Miss Fluke goes to Washington

[sirs]

Seperate issue, , as I'm not claiming that Miss Fluke's issue has to do with tax dollars, merely consistent with the fed trying to mandate beyond its Constitutional bounds.  That'd be Obamacare, as it relates to tax dollars.  Now that we have that cleared up....would you be referring to the mandate that religious organizations, provide BC, counter to their doctrine, via whatever insurance carrier they have??  That's actually the far more egregious Fed act, than that of trying to mandate universal health coverage, which is specific to tax dollars

[BT]

Seperate issue, , as I'm not claiming that Miss Fluke's issue has to do with tax dollars, merely consistent with the fed trying to mandate beyond its Constitutional bounds.  That'd be Obamacare, as it relates to tax dollars.  Now that we have that cleared up....would you be referring to the mandate that religious organizations, provide BC, counter to their doctrine, via whatever insurance carrier they have??  That's actually the far more egregious Fed act, than that of trying to mandate universal health coverage, which is specific to tax dollars

Oh OK So we are in agreement that when people are talking about Ms. Fluke and the Georgetown Insurance issue and they throw in tax payers dollars being involved then they are misrepresenting the issue. Is that correct?


As far as your question, i have no idea what you are asking?

[sirs]

Seperate issue, , as I'm not claiming that Miss Fluke's issue has to do with tax dollars, merely consistent with the fed trying to mandate beyond its Constitutional bounds.  That'd be Obamacare, as it relates to tax dollars.  Now that we have that cleared up....would you be referring to the mandate that religious organizations, provide BC, counter to their doctrine, via whatever insurance carrier they have??  That's actually the far more egregious Fed act, than that of trying to mandate universal health coverage, which is specific to tax dollars

Oh OK So we are in agreement that when people are talking about Ms. Fluke and the Georgetown Insurance issue and they throw in tax payers dollars being involved then they are misrepresenting the issue. Is that correct?

If one was purposely doing that, vs referencing 2 issues at the same time, as I was, yea

As far as your question, i have no idea what you are asking?

Strange, I thought it pretty clear.  I'll have to remember to use that answer at some point, I guess

[BT]

 thanks for the for the clarification

[sirs]

You're welcome

[BT]

Glad we cleared up that the Fluke issue does not involve tax dollars, so there is that.

[sirs]

Umm.....yea.  Kinda got that clarified in reponse #15.  It's a far more nefarious run around the 1st amendment.  Not sure why it's still being brought up     

[BT]

The reason it is brought up is that i keep hearing that Ms. Fluke is a slut and that she wants taxpayers to pay for her Birth Control.

And i think we have established that just isn't true.

[sirs]

The reason it is brought up is that i keep hearing that Ms. Fluke is a slut and that she wants taxpayers to pay for her Birth Control.

By whom?  I keep hearing she's advocating that Government mandate that her religious insititution provide her, and anyone else employed or enrolled, with free BC, counter to their doctrine

I think we've established that that is not only true, but in direct conflict with the 1st amendment

[BT]

BOTH is the government mandating the services/products to another, at tax payer's expense. 

[sirs]

Yea, we already went over that with the subsequent clarification, in response #15.  So....who keeps "bringing it up" that seems to require you to keep commenting on it??  I mean, you claim to "keep hearing it".  By whom, would be the question

[BT]

Oh OK. You simply misspoke when  you said "BOTH is the government mandating the services/products to another, at tax payer's expense", in a topic you started with an article that has Mark Steyn implying that tax dollars would be involved, what with the desire to force religious orgs to provide insurance that covers contraceptives with zero copay and a linkage to the national debt, which kinda assumes a linkage, but doesn't straight out make the claim. So the thread is full of indirect claims, claims or misspoken statements as the case may be. And you wonder why i sought clarification of the issue.

[sirs]

So....one more time...who keeps "bringing it up" as some issue that the slut wants taxpayers to pay for her BC, that apparently requires you to keep commenting on it??  Or did you simply mispeak?

[BT]

More like driving the point home. You don't mind that do you?

[sirs]

So......you mispoke when you claimed you kept hearing that Ms. Fluke is a slut and that she wants taxpayers to pay for her Birth Control

No, I don't mind