Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Your religious liberty is perfectly safe. If you work for an employer whose faith dictates that contraceptives are the spawn of Satan, said employer will not have to provide contraceptive coverage. The insurance company will.

You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.

You are not paying attention if that's what it appears like to you.

he's ok with the government requiring an employer that provides non-religious services to to pay for something for it's employees that the employer stakeholders find disagreeable.

I'm just not impressed that anybody's religious freedoms are actually violated. No more than a Quaker's are violated when paying for war, or a Christian Scientist when paying medicare taxes.

There is a difference between violating a person's religious freedom, and offending their sense of morality. Outside of the clergy, the prohibition against contraception is widely ignored among Catholics.

The rules against contraception aren't exactly divine law, either. The Church allows and endorses the natural family planning, including fertiilty awareness, which has perfect use efficiency close to that of condoms. Which raises, in my mind, a pretty obvious question: why can't we just use the stuff that's easier and more effective?

Which is why Catholics, as a rule, don't take that stuff to seriously.

biccat wrote:I'm a far right social conservative?

Near as I can tell. We can do a full questionnaire if you dispute that assessment.

Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?

Yup.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Certainly not. I would never dream of saying social conservatives stand opposed to tyranny.

Must be an interesting world you live in then.

It's a pretty depressing one, actually. Social conservatives stand against tyranny from the left - largely by shouting angrily on the internet - but they're just fine with theocratic tyranny, so long as it's their particular theology backing up the tyrannizing.

biccat wrote:You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.

What is the government requiring you to do that your religious beliefs prohibit, pray tell?

If I found a religion that prohibits individuals from paying taxes or obeying traffic laws, will you be right there to back them up, screaming your head off about religious liberty?

Polonius wrote:I'm just not impressed that anybody's religious freedoms are actually violated. No more than a Quaker's are violated when paying for war, or a Christian Scientist when paying medicare taxes.

There's a difference between paying taxes and buying insurance. Taxes are a general expense that you pay to the government who decides how that money is allocated.

Insurance requires purchasing specific items and paying based on those items.

i'd wager that the birth control used to prevent ovarian cysts would be stronger than regular anti baby pills... I'd wager then it'd cost more than regular birth control so it could be $50 a month after tax that brings it to close to $3k a year....

I'm not seeing how she lied if she rounded up a little.

BUT

That being said i'm not a medical person, nor do i take the pill

We also don't have access to her friends medical records or costs but i'd say a range of $1000-$3000 is a reasonable range for these costs to be in.

Its not like the actual cost was 42.2 million total and she said it was $200 million a day... that would be lies

Seaward wrote:Near as I can tell. We can do a full questionnaire if you dispute that assessment.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Seaward wrote:

Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?

Yup.

Forwarded to moderators for further discussion.

Seaward wrote:but they're just fine with theocratic tyranny

I'm fine with theocratic tyranny now? Wow, that's a new one.

Seaward wrote:What is the government requiring you to do that your religious beliefs prohibit, pray tell?

Providing contraceptives to women.

Well, not my religious beliefs, but the religious beliefs of others.

I happen to think that it's a problem when the government violates others' rights.

Seaward wrote:If I found a religion that prohibits individuals from paying taxes or obeying traffic laws, will you be right there to back them up, screaming your head off about religious liberty?

I would argue that those are laws of general applicability that serve a compelling government interest. The purpose and effect of the laws also do not substantially burden religious belief.

Plus, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that such religious beliefs are sincerely held, rather than simply being concocted to oppose certain laws.

biccat wrote:
Providing contraceptives to women.

Well, not my religious beliefs, but the religious beliefs of others.

I happen to think that it's a problem when the government violates others' rights.

Plus, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that such religious beliefs are sincerely held, rather than simply being concocted to oppose certain laws.

biccat wrote:Then you haven't been paying attention.

I have. That you don't like the label for your positions is on you.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:but they're just fine with theocratic tyranny

I'm fine with theocratic tyranny now? Wow, that's a new one.

As long as it's the right strand, sure. Likely other forms of tyranny as well. I dunno, though, I wasn't around to see how you responded to some of the previous administration's shredding of the Bill of Rights.

Providing contraceptives to women.

That's funny, I've seen no legislation at all requiring you to personally hand out contraceptives to women. I've seen legislation requiring you to buy health insurance. That's probably unconstitutional. Say, I bet you could make that case and nip this whole thing in the bud, as I've been saying from the start.

I would argue that those are laws of general applicability that serve a compelling government interest. The purpose and effect of the laws also do not substantially burden religious belief.

Plus, I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that such religious beliefs are sincerely held, rather than simply being concocted to oppose certain laws.

How dare you tell me, a devout follower of Theus, as real a deity as any other, how deeply important or unimportant the running of stop signs is to the proper worship of the Pentavirate? And how dare you suggest Theus' divine word is simply a scheme to avoid reckless drivings summons? The intolerance towards religion you're displaying is disturbing. If I wasn't on my way to set up the celebratory diorama on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I'd have more to say.

1) Rush calls woman a slut and a prostitute for behaving in a way with 90+% of all other women her age.
2) People object to this.
3) biccat defends Rush by calling the woman a liar and then comes out to make reference to liberals being bad because of Breitbart?
4) People ask biccat to show where she lied. He fails to do so.
5) Conversation goes on as biccat continuously humiliates himself with stupid comments.
6) biccat victimizes himself because he believes people should just accept his stupid, bigoted, and insipid comments.
7) biccat confuses with "freedom of religion" with "religion is free to impose its will on people".
8) Profit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, biccat, I'm hoping Empire gets a new army book so I can get a $50 box set for that army after I win our bet and Obama crushes Romney. <3


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, hey, I forgot to mention this whole hilarious part.

Remember when Rush Limbaugh was caught with Viagra that wasn't prescribed to him?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html

Oh, wait, crap, he was coming from the Dominican Republic. I bet he used all that Viagra on the sandy beaches of the Dominican Republic. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the Dominican Republic having a despicable sex tourism industry.

I'm sure these two facts have nothing to do with one another.

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:Then you haven't been paying attention.

I have. That you don't like the label for your positions is on you.

I don't have a problem with social conservatives. I disagree with them, but I don't have a problem with them.

The problem here is that I'm not a social conservative, any more than you're a Fascist.

Seaward wrote:As long as it's the right strand, sure. Likely other forms of tyranny as well. I dunno, though, I wasn't around to see how you responded to some of the previous administration's shredding of the Bill of Rights.

Your insight into my (unexpressed) political views is amazing.

Wrong, but amazing nonetheless.

Seaward wrote:That's funny, I've seen no legislation at all requiring you to personally hand out contraceptives to women.

So you agree that legislation requiring me to personally hand out contraception would be a violation of religious liberty?

What's the difference between that and requiring me to pay for said contraception?

What about if, instead of paying for it, I have to hire someone else who pays for it?

Seaward wrote:I've seen legislation requiring you to buy health insurance. That's probably unconstitutional. Say, I bet you could make that case and nip this whole thing in the bud, as I've been saying from the start.

I could, you're right. However, this is a separate issue. If Obamacare is constitutional, this action still might be unconstitutional.

Seaward wrote:How dare you tell me, a devout follower of Theus, as real a deity as any other, how deeply important or unimportant the running of stop signs is to the proper worship of the Pentavirate? And how dare you suggest Theus' divine word is simply a scheme to avoid reckless drivings summons? The intolerance towards religion you're displaying is disturbing. If I wasn't on my way to set up the celebratory diorama on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, I'd have more to say.

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of your beliefs, I'm questioning your sincerity.

frgsinwntr wrote:*spam*

You forgot "Maidens that have paid me money." It's a core tenet of liberalism that the only people who disagree with them are being paid by evil corporations. Or, in this case, churches.

biccat wrote:You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.

This has always been an interesting point for me. My interpretation was always that if an employer asked someone to do something that was in their employment contract, they should do it or find another job. There's nothing stopping anyone from opening a "Christian pharmacy," quite frankly. The whole business about someone not dispensing a morning after pill, when it's a very time-sensitive issue kind of makes me wonder why they chose that profession in the first place.

biccat wrote:
There's a difference between paying taxes and buying insurance. Taxes are a general expense that you pay to the government who decides how that money is allocated.

Insurance requires purchasing specific items and paying based on those items.

Neither of those statements are true.

The state, ostensibly, collects taxes in order to fund specific enterprises. Obviously, as should be clear by the use of the word "ostensibly", funds are shifted around as politically necessary.

Similarly, while insurance companies charge for particular policies, funds are shifted around as necessary in order to maintain a profit margin. If they were not, the entire concept of insurance would amount to little more than charity. You pay for a particular type of coverage, but what your money actually contributes to is not at all your decision. You are, in essence, contributing to a general fund.

Hence the idea that, if Holy Mother Church really hated birth control, Holy Mother Church would be excoriating Blue Cross Blue Shield.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?

Yup.

Forwarded to moderators for further discussion.

I'm not a moderator, but considering some of the things you've said in this thread you have very little room to complain.

You effectively implied that anyone who doesn't oppose the birth control mandate is in favor of tyranny, and a useful idiot.

biccat wrote:
You appear to be OK with the government requiring me to do things that my religious beliefs might prohibit. If that's your definition of religious liberty...well, you should sit down and think about it for a minute.

So, to be clear, murder should be perfectly alright so long as there exists a fatwa endorsing it?

Or are Muslims that adhere to the fatwas of radical clerics not religious?

Dogma, just let it go; he likes to argue, it comes with the profession.

As I pointed out earlier i the thread; even the current Pope doesn't have a huge problem with BC as he calls them a "lesser evil" and the Catholic Church convened at least two committees which both recommended a softer stance on the issue.

Obama backed down and allowed a face saving measure for the church which was accepted by a large number of the governing bodies, now it's just the fat, old white guys that have a problem with it (whatever that Bishop's group is).

The fact of the matter is, we all pay for things that we may not agree with. I personally think food stamps and welfare in general is blight. I lived in two countries that had a more common sense (in my eyes) stance on the matter than the US does, just dolling out aid willy-nilly. You pay taxes, your tax dollars go to provide medical services for much more reprehensible things than BC so that the system doesn't become even more taxed.

The thing I never got about this whole thing is the "government is forcing me to do something that's against my religion". As I stated earlier, this is just showboating and hiding behind a religion to make easy political points. If they were so concerned; they would be demanding the cessation of war since, you know, the whole "thou shall not kill" thing being one of the major tenants of the religion, even more so than BC I would imagine. Besides, Christians break the laws of their religion every day; if they lived by the bible, they'd live in caves and go around flagellating themselves.

I even proved that Catholic organizations are already abiding by more than several state laws that require BC coverage and have been doing it for some time without a whimper.

No, this is just politics at it's usual worst and cherry picking what someone is going to be irate about.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:This has always been an interesting point for me. My interpretation was always that if an employer asked someone to do something that was in their employment contract, they should do it or find another job. There's nothing stopping anyone from opening a "Christian pharmacy," quite frankly. The whole business about someone not dispensing a morning after pill, when it's a very time-sensitive issue kind of makes me wonder why they chose that profession in the first place.

There are a lot of Christian pharmacies. But there are rules that require pharmacies to stock certain types of drugs, but generally include an exception for religious views - Catholic organizations can't be required to stock abortion drugs, but would have to refer people elsewhere.

There was a minor issue a few years ago when Washington, at the urging of Planned Parenthood, withdrew the religious exemption allowing pharmacies to refer out instead of stocking Plan B. The State of Washington eventually lost that fight.

biccat wrote:I don't have a problem with social conservatives. I disagree with them, but I don't have a problem with them.

On what do you disagree with them?

biccat wrote:Your insight into my (unexpressed) political views is amazing.

You've expressed quite a few political views. That they all unerringly line up with social conservative political positions is, once again, hardly my fault.

What's the difference between that and requiring me to pay for said contraception?

You're not paying for said contraception. An insurance provider is. I assume you have health insurance; I have no idea who you're with, but some insurance companies provide coverage for abortions. If you're with such an insurance company, are you paying for abortions?

Was my religious liberty violated when my tax dollars went to faith-based initiatives? Was your reaction as zealous?

I'm not questioning the legitimacy of your beliefs, I'm questioning your sincerity.

And I take it I'm free to question the religious sincerity of anyone arguing against contraception coverage in insurance plans. If I can label them all as insincere, their religious liberty can't possibly have been violated, and thus there is no issue of religious liberty violation.

Excellent. Proceed.

I figured that a "ditto" head would have posted this already.
Elrushbo backed down and said "sorry" for his choice of words to the young lady.
He apparently lost 6 advertisers, and made the appology online this weekend. Funny
how the "bootomline" can affect a strongly held conviction.....

alarmingrick wrote:I figured that a "ditto" head would have posted this already.
Elrushbo backed down and said "sorry" for his choice of words to the young lady.
He apparently lost 6 advertisers, and made the appology online this weekend. Funny
how the "bootomline" can affect a strongly held conviction.....

Were they 6 big advertisers?

I'm actually kinda interested, seeing as how Rush doesn't really stick his foot in his mouth all too often.

Chowderhead wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:I figured that a "ditto" head would have posted this already.
Elrushbo backed down and said "sorry" for his choice of words to the young lady.
He apparently lost 6 advertisers, and made the appology online this weekend. Funny
how the "bootomline" can affect a strongly held conviction.....

Were they 6 big advertisers?

I'm actually kinda interested, seeing as how Rush doesn't really stick his foot in his mouth all too often.

I just caught a blurb on MSNBC earlier while doing laundry.
I'll see what I can find.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017661067.html

Here you go.

I'd say Carbonite was a big one.

"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."

Biccat, you're a lawyer, right?

Is this Sexual Harrasment?

Chowderhead wrote:

"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."

Biccat, you're a lawyer, right?

Is this Sexual Harrasment?

No, that's negotiating for the public interest. Then someone smart makes it so you have to watch the videos as they are posted instead of picking and choosing; and make sure there's lots of man in man action using publically purchased condoms.
There you go Rush; be careful what you wish for.

AustonT wrote:. Then someone smart makes it so you have to watch the videos as they are posted instead of picking and choosing; and make sure there's lots of man in man action using publically purchased condoms.
There you go Rush; be careful what you wish for.

Maybe that's what he is really wanting?

AustonT wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.

Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.

And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!

Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.

That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!

You would think if you were allergic to latex you would have figured out they make balloons out of Mylar and sell them at the 99c store.

Yeah, well I don't really care about balloons that much so I didn't bother to found a place in my town that sold the mylar ones. Condoms and band-aids are the only things that kinda bother me, and even then not that much. I mean, the latex-free ones just cost a bit more.

Chowderhead wrote:

"If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke," Limbaugh said. "And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we're getting for our money."

Biccat, you're a lawyer, right?

Is this Sexual Harrasment?

Nope.

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:I don't have a problem with social conservatives. I disagree with them, but I don't have a problem with them.

On what do you disagree with them?

A lot of things, actually.

Seaward wrote:You're not paying for said contraception. An insurance provider is. I assume you have health insurance; I have no idea who you're with, but some insurance companies provide coverage for abortions. If you're with such an insurance company, are you paying for abortions?

If the service is covered and I'm paying premiums - yes.

Seaward wrote:Was my religious liberty violated when my tax dollars went to faith-based initiatives?

Nope.

Seaward wrote:And I take it I'm free to question the religious sincerity of anyone arguing against contraception coverage in insurance plans. If I can label them all as insincere, their religious liberty can't possibly have been violated, and thus there is no issue of religious liberty violation.

You can question their sincerity, but there should be some reason why you're questioning it.

biccat wrote:

Seaward wrote:Was my religious liberty violated when my tax dollars went to faith-based initiatives?

Nope.

I'm curious as to what you think religious liberty is.

biccat wrote:You can question their sincerity, but there should be some reason why you're questioning it.

There have been several pages establishing the reasons to question the sincerity of the religious objection presented by Catholic Bishops, several presented by Catholics.

LoneLictor wrote:

AustonT wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.

Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.

And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!

Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.

That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!

You would think if you were allergic to latex you would have figured out they make balloons out of Mylar and sell them at the 99c store.

Yeah, well I don't really care about balloons that much so I didn't bother to found a place in my town that sold the mylar ones. Condoms and band-aids are the only things that kinda bother me, and even then not that much. I mean, the latex-free ones just cost a bit more.

/cries in all caps
/says he doesn't care

biccat wrote: If you really want to see some political hatred, check out what the left said about Breitbart over the past few days.

Manufactured outrage is awesome.

Breitbart is an iinteresting figure, because the people rushing to defend him and acting "outraged" at people that have spoken ill of him despite his death really seem to havent spent much time reading his work or what he himself advocated and practiced.

Breitbart has a large body of public quotes and statements in which he prided himself on as he put it "making enemies" and "stiring the pot".

The things he himself said about Ted Kennedy within minutes of Kennedy's death ( before the body was even cold) are just as salacious and intentionally harsh as ANYTHING said about Breitbart.

In fact Breitbart made it pretty clear that he did not think the recently deceased deserved any special protection or "hands off" period as far as criticism of them was concerned. Which makes the manufactured outrage that so many (including some people right here) pretended to have seem rather short-sighted and ill-placed.

Breitbart wore criticism of himself as a badge of honor, even retweeting what his detractors said about him and posting their quotes on his various blogs and sites.

Breitbart was someone who lived to tell people exactly what he thought of others at all times, and was not a hypocrit in expecting and allowing others to do same about him.

Too bad this fact is lost on so many who rushed to defend someone who didnt ask to be defended when he was alive nor dead...

AustonT wrote:
/cries in all caps
/says he doesn't care

Well, when ya put it that way I sound kinda stupid. But here's my stance on latex allergies.

1. It sux.
2. It could be worse.

Which is pretty much my stance on everything.

And I'm still left waiting for the day that movement conservatism hits rock bottom, and people start saying 'wait a minute, if we have to defend this bs I'd rather be doing something else'.

Here we are at a new low, Limbaugh calling some random girl a slut, and yet the usual suspects aren't embaressed enough to start thinking about moving away from such a crass, hatefilled political movement. I really have to wander how much further there is to fall.

biccat wrote:Of course, if Georgetown has to cover the expense for birth control, her insurance is going to go up. What she's really asking for is a gender-based tax and subsidy - most women will get the pill, but only have to pay half the cost in increased premiums. Men will pay increased premiums but won't get any advantage.

Except, of course, the guy has sex with a girl who can't get pregnant. For people who don't have some bizarre hatred of sex, and also think it is a good thing to be able to choose when and with whom you want to have children, then this is plainly a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:That is the problem. It is not a right.
Why should I be forced to go against my beliefs (an ACTUAL right) so that someone else doesn't have to fund their own optional medical choices?
If I don't pay for your birth-control, does that make it impossible for you to get it? No. You just have to pay for it yourself.
What a shocking idea! Pay for something you want!

Bottom line, is it essential for your health? No. Humans live just fine without it. It may limit you on how you decide to live your life. But you will not die without it.

And this is where the ideology of free choice runs smack bang into the problem of social benefit. We know society functions, and we know that people have sex whether they can access birth control or not. And we know that it is bad, for society and for the child, when a pregnancy is unplanned.

So we can consider the absolute importance of free choice and making the person who uses a thing pay for it and base that and all other decision upon it, or we can consider the benefit to all of society by allowing every person to have sex without the risk of an unplanned pregnancy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:No, it actually isn't.

I disagree with Gen. Lee Losing here, but you're just making things up.

Protip: Google what "optional" means.

He isn't. If a thing is simply left up to those who can afford it, then there is no right to it if you don't have the money. So, for instance, if alarmingrick couldn't afford to pay for the pill, his child would be without it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:But why make someone else pay for it? And not just any someone else... but someone who opposes the very idea of it?
Your daughter has a medical need. I wont stand in your way, but why should I foot the bill? I don't know you. You are not chipping in for my wife's care.

Because healthcare doesn't fit at all well with the assumptions needed for a free market, and as such simply leaving it up to 'user pays' is almost certain to produce a sub-optimal result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Either you don't know about the Catholic objection to contraceptives or you have no idea of the concept of religious freedom.

California law right now is exactly like the proposed Federal law. Rick Warren has happily operating his ministry in California under this very same system, paying for the contraception methods of his employees, and never raised one second of protest. Now that this is being proposed as Federal law he's claiming he'd rather go to jail than tolerate such a system.

And so when we consider how to describe outrage and calls for civil disobedience suddenly appearing from people who worked under that system without raising one second of protest before, the best description has to be manufactured outrage.


And you really, really ought to know about Warren's hypocrisy, given that I started a thread explaining that hypocrisy, and that you posted in that thread. But you either failed to read, or simply chose to ignore it, in order to continue towing the line of movement conservatism.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zakiriel wrote:Pay for your own birth control. Take responsibility for your own actions. Don't be a brood mare for the state.

Deep down, you know that's complete gibberish, don't you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Yep thats what I want, a President stooping to getting into an argument with radio blah blah guy. I guess now that he's solved the economy, the budget crisis, driven up gasoline prices to desired levels, the Euro crisis, and Iran he can now get around to the more mundane things. Oh wait...

Yeah, a President should remain outside of political dialogue, especially when it relates to debate over major policy he personally has staked most of his administration on passing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

biccat wrote:Edit: just to make sure: when you referred to "moonbats" up thread, were you referring to social conservatives?

Yup.

moonbats v wingnuts is a rivalry from the days of the dinosaur, noone can understand it......
(except maybe Frazz! )

So far Limbaugh has lost 2 stations(dropping his show) and 12 advertisers. And I've been hearing talk of
him being dropped by AFR(Armed Forces Radio). Nice to see his mouth finally draw it's desreved payback.

sebster wrote:
I find it's generally the fringe left that gets called moonbats. The fringe right gets called wingnuts. I don't know why.

But no one gets called a moonnut.

Does that seem right to you?

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
I find it's generally the fringe left that gets called moonbats. The fringe right gets called wingnuts. I don't know why.

But no one gets called a moonnut.

Does that seem right to you?

Everyone knows there's no interbreeding.