Political Chat Digest for Misty


User avatar
Posted by Misty
01 Nov 2013, 8:25 pm

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
bingster wrote:
golfboy wrote:
Bad news for women that prefer risky abortions with no medical backup.


This is stupid. The "need" for admitting priveledges is nothing but a trap law to close down the clinics. The rub of the matter is that many of the hospital in clinic areas are religious and therefore wouldn't dream of allowing admitting priveledges to an abortion doctor.


Perhaps Golfboy can tell us how many women in Texas had to be admitted to a hospital for complications from an abortion.
Trap laws are exactly what they are.

Republicans are full of crap, when they say they prefer smaller government and less regulation.

The real "risky" abortions will happen now that dumb cons closed the clinics.


Amen.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:00 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: OH NO - No Abortions after 20 weeks: post #40

That's cool about the rape victims...but what about the 99.9% of skanks who murder babies as their form of birth control because they don't give a damn about any other human being but themselves?


Why don't you tell us where you got that figure of 99.9% of skanks women who you say use abortion as a form of birth control Slow?

If you want to cut down on the number of abortions, then stop closing down clinics that provide women with birth control.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:01 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: Will Repubs win the Senate next year?: post #28

If barry and the dims can suppress the military vote,


When it comes to voter supression, the Republicans wrote the book.

illegally squelch the Tea Party groups like they did using the IRS,


Not one Tea Party group was denied tax free status, or hindered from operating, so how were they 'squelched'?

get illegal aliens to vote by the millions for them, and have their own members vote repeatedly and illegally,


Republicans have never been unable to prove that all this massive voter fraud is taking place, but that doesn't stop them from saying it anyway. That's the lie that allows them to suppress votes and disenfranchise millions of voters.

then I don't think the Repubs have a chance again. But it would be nice if the Repubs took and held both and thoroughly lame ducked dictator barry sotero for the remainder of his reign of terror.


Another fact free post by Slow.
The only thing in slowmotion are your brain cells.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:03 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: Obamacare requires insurance to cover: post #14

Obamacare requires insurance to cover mental health as well as physical health. Ok shoot that down repigs.


They believe that if the owners of a corporation have a religious objection to something it can be excluded from an employee's health care package.

Scientologists are religiously opposed to psychiatry and drugs associated with psychiatry.

So by their logic, if the business owner is a Scientologist, he or she can deny coverage for mental health issues.



User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:04 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: Obamacare requires insurance to cover: post #16

It is required to cover it. Not force people to sign up for treatment.


Why should the ACA require employers to cover mental health?

What if the owners of the company have a religious objection to psychiatry and drugs associated with psychiatry, like Scientologists do?
Why should they be forced to provide that kind of coverage in their insurance package?

Be consistent now Huey.

You believe that if they have a religious objection, they should not be required to provide coverage for contraception.
So does your standard apply to only certain religions, and certain medical procedures and treatments, or to all of them?

Should a for-profit corporation owned by a devout Jehovah's Witness be able to refuse to cover blood transfusions?
Should employers who practice certain fundamentalist factions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam be exempt from covering vaccinations for their employees?

You can't have it both ways.
The standard either applies to all religions or none.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:05 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #1

:)



User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:05 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: Will Repubs win the Senate next year?: post #47

This might well be another Wave Election against Dems. :)


And pigs might fly out of your ass.
Your predictions are consistently wrong.

Keep running candidates like Christine 'I am not a witch' O'Donnell, and Todd 'legitimate rape' Akin.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:06 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #6

Change no to responsible adults should pay for their own sexual activities.


Why should I?
Take a look around this forum and see the slut shaming that takes place every time the subject of contraception is brought up.

It started with the drug addled gas bag Rush Limbaugh, when he called Sandra Fluke a 'slut' and a 'prostitute' because she believes like I do that contraception should be considered a routine part of women's health care and not excluded from their coverage.

And many right wingers have picked up the baton and run with it.

Do you believe that responsible adults should also pay for conditions brought on by smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy foods?
Or do you single out only 'sexual' activities, and if so, why?


Not a fair polling question.... Choice B should be along the lines of Should the Tax Payer or Insurance Providers be responsible for funding a woman's recreational sex activities?


What about recreational drinking or smoking?
Should insurance providers be responsible for funding conditions brought on by those things?
They do it all the time, and without any controversy.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:07 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #8

Common tactic with misty. Expand and try to conflate ones opinion to other topics of discussion. And yes, if you eat at mcdonalds 5 days a week, smoke a pack a day, and drink to excess then yeah, you should pay your own higher rates, Are we going to return to the topic now? Or will chase me around to play gotcha all day long?


You say you should pay higher rates if you eat unhealthy foods, smoke a pack a day, and drink to excess, not that you should not be covered for conditions brought on by that behavior. You only seem to have that standard when it comes to sexual behavior.

Are we going to return to the topic now? Or will chase me around to play gotcha all day long?


I have better things to do with my time.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:08 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #14

Add third option; couples must practice pulling out


You know what you call people who use the withdrawal method of BC?
Parents.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:08 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #16

Misty, the reason you are paying higher rates is so you are covered ya idiot.


Where under the ACA does it say you have to pay higher rates if you smoke, drink or eat unhealthy foods?

Plus, you are the one following me around.


Don't flatter yourself.
In case you haven't noticed, this is my thread Zippy.
You are the one showing up in my threads, not the other way around.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:08 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #20

Typical troll bulls*** trying to divert attention from Obama's violation of Americans' religious liberty.


So does that religious liberty only apply to certain religions Pumpkin?

Should a for-profit corporation owned by a devout Jehovah's Witness be able to refuse to cover blood transfusions?
Should employers who practice certain fundamentalist factions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam be exempt from covering vaccinations for their employees?
Should a for-profit corporation owned by a Scientologist be allowed to exclude psychiatry and drugs associated with psychiatry from their employees' coverage?

C'mon Puss. You believe in religious liberty for all religions right?

By that standard a Christian Scientist employer can deny coverage for any medical treatment and only cover prayer. LOL

Repeat after me, troll. 12% real unemployment and a collapsing health care plan. :D


Repeat after me Kitten. Governor Terry McAuliffe. :D

God....not this topic again???


Did someone twist your arm and force you to click on this thread?


Looks like we have a new Rayj.
13z8nmc.jpg

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:09 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #23

I thought you were asking me my opinion. Not what the ACA says.


Honestly I didn't know what you meant when you said this:

Misty, the reason you are paying higher rates is so you are covered ya idiot.


Who did you mean by 'you'? Me?

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:09 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #24

I wanted to vote no, and then I thought I might as well post "God....not this topic again???".....


Actually this topic was started with my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek, but some people have no sense of humor.

It is true though that every time the subject of whether contraception should be included as a regular part of women's health care coverage comes up, the slut shaming that takes place is overwhelming.

I've never seen so much backwards thinking when it comes to women and sex.
It seems like they think that the only women who are sexually active are sluts and prostitutes.

To the extent that any of these backwards thinkers are married, I feel sorry for their wives.

Sex is a normal, natural and healthy part of life.
They seem to associate it with a great deal of shame.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:11 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: Flying Monkeys - A Misty Joint: post #3962

After Cuccinelli Loss, Conservatives Suddenly Realize Campaign Spending Is a Problem

Tuesday, as he conceded defeat in the Virginia governor's race, Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Virginia) told supporters that he had come closer than polls had indicated "despite being outspent by an unprecedented $15 million."

But while he and his conservative supporters now lament that money cost them the victory they felt they deserved, they have long been the defenders of the system of campaign finance non-regulation in Virginia and nationally.

Conservative groups like the Center for Competitive Politics have long argued that "money doesnt buy elections."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), whose own political action committee gave $5,000 to Cuccinelli's campaign, has for years advocated for an end to limits on campaign contributions,
believing "money is speech."

While the 2010 Citizens United ruling weakened federal contribution limits, Virginia has long been one of a handful of states with no limits whatsoever. The only restriction Cuccinelli supported over his time in the state senate was on contributions from foreign nationals.


Be careful what you wish for.
It may come back to bite you in the ass.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:12 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #32

Jesus Christ. This chick is so thin skinned. You is generic. It isn't always about you.


I am not thin skinned.
Your post made no sense.

Yes, sex is a natural, healthy part of life. That does not mean that others have to pay for someone else's activities. One can fck once a year or 700 times. It is still that person's responsibility, not mine or others.


If it's a natural healthy part of life, then why shouldn't contraception be considered a routine part of health care coverage?
Why do you single out sexual activity from activities like smoking or drinking?

Do you still think I'm following you? :ph34r:



User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:13 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #34

So does that religious liberty only apply to certain religions Pumpkin?

Should a for-profit corporation owned by a devout Jehovah's Witness be able to refuse to cover blood transfusions?
Should employers who practice certain fundamentalist factions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam be exempt from covering vaccinations for their employees?
Should a for-profit corporation owned by a Scientologist be allowed to exclude psychiatry and drugs associated with psychiatry from their employees' coverage?

C'mon Puss. You believe in religious liberty for all religions right?

By that standard a Christian Scientist employer can deny coverage for any medical treatment and only cover prayer. LOL


blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

Changing the tax deductability from businesses to individuals would give Americans the freedom to choose whatever health insurance plan they want.

If they want coverage for brain transplants, as I'd recommend you get, they could get it. :D

Making the entire issue moot and making it unnecessary for Obama to violate Americans Constitutional rights.


As usual your post was non-responsive to my questions.
What's it gonna be Pumpkin?

Religious liberty for ALL religions, or only the ones you like?

Misty: Do you still think I'm following you?


If you are not you can follow me and put that contraceptive coverage to good use. wink wink


No thanks. My insurance may not cover treatment for STD's. ;) ;)



User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:13 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: Will Repubs win the Senate next year?: post #53

Misty, on 09 Nov 2013 - 12:50, said:
Not one Tea Party group was denied tax free status, or hindered from operating, so how were they 'squelched'?


Bulls***. There was enough harassment and intimidation that they couldn't raise funds, even get officers.


I don't suppose you have a source for that, that is not a right wing opinion piece?
The IRS was suddenly inundated with applications for tax free status by groups that were clearly political, most of them right wing.
They had every right to scrutinize those applications.

As well as being prevented from getting tax free status.


The only group actually denied tax-exempt status was a progressive one.

Can't you even tell believable lies?


Pot, meet kettle.

User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:13 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: The Slut Shaming Of Sexually Active Women: post #36

Eating & shelter is also a normal part of life - should someone who works hard to provide food & shelter for their family, also be responsible for some worthless lazy 2nd - 3rd generation welfareshiit who chooses not to?


And this relates to this topic how?

What do you expect me to say that yes, someone who works hard to provide food & shelter for their family, also should be responsible for some worthless lazy 2nd - 3rd generation welfare shit who chooses not to?

Because I guess that would be the logical conclusion to my feeling that contraception should be a routine part of a woman's health care coverage. If you're a nut maybe.

0004.gif



User avatar
Posted by Misty
11 Nov 2013, 1:14 am

Misty Senior Moderator
User avatar
Senior Moderator

Posts: 15992
Reply to: Flying Monkeys - A Misty Joint: post #3964

I have no problem with the amount of money spent by the dems. That was not the problem. The problem was the establishment republican would not spend enough. Hell, they spent tremendously more on Christie who did not need it. What a waste. These guys are supposed to be setting financial policy in DC and they come up with a plan like this? They are as bad as the dems, Spend money where it is not needed.


So who is following whom on this forum? :closedeyes: