Quantcast

Is the Birth Control Issue hurting the GOP with Women Voters?

Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru 2012/02/21 16:42:29
Yes
No
You!
Add Photos & Videos

A series of hot button events has thrust the issue of contraception
into the public spotlight recently. There was a large hue and cry after
Obama introduced a new law which requires most religiously affiliated
employers to cover birth control for their employees. Soon after, Susan
G. Komen for the Cure, the nation’s largest breast cancer charity, cut
off funds to Planned Parenthood, which provides affordable cancer
screenings and contraception to millions of low-income women, then
within 48 hours reinstated the funding because of the ensuing fury and
vows to cut off donations to Susan G. Komen.

GOP war on women


What doe this mean for Democrats? Well, in my opinion this is ONLY
GOOD NEWS for the democrats. You see women are now a MAJOR voting bloc,
and you must have at least some of the women vote to win elections now.
The numbers are staggering. Overall, 53 percent of the national
electorate in 2008 was female, according to exit poll data. Women
overall voted 56 to 43 percent for Obama; men voted 49 to 48 percent for
him.


That’s Right, 53% of voters in 2008 were women. How will this affect
the GOP? Consider this: 8 out of 10 women feel that birth control
should be covered by insurance. Let me reiterate that 80% of women!

women vote democrat


How do you think Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney will fare with women
voters after PUBLICLY coming out against insurance coverage for birth
control? I think they will not do well among women voters, which is a
group that the GOP DESPERATELY needs to court. In 2008 among single
women, Obama got the vote by a whopping 79%. The women’s support of
Obama, is what won the election for him. How exactly does the GOP plan
on pulling off a victory, from an already divided party, without the
support of women?

Read More: http://www.theverbalassassin.net/2012/02/21/birth-...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • JAA ☮ Ron ☮... 2012/02/27 03:20:25
    JAA
    Thank you, sir. ;-)
  • apachehellfire65 2012/02/22 04:25:01
    No
    apachehellfire65
    +1
    or at least no more then it's going to hurt obummer in November.
  • BRIDGET 2012/02/22 03:02:45
    Yes
    BRIDGET
    +4
    PROBABLY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY BIRTH CONTROL CAN'T BE USED! AFTER ALL, CONDOMS ARE FREE, AND IUD'S ARE THE PRIMO WAY TO GO. I HAD 3 OVER 15 YEARS AND LOVED IT! IF YOU DON'T CHOOSE TO USE BIRTH CONTROL, THEN KEEP YOUR LEG CLOSED! AFTER ALL, IT ONLY TAKES ONCE.........
  • Andy Fl... BRIDGET 2012/02/22 04:27:10
    Andy Fletcher
    +2
    That's all well and good, and I agree, but that's not what this is about. This is about the left wanting legislation requiring all insurance providers to cover birth control, regardless of who the employer is or what they believe. The easy example is the Catholic church being required to provide their employees with birth control via health insurance that they are required to provide to the employees, in spite of the fact (as ridiculous as I or others may find it) birth control goes against one of the main tenents of their dogma. Just as with mandated health care, there is no basis for this in the Constitution.
  • JAA BRIDGET 2012/02/23 16:08:34 (edited)
    JAA
    +1
    As a female, I agree w/ the response Andy gave you below. This is not a birth control access issue, it's a 1st Amendment issue. Dems have made it into an access issue in order to dupe the naive & less knowledgeable of our society in order to get their votes. It seems to be working.
  • chgo 2012/02/22 02:39:36
    Yes
    chgo
    +4
    Lol. look at all these conservative users trying to rationalize the GOP's idiot legislation.
    These conservatards are worried and terrified, but they won't boldly tell you though. they know they are losing public approval, trust, and public confidence. the sane man in the White House right now will win the votes of his party and the votes of other normal and sane people. The GOP will be left with fellow extremists , misanthropes, and all socially maladjusted.

    And if churches want to be involved in politics, they should be taxed for it.any church that weighs in on political issues should be taxed. There are some very large mega-churches that act almost like political think tanks, and they do not deserve tax exempt status.
  • Andy Fl... chgo 2012/02/22 04:16:45
    Andy Fletcher
    +1
    As far as taxing religious institutions that involve themselves in politics, I couldn't agree with you more. They say anything remotely political from the pulpit, in church correspondence both internal and to the congregation, rallies, protests, anything, tax them like any other business. If they are pushing any political agenda in any manner, they should be subject to taxation. I defy any fellow conservatives to show how it would violate the separation clause without reaching. Even though in all the placement tests I've taken I come up as slightly left of center libertarian, the challenge is still out there. Show me in the Constitution where it exempts churchs from taxation.

    But don't confuse the majority of conservatives with the GOP. They have long since replaced true conservatism with some strange bastardization. Most consevatives don't want the government involved in ANY type of social engineering. Not left and not right. We want the federal government to do what is spelled out in the constitution, no more, no less. We believe folks should be able to succeed by their own hard work and keep what they earn from their toils. Folks don't "deserve" that big screen tv with all the premium cable channels, Escalade, $200 dollar tennis shoes, or a house out in the suburbs, just b...



    As far as taxing religious institutions that involve themselves in politics, I couldn't agree with you more. They say anything remotely political from the pulpit, in church correspondence both internal and to the congregation, rallies, protests, anything, tax them like any other business. If they are pushing any political agenda in any manner, they should be subject to taxation. I defy any fellow conservatives to show how it would violate the separation clause without reaching. Even though in all the placement tests I've taken I come up as slightly left of center libertarian, the challenge is still out there. Show me in the Constitution where it exempts churchs from taxation.

    But don't confuse the majority of conservatives with the GOP. They have long since replaced true conservatism with some strange bastardization. Most consevatives don't want the government involved in ANY type of social engineering. Not left and not right. We want the federal government to do what is spelled out in the constitution, no more, no less. We believe folks should be able to succeed by their own hard work and keep what they earn from their toils. Folks don't "deserve" that big screen tv with all the premium cable channels, Escalade, $200 dollar tennis shoes, or a house out in the suburbs, just because they exist or because "everybody else has it, why not me?". We believe you have to work for it if you want it.

    I may be a bit different from other conservatives in the realm of birth control and abortion. I would never suggest an abortion to anyone. If I got a gal pregnant, I would do everything legally in my power to stop her from getting an abortion (unfortunately that's not very much), but I would never deny a woman her right to choose. Every single choice we make in life has it's consequences and we all need to be responsible for our own choices. Our own, not someone elses. If you can't afford children, don't have them. It's real simple. The only way to be sure and not make babies, is to not do that which produces babies. All forms of contraception have a failure rate. The only sure proof method is abstinance. But if you can't keep your dick in your pants or your legs closed, don't expect me to help pay for it. I have to take care of me and mine, and that's hard enough. I didn't get the pleasure of dipping in to your woman and getting her pregnant, so don't expect me to pay for it when does get knocked up. And before you get indignant, I'm talking to you, yes, but my words are directed at the topic, not you specifically.

    Bottom line is, as someone stated earlier, It's pay to play. If you want to engage in behaviour that has a specific consequence but don't want to be responsible for the results of that behaviour, you are violating my rights as a human being to not be responsible for your choices. That includes paying for your birth control and viagra.
    (more)
  • chgo Andy Fl... 2012/02/22 04:50:51 (edited)
    chgo
    +1
    There is no conclusive evidence abstinence classes or programs are more effective than comprehensive sex education. You are an outsider in your own party. You are just as extreme, scientifically illiterate, and insane as the next American conservative. Don't think for one second an embryo or fetus is a baby because it;s not. Take your politics elsewhere. This topic should be only discussed using ethics and unbiased science.


    & Yes, the most common Contraceptives have failure rate...failure rates that are less than 1% (ONE PERCENT),
  • Andy Fl... chgo 2012/02/22 06:13:15
  • chgo Andy Fl... 2012/02/22 06:26:46 (edited)
    chgo
    +1
    Yes, you are right-winger. And yes you are scientifically illiterate because you say "life begins at conception", ignoramus. Moron, that is not fact- that is your idiot opinion backed by zero credibility or no good science. And no good number of experts in the medical or science community agrees with you either. I'm not gonna go into all the methodology and details because I know it'll go over your head. All I'm gonna say is that A human embryo is not considered viable, because it cannot survive outside the uterus. at the end of the 8th week after fertilization (10 weeks of pregnancy), the embryo is considered a fetus. (In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization).The fetus is actually considered full-term between weeks 37 and 40, which means that the fetus is considered sufficiently developed for life outside the uterus.

    You are one clueless charlatan. Sex among teenagers is on a record high. Abortions rates are way lower because of contraceptive uses. There is no proof abstinence works better than or just as good as sex ed. So, stop trying to misleadingly substantiate your falsehoods.

    " So I very much believe we should make condoms and other forms of birth control available as early as 5th or 6th grade. But we can't just provide contraceptio...




    Yes, you are right-winger. And yes you are scientifically illiterate because you say "life begins at conception", ignoramus. Moron, that is not fact- that is your idiot opinion backed by zero credibility or no good science. And no good number of experts in the medical or science community agrees with you either. I'm not gonna go into all the methodology and details because I know it'll go over your head. All I'm gonna say is that A human embryo is not considered viable, because it cannot survive outside the uterus. at the end of the 8th week after fertilization (10 weeks of pregnancy), the embryo is considered a fetus. (In humans, it is called an embryo until about eight weeks after fertilization).The fetus is actually considered full-term between weeks 37 and 40, which means that the fetus is considered sufficiently developed for life outside the uterus.

    You are one clueless charlatan. Sex among teenagers is on a record high. Abortions rates are way lower because of contraceptive uses. There is no proof abstinence works better than or just as good as sex ed. So, stop trying to misleadingly substantiate your falsehoods.

    " So I very much believe we should make condoms and other forms of birth control available as early as 5th or 6th grade. But we can't just provide contraception and leave it at that."

    There you go again attacking the reproductive rights of women. The sadder part of this whole thing is that you're too dumb to figure out that what you've just said is both misogynist and discriminatory. Why can't girls get the same access to birth control as boys, moron? Why won't Congress pass a "Every Sperm is Sacred" bill rather than a "Abortion is Evil" bill?


    Like I said, take your religious, anti-intellectual beliefs and shove it. No one's listening to you. The majority of Americans are on my side, not yours.
    (more)
  • Andy Fl... chgo 2012/02/22 07:11:23 (edited)
  • chgo Andy Fl... 2012/02/22 16:07:15 (edited)
  • Andy Fl... chgo 2012/02/22 17:20:54
    Andy Fletcher
    +2
    You clearly do NOT understand or know how to read. I NEVER SAID ABSTINENCE ONLY. I even said they should start passing out condoms in freaking grade school. Are you really STILL trying to tell me you can get pregnant without having some form of sex? If you try answering my questions and get past your leftist agenda perhaps we can have a genuine discussion. I've very clearly stated that I'm very close to being an atheist, not a member of the GOP, and I am pro choice. Yet you continue to try and call me a member of some vast christian right conspiracy. The fact is I disavowed myself from the GOP specifically because of their cow towing to the christian right, way back in the '90s.

    I'm not going to insult you anymore, mainly because you don't understand the insults in the first place(last one I promise). I really want to have this conversation with you in a rational manner with no rhetoric or agendas from either of us.

    First, you have never actually addressed the topic of this thread, which is whether or not insurance companies, by force of federal legislation, should be required to cover the cost of birth control, and whether or not the GOP's saying they should not be is going to hurt their chances in the upcoming election. My assertion is that yes it will, and I base that on th...




    You clearly do NOT understand or know how to read. I NEVER SAID ABSTINENCE ONLY. I even said they should start passing out condoms in freaking grade school. Are you really STILL trying to tell me you can get pregnant without having some form of sex? If you try answering my questions and get past your leftist agenda perhaps we can have a genuine discussion. I've very clearly stated that I'm very close to being an atheist, not a member of the GOP, and I am pro choice. Yet you continue to try and call me a member of some vast christian right conspiracy. The fact is I disavowed myself from the GOP specifically because of their cow towing to the christian right, way back in the '90s.

    I'm not going to insult you anymore, mainly because you don't understand the insults in the first place(last one I promise). I really want to have this conversation with you in a rational manner with no rhetoric or agendas from either of us.

    First, you have never actually addressed the topic of this thread, which is whether or not insurance companies, by force of federal legislation, should be required to cover the cost of birth control, and whether or not the GOP's saying they should not be is going to hurt their chances in the upcoming election. My assertion is that yes it will, and I base that on the main stream media misstating the conservative position on the matter. It is not about the GOP wanting to limit women's rights to birth control. It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation.

    Second, you have yet to even try to explain to me exactly how you get pregnant without having sex. For purposes of this discussion you need to leave out such things as artificial insemination because that is an intentional attempt at pregnancy. You keep going on about how abstinence only sex ed doesn't work, and surprise, surprise, I agree with you on that. You go on about "comprehensive sex education", yet want to eliminate abstinence from the discussion. By definition of "comprehensive", eliminating abstinence shortens it to being only sex ed. We need to teach people that they have the option to take advantage of the only way possible to not get pregnant or catch a disease, as well as how to protect themselves if they choose to have sex. We need to teach them the physical and mental ramifications of sexuality. If you limit the discussion to throwing rubbers and the pill at them, without also explaining to them there are ways to not have to make use of them, you are then NOT giving them all the tools they need to make proper and informed decisions as regards to having sex.

    If you can't answer my questions in a rational and honest manner, specifically how a gal can get pregnant if she doesn't have sex, then I'm going to have to give up on you as a leftist rhetoric infused fool. If you can, then I owe you a very sincere apology. To qualify for that apology though, you need to prove your case without trying to say I said things I never said. That means re reading my words and comprehending them
    in an honest manner.
    (more)
  • chgo Andy Fl... 2012/02/22 18:02:11
    chgo
    +1
    " It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation..." "should be required to cover the cost of birth control, and whether.... "

    Wrong again. Are you ever right on anything? the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the "right to marital privacy". In 1972, the case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried couples. Also, Read the Welfare Clause of the US Constitution.

    "It is not about the GOP wanting to limit women's rights to birth control. It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation."
    Wrong again. you seem to never be right. We already are giving federal aid (tax dollars) to non-profit organizations like Planned Paenthood for providing reproductive health and maternal and child health services. We already subsidize insurance companies to offer birth control for men and women, the federal govt funds clinical research on erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals like Viagra and Cialis, the state and federal governments oversees Medicaid, which is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in...>



















    " It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation..." "should be required to cover the cost of birth control, and whether.... "

    Wrong again. Are you ever right on anything? the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the "right to marital privacy". In 1972, the case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried couples. Also, Read the Welfare Clause of the US Constitution.

    "It is not about the GOP wanting to limit women's rights to birth control. It is about the government having no constitutional basis to enact such legislation."
    Wrong again. you seem to never be right. We already are giving federal aid (tax dollars) to non-profit organizations like Planned Paenthood for providing reproductive health and maternal and child health services. We already subsidize insurance companies to offer birth control for men and women, the federal govt funds clinical research on erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals like Viagra and Cialis, the state and federal governments oversees Medicaid, which is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States, and the federal gov't funds other services like giving out free condoms to boys and men in schools. So why not make insurance companies offer birth control for women too>? are you slow or what? What don't you grasp?

    "Second, you have yet to even try to explain to me exactly how you get pregnant without having sex."

    Something is wrong with you. I ignored this on several occasions because it's outlandishly retarded it doesn't derserve an answer .

    "...not the GOP's saying they should not be is going to hurt their chances in the upcoming election,.."

    .You've never asked this question.

    "You clearly do NOT understand or know how to read. I NEVER SAID ABSTINENCE ONLY."

    Oh, Ok. yet you say girls shouldn't have access to birth control. Only boys should. what a moron.

    "...I even said they should start passing out condoms in freaking grade school."

    What about girls' reproductive rights. Why are derailing?

    "I've very clearly stated that I'm very close to being an atheist, not a member of the GOP, and I am pro choice. Yet you continue to try and call me a member of some vast christian right conspiracy."

    Yeah, ok. Liar, liar, pants on fire/
    (more)
  • Andy Fl... chgo 2012/02/22 18:49:13
    Andy Fletcher
    +2
    I was really hoping you could get your head out of your ass but that's what I get for being an optimist. You've expounded so much BS I'm not going to try and answer it all. Can you show me where you answered the topic this thread is on? No you can't.
    Can you show me where I said women should be denied access to birth control or where only guys should? Nope, you can't.
    I could post my voter registration card but I won't. Very likely you wouldn't recognize one if you saw it.
    The topic has nothing to do with "the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the "right to marital privacy". In 1972, the case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried couples. Also, Read the Welfare Clause of the US Constitution". You must have pulled that out of your ass, though I don't know how you found the room for it pass with your head so far up there. Talk about derailing.
    You started out in your first post attacking conservatives in an ugly vitriolic manner, and yet I agreed with your basic premise of taxing churches that engage in political activity. You are typical dumb liberal want the world handed to them idiots. You can't let go of the rhet...



    I was really hoping you could get your head out of your ass but that's what I get for being an optimist. You've expounded so much BS I'm not going to try and answer it all. Can you show me where you answered the topic this thread is on? No you can't.
    Can you show me where I said women should be denied access to birth control or where only guys should? Nope, you can't.
    I could post my voter registration card but I won't. Very likely you wouldn't recognize one if you saw it.
    The topic has nothing to do with "the Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the "right to marital privacy". In 1972, the case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried couples. Also, Read the Welfare Clause of the US Constitution". You must have pulled that out of your ass, though I don't know how you found the room for it pass with your head so far up there. Talk about derailing.
    You started out in your first post attacking conservatives in an ugly vitriolic manner, and yet I agreed with your basic premise of taxing churches that engage in political activity. You are typical dumb liberal want the world handed to them idiots. You can't let go of the rhetoric or get out of attack mode and have a real and valid discussion on the issues as presented.

    Go ahead and continue to spin what I have said to try and fit your argument that isn't even relevant to the conversation in the first place. Go ahead and keep that veil over your eyes and believe that condoms and other contraceptive devices are more effective than not engaging in activities that can make you pregnant or even kill you.

    I'll only bang my head against the wall for so long before I walk away, and now it's time to go. If you want to have a rational discussion on the actual topics and things I have said rather than things I haven't said, I will gladly entertain that prospect. In the meantime, I sincerely hope you are enjoying that kool-aid you've been drinking, because you must be pissing buckets of it by now.
    (more)
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/02/23 16:16:55
    JAA
    +1
    I don't agree with your first sentence, as there is no reason to insult 80% of the country with your bigotry, but your 2nd paragraph is right on. Try to stay on topic, please.
  • Andy Fl... JAA 2012/02/23 17:43:04 (edited)
    Andy Fletcher
    Well JAA, I was directing that 1st sentence to but one person. I think in most cases, throughout the above rant, my use of the word you is indeed singular and directed, rather than collective. I tried hard to be civil and polite this person for a while, but they don't even understand what they are writing, much less what I was trying to say. I'm trying to find words and phrases that they can comprehend.
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/02/23 21:38:51 (edited)
    JAA
    +1
    Well, I gave you thumbs up on all of your comments, & I certainly understand your problems w/ that person, as I've tried to explain it from a woman's POV, but she's still being (deliberately?) obtuse. With many liberals, they have just shut down their minds where anything a conservative has to say. I think they have their hands over their ears (or eyes, in the case of the internet), yelling, "Nananananananana, I can't hear you , I can't hear you, or I'm not going to read, I'm not going to read!) (sigh).
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/02/23 16:14:29
    JAA
    +1
    LOL! I would have been glad to say the same thing to the guy, but he became a girlie-man & blocked me. I imagine you're next.
  • BoredCo... Andy Fl... 2012/02/22 19:37:54
    BoredCollieDogRIPmissDyouRmissed
    +1
    You win!!!

    winner
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/02/23 16:12:08 (edited)
    JAA
    +1
    I generally agree with you, but you're misinformed if you think there is a "separation" clause in the US Constitution. Are you from a different country & not familiar w/ the laws in the USA?

    This doesn't mean I don't want separation of church & state, because that would be untrue (although I do think the anti-theists are being petty & vengeful).
  • Andy Fl... JAA 2012/02/23 17:57:07
    Andy Fletcher
    The clause is there and is real, I can go quote it for you if absolutely necessary. It just doesn't apply for this discussion. It's not a "separation clause" per-say, but that is the common reference. It's not a 1st amendment issue anyway. The closest thing that could apply is the "commerce clause", but since the Dems refused to include real health care reforms in favor of Obama care, portability was not included, which effectively removes the commerce clause from applying as well. There is nothing in the constitution that grants the fed authority to enact this legislation. Also, take note of the fact the OP I was replying to tried to use an age old leftist trick, claiming that it is the GOP enacting legislation to prevent Insurance carriers from providing birth control. In reality, the Dems are trying to pass legislation forcing the carriers to provide birth control, and the GOP is merely opposing it. He won't understand the difference though because the kool-aid has already rotted his brain.
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/02/23 21:47:57 (edited)
    JAA
    +1
    The "separation clause", is like many parts of the Constitution that have been ignored, misunderstood or misapplied It's like saying the "general welfare" clause means re-distribution of wealth. The former is a "common reference" for anti-theists & progressives, the latter a "common reference" for socialists & progressives.

    You're preaching to the choir on the rest of your post. Remember, I'm the conservative, even if not Catholic, who sees what the government is doing as an infringement on 1st Amendment rights, as well as the points you are making.
  • Andy Fl... JAA 2012/02/23 22:31:41
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/02/23 22:38:29 (edited)
    JAA
    +1
    How about we use BOTH arguments, & then we get a double whammy going with this administration? I work for attorneys, & I have one nephew who is an attorney, another a judge. We argue these things all the time. Their consensus is that this is primarily a 1st Amendment issue.

    Yes, lol, your last sentence is most resoundingly correct. The Bible puts it thus, "You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" ;-)
  • Andy Fl... JAA 2012/02/23 23:11:31
    Andy Fletcher
    +1
    The problem here is that we are both actually right, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this small aspect. I just feel using the 1st amendment will fuel the lefts misinformation that all conservatives are extreme right evangelical loons and that is why we oppose such legislation instead of the fact that when you get right down to it, we oppose it because the constitution actually properly prohibits such legislation. They willl spin it anyway they can to demonize the right and have the full backing of the MSM. Except for FOX of course. But then everything they say on FOX is a lie anyway isn't it? [/sarcasm]
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/04/05 17:24:56
    JAA
    I'm very saddened that you would think that anyone who adheres to the tenets of the Constitution are "extreme right evangelical loons", because that would mean you're insulting more than half the US population.
  • Andy Fl... JAA 2012/04/05 17:58:40
    Andy Fletcher
    +1
    "...will fuel the lefts misinformation that all conservatives are extreme right evangelical loons and that is why we oppose such legislation instead of the fact that when you get right down to it, we oppose it because the constitution actually properly prohibits such legislation."

    I guess you missed the part where I said "...will fuel the lefts misinformation..." I'm not saying conservatives are extreme evangelical loons. I'm saying that is what the left is/will be saying. I know better.
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/04/05 18:00:36
    JAA
    +1
    Oops, I apologize. I guess I was reading too fast. I'll be more careful. Thanks for pointing out my error.
  • Andy Fl... JAA 2012/04/05 18:08:44
    Andy Fletcher
    +1
    LoL, that one statement would have invalidated everything I've said had I said it as you first interpreted it, ROFL.
  • JAA Andy Fl... 2012/04/05 18:34:39
    JAA
    +1
    LOL is correct! I swear, I'm going to have to wait until my pain meds kick in before I get on this site.
  • Andy Fl... JAA 2012/04/05 18:57:27
    Andy Fletcher
    Sadly, it doesn't help. This place can be brutal. I'm proud to say I have started my list of being blocked by libs.
  • Radlad 2012/02/22 02:33:32
    No
    Radlad
    +1
    It's just what the liberals want everyone to believe. But in contrast the to the economy, obama's destruction of America and our way of life, the constitution, war, our enemies build up of their war machine while we're dismantling ours.......... That's not even a relevant issue......
  • marcuss....PHART 2012/02/22 02:08:24
    No
    marcuss....PHART
    +3
    I drive so should I get free gasoline?
  • Assassi... marcuss... 2012/02/22 16:10:57
    Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
    +3
    um. That made no sense. Insurance is not free. We pay a lot for insurance.
  • marcuss... Assassi... 2012/02/22 16:24:58
    marcuss....PHART
    We also pay for the health care of about 100 million people at the same time. While WE have to pay outrageous rates they get a FREE ride. When are they going to start paying their fair share like 0WEbama said?
  • Assassi... marcuss... 2012/02/22 19:44:52
    Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru
    +2
    I pay for my own insurance. No one pays it for me. It comes out of my pay check. I have the same right to coverage as anyone else.
  • marcuss... Assassi... 2012/02/22 19:47:48
    marcuss....PHART
    When are the welfare slugs going to pay their FAIR SHARE like 0WEbama said?
  • marcuss... Assassi... 2012/02/22 19:50:39
    marcuss....PHART
    When are the freeloaders going to begin to pay ther FAIR SHARE?
  • CAROLYN NTARWNJBS 2012/02/22 01:57:24
    Yes
    CAROLYN NTARWNJBS
    +5
    I find this question a no brainer,being a woman.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/20 21:40:06

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals