Obama COMPROMISES on birth control issue

[Jim Jeffries]

I wonder if he will be ensuring that ALL insurers cover birth control now. I don't desire any compromise when it comes to religious fascists and misogynists trying to impose their wacky beliefs on other people.

I've always found amusement in the fact that those who preach tolerance the most (and continually attempt to use it as a weapon to attack the Right) are actually some of the least tolerant people on the planet.

I am being honest. I've always opposed Obama. Always.

And yet you voted for him, correct?

Why would a commie like me ever support a democrat? Makes no sense. I firmly oppose the corrupt two party system.

I oppose the one party system as much as one model of car, brand of clothing, style of housing, etc, which is incidentally what you usually get with a one party system.

He's equally as poor as Bush

Finally we agree on something, there just might be some hope for you yet.

Yes we've discussed this before but ignore the fact most of those "100 million" deaths comes from WWII and Stalinist regimes, which I am not (like I've told you before I am not a Stalinist nor were the Stalinist countries of the past truly communist). But that's a different discussion.

Yes of course, the old "it just hasn't been done right yet," which you'll keep chanting incessantly until the whole world turns into late 70s Cambodia.

Yeah because I'm sure that sums up all the left & right wingers in america. Protest or shoot someone in the face, bomb an abortion clinic, or Oklahoma City bombings, etc.

You don't see too much extreme left wing violence in america these days. There was some in the 70's though, mostly bombings targeted at landmarks, police stations, stuff like that.

You seem to be implying that the Tucson shooting and Oklahoma City Bombing were somehow committed by Right Wingers. Care to provide some evidence for that bit of wild speculation?

[squealpiggy]

I've always found amusement in the fact that those who preach tolerance the most (and continually attempt to use it as a weapon to attack the Right) are actually some of the least tolerant people on the planet.

Do you have any examples of being "the least tolerant"? Perhaps a quote in which they describe atheists as "not really Americans" or suggest that gay people are "destroying America"? Maybe a quote about how food stamps are for black people or that mexicans should be stopped on the basis of their race and grilled about their citizenship.

No doubt you'll produce some out of context quote of some Democrat senator saying something stupid as though that makes any difference to the fact that you are towing a party line that YOU DON'T EVEN SUPPORT purely because it's your party line.

[ИATAS]

I

And yet you voted for him, correct?

Hell no I didn't vote for Obama. I've never voted for a Democrat or a Republican.

I oppose the one party system as much as one model of car, brand of clothing, style of housing, etc, which is incidentally what you usually get with a one party system.

I oppose a one party system.

Finally we agree on something, there just might be some hope for you yet.

ah, everyone can agree on something eventually!

Yes of course, the old "it just hasn't been done right yet," which you'll keep chanting incessantly until the whole world turns into late 70s Cambodia.

Oh yes, because Cambodia was the model for communism! I'm sure you can find Karl Marx writings telling people to be an absolute lunatic, claim you're god and have the "zero day" plan of killing just about everyone! Pol Pot was absolutely nuts. And who was it that overthrew him? Wasn't it the Viet Cong? Communists? Hmm........

I've actually been to Cambodia, went to the killing fields and all that, studied a lot about the crimes that occurred there. Have you?

You seem to be implying that the Tucson shooting and Oklahoma City Bombing were somehow committed by Right Wingers. Care to provide some evidence for that bit of wild speculation?

Oh so you're saying Timothy McVeigh was a left winger? Let's see a registered republican, member of the NRA, big fan of The Turner Diaries, it goes on and on.

There are many other examples but this is faulty logic - there are always crazy people, it doesn't matter what banner they fall under. If you or anyone else blames communism for Pol Pot's madness, then the same logic can apply to Capitalists. How many hundreds of millions have died as result of Capitalism worldwide? You really want to go down that road? It's silly. You can't simply generalize everyone when discussing an economic system. Stalin was bad therefor Communism is bad. Pinochet was bad therefor Capitalism is bad.

[RajahBell]

President Obama made the right decision by requiring the insurance companies to take the lead in providing birth control for employees of religious affiliated institutions. Employees have work and they can afford to buy their own birth control if they choose.

By backing off the requirement of religious affiliated institution in providing birth control he avoids infringing the rights of the institutions. These institutions should have the right to not to pay for sex toys, ****, and other birth control devices. They should have the right to not intrude in the private lives of their employees. Ultimately, birth control is an individual choice which the government or religious institutions should not pay for.

If you want to use birth control then pay it for yourself, unless of course I'm involved in the action. No need to get the church involved.

[squealpiggy]

President Obama made the right decision by requiring the insurance companies to take the lead in providing birth control for employees of religious affiliated institutions. Employees have work and they can afford to buy their own birth control if they choose.

By backing off the requirement of religious affiliated institution in providing birth control he avoids infringing the rights of the institutions. These institutions should have the right to not to pay for sex toys, ****, and other birth control devices. They should have the right to not intrude in the private lives of their employees. Ultimately, birth control is an individual choice which the government or religious institutions should not pay for.

If you want to use birth control then pay it for yourself, unless of course I'm involved in the action. No need to get the church involved.

Sex toys?

And "the church" is not involved. These are not churches, these are institutions like hospitals, universities, schools.

[- v e t -]

Sex toys?

And "the church" is not involved. These are not churches, these are institutions like hospitals, universities, schools.

he clearly states that these are institutions affiliated with the church... they attempt to follow church like leadership in their decision making. so by involving church affiliated institutions yes it does involve the church, directly or not. at least to the extent that when the church spoke the administration listened

[squealpiggy]

he clearly states that these are institutions affiliated with the church... they attempt to follow church like leadership in their decision making. so by involving church affiliated institutions yes it does involve the church, directly or not. at least to the extent that when the church spoke the administration listened

And that's what's disgraceful. This is nothing to do with catholics (who as stated mostly use contraception and either support or don't care about catholic institutions providing truly comprehensive healthcare) and everything to do with patriarchal institutions and religious nutters attempting to impose their backwards superstition on everyone.

[- v e t -]

And that's what's disgraceful. This is nothing to do with catholics (who as stated mostly use contraception and either support or don't care about catholic institutions providing truly comprehensive healthcare) and everything to do with patriarchal institutions and religious nutters attempting to impose their backwards superstition on everyone.

while i dont disagree with your point and i know its where we differ, frankly i dont think its any business of religion or govt's when it comes to ones personal preference of contraception


so either end of this im not too interested in TBH

[Jim Jeffries]

and continually attempt to use it as a weapon to attack the Right

Do you have any examples of being "the least tolerant"? Perhaps a quote in which they describe atheists as "not really Americans" or suggest that gay people are "destroying America"? Maybe a quote about how food stamps are for black people or that mexicans should be stopped on the basis of their race and grilled about their citizenship.

Thanks for proving my point. And showing that you haven't the slightest clue about the Arizona illegal immigration law. Though don't worry, neither did Mr Obama when he claimed "Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed."

There are droves of intolerant people on both sides, the three main differences are that the Left a) tries to outlaw behavior that can't tolerate, b) are usually hypocrites about their own intolerance and c) constantly try to silence anyone with differing views to their own.

No doubt you'll produce some out of context quote of some Democrat senator saying something stupid as though that makes any difference to the fact that

How absurdly partisan do you have to be to think I would have to take something out of context to even find a single example? Probably the type that refers to Republicans as cuntservatives or rethuglicans.

you are towing a party line that YOU DON'T EVEN SUPPORT purely because it's your party line.

As opposed to towing a party line for a country you not only despise, but have never lived in?

Hell no I didn't vote for Obama. I've never voted for a Democrat or a Republican.

So just quackjobs like Ralph Nader then? Good to know.

I oppose a one party system.

Well if you oppose both one and two party systems, you end up with a president chosen by less than half of the country, like in Mexico (or Bill Clinton the first time around.)

Oh yes, because Cambodia was the model for communism! I'm sure you can find Karl Marx writings telling people to be an absolute lunatic, claim you're god and have the "zero day" plan of killing just about everyone! Pol Pot was absolutely nuts. And who was it that overthrew him? Wasn't it the Viet Cong? Communists? Hmm.......

It doesn't matter if Cambodia was the model or not. It matters that Cambodia is what you end up with each and every time communism has ever been tried. Which at some point makes logical people conclude that it is an extremely faulty model.

Oh so you're saying Timothy McVeigh was a left winger? Let's see a registered republican, member of the NRA, big fan of The Turner Diaries, it goes on and on.

Given that the KKK was created by Democrats, that the late Senator Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK (and a Democrat,) that the American Nazi Party and David Duke are supporters of the Occupy movement, I'm not sure why you'd bring that up. But if he was indeed a reg repub, I'll give you McVeigh. And raise you the (more recent) 9/11 terrorists, Nidal Hasan, Umar Abdulmutallab and Faisal Shahzad.

How many hundreds of millions have died as result of Capitalism worldwide?

I'll bite, how many HUNDREDS of millions? And how many millions have been kept from starving to death, given medicine and provided other forms of aid, because of Capitalism?

Stalin was bad therefor Communism is bad.

See above, when 100% of the examples are bad, that's usually an indication of something.

Pinochet was bad therefor Capitalism is bad.

Pinochet was no worse than Che Guevara, how come you don't see people running around with Pinochet T-shirts?

[squealpiggy]

Thanks for proving my point. And showing that you haven't the slightest clue about the Arizona illegal immigration law. Though don't worry, neither did Mr Obama when he claimed "Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to get harassed."

So no examples then?

There are droves of intolerant people on both sides, the three main differences are that the Left a) tries to outlaw behavior that can't tolerate,

You mean like trying to amend the constitution to prevent gay people from marrying, trying to ban abortion and embarking on court case after court case in a vain attempt to counter the teaching of evolution?

b) are usually hypocrites about their own intolerance and

You mean like anti-gay policy advisers going on holiday with rentboys?

c) constantly try to silence anyone with differing views to their own.

You mean like Chicago's Focus on the Family trying to get atheist teachers fired for being atheists?

How absurdly partisan do you have to be to think I would have to take something out of context to even find a single example? Probably the type that refers to Republicans as cuntservatives or rethuglicans.

You ARE ridiculously partisan though, hence your continual endorsement of ideas that you have claimed to find repugnant purely because they are proposed by the party in which you are seemingly enthralled.

As opposed to towing a party line for a country you not only despise, but have never lived in?

I don't tow a party line in the US. Nor do I despise the US. Bizarre assertion but I guess that's the way of the Grand Old Party. "If you're not with us you're against us and if you're against us you're the enemy of America!"

If you don't think that this is the philosophy of the Republican party then you really haven't been paying attention.