McCain + Birth Control = s-s-s-studder

Hilarious

My favorite part

"I dont remember what i voted on that"



Give me a break.

hmm, you're making me defend McCain and it's an odd feeling, but I feel some level of reason should be injected.

Let's review what he said and if it was unreasonable:

1) I don't recall that vote - Fair enough. I doubt any of us remember everything we did at work 5 years ago on the spot. It's not an easy choice when going up against prepared reporters constantly.

It's not fair to expect someone to recall everything and have a response on the spot all the time.

2) He said he would get back to her - I also think this is fair. Rather than give some dodgy response it seems he decided to give it some thought and get back to the reporter with a reasoned answer rather than giving something half... well you know.

Now, on to the issue of the vote:

Why is it the job of the government to FORCE a private company to offer specific services because some think it "more fair".

If women really wanted to, they could put the health care industry on it's knees. Let's be honest, women have a HUGE amount of financial pull these days (notice tv ads and the percentage of clothing store sections between men and women).

An organized campaign against these companies in a social manner would do quite a bit in my estimation. Ladies can raise billions and billions of dollars for cancer nationwide but can't seem to rally for birth control?

Rubbish.

Women have power these days and they should use it against companies to have them be "treated fairly", not ask the government to do their job for them.

That's lazy and outside the bounds of the government to begin with. He has nothing to answer for and his vote seems sound to me.

Why is it the job of the government to FORCE a private company to offer specific services because some think it "more fair".

you're right.

We should do away with all forms of government intervention.

Bye Bye Department of Labor.

Si-anara (spelling?) Department of Human rights

See ya later fair trades and practices.

Lets just let businesses continue to take advantage of consumers.

Goodbye FDA. Goodbye government.

See ya later?

:shk:

And you said you were going to be the voice of reason.....

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
you're right.

We should do away with all forms of government intervention.

You are extrapolating something that doesn't exist in my post, not off to a good start man. I'm trying to interject my opinion and I get sarcasm in return?

Why? And why only take a portion of my point to focus on?

Bye Bye Department of Labor.

Si-anara (spelling?) Department of Human rights

What? There is no Department of Human Rights. How did we get from government forcing companies to include certain medications in their service to cutting whole departments?

See ya later fair trades and practices.

Lets just let businesses continue to take advantage of consumers.

Goodbye FDA. Goodbye government.

See ya later?

How is not covering birth control "taking advantage of consumers? That's a question I hope you can actual answer.

And you said you were going to be the voice of reason.....

Well I haven't been sarcastic and have done more than post youtube videos from biased sources. Have an opinion man.

Bring it, I can take it. I'd be happy to see you have one too if you'd actually get into a real discussion about it.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro


What? There is no Department of Human Rights.

Oh?


Department of Human rights


Hmm. Or do you not consider this a form of government?

In all fairness not every state has a Department of Human Rights.
And all google searches for a Department for Human Rights at a federal level have come up with nothing. (for me)

reply to post by JesterMan

How is that "in all fairness"

This was a discussion of government entities?

He claimed the DHR didnt exist, he got proven wrong.

In all fairness? Perhaps he should've done his research before opening his mouth and showing us how much he really knows?

Just a hunch....really.

All fairness?

Government exists to protect people. True: It's gone too far in the past 7 years. But Obama will see to changing that.

You silly conservatives are soooo funny.

You complain about "big government"
but support bush's decision to make it bigger than it has ever been before.

Ever.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
Oh?


Department of Human rights


Hmm. Or do you not consider this a form of government?

Yes. If you want to change the parameters of the discussion fine, but let people know.

I'm well aware many states have them, but we are speaking of the Federal Government. Try to stay on topic man...lol

I'm just trying to figure out how suggesting that they make a change through social action rather than pressing government to use force somehow can be extrapolated into removing all government restrictions.

By the way, the portion you quoted that started this whole vein was a question, and one you still haven't answered.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

You silly conservatives are soooo funny.

You complain about "big government"
but support bush's decision to make it bigger than it has ever been before.

Ever.

Whoa, are you kidding me? I loath Bush, didn't vote for him, can't stand him, and wouldn't consider him a conservative if a gun was held to my head (ok maybe then, but it'd be a lie to save my life).

Bush sucks bro, and practically all of us know it.

McCain is a highly active senator. He has voted yay and nay for the past 20 years of his life. One can't expect him to remember it all from the top of his head, especially since bills are far more simplistic in design when looking at it from a regular citizens point of view.


Look up an entire bill online. Its all lawyer speak.

I see nothing wrong with it. Heck, I'm young and don't remember what I voted for on a local tax bill here because its so dang complex!

This isn't important as far as I am concerned. Just your usual tit for tat. Won't be long and you will see a tit for tat to counter this one.

Originally posted by AndrewTB
McCain is a highly active senator.

.......sure .....


thats why he's the most absent senator....ever....

This thread


pretty much sums that up.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by AndrewTB
McCain is a highly active senator.

.......sure

.....


thats why he's the most absent senator....ever....

This thread


pretty much sums that up.

Absence has little to do with activeness. Hate to brake it to you, but McCain is well known and respected.

You can show up all you want and still be an inactive senator.

A majority of of Obama's senatorial votes are "present", meaning he neither votes yay or nay. IMO no different than not showing up.

Edit: And for you I have a link: www.msnbc.msn.com...



[edit on 8/5/2008 by AndrewTB]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by JesterMan

 

How is that "in all fairness"

WTF!?????????

Why the hell are you attacking me for putting in my two cents?? I can see that you are not here to get other people's opinions, but rather attack people that have a different point of view. IN ALL FAIRNESS, I did do some research and just stated that not every state has a Department of Human Rights.
Maybe you need to cool down a bit friend.
Silly conservatives huh? I am not even going to respond to that because judging from you last reply I am already a Bush lover that listens to Rush Limbaugh and likes to smack my wife... Right?>?

By that same logic you silly liberals just want to turn our country into a Big Gay free abortion party where the Government taxes us 95% of our income. We wont be able to buy houses or groceries but we will have "Free" Health care. Oh boy oh boy.

Just chill out man.

with love
JesterMan

he can't answer because he can't form an opinion
he always has his foot in his mouth every time it's opened.

one is a medication for a condition
the other is a pill taken only by choice
So the correct answer without the foot in the mouth

is:One is for a medical condition ,the other is a pill that is taken by choice

thats my opinion on it.it is the answer I would of given.



[edit on 5-8-2008 by solo1]

reply to post by AndrewTB

Absence has little to do with activeness. Hate to brake it to you, but McCain is well known and respected.

So...you're saying its okay for him to NOT show up to his job, that we (the tax payers) pay him to do?

Do you only show up to YOUR job when something big is going on?
Unless you're unemployed, i'd wager a guess of euro's to dollars that says you don't. That says you show up ever day - regardless of the activity level.

The "present" vote from Obama myth has already been debunked by ATS's very own Benevolent Heretic.

Its in the decision 2008 forums. Happy forum hunting.


McCain may not have voted "present" as often as Obama,
but he's almost missed a lot more votes all together.

Once again -you're bringing obama into a mccain thread (please stop)

About the OP:

Do you not know that Birth Control is used by women to regulate their menstrual cycle? Do you not know that it reduces the painful swelling, inflammation, and length of the actual period?

So - in comparison - if Vikadin (sp?) will be covered by medical insurance, why shouldn't birth control?

Essentially - they both do the same things. (relieves pain)


[edit on 8/5/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by AndrewTB

 

Absence has little to do with activeness. Hate to brake it to you, but McCain is well known and respected.

So...you're saying its okay for him to NOT show up to his job, that we (the tax payers) pay him to do?

Do you only show up to YOUR job when something big is going on?
Unless you're unemployed, i'd wager a guess of euro's to dollars that says you don't. That says you show up ever day - regardless of the activity level.

The "present" vote from Obama myth has already been debunked by ATS's very own Benevolent Heretic.

Its in the decision 2008 forums. Happy forum hunting.


McCain may not have voted "present" as often as Obama,
but he's almost missed a lot more votes all together.

Once again -you're bringing obama into a mccain thread (please stop)

About the OP:

Do you not know that Birth Control is used by women to regulate their menstrual cycle? Do you not know that it reduces the painful swelling, inflammation, and length of the actual period?

So - in comparison - if Vikadin (sp?) will be covered by medical insurance, why shouldn't birth control?

Essentially - they both do the same things. (relieves pain)


[edit on 8/5/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

I'm not saying its ok to do, but what I am saying is despite his absences McCain has gotten a lot more done than a majority of his colleagues.

When trying to make a case for your own candidate you have to be sure your own candidate isn't equally guilty. I will say though its easy to do sometimes.

You should know that, out of the entire senate, Obama comes 3rd in absences (about 44%), hes only been in for a short amount of time and already has such a low turnout. We cant forget that he already has 130 present votes on top of such a low attendance. IMO not a great way to start a career.

It has not been debunked, and is quite clear in obamas record fyi.

www.nytimes.com...




When a senator is elected, its his duty to make well informed decisions in the best interest of the American people. Voting present does not do that job.

Is McCain, Mr. Perfect? Absolutely not, he is very very far from that.

Has he been absent a lot of days? Yes!

Has he failed to do his job? His record shows he hasn't.


A track record speaks a million words about a candidate.


Again, for the record, your arguing a case for or against a certain candidate. How can you not expect their opponent to be brought up? I think someone needs to go back to Debates 101.

[edit on 8/5/2008 by AndrewTB]

Originally posted by AndrewTB
When trying to make a case for your own candidate you have to be sure your own candidate isn't equally guilty. I will say though its easy to do sometimes.

Are you serious?

If we were to apply that logic to a political discussion - the very basis of political debate would cease to exist.

Politics isnt about who has a pure and clean candidate.
Its about who's candidate isnt as stupid as the other. (a dumbed down version of putting it...)

Obama and Mccain have both missed votes.

But McCain has missed almost 20% more.......
so in terms of "who shows up to work more" or "who takes their job seriously" - Barack Obama wins.

Of course, i wouldnt expect you to see it this way - since....your guy is losing

I think someone needs to go back to Debates 101.

Perhaps someone never read the link i posted in the begining of this argument.

"Art of deflection"

its stickied at the top.

This thread is about mccain. Care to talk about mccain...because brigning obama into this has nothing to do with mccain.

If you wanna talk about Obama's issues that you don't like, in the same light i talk about mccains, then please, by all means, go create a different thread (all you have to do is click "new thread" when in the decision 2008 forum)



[edit on 8/5/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by AndrewTB
When trying to make a case for your own candidate you have to be sure your own candidate isn't equally guilty. I will say though its easy to do sometimes.

Are you serious?

If we were to apply that logic to a political discussion - the very basis of political debate would cease to exist.

Politics isnt about who has a pure and clean candidate.
Its about who's candidate isnt as stupid as the other. (a dumbed down version of putting it...)

Obama and Mccain have both missed votes.

But McCain has missed almost 20% more.......
so in terms of "who shows up to work more" or "who takes their job seriously" - Barack Obama wins.

Of course, i wouldnt expect you to see it this way - since....your guy is losing

I think someone needs to go back to Debates 101.

Perhaps someone never read the link i posted in the begining of this argument.

"Art of deflection"

its stickied at the top.

This thread is about mccain. Care to talk about mccain...because brigning obama into this has nothing to do with mccain.

If you wanna talk about Obama's issues that you don't like, in the same light i talk about mccains, then please, by all means, go create a different thread (all you have to do is click "new thread" when in the decision 2008 forum)

[edit on 8/5/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Oh god here we are with the entire art of deflection mumbo jumbo. Its already been taken up with the mods. So don't even try and go that route.

It seems anytime you have no defense thats all you can come up with.

You can try and spin something anyway you want. It doesn't change the facts.

Its almost impossible not to bring up another candidate when having such a debate....


On the other hand, I still stand by the statement of McCain getting plenty done "more than most senators" despite his absence. Heck, the fact he's kept his position so long speaks for itself. Especially for a liberal conservative.

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


Come on Andrew, play nice. We were scolded about that earlier this morning. You opened up a thread about John McCain and the black reporter and although the thread was about McCain you brought up Obama and the Muslim women. Sometimes its necessary to bring up the other candidate to make a point. I'm sure the MODS will take care of it if it is off subject.

By the way, he was surprised by the question and he was left speechless. Funny it is. But also keep in mind the countless agendas they have to face time and time again. Should he know how he voted on every bill, maybe. But that's a lot of bills in his long political career.

Now, where did I leave my Viagra?