Tonight on “The David Goldstein Show”, 7PM to 10PM on Newsradio 710-KIRO:
7PM: Should pharmacists be required to, um, you know… do their job?
New state rules went into effect this week requiring pharmacies to fill valid prescriptions, and several pharmacists immediately sued, claiming dispensing some forms of birth control would violate their religious beliefs. NARAL/Pro-Choice Washington Executive Direct Karen Cooper joins me for the hour to discuss this and other threats to women’s reproductive rights.
8PM: Should felons have the right to vote?
The state Supreme Court this week upheld WA’s felon voter laws, some of the most restrictive in the nation. Aaron Kaplan from the ACLU and Assistant Secretary of State Nick Handy join me to discuss what impact of laws that have permanently disenfranchised over 160,000 Washingtonians and one-quarter of the state’s African American men.
9PM: TBA
Tune in tonight (or listen to the live stream) and give me a call: 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
PROGRAMMING NOTE:
I’ll be filling in for Frank Shiers this week, Monday through Friday, 9PM to 1AM. Join me Monday at 9PM when Brian Robinson from Save Our Sonics, and Chris Van Dyk from Citizens for More Important Things join me to discuss their strange new alliance.
If a pharmacist really feels obliged to question a prescription signed by a patient’s physician on any basis other than an obvious mistake that would endanger the patient, than that pharmacist is overstepping the authority of his or her license and should consider changing professions.
Would it be “fair” to hire Jehovah’s Witnesses to work at the blood bank?
This is stupid.
Let the pharmacist get a job digging ditches if they don’t want to do the job they trained for. Once we get a super majority in the state government, we should not only require these Bible-thumpin’ assholes to do their job, but we should use the Publican’s favorite tool to make sure they comply – send the motherfuckers to jail if they don’t do it right – and three strikes – you’re out – life in prison. Let them taste their own medicine.
I thought this suit was brought by the pharmacy owner.
My view is basically this.
1)A pharmacy owner is fully justified in not stocking this birth control item if he chooses not too.
2)If a pharmacist doesn’t want to fill prescriptions for this birth control item, he/she ought to seek employment from a pharmacy that shares his/her value set.
disenfranchised over 160,000
The only people responsible for “disenfranchising” are the felons who committed these crimes in the first place. Their rights can be resored when they fullfill the terms of their sentences.
So the only way they can’t vote is if they don’t fullfill the terms of their sentences. They are in control of their own destiny….And the argument that this is some kind of “poll tax” or unfair to the “poor” doesn’t work here, IMHO. These folks made the choices that they did….committed and were convicted of felonies. They have no one to blame but themselves.
A pharamcist that refuses to dispense prescribed medications to a patient on moral grounds should be given the right to do so, but only if the law compels that pharmacist to refer the patient to someone who will. A pharmacist who not only refuses to dispense, but then refuses to refer the patient to another pharmacist should be relieved of his duties. Enough violations, and said pharmacist should have his license revoked permanently.
Isn’t this a no brainer?
If your beliefs are inconsistent with the job, you do not qualify.
The issue with “small” pharmacies may be harder. Doi these still exist? Since all pharmacies are licensed, and make their $$ off of the license, why can’t the state describe what the requirements for a license might be?
This could get worse as more drugs become elective.
Welll…..
This is not so obvious.
If ex prisoners should have the automatic right to vote, what is the logic of removing that right in jail?
OTOH why should VOTING as opposed to all other rights not be restored? The implication is that we require people to pay to vote. That makes no sense.
I can see it now – a doctor from India decides that since you had beef for lunch yesterday, he won’t perform emergency procedures on you because it violates his religion – what next? Will these right wing fucks let anyone claim any religious belief to stop them from having to do their jobs? No, probably only if THEY agree with the religion.
Publicans don’t want ANYONE to vote, felon or not. They work as hard as they can to stop people from voting because all the stats agree – most people are Democrats. If you’re a Publican, you have to rely on low turnout (or outright fraud) to win.
What ArtFart said. Pharmacists are not doctors, and aren’t licensed to practice medicine.
“If your beliefs are inconsistent with the job, you do not qualify.”
Well said. Get a different job if your beliefs stop you from, you know, DOING YOUR JOB. The state issues the license, they should revoke it for not filling valid prescriptions.
I am so sick of these nazi assholes. Jerk their licence if they don’t want to fill a valid perscription! I live in Olympia and won’t do business with either grocery store these jerks own. If this isn’t stopped what’s going to happen when it’s the only pharmacy in some small town?
@3 How about if we pass a law making all Republicans wear swastikas so liberal-owned businesses can refuse to serve them?
(Personally, I’m against that. I don’t political beliefs should play any part in whether a business serves a customer, or how it serves them.)
I don’t have a big problem with the current felon disenfranchisement law. Fewer votes for Rossi is fine with me.
@12 You raise a compelling point. In a big city, there’s often another pharmacy a few blocks down the street; but in small towns there usually isn’t enough business to support more than one pharmacy, and if that pharmacist is allowed to refuse to fill a prescription because of his/her personal beliefs, the customer may have to travel many miles to another pharmacy — or, more likely, do without.
What the Dingbats! want, of course, is to impose the pharmacist’s personal beliefs on the customers, thereby making the pharmacist the sole arbiter of whether people for miles around can use birth control pills or not.
They don’t like it when Hugo Chavez is a dictator, but they’re all for pharmacists being dictators. Go figure. Fucking hypocrites.
Should grocery stores be allowed to refuse to sell food to Muslims?
Here’s a topic suggestion for the 9 PM time slot:
DOES CONGRESS HAVE POWER TO IMPEACH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL?
According to Daily Kos, Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California’s 10th C.D. doesn’t think so. She says,
“The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president in a non-impeachable office. Unless convicted of an illegal act, the Attorney General cannot be removed from office without the president asking for or accepting his resignation.”
Nonsense! As DK points out, Article II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution provides:
“The President, Vice President AND ALL CIVIL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (emphasis added)
Tauscher’s ignorance of the Constitution (and of the proper role of a congressperson in overseeing the executive branch) is, as DK says, an “embarrassment.” It’s exactly what you expect of a damn fool Republican.
Problem is, Tauscher is a Democrat. And with Democrats like her wasting space in Congress, who needs Republicans? I mean, if we can’t even get congresspeople of our own fucking party to read the goddam Constitution, what hope is there of ever getting any Republicans to respect it?
As DK laments, “Sometimes it turns out that the people whose job it is to know these things don’t know s#*t.”
Would everyone on this board please go to Rep. Tauscher’s website right now and e-mail her a 10-second course on Constitutional Law 101? Thanks for your help.
Even if Democratic congresswoman E. Tauscher can’t get it right, we can take comfort in knowing there’s at least one law professor in these United States who can:
“He’s Impeachable, You Know
“By FRANK BOWMAN
“If Alberto Gonzales will not resign, Congress should impeach him. Article II of the Constitution grants Congress the power to impeach ‘the president, the vice president and all civil officers of the United States.’ The phrase ‘civil officers’ includes the members of the cabinet (one of whom, Secretary of War William Belknap, was impeached in 1876).
” … [T]he power to impeach is at bottom a tool granted Congress to defend the constitutional order. Mr. Gonzales’s behavior in the United States attorney affair is of a piece with his role as facilitator of this administration’s claims of unreviewable executive power. A cabinet officer, like a judge or a president, may be impeached only for commission of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ But as the Nixon and Clinton impeachment debates reminded us, that constitutional phrase embraces not only indictable crimes but ‘conduct … grossly incompatible with the office held and subversive of that office and of our constitutional system of government.’
“United States attorneys, though subject to confirmation by the Senate, serve at the pleasure of the president. As a constitutional matter, the president is at perfect liberty to fire all or some of them whenever it suits him. He can fire them for … failing to pursue administration priorities with sufficient vigor, or even … to replace an incumbent with a political crony. …
“That the president has the constitutional power to do these things does not mean he has the right to do them without explanation. Congress has the right to demand explanations …. The right of Congress to demand explanations imposes on the president, and on inferior executive officers who speak for him, the obligation to be truthful. An attorney general called before Congress to discuss the workings of the Justice Department can claim the protection of ‘executive privilege’ …. But having elected to testify, he has no right to lie ….
“[L]ying to Congress has always been understood to be an impeachable offense. As James Iredell … said in 1788 during the debate over the impeachment clause, ‘The president must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate.’ The same is true of the president’s appointees.
” … Democrats may decide that to impeach Alberto Gonzales would be politically unwise. But before dismissing the possibility of impeachment, Congress should recognize that the issue here goes deeper than the misbehavior of one man. The real question is whether Republicans and Democrats are prepared to defend the constitutional authority of Congress against the implicit claim of an administration that it can do what it pleases ….”
“Frank Bowman is a law professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05.....xprod=digg
For the Daily Kos comment, see http://www.dailykos.com/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: The point that always flies over wingnuts’ heads when they scoff at holding Busheviks accountable for their constitutional, legal, and political excesses is this: Whatever Republicans can do, Democrats will be able to do, too.
Here’s another possible topic for 9 PM:
IS THE SURGE WORKING?
Well, let’s check the U.S. casualty figures to see if “The Surge” is ratcheting down the violence level (as claimed by the administration’s military yes men):
U.S. fatalities in Iraq during the month of July:
July 2007: 77 so far
July 2006: 46
July 2005: 58
July 2004: 58
July 2003: 49
@21 I’d like to find more stocks that go up like that.
Roger Rabbit says:
Should grocery stores be allowed to refuse to sell food to Muslims?
Yes!!!! They are a private business.
The real question should be:
Should we allow liberals to teach the constitution in our public screwels and universities?
The answer is obviously no.
There is precedent for impeaching a cabinet officer. President Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, was impeached for bribery — even though he had already resigned.
RightEqualsStupid@8 said: Nothing relevant to the conversation.
RES, You need sharia law at your “bidness”!
@3 How about if we pass a law making all Republicans wear swastikas so liberal-owned businesses can refuse to serve them?
It would be a lot easier if you libs just put a hammer & sickle symbol on the front of your stores when practicing conservatism. Just a thought.
Here’s another topic suggestion for the 9 PM slot:
HOW DO WE GET CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS TO GROW A BACKBONE?
For starters, they can start by reading the editorial page of an obscure little Nevada newspaper whose opinion writers understand governing a democratic society better than they do:
” … Bush and his associates are at war with the truth. The president’s every utterance … has to be sifted to remove the falsehoods. … Vice President Dick Cheney can’t seem to pass up an open microphone without making up claims out of thin air. And the Attorney General, the person who is in charge of the department that prosecutes people for dishonesty, has become so outrageously dishonest that it’s a wonder he hasn’t been struck by lightning yet.
“What Bush, Gonzales & Co. are learning now is the lesson of the boy who cried wolf, that after having been caught lying so many times, no one believes what they say, not even a sizable chunk of their own party. … That means at a very basic level, they have lost the ability to govern, to carry out policies, and to do the work of the people.
“We no longer have a viable president, vice president or attorney general. They are dead weight, an anchor on the ship of state that prevents moving forward …. If they truly believed in the oath of office they took, they would lock themselves up in prison for the good of the country. But since they are incapable of holding anyone accountable for their actions, they will continue along their merry, destructive way until Congress grows a backbone and impeaches the lot of them.”
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/ar...../107290086
Do you see the theme of my comments here, folks? Before we can deal with the Republican enemies of American democracy, we have to figure out a way to deal with the dead weight in the Democratic Party. Specifically, do-nothing Democratic officeholders. How can we get these bumps-on-a-log to do their jobs?
There’s your theme for 9 PM, Goldy.
Sometimes it takes a newspaper editorialist to help our Congressbumps see things clearly. From the same editorial:
Gonzo’s “testimony leaves only two possible conclusions. Either he is the most incompetent attorney to ever hold a government job, or he is hiding something so shocking and dangerous that he’s willing to purposely destroy his reputation and even risk perjury charges to keep it secret. My bet’s on the latter.”
Publicans don’t want ANYONE to vote, felon or not. They work as hard as they can to stop people from voting because all the stats agree – most people are Democrats. If you’re a Publican, you have to rely on low turnout (or outright fraud) to win.
Tell that to the military. Democrats cheat, and I should know, I have first hand knowledge. roof roof*
* Dog speak for Hehehehehehehe
If that’s not a good enough topic for 9 PM, then how about this one?
“Exclusive: Gangs Spreading In The Military”
“Evidence of gang culture and gang activity in the military is increasing so much an FBI report calls it ‘a threat to law enforcement and national security.'”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....ME_3107316
GANGS IN THE MILITARY? Well, yeah. Add that to the rash of atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq, and you’ve got a picture of an administration that has lost control over its military forces.
Or how about this for a 9 PM topic?
CAN YOU NAME 1 THING THAT BUSH HAS SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED?
Well yeah, I can — the Bush presidency hasn’t been a TOTAL failure. It has accomplished ONE thing: Revitalizing MAD MAGAZINE.
“Sure, MAD has made fun of previous presidents, but never before has a president offered so much to parody and mock …. Sure, everyone from The Daily Show to The Onion has benefited from Bush’s fuck-ups, but MAD’s topped them all with intensity and nerve; some of the funniest, meanest comedy to result from Bush’s presidency has been hidden in a magazine that no one reads anymore.”
http://tinyurl.com/3am4he
How about this for a 9 PM topic?
Orange Fridays — Wear orange every Friday, beginning July 27, to protest the Bush regime’s continuation in power.
http://www.worldcantwait.org/
Or how about this? You could talk about raising money for GOP candidates by charging people to shoot machineguns for kicks. http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2351
Or how about talking about the nincompoop contractors this administration hires dropping a Tomahawk cruise missile in the middle of a busy interstate during rush hour?
http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/59470.php
@23 OK, but if they refuse to sell food to Muslims, their delivery trucks can’t use the publicly-owned streets to transport groceries to their store, and their employees can’t use the publicly-owned streets to get to their jobs. The public DOES have a right to regulate who can use public property, and for what purposes.
Roger Bush is not TOTALLY w/o achievement
1. he pardoned a lot of turkeys
2. some of us think no child left behind is working
3. he pardoned a lot turkeys
4. he has encouraged conservation by causing a huge increase in petrol costs.
5. He has improved out relations with India.
6. he pardoned all those turkeys
7. he built hiself a nice ranch in texas
8. he defeated many republicans in 06.
9. he made a fool of Tony Blair.
10. he created a wilderness area off of hawaii
Not so bad, hmmmmmm.
@36 I do not understand HOW one refuses to sell food to Muslims. Is there a Muslim identity card?
Of course if this were medieval Europe and we were refering only to men and the issue was Jews .. there is the good old drop the pants test.
@30 Ah, yes, the military vote. Publicans don’t want soldiers to vote:
“The Republican National Committee has a special offer for African-American soldiers: Go to Baghdad, lose your vote.
“A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election, virtually all of them cast by residents of Black-majority precincts.
“Files from the secret vote-blocking campaign were obtained by BBC Television Newsnight, London. They were attached to emails accidentally sent by Republican operatives to a non-party website.
“One group of voters wrongly identified by the Republicans as registering to vote from false addresses: servicemen and women sent overseas.
“Here’s how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, ‘Do not forward’, to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as ‘undeliverable.’ The lists of soldiers of ‘undeliverable’ letters were transmitted from state headquarters … to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters’ registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted.
“One target list was comprised exclusively of voters registered at the Jacksonville, Florida, Naval Air Station. … [See this scrub sheet at http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.g.....038;size=o ] …
“A soldier returning home in time to vote in November 2004 could also be challenged on the basis of the returned envelope. Soldiers challenged would be required to vote by ‘provisional’ ballot. Over one million provisional ballots cast in the 2004 race were never counted; over half a million absentee ballots were also rejected. The extraordinary rise in the number of rejected ballots was the result of the widespread multi-state voter challenge campaign by the Republican Party. …
“The BBC obtained several dozen confidential emails sent by the Republican’s national Research Director and Deputy Communications chief, Tim Griffin to GOP Florida campaign chairman Brett Doster and other party leaders. Attached were spreadsheets marked, ‘Caging.xls.’ Each of these contained several hundred to a few thousand voters and their addresses. A check of the demographics of the addresses on the ‘caging lists,’ as the GOP leaders called them indicated that most were in African-American majority zip codes. …
“The Republican National Committee in Washington refused our several requests to respond to the BBC discovery. … The party has refused to say why it would mark soldiers as having ‘bad addresses’ subject to challenge when they had been assigned abroad. …
“Setting up such a challenge list would be a crime under federal law. … While the party insisted the lists were not created for the purpose to challenge Black voters, the GOP ultimately offered no other explanation for the mailings. …
“Soldiers sending in their ballot from abroad would not know their vote was lost because of a challenge.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/jv9nf
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What kind of slime suckers would challenge the votes of soldiers deployed to combat zones? Troop-hating Republican traitors, that’s who. We ought to
put these meatballs on trial and lock them up in cold lockers for violating the civil rights of our soldiers. But protecting these criminals from prosecution is what Gonzales’ perjury is all about, of course.
@38 Wingnuts seem to think they know a “raghead” when they see one.
America needs a Republican Party. We gotta have someplace to put all the nazis, white supremacists, Jesus Freaks, koolaid drinkers, mental defectives, illiterates, trailer trash, and other misfits. We sure as hell don’t want ’em in OUR party!
Roger Rabbit says:
If that’s not a good enough topic for 9 PM, then how about this one?
“Exclusive: Gangs Spreading In The Military”
“Evidence of gang culture and gang activity in the military is increasing so much an FBI report calls it ‘a threat to law enforcement and national security.’”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2007/07/28/eveningnews/main3 107316.shtml?source=RSSattr=HO ME_3107316
GANGS IN THE MILITARY? Well, yeah. Add that to the rash of atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq, and you’ve got a picture of an administration that has lost control over its military forces.
Bird’s Eye View: The Battle for Baqubah
A Tactical Operations Center (TOC) is the headquarters for a unit. Company-level TOCs are the smallest I have seen. A typical infantry company has about a hundred or more soldiers. The commander will normally be a captain. A company-level TOC often consists of a radio and a map, and one person on duty 24/7. It might have a coffee maker, too. In fact, there is a company TOC at the other end of the tent in which I now reside with a company called C-52. C-52 is the smallest company with only 54 men, who all live in this tent with a huge amount of weapons, and great combat experience to back them up [to whit: Superman.]
http://www.michaelyon-online.c.....e-view.htm
Roger you should read the link above to answer if we are making any headway in Iraq. The last time I check the military don’t support street gangs or robbing banks to support the War effort, but you seem to know more about the subject than anyone else on this blog. Now I do get the impression that you really don’t want us to win anywhere in the world on terrorism. That could bring us to the conclusion that you support Al Qaeda and not our troops. Below is something you wouldn’t find in your local newspaper today.
What our people are trying to accomplish here is simple. Simple in the sense that a simply stated goal might be very hard to achieve. After vanquishing al Qaeda (that’s what the Iraqis here call them), the goal is to have no pause in the restoration of services. This is about mental inertia and psychology. The idea is to jump start the people and facilitate their taking responsibility for their communities.
OH I FORGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger is the Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for the Socialist Democrats Party today just like Paul Joseph Goebbels was in Hitler Germany. His Nazi friends taught him the trade when he visited them in jail .
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What kind of slime suckers would challenge the votes of soldiers deployed to combat zones? Troop-hating Republican traitors, that’s who. We ought to
put these meatballs on trial and lock them up in cold lockers for violating the civil rights of our soldiers. But protecting these criminals from prosecution is what Gonzales’ perjury is all about, of course.
Dean Logan did challenge mine twice and lucky I wasn’t overseas in South West Asia at the time. So Roger your friends in King County are willing to commit the same crime.
IMO, if you are a private business, you have every right to determine what goods you offer and to whom. If you are a government entity, however, you have to provide the same level of service to all citizens.
As for the pharmacist question: I don’t know what is required to obtain and maintain a license for that job in this state. Whatever those requirements are, they need to be followed or the license should be revoked. *If* part of holding that license is that the pharmacist must fulfill any lawfully proscribed proscription, then the pharmacist is obligated to do so. If there is no such stipulation, then whether or not the pharmacist fulfills the prescription is between himself and his employer.
Roger Rabbit says:
America needs a Republican Party. We gotta have someplace to put all the nazis, white supremacists, Jesus Freaks, koolaid drinkers, mental defectives, illiterates, trailer trash, and other misfits. We sure as hell don’t want ‘em in OUR party!
Roger they are in your party, did you check the streets of Seattle lately? All of them are sleeping in the srubs except the Republicans they drive home to the East Side.
From Navy Seals.com
http://www.navyseals.com/commu.....fm?id=6536
[Copied text deleted]
46
Oh, I almost forgot.
The left hates the miltary… period.
IMO, if you are a private business, you have every right to determine what goods you offer and to whom.
I see that that whole Civil Rights movement thing left a few children behind.
@46 Chad Miles? Isn’t he the whackjob who ran against John Conyers and took an 85%-to-15% ass-whomping?
http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/el.....14000.html
@47 We’re not the ones killing our soldiers by sending them to war with inferior equipment and no strategy, or taking away their right to vote.
GOP = troop-hating cowards who won’t serve themselves
G. W. Bush — deserted from National Guard
D. Cheney — 5 deferments, never served
Karl Rove – never served
Newt Gingrich – never served
Tom DeLay – never served
Rudy Guiliani – never served
Bill O’Reilly – never served
Rush Limbaugh – never served
Ann Coulter – never served
I wonder how many other Republicans have registered their dogs to vote?
@46 National Defense Committee? Is that a reincarnation of the now-defunct ACVR?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Serial poster Kevin Carns is up to the SOB.*
* same old bullshit
@43 “Dean Logan did challenge mine twice”
Glad to see someone is staying on top of ineligible felon voting!
@44 “IMO, if you are a private business, you have every right to determine what goods you offer and to whom.”
That’s not exactly true. You can’t refuse to sell goods to a customer because of his or her race, for example. That’s a violation of civil rights laws and can result in criminal prosecution and/or civil claims. In this example, society’s interest in its citizens being treated fairly trumps the business owner’s right to run his business as he pleases. There’s an old saying that your freedom to swing your arm stops where someone else’s nose begins.
The fallacy of the argument that individuals are entitled to do as they please is that our actions often affect others, and when they do, society has a right to make ground rules for we interact with each other, in order to prevent actions that injure others. Civilization can’t exist without such ground rules. Without government, we’d merely be another species of wild animal.
Hey wingnuts! Doesn’t look like your boy is doing so hot:
PollingReport.com
PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls
Dates Approve Disapprove Unsure minus % % %
CBS/New York Times 7/20-22/07 30 62 8 -32
Diageo/Hotline RV 7/19-22/07 33 63 4 -30
ABC/Washington Post 7/18-21/07 33 65 2 -32
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 7/17-18/07 32 61 7 -29
Newsweek 7/11-12/07 29 64 7 -35
AP-Ipsos 7/9-11/07 33 65 -32
USA Today/Gallup 7/6-8/07 29 66 5 -37
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
More bad news for rightys: In Dec. 2005, Gov. Gregoire’s approval rating looked like this:
Approve 37%
Disapprove 55%
Undecided 8%
http://www.strategicvision.biz.....l_1207.htm
But today it looks like this:
Approve 47%
Disapprove 46%
Undecided 7%
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien.....c1e19ed9df
And don’t forget, she’ll be running for re-election in a year when it’ll be hard for any Republican to get elected to anything!
RR @55,
If you’ll take a look, you’ll see that I started the quote you used with “IMO”. I know that as things stand now, you are quite correct. What I meant was that people *ought* to be allowed to determine what goods they sell and to whom. I’m talking about my ideology here, not how things actually are these days.
The majority (I’m not going to call it “society”) does indeed have the power to place their will on the minority, and it often does so. Thus, we have laws that require, say, a landlord to rent to someone they would not normally want living on property they own.
Where you and I differ is not on whether or not we need government, because I’ve never said that we don’t need government. We differ on the sorts of “ground rules” that are necessary. After all, when talking about civilizations, it is important to remember that there are many different kinds of them. In order to obtain the sort of civilization *you* want (think is best), it may be true that we need laws that force a shop-owner to sell to everyone. But in order to obtain the sort of civilization *I* want, that may not be true. In fact, I don’t think it *is* true.
But as long as more people want to bring your sort of civilization into being than want to bring mine into being, you will get the votes to elect the people to make the laws that further what you want. I wont. However, I will go on thinking it would be better if things went the way I believe is best. :P
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....ref=slogin
A War We Just Might Win
*
Should a private attorney be forced to represent a client with whom he disagrees or simply dislikes?
Plan B works to stop an egg from embedding in the wall of the uterus preventing a pregnancy. Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy.
Plan B is not taken because there is a fertilized egg in a womans uterus, it is taken because there is the possibility of a fertilized egg exists.
Plan B in no way equates to abortion.
Pharmacists who refuse to stock plan N on, “Moral Grounds” should have their licenses pulled and receive a swift kick to the groin from a pregnant teen.
@60 WADR
the anti-aborters define preggers differently then you do. They consider a zygote a person.
I was a checkout person in a grocery store, but I refused to sell do-nuts to fat people. Morally, I’m against the sin of glutony.
Surprisingly, they fired me, and said that I did not have the right to deny the do-nuts.
Bullshit and fuck you
McDonalds can refuse to serve you if you are dressed inappropriately: no shirt, no shoes, no service.
A doctor can refuse to perform an abortion, can refuse any procedure, can simply refuse to take a new patient.
An attorney can refuse to take a client.
A restaurant can refuse to serve you.
A pharmacist is no different.
Useless fucking morons, all of you
52
Leave it to a lefty to site a story from the BBC about the American military. heheheheheh
56
All of got to say is 14%. No need to explain.. hehehehehehe
Roger Rabbit says:
I wonder how many other Republicans have registered their dogs to vote?
07/29/2007 at 10:00 pm
If only 130 of them did back in 2004 the right would be sitting in the governors mansion.
@61
Yeah, but just because you had unprotected sex doesn’t mean there’s a zygote in there.
The righties always seem to go to the teens when comes to sex, bunch of pervs. if you ask me.
What about a 34yo who has a hubby and 2 kids and forgets that shes on tetracycline?
re63: “Refuse, deny.” You useless piece of shit. Do your godamn job like your corporate masters told you to!
I was a checkout person in a grocery store, but I refused to sell do-nuts to fat people. Morally, I’m against the sin of glutony.
Surprisingly, they fired me, and said that I did not have the right to deny the do-nuts.
Please go back into the grocery business. Those poor kids dont have a choice and you do. Do it for the children.
Should felons have the right to vote?
Your right to vote should be restored when the criminal justice system is done with you. Unless you commit some form of vote-fraud in which case you should permanently lose your right to vote.
But it didn’t happen, trollfuck. Deal with it. Oh BTW, the Blue Tsunami is still coming, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Your irrelevance is inevitable.
tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick………..
@58 Implicite in my comment is that I don’t agree with your vision of how society “ought” to be, and therefore my comment is critical of the idea expressed in your comment.
“Freedom” is a concept that Americans, in principle, cherish yet the term in its raw form is so vague and broad that it must be given some specificity to have any practical meaning. When thus qualified, the concept of “freedom” can become problematical in some contexts.
For example, would any sane person argue that anyone is entitled to the “freedom” to sexually prey on children? Does restricting this “freedom” become more intrusive (and debatable) if society also criminalizes the dissemination of graphical images of child sex? Where should the line be drawn between individual freedom and societal intervention, where child sex is involved? This same question can be asked on countless other topics.
These questions, of course, are answered through the political process, in the form of laws generally reflecting a majority viewpoint, which implicitly represents the imposition of the majority’s will on the dissenting minority.
The specific question on the table in your comment and mine is whether society “should” intervene to require private businesses to conduct business in a non-discriminatory manner. My answer to that question is yes. If businesses could pick and choose which customers to serve, based on the business owner’s personal likes and dislikes, the result would be a chaotic commercial sector and a less efficient economy. Sorting out where one could, or could not, buy goods and services based on subjective (and not always communicated) biases of business owners would impose significant additional transaction costs on economic activity. Such a system would also substantially increase social frictions and the general level of hostility in society. Society as a whole has a sufficient interest in avoiding these negative outcomes to justify imposing rules on commercial conduct to prevent them.
Conservatives and libertarians have a strong ideological bias in favor of the notion that individuals are entitled to a breadth of freedom appropriate to living alone on a deserted island within a crowded society where unrestricted elbow-swinging encounters other people’s noses. The truth is, unfettered freedom cannot exist within society because it impinges on the welfare and rights of others, and does nt outside of society because the human organism is ill-adapted to survive alone in nature. All human societies, from the most primitive to the most technologically and materially advanced, impose complex codes of conduct on their members that are generally designed to enable the group to survive and to minimize destructive conflict within the group. Societies generally do not enact superfluous law or behavior codes; rules exist out of necessity or because they serve some useful social purpose.
It is interesting that the earliest government regulations in the New World colonies were weights and measures laws. These laws, of course, regulate commercial conduct by privately owned businesses. You don’t need a weights and measures law if you live alone on a desert island. The function of such laws is to keep business owners from cheating their customers, which is considered a form of stealing, and such regulations generally are not controversial.
Another, and much more controversial, example of government regulation that dates back to our country’s early history is land zoning. Some people philosophically believe they have the right to do whatever they want on their own land, even when it adversely affects neighbors, damages publicly owned resources, or endangers the health or safety of others. Yet this type of regulation gained public acceptance very early in our national history, and enjoys the support of an overwhelming majority of landowners and non-landowners alike. We argue only over the details.
Details, of course, are crucial. I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that he has a right to store dynamite in his garage in proximity to your home, because of the obvious hazard to your and your family’s safety (not to mention the risk to your property). Yet some people do argue they have the right to party in their backyard and play loud music at 2 AM, even though it disrupts your sleep when you have to go to work the next day. Are you really willing to do away with municipal noise ordinances in the name of some abstract concept of individual freedom?
There is no easy or simple answer to the question of where social control should stop and individual freedom should prevail over the interests of other individuals or society as a whole. These questions must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. For example, if an Indian tribe wants to build an outdoor music amphitheater, how far away must it be from off-reservation residential developments, and should non-tribal governments have the authority to regulate or limit its hours of operation if the sound carries across the reservation boundary into adjoining communities? Who should have authority to make the rules, and what should the rules be?
When put into specific contexts, the amorphous concept of “freedom” becomes slippery indeed.
Now, as for the original question of whether government should prevent privately owned businesses, who hold themselves out as open to the general public, from discriminating against classes of customers based on ethnicity, religious or political beliefs, or sexual orientation, my answer to that question is, in most cases, yes. It has long been established in our laws, from the time of the colonial weights and measures laws, that doing business is a privilege that government is entitled to regulate for the purpose of protecting the public from economic harms, and I would extend that to preventing social harms as well.
sp “implicit” not “implicite”
correction
“and does not exist outside of society”
@59 “Should a private attorney be forced to represent a client with whom he disagrees or simply dislikes?”
A private attorney can, in fact, be forced to represent a client with whom he disagrees or simply dislikes. There are several contexts in which this might occur.
In a criminal case, the court has authority to appoint an attorney to represent an indigent client, even against the attorney’s will. This is most likely to happen in rural counties where the number of attorneys is limited. Every attorney is an officer of the court, and bound by the rules governing the profession to obey the court.
The rules regulating the practice of law also provide that an attorney, having voluntarily agreed to represent a client, may be denied the right to withdraw from representation by the court if such withdrawal would be harmful to the client or prejudicial to the administration of justice. An obvious example would be if an attorney, halfway through a trial, has an argument with his client and refuses to continue representing him. In such a case, the court’s permission to withdraw is required, and is likely to be denied unless the attorney can show a sufficiently good reason for it, because of the disruptive effect it would have on the trial proceedings and its potential to interfere with the client receiving a fair trial.
While a private attorney generally can choose his clients, the right to do so is not absolute or unqualified.
@63
“McDonalds can refuse to serve you if you are dressed inappropriately: no shirt, no shoes, no service.”
If you have no shirt or shoes, McDonald’s not only CAN but probably MUST refuse to serve you, because of local health regulations. In this case, the business’s policy conforms with the social policy expressed in laws regulating the restaurant trade. But McDonald’s CANNOT refuse to serve you for wearing a turban or veil …
“A doctor can refuse to perform an abortion, can refuse any procedure, can simply refuse to take a new patient.”
I think there may be circumstances under which a doctor’s refusal to provide medical care could result in disciplinary action by a medical board, or in the state taking action against the doctor’s license, or a hospital denying the doctor hospital privileges; and conceivably might also subject him to a civil lawsuit.
“An attorney can refuse to take a client.”
You are misinformed; see previous post @76.
“A restaurant can refuse to serve you.”
Depends on their reason for refusing service. Not if their reason is your race.
“A pharmacist is no different.”
You seem to think that professionals in private practice, and private businesses, have unfettered discretion to refuse service to anyone they choose, for any reason. In each example you cited, you are wrong. Government does, in fact, have the power to regulate professions and businesses; and does, in fact, regulate them. Pharmacists are no different. In our state, it is illegal to practice pharmacy without a state license, and under current state law, pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills based on their personal beliefs are subject to state action against their licenses. I support that law.
@65 I don’t see a cite (not “site”) to BBC or anything else in my post @52, so WTF are you talking about?
@66 I’ll be happy to explain. Congress has only a 14% approval rating because the vast majority of Democrats are disgusted with Democratic representatives’ and senators’ spinelessness and failure to hold the Bush administration accountable for its lawbreaking. Congress’ approval rating would shoot up tomorrow if they voted to impeach Gonzales, Cheney, and/or Bush.
@67 If 130 more Republicans (not “130 Republicans”) had registered their dogs to vote in 2004, Rossi would have lost by 3 votes instead of 133 votes.
With idiots like you doing their counting, no wonder they can’t win even when they cheat.
@71 “Unless you commit some form of vote-fraud in which case you should permanently lose your right to vote.”
Starting with Lori Sotelo and Ann Coulter.
@71 And let’s not overlook Karl Rove, Tim Griffin, Ken Blackwell, and Katherine Harris.
Griffin, in particular, is jail bait. Rove knows it, Bush knows it, Gonzales knows it, Griffin knows it. What do you want to bet Bush has already signed a pardon for Griffin, in case Gonzales’ stonewall fails and the Rove-engineered coverup of the RNC’s election crimes crumbles under subpoenaes and special prosecutor investigations?
Do you mental midgets actually believe a conversation with a doctor goes like this?
Hey Doctor Dead Baby, Sara Slut here. Me and my pal Hannah Whore were pulling a train with the liberally drunken horses asses and whoopsie… can you call in a couple scrips for the morning after pill?
OF COURSE NOT YOU FUCKING DUMB ASS MORONS.
Any intelligent (and liberally fearful of a malpractice suit)doctor will insist on seeing the dumbass Sarah Slut and her pal Hannah Whore before providing any prescription.
When the slut and whore whine that mean old Moral Meds Pharmacy won\’t dispense their gee-I\’m-a-whore pill Doctor Dead Baby will then say, you know Slut and Whore, I know week after week after pulling your Horses Ass train and being fearful of reproducing a Goldstein, it is darn inconvenient for you to zip 5 miles to the next pharmacy and since I have to see you BEFORE PRESCRIBING ANY MEDICATION I will just stock them here. That will be $90 for this office visit and $25 for your pill.. No girls, I can NOT give you a bulk discount.
DUH! Small town mean pharmacist problem solved.
And the deliciously dirty secret you fuckers refuse to admit is that there are fewer and fewer doctors willing to provide abortions.
You may be legally entitled to get one, but doctors cannot be forced to GIVE you one.
OOPSIE!
Isn’t Cathy McMorris a rotten mother too? Shouldn’t she quit Congress to take care of her baby? How can she adequately represent her district and adequately care for her infant at the same time?
@84 &85
Thanks for your posts here and else where. Next time anyone whines about working with the minority on the right, bi-partisanship and all that) I’ll direct them to your posts.
“You want me to work with him?”
Seattle Times Story Traces Gonzo’s History of Lying All the Way Back to Texas
An article in Monday’s paper portrays Gonzales as an extremely loyal partisan who will say anything to protect is boss.
“Questions about Gonzales’ willingness to shade the truth on Bush’s behalf came to prominence in the 1996 episode in which Bush was excused from Texas jury duty in a drunken-driving case. Bush was then the state’s governor, and Gonzales was his general counsel. If Bush had served, he probably would have had to disclose his own drunken-driving conviction in Maine two decades earlier.
“The judge, prosecutor and defense attorney involved in the case have said that Gonzales met with the judge and argued that jury service would pose a potential conflict of interest for Bush, who could be asked to pardon the defendant. Gonzales has disputed that account. He made no mention of meeting with the judge in a written statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....les30.html
Hey wingnuts! You’re supposed to love Hillary! Didn’t you get the word from Wingnut Propaganda Central?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ary28.html
79
You’ve only told part of the story, O pelted one. The other part of the story is that there are four parts to Congress: the Democratic part of the House, the Publican part of the House, the Democratic part of the Senate, and the Publican part of the Senate. Much of the reason people are dissatisfied with Congress is that every time the Democratic part of the Senate puts forward an idea, the Publican part of the Senate tries to kill it. So far they’ve been very successful at killing anything the Democratic part of the Senate could take credit for, therefore nothing gets done, even with the Democratic part of the House passes a measure over the objections of the Publican part of the House (and with the support of the people who kicked the Publicans out of power in 2006).
Come 2008 the Democrats are going to let people know who’s responsible for that low approval rating, and why. Anybody know what’s the odds for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2008?
The P-I’s Joel Connelly pulls the covers off the cesspool of corruption and cronyism constituting Alaska’s GOP delegation to Congress in this column:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....oel30.html
GOP = crooks and liars
@90 Democrats actually have quite good odds of gaining a filibuster-proof Senate in 2008. Democratic gains in the U.S. Senate in the next election are a certainty; the only question is whether they can pick up the 10 to 12 seats needed for a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority. Here are the numbers:
Current composition of Senate:
Democrats: 49
Independents voting with Democrats: 2
Republicans: 49
Republicans up for re-election in 2008: 22*
Democrats up for re-election in 2008: 12
* Includes Wyoming special election
Political analysts consider only 7 of the 22 GOP seats “safe,” and only 1 of the Democratic seats vulnerable. Thus, in a best-case scenario, Democrats would gain 15 seats (giving a 66-34 majority, counting the 2 Democratic-voting independents). The actual result is likely to be less, but given that the GOP’s popularity has sunk even lower than in 2004, when Democrats did not lose a single seat in the House or Senate, probably the best that Republicans can hope for is a Democratic gain of 6 to 8 seats, leaving them a couple short of a filibuster-proof majority (assuming the 2 independents vote with them). But because there are several moderate GOP senators who might vote to break a filibuster, depending what the subject of the legislation is, the Democrats likely will be able to get most of a Democratic president’s appointees and much of their legislative agenda through the Senate from 2009 onward.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20027027/
Another bible-thumpin, right wing Publican shows us why it’s not such a good idea to let the religious right run this country.
93
Thanks for the writeup, Roger. I’ve seen analyses from other writers who put the likely gains at around seven seats at this point in time. I’d have to go do some searching to find the exact number. However, there’s still a year and change to go before the election, and while I suppose it’s possible that the Greedy Old Party could find a way to hijack the election or the Democrats could find a way to shoot themselves in the foot before then, my guess is that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Abu Gonzales, the Iraq War, obstructionism in Congress et bloody cetera will continue to drag the Republicans down like a millstone.
Some of the more savvy Republicans are starting to realize that unless they do something and do something fast, their party is going to be discredited and shut out of the political landscape for the next several generations. By and large they haven’t been able to bring themselves to actually vote in accordance with this new-found realization, but if they want the Republican Party to not go the way of the Whigs, they need to do something, and fast.
Ah, Ms. Dog is out there reading that SEAL wannabe page that has been debunked so many times it is no longer even amusing.
Along with being run (as Roger said) by the fellow that was given a good spanking by Mr. Conyers, most of the people involved with running that page have no military experience whatsoever. Mr Miles did serve in Desert Storm (one tour, with the Army), but oddly enough, he is no longer listed as part of the editorial staff there, and none of the other members of that organization seem to have served.
http://www.navyseals.com/commu.....boutus.cfm
Since I would never wish harm on anyone, I hope that those folks never actually enter a bar frequented by SEALs. SEALs take misuse of their Trident rather seriously.
@86
Her kids special needs to boot!
Yes, it does seem that the death threats against doctors and their families (along with a few actual killings and bombings) that the extreme “pro-life” crowd are using to intimidate doctors are working.
You should be so proud.
The State of Washington licenses pharmacists so that they demostrate minimum competency and are pledged to work in the public interest. It is a violation of the public’s trust for a pharmacist to insert his or her religious views into the private and confidential decisions of a patient and physician. Pharmacy is a very lucrative field, and pharmacists are fortunate to have their state licenses.
Blow it and we pull the license, asshat.
Signed,
The People
There are so many mechanisms in place for the stupid, for the slutty, for the stupid AND slutty that it is clear you pricks are putting up straw men in support of the profit system known as Planned Parenthood. You fuckers do not give a fat rats ass whether a pharmacist disagrees or whether a dopey slut gets her drugs.. the joke is you do not even know what dopes you are.
You disagree simply to do so. BDS exponential.
Planned Parenthood is everywhere.
EVERY single hospital in the country has a pharmacy.
Most medical buildings have a pharmacy.
Most grocery stores and discount stores have a pharmacy.
PRESCRIBING doctors, by virtue of the fact that they HAVE prescribed are available to dispense.
And of course, the darling of the dead baby leftys, the free womens clininc are always ready willing and anxious to end a few more new lives.
By the way, when you fuckers whine about obscene profits why do you never excoriate Planned Parenthood for making theirs off the stupidity and ignorance of the least amongst you? How do you bastards look yourselves in the mirror?
Bill and Hillary are at the Yankee season opener, sitting in the first row,with the Secret Service agents directly behind them.
One of the Secret Service guys leans forward and whispers something to Bill.
At first, Clinton stares at the guy, looks at Hillary, looks back at the agent, and shakes his head.
The agent then says, \’Mr. President, it was at the unanimous request of the entire team, from the owner on down to the bat boy.\”
Bill hesitates…but begins to change his mind when the agent tells him the fans would love it!
Bill shrugs his shoulders and says, \”Okay, if that\’s what the people want.\”
With that, Bill gets up, grabs Hillary by her collar and the seat of her pants, lifts her up, and tosses her right over the wall onto the ball field.
She gets up kicking, swearing, screaming, \’I\’ll kill you! You @#$!&&&&&&&&*%$%**!!!\”
The crowd goes absolutely wild. Fans are jumping up and down, cheering, hooting and hollering, and high-fiving.
Bill is bowing, smiling, and waving to the crowd. He leans over to the agent and says, \”How about that! I would have never believed how much everyone would enjoy that!\”
Noticing his agent has gone totally pale, he asks what is wrong.
The agent replies, \”Mr. President, Sir, I said they wanted you to throw out the first Pitch.\”
It takes an issue like emergency concraception to bring out the full extent of the misogyny that underlies much of the “pro-life” side. To them, women are stupid sluts and whores who must be punished for having sex, as the commenter above makes clear.
It makes some sense, if you see women as less than fully human. But if you happen to think women are not lesser creatures, it’s repugnant.
\’emergency contraception\”… oh let\’s think.. who might need that? The STUPID and the SLUTTY.
Get a clue: any RAPE victim will get it at the hospital.
A rape victim that doesn\’t go to the hospital… YOU connect the dots, dumb ass.
~~
Not only are conservatives a majority in America today, but never in the history of the Battleground Poll has the percentage of Americans who are conservative been greater. Sixty-three percent of Americans, as of late July 2007, identified themselves as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.” Only thirty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” Two percent are those all-important “moderate” voters and two percent “don’t know.”
As of today – right now – conservatives outnumber liberals in America by a margin of almost two to one, easily the widest gap in the history of the Battleground Poll.
Anybody want to explain to Auntie the concept of a non-profit organization?
The stupid: oh gee doc I was unprepared but duh, you know, emergency sex, can you give me emergency baby death?
The slut: I\’m a well worn whore but gosh Doc, you know sex:babies…who knew?
Sounds like TJ\’s kinda gals.
One would think you leftys would be frothing at the mouth for emerbency STD prevention… but oopsie that benefits the big bad pharmaceuticals and their profits instead of the obscene profits made on the corpses of dead babies… and the increasing number of dead aborted womb owners (one can NOT call a women who kills her baby mother, now can we?)
103
They see women as creatures who can only be defined in terms of men, and who are of necessity and by divine edict subject to men in all things. God forbid that a woman own her own property, her own decisions, her own body, her own life.
And the real shame is that there are women who fall for this.
Bob Marley had it right. Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery.
Oh please, tell us TJ, how does a non-profit organization show 55.8 MILLION dollars in PROFIT?
Dumb ass.
You want you women to own her own body then tell her it should NOT be exploited in the media for sex, it should not be exploited by marketers for sex and it sure as hell should not be exploited by abortionist for profit.
Tell her to rever her body, not debase it. If she doesn\’t NO ON WILL as evidenced by your attitudes… sure go out ansd have a good time honey: we can worry about the consequences later.
No such thing a s a free lunch… or free sex.
YOU don\’t care about women: you care about exploiting them. You are reverse Muslim extremists chauvinists: THEY cover, hide and threaten their women YOU pimp them by telling them there are no consequences to their actions.
Well, I could go into the intracies of how any moneys over and above what it costs to run the operation are handled in for-profit vs. non-profit enterprises, and how “non-profit” doesn’t mean “don’t make any money or maybe even do your best to take a loss,” but since you don’t seem to have the candlepower to tell the difference between me and TJ, I’m not going to bother. I’ll leave it to Roger when he clocks in for his shift, and go do something more useful than argue with an obvious troll.
Oh please, I get it:
profits from selling unPC things (you know little necessary things like drugs, oil, (things that take massive amounts of cash for research to bring to fruition): bad.
profits from killing babies and womb owners: good.
With you fuckers it\’s all about intention, feelings and expediency of the moment. tell us how the queen abortion supporte and her fellow candidates are going to reconcile their pro-death position with thei newly found and momentarily expedient religion.
Right.
Ain\’t nothing says dependable adult like consistency unless you are a fucking liberal.
**
Scientists have successfully bread the world\’s first mentally ill mouse. The mouse immediately registered to vote as a Democrat.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....159295.ece
Get a clue: any RAPE victim will get it at the hospital.
Only if you don’t get your way.
101 DBO
You call women who wish to use contraceptives “the stupid…the slutty…the stupid AND slutty,” but then accuse us of “putting up straw men.” That’s a good one.
Where are you on the notion of married women using phrmaceutical contraception? You know, the ones who presumably AREN’T sluts because they have sex with their husbands? I’m guessing somehow that you’re against that too.
Personally, I think that adult humans having consensual sexual relations within the law are entitled (a) to equal treatment under the law and (b) not to have your judgment about their morals made the basis of their health options. But even though obviously that’s asking too much of you, the state is obliging them with equal treatment. Suck it.
109 DBO
You sound a little like a child. That must be the anti-choicer in you.
I’m not going to tell a woman what she should do with her body, even if she wants to fuck one of your relatives with it. As poor an idea as I consider that to be, it’s her choice.
I’m not really sure what that means. I would say that that mutually consensual sex between adults who take appropriate precautions against both disease and conception can be about as free as anything can be.
Sez you. You seem to want to tell people what they think, then argue against what you claim they think. Again, your earlier complaints about “straw men” seem a bit like projection in this context.
What I would tell women is that are free to choose their actions, and that they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. In addition, you are responsible for the consequences of YOUR actions, but you don’t get to tell other women what the consequences of THEIR actions should be.
Over 5.4 Million ABORTIONS since the start of the Iraq War!
Hmmm…? More abortions than dead soldiers. Says something about where the Libtard mind is!
You’re a stranger than average psychopath, Puddy, and a rare example of a partially successful abortion.