Correct me if I'm wrong but in my always humble opinion; offering contraception is not a violation of ones religious freedom. FORCING one to take contraception, in my world, would be classified as violating ones religious freedom. But not allowing you to restrict someone else's freedom to choose is not a violation of your religious freedom.
Fact of the matter is; denying the contraception option is ANTI-religious. The Bible is all about choice, going all the way back to Adam and Eve. The tree with the forbidden fruit wasn't locked behind a gate where they couldn't get to it. Wasn't even set atop a mountain to make it hard to get to. I was set in the "midst of the garden", right in the middle of everything – easy access. It's like that all through out the Bible; the very thing that makes sin a sin is the "freedom" to do it if y...
So these schools that don't even want their students to have an option of contraception in their health coverage need to start using another scapegoat other than God because the God of the Bible that I've read is extremely pro-choice in every sense of the word.
Kris E. Benson at Wonkette links to an excellent Atlantic article on the Republican's proposed Austerity Bomb ("We only have a budget crisis if [the very richest households] refuse to pay higher taxes"), and points out an added little poison sac in the details:
Your Wonkette agrees with the Atlantic's James Kwack that Olds should be able to retire with dignity, and with health care. HOWEVER, we would just like to point out a few things. Kwack says that "decades ago, Congress decided that anyone who worked for ten years, and his or her spouse, deserved a basic level of health insurance." But that's not quite true! Kwack forgets that Social Security, when introduced, excluded women and nonwhites from eligibility, so it's more realistic to say that "decades ago, Congress decided that any white man who worked for ten years deserved a basic level of insurance, along with his spouse."Of course, later race and gender barriers to entitlements were far less explicit. Between 1960 and 1980 when the full retirement age was 65, black men could theoretically qualify for benefits, but the average life expectancy of an African American male was roughly 62 years old. So Blacks would pay into the program their entire lives and die before they could take any substantive advantage.
Then in the 1980s, when Black male life expectancy had finally increased to 65, it was decided that entitlements needed an overhaul and the age of full retirement was raised to 67.
Currently, Black male life expectancy is finally at 70, and what a SHOCK that Romney/Ryan would have raised the age of Medicare eligibility to 70...
Shorter GOP: Well, SOME people deserve a secure retirement, but THOSE PEOPLE just want to steal undeserved handouts!
###
I'm shocked, shocked to learn that "voter fraud" was a cover for voter suppression by the GOP
Big surprise, eh?
"The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates," [Former FL GOP Chairman Jim] Greer told The Post. "It's done for one reason and one reason only. … 'We've got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,' " Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. "They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue," Greer said. "It's all a marketing ploy."
The smart ones knew what they were doing, but all of the Teabaggers and other Wingnuts, the useful idiots of the corporatists and the plutocrats, swallowed their bullshit hook, line, sinker and fishing pole. And for most of those clowns, they'll go to their graves believing that in-person voter fraud was a grave threat.
###
Via commentor Rob in Buffalo, sore loser Dick Morris on what he is pleased to call "an Obama squeaker":
... By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote. (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13) Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win. He almost did. But not quite…
Shorter Morris Math: Sure, Obama got 332 electoral votes. But if each Democrat only got three-fifths of a vote, like the Founding Fathers intended, that would be only 198 to Romney's 206!
###
Fox News Abruptly Ends Interview After Guest Calls Out The Network For Hyping Benghazi Scandal
###
Libyan militia plans to execute 12 gay men
An extremist militia in Libya has captured twelve men and promised to mutilate and execute them for being gay. The group posted pictures of them on Facebook, describing them as the "third sex," a regional derogatory term comparable to "queers."
Human Rights Watch Libya identified the group as Al-Nawasi militia, know for championing Salafist jihad. Al-Nawasi has claimed to have become a legal part of the Libyan Ministry of Interior, pledging to remove "corruption" and "vice," such as alcohol and homosexuality:
###
Media buys into GOP spin: Labels romney-like proposal on revenue increases a 'big concession'
Since voters rejected Mitt Romney's $5 trillion tax plan and President Obama won re-election earlier this month, Republicans have expressed interest in raising revenue to avert the coming fiscal cliff. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) immediately signaled that they are open to raising revenue and prominent Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Bob Corker (R-TN) publicly broke with a conservative no-tax pledge, arguing that they would be willing to close loopholes and deductions so long as Democrats embrace spending cuts in Medicare and Social Security and support "structural reforms" in entitlement programs.
And while the GOP's rhetorical shift represents a break from their dogged opposition to revenue increases during previous budget negotiations, their public "concessions" closely mirror the kind of policies voters overwhelmingly rejected: tax reform that does not increase marginal tax rates on the richest Americans, but includes eliminating tax loopholes and steep entitlement cuts that closely mirror the policies included in Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget.
As Steve Benen put it, "on the one hand, Republicans would get the tax rates they want. On the other hand, Republicans would also get the entitlement changes they want." Yet the party and the media are suddenly presenting the position as "big concession" and are urging Democrats to back entitlement reform:
– SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): "I'm willing to generate revenue. It's fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table…. I will not raise tax rates to do it. I will cap deductions….But to do this, I just don't want to promise the spending cuts. I want entitlement reforms." [This Week, 11/25/2012]
– CNBC's JOHN HARWOOD: "But you saw yesterday on some of the Sunday shows people like Lindsey Graham making the argument that, 'yes I'm willing to put tax revenue on the table, not rates but revenue.' But that's a big concession by Republicans because they have not been willing to do that before except revenue as it comes from growth." [Squawk Box, 11/26/2012]
– SEN. BOB CORKER (R-TN): "This is a very easy thing to do technically. What it takes is political courage … I think I've shown a willingness to compromise and solve this problem." [CBS This Morning, 11/26/2012]
– MSNBC's MIKA BRZEZINSKI: "But there are new signs that lawmakers may be willing to compromise. A growing number of Republicans are slowly backing away from Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge saying they are open to letting revenues rise if Democrats do their part in the budget talks." [Morning Joe, 11/26/2012]
– CNN's SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: "Politicians on both sides of the aisle are now signaling that they're willing to compromise. That includes Republicans who've been softening their stance on raising taxes." [Starting Point, 11/26/2012]
In reality, the post-election deal resembles the package Boehner agreed to in 2011, though it was quashed by more conservative House Republicans. Now, the party is once again suggesting that new revenue should be part of a plan to avoid the fiscal cliff, but only if that revenue coincides with a lowering of tax rates. The pitch is very similar to the plan presented by Romney, which was supposed to boost growth while lowering taxes and making up the revenue from closing loopholes:
Fortunately, President Obama has rejected this kind of approach, saying during a press conference in November that, "What I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we're going to sorta-kinda raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified."
###
Wonkette: Obama Can't Stop Revealing How He Stole Election
###
The homophobic National Organization for Marriage warns against actually knowing any gay people. If you know gay people, you might think they deserve rights and then all hell breaks loose.
###
In response to a nightmarish Bangladeshi replay of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, Fox News hits an unforgivable new low. These people are garbage.
Also in Fox's alternative reality: the "War on Men".
No comments:
Post a Comment