|
Good Christian Upbringing
|
Good Christian Upbringing
|
Good Christian Upbringing
|
Good Christian Upbringing
|
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 4:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. t ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. And therein lies the strawman... I think John was addressing the same lame "church supression" jab you made making your point. It's bs unless you can tell us just exactly where in the US outside the walls of the churches, "Church Suppression" is keeping women from getting birth control pills or having an abortion? I know you don't like facts, but: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/healt...control-rights http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/active/churches There, I read one of your links and it's bs... First off the lady is "terrified" that she won't have the 150 dollars every two years for a birth control shot, and then we find out she can get it for 59 dollars anyway at Planned Abortionhood... So, still, no examples of any woman that can not get birth control because of Religion... Just more hype. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 4:56 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. Or should I say, the church isn't stopping anybody from getting them...The intolerant just want to force the church to offer it too, then they will be satisifed because of course, they personally hold no value in "our" free agency to worship as we see fit... You call others intolerant when it's the Christians that don't want to give a woman a right to choose????? You have the right to choose.. The only ones effected are women who "choose" the church... but then again, we know you don't want to give folks the choice in that matter... |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their churches, but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor. Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer? What about conservatives who aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'. In fact, I don't believe I know one in that category. But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent allegation made by jps. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care, clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down. Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't charitable giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians. It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes shouldn't be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction. And the question remains unanswered. Never mind. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:29:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring wrote: I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He probably equates abortions with the killing of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with cutting down a weed in your yard. You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it. === No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. Salmonbait There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on the right that would ban those things also. There are several listings of drug stores whose religious proprietors won't sell the morning after pill. When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs (with a work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a small, family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda fountain jerk. Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor, too, mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable variety. The booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that selling the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. :) That didn't bother me at all. I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought was a hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about selling birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that. Anyway, that's my memory. I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one afternoon I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a quart of ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door and I looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who recently had acquired a lady friend. We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor as it was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I guess everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just close down and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood. Life was simpler back in the day. You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a store doesn't carry something I need, I go to another store. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless, and public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store around is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L. It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or take the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done. Now we have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms anywhere. Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are plenty of places where there is no public transportation or a variety of retail stores. Why would you need condoms? Why do you need a variety of retail stores for birth control or morning-after pills? Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:51:02 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:45 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/14/2013 3:03 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:45:43 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. How you came to that conclusion, based on what was said, is totally beyond me. "Viewing pregnancy as punishment"?? Who said anything close to that but you. Exactly.. You tried to justify abortions based on limited access to birth control methods or the morning after pill. To me, that's nonsense, unless you're talking third world countries - where abortions wouldn't be readily available either. He tried to justify it by blaming pregnancy on the Church which is just... well... you know. If he had tried to blame pregnancies on the Church, I would agree that that problem exists. But, he was trying to blame a lack of birth control access on the Church - implying that that lack of access (which was the Church's fault) resulted in abortions. That, I disagree with. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:59 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:29:53 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:09 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:45:52 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait No. I think that true conservatives (people unlike you) are equally charitable. Nobody asked you, we already know what you are going to say.... it's getting old. Too ****ing bad for you bittyballs. YMML. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 4:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:08 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:36:25 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 1:24 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs (with a work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a small, family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda fountain jerk. Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor, too, mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable variety. The booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that selling the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. :) That didn't bother me at all. I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought was a hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about selling birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that. Anyway, that's my memory. I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one afternoon I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a quart of ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door and I looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who recently had acquired a lady friend. Thanks for sharing. It seems that you got an early start to your career on the wrong side of the tracks, and the wrong side of the law. I'm struggling, now, not to pity you. Seems to be you fell out of the crib. At 16, "Meyer" was prepping for his academic career in the navy. How's your tax delinquency thingie going? |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 4:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring wrote: I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He probably equates abortions with the killing of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with cutting down a weed in your yard. You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it. === No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. Salmonbait There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on the right that would ban those things also. There are several listings of drug stores whose religious proprietors won't sell the morning after pill. When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs (with a work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a small, family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda fountain jerk. Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor, too, mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable variety. The booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that selling the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. :) That didn't bother me at all. I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought was a hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about selling birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that. Anyway, that's my memory. I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one afternoon I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a quart of ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door and I looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who recently had acquired a lady friend. We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor as it was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I guess everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just close down and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood. Life was simpler back in the day. You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a store doesn't carry something I need, I go to another store. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless, and public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store around is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L. It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or take the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done. Now we have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms anywhere. Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are plenty of places where there is no public transportation or a variety of retail stores. Why would you need condoms? Why would you sell condoms? Were they filled with dope? |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 4:37 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:33 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:04:06 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. And they are available to everybody, period... No they aren't ****forbrains. Yeah they are sperm breath... Sperm breath? Has Harry been trying to recycle condoms again? |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/13 4:48 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:42 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring wrote: I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He probably equates abortions with the killing of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with cutting down a weed in your yard. You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it. === No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. Salmonbait There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on the right that would ban those things also. There are several listings of drug stores whose religious proprietors won't sell the morning after pill. When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs (with a work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a small, family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda fountain jerk. Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor, too, mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable variety. The booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that selling the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. :) That didn't bother me at all. I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought was a hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about selling birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that. Anyway, that's my memory. I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one afternoon I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a quart of ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door and I looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who recently had acquired a lady friend. We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor as it was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I guess everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just close down and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood. Life was simpler back in the day. You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a store doesn't carry something I need, I go to another store. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless, and public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store around is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L. It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or take the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done. Now we have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms anywhere. Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are plenty of places where there is no public transportation or a variety of retail stores. At least mine life experience isn't made up... Why would you need condoms? What the hell kind of question is that perv? Well, assumptive me thinks...you're in your 50's at least, your wife likely is about the same age and is no longer dropping eggs down the canal, and is unlikely to get pregnant. There's only one other reason for a married couple past childbearing years to be bothering with condoms...can you guess what it is? So, why would you need condoms? Tell us why your wife is a fat pig and then I will answer your question... There he goes again, insulting people who don't post here. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/13 6:06 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their churches, but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor. Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer? What about conservatives who aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'. In fact, I don't believe I know one in that category. But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent allegation made by jps. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care, clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down. Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't charitable giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians. It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes shouldn't be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction. And the question remains unanswered. Never mind. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! No, I don't believe conservatives are more prone to give to legitimate charities whose sole purpose is to help the poor or the sick or the homeless. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 5:55 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. t ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. And therein lies the strawman... I think John was addressing the same lame "church supression" jab you made making your point. It's bs unless you can tell us just exactly where in the US outside the walls of the churches, "Church Suppression" is keeping women from getting birth control pills or having an abortion? I know you don't like facts, but: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/healt...control-rights http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/active/churches There, I read one of your links and it's bs... First off the lady is "terrified" that she won't have the 150 dollars every two years for a birth control shot, and then we find out she can get it for 59 dollars anyway at Planned Abortionhood... So, still, no examples of any woman that can not get birth control because of Religion... Just more hype. You got suckered into following the idiot's link. That'll learn ya. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 6:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 4:48 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:42 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring wrote: I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He probably equates abortions with the killing of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with cutting down a weed in your yard. You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it. === No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. Salmonbait There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on the right that would ban those things also. There are several listings of drug stores whose religious proprietors won't sell the morning after pill. When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs (with a work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a small, family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda fountain jerk. Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor, too, mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable variety. The booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that selling the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. :) That didn't bother me at all. I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought was a hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about selling birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that. Anyway, that's my memory. I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one afternoon I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a quart of ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door and I looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who recently had acquired a lady friend. We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor as it was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I guess everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just close down and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood. Life was simpler back in the day. You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a store doesn't carry something I need, I go to another store. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless, and public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store around is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L. It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or take the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done. Now we have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms anywhere. Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are plenty of places where there is no public transportation or a variety of retail stores. At least mine life experience isn't made up... Why would you need condoms? What the hell kind of question is that perv? Well, assumptive me thinks...you're in your 50's at least, your wife likely is about the same age and is no longer dropping eggs down the canal, and is unlikely to get pregnant. There's only one other reason for a married couple past childbearing years to be bothering with condoms...can you guess what it is? So, why would you need condoms? Tell us why your wife is a fat pig and then I will answer your question... There he goes again, insulting people who don't post here. Well, is she or isn't she? |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:36:05 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:59 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:29:53 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:09 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:45:52 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait No. I think that true conservatives (people unlike you) are equally charitable. Nobody asked you, we already know what you are going to say.... it's getting old. Too ****ing bad for you bittyballs. YMML. He would. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:25 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:33 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:04:06 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. And they are available to everybody, period... No they aren't ****forbrains. Yeah they are sperm breath... You suck guys dicks? Try going to a religious pharmacist bozo. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:47:52 -0400, Meyer wrote:
On 3/14/2013 4:37 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:33 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:04:06 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. And they are available to everybody, period... No they aren't ****forbrains. Yeah they are sperm breath... Sperm breath? Has Harry been trying to recycle condoms again? You and ****forbrains are quite a pair. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:39:30 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:35 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:05:43 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. Or should I say, the church isn't stopping anybody from getting them...The intolerant just want to force the church to offer it too, then they will be satisifed because of course, they personally hold no value in "our" free agency to worship as we see fit... You're ****ing stupid. The church has nothing to do with it. It's a requirement built into the health insurance plan, including for non-Christians who work there. So go to the drug store and buy them for 9 dollars a month, or have them given to you by the clinic... nobody is being stopped from access to birth control. You just want the church to pay for it too, because you don't believe in their freedom to worship.. Well, it's pretty obvious that you can't read. No law is saying they have to pay for it ****forbrans. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:02:52 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:56 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. Or should I say, the church isn't stopping anybody from getting them...The intolerant just want to force the church to offer it too, then they will be satisifed because of course, they personally hold no value in "our" free agency to worship as we see fit... You call others intolerant when it's the Christians that don't want to give a woman a right to choose????? You have the right to choose.. The only ones effected are women who "choose" the church... but then again, we know you don't want to give folks the choice in that matter... No. you're an idiot and got your news from fox again. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:41:31 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:36 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:51 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring wrote: I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He probably equates abortions with the killing of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with cutting down a weed in your yard. You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it. === No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. Salmonbait There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on the right that would ban those things also. And just how do you suggest those few folks are going to succeed in stopping even one American from access to Birth Control? It's Christian Derangement Syndrome again... You never heard of the fillibuster? Christian derangement is right. Liar... filibuster (and that's how it's spelled) has to do with what. There is nothing to filibuster, women already have open and full access to birth control, period. I'll spell it any way I ****ing want ****forbrains. You're living in a hole and don't watch the news .. what a dumbbunny. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:42:15 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:36 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:29:53 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:09 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:45:52 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait No. I think that true conservatives (people unlike you) are equally charitable. Nobody asked you, we already know what you are going to say.... it's getting old. Too ****ing bad for you bittyballs. Do you giggle when you type that **** kevin? Who the **** is kevin? You're 6' tall white rabbit? |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:36:05 -0700, jps wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:36:59 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:29:53 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:09 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:45:52 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait No. I think that true conservatives (people unlike you) are equally charitable. Nobody asked you, we already know what you are going to say.... it's getting old. Too ****ing bad for you bittyballs. YMML. Are you typing in tongues? hheh |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:58:48 -0400, J Herring
wrote: I'd say, if you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. ==== Easy to say but there are lots of "accidents" and more than a few instances of rape and incest. How do you fix that? Or do you still want to punish the woman who falls victim to such thngs? Why not stone her to death like the Taliban? You are peddling sharia law behind the cloak of civilization. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 7:59 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:02:52 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:56 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. Or should I say, the church isn't stopping anybody from getting them...The intolerant just want to force the church to offer it too, then they will be satisifed because of course, they personally hold no value in "our" free agency to worship as we see fit... You call others intolerant when it's the Christians that don't want to give a woman a right to choose????? You have the right to choose.. The only ones effected are women who "choose" the church... but then again, we know you don't want to give folks the choice in that matter... |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 7:25 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 3/14/2013 5:55 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:53 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. t ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. And therein lies the strawman... I think John was addressing the same lame "church supression" jab you made making your point. It's bs unless you can tell us just exactly where in the US outside the walls of the churches, "Church Suppression" is keeping women from getting birth control pills or having an abortion? I know you don't like facts, but: http://www.womenshealthmag.com/healt...control-rights http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/active/churches There, I read one of your links and it's bs... First off the lady is "terrified" that she won't have the 150 dollars every two years for a birth control shot, and then we find out she can get it for 59 dollars anyway at Planned Abortionhood... So, still, no examples of any woman that can not get birth control because of Religion... Just more hype. You got suckered into following the idiot's link. That'll learn ya. Yup, forgot he doesn't read them first himself... |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 8:24 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:58:48 -0400, J Herring wrote: I'd say, if you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. ==== Easy to say but there are lots of "accidents" and more than a few instances of rape and incest. How do you fix that? Or do you still want to punish the woman who falls victim to such thngs? Why not stone her to death like the Taliban? You are peddling sharia law behind the cloak of civilization. Or let her walk into a planned parenthood office.. Might be a bit more realistic than your loogieism above... |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 7:31 PM, Meyer wrote:
On 3/14/2013 6:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:48 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:42 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring wrote: I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He probably equates abortions with the killing of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with cutting down a weed in your yard. You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it. === No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. Salmonbait There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on the right that would ban those things also. There are several listings of drug stores whose religious proprietors won't sell the morning after pill. When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs (with a work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a small, family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda fountain jerk. Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor, too, mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable variety. The booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that selling the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. :) That didn't bother me at all. I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought was a hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about selling birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that. Anyway, that's my memory. I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one afternoon I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a quart of ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door and I looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who recently had acquired a lady friend. We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor as it was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I guess everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just close down and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood. Life was simpler back in the day. You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a store doesn't carry something I need, I go to another store. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless, and public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store around is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L. It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or take the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done. Now we have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms anywhere. Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are plenty of places where there is no public transportation or a variety of retail stores. At least mine life experience isn't made up... Why would you need condoms? What the hell kind of question is that perv? Well, assumptive me thinks...you're in your 50's at least, your wife likely is about the same age and is no longer dropping eggs down the canal, and is unlikely to get pregnant. There's only one other reason for a married couple past childbearing years to be bothering with condoms...can you guess what it is? So, why would you need condoms? Tell us why your wife is a fat pig and then I will answer your question... There he goes again, insulting people who don't post here. Well, is she or isn't she? He brings up my family all the time... |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 6:58 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 6:06 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their churches, but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor. Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer? What about conservatives who aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'. In fact, I don't believe I know one in that category. But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent allegation made by jps. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care, clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down. Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't charitable giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians. It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes shouldn't be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction. And the question remains unanswered. Never mind. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! No, I don't believe conservatives are more prone to give to legitimate charities whose sole purpose is to help the poor or the sick or the homeless. Then you truly are uninformed... |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:22:42 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:24 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:58:48 -0400, J Herring wrote: I'd say, if you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. ==== Easy to say but there are lots of "accidents" and more than a few instances of rape and incest. How do you fix that? Or do you still want to punish the woman who falls victim to such thngs? Why not stone her to death like the Taliban? You are peddling sharia law behind the cloak of civilization. Or let her walk into a planned parenthood office.. Might be a bit more realistic than your loogieism above... === The religious right is doing everything they can to put planned parenthood out of business. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/13 9:23 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 7:31 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 6:53 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:48 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:42 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:35 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:29 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 4:17 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 3:17 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 3:14 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 13:24:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 1:07 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:53:13 -0400, Wayne B wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:40:32 -0400, J Herring wrote: I believe that's where you and our new Pope disagree. He probably equates abortions with the killing of a precious infant, whereas you seem to equate it with cutting down a weed in your yard. You know, weed inconvenient? Kill it. === No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. Salmonbait There would be except that there's a pretty vocal minority on the right that would ban those things also. There are several listings of drug stores whose religious proprietors won't sell the morning after pill. When I was a kid in New Haven, we were allowed to work some jobs (with a work permit) after high school. I got a job two afternoons a week working at a drug store in an "iffy" section of town. This was a small, family owned store. I was the combination stock boy and soda fountain jerk. Well, the drug store did a land office business selling liquor, too, mostly cheap wine and whiskey, but it carried a reasonable variety. The booze was on display behind the soda fountain. Turned out that selling the booze was also part of my job. I was 15. :) That didn't bother me at all. I also sold condoms, which, as a raunchy teen-aged boy, I thought was a hoot. At the time, there was some questionable legality about selling birth control "devices" in Connecticut, or something like that. Anyway, that's my memory. I also walked about the neighborhood on deliveries, usually of prescriptions, but sometimes I delivered booze. I remember one afternoon I set out with a double brown bag of Four Roses whiskey, a quart of ginger ale, and a box of condoms. The guy who answered the door and I looked at each other and laughed. He was a regular customer who recently had acquired a lady friend. We never had any trouble with anyone in the neighborhood, poor as it was. The drug store was the only one for miles around, and I guess everyone knew if the pharmacist-owner was robbed, he'd just close down and open up a shop in a safer neighborhood. Life was simpler back in the day. You've had some marvelous experiences. I've found that when a store doesn't carry something I need, I go to another store. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! Yeah, well, you're reasonably well off. If you are poor, carless, and public transportation is a real hassle, and the only drug store around is run by a religious zealot, you are S.O.L. It's a myth... doesn't happen. When I was a kid we had to drive or take the bus 15 miles to Hartford to do our shopping, it can be done. Now we have a thousand stores between here and there... I can get condoms anywhere. Your life experience isn't relevant or even typical. There are plenty of places where there is no public transportation or a variety of retail stores. At least mine life experience isn't made up... Why would you need condoms? What the hell kind of question is that perv? Well, assumptive me thinks...you're in your 50's at least, your wife likely is about the same age and is no longer dropping eggs down the canal, and is unlikely to get pregnant. There's only one other reason for a married couple past childbearing years to be bothering with condoms...can you guess what it is? So, why would you need condoms? Tell us why your wife is a fat pig and then I will answer your question... There he goes again, insulting people who don't post here. Well, is she or isn't she? He brings up my family all the time... You really are an ignorant, classless little putz. You said you used condoms. All I did was ask why, at your age, you were using them, since most couples your ages are beyond their fertile years. My guess was that *you* have some sort of Sexually Transmitted Disease, and your wife is smart enough to make you use a condom so she doesn't get it, too. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/13 9:25 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/14/2013 6:58 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 6:06 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their churches, but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor. Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer? What about conservatives who aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'. In fact, I don't believe I know one in that category. But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent allegation made by jps. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care, clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down. Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't charitable giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians. It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes shouldn't be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction. And the question remains unanswered. Never mind. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! No, I don't believe conservatives are more prone to give to legitimate charities whose sole purpose is to help the poor or the sick or the homeless. Then you truly are uninformed... Cites that show what percentage of the charitable contributions of religious righties go to the needy and not to their religious institutions for buildings, salaries and proselytizing? Oh, wait...you don't know. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:21:00 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote: On 3/14/2013 7:59 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:02:52 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 4:56 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 3/14/2013 2:29 PM, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 12:45 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 09:59:30 -0400, Meyer wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:05 AM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:29:55 -0400, J Herring wrote: No woman should be forced to bring an unwanted child ino the world. Think about that. There is always birth control and the morning after pill. ==== Clearly a good start but for various reasons some women do not have access to either option. Of course one of the reasons for limited access is that your church has been adamant about trying to suppress availability. Lame excuse Wayne. If they were creative enough to gain access to the old woodie, against church doctrine, they should be able to gain access to remedies for their sins. ==== And therein lies the problem: Viewing pregnancy and childbirth as a punishment. That's a very old fasioned notion which has been carefully fostered by various societies and religions throughout the ages. We already have more than enough unwanted children running around with little or no parental leadership. It is a mystery to me why anyone would wish for more. You weren't listening. There are remedies that make conception, abortion or childbirth unnecessary. Or should I say, the church isn't stopping anybody from getting them...The intolerant just want to force the church to offer it too, then they will be satisifed because of course, they personally hold no value in "our" free agency to worship as we see fit... You call others intolerant when it's the Christians that don't want to give a woman a right to choose????? You have the right to choose.. The only ones effected are women who "choose" the church... but then again, we know you don't want to give folks the choice in that matter... Women barely have the right. It's being eroded every day. Of course, a ****forbrains like you don't actually know that because you watch fake news. I mean fox news. |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 9:47 PM, Wayne B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 21:22:42 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 8:24 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:58:48 -0400, J Herring wrote: I'd say, if you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant. ==== Easy to say but there are lots of "accidents" and more than a few instances of rape and incest. How do you fix that? Or do you still want to punish the woman who falls victim to such thngs? Why not stone her to death like the Taliban? You are peddling sharia law behind the cloak of civilization. Or let her walk into a planned parenthood office.. Might be a bit more realistic than your loogieism above... === The religious right is doing everything they can to put planned parenthood out of business. How's that going for them? How many women can't get birth control because of Christians.. Nazi's want to take over the country, so do the Muslims, but they don't have the votes either... You want to keep Planned Abortionhood open, keep voting Democrat, simple... The fact still remains, no women in the US are unable to get birth control because of "the church", period... |
Good Christian Upbringing
On 3/14/2013 10:25 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/14/13 9:25 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/14/2013 6:58 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 3/14/13 6:06 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:37:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 4:21 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:13:57 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 3/14/13 3:45 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:37:30 -0700, jps wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:17:40 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 03:59:33 -0700 (PDT), Tom Nofinger wrote: On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:11:23 PM UTC-5, jps wrote: bull**** snipped My kids are still in the me, me, me stage but they're still not as selfish as the wingers in rec.boats. Naturally you are talking about the selfishness of the left-wingers who enjoy pilfering from the pockets of the right and everyone in between. Naturally you need to remove your finger from your ass. Your prostate is fine. These idiots can't stand that a liberal has been successful at business and still wants to lend support to folks who haven't been as lucky. The Republican mantra: I've got mine, **** you. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I's sure conservative born-agains contribute mightily to their churches, but most of those bucks ain't going to the poor. Have you reviewed the budgets of the churches to which you refer? What about conservatives who aren't 'born-agains' ? Most Christians I know are not 'born-agains'. In fact, I don't believe I know one in that category. But, you didn't answer the question. Do you believe that liberals, in general, are more charitable than conservatives? The question was posed because of the apparent allegation made by jps. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! I don't consider "charity" giving to a church that uses the funds for edifices or salaries of its clergy, or for proselytizing. Charity supposedly is to help the poor with food, shelter, medical care, clothing, et cetera. So, when you deduct conservative christian charitable giving that isn't used to provide direct assistance to the poor, the amount of giving goes way, way down. Giving money to one's church so it can send "missionaries" to Central and South America to convert Catholics into Protestants isn't charitable giving. Neither is giving money to convert "pagans" into Christians. It's proselytizing and, as such, money used for those purposes shouldn't be considered charity or eligible for charitable deduction. And the question remains unanswered. Never mind. Salmonbait -- Hope you're having a spectacular day! No, I don't believe conservatives are more prone to give to legitimate charities whose sole purpose is to help the poor or the sick or the homeless. Then you truly are uninformed... Cites that show what percentage of the charitable contributions of religious righties go to the needy and not to their religious institutions for buildings, salaries and proselytizing? Oh, wait...you don't know. You are the one making the false accusation, you prove it. |
Good Christian Upbringing
"Urin Asshole" wrote in message ... Women barely have the right. It's being eroded every day. Of course, a ****forbrains like you don't actually know that because you watch fake news. I mean fox news. ------------------------------- You forgot three or four "****s". |
Good Christian Upbringing
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com