The Official Bendis Board 2012 Presidential Campaign Thread

[SidekicksRevenge]

I do find it a huge conflict of interest in principles for those who demand for tax-paid contraceptives and pregnancy-related health care, but yet want the government to "stay out of their body."

If the government is going to take money out of people's pockets to pay for your health care, they will also start getting involved with your body. How would this not be inevitable?

There's a difference between an optional service (insurance programs cover all manner of optional treatment) and a mandated procedure.

[michealdark]

http://dailycensored.com/2012/03/05/...tests-illegal/

Take heart, Ray. It looks like Congress has decided to shit on the First Amendment so that you don't have to hear the words "Occupy Wall Street" anymore.

[Marcdachamp]

The debate is not about contraception, or religious freedom. It's ultimately about health insurance, and conservatives who hate the Affordable Care Act are seizing on the birth control coverage issue to raise a stink and take the debate into sensitive areas. There are many insurers who already provide free or cheap BC pills (since pregnancies are a drain on profits), and the law was simply an attempt to codify and standardize it across the board. Catholics jumped on it, and evangelicals joined in, since any war over Obamacare is something they'll gladly join.

This.

[BriRedfern]

http://dailycensored.com/2012/03/05/...tests-illegal/

Take heart, Ray. It looks like Congress has decided to shit on the First Amendment so that you don't have to hear the words "Occupy Wall Street" anymore.

If I read that article, is it showing up on my fucking facebook page? Why does it want my facebook password? I guess what I am trying to say is, I am not reading that article.

[Ray G.]

http://dailycensored.com/2012/03/05/...tests-illegal/

Take heart, Ray. It looks like Congress has decided to shit on the First Amendment so that you don't have to hear the words "Occupy Wall Street" anymore.

That's not what it did. It slightly tightened protest restrictions in certain areas deemed sensitive security-wise.

[Dreg]

I do find it a huge conflict of interest in principles for those who demand for tax-paid contraceptives and pregnancy-related health care, but yet want the government to "stay out of their body."

How is it a conflict of principles? The government isn't altering the choice of the individual in regards to their bodies when they cover contraceptives. The choice is up to the individual whether to use them or not. They ARE altering the choice when they make it OK for companies to deny coverage of contraceptives and institute reproductive Jim Crowe laws that make both contraceptives and abortions harder and in some cases impossible to attain.

That's not what it did. It slightly tightened protest restrictions in certain areas deemed sensitive security-wise.

Passed by Republicans AND Democrats, too. As if it wasn't already painfully obvious OWS wasn't the Democratic Tea Party.

[michealdark]

If I read that article, is it showing up on my fucking facebook page? Why does it want my facebook password? I guess what I am trying to say is, I am not reading that article.

You missed the edit

[michealdark]

That's not what it did. It slightly tightened protest restrictions in certain areas deemed sensitive security-wise.

Which are so loosely defined that they could be anything the DHS wants them to be

[Mister Mets]

Pat Robertson said something I agree with.

"I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol. I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded," - Pat Robertson, punctuating similar comments he made on "The 700 Club" last week. Great to have him aboard.

[michealdark]

Wow, impressed a little