« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill? 

By: micro in POPE | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 13 Mar 12 10:19 PM | 40 view(s)
Boardmark this board | (The) Pope's for real stock market report
Msg. 53460 of 65535
(This msg. is a reply to 53455 by DigSpace)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

WHAT does this sentence:

Obama's approval ratings went up as a consequence of the debacle.

have to do with ANYTHING that was said?

WHO GIVES a rats arse about OBAMMY in this?

HAve a suggestion for you. One whining NAG under false pretenses and a FALSE imitation of an official committee meeting of the HOUSE of Representatives, chaired by Issa, this woman was declined because she was ot vetted and the DEMOCRATS tried to get her in without enough time to find out just who the devil thisperson really was.

This was nothing but a group of DEMS pretending to look like a meeting and give this woman a forum.

Of course, NONE of the major news channels told what happened there. They have to cover up the big lie.

Are you one of only a few that actually knows this?

And any the way, Thomas Jefferson did not fear churches either. You are sadly mistaken.

What he FEARED was the federal government would try to interfere with people's religious freedoms.

You really should actually study the man. He is an interesting person with flaws like everyone else, but an absolutely brilliant mind, which could be and often was changed as he realized a different view was better.

I am on my FIFTH book on Jefferson alone. I will complete it this evening. Then I have started another one.
Thomas Jefferson: American Sphynx

I'd give you more titles to the others but I doubt highly you would actually study the man. You will take every liberal piece of liberal BS and believe it.

Jefferson was the FIRST Republican btw. Madison was another and so was Monroe.

Those who do not history are doomed to repeat the failures of it.

Regarding PILLS, you are beating a dead horse, trying to salvage a ridiculous and losing argument.

If you want to screw, go supply your own non-pregnancy control material at your own expense, or get the person you are doing to do so.
Is that simple enough?

I never once in my life had ANYONE worry about my wife's or mine or my children and their spouses either. In fact, nobody I KNOW did.

Get off the social nanny state baloney. It is not becoming of you.

As I have said tomany, if you prefer a NANNY state, go over to Europe where you can find several varieties already there. One of them should be to your liking.

Otherwise, learn to live in a FREE and CAPITALIST society, which made us the greatest nation on earth, and the ENVY of most nations on earth.

No need to mess with success.




» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Erections Get Insurance; Why Not the Pill?
By: DigSpace
in POPE
Tue, 13 Mar 12 9:46 PM
Msg. 53455 of 65535

The Church, in this case the Catholic Church (that which along with corporations as the only things Jefferson feared more than government) sought to restrict this access.

98% of Catholic women report using birth control during their lives.

The majority of them believe it should be a covered expense.

Obama's approval ratings went up as a consequence of the debacle.

Yes. The People. The people told the Church what the rules are in the U.S. They have such a right. The people have the right to enforce rules and laws on Churchs and Corporations. The institution, Georgetown, takes tons of public money. If they want autonomy, walk away from the money. While this rule would still as I understand it apply, the fact is there is no such example to draw from. All of the institutions that this rule is directed at enjoy public money.

Public money gets strings. I want my public money to have strings. It does. Good. Don't like my rules because of your religious convictions (that of the Church, not its members) then don't take my money. My money, my rules.

Birth Control pills run the gamut frmo cheap to expensive some patent protected, some not, side-effects vary, different ones are chosen for differnt people for sifferent reasons. There is no one "proven ... actual amount", ditto for cholesterol meds, blood-pressure meds, antibiotics, its pretty much the rule rather than the exception that costs vary widely, that effects and side effects vary widely, and the notion that some bloke in the vatican and a few folks on message boards are the right folks to make decisions on this is silly. Plesnty of insurance plans require the cheaper generic unless a specific need is demonstrated for the new fangled branded version.


« POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next