's a battle over birth control.

I can bang my head against the wall here all day long. You see that damo is still yammering about the Catholic church even though the Blunt amendment had nothing to do with the Catholic church. It's a fools game. But what SF and Damo and Bravo etc, say here, doesn't matter.

They're not independent suburban women. It's those women who are going to kick their balls in come November.

But I'll still kick them for fun here. Even though it's irrelevant...

Darla, that just simply not fair. You're kicking their balls for free and you made me pay extra!!!!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yes, I do not think little enough of any of you to think you believe that if you don't get something free that your rights were "taken" from you. Turning entitlement into "right" is to the advantage of big government, but it isn't a valid argument.

Reality: Birth control is obtainable at frickin' Walmart without insurance help at $9 per month. Fluke was more than exaggerating when she said it cost her $3000 per year (or did she say month, I can't remember). I can't imagine what kind of birth control costs that much, but it isn't the pill.

More Reality: There are quite literally thousands of schools you can choose to go to instead of choosing to go to one that you know will not cover this particular commodity.

You have a right to birth control, nobody is arguing that it should be made illegal (not even Santorum is arguing that). Nobody even seems to be arguing that you shouldn't be able to get help with it through insurance, they are solely stating that you can't force others to pay for it (without medically compelling reasons).

Bull fucker nuts Damo! My health insurance benefits are not "Free"! I've fucking earned those and I negotioted those as part of my compensation for my services. That's called trading a value for a value. Like Hell it's free. That's part of the pay and compensation that I have aptly earned.

Not only are you going to piss off women here with your patriarchal stance and not even bothering to listen to their point of view but now you're telling them that what they have worked hard to earn is now a "Free gift from their employer?"

Wouldn't want to be you! LOL

 

[Damocles]

Bull fucker nuts Damo! My health insurance benefits are not "Free"! I've fucking earned those and I negotioted those as part of my compensation for my services. That's called trading a value for a value. Like Hell it's free. That's part of the pay and compensation that I have aptly earned.

Not only are you going to piss off women here with your patriarchal stance and not even bothering to listen to their point of view but now you're telling them that what they have worked hard to earn is now a "Free gift from their employer?"

Wouldn't want to be you! LOL

Which again doesn't change that this particular entity chooses to follow their religion, you can attempt to negotiate that from them but they will refuse because it is a basic central precept to their belief system. You can choose employment elsewhere, you have many options, including paying for the commodity yourself. This didn't curtail your "right" to get this stuff any more than not compelling employers to give me a gun curtails my right to own and bear arms.

That you have a right to something does not mean your "right" is curtained when you don't compel others to give it to you for "free".

The school didn't expel her for taking it, they just refused to pay in full or in part for that particular commodity.

 

[Bonestorm]

Which again doesn't change that this particular entity chooses to follow their religion, you can attempt to negotiate that from them but they will refuse because it is a basic central precept to their belief system. You can choose employment elsewhere, you have many options, including paying for the commodity yourself. This didn't curtail your "right" to get this stuff any more than not compelling employers to give me a gun curtails my right to own and bear arms.

That you have a right to something does not mean your "right" is curtained when you don't compel others to give it to you for "free".

The school didn't expel her for taking it, they just refused to pay in full or in part for that particular commodity.

Apparently, this requires repeating one more time: the student pays for the insurance, the school does not.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Bull fucker nuts Damo! My health insurance benefits are not "Free"! I've fucking earned those and I negotioted those as part of my compensation for my services. That's called trading a value for a value. Like Hell it's free. That's part of the pay and compensation that I have aptly earned.

Not only are you going to piss off women here with your patriarchal stance and not even bothering to listen to their point of view but now you're telling them that what they have worked hard to earn is now a "Free gift from their employer?"

Wouldn't want to be you! LOL

Just ours, not his Mott! Menz earns theirs. Bitches are getting it for free!

Kick em! Go ahead!

Seriously, I'm done banging my head against the wall here today. It's very interesting to me though, I really see how certain men are just impervious to facts on this and other women's issues. Also right wing religious whacked out women. But with the men, it's very interesting to note, most of them are NOT religious or not christian. SF is an agnostic, Grind is an atheist, and Damo is a Buddhist. Or fat Buddha as Top likes to call him, lol. I have noticed that a large number of so-called "Libertarian" men, even secular ones, are very hostile to women's rights when it comes to the sex. Thus my signature, and I believe, thus the sausage fest at Ron Paul gatherings. News flash; women make up half the population. And the right wing religious whacked out ones are too busy salivating over the Jesus preachers. Which leaves the Libertarian movement shit out of luck and chock-full of sausages. Get em while they're hot!