|
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
On 3/3/2012 2:33 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/3/12 2:31 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/3/2012 2:18 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 3/3/12 11:30 AM, JustWait wrote: On 3/3/2012 11:13 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 3/3/12 11:10 AM, BAR wrote: In articleTMadnbDP1J8G3M_SnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 3/3/12 10:32 AM, JustWait wrote: On 3/3/2012 10:13 AM, X ` Man wrote: On 3/3/12 10:10 AM, BAR wrote: In , says... In , says... In , says... In , says... In , says... On 3/2/12 5:49 PM, JustWait wrote: On 3/2/2012 5:20 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote: I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention that it be political. I received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933 From CBN and it's not political? Hehehe. Right. It has already started he http://news.yahoo.com/judge-dismisse...204051912.html We have a long history in this country of the self-described religious attacking/isolating/discriminating against those whose beliefs differ from theirs, a history that began long before anyone noticed we have Muslims here. Such religious bigotry is as American as apple pie. What is the difference between those who have a religious axe to grind and those with a political axe to grind. Exactly! When the Ayatollah Santorum has his way, we'll be a theocracy just like that. Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy? Neither. And neither did our founding fathers. Read the declaration of independence again. We were founded with an acknowledgment of God's grace and that everyone could practice their religion without interference by others. Contrary to popular belief there is not separation of church and state. snerk Yeah, we know the constitution is a joke to you.. We get it.. No, silly...I'm giggling at the Santorumism, that we live in a theocracy...and there *is* separation of church and state. What does the 1st amendment state? I'll help you and post it here for you. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Hehehe. So, we do have spoken aloud group prayer each morning in the public schools, eh? If we did, it would be "establishment" of religion. Sorry, you lose. Again. *You* can exercise your religion. Your public school system cannot. Do you understand the difference? Facts are facts. Weather you believe in Religion or not, the law says you can't tell me how to celebrate my faith, No one is telling you you cannot pray in a public school. Go right ahead, as an individual. You are telling me I have to provide services that are against my religion and conscience. And don't tell me "the insurance company pays". You and I, and everyone else knows the insurance company will take that into consideration when putting together the package for the religious employer, and charge them more for the group plan, based on the anticipation of more services, which is of course how insurance companies work... Lots of us pay taxes that go for "services" that are against our conscience. That's the way it is in a complex society. No one is forcing you or yours to use contraception or get an abortion. Taxes paid to a government, is different than insurance premiums paid by and to a private entity... You know that.. |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
On 3/3/12 5:37 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:19:09 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:11:16 -0500, wrote: In , says... I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention that it be political. I received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933 People practicing their religion is scary to you? Better not go to a church in the U.S. then! I find all fundamentalism very scary. I don't find these wackos any scarier than born again Christians. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ous-play-paris What's scary is that these folks block access to business, streets, homes, etc,, and the law is afraid to do anything. In your example, the law took action - arresting those who infringed on the rights of others. That is quite appropriate. Note also that the Catholics haven't killed anyone over the blasphemy. Catholics haven't killed anyone over blasphemy? Not much of a student of history, hey, John? |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:39:12 -0500, X ` Man wrote:
On 3/3/12 5:37 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:19:09 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:11:16 -0500, wrote: In , says... I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention that it be political. I received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933 People practicing their religion is scary to you? Better not go to a church in the U.S. then! I find all fundamentalism very scary. I don't find these wackos any scarier than born again Christians. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ous-play-paris What's scary is that these folks block access to business, streets, homes, etc,, and the law is afraid to do anything. In your example, the law took action - arresting those who infringed on the rights of others. That is quite appropriate. Note also that the Catholics haven't killed anyone over the blasphemy. Catholics haven't killed anyone over blasphemy? Not much of a student of history, hey, John? Learn to read, then learn to quote. You seem to take great pleasure in putting your ignorance on display. |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
On 3/3/12 5:53 PM, Happy John wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:39:12 -0500, X ` wrote: On 3/3/12 5:37 PM, Happy John wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 17:19:09 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 08:11:16 -0500, wrote: In , says... I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention that it be political. I received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933 People practicing their religion is scary to you? Better not go to a church in the U.S. then! I find all fundamentalism very scary. I don't find these wackos any scarier than born again Christians. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ous-play-paris What's scary is that these folks block access to business, streets, homes, etc,, and the law is afraid to do anything. In your example, the law took action - arresting those who infringed on the rights of others. That is quite appropriate. Note also that the Catholics haven't killed anyone over the blasphemy. Catholics haven't killed anyone over blasphemy? Not much of a student of history, hey, John? Learn to read, then learn to quote. You seem to take great pleasure in putting your ignorance on display. History is a continuum. |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
In article , dump-on-
says... On 3/3/12 10:47 AM, BAR wrote: In article0cOdnXcYyP1yqc_SnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 3/3/12 9:54 AM, BAR wrote: In articleyKadnQGdHZuEt8_SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy? What's the difference? The problem is that you lefties are willing to lay down and be walked all over by the Muslims but, when it is any form of Christianity you freak out. Really? I don't recall saying or implying that I am "willing to lay down and be walked all over by Muslims." You should cut back on those magic 'shrooms. Don't start projecting your recreational activities onto me or others. As a student of history (actual history, not the "conservative" view of history), I don't see the difference between being slaughtered by christian zealots or by muslim zealots, the two religious groups under discussion in this thread. Both religions have a long and bloody history of slaughter in the name of the faith. Actions speak louder than words Harry. Your actions and your fellow lefty's action's belie your words. My actions? What actions of mine in preferring to being slaughtered by christian or muslim zealots? I don't see the difference. If you are killed by a religious fanatic, you are just as dead, whether that fanatic be christian or muslim. Or are you trying to contend that muslims kill in the name of religion and christians don't? That's nonsense. I also don't "freak out" about christianity. To me, it's just another superstition-based collection of beliefs. My objections arise when its practitioners attempt to force their religious beliefs onto my secular society. I'm having many good laughs these days watching the "christian" political zealots fall on their swords over womens' reproductive health issues. We don't have a secular society. Never have and never will. Yeah, we do. You just don't understand what the word means. Women's reproductive health? This is a joke and most people can see right through the "issue." The poor student Ms. Fluke is a 30 year old woman who is going to Georgetown Law on a "public interest" (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/) scholarship. Her whole "beef" is that someone else isn't paying for her birth control pills. Her argument falls apart when it comes down to the low cost of condoms. When a 30 year old woman stands up and says I want someone else to pay for my birth control pills while I attend law school on a scholarship, she doesn't garner sympathy from the majority of the country. Ahh. You read Limbaugh's explanation of her testimony, not her testimony. Lights out. Good night. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...etterhead-2nd% 20hearing.pdf "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard." "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire summer?s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn?t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn?t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn?t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice." Ms. Fluke needs to understand that her employer or school is not responsible for the cost of her birth control pills. Nor is that employer responsible for the cost of condoms. If she doesn't want to get pregnant she can stopping ****ing guys and start studying. It is her choice and she should be responsible for paying for her choices. If Ms. Fluke doesn't like the policies of Georgetown University than she is free to attend another school. Her insurer is responsible. Don't like it? Move to a religious state. The insurer is responsible for what is in the policy. Most, if not all, Catholic institutions choose to not have birth control pills covered by their health insurance policies. If you don't like it then you don't have to work for a Catholic institution or attend school at a Catholic institution. Remember it is a choice. Ms. Fluke can always choose to go to another school. |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
In article ,
says... On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:09:50 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/3/12 10:48 AM, BAR wrote: In aweb.com, says... On 3/2/2012 8:31 PM, Happy John wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:30:49 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:20:22 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote: I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention that it be political. I received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933 From CBN and it's not political? Hehehe. Right. Can,t get the link to work. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/29ghyhx Got it. And the cops were ordered to do nothing? That's the french for you. Cheese eating surrender monkeys. The United States hasn't won a serious shooting war against a serious opponent since World War II, and that war required many allies. I take it you object to the use of the word monkey. Harry thinks we should still be conducting war according to 15th century rules. The world evolves and so does war. There is not such thing as the front-line anymore. |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
On 3/3/12 6:00 PM, BAR wrote:
In b.com, says... On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:09:50 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/3/12 10:48 AM, BAR wrote: In aweb.com, says... On 3/2/2012 8:31 PM, Happy John wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:30:49 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:20:22 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote: I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention that it be political. I received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933 From CBN and it's not political? Hehehe. Right. Can,t get the link to work. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/29ghyhx Got it. And the cops were ordered to do nothing? That's the french for you. Cheese eating surrender monkeys. The United States hasn't won a serious shooting war against a serious opponent since World War II, and that war required many allies. I take it you object to the use of the word monkey. Harry thinks we should still be conducting war according to 15th century rules. The world evolves and so does war. There is not such thing as the front-line anymore. You have no idea of what I think unless I state it specifically. The posit I offered is precise. |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
On 3/3/2012 5:58 PM, BAR wrote:
In , dump-on- says... On 3/3/12 10:47 AM, BAR wrote: In article0cOdnXcYyP1yqc_SnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... On 3/3/12 9:54 AM, BAR wrote: In articleyKadnQGdHZuEt8_SnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, dump-on- says... Do you want to be a Catholic theocracy or a Muslim theocracy? What's the difference? The problem is that you lefties are willing to lay down and be walked all over by the Muslims but, when it is any form of Christianity you freak out. Really? I don't recall saying or implying that I am "willing to lay down and be walked all over by Muslims." You should cut back on those magic 'shrooms. Don't start projecting your recreational activities onto me or others. As a student of history (actual history, not the "conservative" view of history), I don't see the difference between being slaughtered by christian zealots or by muslim zealots, the two religious groups under discussion in this thread. Both religions have a long and bloody history of slaughter in the name of the faith. Actions speak louder than words Harry. Your actions and your fellow lefty's action's belie your words. My actions? What actions of mine in preferring to being slaughtered by christian or muslim zealots? I don't see the difference. If you are killed by a religious fanatic, you are just as dead, whether that fanatic be christian or muslim. Or are you trying to contend that muslims kill in the name of religion and christians don't? That's nonsense. I also don't "freak out" about christianity. To me, it's just another superstition-based collection of beliefs. My objections arise when its practitioners attempt to force their religious beliefs onto my secular society. I'm having many good laughs these days watching the "christian" political zealots fall on their swords over womens' reproductive health issues. We don't have a secular society. Never have and never will. Yeah, we do. You just don't understand what the word means. Women's reproductive health? This is a joke and most people can see right through the "issue." The poor student Ms. Fluke is a 30 year old woman who is going to Georgetown Law on a "public interest" (http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/) scholarship. Her whole "beef" is that someone else isn't paying for her birth control pills. Her argument falls apart when it comes down to the low cost of condoms. When a 30 year old woman stands up and says I want someone else to pay for my birth control pills while I attend law school on a scholarship, she doesn't garner sympathy from the majority of the country. Ahh. You read Limbaugh's explanation of her testimony, not her testimony. Lights out. Good night. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politic...etterhead-2nd% 20hearing.pdf "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. . On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard." "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire summer?s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn?t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn?t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn?t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice." Ms. Fluke needs to understand that her employer or school is not responsible for the cost of her birth control pills. Nor is that employer responsible for the cost of condoms. If she doesn't want to get pregnant she can stopping ****ing guys and start studying. It is her choice and she should be responsible for paying for her choices. If Ms. Fluke doesn't like the policies of Georgetown University than she is free to attend another school. Her insurer is responsible. Don't like it? Move to a religious state. The insurer is responsible for what is in the policy. Most, if not all, Catholic institutions choose to not have birth control pills covered by their health insurance policies. If you don't like it then you don't have to work for a Catholic institution or attend school at a Catholic institution. Remember it is a choice. Ms. Fluke can always choose to go to another school. The big lie here is the idea that the insurance companies won't charge the group of policy holders for the added services... Like they are just gonna' give it to them. If they know they are going to have to cover more thihgs, they will charge the group more across the board to cover the extra expense... Again, that's what insurance companies do... |
OT (very) - This is somewhat scary.
On 3/3/2012 6:00 PM, BAR wrote:
In b.com, says... On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 11:09:50 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/3/12 10:48 AM, BAR wrote: In aweb.com, says... On 3/2/2012 8:31 PM, Happy John wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:30:49 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:20:22 -0500, X ` Man wrote: On 3/2/12 4:32 PM, Happy John wrote: I hope this is not taken as a 'political' post. There is no intention that it be political. I received the link in an email and thought it was pretty scary. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplay....swf?aid=17933 From CBN and it's not political? Hehehe. Right. Can,t get the link to work. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/29ghyhx Got it. And the cops were ordered to do nothing? That's the french for you. Cheese eating surrender monkeys. The United States hasn't won a serious shooting war against a serious opponent since World War II, and that war required many allies. I take it you object to the use of the word monkey. Harry thinks we should still be conducting war according to 15th century rules. The world evolves and so does war. There is not such thing as the front-line anymore. What will he do now. He's been diligently practicing his shooting. And now he finds out there is no need for his services. He always seems to be a dollar short and a day late. He should have volunteered back in the sixties when we could have used him. -- O M G |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com