Republican hypocrites in the House

[audtatious]

Doesn't matter. IMO it's wrong to charge you, me, him, Greg, whomever to pay for an abortion due to some chic having unprotected sex. Let her finance it herself or pay out of pocket. If the Dems are so damn adamant to pay for abortions then let the DNC fund it or other Dem supporters pay for it out of their own funds and pockets.

we pay for breast enhancement surgery for members of the military. just happens that that is ok by the religious right.

We shouldn't and it's wrong. While the religious right may not have an issue with it from a religious standpoint I would think they'd have an issue with it from a Conservative perspective....assuming they are not progressive Republicans in the military with small or ugly boobs.

[heliochrome85]

We shouldn't and it's wrong. While the religious right may not have an issue with it from a religious standpoint I would think they'd have an issue with it from a Conservative perspective....assuming they are not progressive Republicans in the military with small or ugly boobs.

where is the outrage? where is the fox news coverage?



what they should be enraged about is undeniably always in conflict with what they actually ARE outraged about. where is that wtc mosque? funny how that went away as soon as the elections were over.

[audtatious]

Who knows, picking their battles? I'm not happy with the GOP either. The people who have been complaining about the GOP and Dems is the Tea Party members who don't matter because the media has spent more effort on trying to have them dismissed as racist bible pushers than anything. The rest of us are, who do not toe the Dem line are additionally dismissed as being non-educated and too stupid to make our own decisions....and being racist....and religious bible thumpers.

But, that's OK. It's hip to be outraged at the GOP, Fox news and anything else non-democrat today. Another 40 years and people like me will all be dead and the US can turn into France.

[IBCoupe]

Doesn't matter. IMO it's wrong to charge you, me, him, Greg, whomever to pay for an abortion due to some chic having unprotected sex. Let her finance it herself or pay out of pocket.

For the third time, that's not what this law is about. Part of the argument for women financing it out of pocket is to not get in her way of buying health insurance that covers abortion. Let me know when you catch up with that portion of the conversation.

[audtatious]

You are right, I have totally not understood a damn thing in that short little bill, nor have I addressed anything concerning it.

I don't have time to play piddle ball with you this week. Go harass someone else or go back to watching p0rn.

[heliochrome85]

Go harass someone else or go back to watching p0rn.

some say it was sarah palins most successful role...

[audtatious]

"I had her in the cab once"

Name that movie......^^^

[heliochrome85]

"I had her in the cab once"

Name that movie......^^^

i generally dont pay attention to names of "movies." i just click furiously.

[AZhitman]

We shouldn't and it's wrong. While the religious right may not have an issue with it from a religious standpoint I would think they'd have an issue with it from a Conservative perspective....assuming they are not progressive Republicans in the military with small or ugly boobs.

where is the outrage? where is the fox news coverage?

There's no outrage because it's inaccurate.

You need to do your research and quit listening to Olbertarrd.

[AZhitman]

we pay for breast enhancement surgery for members of the military. just happens that that is ok by the religious right.

It's not the freebie you make it out to be.

First, the soldier has to take leave or not get paid, and she has to pay for her hotel stay for the duration of her recovery (unless she lives close to the base where her surgery is happening, which is exceedingly rare). She will also have to pay for the implants themselves (not cheap).

But that doesn't concern you, you're concerned with the impact to the taxpayer, right?

The military employs plastic surgeons. They are Active Duty, and they get paid a salary just like anyone else. They get paid whether they are actually doing surgery, or not. Just like my son, who gets paid whether he's jumping out of planes and killing bad guys, or just exercising and taking target practice. They are not like private-sector plastic surgeons, who get paid by the individual or insurance per surgery and consultation.

Plastic surgery for wounds is not always in high demand, so they take procedures like this to keep the surgeons "fluent" in their "art," and to give them something to do. PLUS, they also have to perform a certain number of procedures per year to keep their license. So frankly, your taxes will be paying that doctor whether he is installing "free boobs" or patching up a wounded vet.

These women are essentially practice dummies for surgeons. It doesn't costing you, the taxpayer, anything more than it would have anyway.

But you just keep up your boo-hooing. There'll always be an uninformed audience somewhere.

[heliochrome85]

stop ruining my argument with your logic. you are no fun.

[IBCoupe]

You are right, I have totally not understood a damn thing in that short little bill, nor have I addressed anything concerning it.

I don't have time to play piddle ball with you this week. Go harass someone else or go back to watching p0rn.

This thread will still be here next week. If you like, you can be wrong on just about every point you raise, then, too. I'll continue to call you on them. Like these gems:

I don't care if someone gets an abortion or not, I just don't want to be mandated by taxation to pay for it (which is what the Dems want).

...because you're not "mandated by taxation to pay for it."

If I'm funding your health care policy because you are a Fed employee then get your own additional "abortion coverage" that does not cost me anything.

...because that additional coverage does not cost you anything.

Then again, people should not be receiving tax breaks because of the expense of any elective "surgery" in the first place so plastic surgery and elective abortions should not apply.

...because they don't receive tax breaks for those expenses.

[Some stupid s*** about religion]

...because nobody was really talking about that.

IMO it's wrong to charge you, me, him, Greg, whomever to pay for an abortion due to some chic having unprotected sex. Let her finance it herself or pay out of pocket.

...because we're not charging anybody to pay for an abortion.

Don't get pissy at me just because I'm willing to call you on it every time you're unabashedly wrong.

[audtatious]

You are right, I have totally not understood a damn thing in that short little bill, nor have I addressed anything concerning it.

I don't have time to play piddle ball with you this week. Go harass someone else or go back to watching p0rn.

This thread will still be here next week. If you like, you can be wrong on just about every point you raise, then, too. I'll continue to call you on them. Like these gems:

I don't care if someone gets an abortion or not, I just don't want to be mandated by taxation to pay for it (which is what the Dems want).

...because you're not "mandated by taxation to pay for it."

Are taxes mandatory? If my taxes help pay for a Federal Employee's health care and that employee gets an abortion that is paid for by that policy that my taxes pay for then how am I not being "mandated" in some way to pay for it?

If I'm funding your health care policy because you are a Fed employee then get your own additional "abortion coverage" that does not cost me anything.

...because that additional coverage does not cost you anything.

If they are paying for their own coverage then I'm fine with it. How many times do I have to say that before it sinks into your head? I know you like to read your own words and feel you are super-intelligent, but, damn.

Then again, people should not be receiving tax breaks because of the expense of any elective "surgery" in the first place so plastic surgery and elective abortions should not apply.

...because they don't receive tax breaks for those expenses.

If they are able to file HC charges as part of their tax returns and part of the write off is for an abortion or elective surgery then they are indeed receiving tax breaks.

IMO it's wrong to charge you, me, him, Greg, whomever to pay for an abortion due to some chic having unprotected sex. Let her finance it herself or pay out of pocket.

...because we're not charging anybody to pay for an abortion.

You are if we are indirectly paying for their health insurance which is paying for the abortion. Let an insurance company offer a small policy for abortion-only that they pay out of their own pocket and everything would be fine.

Don't get pissy at me just because I'm willing to call you on it every time you're unabashedly wrong.

I'm always unabashedly wrong when you want to argue something. Go figure. I'm so glad we have people like you around to try and steer our lives because we are too stupid to do it ourselves.

Regardless, this is my last response to you on this matter because it's a worthless debate with you and I have far better things to do. Since you are always right you should go bask in the glow of another victory

[stebo0728]

I have to say, Aud, that logic does have a bit of a flaw. Its like a policy my dad had when I was growing up. He refused to allow us to dine at any restaurant that served alchohol, because he thought that somehow, the money you spend there, is then used to by more alchohol, even if you didnt buy alchohol yourself. Of course this was asinine, and its not exactly like what your saying, but its similar. I mean following that logic further, you could say, shopping at Walmart pays a portion of every employees salary for the time you spent there shopping, and one of those employees is planning an abortion the following week, and she is using some of her paycheck to fund that abortion, then you have in some small portion helped to fund it for her. But those loose lines of reasoning are tricky.

What it boils down to, is we provide insurance for our government employees, it just so happens that since we have the habit of employers paying insurance as a benefit, this means we pay for the employees insurance. But aside from that, we dont really need to be concerned with anymore. The law should provide equal protection for everyone, and if one segment of private sector employees can freely have abortion coverage in their policies, then we must also allow government employees to have the same coverage.

I abhor abortion, please understand, but Im just sick to death of our legal system being hijacked to accomplish fringe goal, and that means I'm ready to stop fringe goals on both sides. We can deal with abortion without having to involve the all powerful government in it.

[heliochrome85]

I have to say, Aud, that logic does have a bit of a flaw. Its like a policy my dad had when I was growing up. He refused to allow us to dine at any restaurant that served alchohol, because he thought that somehow, the money you spend there, is then used to by more alchohol, even if you didnt buy alchohol yourself. Of course this was asinine, and its not exactly like what your saying, but its similar. I mean following that logic further, you could say, shopping at Walmart pays a portion of every employees salary for the time you spent there shopping, and one of those employees is planning an abortion the following week, and she is using some of her paycheck to fund that abortion, then you have in some small portion helped to fund it for her. But those loose lines of reasoning are tricky.

What it boils down to, is we provide insurance for our government employees, it just so happens that since we have the habit of employers paying insurance as a benefit, this means we pay for the employees insurance. But aside from that, we dont really need to be concerned with anymore. The law should provide equal protection for everyone, and if one segment of private sector employees can freely have abortion coverage in their policies, then we must also allow government employees to have the same coverage.

I abhor abortion, please understand, but Im just sick to death of our legal system being hijacked to accomplish fringe goal, and that means I'm ready to stop fringe goals on both sides. We can deal with abortion without having to involve the all powerful government in it.

man, stebo is on a roll. i dont know what happened? IS IT CHRISTMAS? DID SANTA ANSWER MY PRAYERS?

[IBCoupe]

Are taxes mandatory? If my taxes help pay for a Federal Employee's health care and that employee gets an abortion that is paid for by that policy that my taxes pay for then how am I not being "mandated" in some way to pay for it?

If they pay for it out of pocket, are you any less mandated to pay their salary? Please. The objections to the bill don't come from dictating what health insurance plans the government can buy, as an employer.

If they are paying for their own coverage then I'm fine with it. How many times do I have to say that before it sinks into your head? I know you like to read your own words and feel you are super-intelligent, but, damn.

Because none of the debate has been about federal employees? Because federal employees aren't even MENTIONED in the objected-to portion of the bill? I could do a search, but I have my doubts as to whether the phrase "federal employee" actually appears in the entire bill.

If they are able to file HC charges as part of their tax returns and part of the write off is for an abortion or elective surgery then they are indeed receiving tax breaks.

Which isn't what the controversy's about, as you can tell from the responses you got from two separate individuals when you asked what the controversy was about. Are you trying to make up new arguments because the one that's actually going on is inconvenient to you?

You are if we are indirectly paying for their health insurance which is paying for the abortion. Let an insurance company offer a small policy for abortion-only that they pay out of their own pocket and everything would be fine.

So you're in favor of government dictating insurance policy terms? Even if a person did this (which I'm not convinced they don't already do, are you suggesting that they should have to make two separate payments to their insurance company in order to avoid having their normal tax benefits ripped away from them? If you want, forget about all that: the bill doesn't seek to minimize the tax credit, it seeks to eliminate it completely.

I'm always unabashedly wrong when you want to argue something. Go figure. I'm so glad we have people like you around to try and steer our lives because we are too stupid to do it ourselves.

Well, it wouldn't make much sense for me to argue against you when you're not wrong, now would it?

And I have no interest in steering your life - just the sometimes pathetic attempts you make at arguments.

Regardless, this is my last response to you on this matter because it's a worthless debate with you and I have far better things to do. Since you are always right you should go bask in the glow of another victory

I'll believe it when I see it (or don't), and this response will still be here waiting for you when you get back.

[audtatious]

Nope, I'm not wasting any more time on it. I'll remember to keep my pathetic attempts at an argument to myself so you don't have to lower yourself to my level. I'm fine with that.

[IBCoupe]

And yet, you took the time to get in one more passive-aggressive remark. It's cute.

Save the energy from the feigned indignation, and apply it to a solid argument, instead. That might help.

[AZhitman]

Speaking of pathetic, Matt gets kicked in the nuts for his "feigned indignation" (which actually has some basis, you just don't agree with it). Meanwhile, Tariq's up there stinkin' up the joint with fantasies of free boobjobs and he skates.

I already said my piece on the abortion issue, and stebo echoed it: No governmental involvement is acceptable.

I don't give a damn if you (the hypothetical "you", not the specific "you") don't like it. Those are MY beliefs, and I have a right to them, and I have a right to NOT have to make a decision that I don't want to make. Pooh-pooh it all you want, but it needs to be left alone. There are those among us who may have very strong convictions about abortion, and may take ANY involvement - no matter how remote - VERY seriously. And YOU have to respect that. It's your duty as an American.

It's kind of like if Isaac and Tariq roll up to my restaurant, and order up a kosher and halal sammich (they split it, of course) and I surreptitiously slap on a slice of bacon. "Aaaah, quitcher whinin', it's not gonna hurt you."

See, that's NOT my call to make. Lay off it.

Just because you find it ridiculous that someone might want to avoid any (even distant) association, doesn't make you right or justified... Hell, I find it ridiculous that death could be preferable to nomming on a thick slice of bacon - but I respect the beliefs and would never infringe on them.

Just because you might be "academically" right doesn't mean you're absolutely right.

[audtatious]

And yet, you took the time to get in one more passive-aggressive remark. It's cute.

Save the energy from the feigned indignation, and apply it to a solid argument, instead. That might help.

Just trying to make you feel better about yourself, son.

[srellim234]

Even more hypocrisy from Boehner:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05223.html

[IBCoupe]

Oh, I don't even have a problem with people arguing that the law SHOULD go as far as it does, or whether it SHOULD go further.

I'd just like to see those arguments be made well. I'm not telling Aud what to think (he's entitled to his opinion, and if he articulates it well, I'd love to hear it); I'm simply asking that he start.

[audtatious]

Sorry I don't debate nor articulate as well as you do in regards to emotionally charged issues nor personal perspectives. It's probably why you chose your profession, but not my thing. I'm not a touchy-feeling emotional person and prefer thinking in black/white with a limited number of gray's. If something is wrong it's wrong and I'll say it. You can pick it apart and sway it left or right all you want to make it meet your worldview but that changes nothing.

[IBCoupe]

That's fine, Aud. But you can be all that and remain on topic, right?

[audtatious]

Can you?

I understood the point and chose to ignore it based on the way it was written as I found it intentionally retarded. You wanted to interject for him for fun so I was all fine with going around in circles until my work life got in the way. Sure, I could have kept circling in until you got pissed and started throwing F-bombs and cussing again but I didn't have time and I find that tiresome and worthless.

[IBCoupe]

I have.

I love you, too, pumpkin.

[audtatious]