Previous 21 - 30 Next
Well, I do still enjoy holding a door for a lady of any age, and because I am polite, I'll hold it for any men who happen to be close to entering as well. If afforded the chance, however; these days, I will ask the lady "May I?" and indicate the door. More often than not I get a blushing "yes", from even the cute little old ones. ;)
Hmmm, maybe they should be happy that the church WANTS to stay out of their vaginas or something? So do their employers. So do the few remaining taxpayers. And all I hear are these same progressive women wanting everyone but those invited, out of their vaginas. Well, that's what we all want. So quit inviting the church, your employer, government, and that taxpayer to your vagina by expecting us to pay the stuff you need to keep it in whatever condition you choose to keep it? Thanks!
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 6:11 PM
Or maybe the "Get off your butt and earn it yourself like I had to!" group?
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 6:04 PM
And you take the government back out of our relationship with our doctor, through an insurance plan mandate.
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 5:57 PM
No, you don't understand abortion drugs. Hobby Lobby ALREADY, pre-ACA, paid premiums to a health plan that offered 16 types of CONTRACEPTION. The ACA added four more drugs that can be contraceptive OR abortion inducing (given HL's definition of when a human is a human). HL refused to have their premiums cover those 4 abortificants, while keeping the 16 CONTRACEPTIVES. It is now a simple matter to tweak the ACA to force health plans to take these 4 abortificants out of their formulary before calculating a religious employer's premiums and co-insurances -- essentially preventing insurance from charging for these 4 drugs, while allowing a doctor to prescribe them to a patient. So, it neither increases or decreases the degree to which the government has already intruded into our relationships with our doctors.
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 5:51 PM
Well, you can argue a woman's choice to kill her unborn baby comes under pursuit of happiness, because being a mother isn't what she wants. However, liberty says that child has the right to life, because even unborn, it is still a part of the race of man and endowed with these very same rights. I think the answer to this dilemma is that there are women and men out there who can't have children, but want them desperately. But not all of them can afford the huge fees it takes to adopt a child in the U.S. and thus can't pursue true happiness. I even know some fairly well off people who go outside the country because it's only $30K instead of $60K - $120K to adopt a child. And we wonder why abortion is so rampant? If we spent the federal share of the Planned Parenthood budget on subsidizing adoption fees and facilitating healthy mothers raising healthy babies for their new adoptive parents, instead of baby murder, Liberty might just prevail. Sure, it might lead to some women wanting to be baby factories, but in a free market, the women who make the best babies will get the best benefits.
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 5:42 PM
When in Rome....
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 5:42 PM
**clarification** that they use to set premiums, copays, etc. in plans purchased by businesses such as Hobby Lobby.
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 5:38 PM
Not true. Hobby Lobby got to decide if it would pay for abortions or not. Careful attention to the ACA will clue you in that with a minor stroke of a certain someone's pen, health insurers will have to provide the abortions for free, and can't include those services in the actuarial analysis that they use to set premiums, copays, etc.
In response to:

Will 'Rosie' Turn Out Single Women?

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 5:36 PM
Marriage status, the article seems to assume, is more of a reliable proxy for a complex interactions of other variables like demographics, religious affiliation (if any). Indeed, I would go so far as to say marital status is a good proxy for their moral convictions, or lack thereof. Were their moral convictions aligned say, with a moderate right to far right woman, they would be more likely to be married and not single. So, the article isn't implying marriage status is a causative phenomenon, more like a characteristic that is extremely common among the democratic voter block.
In response to:

Having a Laugh About Gluten

Auspex Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 2:05 AM
Indeed, science can only build evidence (or document the lack thereof) for a particular hypothesis or set hypotheses.
Previous 21 - 30 Next