The US needs more democrats like this

Gosnell

Why is the aberrant always trotted out as if it were the norm?

For the same reason they cover car wrecks, train wrecks, fallen bridges, lotto winners, etc. TO REMIND YOU OF WHATS GOING ON OUT THERE FOR REAL.
 
For the same reason they cover car wrecks, train wrecks, fallen bridges, lotto winners, etc. TO REMIND YOU OF WHATS GOING ON OUT THERE FOR REAL.

Doesn't make the freak incident the norm....unless your a FOX viewer:rolleyes:
 
I understand that, but then why every time that abortion is now raised as a topic does his name emerge?

Because the Left isn't the only side that thinks making law based on a single incident is going to make good law.
 
So what do you watch? What news outlet is truly RW?

I don't watch tv news at all. In fact I don't watch tv period.

I read a lot, and from what I read I extract the salient points that are historical facts.

For example I recently learned that JFK was conservative, no question about it, and it makes sense in light of his economic and social and foreign policies. He was prolly the last president with admiration and respect for our military, and the last with any combat experience.
 
I don't watch tv news at all. In fact I don't watch tv period.

I read a lot, and from what I read I extract the salient points that are historical facts.

For example I recently learned that JFK was conservative, no question about it, and it makes sense in light of his economic and social and foreign policies. He was prolly the last president with admiration and respect for our military, and the last with any combat experience.

G H W Bush flew Avengers against the Japanese in WW II.
 
For the same reason they cover car wrecks, train wrecks, fallen bridges, lotto winners, etc. TO REMIND YOU OF WHATS GOING ON OUT THERE FOR REAL.

You missed my point. But it's okay. It was pretty early.
 
Never said there was....

Just that it was reproductive health related.

You too missed my point. Viagra has little to do with reproduction, unless there's a bunch of old guys out there trying to knock up their trophy wives for one last chance at raising a good kid. Viagra is more closely related to the Aleve they take so they can continue to play tennis and not look like a hobbling idiot.
 
You too missed my point. Viagra has little to do with reproduction, unless there's a bunch of old guys out there trying to knock up their trophy wives for one last chance at raising a good kid. Viagra is more closely related to the Aleve they take so they can continue to play tennis and not look like a hobbling idiot.

I understand.... I know how they work and what people use them for.

And sometimes "the pill" has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy either. But it's still marketed and classified as birth control...and Viagra is still a boner pill.
 
I understand.... and sometimes "the pill" has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy either. But it's still marketed and classified as birth control...and Viagra is still a boner pill.

I specifically referred to it as "birth control" rather than "the pill" for exactly that reason. Insurance programs will often pay for "the pill" if it can be shown that it's being prescribed to fix a medical condition (like irregular menses).

Look, the reason I brought it up was that I'm tired of hearing that it's not fair that insurance pays for Viagra but not birth control. It's apples and oranges. The two aren't the same. One prevents a natural occurrence in an otherwise healthy woman. The other treats a medical condition. Insurance will generally pay to fix a medical problem, but not for an individual choice.

I'm not saying that I agree with insurance companies on this; only that this particular reason given for the "unfairness" of it doesn't fit.
 
I specifically referred to it as "birth control" rather than "the pill" for exactly that reason. Insurance programs will often pay for "the pill" if it can be shown that it's being prescribed to fix a medical condition (like irregular menses).

Look, the reason I brought it up was that I'm tired of hearing that it's not fair that insurance pays for Viagra but not birth control. It's apples and oranges. The two aren't the same. One prevents a natural occurrence in an otherwise healthy woman. The other treats a medical condition. Insurance will generally pay to fix a medical problem, but not for an individual choice.

I'm not saying that I agree with insurance companies on this; only that this particular reason given for the "unfairness" of it doesn't fit.

Fair enough..
 
Look, the reason I brought it up was that I'm tired of hearing that it's not fair that insurance pays for Viagra but not birth control. It's apples and oranges. The two aren't the same.

No, but there is a conceivable causal relationship.
 
I'm all for it as long as you make sure all things to do with reproduction go unfunded.

No more boner pills...p rostate anything....vasectomies.......fertility drugs...artificial insemination....none of it.


Why prostate?
Cancer is a tough thing to deal with.
Viagra and the like, fertility drugs, artificial insemination, etc... I can agree with.
They are either vanity or they exist because people are opting for them. That said, they can pay out of pocket.
 
Why prostate?
Cancer is a tough thing to deal with.

Why is a prostate more important than a uterus? :confused:

Viagra and the like, fertility drugs, artificial insemination, etc... I can agree with.

They are either vanity or they exist because people are opting for them. That said, they can pay out of pocket.


Not always the case....in fact most those drugs are used therapeutically for a large number of conditions.
 
Back
Top