Appalling: NY Times editorial distorts, misleads, and lies to readers on HHS Mandate

posted at 12:31 pm on March 23, 2014 by Dustin Siggins

With many political debates, I try to give opponents the benefit of the doubt on intentions. Sure, raising taxes is a bad thing, but some politicians and pundits believe higher taxes will benefit society. Some people think we need to spend more, and others really fear climate change.

When it comes to the HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate, however, I’ve almost stopped being that generous with the left’s media and thought leaders. This New York Times Magazine editorial is a prime example as to why. Almost from start to finish, the piece misleads and misdirects readers about the mandate, its opponents, and religious freedom.

Here are several examples:

First, the editorial says “for-profit corporations will ask the Supreme Court to take a radical turn and allow them to impose their religious views on their employees” by not providing contraception coverage as required by the mandate. This is a falsehood for at least two reasons: For one, the individual insurance market is an option for coverage, and colleges, high schools, Wal-Marts, and many other organizations provide birth control for free or very low prices.

Furthermore, most employees are “at-will” employees, meaning they can leave anytime they wish. If they want employer-covered contraception, plenty of companies will provide it.

In other words, many options exists for employees — and I haven’t even mentioned abstinence yet, which is 100 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

Next, the editorial says exemptions from the mandate “would significantly harm other people.” This is clearly not true, as pointed out above, because options abound.

Third, the editorial makes the claim that a Supreme Court decision against the mandate “would flout the First Amendment, which forbids government from favoring one religion over another — or over nonbelievers.” In fact, the mandate gives special treatment to those who believe contraception, abortion drugs, and sterilization, and puts those who disagree with the mandate at a distinct First Amendment disadvantage with regards to speech and religion.

The editorial also argues that the mandate does not include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs:

The companies’ owners remain free to worship as they choose and to argue (incorrectly) as much as they want that some of the contraceptive drugs and devices on the F.D.A.’s list actually induce abortions.

It has been proven time and time again that the mandate covers abortion drugs. For just two examples of this, check out what Live Action’s Drew Belsky and I wrote a couple of months ago, or check out this incredibly thorough analysis of that question by Just Facts.

Finally, the editorial states that “the government plainly has a “compelling” interest in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, and in furthering women’s health and equality.” Actually, women’s health would benefit from fewer contraceptives, and contraception use only lowers the abortion rate after increasing it dramatically. And if the editorial board wants fewer “unintended pregnancies,” it should start with encouraging abstinence. Pregnancy is a fairly common result of engaging in sexual relations, after all.

There are other statements in the editorial that need to be debunked, but this is just a sampling of the misleading and outright falsehoods it possesses.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Be sharp!

S. D. on March 23, 2014 at 12:36 PM

It’s NYT. It’s what they do.

S. D. on March 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Yo…. Alice….. ain’t the rabbit hole grand.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on March 23, 2014 at 12:38 PM

It’s the NYT. This isn’t even news worthy anymore.

bernzright777 on March 23, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Is this one of those times when it might be appropriate to call this a Capt. Louis Renault moment?

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 12:39 PM

S. D. on March 23, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Ha!, great minds…

bernzright777 on March 23, 2014 at 12:39 PM

When it comes to the HHS abortifacient/contraception/sterilization mandate, however, I’ve almost stopped being that generous with the left’s media and thought leaders.

Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt on other subjects? You know they’re liars. You just said so. So to believe they aren’t doing the same thing on every issue is folly.

Flange on March 23, 2014 at 12:43 PM

All the lies that fit their agenda.

talkingpoints on March 23, 2014 at 12:44 PM

The companies’ owners remain free to worship

The first amendment guarantees a right to religion. The people who purport a “right to worship” are ripping a page straight from FDR.

nobar on March 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM

I started to read the Saturday editorial about the individal mandate to my 96-year-old father, but when I saw the words “preposterous” and “Republican,” I reminded Dad that the Times always lies and cheats and I would not be a party to lying and cheating, as I’ve tried to tell him often. He sulked for a while, but we made up.

cbenoistd on March 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM

*right to free religion.

nobar on March 23, 2014 at 12:49 PM

With many political debates, I try to give opponents the benefit of the doubt on intentions.

That’s your first mistake, Dustin. These people view you as an enemy, even when they are being collegial. Movement conservatism will never find a unified voice until conservatives become comfortable with the thought of being someone’s enemy.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM

History lesson time

FDRs 4 freedoms:

The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor– anywhere in the world.

nobar on February 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM

For those who don’t know the 4 freedoms.

nobar on March 23, 2014 at 12:53 PM

…Freedom of the Press Lie!

KOOLAID2 on March 23, 2014 at 12:55 PM

and others really fear climate change

That is really a funny way to put it. Doesn’t that describe a certain kind of paranoia, isn’t there some kind of treatment for that that affects only the person(s) with the disorder?

whbates on March 23, 2014 at 12:57 PM

What did you expect? It’s the NYT, official mouthpiece of the DNC.

GarandFan on March 23, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Since we’re talking about FDR’s “four freedoms,” maybe we should talk about what constitutes natural rights since everything is all about “civil rights” these days.

The right to life: No person may take another’s life

The right to liberty: No person may dictate another’s actions.

The right to property: No person may avail themselves of the fruits of another’s labor.

The right to contract: Two people are free to commit their property, liberty, or lives as they see fit upon mutual agreement.

The right of reparation and restraint: Absent mutual agreement, people are free to defend their respective rights to life, liberty, and property by whatever means are at their disposal.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:02 PM

The editorial also argues that the mandate does include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs:

That should probably say that the editorial argues the mandate does not include coverage of abortion-inducing drugs.

J.S.K. on March 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM

That’s your first mistake, Dustin. These people view you as an enemy, even when they are being collegial. Movement conservatism will never find a unified voice until conservatives become comfortable with the thought of being someone’s enemy.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Geez, every time I wonder what your true political leanings are you post a comment like this that is just irrefutable. This is especially true specifically concerning the media.

Well said.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Geez, every time I wonder what your true political leanings are you post a comment like this that is just irrefutable. This is especially true specifically concerning the media.

Well said.

hawkdriver on March 23, 2014 at 1:08 PM

You flatter me sir. Thank you.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:10 PM

And if the editorial board wants fewer “unintended pregnancies,” it should start with encouraging abstinence. Pregnancy is a fairly common result of engaging in sexual relations, after all.

Oh please! This is a ludicrous position to take. What about married couples? Do they have to be abstinent too? This is a First Amendment issue your personal views on birth control should not matter a whit.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Oh please! This is a ludicrous position to take. What about married couples? Do they have to be abstinent too? This is a First Amendment issue your personal views on birth control should not matter a whit.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:15 PM

You can take it to the ever-loving bank, my Danish friend; abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed method of birth control. I can promise you on pain of death that if a person doesn’t have sex, they won’t have kids. Period. Full stop. End of story.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:17 PM

The new “logic” is becoming: Refusing to do something against your religious beliefs is “imposing” your religious views on others. And that’s bad. Even though even if that was what was happening – since you’re not the US government it’s not unconstitutional but should be illegal.

By not taking some action or paying for some thing against your beliefs you are violating the law. This is the definition of religious persecution and what the First Amendment was written to prevent.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:23 PM

First things first – terminology

almost from start to finish, the piece misleads and misdirects readers about the mandate, its opponents, and religious freedom.

It is NOT the mandate. You all need to get with the obama/Pelosi/Reid program.

As this helpful IRS explainer details, Americans who go without insurance in 2014 should “make an individual shared responsibility payment with your 2014 tax return filed in 2015.”

Goebbels sends his greetings.

He couldn’t have written the bolded section any better.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:23 PM

We on the right fit the classic definition of “insanity” by continually thinking that dems and the press will play fair and then acting all put out when they don’t. We are truly screwed!

Jackson on March 23, 2014 at 1:24 PM

It sure is funny how the editorial board of the Times didn’t have any problem when Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said that if stockholders were only worried about ROI that perhaps they should consider another stock.

J_Crater on March 23, 2014 at 1:26 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:17 PM

I’m not Danish you freaking moron. Do you have any idea how ridiculous “conservatives” sound when they demonize contraception and advise people to be stop having sex – including, presumably, MARRIED PEOPLE?

I am not defending the NYT, but Dustin’s argument will convince exactly ZERO people that religious business owners have a First Amendment right to abstain from providing contraception.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

It sure is funny how the editorial board of the Times didn’t have any problem when Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said that if stockholders were only worried about ROI that perhaps they should consider another stock.

J_Crater on March 23, 2014 at 1:26 PM

By rights, every Apple shareholder should be suing Apple for that statement alone.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

New York Times lies – appalling, but not surprising.

Since birth control pills can be obtained for under $20 a month, why is this even an issue? Because Barack Obama wants to make it an issue.

bw222 on March 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

I’m not Danish you freaking moron. Do you have any idea how ridiculous “conservatives” sound when they demonize contraception and advise people to be stop having sex – including, presumably, MARRIED PEOPLE?

I am not defending the NYT, but Dustin’s argument will convince exactly ZERO people that religious business owners have a First Amendment right to abstain from providing contraception.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

A fine example of how to frame a convincing argument – from an expert. Lol!

I guess those who can’t do, teach.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:30 PM

I’m not Danish you freaking moron. Do you have any idea how ridiculous “conservatives” sound when they demonize contraception and advise people to be stop having sex – including, presumably, MARRIED PEOPLE?

I figured you’re not Danish, douchebag. But it is in your name. So you can GFY if you’re going to have an aneurysm over something so stupid.

I am not defending the NYT, but Dustin’s argument will convince exactly ZERO people that religious business owners have a First Amendment right to abstain from providing contraception.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Yeah, I know you’re not defending the NYT, except you kind of are. No one is suggesting that married couples can’t use birth control. But if they do, they implicitly accept the chance that they might have a child anyway, and regardless will enhance their chances for heart attacks, cancer, pulmonary embolism, and other deadly diseases.

The first clause of the first amendment reads thusly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

You’re just like those douchebags that argue that the second amendment’s “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is somehow qualified or limited. Forcing people to violate their conscience by making them pay for birth control contra their religious beliefs is exactly the kind of prohibition of “the free exercise thereof” that the first amendment was drafted to address.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:35 PM

I’m not Danish you freaking moron.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

It says Danish in your name? If you aren’t Danish why are you claiming to be one?

Talk about distorting and misleading headlines!

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:35 PM

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Do you think conservatives sound reasonable when they argue married people should be abstinent because birth control is bad? Yes or no?

Do you think women respond well to men telling them to stay away from birth control? Yes or no?

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:37 PM

OT

Turks shot down a Syrian fighter jet.

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:37 PM

why is this even an issue?

bw222 on March 23, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Because the ultimate goal of the left is that “every knee shall bow” to the authority of the state. Thus, sincere religious faith is anathema to them. In the spirit of just-passed Purim: They are Haman and seek to hang all Mordecai’s they can find.

This issue along with other recent issues have nothing to do with the left’s concern for human rights and everything to do with using the force of government and leverage of these issues to subjugate religious faith to the state.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM

I guess we can conclude that mandating people to “Buy Danish” is now constitutional law. Don;t argue against it or you will be mocked and ridiculed.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM

It says Danish in your name? If you aren’t Danish why are you claiming to be one?

Talk about distorting and misleading headlines!

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:35 PM

When you don’t know, don’t speak.

Do you recall the killings in Denmark, by the muzzies?

Do you recall the forbidden Danish cartoon?

“Buy Danish” is in support of that marvelous effort.

Buy Danish is an incredibly gutsy and principled commenter.

Shame on all of you who attack the person and the wonderful nom, you naifs. You are no better than the trolls sometimes.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Try Googling “Buy Danish”. I’m tired of having to educate you all about this.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Do you think conservatives sound reasonable when they argue married people should be abstinent because birth control is bad? Yes or no?

That’s not the argument, moron. The argument is that people should not have to violate their conscience by paying for other people’s birth control. But keep beating that straw man, douchebag.

Do you think women respond well to men telling them to stay away from birth control? Yes or no?

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:37 PM

There are no laws against birth control in the united states. I think a lot fewer women would use hormonal birth control if they realized how they were harming themselves doing so.

Anyway, do you think that men respond well to women telling them they must violate their conscience in order to pay for them to be promiscuous sluts a la Sandra Fluke?

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Do you think conservatives sound reasonable when they argue married people should be abstinent because birth control is bad? Yes or no?

Do you think women respond well to men telling them to stay away from birth control? Yes or no?

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Yes or no? Yes or no? Yes or no? Convincing argument? Yes or no? Do you sound perfectly sane an reasonable? Yes or no?

Well, you convinced me, and completely missed the point of my previous comment. Yes or no?

At least you haven’t’ tried to convince me yet by publically insulting me, but I’m sure that’s on it’s way. Yes or no?

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM

our nations healthcare has been turned upside down to provide sandra fluke can get her contraception of choice for free. abstinence is free but was not her choice. overall though it was definitely worth it.

casel21 on March 23, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Try Googling “Buy Danish”. I’m tired of having to educate you all about this.

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM

So you mean the pastry?

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Do you recall the forbidden Danish cartoon(s)?

S/b cartoons, in the plural.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Shame on all of you who attack the person and the wonderful nom, you naifs. You are no better than the trolls sometimes.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM

I didn’t attack the name. I was called a moron for addressing Buy Danish as “my Danish friend” with tongue firmly in cheek. I think the attacks started when he subsequently called me a “moron” and it was all downhill from there.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Wow. We’ve been schooled by our betters that we don’t belong here and they’re tired of us.

Time to go. Lorien was right this place has changed.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:42 PM

So you mean the pastry?

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Stop digging. Only your head hangs out of the latrine. You’re in danger of having to swallow you know what.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Do you recall the forbidden Danish cartoon(s)?

S/b cartoons, in the plural.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Yeah, some of us even bought danish cheese in solidarity, by choice, not compulsion from the law.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM

So you mean the pastry?

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Don’t. Shame on you. You’re very bad and unworthy, almost a troll or something.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Yeah, some of us even bought danish cheese in solidarity, by choice, not compulsion from the law.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM

It’s was quite gutsy and brave of them.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Yeah, some of us even bought danish cheese in solidarity, by choice, not compulsion from the law.

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM

I remember that now. Didn’t make the connection between that and Buy Danish’s nom de cyber, but I also remember that effort was spearheaded by the Little Green Footballs crew, which is why I did not participate.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM

I believe any woman can go to a pharmacy and will be given scripted birth control and abortifacients for free. It’s the Sandra Fluke provision. I’m an employer and if you look at your premium statements, some carriers will itemize the additional fees and charges (pass through taxes on the insurance company) used to fund this nonsense. The woman doesn’t even have to be covered by insurance. You may recall that this was the “accommodation” for the religious exemption, but in reality it is imposed n every employer and group insurance plan. In fact that is the core issue in the Hobby Lobby case.

So think about this in relation to the NY times op piece—I along with millions of others work our standard 60 plus hours a week so someone’s little darling can have non committal sex. What a country.

cthemfly on March 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Lord and HA know that BD and I disagreed to the teeth on Romney and the RINOs. However, let it be restated – BD is highly intelligent and principled.

Fighting these ones take guts, the kind a million times bigger than those of the Brits and the current DC dwellers.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Don’t. Shame on you. You’re very bad and unworthy, almost a troll or something.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Just some fun on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:46 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:42 PM

Lord and HA know that BD and I disagreed to the teeth on Romney and the RINOs. However, let it be restated – BD is highly intelligent and principled.

Fighting these ones take guts, the kind a million times bigger than those of the Brits and the current DC dwellers.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM

If BD’s principles include me having to pay to subsidize American sluts’ sexual habits, that is an ideological gulf we won’t be able to bridge. Especially not when the cry devolves into “How come you don’t think married couples should have access to birth control????!!!!11!!!111eleventy!!!!”

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:48 PM

…I along with millions of others work our standard 60 plus hours a week so someone’s little darling can have non committal sex. What a country.

cthemfly on March 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM

So let me repeat: I am not okay with this.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:49 PM

15 or so years ago me and my gf both were making $4.25/hr. I don’t recall having to abstain from carnal pleasures because we couldn’t afford bc/contraception.

Why all the hub bub to force others to pay for it?

Is that “conservative?” Yes or no?

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 1:49 PM

15 or so years ago me and my gf both were making $4.25/hr. I don’t recall having to abstain from carnal pleasures because we couldn’t afford bc/contraception.

Why all the hub bub to force others to pay for it?

Is that “conservative?” Yes or no?

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Because if you don’t pay for it for others, you’re against it and that makes you a bad bad person!/

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Don’t. Shame on you. You’re very bad and unworthy, almost a troll or something.

29Victor on March 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM

lorien is a very smart cookie. Yes, the site is different. However, stupidity is the same.

You can all state your pro/cons, but you should not deride noms, when you are clueless to what they mean.

Surely you can internalize this, in good faith.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:48 PM

You know damn well that I have no peeve with your position, arguing the pro/cons of the thread topic.

It’s just on the BD nom and the incredible ignorance about it.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM

You can all state your pro/cons, but you should not deride noms, when you are clueless to what they mean.

Surely you can internalize this, in good faith.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:50 PM

How is “…my Danish friend…” deriding a nom? Dude turns around and calls me a moron, and you don’t criticize him. But I give him a gentle and good-natured poke, and I’m the freaking bad guy?

/facepalm

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:53 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:17 PM

Watch out for the Fundamentalists. lol :)

S. D. on March 23, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Shame on all of you who attack the person and the wonderful nom, you naifs. You are no better than the trolls sometimes.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Stop digging. Only your head hangs out of the latrine. You’re in danger of having to swallow you know what.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:43 PM

Thanks for lecturing us on proper response form. By the way, would you care to explain how someone as rational and thoughtful as yourself got banned?

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 1:54 PM

You know damn well that I have no peeve with your position, arguing the pro/cons of the thread topic.

It’s just on the BD nom and the incredible ignorance about it.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM

So am I included in that group of people “deriding the nom?” In fact, I really didn’t see anyone “deride the nom” until BD himself started making a big deal out of it.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:55 PM

…I along with millions of others work our standard 60 plus hours a week so someone’s little darling can have non committal sex. What a country.

cthemfly on March 23, 2014 at 1:45 PM

You should have said “what a stupid country”, indeed.

Harry Reid and obama will call us “the war on women”, when NO one keeps women more unemployed and in modern day plantations, as they do.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Thanks for lecturing us on proper response form. By the way, would you care to explain how someone as rational and thoughtful as yourself got banned?

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 1:54 PM

I think Schad’s behavior in this very thread explains it adequately.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:56 PM

By the way, would you care to explain how someone as rational and thoughtful as yourself got banned?

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Ah, good Maddie. I would, gladly, and you’d laugh your azz off. But then, I’d get banned again. Sorry, if that would make you happy.

It’s sad and very disappointing that you don’t get the BD name and why those who deride it are so ridiculous.

Here. It’s coming to America.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Meant to tell you, Maddie, that I always read/like your comments.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:59 PM

I think Schad’s behavior in this very thread explains it adequately.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Good gryph, of all the people, part of Schad, the nom and the person, is to misbehave. The nom is very carefully chosen.

How sad that you all missed the entire BD nom, and the claim thereof. And now you have your wipping-boy, ol’ bad Schad. Heh.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Ah, good Maddie. I would, gladly, and you’d laugh your azz off. But then, I’d get banned again. Sorry, if that would make you happy.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Schad took a gratuitous personal dig at one of Ed’s guests on TEMS. That right there is ’nuff said as far as I’m concerned.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:02 PM

We know that islam and sharia are on the move in the west. That isn’t the point of anything to do with this thread. The problem is that too many in the west have given up on constitutionally protected liberty and now think it is ok to force other people to purchase their non-essential pharmaceuticals. What would be the proper conservative response to that?

Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM

Btw, you holier than thougs…being banned is not as bad as you think. It’s actually incredibly enlightening.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM

How sad that you all missed the entire BD nom, and the claim thereof. And now you have your wipping-boy, ol’ bad Schad. Heh.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Don’t be giving me the stink-eye, Schad. I remembered where that meme came from. Said so upthread in case you missed it. But you never did answer my question. Do you believe I was “deriding the nom” when I called BD “my Danish friend?” Is that really how you define “deriding?”

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

That right there is ’nuff said as far as I’m concerned.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Yeah, because you’re clueless.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

It’s sad and very disappointing that you don’t get the BD name and why those who deride it are so ridiculous.
Here. It’s coming to America.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 1:59 PM

I don’t? Where did you see that?

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Yeah, because you’re clueless.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

Keep up with those ad hominems, Schad. Your nom is exactly what I’ll be feeling when you get banned again, as I’m sure it’s just a matter of time.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM

If BD’s principles include me having to pay to subsidize American sluts’ sexual habits, that is an ideological gulf we won’t be able to bridge. Especially not when the cry devolves into “How come you don’t think married couples should have access to birth control????!!!!11!!!111eleventy!!!!”

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Portrait of a jackass^^^^

LOL. I’m not asking any of you dolts to buy anyone’s birth control. I do not support the idiotic freeeeee birth control vote buying mandate in Obamacare. I do not support ANY PART of Obamacare. I support the right of religious people to not provide birth control to the their employees based on First Amendment principles.

Now,do you think married people who use birth control are “sluts”, *you bleeping moron*?

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

gryph, I addressed good sharukin. I didn’t even read your “dear Danish” whatever comment.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Biden blames Putin homophobia for Crimea invasion

Russia’s “gay propaganda” law that makes it illegal to tell children about gay rights is linked to the nation’s takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea, Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday night.

Speaking at a gala in Los Angeles for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Biden suggested countries that don’t respect the rights of gays, lesbians and transgender people also disregard borders.

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM

I told you it’s an enlightening experience. It exposes the likes of you and Meredith.

Btw, it wouldn’t matter one iota.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:07 PM

I don’t? Where did you see that?

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 2:04 PM

You fell into the “let’s get after Schad, bla, bla, bla”.

Boring lot.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Keep up with those ad hominems, Schad. Your nom is exactly what I’ll be feeling when you get banned again, as I’m sure it’s just a matter of time.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Guys – WTF? Lots of smacking each other over nothing in this thread.

VegasRick on March 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Just some fun on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 1:46 PM

True, but make it more exciting :)

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Guys – WTF? Lots of smacking each other over nothing in this thread.

VegasRick on March 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM

Heh, sardines…while the whales engulf us…

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Portrait of a jackass^^^^

LOL. I’m not asking any of you dolts to buy anyone’s birth control. I do not support the idiotic freeeeee birth control vote buying mandate in Obamacare. I do not support ANY PART of Obamacare. I support the right of religious people to not provide birth control to the their employees based on First Amendment principles.

You’re not asking, and that’s fine. But that’s exactly what the mandate is. Government is forcing the people, at the point of a gun (like always) to subsidize birth control purchases with tax dollars.

Now,do you think married people who use birth control are “sluts”, *you bleeping moron*?

Buy Danish on March 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM

That question is so enormously stupid that it doesn’t deserve to be addressed seriously. Anyone who wants birth control can pay for it themselves at any time. This fact will not change for the foreseeable future. Somehow I don’t think it’s married couples crowing the loudest to have their birth control paid for, but if the people have to pay for birth control they wouldn’t ever use, they will be paying for everyone’s. Including the sluts. And I will not mince words. It is the sluts, the Sandra Flukes, that want the rest of us to pay for birth control she claims to not be able to afford

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Speaking at a gala in Los Angeles for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Biden suggested countries that don’t respect the rights of gays, lesbians and transgender people also disregard borders.

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM

Give a whole another meaning to “going south”.

VegasRick on March 23, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Keep up with those ad hominems, Schad. Your nom is exactly what I’ll be feeling when you get banned again, as I’m sure it’s just a matter of time.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Guys – WTF? Lots of smacking each other over nothing in this thread.

VegasRick on March 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM

I didn’t start it. But I’ll make damn good and sure I get the last word. :P

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:11 PM

Everyone, have a good Sunday.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:12 PM

We know that islam and sharia are on the move in the west. That isn’t the point of anything to do with this thread. The problem is that too many in the west have given up on constitutionally protected liberty and now think it is ok to force other people to purchase their non-essential pharmaceuticals. What would be the proper conservative response to that?
Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM

And in “check the temperature in hell” news, I’m agreeing with Murphy9. We’ve got our own, different problems with Muslim fundamentalism, because we are not the Danes, who brought this on themselves with their disastrous immigration policies. That’s not the point of this thread.

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Heh, sardines…while the whales engulf us…

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:10 PM

Not quite sure what that means but to me all of the posters calling each other “morons” and “idiots” have all posted insightful and rational views in the past. Just saying…………

VegasRick on March 23, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 2:13 PM

+1

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

We know that islam and sharia are on the move in the west. That isn’t the point of anything to do with this thread. The problem is that too many in the west have given up on constitutionally protected liberty and now think it is ok to force other people to purchase their non-essential pharmaceuticals. What would be the proper conservative response to that?
Murphy9 on March 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM

And in “check the temperature in hell” news, I’m agreeing with Murphy9. We’ve got our own, different problems with Muslim fundamentalism, because we are not the Danes, who brought this on themselves with their disastrous immigration policies. That’s not the point of this thread.

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Apparently it is now, since “my Danish friend” is now considered deriding a nom.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

VegasRick on March 23, 2014 at 2:14 PM

+1

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Apparently it is now, since “my Danish friend” is now considered deriding a nom.

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

It isn’t. See sharukin.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Hey, Schad. Before you go, you going to tell me if you consider “my Danish friend” to be deriding a nom?

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM

It isn’t. See sharukin.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Sorry. Must’ve hit the submit button within seconds of you. Thank you. I feel validated. ;)

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Thanks for lecturing us on proper response form. By the way, would you care to explain how someone as rational and thoughtful as yourself got banned?

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Schade is an adult and does not need or want me, or anyone else, to fight its battles, but your comment was in poor taste as Schade admitted his mistake, paid the price and apologized. We all make mistakes and debate Schade all you want, but no need to lower yourself in ad hominem attacks.

HonestLib on March 23, 2014 at 2:19 PM

You fell into the “let’s get after Schad, bla, bla, bla”.
Boring lot.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:08 PM

When Schad makes an imperious, off-topic comment, why should it not be called out? And the fact that there were numerous call-outs should indicate how inappropriate it was.

Maddie on March 23, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Hey, Schad. Before you go, you going to tell me if you consider “my Danish friend” to be deriding a nom?

gryphon202 on March 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM

It isn’t. See sharukin.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM

No peeve with you, ever. You can also always have the last word. Just save the Republic.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:21 PM

HonestLib on March 23, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Cold day in Hell when a sheer dichotomy, an honest lib, comes to the defense of…mirabile…outspoken Schad.

HL, never to worry. These ‘fights’ are ant hills. The Republic is catapulting toward the abyss…contraception…can’t take Schad, needs to be banned…God, please no bannings, not even of the worst of trolls. I support 100% free speech, for ALL.

In the process none realized the sheer stupidity of the misinterpretation of a great nom – Buy Danish.

To be sure, I’m for all buying their own pleasure pills, of all kinds.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:26 PM

In the process none realized the sheer stupidity of the misinterpretation of a great nom – Buy Danish.

Schadenfreude on March 23, 2014 at 2:26 PM

No one misinterpreted it. Just having fun with Buy Danish’s hysteria.

sharrukin on March 23, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3