So what does VBOT think ....

[VatorMan]

Originally Posted by Butterfly71

Clearly, Catholic Co-eds should stick to blow jobs. Problem solved

Ah, the voice of reason.

[Butterfly71]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Or anal. Don't forget anal.

Good point

[Butterfly71]

Originally Posted by VatorMan

Ah, the voice of reason.

Aren't you glad I'm here again

[VatorMan]

Originally Posted by Butterfly71

Aren't you glad I'm here again

Absolutely.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Butterfly71

Good point

They should have tought that in CCD. I might have paid more attention.

[American Made]

Rush is a radio rich blowhard of divisiveness.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

I just do not understand how you could rationalize Georgetown offering insurance to its employees that does offer contraception services, while denying that for the program the students have to pay for.

They can not fall back on "ethics". If it is the position of the church that people who use contraception are sinners, then why would that same school hire these people that use it to teach the students going to the institution? That would mean they only believe in the "ethics" when its convenient. Which frankly from my experience is actually the truth, but that is not a justifiable "moral" position to hold.

To hold the "moral high ground" they would have to be all out with regards to contraception. No one gets it, student or faculty. Georgetown by offering contraception to its faculty thus has no ethics or righteous indignation to fall back on.

I'm not rationalizing it. They may very well have to offer it as a competitive position to get non-Catholic professors, coaches, etcetera... as they cannot restrict who they hire because of Federal fair labor practices. I'm sure if they could legally restrict their faculty to only Catholic clergy they would. But since Priests can only be men, then that doesn't allow for women to be considered for the positions and that violates the law.

This is a really simple situation. Take the fact that it's Birth Control out of it -- The rules handed down by God say that if you go to this school then every one there wears red. Some students (against God's rules) wear blue. It's against the rules, they know it but they do it and they don't make a big deal about it. It's a private situation between them, their Father Confessor and God. But this chick goes in front of Congress and says she not only wants to wear blue, she wants the school to provide a means for her to not have to pay for it.

The school and the Catholic Church are not about to do that. And Congress should not be attempting to force them to do it.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by VatorMan

Therein lies the rub. You can't take money from one hand and think no strings attached. Sorry, private is private. SEPARATION of church and state and all that jazz.

There are not strings attached - the government is paying the university to do research. They pay for and receive a service.

Buying research doesn't give the Government the right to tell a university how to make policy. If Government grants are based on certain social criteria for the researchers and the institution, then the Government has the discretion to not use that university for the research.

The government contracts with thousands of private entities to perform services without having any say in what insurance services those entities provide to employees or their customers.

[The_Dude]

Originally Posted by TxAg

And, IMHO, at this point this thread is probably best in PRC country.

It's gone pretty far from "So what does VBOT think about the Rush/Slut/Obama Story?"

[Iron Chef]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Wait, I can't have an opinion on what you or anyone else has stated? The way you stated things came across as such to me. If you feel the need to ban me or anyone for pointing out how they felt a comment came across to them I sure can't stop you.



Do you agree or disagree "public assistance" (aka welfare) should be decreased? If not, then should it be increased?



Well then you need a Chevy Volt and a new remote control.




Then what is the point of continuing the discussion?

Just because you disagree with a statement doesn't make it ignorant, and you can state it as such. And this isn't a court of law...if someone can't logic out the fact that I don't mean "ALL" of a given group, it's their problem. I'm not going to put qualifiers next to every word.

Welfare should be stopped or at least cut to a bare minimum. That's my opinion on that.

I drive a Dodge Challenger R/T and a Chevy Corvette. Do I look like someone who's going to plug in my car??????

Point of continuing the discussion? Probably none. Again...doesn't matter to me. We can agree to disagree.

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Iron Chef

Believe me...Bucky can never label anyone a sinner.

Sure I can - we're usually all in the same picture.

[Stangkiller]

So in summary, it looks like a few of you support requiring that all health care plans include 100% birth control.

Last I checked, unprotected sex was a personal / recreational activity, for personal gratification. Condoms work just as well as most birth controls, and are provided free at most health centers. But that's not good enough and insurance companies must pay for more contraceptives? Condoms also prevent STD's, but now we're pushing condomless birth control to allow the spread of STDs now.

What's the difference in paying for contraceptives for pleasure, and plastic surgery? Both make the recipiant happier, but in most cases provide no additional health benefits. Where's it stop? I just see this as a slippery slope to a government teardown/ take over of private health insurance plans.

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

And it doesn't matter WHAT it costs for other non-condom methods, gov't shouldn't be paying for it even partially

How many more times you need me to say "I agree?"

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by TxAg

One more will do nicely?

You have managed to step on your dick (As difficult as that task is) enough for today. Stubby.

[RedLS1GTO]

To the original question...

The feelings of some college student insulted on the radio is not something the president should be sticking his nose in.

[Joecooool]

On a side note, I found this gem today.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape.”

Richard Nixon

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

On a side note, I found this gem today.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape.”

Richard Nixon

I don't care who you are, we've come a long way in just 50 short years.

[Truck Guy]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

They should have tought that in CCD. I might have paid more attention.

CCD?! You went to CCD? No wonder I saw lightning whenever we were sitting together having a couple of cigars

Originally Posted by Joecooool

On a side note, I found this gem today.

“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape.”

Richard Nixon

Joe Biden
QUOTE: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man." [To the New York Observer in February 2007]

Rod Blagojevich
QUOTE: "This guy, he was catapulted in on hope and change, what we hope the guy is. What the ****? Everything he's saying's on the teleprompter. I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up."

To quote a few on the left. No matter what party, these dipshits are all idiots

[Giraffe (He/Him)]

Originally Posted by Sea Six

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes... but you left out one additional adjective: accurate.

Of course you would think this. You haven't had an original thought of your own since "I gotta poop mommy"

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

...

The Catholic Church, like all others in this country, is subsidized by the US Government with tax exemptions. So I'll tell you how we can agree. Just repeal all tax exemptions on religious institutions, and end government programs that provide assistance or money to those institutions. Then at that point they can do what ever they want. Until then, they have to play by the same rules as every other institution on the government tit.

Help me understand this Phil.

The government NOT taking donated money from an entity means they are subsidizing that entity?

Either I completely misunderstand your point or that is the most bassakward thing I've read in a long time.