Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
511 days ago.
by burningdownthehouse
Tinfoilhat
#1

There is no movement in the United States to kill people in the name of second amendment rights but there is a movement that has murdered 1,200,000 children in the name of women's rights

The silver tongued talking heads on the magic living room box would have us believe that the country is in an uproar over the alleged murders of 26 people at an elementary school in Newtown, CT. An investigation is still pending. But the allegations are flying. Generally speaking, the anti-constitutionalists who don't own guns, have never fired guns and certainly have limited ability to identify them, would be willing to take away one of our most important constitutional right because they believe it would make them more "safe". None of the gun violence in America has been committed in the name of gun rights. Also, keep in mind, these anti-constitutionalists generally are of the same demographic that also believes that murdering 1,200,000 American children in 2012 in the name of women's rights is acceptable.

 
 

Member Comments

The government already provides birth control through a variety of programs that taxpayer’s fund. Young Miss Fluke could have accessed any number of those without trying to force the Church to renounce a belief they’ve held for a millennium.

Posted 550 days ago.

Tiredofit

Aaron you don't get the left's argument. The starting point is that Govt will provide all your needs. Now you have to argue why they should not. A conservative would argue why should Govt be involved in it. I agree with the latter view.

Posted 550 days ago.

I don't listen to Rush so I have no idea how much he fanned this topic. I do know that the young lady from GT was the one who went to Congress and stretched the facts because of the agenda she had.

You say that were it not for Rush though that a compromise could be reached. The Church has staunchly opposed birth control for over 1000 years. Their opposition is so ingrained that it has become part of the religious practice. The 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So why should the Church compromise?

Posted 550 days ago.

RANDOM21

I want my, I want my, I want my free BC. Money for nothing, phones for free. I want my, I want my, I want my free BC. That's the way you do it, live your life for free. That's the way you do it, birth control for thee. I want my, I want my, I want my free BC. Sorry, Mark.

Posted 550 days ago.

Tiredofit

Rush is neither an elected official nor a journalist. He is a opinionated entertainer that, based on his ratings, is very successful. I don't see him as any harsher than Bill Mayer or Ed Schultz just much more succesful.

Posted 550 days ago.

mythravere

And Rush set the tone of the debate.

A rather harsh one at that.

Posted 550 days ago.

Tiredofit

Entitlement. That in a word is what's wrong with this country.

Posted 550 days ago.

Tiredofit

Myth Rush did not decide one day to talk about free birth control. Sandra Fluke brought this up.

Posted 550 days ago.

mythravere

Also I dont think you understand what I am saying about Rush.

The act of forcing a religious institution to cover something they dont support isn't the problem. I am sure a proper dialog on the issue can lead to compromise or an understanding on how a person can get all the coverage the wish and still work for a religious institution.

But due to Rush fanning the flames that dialog is impossible.

You ever tried to make a deal with someone in who is taking an uncompromising approach?

No understanding can be reached in that kind of climate.

Things like this need to be discussed because it can and will find itself interjected in other issues of this nation.

What if discrimination on the grounds of religious freedom is allowed to take place?

That would move us back as a nation.

Posted 550 days ago.

mythravere

Let me ask you this. What would happen if a 9-11 level attack were to take place on Obama's watch?

I think it safe to say the right would be awash in calls for Obama's impeachment then imprisonment.

The nation came together with Bush. The right would not extend that olive branch to Obama.

Obama is far more scrutinized than Bush ever was.

The point being that an attack on this nation would cause the right to blame Obama. But if you put a Republican in Obama's place they wouldn't blame anyone other than those responsible for the attack.

Posted 550 days ago.

Ild prefer neither be infringed.

Posted 550 days ago.

“Sorry but Rush is the one that got the hounds to howling on this one.”

So the 31 year old Georgetown student who had access to free and/or reduced birth control available from at least 3 other government organizations yet chose to sue the University because their organization has opposed birth control for about 5 times longer than we’ve been a country and then falsified testimony before Congress bears no responsibility?

“…bite them right the heck back.”

You mean worse than the lefts treatment of GWB?

“…specifically listed as being caused by "lifestyle" choices.”

Doesn’t that already happen? Insurance companies do it every day with people who participate in what they deem risky sports or for someone who doesn’t get “prior” approval.

So why is it alright for them to engage in such actions but so objectionable for the church to request their 1st Amendment rights be respected?

Posted 550 days ago.

Athletes MIGHT get hurt playing their sport, or walking down the street.

But everyone knows the direct results that come from habitually practicing unsafe sex. Babies are often very welcome in normal marriages.

You can't seem to use logic with your opinions.

Posted 550 days ago.

mythravere

Lets do blame the costs of booze. I'm sure quite a few people on the right wouldn't mind paying for the health costs of their "spiritual" habits.

Lets do one better. Any and all ailments that can be specifically listed as being caused by "lifestyle" choices. Lets take health care coverage away from those ailments and make the sufferer pay full costs.

After all wouldn't want anyone to pay for someone else's choice now would we?

Posted 550 days ago.

mythravere

We all know than when the right is whipped up in a hissy as has been the case since Obama took office. No real dialog can take place.

Its either their way or their way.

Sorry but Rush is the one that got the hounds to howling on this one.

I have a feeling though that something is coming down road thats gonna take what the right has done in regards to Obama and bite them right the heck back. In the same exact way. LOL! If it goes down right its gonna be laugh fest.

Posted 550 days ago.

Political candidates agree to support their party's platform. I don't agree with much in the democrat platform so i support very few democrats. I voted for Manchin and now I am starting to regret it. Hopefully he will work to save out coal industry.

Posted 551 days ago.

Myth, if you want to complain about people's eating habits costing you, let's complain about the cost of booze. And habits that cause aids. And too much sitting. And cell phone exposure. Loony time.

Rush didn't sue over the forced birth control insurance. The Catholic Church did.

Posted 551 days ago.

And here I thought it was the Catholic Church that was outraged over the birth control issue, you know, being forced to provide a service that they have officially abhorred for a millennium and Rush merely fanned the flames of a legitimate complaint.

Posted 551 days ago.

mythravere

The birth control issue was not an "issue" until Rush got the rightwing frothing about it.

The various types of birth control that need an exam to get it prescribed to you should be covered by a persons medical insurance.

If someone is paying into it what business of yours is it in what they get with it?

And if you can complain about paying for someones birth control why cant someone also complain about paying for someones health expenses incurred from unhealthy eating?

That is ludacris and like I said I dont actually support that. But its a way of throwing the uncompromising position you take back in your face.

You wont compromise for why should I do the same for you?

Posted 551 days ago.

I don't have a party so how can I vote the party? As a result, I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Mountain Party, Libertarians and Constitutional Party Candidates in the last 3 elections. I don't swallow anyones tripe.

As for the weapons ban, the reason it failed is because of Heller and McDonald more than anything. Any ban restricting weapons for leagal purposes, would, as it should be struck down.

Posted 551 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or