Previous 11 - 20 Next
Anybody know if she touts the benefits of engaging in "She Bop" as an alternative to abortifacients????
Unless I'm mistaken, contraception can be purchased for less than a dollar at just about every gas station/convenience store in town, so I fail to see why not covering contraception via employer sponsored health insurance places a woman's health in jeopardy. I must be some kind of village idiot or something.
In response to:

BREAKING: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

marcmat Wrote: Jun 30, 2014 10:55 AM
To me, it makes sense that only closely held corporations -- even if for profit -- can exercise religion and/or harbor religious "beliefs." In the case of publicly traded companies, an owner with a religious objection can simply sell his/her stock.
In response to:

BREAKING: SCOTUS Sides With Hobby Lobby

marcmat Wrote: Jun 30, 2014 10:43 AM
Okay, everyone say it in unison, adopting your best whiney tone: "Look, uh, lemme be clear: I still have a pen and a phone. Make no mistake: Nobody is more angered and upset over this decision as I am, and I am prepared to act unilaterally, if necessary, to defeat this ongoing conservative attack against women."
Car Levin is most likely not co-sponsoring the amendment because the unions here in Michigan have told him not to.
In response to:

Obstructionism Is Patriotic

marcmat Wrote: Jun 27, 2014 8:19 AM
Harris and Hobby Lobby due out Monday. Stay tuned . . .
In response to:

Obstructionism Is Patriotic

marcmat Wrote: Jun 27, 2014 8:13 AM
The "obstructionism" to which you refer is commonly known as checks and balances and the separation of powers. A Republican house was elected in response to policies and actions "we the people" object to. Have a nice day!
Makes me glad I didn't have Obama as my con law professor back in the day.
Every American lives in fear of the power of the IRS to destroy him. If the GOP cannot leverage this jaw-dropping scandal to -- as Nancy Pelosi once said -- "drain the swamp" -- the nation is beyond reclamation.
Well, evidently he's going to get his day in court, so we'll ultimately know whether the evidence shows he was involved or not. Don't get me wrong -- I don't trust Obama or Hillary either. My point is simply that the CIA may have thought, "look, if this guy's that brazen, why don't we see where his bravado leads us?" By the same token, suppose Jen Psaki had answered, "We waited two years because we were using his activities to trace the sources of funding for the attack, and we believe we have been successful in nailing that down." Would that have been wise?
Um, actually, no I didn't. I did, however, work on the Bush campaign in 2004, Have a nice day!
Previous 11 - 20 Next