Today's the Big Day!

christiefan915 said:
Unless the man is Thomas Beatie it's just a figure of speech.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. The point is that real men are just as vested into the life of his child as the woman that he is committed to, a fact that you libtards cant understand. I suppose that comes from dating only liberal men, who detest personal responsibility.
 
Alias said:
Where did I say men get pregnant?

Men have a responsibility in pregnancy also, don't they? Why are all these men paying child support? I don't think they were ejaculated in their sleep by predatory females.
Click to expand...

Try to focus. The person most affected by a ban on contraception is the woman, not the man, because she has the most to lose if a pregnancy results.
 
Damocles said:
Yet you bothered to mention what they paid for it... Which I care nothing about.

Even as President he would still be unsuccessful doing that. I get bored with silliness like that, it doesn't matter because it isn't something he'll be able to change.
Click to expand...

Ahh, but you miss the point. What other things can he change? No doubt stop stem cell research but what else?

Such folks tend to have more than one crazy thought.
 
christiefan915 said:
Even most Catholic GOP'ers don't think birth control should be banned.
Click to expand...

The Church teaches a great deal about sin in all areas of life, including sexuality. Porn, masturbation, fornication, adultery, etc. It doesn't single out any group on this - its all considered sinful and lustful. That's a commandment made to each individual, which, many are going to ignore, being people.

That's not the same thing as the Church actively trying to promote political bans and regulations. The only area it takes a firm stand on is abortion, because you've now strayed beyond the realm of individual sexuality into life and death situations.
 
Socrtease said:
Bullshit! WHen I was little we would eat beans, and nothing else 4 to 5 days a week for months at a time. When my parents would buy meat it would be for my brother and I only. 7 dollars for a 4 year ID translates into 14.5 cents a month for 48 months. In New Mexico it would be even less. The problem is even if ID's were free, and lots of states have offered to make them free, Democrats would STILL oppose them. YOu have to be a citizen of the US to vote. The only way to prove you are who you are is to present an ID. Fuck sake, you have to have an ID to buy cigarettes in most states now. I am not certain, but I am pretty sure that smoking is more prevelent among the poor than than the middle class and Rich. You have to have an ID to use most welfare programs, you need an ID to register your children for school. Requiring an ID to vote is a minimal restriction (Sorry STY) on your right to vote.
Click to expand...

People forget what it is like. How many decades has it been since you were food-insecure?
 
To say no cheating Is going on because few get caught is classic GED food. 10 percent of retail merch is stolen, 90 percent goes undetected. Is it not a problem? Retards!
 
Last edited:
Emperor Trajan said:
Did you just change tactics?
Click to expand...
Yes he did. He went from "You don't know what it's like to be poor" to "How long has it been since you were poor?" I worked for Legal Aid AND The New Mexico Public Defender Department. I KNOW what people who are poor go through. If you knew how many of my indigent clients had their bond revoked because they were drunk, your head would spin. If you are indigent you should not be drinking alcohol, that is a luxury. The cost of an ID is not insurmountable, it is just inconvenient when you want something more than an ID so you can vote.
 
Alias said:
Then don't fuck without some protection. Are all women dumb?
Click to expand...
But if Insanetorum had his way no one could use protection. He comes to this view by the Pope who thinks no pill or condom should be used, except of course when Priests molest little kids.
 
How is supporting a 'States Right" to pass its own statutes and laws, so long as they are not in conflict with the Constitution, equal to his wanting to "ban" contraception? I'll tell you- It's booga booga time in liberal la la land.
 
In an interview with Jake Tapper on ABC News, Santorum reiterated his opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that prevented Connecticut from banning contraception.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide."

Santorum said he also opposes the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down a ban on sodomy in Texas and 13 other states. Even though he would not personally vote for a ban on sodomy, he said, he thinks states should legally be able to pass them, because sodomy is not a constitutionally protected right.

"I thought that law was an improper law ... but that doesn't mean the state doesn’t have a right to do that," he said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top