Of course it's free speech tgas but then again so was Rush Limbaugh's comments though abhorrant and vile they are to you and me. He still has the right to say what he thinks...and if you disagree with that..even if Ms. Palin isn't exactly your choice as a politician which is fine...but you must also critisize the dispicable comments made by liberal political pundunts like Rosie O'Donnell,Joy Behar,Al Franken, Bill Maher and so many many others from the liberal camp who have verbally attacked Ms. Palin and her family far beyond the line of civil respect.

The difference seems to me..Ms Palin has to take far more critisism than Miss. Fluke ever will in her lifetime.

For once I actually agree with you.

Is there really a difference calling Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin "a moron" or "bat-shit crazy" than Limbaugh reference to Miss Fluke as "a slut"?

To me all such comments are in poor boorish tastes.

As for the verbal political correctness being enforced on me by popular opinion is this if I say I don't support same-sex marraiges or embrace alternative lifesyles such as homosexuality or support popular events such as gay-pride parades that makes me a homophobe who will thankfully die off soon enough...in the eyes of they who consider themselves socially and politically "progressive and enlightened" than they who view themselves as conservatives or religious.

In all honesty they can call me whatever they like.

I have no problem with gays in the military or holding political positions or even holding political rallys to push thier political agenda...it is a free country after all.Just as it is for the Tea Party activists.

Just don't expect me to embrace the gay agenda...or most left-leaning socio-political agendas.

Then why the hell did you post it here?

It was meant to be a religion based topic since it deals with the issue on the right to abortion but nobody is even bothering to address the original topic itself..which both sides of the political fence have strayed way off topic.

So I guess your suggestion to move it to the political sector might have been a better idea in the first place.

I see. And a devout person who's religion dictates that promiscuity, pre-marital sex, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, adultery, pornography, gluttoney, and a host of other popular human activities are "sins," who speaks out about the wrongfulness of these activities would, automatically, be accused of "intolerant" speech, simply because that person was expressing deeply held beliefs.

And how "tolerant" is that?



Yes, I believe you have, my mistake. I am too used to leftists actually pretending to be other than what they are. At least you are honest enough to say you are a Marxist.

However, you left my actual question unanswered; who would put in charge of determining what views could be expressed and by who?



Well I appreciate the honesty. It's actually refreshing to have someone be up front about their ideology.

This makes debating on various issues a much more straightforward affair.



Obviously I would disagree with you on this. But I would like shift the tone here.

Let me ask you a question here.

As both fascist and socialist societies are ruled by a single totalitarian, and all decisions are subject to the whims of that totalitarian, and all ctizens are, in fact, slaves to the state, then what does it matter whether to totalitarian calls his state fascist or socialist?

The only difference I can see between the 2 is what groups fare slightly better in either, in both cases, no one is free to persue their own path.

I would say these 2 ideologies are more alike than different, much more alike.

I'm inclined to agree, but I thought a moderator made it clear recently that these sections were going to be left to their own devices.

IMHO, anarchy is not an optimal solution.

I suppose it depends; would you as a male feel more offended if a woman said you were an idiot or if that same person went on national tv and said you were impotent?

Yes there is! Catholic, and other religious institutions who wish to have, or do have employer health insurance plans, and who are paying for some or all of that coverage, are, in fact, paying for contraceptive coverage because Obamacare FORCES ALL insurers to provide said coverage for "free."

But as anyone knows (unless they are completely ignorant of basic economics), there is no such thing as a free lunch. That coverage WILL be reflected in the price of policies! So any religious institution providing and paying for employee health insurance with ANY insurer, is, ipso facto, paying for contraceptive services.



See above.



That brings us to an even more important issue than the religious angle the MSM are focusing on, and that is this; exactly WHERE in the constitution is the federal government granted an enumerated power to DICTATE to a private sector insurer just what coverage they MUST provide and for what price (in this case free)?

Not only that, but FORCING insurer's to cover contraception (something most of us cover ourselves), is a bit like forcing auto insurers to cover oil changes and trips to the gas station!

Simply declaring contraception as a health issue (it is NOT) by executive fiat and then demanding that insurers provide it for free is NOT an enumerated power of government, and it forces up the price of health insurance for ALL Americans.

Insurance is supposed to be for unforseen, catastrophic events; auo accidents, fires, floods, heart attacks and cancer! Imagine how much auto insurance would cost if those insurers were forced to cover autos the way health insurers are forced to cover health care, only the very rich could afford it.

Health insurers are being forced by Obamacare to expand coverage to ridiculous levels. For instance, under the law I could not purchase a plan that did not cover childbirth, contraception, or mental health care, even though I do not desire such coverage. Thus I am FORCED to purchase coverage I will not be using. I object to this intrusion on personal liberty! Furthermore, under Obamacare I will be FORCED to purchase health insurance or face financial punishment.

Please, explain to me just where in the constitution the federal government derives this power?



Yeah, right. Nearly 50% of the electorate pay no income taxes at all and, in fact, are receiving "transfer payments" (economic speak for welfare in this case) from the federal government - something Democrats are extremely anxious to extend to ever more constituents; government dependency is a sure-fire vote-getter for the Democrats.

I vote in every election, local, state and federal. I study all the issues and candidates assiduously, even the local and state judges and county commissioners. I work with my local party headquarters. I am extremely involved in politics for all the good it is doing me as Democrats look to expand their voter base through welfare, poll corruption (why are Democrats so dead set against voter ID laws and purging voting rolls of dead people and illegal voters?) and other means.

I do my bit and then some. Sadly, far too often, it is to no avail. Our educational system has failed us (by design), our politicians have failed us (on both sides of the isle) and the electorate at large is far too distracted by the bread and circuses of modern society to give a damn.

We are now a nation ignorant of history, and will pay the price for that ignorance - which sorta pisses me off knowing history as I do.

Though I can't say I haven't seen it coming.

Oh lordy. Look, even if contraception was not a covered part of the insurance plan, employers would still be paying for it. They pay their employees, who would then buy their contraception out of pocket. The only way to prevent it would be to allow these businesses to forbid their employees from using contraception outright. The Christian even have a term for it: "render unto Caesar." The problem is that with religion, things they don't like get branded "immoral" and they start rending their cloths and covering themselves with ash and wailing to the sky because they can't get their way. Fight the fight, but if it doesn't go your way, get over it and move on.

As far as your participation in politics, are you saying that participation does no good if it doesn't make things exactly the way you want? You clearly don't get our system of government then. You win some, you lose some. To cry corruption just because the other side is winning is being just that: a crybaby.