RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women

RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 1:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse And she seems to forget some of the degrading things that Ed Schultz and Bill Maher have said about women. Of course MadCow does, as have all the --->hypocritical liberal vermin [8\|]

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 3:13:41 PM)
Do you guys ever get tired of defending Rush with an argument that a third grader would be embarrassed to use? "Someone else did it, so it is OK for Rush". So goes the race to the bottom. Ed schultz apologized. You can easily watch his apology and compare it to Rush's. Further, Schultz was suspended without pay, and his apology was accepted. The real difference, though, is that Schultz is no where near as famous as Rush. I have been aware of Rush for years, I never heard of Schultz until this controversy. Maddow's story was about Rush, why would she talk about some little known person. As for Bill maher, his kind of vulgarity is why I don't watch TV, and rarely listen to the Radio. And when I do listen, I never listen to talk radio, because I don't want to hear this kind of shit. So, I guess, I am boycotting Bill. In any case, with Rush it is cumulative. He has said this type of thing and worse many times over the years. Maybe people are just fed up. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse And she seems to forget some of the degrading things that Ed Schultz and Bill Maher have said about women. Of course MadCow does, as have all the ---> *hypocritical liberal vermin* [8\|]

tweakabelle -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 3:37:20 PM)
quote: Who decides what is "legitimate insurance"? It is me and you individually in the marketplace. Flat wrong. You may imagine you live in a market. I live in a democracy. That means the Govt, elected by the citizens and duly authorised to make decisions of this nature on our behalf, decides the minimum acceptable conditions for companies to offer health insurance to citizens, in the interests of said citizens. If you dislike or disagree with those decisions, you have the option of expressing your discontent at the ballot box. To claim that governments are not authorised to make such decisions (but that the market is) is delusory and self deluding nonsense.

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 4:13:22 PM)
quote: No, its not vice versa... it was to keep the church out of the state. The government dictates to the church all the time.[/quote According to Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution provides for an impenetrable "wall" between both.

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 4:20:43 PM)
quote: Its ironic that most of the taxes you mention were raised to cover the expense of defending the settlers. More so that almost everyone who shares your view has no qualms paying for your large standing army through taxes no less. Talk about double standards. I do not understand how you arrive at this conclusion. Are you saying because the American colonists objected to taxation for troops they did not need, provided only so that King George could intimidate the French with such a large standing army at "our" expense that we should have qualms about taxation to support our standing army in such a dangerous world? I fail to see how that would be. Sorry.

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 4:31:00 PM)
quote: why is the Catholic Church allowed to weild such power that IT can dictate what happens in my womb? As far as I know, it does not. In what way does it do that? Are you personally controlled by what the Catholic Church believes? If you don't agree with the Catholic Church then you don't have to worship there or work for it or its many humanitarian endeavors. This is a right you certainly have. So, I fail to see your point and how it dovetails into the OP but perhaps you can elaborate.

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 4:35:41 PM)
quote: Then never utilize the health care system without insurance... shall we micro chip everyone with their insurance information, or lack of? You can be scanned at the scene of an accident... no insurance.. sorry buddy... and the ambulance drives off empty. I eagerly await the ruling of the SC on this.. dont you? That's interesting. When did that ever happen? Currently all hosptials must provide free treatment for any life threatening injuries. By law and in practice. This is the basic safety net all of us enjoy. We all have no problem paying for such safety nets now. I do await the ruling of the Supreme Court on Obama's healthcare mandate. Certainly enough states feel it resonable to expect the Court to rule against a mandate. It is really cut and dry, many think.

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 4:44:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead The right not to die of septicaemia because the person who performed your abortion with a coat hanger couldn't afford to put it in an autoclave first, for a start. There is no such right in the Constitution. Do you suggest there must be? Perhaps this really falls under the heading of making your bed and sleeping in it. Or, there are always repercussions for bad behaviour or bad decisions and it is not my lot in life to pay for her bad decision. This is called life. It is your duty to protect your own life through intelligent decisions and to avoid such a nasty happenstance through a better decision, perhaps one not to go to such a person for treatment that is elected, optional.

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 4:50:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Arturas Watch the video and come up with the number of bills pertaining to womens issues being brought about by repub states and the GOP ... Did you hear of the blunt amendment, or the virginia trans vaginal ultrasound expectation before they changed it to JUST forcing a woman to see and hear the fetus before she is allowed to have a legal medical procedure,the personhood bills in various states or the birth control issue , or the Dakotas, Kansas, Arizona, oklahoma, missouri etc and ad nauseam, . De funding planned parenthood, the tightening up of regulations, not allowing doctors to tell women if they have a child with a birth defect, because it promotes abortion... Ive even found a little sketch thing for you.. [image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/0305womenstimeline_big2.jpg[/image] with a small hint from that "page " By all accounts, 2011 was a watershed year for challenges to women's reproductive rights. State legislators introduced more than 1,100 anti-abortion provisions and had enacted 135 of them by year's end. Seven states either fully defunded or made moves toward defunding Planned Parenthood, which provides basic health care, contraception, breast cancer and STD screenings to millions of low-income women each year. now does that help??? cos Im done with doing research for the lazy. or just browse any of the last ten days or so threads. If your point is various government entities are making women be responsible for their own behaviour, like listening to her child's heartbeat before authorizing that child to be chopped up and then suctioned out by a vacumn cleaner lookalike then I would agree with you. If you hold these up somehow as "rights" that are being done away with then your opinion presupposes abortion is a right and that I must pay for women to have this "right" somehow, as if I don't have a right to not pay for it. I do.

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 4:56:21 PM)
quote: By all accounts, 2011 was a watershed year for challenges to women's reproductive rights. I like that phrase, "reproductive right". Who made that phrase up first and what does it mean exactly? While we are at it, what are men's reproductive rights. Now I'm getting into that. Does this mean my insurance company must pay for viagra and women (or men, if you are predisposed, I suppose). Yes, I'm somehow becoming a Maddow fan all of a sudden. I will go to my DVR and start recording her show daily. I die hard Lib I am now. My reproductive rights are being violated here unless my viagra and prostitutes are paid for as well as the treatments for STD I might get, cause it's my right.

Lucylastic -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:02:33 PM)
LMAO once again, strawmen, and obfuscation why do I bother? Its a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE why do you not get that...your delightful dramatisation is ignoring everything that was given to you, AGAIN. Gonna stop all walk in emergency treatment cos you dont want to pay for it? good luck with that. And it doesnt pre suppose anything, except for you. but carry on. BTW its a fetus, its not a child. When you agree with me, I KNOW one of us is projecting. Its YOUR mistake not mine

Lucylastic -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:04:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: By all accounts, 2011 was a watershed year for challenges to women's reproductive rights. I like that phrase, "reproductive right". Who made that phrase up first and what does it mean exactly? While we are at it, what are men's reproductive rights. Now I'm getting into that. Does this mean my insurance company must pay for viagra and women (or men, if you are predisposed, I suppose). Yes, I'm somehow becoming a Maddow fan all of a sudden. I will go to my DVR and start recording her show daily. I die hard Lib I am now. My reproductive rights are being violated here unless my viagra and prostitutes are paid for as well as the treatments for STD I might get, cause it's my right. viagra is covered on health insurance, .... tarts and sluts arent...altho there may be a hardship clause ... I wouldnt bank on it Can you be any more specious?

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:13:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Do you guys ever get tired of defending Rush... Do you guys ever get tired of spouting nonsense that a third grader would understand, but the Left can't? Fuck Rush... his dumb ass isn't the issue -- the issue is the lying, hypocritical Libs: 1) Expecting people to pay for their OWN contraception for their OWN sex lives is not a "war on women" -- that's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Once again, Libs/Left are lying about this being a "health" issue of any kind. 2) Feigning outrage over Person-A using the word "slut", while remaining silent when Person-B has used "slut", "cunt", "twat" and so forth shows the complete hypocrisy of the Libs/Lefties. There, got it now... or you gonna continue again with some nonsensical rant about "defending Rush"?!! It's not the Right that have made Rush the issue, as always, it's the hypocritical Libs/Lefties. In this very forum, there's a thread for a Petition to take Limbaugh off the air. Show me where all these same supposedly moral Libs/Lefties that were so outraged over the word "slut" by Person-A (a Con/Righty), had started a thread/petition to take Person-B (a Lib/Lefty) that referred to women as "slut", "cunt" and "twat" off the air?!! You can't... because the Left are *hypocritical liberal vermin* [8\|]

Arturas -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:18:34 PM)
Well. Let's look at the bigger picture. Obama must pay for Obama care. This requires those who have (money, job, insurance) to join Obama care and thus pay for those who have not (money, job, or insurance). The rub is those who have (money, job, insurance) will buy their own insurance and so he will be left with a bankrupt failure unless something changes. What will that be? Let's think for a second or two, it only takes that. That change is to get those who have (money, job, insurance) into Obama care. How does he do this? He cannot mandate it, he tried but even the Left choked on that one, so what does a socialist president Chicago politician do? Why, he does the "go around". He makes it too expensive to not be on Obama care by loading the private insurance with mandated nonesense one expensive mandate at a time, not all at once, a bit at a time either "for the children" or "for women's health" or some other great sounding cause. Soon, private insurance makes no sense for those who have (money, job, insurance) and they migrate to Obamacare and viola! Obama care is a success. Except even then they (US) cannot pay for such nonesense as paid contraceptives and abortions on request and so then he can take these "rights" away now that they have outlived their usefullness. In short, women are pawns in a political game, an effort that is not about womens rights. It's about power and votes and if Obama care folds then Obama is left with a failed legacy and that is what he is concerned about. This is the snake oil part. Remember Maddow? She is the snake oil salesperson on Much Snakeoil NBC. Show the Left you are not pawns in their power game, ladies. You deserve much better treatment and respect from the Left and Obama. Show Maddow and Obama you are not buying snake oil anymore. Vote in November. Vote against snake oil. Vote for your respect. Show the Left you have a brain and you are not to be messed with. Good night, ladies. I do wish you well.

tazzygirl -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:20:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Then never utilize the health care system without insurance... shall we micro chip everyone with their insurance information, or lack of? You can be scanned at the scene of an accident... no insurance.. sorry buddy... and the ambulance drives off empty. I eagerly await the ruling of the SC on this.. dont you? That's interesting. When did that ever happen? Currently all hosptials must provide free treatment for any life threatening injuries. By law and in practice. This is the basic safety net all of us enjoy. We all have no problem paying for such safety nets now. I do await the ruling of the Supreme Court on Obama's healthcare mandate. Certainly enough states feel it resonable to expect the Court to rule against a mandate. It is really cut and dry, many think. Seems you cannot tell the difference between a suggestion for change and an actuality. No matter where in the US you go, you have access to, and a right to obtain, medical treatment, if for no other reason than emergencies. That action alone places it under the commerce clause according to many. Amazing how that many word works for both sides.

tazzygirl -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:22:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Well. Let's look at the bigger picture. Obama must pay for Obama care. This requires those who have (money, job, insurance) to join Obama care and thus pay for those who have not (money, job, or insurance). The rub is those who have (money, job, insurance) will buy their own insurance and so he will be left with a bankrupt failure unless something changes. What will that be? Let's think for a second or two, it only takes that. That change is to get those who have (money, job, insurance) into Obama care. How does he do this? He cannot mandate it, he tried but even the Left choked on that one, so what does a socialist president Chicago politician do? Why, he does the "go around". He makes it too expensive to not be on Obama care by loading the private insurance with mandated nonesense one expensive mandate at a time, not all at once, a bit at a time either "for the children" or "for women's health" or some other great sounding cause. Soon, private insurance makes no sense for those who have (money, job, insurance) and they migrate to Obamacare and viola! Obama care is a success. Except even then they (US) cannot pay for such nonesense as paid contraceptives and abortions on request and so then he can take these "rights" away now that they have outlived their usefullness. Its a shame you actually believe all that. I eagerly await such a day! [;)]

Lucylastic -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:24:55 PM)
[sm=banghead.gif][sm=beatdeadhorse.gif][sm=beatdeadhorse.gif][sm=beatdeadhorse.gif][sm=banghead.gif] This is about repubilican BILLS going thru various houses. NOT Obama care!! Im very sorry you expect to be taken as a respected voice in the wilderness. It doesnt wash.

tweakabelle -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:28:28 PM)
quote: This is the snake oil part. Remember Maddow? She is the snake oil salesperson on Much Snakeoil NBC. Show the Left you are not pawns in their power game, ladies. You deserve much better treatment and respect from the Left and Obama. Show Maddow and Obama you are not buying snake oil anymore. Vote in November. Vote against snake oil. Vote for your respect. Show the Left you have a brain and you are not to be messed with. Good night, ladies. I do wish you well. Yup. Instead vote for the people who wish to prohibit contraception and criminalise miscarriages and abolish abortion. Yup. It's for your own good, 'ladies'. Vote to go back to the Middle Ages with idiotic policies and primitive ideas of what a woman is. "Ladies' you clearly don't know what is in your own interest. God ordained that you are powerless baby incubators. Listen to those that know and have your best interests at ~~prick~~heart. Goodbye Arturas, please keep your advice for those stupid enough to take it.

dcnovice -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse And she seems to forget some of the degrading things that Ed Schultz and Bill Maher have said about women. Of course MadCow does, as have all the --->hypocritical liberal vermin [8\|] Wow. In just one line, we have a schoolyard-worthy nickname for Maddow, a splash of size-6 type, and the word "vermin" (rich with Third Reich overtones when applied to other people). Impressive job, MSLA! I think you win the prize on what seems to be National Troll Night.

jlf1961 -> RE: Maddow takes a look at GOP war on women (3/11/2012 5:38:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: By all accounts, 2011 was a watershed year for challenges to women's reproductive rights. I like that phrase, "reproductive right". Who made that phrase up first and what does it mean exactly? While we are at it, what are men's reproductive rights. Now I'm getting into that. Does this mean my insurance company must pay for viagra and women (or men, if you are predisposed, I suppose). Yes, I'm somehow becoming a Maddow fan all of a sudden. I will go to my DVR and start recording her show daily. I die hard Lib I am now. My reproductive rights are being violated here unless my viagra and prostitutes are paid for as well as the treatments for STD I might get, cause it's my right. viagra is covered on health insurance, .... tarts and sluts arent...altho there may be a hardship clause ... I wouldnt bank on it Can you be any more specious? Birth controls used to never be covered a few years ago, but now birth controls are starting to be paid for by insurance. Not all birth controls are covered, but to be sure, you can contact the benefits customer service # on the back of your insurance card. It is recommended to get a prescription of a generic because it will be cheaper. Brand name drugs will have a higher copay and can SOMETIMES not be a formulary drug. Formulary means something preferred. Insurances have a 3-tier drug copay. The lower one is for generics, middle is for formulary brand names, and the highest one is for nonformulary ones. Also, make sure your prescription deductible has been met. Most prescription medication plans cover both birth control and viagra. However, as I have pointed out in the past, Medicare Part D prescription drug plans DO NOT COVER VIAGRA.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875