General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2258658

    Freedom of Choice


    by protiusx ·

    Why is it when leftists (American Liberals) talk about “freedom of choice” they are only referring to their freedoms? They will scream from the roof tops that they must have the right to kill the unborn but one should not be able to choose what they will sell in their own store. They will trample the free choice of others to protect their freedoms and not see the inconsistency of their actions or rhetoric.

    Here in Washington there are several pharmacists and companies that chose not to carry the “day after pill” which is also euphemistically called the “morning after pill”. These companies are privately owned and operated and are in the vast minority when it comes to businesses that have chosen not to carry this drug.

    The liberal media has pounced on these companies and are attempting to slander them out of existence. So where is the choice? Aught not an individual proprietor be allowed to choose the products that he or she will or will not sell?

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3283595

      Yes the proprietor should make their own choice

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      Walmart chooses to not distribute some Rap albums. Their choice.

      If there was a monopoly, that might be one thing.

      We’ve had the morning after pill longer here, and we haven’t had those kinds of things come up to my knowledge.


    • #3283593

      It’s still their choice

      by the old man ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      It’s their choice. But some choices are not easy and we all have to live with our decisions.

      It’s also the media’s (liberal or not) choice to throw out their opinion.

      It’s the public’s choice to read and react.

      It’s the advertiser’s choice to continue supporting the paper.

      It’s the customers choice to decide if they are going to change where they buy stuff from.

      Welcome to America!

    • #3283584

      I agree with ProtiusX

      by tony hopkinson ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      That’s got tio be a turn up for the books!

      It’s their store , their livelihood, it is available elsewhere. Such a choice is no better or worse than any other based on personal or even group ethics.
      I personally chose not to work for a firm that did testing on animals, I’ve chosen not to go for jobs in the attack industry.

      Like the fella says to deny their choice, means that I could be forced to program machines to make knives to stab capuchin monkeys.

      So yes, they are free not stock this pill, to stock it, to make a profit on it, to give alternative advice, to take the advice or take the pill. It’s an all or nothing proposition, either your free to make your personal choices or someone’s is a hypocrite.

    • #3283570

      One interesting aspect in the article

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      was the mention of another state where they passed a law forcing the pharmacists to carry the product. I just wonder who will reimburse the pharmacists for any that gets thrown out as expired.

      Each week, pharmacies check their drug stocks for items about to expire and dispose of them as too dangerous to sell. They base their stocking levels and the like on frequency of sale, in order to minimise such waste and loss.

      However, I do have one suggestion to the pharmacies required by law to stock the item. Most pharmacies place routine drug orders on a monthly basis. So buy only one pack, then when that’s sold place the purchase of the item on the monthly restock list. Anyone else comes in, you can truthfully tell them that you’re ‘out of stock and it’s on the reorder list, but not due for delivery for a few weeks’ That will meet the legislative requirements while minimising your capital risk. Then when you have to throw it away as none is sold (people get used to you being out of stock and go elsewhere), you have a valid complaint to the legislators.

      But on the basic issue, every shopkeeper has the right to decide what they will or will not stock and sell. Pharmacies have a different professional requirement regarding presciption drugs to non-prescription drugs. The reason for existence is to be available to dispense drugs prescribed by doctors for medical reasons, thus they have to have certain drugs on hand to do that. But once you get beyond that requirement, anything else is purely their choice.

      • #3283557

        Queen Christine

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to One interesting aspect in the article

        Her majesty the Royal Governor of the Peoples Republic of Washington says that she is proposing a compromise where the store owners won’t have to carry drugs they object to as long as the customer can fill the prescription without leaving the store. What does this mean? What absolute hogwash!

        • #3283539

          As I understood the article

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Queen Christine

          The idea was that the objecting pharmacist need not fill the prescription, another pharmacist could. In this case, I don’t think it would do any good, since there’s only one pharmacist.

        • #3283507

          Not relevant in this case

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to As I understood the article

          this was for a product that is sold over the counter, not on a prescription. Also there are other pharmacists in the area, 21 of them, and he has a list to give people.

        • #3200057

          He wants to be morally superior

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Not relevant in this case

          And it is his freedom to. As someone said up above, his customers can take their business elsewhere.

          Ain’t a free market grand? Atlas hasn’t shrugged yet.

        • #3200040

          How do you get that?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to He wants to be morally superior

          He is just being what he considers Moral. He isn’t stopping anyone from purchasing the product from anywhere else.

          How do you take someone having standards and following them trying to be somehow “superior”?

          If you believe stealing is wrong, and someone else wants you to go in and steal with them, is your refusal to do something you don’t belive in you trying to be “superior”?

          Are you not judging him for judging the ethical use of this pill? Does this mean you are trying to be superior now?

        • #3200056

          Actually, DE

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Not relevant in this case

          This particular product is a prescrption drug if you are under 18.

        • #3199963

          In the article they spoke of it being over the counter

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Actually, DE

          Not being in the USA, I don’t know exactly how your system works, and based my response on the info provided – yep I left out the assumed local knowledge as I didn’t have it.

          Over here it’s so much easier, the feds decide what is or isn’t a prescription, and it applies to all states.

          Another aspect that I just thought of, here no pharmacy carries every possible prescription dug, they carry the most likely to sell, those that the local doctors have indicated that they are likely to write prescriptions for, and anything else the pharmacist think may be required – all others are ordered in upon presentation of a prescription. I’d be surprised if the same isn’t true over there.

          If that is the case, then the guy need only say. I don’t have any in stock, but can order it in for you, be here in two or three days – can I have a deposit please. The person can either wait (if it’s for future use) or go elsewhere for immediate supply.

          Regarding the Under 18s, why not just give them a prescription for the regular pill? Oh being a non-doctoral guy, I DON’T want to know if there is a specific answer for that.

        • #3199914

          You’re right about not wanting an answer

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to In the article they spoke of it being over the counter

          But it’s not a medical thing. As usual in the US, it’s a political/religious thing.

        • #3284649

          Hey Nick, I said I didn’t want to know the answer

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to In the article they spoke of it being over the counter

          because I expected a detailed answer on female biology about developmen, regularity, etc – THAT I didn’t want to know. I already know that some young women take the pill for regulation of their cycle, others can’t take it because it causes them to have some not nice side effects. That is as much information as I need to know on that side.

        • #3284642

          Wasn’t even thinking physiology

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to In the article they spoke of it being over the counter

          The question was “why not just give them [under-18s] a prescription for the regular pill?” The specific answer to that question is political/religious in nature, not physiological.

        • #3199019

          Instead of picking on religion, how about morals?

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to In the article they spoke of it being over the counter

          Apparently, for many people one does equal the other. At the price of meat, I would watch my back around some people from the morals they espouse…

          Religion merely deefines what is right and wrong, your morals guide your actions. The religion is the compass, while a person’s morals are the rudder. If you have no compass and no rudder, you can be a politico!!!

        • #3199011


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to In the article they spoke of it being over the counter


        • #3198949

          I resemble er… resent that remark

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to In the article they spoke of it being over the counter

          Unedited for humor.

          Without Religion I believe I would make a great politician. As it is I won’t run. If elected I won’t serve…

          I voluteered once, and Now that Uncle Sugar has no more claim on my time, (beyond taxes) I have as little to do with the government as I can. I only wish they would leave me alone also….

        • #3200058

          Methinks its part of working in a licensed industry

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Queen Christine

          We want to license so as to reduce the competition, we have to accept some regulation we don’t like.

          Kind of why I rather like working in the un-licenses area of IT break-fix. If it’s broke, I can fix it, and not have to spend unpaid hours looking for current licenses or the latest offering from Club Seventeen on every PC on the bench.

    • #3283561

      This is a tough one

      by tig2 ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      As a nurse, I did not have the right to refuse to assist an abortion on the grounds of personal belief. So I didn’t work in a doctor’s office and I stayed out of OB/GYN. In an emergency room, those decisions are made on an entirely different basis.

      A pharmacist is required to do such things as (and the article noted this) counsel the purchaser regarding medications, contra-indications, alternatives such as generics, and when the use of an addictive medication has escalated. Failure to do this is a malpractiseable event. While this particular drug is in a decidedly grey area, I think that the pharmacist has the same requirements- counsel and advise.

      I strongly believe that as a business owner, he shoudl be accorded the same rights as any other business owner. He should be able to choose what he stocks. The impact is, after all, his own bottom line.

      I took at one time a prescription that was difficult to find. It was obscure so not everyone carried it. I simply learned to fill that prescription at the hospital pharmacy instead of my local drugstore. I think that anyone wishing to use this drug should be looking at what their alternatives really are.

      Today, I cannot purchase more than a set amount of pseudoephedrene, a widely available over the counter drug marketed most commonly as Sudafed. Why? Because it is an element of methamphetamine. Why should something like this be any different? In order to purchase a legally available medication, I am required to surrender my personal information to th epharmacist. I, in effect, agree to be tracked for such purchases. I don’t see any reason that “Plan B” should be any different. Or is it intended to be made available to those under 18?

      No matter what they finally decide to do, I think that it is ridiculous that we are to assume that the desires of some should dictate behavior for all.

      • #3200048

        Long range: OTC for all

        by too old for it ·

        In reply to This is a tough one

        It think the eventual plan is OTC for all. And I think the maximum societal benefit is achieved if Plan-B is available OTC at reasonable cost to girls under the age of 18. After all, they are the ones at the greatest risk for a life of poverty with an unwanted pregnancy.

        You can preach abstinance is best, you can preach responsibility of the guy, and so forth until one is blue in the face. [b]Not going to happen.{/b] Not at least until we get away from the narrow confines that force girls wanting a “romantic relationship forever” to only go out with guys who are interested in a good time for a couple hours.

        (There is a sociology masters thesis in there somewhere …)

    • #3283537

      Prescription or non-prescription

      by nicknielsen ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      Regardless of my personal feelings on birth control (for it) and abortion (generally agin it), I do not have the right to tell somebody else what choices to make.

      Under ordinary circumstances, for prescription drugs, the pharmacist has an obligation to (a) fill the prescription or (b) tell the patient where the prescription [b]can[/b] be filled. Anything else, as Tig and others have pointed out, is a violation of medical ethics.

      For non-prescription drugs, the pharmacist, owner, or manager has the option of stocking the item or not. There is no obligation to tell the customer where the item [b]might[/b] be obtained, but it can be good business to do so.

      The problem in this case is that Plan B (the “morning after pill”) does not require a prescription if you are 18 or older, but does require a prescription if you are 17 or younger. Thus, it must be controlled in the same manner as any prescription drug. This lays an additional administrative burden on the pharmacy which the pharmacist may choose not to assume.

      Now, the hypothetical situation: A patient gives this pharmacist a prescription for Plan B. Does our pharmacist provide a definite location where the prescription can be filled or does he “suggest” a possible source? The pharmacist here stated flat out that he would suggest possible sources. One lady in the article looked for Plan B in at least two different locations (both major chains!), but was unable to find it, was given no help on where it could be found. In her own words, “I felt like they really just wanted to avoid me.”

      Finally, the conundrum: If this is indeed a matter of personal choice, isn’t the pharmacist taking that choice away from some of his customers by refusing to stock Plan B?

      Too many questions and too much black-and-white back-and-forth. What the heck ever happened to compromise?

      • #3283448


        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Prescription or non-prescription

        Let’s [b]force[/b] a compromise 🙂

        • #3283268

          I won’t say anything

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Right,

          about responding to a rhetorical question… B-)

          Edit: yep, spelling

      • #3283284

        Your “conundrum” is flawed from the start

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Prescription or non-prescription

        Their “choice” to buy this product does not eliminate the owners choice to carry the product or not.

        the only choice that the consumer has a right to is if they will use this pill for birth control instead of other responsible forms or not.

        They have no right to dictate to someone else what they will provide.

        The compromise was that any store that wants to make a profit off of this as the ability to do so, and it will be available to these vendors provided they don’t sell it to anyone under 18 without a perscription.

        I would also guess that the two “major chains” just hadn’t started carrying it yet?

        The article was obviously written by someone trying to drum up sympathy for the poor woman with the poor planning of their sex lives. Yeah, that old guy sure looked evil to me? Don’t presume to throw his rights away so quickly. Anyone else feels differntly, they are free to open their own pharmacy and sell plan b till they are blue in the face.

        What will be next? complain because this RX doesn’t carry the brand of condom that I like? They are infringing on my right of choice!

        • #3283256

          Not at all

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Your “conundrum” is flawed from the start

          If the retailer’s choice to not carry a product results in the inability to obtain a product, the consumer now has no choice.

          JD, you blew right past the rest of the post to the part that got you upset.

          I agree that the pharmacist has the right to choose what he will carry. I also agree that the government has no right to tell him what to carry. I even agree about the tone of the article; it was written to drum up sympathy for these women.

          My question is this: Regardless of our beliefs, what gives us the right to tell somebody else how to live their life? That’s what is happening here, from both sides of the issue, and neither side is right.

        • #3283215

          “the consumer now has no choice”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not at all

          They have the choice to find an alternative souce.

          I “blew past” to the part I openly disagreed with.

          I would say it all boils down to one thing. Your “choice” to buy a legal product does not override my “choice” as a vendor to carry that product. Don’t like the choice of products carries? go somwhere else. That is where YOUR choice STARTS. What store you will shop in. the next choice is what products you will buy, that are available.

          You have no right to take away the owners choice to satisfy your own at his expense.

          If so, I would have a legal complaint against many of the local clothing shops because my size is hard to find. Matter of fact, as my boys are just making the transition from boys to mens sizes, it is very hard to find their sizes.

          someone, somewhere made a choice what products to carry, and what sizes to carry them in. My only choice is to go somewhere else or buy from a catalog.

          (from wrestling, have a large neck that is hard to find a dress shirt for.)

        • #3283060

          For some there is no alternative source

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to “the consumer now has no choice”

          For whatever reason: Money, transportation, time, etc. Most of us understand that life is not fair and deal with it as best we can, but in this case, somebody played whiny a$$ titty baby. Most likely because it is such a hot-button subject.

          I feel your pain on hard-to-find clothes. I’m 6’5″ and weigh about 240. In most stores, the only clothes for tall people are also for skinny people. I’m able to find work clothes that fit at, believe it or not, Tractor Supply. Otherwise, I go catalog. Had excellent results from Lands End until Sears bought’em out. They seem to have gone downhill since.

        • #3200106

          No alternative

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to For some there is no alternative source

          But that does not make the consumers problem of not being able to get out and find a product the vendors problem.

          I disagree that you should not be able to tell me what items I have to have in stock for you to buy. Don’t forget that vendors have to BUY their inventory. If that item does not sell, they are out that money. I, as a vendor, should also not have to compromise rigths in the running of my private business.

          Did you know that BorgMart will only sell “clean” versions of CD’s? If there is foul language on it, they will not carry it unless you BEEP out the words or replace the offending songs with other songs. This does not violate free speach, as no one is stopping you from saying what you want. It just will not be sold by people with the same rights.

          Your rights never can override someone elses, and that is exactly what it would be doing to force this man to carry a product he doesn’t believe in.

          Sears bought LandsEnd? It seems like everything that company touches DIES! They even bought Kmart. Tractor supply has causal dress cloths? I thought they only had like carharts.

        • #3200061

          Oops! Double negative!

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to No alternative

          [i]I disagree that you should not be able to tell me what items I have to have in stock for you to buy. [/i]

          So you agree that I should be able to tell you what items you have to have in stock? :0 ]:)

          Actually, JD, I agree with you 100% on that point. Nobody has the right to tell me what to stock in my store, nor do I have the right to tell somebody else what to stock. I was just raising questions that I thought needed to be asked.

          Tractor Supply stocks work clothes mostly (Carhart, Schmidt), work jeans (Wrangler, Levi, Lee), and casual clothes if you like the ranch/western look. Actually, as long as you don’t want disco drawers, you can do pretty well there.

        • #3199991

          I don’t “do” western/ranch

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to No alternative

          Being a city boy, give me a nice pair of dockers and an Izod shirt. It is only in the dress shirts I get into trouble! 😀

          I just LOVE the new comfort fit pants that move with you! B-)

        • #3199912

          Me neither

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to No alternative

          Ranch/western isn’t me either. That’s why I buy my shirts elsewhere. But as my work pants are jeans…

    • #3283534

      The interesting thing about all these kinds of issues. . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      ….is that very few people argue, or even consider, a more important underlying question. In this case, the question is, should government be able to dictate what a private business may or may not sell. Of course, I’m not talking about a candy store selling liquor, or anything of that sort. But when government presumes to dictate what particular choice of products a store makes available, or a restaurant puts on its menu, we’re treading on very dangerous water.

      And as much as a person might argue in favor of such interference in any one particular case, such as this one, by definition, that person is opening the door wider to government control of all business in all cases. There are absolutely no private property rights in the United States anymore, and we now see that private business is anything but private.

      You poor fools who advocate such a thing have probably not given the first thought to what you are really embracing. Or even more alarming, perhaps you have.

      • #3283309

        Here Here!

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to The interesting thing about all these kinds of issues. . . .

        You have hit the nail on the head. As a business owner it is my prerogative to sell what I wish, employ whom I wish and I should not be accountable to or under the scrutiny of the government. If the government would stay out of these issues we would all be better off.

      • #3200065

        Here’s another scenario…

        by rknrlkid ·

        In reply to The interesting thing about all these kinds of issues. . . .

        Steve Ballmer retires from Microsoft, and runs for Senate in Washington. He wins. A year later, new legislation is passed that says “for our protection” only Microsoft Windows will be sold in the United States. Anyone who refuses to sell, install or support Microsoft Windows faces fines and/or imprisonment.

        Another thing to look at is what is actually happening right now in Virginia and Pennsylvania. There is a proposal in Congress right now to make a huge swath of land “protected historical areas.” This sounds good, but the problem is this proposed land cuts through people’s currently private property. Thanks to a landmark Supreme Court decision (seizure of private property through emminent domain), simply because of a decision is made by the federal government these people will lose thier homes and farms.

        How’s that for freedom of choice? The LEGAL OWNERS have no freedoms now, the choice would be the federal government’s.

        This country was founded on the idea of property rights. People (like my ancestors) came to America because they could finally own land and property. These rights are being eroded because of people and their selfish interests not seeing the bigger picture.

        Maybe next time we go into a restaraunt that says “No shirt, No shoes, No service” we can sue them for limiting OUR freedom of choice. Who are they to say who they can or won’t have as customers? Sheesh. The very idea. 😉

        • #3200039

          Protected Historical Areas

          by too old for it ·

          In reply to Here’s another scenario…

          Considering that they stole it from the native americans to begin with.

          “How can you tell when Great White Father is lying? His lips are moving.”

        • #3199987

          Yeah, those evil Republicans….

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Here’s another scenario…

          oh wait, I forgot. It was the LIBERAL judges, the great “defenders of the little people”, that decided increased tax base is enough reason to force you off your land.

          It was a sad day in America……

      • #3200041

        Licensed vs. Un-Licensed

        by too old for it ·

        In reply to The interesting thing about all these kinds of issues. . . .

        Nice to see you out here, Max.

        This is the issue of being a licensed industry. If you accept the benefits of the government license (higher standards, lower competition) you accept that the government will tell you to some extent how to run your business.

        In this case the government promotes (or at least accepts) the notion that women of child-bearing age (say 12 and up) do not have any responsibility to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy when they engage in sexual activity. And rather than embark on a life of grim poverty, or worse yet, entrap a equally irresponsible male into 18 years of involuntary servitude, Plan-B and the like should be available as an alternative [i]without the disapproving stare from someone seeking merely to occupy the moral high ground[/i] (emphasis mine).

        If a pharmacist doesn’t want the governmental interference, he or she can always relinquish their license, and go sell burgers at McDonalds and occupy the moral high ground to their heart’s content.

        (Edited for fat fingers, and to stick in a involuntary servitide link.)

        • #3199994

          It would be interesting to see

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Licensed vs. Un-Licensed

          if there really is a provision that states that every pharmacy must carry every drug that is legally availble in the US? I would find such a law would put many of your smaller pharmacies right out of business?

          Would this also include they have to carry every brand of each medication that is available in the US?

          How old would a medication have to become before it was no longer required to be in stock?

        • #3199984

          To my knowledge

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to It would be interesting to see

          There isn’t a law that tells a pharmacy what they have to stock. There is a formulary and I believe that it only pertains to dispensed medications.

          After pseudoephedrene became a controlled sale substance, many stores refused to stock it any longer as they were required to gather and therefore maintain NPI data. As there was no formal methodology established, it became a liability area that some decided to not deal with.

          Medications have varying expiration dates. A pharmacy must destroy all medication that is within a specific window, but never after, that date. Destroyed medications must be counted and an inventory provided to the FDA and, I believe, the pharmaceutical provider.

        • #3199957

          What I meant by older

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to To my knowledge

          was the meds that people used before the lastest and greatest med was invented. Not how long they sit on a shelf.

        • #3199953

          Established Medications

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to What I meant by older

          Some have been re-classified or are manufactured in OTC safe levels and so are rarely prescribed. The formulary defines re-classified and less prescribed drugs.

          If your prescription is for something fairly rare, generally your doctor will advise you of this and that calling around may be necessary.

          There are older (established) medications that are still in frequent use. Heck- the statins (cholesterol regulators) have been aroung nearly 20 years and even with the newer drugs, some patients do so well on the statins that they never change. Many MDs feel that it is better to keep a patient on a well tolerated protocol instead of trying the newest thing on the shelf- especially in the case of a long history of illness. My father has a long history of heart condition. I don’t think that his medication regimine has changed significanly in the last 15 years.

          And some MDs will provide the patient with samples of newer medications as they receive them from pharmaceutical sales people.

          Is that closer to your question?

          Edited because I still can’t spell

        • #3199920

          oh yeah, thats real fair

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Established Medications

          you even regularly admit that you do your edits because of speelin, yet it is always sweet innocent of all wrong doing me that gets mercilessly tormented! :0

        • #3284650

          Hey TT learning to spell is very easy

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Established Medications

          First you start with a simple hex, like

          “May the fleas of a thousand camels,
          Infest your nostrils.”

          The hard part here is the practice to get the pronunciation cadence right. Hexes, like spells, have no effect if not pronounced right. Oh, don’t practice this on someone you like, they may get upset when you get it right.

          Next you practice and learn the more complex hexes. I find Hexedecimals are good for this, this is a hex delivered in a 10 line cadence, like a double quintuplet. Be careful when choosing which ones to practice here, some are such that if you get it wrong, it happens to you.

          And finally you start learning full blown spells that seriously affect people and place them under your power. Again proper pronunciation is important, as are the accompanying hand movements – wands are optional.

        • #3284468

          But Ernest

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Established Medications

          It’s only fun when you use your wand!

          Mine is white with pink ribbons (I know, completely out of character) and has a flamingo.

          I like flamingos!

          I want to learn to “completely under my power” thing. That could be VERY helpful for next year’s fundraising…


      • #3201511

        Government intervention

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to The interesting thing about all these kinds of issues. . . .

        A recent conversation was regarding Quebec and a said ‘dictatorship’. Okay, perhaps dictatorship is a bit strong but really that’s what it amounts too.

        In Quebec all signes MUST have French on them, MUST by law.

        In Vancouver, MOST signes have English but not all. It is not mandated to have English and many place English in tiny letters under the Chinese, Indian or Vietnamese words, but it is not mandatory.

        If a business chooses to miss out on ZEnglish speaking customers by not advertising in their language, that’s their perogative.

        A business in Quebec does not have that luxury of choice. they MUSt have French, they can choose any other language also, but French must be the predominant language.

        Is this not dictating? Thus dictatorship? Thus the government is too involved in controlling business in Quebec?

        Sorry, segue but your comment lead me into it.

    • #3283533

      this is new?

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      The same has been going on about simple things like Christmas trees or even letting kids out for Christmas break.

      I had to laugh at one of the interviews.

      [i]”Alessio, who is married and the mother of a 1-year-old girl, has had an abortion and does not wish to endure another. All she wanted was a supply of Plan B to keep on hand in case her regular birth control failed, so she walked down the street to Albertson’s. Rebuffed again.”[/i]

      If this only works to keep you from becoming pregnant, but does nothing if you are already pregnant, if she is really has a “regular birth control”, how would she know it until it is too late?

      This pill is for people that didn’t have the intelligence to get their a$$e$ on the pill if they planned to engage in sex. How do you get out of bed and all of a sudden start thinking that just MAYBE you could get knocked up? HELLOO?

      Anyone feel sorry for the “poor lady” who was “rebuffed again”?

      • #3283525

        Nothing is 100 percent

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to this is new?

        Not even the pill. My little one-percenter is 19 now…

        • #3283445

          Of course, that shouldn’t imply…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Nothing is 100 percent

          that most, or even many abortions are due to the failure of an intentional attempt at birth control.

        • #3283301

          Not True

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Of course, that shouldn’t imply…

          This is a myth that pro-abortion activists put out in a vain attempt to sugar coat the fact that we are killing babies because people don’t want to be burdened with a child when all they wanted was to have sex.

        • #3283297

          Another day, another thread

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Not True

          and I just may sugar coat your a$$! “Killing babies” – and you accuse pro-abortionists of emotive language? Shame on you!

          Neil 😀

          I’m assuming that this thread isn’t about abortion but is another one about “freedom” so I decided not to play. Is your part in the “film of the thread” being played by Mel Gibson a la Braveheart?

          Though considering what you chaps actually seem to [b]know[/b] about contraception and the mechanisms thereof, even if it is about the “morning after pill” I’m not joining in until you’ve all attended remedial classes in the subject! :p

        • #3283245

          Careful, careful ! Teetering on the brink

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Not True

          You are skirting close to being a chap who thinks we should be free to choose only certain choices as defined by your personal morality.

        • #3283214

          Lets look at that

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Careful, careful ! Teetering on the brink

          I think one can say that there are choices we are not free to make and that these limitations are placed upon us by our society and the laws produced by that society. What are laws if not rules and penalties put in place by a government that enforce the societal norms of the people said government was empowered to represent? One can steal but it is against the law and generally looked down upon as a negative action and while the person robbed may be to weak to defend him or herself society has banded together and appointed guardians who act on behalf of that individual.

          As it is natural for like minded persons to congregate together it is natural that their common beliefs are made into laws that govern the populous.

          My point is that we can all agree on certain things and it is this agreement by the majority of individuals in a society that eventually creates the laws that govern these people.

        • #3283085

          Now we are cooking

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Lets look at that

          Is there such a thing as communal or majority morality ?

          We are both members of TR , we both think stealing is wrong. We can make common cause on that issue.

          To make it clear to others who wish to be part of our community and so we don’t leave open the option to willfully re-intepret our agreement, memory being imperfect, we write it down calling it a law.

          So when we adhere to this law and we being legal or moral or both.

          What if I and a new member Mr A G Nostic made a law that it was illegal to hold a religious faith, as it has caused untold misery to those who hold a different belief system. Majority (2-1) in favour.

          I don’t care whether you agree with the above statement, it doesn’t matter, I and an other person, the majority, use legislation to impose our morality on you.

          This is the argument you are putting forward as justification is it not?

          Would it be moral for you follow this law ?

          Would you be immoral if you broke this law ?

          Would you change your personal moral code so you could evade being in this position?

          The answer to the first two is no, the last is moot, because it means you don’t have your own moral code anyway.

          If you equate law and morality, then your morals become an arbitary set of rules founded by a committee for expedience.

          You cheapen your own, mine and anyone elses personal ethics with such an argument.

        • #3283036

          My point more clearly explained

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Careful, careful ! Teetering on the brink

          Societal Morality

          My point:

          Morality is always subjective. What is considered morally correct to one culture is not considered the same to another.

          You assert that I would like to impose my personal morality upon others and this is not the case. I have no power to affect others other than to influence them by my words and actions.

          Historically, people of like mind and purpose gathered together and made laws based upon their own collective moral codes.

          I say this to illustrate that we as a society have been in a constant state of flux regarding what we hold to be moral and right and our laws have changed accordingly. We no longer burn witches, we no longer own slaves, and women have been given suffrage.

          In my perfect world, yes abortion would be illegal as I believe it is the killing of the unborn. But we do not live in my perfect world then do we?

        • #3283025

          Actually I said you were skirting it .

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to My point more clearly explained

          You feel abortion is immoral and you would like to live in a society where it was against the law.

          If you campaigned energetically, got the media on side, interested a few corporate sponsors, got the church on side and span it right you night get your way.

          You’ll never make me feel that it’s immoral by making it illegal though, you can’t otherwise my morality wouldn’t be woth the paper it’s not printed on.

          Societal morals could only exist if everyone in a society had the same morals, they don’t and they never will.

          Your world would be perfect for you, not your society.

          Some members of your society would still burn witches, keep slaves and hold their women in voiceless servitude, some, possibly all three.

          This we only exists in your head.

          I can’t abrogate your morality by having different morals nor can I expect that passing laws that matched my morality would invalidate yours.

          It’s yours not ours. You can only be immoral, if you do something against your own moral code, mine or anyone elses has got nothing to do with it.

          Any other definition, and every other person on the planet would have to labelled as immoral in at least one respect or another.

        • #3228645

          bang on sir

          by fonken monken uk ·

          In reply to My point more clearly explained

          *In my perfect world, yes abortion would be illegal as I believe it is the killing of the unborn. But we do not live in my perfect world then do we?”

          No sir, we do not live in a perfect world, as I believe rape and incestual rape are wrong, but they still happen, and children still born as a result.

          But dont forget – the best contraception in the world is still…


        • #3283185

          And this is true because you say so?

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Not True

          Do you really believe all unwanted pregnancies are due to people just not wanting to be ‘bothered’ with contraceptives?

        • #3283175

          What is the ratio

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to And this is true because you say so?

          how many pregnacies resulted from failed birthcontrol vs no birthcontrol?

          If they say the pill is 98% effective, it would stand to reason someone on that would be much less prone to end up with the undesired pregnacy?

          And yes, I had twins while using the pill. Thinking back though, I question if SOMEONE didn’t stop taking it and forget to mention it to me……..

        • #3283160

          I don’t think you can get

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to What is the ratio

          an accurate answer. Many of those irresponsible enough to not use birth control would also be irresponsible enough to lie about it.

        • #3283149

          My oldest stepdaughter

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to What is the ratio

          was conceived because my husband’s ex-wife quit taking her birth control without his knowledge. Which, to me, is a very low thing to do.

          There are many women (or girls) who get pregnant as the result of incest or rape. I personally know of two instances. I’m not saying that violent acts make up MOST unwanted pregnancies, but it does occur and it occurs quite often.

        • #3283127

          Mae, I’m with you here

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to What is the ratio

          And I will say (at Max Level Reached- oh well) that the person that lives with an abortion is the woman. So it should be her right to determine.

          OK guys, before you all get PO’d at me, a few points.

          I don’t believe in abortion. I don’t support it. But it is on the option table. A man can walk away. A woman can’t.

          While I understand that a man can be changed by the experience of becoming a father, a woman WILL be changed.

          Things will happen to her body that she may not be ready for. Oddly, a man in the same 9 months won’t go through those changes.

          I would rather see a woman CHOOSE abstinence. I KNOW that isn’t always a choice. I especially would like to think that a woman HAS a choice. THAT isn’t always the case either.

          Remind me to tell you about Daddy’s best friend…

        • #3283026

          changing lives

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to What is the ratio

          Tig and Mae, while I wasn’t looking to get into these subjects, here we go.

          As you know, my EX just happened to turn up pregnant. (I do seriously wonder if just how accidentally it was now looking back and knowing exactly who and what she is.) Actually, by my own definition, she was “knocked up”, as we were just dating, not even living together at the time. She started to look into adoption, as neither of us wanted to go through an abortion. I couldn’t go through the adoption either, so I offered to take the kids on my own, with no responsibilities or anything to tie her down to them. That was when she decided she wanted them too after all, so we got a place together. I have no idea how a match made in hell like that could ever have ended in divorce…. :0 Oh yeah, she was living in her daddies house at the age of 25, which is why I had offered to take them on my own originally rather than stay together to raise them.

          After the boys turned two, it seemed like things were going to work out just fine, so I asked her to marry me. I really was happy for the first five years. When she found a new “soul mate” we were done. oh well. If she would have stayed faithful, we would still be together.

          Yes, having a child can make a difference to a man as well as the woman. I have seen as many pathetic excuses for humans of both genders, and there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it. How can someone have the wonderful child at home, and prefer to spend their time in a bar?

          15 years after the original offer to take the boys on my own, it is getting close to me getting it. So close. I fully plan by the 16th year of getting just that. I also think she is looking for an out, a way to let me have them without looking like a bad mother as “only a bad mother would give up her kids”. I plan to make this as easy on her as possible to get out of this, for my selfish reasons as much as for the best interests of my boys.

          Funny how things work out, huh?

        • #3283012


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to What is the ratio

          It’s frustrating, because I don’t think we will ever see eye to eye on this. I can’t possibly convey who I am over this medium and I can’t see who you are either. I can give bits and pieces of who I am and why I feel the way I feel, but it will never really come across here. With that being said, I have no doubt, that you a wonderful father and that thing one and thing two are blessed to be among us.

        • #3283009

          T2 I agree completely

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to What is the ratio

          Abortion is the [b]womans[/b] choice and not pollie nor preacher should have any say in it.

        • #3283168

          Not all

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to And this is true because you say so?

          but a great deal of the majority. Let?s face reality – Women get pregnant by having sex with a man. The woman then chooses for whatever reason to terminate the pregnancy and aborts the child. Everything else aside this is what happens every time a child is aborted.

        • #3283040

          This is true

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Not all

          Women get pregnant by having sex with a man. And how often do the men do a vanishing act when they find they’ve impregnated someone? It happens ALL the time. don’t get saddled with the responsiblity of pregnancy, but they sure as hell want to pass judgement. What a wonderful position to be in..

        • #3283031

          A wonderful Position

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Not all

          Your argument doesn’t make sense. If I was a man who only wanted sex from a woman and didn’t care about the consequences then why on earth would I go on against abortion? To the contrary, I would be all for abortion. I would drive the woman there and convince her that she was choosing the right thing? She has the power and blah blah blah. From a man’s perspective abortion is a great thing. It doesn’t affect a man at all. So, why do you suppose that there are men out there who believe abortion is wrong and should not be legal?

        • #3283029

          This is as good a reason as any

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Not all

        • #3283427

          That changes nothing

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Nothing is 100 percent

          would your wife/girlfriend take the “morning after pill” each and everytime you have sex forever? The Morning after pill is not any good for your position, as by the time you find out that your one percent didn’t work, it is too late.

          Or is this pill designed to induce miscarrages?

          My one percenters are 14, twins. Imagine what would have happened if we would have been TRYING? We would have had a friggen litter! 😀

        • #3283304

          There is one thing…

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Nothing is 100 percent


        • #3283295

          What about

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to There is one thing…

          split condoms?

          Just asking…

        • #3283290


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to What about

          I am sure it happens but it is rediculous to think that is happens a great deal of the time. If a company sold a product that didn’t work well they wouldn’t be in business very long.

        • #3283285


          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Clarity

          there is another product that will go some way to mitigating the effect of the failure of the condom but you seem to want to deny it to people who want it. This product is identical in content and function to the “normal” contraceptive pill except that is a higher dose. It works by mainly the same actions. What is the real problem that you all seem to have with the morning after pill that you don’t have with the normal birth control pill? Are you similarly against the “coil” and those IUDs that work by interfering with implantation? What methods of contraception do you find acceptable? Any?

          Again, I need to know the rules of this game. Perhaps you all do as well.

        • #3283266

          I think that the issue is

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to But

          That an individual business man should have the right to determine what stock meets the needs of his customers.

          To that individual pharmacist, there is a difference between Plan B and contraceptives. But that isn’t material. What is at issue is whether he has a right to define his merchandise. He may be opposed to selling aspirin and so does not stock it. Does he have that right? There are stores that no longer carry pseudephedrines because of the additional paperwork in making them available. No one talks about that.

          This person happens to be a pharmacist but he also is a business owner. As a business owner, he should have the right to decide what he will carry.

        • #3283262

          Contraception is good

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to But

          I must admit that I have not researched what this drug does myself and I am basing my assumptions on what I have heard in the media. For this I apologize here and how. I am for all types of contraception as I think are most rational people. I am not, however, for a drug that kills the fertilized egg (zygote).

        • #3283246

          My problems with this pill

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to But

          First, if there are health risks to taking birthcontrol pills, what are the health risks when you take a megadose?

          If you hand this off to children who will use this as their form of birthcontrol dispite health risks.

          If private businesses are forced to carry and distribute a product that is against their beliefs, either religiously or ethically (do no harm).

          Also it is not getting out very well that this is NOT the abortion pill, and will come as a surprise for many of the users of this.

        • #3283056

          Abortion gives women power

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to But

          And some men just can’t stand that idea.

          Now that I’ve offended many of my peers here, let me reiterate that the issue here is not abortion or birth control, but the ability of a business owner to choose what products he will carry for sale to the public.

          As I understand it, Plan B (the “morning after” pill) acts [i]in the same manner as the Pill[/i] to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I don’t know why this pharmacist sees this as different from the regular 24-day Pill, but he does. That’s his business and it’s none of our business how he runs his business.

          Edit: spelling, clarification

        • #3283043


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to But

          I certainly wouldn’t disagree with you. And I’m not suggesting that every pro-life person is anti-female. But I don’t think anyone can deny that that type of male exists. God forbid a woman have sex and NOT suffer the consequences. These are the types who definitely WANT to have sex, but they sure as hell don’t want the woman to actually LIKE it. And thus, the seeds of misogyny are sown..

        • #3283032

          Mae, I grew up amongst them

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to But

          and don’t know how I wasn’t infected. They believe a woman’s place is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen.

          This was in upstate New York. I think the main reason good’ol boys get all the press is because of the accent.

        • #3283014

          I’m impressed..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to But

          My husband was raised by a virulant racist. He is not. My father-in-law has told my children and step-children that if they ever bring a black date home that they can consider themselves written out of the husband tells our children to just go ahead and write themselves out. My father in law thinks it’s funny to tell rape husband will defend his wife and children to the very end, including their choice to choose.

          With that being said, I find abortion to be very sad and I cannot recommend it as the best course of action, however, in many cases, it is the kindest and best course to take.

        • #3283004

          what is sad Mae

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to But

          is that there could actually be a class of “jokes” out there that are “rape jokes”.

          I have said it before, will say it again, nothing that is hateful is ever a joke. Rape, race, or politics. Hate is never funny.

        • #3200051

          Mae, I have seen some cases

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to But

          where the kindest thing would be to abort the mother to save the child.

          Both my nephew and my son’s best friend are raising their children alone because their wives decided that motherhood was not what they had expected.

        • #3200005


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to But

          Just as I have argued that having a penis doesn’t necessarily make the person the best for a job/promotion/etc., on the other hand, NOT having one doesn’t make you the best parent, either.

          I think it’s a travesty that children are nearly always automatically handed over to the mother when a couple many cases, the mother isn’t the best choice.

        • #3199973

          Thanks to mens rights groups

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to But

          this is starting to change, thankfully.

          Is it because of the high priced lawyers that are lining up to take this on?

          Is it because of the “postpartum depression” that has in the last few years been blamed for so many tragic deaths?

          Is it because of years of feminists demanding to be treated equal?

          Is it because more men WANT to step up and be DADS instead of fathers?

          Maybe it is all of them. Michigan at least is currently a big advocater of joint custody, instead of the old days of automatically giving the woman the kids and making the man pay for it all.

          And yes, I have seen many first hand examples of women that are bad parents, and should not be allowed around their kids. about 12 years ago the people that lived across the street from us were real peices of beauty works. The 7 year old kid storms out of the house. the mother screams for him to get his f@#$’en a## back in the moth@#$ f@#$’en house right now. The 7 year old calmly says “F#@# you!” and walks away. The mother slams the door yelling “hope you’re bas#@$ed a$$ gets run over you little son of a bi2#$2!”.

          I had never seen anything like it, and I hope I never do again. We don’t live there anymore, as we moved shortly after.

        • #3199956

          I agree JD

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to But

          The whole country should adopt Michigan’s stance. Equal physical custody should be the rule, unless there’s a damn good reason to deviate. Or like one couple I know done… The kids stayed in the home and the parents took turns living with them 🙂

          [i]And yes, I have seen many first hand examples of women that are bad parents, and should not be allowed around their kids.[/i]

          I’m living this one right now… Children’s services keeps trying to “Reunite the family” but every time they do, she goes back to the old ways (letting the boyfriend beat the older ones (not his), physically fighting in front of them, doing drugs in the house, etc.). This has happenned 6 times in the last 3 years, and it breaks our hearts every time the kids (3 of them in the beginning, 7 of them now!) have to go back. How many chances do you give someone? When do you say “No More? when one of them is killed? It seems like Children’s services is hell-bent on creating another generation of victims!

        • #3199919

          Like anytime you put government in charge

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to But

          Things are not going to be done in the best interests of the children.

          Everything is political. Everything.

          The worst part about politics today, it is more important for “your side to win” than the best interests of the country. Can’t allow anything good to happen on the other “teams” watch or they will get the credit for it.

        • #3284636

          Hey Mae, most racists are that way because

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to But

          they have a minus IQ level or a major ID10Ts. However, some become that way due to a reaction to be abused by another racist or group from one particular ethnic, or social group. I know this from experience.

          I grew up living in a WASP suburb, going to school in a nearby, shall we say, cosmopolitan suburb (definitely not WASP), and playing weekend sport in a district where we had a wide range of clubs that were ethnically based – some required police on hand when they played each other – this is local amateur sport I’m talking about, we pay to play for fun. My uncle lived in a very cosmopolitan suburb too. This was in the 1960s and 1970s.

          He had no trouble with people from Europe, the med, Africa, middle europe, Chinese, Vietnamese, was OK with everyone except the Japanese. He was virulently anti-Japanese in any form, wouldn’t even buy a thing made in Japan.

          I was nearly 30 when I found out why, and then only because of my brother getting uncle’s permission to get a copy of his war service record from WW2. It all made sense when we learnt he spent time in Changi prison as a Japanese POW. He NEVER talks about what he did in the war, but his record credits him with over 20 confirmed kills as a sniper in the Pacific theatre.

          Yes he is extremely racist, against one group that did him major harm. This has not been passed on to any of his several children. he isn’t racist to any other group at all.

          Where racism gets crazy is that one person has an incident like what happened to my uncle, and they train their kids to hate that group, and the training goes from generation to generation for several generations. These later ones who are racist because great grand-daddy was hard done by somehow are id10ts of the greatest order.

        • #3283248

          Very simple actually

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to What about

          you stop.

          only a complete moron would try to say he couldn’t tell that the condom broke. When your going at it and it actually starts to FEEL GOOD, you know your condom broke.

          If you keep going at that stage, it is no longer an “oops”, nor the fault of the broken condom. That is why they make multi-packs AND they tell you not to store them in your wallet.

          But I didn’t really need to tell you all this, did I? No, I didn’t think so.

        • #3283186

          If you’ve reached

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Very simple actually

          the point where penetration has occurred and the condom breaks, chances are there has already been enough ‘leakage’ to cause a pregnancy.

        • #3283179

          Even if

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If you’ve reached

          the transaction has not been completed?

          It is when the letter get delivered that we start having concern!

          This is exactly why all women should just perform orally on that test! ]:)

        • #3283050

          Even if

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to If you’ve reached

          It’s rare, but it does happen. I’m godfather to a child who was conceived while his mother was “virgo intacta”.

          If even one of them little buggers finds a warm moist home, he can survive long enough to make the trip. Even from outside…

        • #3283042

          I don’t believe it’s

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to If you’ve reached

          all that rare. Just a bit of fluid contains a boatload of those swimmy little creatures..

        • #3283239

          That’s very, very, very bad for you.

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to There is one thing…

          Bad for society as well. Kids are bad enough nowadays, tell them they can’t have sex and they’ll wipe out the lot of you.

          Don’t expect my help, a bottle of hair dye and a bad vocabulary, I shall be enlisting with the opposition.

        • #3283234

          I have a one percenter 21, 20, 9 and 7…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Nothing is 100 percent

          Nothing is foolproof… Except not being a fool…

      • #3283447

        You could look at it like this.

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to this is new?

        Since she is obviously stupid, allowing her to have the abortion is probably doing the human race a favor. Do you happen to know whether or not anyone has done a study as to whether or not stupidity is hereditary? 🙂

        • #3283426

          I am changing my position on this pill and abortion

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to You could look at it like this.

          I think we should encourage people to get as many abortions as possible. The government should even do this for free, no questions asked!

          Within two generations when there aren’t any more Democrats being born, maybe something will get straightened out in this country? [/sarcasm]

        • #3283413

          Now JD

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to I am changing my position on this pill and abortion

          You know it won’t work that way.

          Stupid people shouldn’t breed. But how do we define stupid?

          Democrats shouldn’t breed- way too liberal. Okay, I can live with that.

          Republicans shouldn’t breed- way too conservative. Hey! I resemble that!

          White people shouldn’t breed- way too many of em. WHAT????

          Non technical people shouldn’t breed- they don’t blend well with society. Hmmmmmmmm.

          Where does it end and who defines it?

          At the end, I want to have the right to refuse to be a part of something I believe to be morally wrong. I want the right to live my life in accordance with my beliefs as long as those belliefs do not tread on someone elses. I don’t think that I should be forced to conduct business to someone elses specifications.

          What no one has yet considered is that this pharmacist and his position is potentially self correcting. If he were to lose significant business because of his choices, he might reconsider. But who is to say- his business might increase because people value his position.

        • #3283408

          A local guy of his age

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Now JD

          Has already got his steady client base. I have my local pharmacy that I go to if it is possible. In an emergency I will get the perscrip filled at the hospital.

          Locals are loyal to a store like that, that has been taking care of them for decades. I would also bet that the majority of the clients are elderly people.

          It is more the young pups that are more likely to go to the big chain stores, and they have no loyalty to anything or anyone. That is who would be the customer, especially after getting bar slammed every fri and sat night.

          I would lay odds this will not hurt him one bit, and his customers will appreciate someone that isn’t willing to do “anything for a buck”.

          Some people still have standards in their lives, and in a free land, in a private business, they should not have to compromise those standards to accomodate the people of today that have none.

          And notice I didn’t tell anyone not to breed. Not my call. But as radical liberals in general are more pro-abortion than many concervatives, it would just make sence that it would end up as population control on the Democrats!

          Have you heard the “honorable” Rev. Jesse Jackson state that abortion is a genocide on the black people, inflicted on them by the whites? Talk about “out there”!

        • #3283329

          Sorry JD

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to A local guy of his age

          I wasn’t trying to chew on you- I think that we agree on this subject.

          I was taking off on your statement that we should allow (Democrats) to abort their little hearts out. I might be more inclined to that if I thought for a moment that we would end up with fewer liberals.

          Of course, I think that Jesse is a fine example of the reasons to support retroactive abortion. (I am SO bad!)

          And no- nothing that man says surprises me any more. I came to the conclusion long ago that he was a few sandwiches short of the whole picnic.

        • #3283320

          The process needed for Jackson is

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sorry JD

          a “VERY late term abortion”.

        • #3283048

          Retroactive abortion?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Sorry JD

          Jesse’s the poster child!

          He’s not only a few sandwiches short of the whole picnic, he’s lost the basket!

        • #3200199

          Just a couple of points…

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to A local guy of his age

          First, pro-abortion is not the same thing as pro-choice. As I have stated before, abortion is a sad thing, I am NOT pro-abortion, I am, however, pro-choice. Until I can completely understand the situation that a woman finds herself in, I will not judge her actions and will support her right to control her own life.

          Secondly, Democrat does not automatically equal radical liberal. Not even in MOST cases. Of all the registered Democrats I know, not a single one of them is a radical liberal.

        • #3200170

          The frightening thing about all this is that most

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Just a couple of points…

          of those who object to abortion or choice on religious grounds claim to be Christians, when there are really Paulians.

          Chrsit taught that we each have a free will, free agency to do as we wish, that this was given us by God. We make our choices and answer to God about them later. Thus it is our choice to have an abortion or not, it is our God given right to make that choice. God and Christ state that clearly.

          Paulians follow the teachings of Christ as AMENDED by Paul – and Paul taight that the higher up you are in the church, the more authority you have. Thus the right of the Pope to dictate to people about how they will live and worship. Under these teachings they have the right and power to force you to do the right thing.

          A real scary aspect of this is that it was his determination to force people to do the right things, and tell them how to live and worship, that got Satan into trouble with God, and eventually caused his being cast from heaven. hmmm.

          Anyone having some concerns.

          OK, under the teachings of Christ I have a responsibility to tell you that you should pray and ask God for guidance before you have an abortion, I have a right to tell you I think your actions are wrong. I have no right to force my ideals upon you, no right to keep telling you once you say no more. YOU HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION AND ACT ON IT.

        • #3200165

          Deadly Ernest

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Just a couple of points…

          Dead On!

          But I am unsurprised that you and I agree on this.

          Well said!

        • #3283344

          because people value his position

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Now JD

          Fortunately, there are still some people who value a busnessman’s integrity, and will go out of their way to show their loyalty to such.

        • #3283316


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to because people value his position

          I wonder if the ACLU will support his rights? Bet not.

          I would also bet that if anything, his business will IMPROVE because of the positive publicity he is going to recieve over this. People living in the area will take notice, where they never did before.

          If someone disagrees with his policy, they can shop somewhere else and not let the door hit them in the a$$.

          It really does show the sad state of the world that a pill like this would be so popular.

        • #3283296

          Its happening now

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to I am changing my position on this pill and abortion

          The leftists in this country are all up in arms because they are realizing that conservative people are going about their normal lives marrying one another (one man and one woman only) and having children. While the liberals are too busy having meaningless sex with people they don’t care about and then killing off their progeny before they are born (or in some cases during).

        • #3283243

          Which goes a long way towards explainging

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Its happening now

          the reason Democrats don’t want to do anything about illegal immigrants into the country, and have even tried to get them drivers licenses and the abiltity to vote.

          The unions are also greedily looking at them because the existing union class is dying off and not being replaced with a new generation of brainwashed workers.

        • #3283299

          The sins of the fathers

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to You could look at it like this.

          Or in this case parents should not be revisited upon the children. It is an American ideology that people are their own persons regardless of any actions perpetrated by the parent. Boiled down this means that the parent could be an absolute git and the child might turn out to be brilliant.

        • #3283204

          One thing for sure.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The sins of the fathers

          If you have an abortion every time you become pregnant, your children will be far less likely to have one 🙂

        • #3283046


          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to One thing for sure.

          Abortion, like abstinence, is not hereditary.

    • #3283452

      For the same reason

      by tonythetiger ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      an elderly lady confined to a nursing home can vote absentee that a bar across town that she’ll never enter cannot allow smoking!

      • #3283292

        I agree with you

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to For the same reason

        Here’s a shocker! Americans have become rabidly involved in removing personal liberties. While I don’t smoke I think that is a persons own choice as long as it doesn’t affect others. Some laws are reasonable, like not smoking at work or in some public places but the laws have gone way over board. The Snohomish County government has decided that they will not hire anyone who smokes. What’s next fat people? Oh my gosh!?!? I’m next!

    • #3283407


      by jack-m ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      Freedom of Choice, in your context, does not belong in this forum. Please reserve your views on religion, abortion, Plan B for women, the Liberal media, pharmacists ethics and values and your judgemental views for the proper soapbox. Your comments would be more appropraitely expressed in your home, a church, a picket line in front of a woman’s clinic, a revival meeting or some other place where ideas and comments of this nature would only offend those who chose to be there.
      Please restrict yourself, while in this forum to
      subjects pertinent to the purpose of Tech Republic affording us this opportunity for tech’s to exchange ideas. I hope you haven’t screwed it up for the rest of us normal folks with common enough sense to refrain from preaching bigoted hate speech.
      No matter which way I lean you picked the wrong place to proselytize and I find it offensive.
      Jack M

      • #3283396

        A bit of advice for you

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to WRONG TOPIC ///// WRONG PLACE


        • #3283390

          Anyone want to write a macro?

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to A bit of advice for you

          Seems appropriate. Perhaps even a random comeback generator – from a pick list that we create.

          Perhaps a contest for the pithiest comeback.
          What does Miscellaneous mean to you?
          New here?
          Now JD, before you throw something…
          Now JcK before you shoot someone…

          You get the idea.


        • #3283352

          In such cases, I used to. . . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Anyone want to write a macro?

          …throw the eggs. Now I just sit back and watch the others make egg salad out of the guy.

          I like your idea about a macro to pick an automatic answer. It does get tiresome writing the same one over and over. Something I do all too often! (But with all the other types of discussions.)

        • #3283102

          That was a gem of a reply

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to A bit of advice for you

          lol 🙂

      • #3283388


        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to WRONG TOPIC ///// WRONG PLACE

        A perfect illustration of exactly the point the guy was trying to make.

        It was intentional wasn’t it ?

        This is miscellaneous, by the way, so a topic, right place.

      • #3283338

        If you don’t like what’s on TV

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to WRONG TOPIC ///// WRONG PLACE

        you are free to change the channel. Being offended is totally within you, and nobody else has any duty or obligation toward it. Now go pound sand.

      • #3283310

        What a silly little prat you are

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to WRONG TOPIC ///// WRONG PLACE

        First of all, who are you to dictate what is the place or topic that is fitting to be discussed on this forum?

        If you are offended, don’t read the discussion. A smart guy like you should be able to figure out something as simple at that? If not, then it is us that is offended by your stupidity and arrogance to try to lord over the rest of the TR community.

        If you think this is the first time such a topic has been discussed here, you have not been paying attention for the last two years of your membership.

        Until the PTB on TR say anything about it, this is fair game and you can go sod yourself.

      • #3283289

        Your joking

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to WRONG TOPIC ///// WRONG PLACE


      • #3283228

        Jack, stick to the technical forums then.

        by x-marcap ·

        In reply to WRONG TOPIC ///// WRONG PLACE

        Otherwise… 🙂

      • #3201506

        Jack-M, get stuffed

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to WRONG TOPIC ///// WRONG PLACE

        Does that offend you too?

        Before you preach the sermon of the day, learn about what you are talking about.

        You selected to read all new discussions (your own choice), this includes miscellaneous discussions. If you want only tech talk, filter it out, you have the ability to figure it out, I hope you do as an IT consultant (if not, God help you).

        If you were around here for more than 8 minutes, you would understand that this is the type of topic that fuels TR and keeps the community active. In many cases, you will even notice the regular TR staff participating as well.

        So next time you have an urge to spew a bunch of unqualified BS out to someone, try consulting….’er you already do that don’t you.

        Any salesman knows, a consultant is just a salesman without a job. At least qualify yourself before trying to read people the riot act.

        Let me know when I’ve offended you properly.

        • #3201374

          A consultant, by definition

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Jack-M, get stuffed

          is a gelding in a field of stallions.

          An expert is somebody from out of town.

          I like the definition of expert I heard in the USAF. “Ex” means “used to be, formerly.” A “spurt” is a drip under pressure. By extension, an expert is a has-been drip under pressure.

        • #3230703

          Welcome Jack, You have just been Flamed by OZ.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Jack-M, get stuffed

          If you may have noticed, Oz is direct. For once he was able to be comprehended, too.

          I agree that this isn’t a technical discussion.
          this is Miscellaneous, Anything Goes except ignorance.

          Welcome to the cutting edge of the society.

        • #3230472


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Welcome Jack, You have just been Flamed by OZ.

          And I thought I was pussy-footing around it. 🙂

        • #3230421

          There’s a Difference between Low and incinerate on the barby!

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to lol

          Have a good one OZ!

        • #3230462

          C’mon don’t be so exclusive..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Welcome Jack, You have just been Flamed by OZ.

          I’ve seen plenty of ignorance floating around here..

    • #3283395

      The hypocracy is a two-way street

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      Just as liberals want to impose the govt’s will in the name of freedom, the conservatives, while on one hand railing to get govt out of people’s lives, fight to block access to the drug. Initially the attempt was to block it altogether, but now that it’s inevitable that the plan B pill will be available, they’ve backed off a total ban to imposing an age limit.

      • #3283357

        An age limit ????

        by tony hopkinson ·

        In reply to The hypocracy is a two-way street

        How many years after you are legally allowed to have sex is it and how many before you are legally allowed to watch someone having sex is it ?

        • #3283353

          0 and 2

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to An age limit ????

          I believe are the answers to your questions.

        • #3283235

          Well consistent anyway

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to 0 and 2

          Providing the morning after pill to an underage girl, would be stupid, you could get done for destroying the evidence if nothing else.

      • #3283317

        I am more concerned

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to The hypocracy is a two-way street

        with the abrogation of parental rights than by the availability of the pill.

        • #3283294

          Parents have no rights

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I am more concerned

          only responsiblities.

        • #3283199


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Parents have no rights

          you are abusing or neglecting your children… then you have all kinds of rights.

        • #3283173


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Unless

          your child wants to have an abortion or get birth control, then as a parent you seem to have no rights.

        • #3283169

          Kinda like

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Unless

          strapping a slice of buttered toast onto a cat’s back and dropping them. The toast wants to land buttered side down and the cat wants to land on its feet 🙂

        • #3283069

          At least two

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Unless

          One to remain silent, the other to get a real persons foot jammed in the nearest orifice.
          At least that’s the way it should be.

        • #3284476

          If things were the way they should be

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to At least two

          there’d be a lot less to talk about.

        • #3284434

          Fortunately not

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to If things were the way they should be

          The way you think things should be be and the way I do will still differ.

          Possibly not on this issue though, but there are people who think we should not have the duty and the right to kick a child abuser in an orifice or two.

          Apparently their parents did it, it’s genetic, environmental, watching violence on tv, or some such other gooder – do right mealy mouth whinging excuse for being a f’ck up.

          They know it’s wrong, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it behind closed doors and saying the kid fell downstairs and stuff. Seeing as they do know, there can’t be any excuses.

          You know people call me a ‘liberal’, strange world isn’t it.

        • #3201479


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to If things were the way they should be

          [i]You know people call me a ‘liberal’, strange world isn’t it.[/b]

          If someone followed me around for a week, they’d call me one too. On a personal level, I am. That’s my choice. I just wish everyone were free to [b]choose[/b] instead of being forced to be generous.

          It’s ironic that ‘liberal’ and ‘liberate’ have the same etymology, yet under a liberal government, you are anything but liberated.

        • #3283070

          Top mate

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Parents have no rights

          I felt that one.
          Brilliant, from a father of two irresponsibles, who are slowly finding this out.
          Just as we did.

      • #3283314

        A very reasonable restriction

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to The hypocracy is a two-way street

        To not sell to anyone under the age of 18 is very reasonable.

        Imagine if little girls don’t understand what this is and what it does, start taking it every few days as their form of birthcontrol. What are the side affects of this drug, and how much does that risk go up with repeated use?

        That thought should scare the hell out of anyone with a daughter.

        • #3283291

          The point I intended to make

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to A very reasonable restriction

          I meant to point out that walking hand-in-hand with liberals’ hypocracy was the conservatives’ when they were seeking an outright ban on the PlanB pill. Many opposed it on moral grounds, and that doesn’t jibe with their view to keep govt out of people’s lives, IMO.

          I honestly believe there should be an age limit, and 18 seems reasonable to me. I just think that it was an afterthought following the inevitability of the drug being approved.

        • #3283240

          Possible moral and health problems concerning this

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The point I intended to make

          first, making it easy for people to make birthcontrol and afterthought means more people are having more casual UNPROTECTED sex. There are worse things that can happen after sex than a pregnacy. This pill will make that unprotected sex even more common.

          And of course liberals think in the “no morals” world that they live in, everyone should be doing it like bunnies from the time they are 12, every chance they get.

          I also beleive that many that oppose this don’t know what this pill really is. I started reading up, and it is kind of interesting. Will post something at the end of the discussion after I am done reading.

        • #3283197

          and because of that,…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Possible moral and health problems concerning this

          [i]There are worse things that can happen after sex than a pregnacy. This pill will make that unprotected sex even more common.[/i]

          … someone will likely sue the drug manufacturer, the cost of which of course gets passed down to everyone else 🙁

        • #3283172

          No, they covered that base already

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to and because of that,…

          they clearly state that their product does not stop the spread of HIV or any other STD, and they also specifically mention that other forms of birthcontrol are more reliable. this is only in the high 80’s.

      • #3283282


        by protiusx ·

        In reply to The hypocracy is a two-way street

        I must concede to your point. If I had my way it wouldn’t be available at all. That does go against my argument doesn’t it. I think I may have to re-think my position.

        I am for personal liberties and freedoms as long as they don’t infringe upon the liberties and freedoms of others. From my perspective the unborn are included in “others” so this drug infringes upon their right to life. Okay, I am done thinking out loud and I still think that if we are forced to have this medication available it should be sold by people who want to sell it.

        Lets put it this way (now all you Canadians – don’t get too excited) – Let us imagine that Marijuana became legal to sell and consume much in the same way that alcohol is today. There would undoubtedly be some bar owners who do not agree that pot and whisky are at all similar and so choose not to sell pot in the taverns. Should the government then come in and force these bar owners to sell pot or make sure the patron could get pot with out leaving their establishment? Nonsense.

        • #3283238

          A thought about that side thought

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Drat!

          Canucks and decriminalization of pot, all going on at the same time everywhere is cracking down on smoking cigarettes in any and all publica and private places? Hmmmmmm.

        • #3283219

          I suppose one could add…

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to Drat!

          …gay marriage/civil unions to the list. Preserving the “sanctity” of marriage seems to me to imply that there’s a universally applicable definition of the word. Isn’t it really a matter of individual rights?

          By the way, I certainly agree that it seems ludicrous to require a pharmacy to sell the product. I just feel that there is plenty of hypocracy on both sides of the aisle.

      • #3283277

        The “conservative” point of view. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to The hypocracy is a two-way street

        …is not to restrict that woman’s freedom to do what she wishes with her body, so to speak, but to protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying. You can certainly make an argument whether or not that “life” is viable enough to warrant protection, but that’s the one that would have to be made. The conservatives do, however, infringe on her liberty if she wants to prostitute herself, take recreational drugs, etc. (But so do the liberals in both those instances.)

        • #3283257

          “protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying”

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to The “conservative” point of view. . . . .

          The majority of those vehemently opposed to abortion to the extent that it encompasses the “morning after pill” would surely not put that forward as justification for their actions and expect to be believed. Were they to do so truthfully, I would have some sympathy with their stance.

          It is a viewpoint derived from their particular moral code.

          The moral codes of Liberals and conservatives do overlap quite a lot and both are quite happy to define prostitution and drugs as “evil”. I’d have thought we all could have applied the lesson of US Prohibition to the drug problem. Anyway, I’ve always found it amusing that, until recently over here, the prostitute is usually seen as the real sinner and her client less so. I’ve always thought it to be the other way round but, hell, I’m immoral so what do I know.

        • #3283253


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to “protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying”

          It’s a male prostitute..then the client is the bigger sinner. Wonder why that is?

        • #3283242

          because, mae…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Unless

          100-200 years ago…when men were making all the rules…well…nuff said 😉

          Hypocracy at its swillish finest:


          Ask your man if he’d like to see you with 2 other women…

          Then ask your man if he’d like to be with 2 other women…


          Ask about either of you being with 2 other men…

          Hypocracy anyone? 😀

          Not that I blame other guys…I don’t want another dude’s package swingin around me either 😀

          oh well…what was this discussion about?

        • #3283123

          Not hypocracy jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to because, mae…

          It is just the way things are. Some things are hot, and others are not.

          The doublemint twins were always a good “go to” fantasy! ]:)

        • #3283030


          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          They’re MINE! Go get a Bond girl!

        • #3283002

          I don’t think so

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          The bond girls were always s!uts.

          There was just something special about MY doublemint twins! 😀 I liked when they were the snow bunnies!

        • #3200171

          not my cuppa

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          I never got into the idea of two girls at once.

          Personally, there’s one girl I fancy right now.

          Too bad she doesn’t even know I exist. 🙁

        • #3200147

          But if you went for the double

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          then there is twice as much to ignore you?

          Oh wait, that really isn’t an improvement, is it? 😀

          Go step on her foot. She will notice you!

        • #3200143

          Well, I would…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          but…she lives across the pond…and, my feet are big…but, not that big. 😉

          I’ve actually been invited to have 2 girls at once…turned it down. Like I said, I just don’t fancy trying it.

          If I ever get the opportunity to move over, I might get a shot…depending on that…and other factors…since, I have friends over there who would pull strings for me to arrange me meeting her.

          Thanks tho…you can keep the twins…I’ll stick with the intellectual, funny, mischievous, musical types. 🙂

        • #3200042

          Jessica Simpson??

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          No, wait…you said “intellectual” too, didn’t you. 😀

        • #3200019


          by jck ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          1) She isn’t “across the pond” from the USA…

          2) She is not a “intellectual, funny, mischievous, musical” type. She’s more of a dim, goofy, wild type.

          Nah…I’ve pretty much given up on American women…there might be a few left I could marry, but I’m not willing to sort through 158M of em to find one. 😀

          Ireland…less people…more traditional women…and…they can kick my ass!!! ]:)

          (You’ve never seen a mean woman til you’ve seen a mad Irish woman brandishing Uilleann pipes as a weapon!!! ]:) )

        • #3199910

          Does a bodhran count?

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          I’ve seen that. :0

          Ducked just in time. B-)

        • #3199055

          I guess it could

          by jck ·

          In reply to Not hypocracy jck

          I’ve never seen one of those swing, but I imagine it would make a good mark if thrown like a frisbee 😀

        • #3283207

          No pregnancy worries there

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Unless

          If the prostitute is a male then there are no pregnancy worries to consider. No morning after pill needed.

        • #3283198


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to No pregnancy worries there

          He wouldn’t be at all responsible if he impregnates someone?

        • #3283165

          Are we talking about the same thing?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Really?

          How does a man make another man pregnant?

        • #3283153


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Really?

          I was speaking of male prostitutes servicing a female.

        • #3283125

          Mae spreading rumors and myths?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Really?

          Everyone knows that a woman never needs to pay to get sex. At most it might cost is buying a drink and a hotel room!

          Not that she would WANT the sex in the first place as we all know that women don’t like sex, and just deal with it as a way to shut men up! 😀

        • #3283038


          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Really?

          Don’t think for a moment that there aren’t women who want to have sex without attachment. The thing that bothers me, is that is BAD when women want it, but natural when men want it.

          I’m sure women don’t pay for sex as often as men. Yes, you are right. It’s not hard for women to get laid. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who won’t pay for an escort. I’m sure the market is quite large.

        • #3282999

          I know Mae

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Really?

          Not all women are looking for a drunken slob to drool all over them, and a pro will treat them like the lady they want to be treated like.

          With all the jerks and b!tches out there, it is no wonder it is so hard for two nice people to actually find each other.


        • #3283244

          Awww Dad

          by jck ·

          In reply to “protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying”

          You’re not immoral…it’s…IMMORTAL. 🙂

          BTW…did I mention I know a girl who “escorts” in London? ]:)

          (no…jdclyde…I haven’t been to London…dash your hopes of driving a stake through my heart! 😀 Although…well…she does want me to come through next time I’m in the UK…hehehe ]:) )

        • #3283241

          Neil, if you don’t believe that’s their basis. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying”

          …then please provide the reasoning as stated by those opposed to it. Don’t extrapolate anything from it; don’t streeeeeeeetch it; don’t interpret it; just let us know what their reasoning is. Since you challenged what I claim their reasoning is, please prove me wrong. If you do, I will stand corrected.

        • #3283216

          Max, I can’t prove a damn thing

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Neil, if you don’t believe that’s their basis. . . .

          The intended key word in my post was “truthfully”. It is my belief – you may call it factopinguess ™ if you wish – that with all of the trouble that arises in the US when anyone plays the religion card, many anti-abortionists publicly use another justification than the Biblical “thou shalt not kill” taken to it’s extreme. There’s a little bit of “make them pay” which creeps in as well.

          Let’s ask ProtiusX for his honest justification(s) of his ant-abortion stance, shall we. I need no separation of church and state. OK. Let’s ask [b]anyone[/b] who takes a total anti-abortion stance who reads this post. Honest gut answers please. I will abide by the consensus.

        • #3283210

          That is exactly

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Max, I can’t prove a damn thing

          what bothers me..the whole ‘make them pay’ thing. I hear that creeping in and out of these type of threads all the time.

        • #3283182

          What gets me is

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to That is exactly

          That the issue is not abortion or if Plan B is moral.

          Regardless, the primary question is if the businessman has a right to select the products that he will carry. I don’t care if he is refusing on moral grounds or if he simply doesn’t have the traffic to support carrying the product.

          A pharmacy isn’t REQUIRED to make OTC products available. I believe that they are required to have a specific formulary of drugs available but the formulary doesn’t apply to non regulated medications.

          To me, the issue is the extent to which government is permitted to determine what a merchant sells. Just as many places no longer sell pseudoephedrine because of the requirement to collect and retain NPI information, this man should have the same options.

          Bringing abortion into the issue clouds it unnecessarily.

        • #3283183

          Ask me about my anti-abortion stance. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max, I can’t prove a damn thing

          …and I would say that I’m opposed to taking the life of another, except in the case of self-defense (and several things might fall under that umbrella), whether that be blatant killing of another person, abortion, or the death penalty; and in the case of abortion, I advocate defining exactly when a life begins and becomes worthy of protecting.

          In my case, you might question how “truthfully” I advance such a position, but that’s about it in a nut-shell, and I just let the chips fall where they may.

          So in the case of the day after convenience pill, or whatever it’s called, if it doesn’t terminate a life, knock yourself out; take the whole bottle for all I care. If it does take a life, however, I’m opposed to it. But we have to first define when life begins. This is a classic example of trying to legislate the cart that’s pulling the horse.

        • #3283166

          Those who object

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Ask me about my anti-abortion stance. . . . . .

          obviously define life from the moment of conception. This has long been the position openly adopted by the Catholic Church. They’re absolutely right. Defining life is easy. Weighing up the “rights” of that new life when measured against the “rights” of the mother (or potential mother in the case of the morniong after pill) is the real issue.

          It would be nice, I suppose, to be able to define “here and no further” but it will so obviously be a decision made by politicians and based on the majority moral code with, if we’re lucky, some medical or scientific basis. What we’ll get is a new version of what we’ve got.

          We have abortion laws that set they how, when, who and how late and other countries with differently derived societal moral codes have different abortion laws – the Irish for instance are, to my way of thinking, draconian. You your own laws. It’s just that a lot of people seem not to want to allow others their rights within that law.

        • #3283142

          He already covered that

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ask me about my anti-abortion stance. . . . . .

          [i]Weighing up the “rights” of that new life when measured against the “rights” of the mother (or potential mother in the case of the morniong after pill) is the real issue.[/i]

          with the [i]’except in the case of self-defense (and several things might fall under that umbrella)'[/i] clause. It is well established that one is allowed to kill to prevent one’s own death or serious injury (which is more recently accepted to cover both physical and emotional/mental injury).

          It therefore seems to me that much of the controversey is centered around calling it ‘killing’, and I am on the side that that’s exactly what it is. Those who want to call it something else simply want the person doing it to be able to feel good about it.

          If someone breaks into my home and tries to harm me or my family, I will kill him if necessary and be justified in doing it. It doesn’t mean that I would (or should) feel good about it, and I’m not going to call it something else so that I can.

        • #3283135

          A bit of advice, Tony

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Ask me about my anti-abortion stance. . . . . .

          Read Maxwell’s posts. He quite rightly kicks me when I don’t read them. He also kicks me when I don’t agree with them but that’s OK too.

          “in the case of abortion, I advocate defining exactly when a life begins and becomes worthy of protecting”

          Well, that’s what I’m saying too. Two questions. The first is easy. Time of conception would do for me even though I’m pro-choice. The second, I consider to be within the remit of the mother who is, after all, going to have [b]her[/b] life changed by this. I would, however, set rules so that there are limits to the ease with which the procedure can be obtained and also limits to the stage in pregnancy that the procedure can be carried out depending on the reason. These I would fix in law.

          From Maxwell’s post, I can’t read where [b]he[/b] would set limits or if he is absolutely anti-abortion. Maybe you can?

        • #3200114


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ask me about my anti-abortion stance. . . . . .

          It appears that he’s saying “Create a stationary definition of ‘a living human being’, then use existing laws to determine whether killing a human is criminal or not”.

          In other words, since someone else can be charged with murder for killing a fetus, a fetus is a live human for that purpose. It should not change in definition depending on who does the killing!

          [edittted to actually answer the question asked :)]

        • #3200049

          Tony: Yes

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Ask me about my anti-abortion stance. . . . . .

          but we’ve been down this track before. We obviously still need Max to answer for himself.

          Although you’ll find that there’s a lot of support for someone killing a late term foetus being charged with homicide, it opens up a really complicated set of issues. You have the Petersen Case in the US which didn’t, I believe, set any precedents so you still have the question to answer.

          My answer is simple. In most cases I go for 20 weeks.

          Is it homicide to kill an 8-month unborn baby? Any baby born at this stage, although pre-term would alnmost certainly not suffer any issues.

          Is it homicide to kill a 23-week unborn baby? Any baby born at this stage would require extensive medical treatment and survival, withor without health issues, is around evens. It goes without saying that third world babies of this age of gestation would survive only very rarely. Abortion at this point is illegal in the UK except in very rare circumstances, by the way, so I don’t have an issue.

          Is it homicide to kill a 15-week foetus? Common time for routine abortion.

          Is it homicide to kill a 3-day blastocyst? Just implanted and settling down to change the mother’s life…

          I’d be interested in your answers. The last two are a definite “NO” from me. The second a definite “Ah, umm, well… depends”. The first a resounding “YES”.

        • #3199965


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Ask me about my anti-abortion stance. . . . . .

          I wasn’t really answering for Max, just stating how I took it.

          I don’t think you can use “ability to survive outside the womb” as a condition, because as any parent knows (well most anyway) even normal babies need things done for them until they are several years old. I think brain maturity is a better criteria, as it is variations in this area that makes each of us unique individuals. So I would agree with you on the 3 day old blastocyst, but the 15 week fetus is a little iffy. If I’m not mistaken, brain activity has been detected in response to sharp sounds by that age.

        • #3283236

          “Were they to do so truthfully……”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to “protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying”

          Please enlighten us as to how we can gauge such a thing — in all cases, on both sides of any argument, and on all issues.

        • #3283209

          I disagree!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to “protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying”

          You are not immoral as you spoke most vociferously to the defense of the helpless in Lebanon. You have morals, values and from what I know of you from your writings are a good person. You care about those who you don’t know. So, like it or not you are not immoral. Sorry mate.

        • #3283194

          Immoral – well, thank you for the vote of confidence

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to I disagree!

          I was trying to say that I am, according to external religiously-derived moral codes, definitely immoral in many ways. What I’d like to think that I am is a fairly ethical person with a reasonable dose of empathy – I’m happy with that.

          For instance, the first four of the Ten Commandments miss me by a country mile. The next five fit reasonably well with my code of ethics and I never really understood the last one. That makes me pretty immoral!

          I could be amoral but describing that in a good sense would be difficult.

        • #3283072

          No sorry Neil not having that

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to “protect the liberty of the child she’s carrying”

          Sex is the sin, ‘cept with little boys of course, that’s OK as long as long as you are priest in good standing and no reporters get wind of it.

          It all comes from learning to lie and blaming Eve for getting getting kicked out of Eden.

          OK lets be fair it was the first ever lie!

          “It was her” would be a bit more transparent nowadays, but we’ve had a LOT of practice since then.

        • #3283061

          Merely a comparison, Tony

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to No sorry Neil not having that

          I have no moral code that defines sin so I wasn’t commenting as I believe it but as I think those who do have a concept of sin should see it. The instigator of the sinful act in prostitution and therefore the greater sinner has always been the bloke. SINNER! Burn him!

          I used to live in Streatham pretty near where the famous (infamous) Cynthia Paine had her “house of ill repute”. She was convicted in 1978 and got 18 months in the slammer for holding parties where middle-aged and elderly men gave her luncheon vouchers for sexual entertainment. Not one of the “gentlemen” even got his name in the paper. Things moved on and for something similar in 1987, she was aquitted. Quite right. Should have been aquitted on the first charge as well.

          We’ve Adam – or was it Eve – to thank for Original Sin. I’ve got to believe that Original sin is one of the worst ideas that has come out of any religion. Thank God I’m an atheist!

          Interestingly, the Qur’an blames both equally. Qur’an 1 Bible 0.


        • #3283225

          The conservative point of view…

          by jck ·

          In reply to The “conservative” point of view. . . . .

          as expressed by the “conservative” (notice the quotes, Max…very important) Republican party:

          [i]”Promoting a Culture of Life

          As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of
          Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
          life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
          and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment?s protections
          apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
          right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion
          and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
          who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
          Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of
          support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be
          punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose
          abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who
          have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption
          services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to
          adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in
          supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud
          President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.
          We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him
          for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that
          every infant born alive ? including an infant who survives an abortion procedure ? is
          considered a person under federal law.
          We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, a
          ban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaud
          President Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorously
          defending it in the courts.
          In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that ?the
          most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person,
          however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world.? We affirm the
          inherent dignity and worth of all people. We oppose the non-consensual withholding of
          care or treatment because of disability, age, or infirmity, just as we oppose euthanasia and
          assisted suicide, which especially endanger the poor and those on the margins of society.
          We support President Bush?s decision to restore the Drug Enforcement Administration?s
          policy that controlled substances shall not be used for assisted suicide. We applaud
          Congressional Republicans for their leadership against those abuses and their pioneering
          legislation to focus research and treatment resources on the alleviation of pain and the
          care of terminally ill patients.”[/i]

          Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform

          So…what that says is:

          -We want to write laws that say abortion is murder if a doctor performs it in the USA.
          -Women go to other countries to have it if they can afford it…so long as it’s not in our country.

          Hence if Bush’s daughter gets pregnant and she wants one, he can afford to send her to Canada for one. Joe Worker can’t afford the $700 plane ticket to Montreal or Toronto for his daughter.

          BTW…has either side (conservative or liberal) defined what “life” or “child” is legally?

          Do you then prosecute a woman who is cautioned by her doctor not to stress herself, but still works too hard during pregnancy and has a miscarriage because she willfully took steps she knew would endanger the life of her child?

          I think you will agree, Max…that…as a libertarian…you should think that it is wrong for any government to go into the personal life of an individual and enforce upon them moral standards for which that government can show no legal infraction or loss of individual liberty?

          The religious conservatives would have you believe that a “child” is from the point the egg is fertilized by the sperm.

          Some would have you believe it’s when the fetus becomes “viable”.

          I, on the other hand, take the step of the scientific. When that fetus develops to a point that it has developed functional systems which distinguish it from other “life”…it should be protected. That is, about 20 weeks give or take a few.

          Anyways…Republican “conservatives” would put all the blame on the doctor…and…a woman is scott-free if she goes across border to have it done.

          If she were to take her husband across the border to have him killed, would it be any less illegal?

          It’s hypocracy at its finest…and another stupid premise coming from the minds of the nutty religious conservatives who drive the Republican Party.

        • #3283180


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to The conservative point of view…

          [i]Do you then prosecute a woman who is cautioned by her doctor not to stress herself, but still works too hard during pregnancy and has a miscarriage because she willfully took steps she knew would endanger the life of her child?[/i]

          They can and have! Specifically mothers who took illegal drugs during their pregnancy.

          [i]The religious conservatives would have you believe that a “child” is from the point the egg is fertilized by the sperm.[/i]

          More reasonable, IMO, would be at the point where higher brain function can be detected… or at the point at which it can feel pain.

          [i]If she were to take her husband across the border to have him killed, would it be any less illegal?[/i]

          (it depends. Did she do any planning while in this country? 🙂 )

          [i]It’s hypocracy at its finest…and another stupid premise coming from the minds of the nutty religious conservatives who drive the Republican Party.[/i]

          It’s bargaining…. asking for more than you think you’ll get in the effort to get as much as you can.

        • #3283159


          by jck ·

          In reply to Prosecute

          [i]”It’s bargaining…. asking for more than you think you’ll get in the effort to get as much as you can.”[/i]

          No…it’s asking for everything they want because they think theirs is the only way that anyone should think.

          God = perfect
          humans <> God
          humans <> perfect

          I hope if there are any religious conservatives out there who actually understand math, they can teach their constituency that little bit of boolean algebra there.

          Maybe they’ll learn that theirs is not the only way to live life…just their own.

        • #3283141

          jck, believe it or not

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to nah…

          There are those ouf us out there that understand, believe in, and support your right to religion as you see it. We know that beating you over the head with our belief system won’t change you and WILL alienate you.

          I am a Christian (no particular flavour), my partner is an athiest. That is not on my list of things to change about him. But he does have to stop wearing mid calf socks with shorts! 🙂 (His son agrees with me on this)

          I invite him to attend church with me. He declines, but I make sure that the invitation is there. It is one of the few things that we don’t do together.

          But that is as far as it goes.

          As a former teacher, I was very willing to (on my own time) counsel young women to abstain. I was also willing (on my own time) to get condoms for my students. I just didn’t want to see those young women having to make decisions that they would live with for a lifetime over unavailability.

          I don’t pretend to know the mind of God. I am NOT perfect. What I am is a realist. I know that some kids will be swayed by a discussion of abstinence. Some won’t. For the “won’ts” I had condoms available. The abstainers didn’t have STDs to worry about. Others did.

          Incidentally- I make no judgement about the choices another person makes. That is not my job. What I do consider important is to make information and alternatives available.

          To me, it is the same as my awareness ribbon in some respects. I make people aware- aware of how to best fight breast cancer, how best to avoid HIV/AIDS, how best to insure against having to make a life changing decision.

        • #3283121

          I believe you

          by jck ·

          In reply to jck, believe it or not

          But with repect to “freedoms”, most of the religious conservatives (also known in the press as “the religious right”) actively involved are not open minded.

          You are indeed a minority, much like myself (although most would not believe me, I am the vanilla Christian who doesn’t go to church that often…).

          I see many elderly people in Florida with the fear they’ll go to hell soon who are of the “holier than thou” attitude here and…yes…all of them I have met are Republican…and…I’m Republican…and it scares me. My party has become over-run (in 2 states I’ve lived now) with religious conservatives that think their morality, agenda, and opinion should be accepted and taken as status quo. They have no tolerance for “outsiders”.

          I don’t follow social, religious, economic, or fashion trends. I never had. I was the kid that wore jeans and clean tennis shoes to church even though I was ridiculed. I didn’t believe God looked at your clothes…and…I was right…at least, according to the Bible.

          But, most of the people in the religious circles press things such as abstinence as the ONLY option…not the best one. And, that is where they lose a lot of the more open-minded youth of today to the drugs and rampant behaviour…because…the kids know better…and that they are lying.

          I’m glad you don’t fit the mold of most of the religious right. Of course, I don’t think I remember saying you were.

          But, I understand your opinion and respect it…because…I’m pretty much of the same opinion…and hate to see God used as a tool for people to press their personal beliefs on others.

          And…that is what “the religious right” has done since Reagan was in office.

          I may not like what someone does…but if it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights…who am I to tell them it’s wrong?

        • #3200189

          Tough place to be

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to jck, believe it or not

          Because most folks don’t think we exist. But we do.

          During training, I NEVER made it to chuch. A 10 or 15 mile walk will chew up your whole day. And I thought it was more important to get those training miles. I still think so.

          Did God hear my prayers any differently on the trail in REALLY bad shorts and fabulous socks? No. I think He heard me just the same.

          Am I perfect? No. What I am is trying to do my best. Sometimes I fail miserably, sometimes I don’t. What is constant is that I try.

          I guess I was trying to reach out. You aren’t alone. There are many of us out here feeling the same way.

          When I taught, I got very aware that some I would reach, some I would reach out to, and some I would never connect with. It was hard. But at the end of the day, the kids I counselled made beter choices based on better information. Maybe that’s enough.

          When I was a young girl, women didn’t wear trousers. They certainly never wore them to church. Until someone did. In the church I attend today, they installed a coffee stop near the sanctuary and are talking about putting cup holders in the stadium seating we use instead of pews. Our Worship Pastor most often wears jeans. I don’t think that I have seen him in anything else as I think on it.

          I worry about my party becoming more and more aligned to religon and less to people. I hope that can change. I don’t know how I can be a vehicle for that change.

        • #3283133

          Who said anything about religion?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to nah…

          Why are you bringing up religion? We’re talking about liberty, life, and government’s involvement in business.

          Are you saying that if a person disagrees with you on any topic they must be a rabid right wing fundamentalist Christian?

        • #3283128

          Come on,

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Who said anything about religion?

          you had to know we’d get onto abortion and I can’t discuss abortion without religion – no one can. that’s why I tried, obviously without success, to keep out! I suppose that I can’t pass one of your threads without getting stuck in…

          I’ll answer on the original question: It’s a given, surely, that any pharmacist can sell or not sell whatever non-prescription medicines that he wants. I suppose that I’d feel a little agrieved if he was the only pharmacy in town, though, considering that the earlier it’s taken, the more likely it is to work. But I’ve still no right to insist. Is there anyone in this thread actually saying that they [b]should[/b] be forced to stock it?

        • #3283088

          My point exactly

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Who said anything about religion?

          I have learned my lesson here a long time ago. I can not engage people in a debate when we have no common thread to debate upon. You are not a Christian and I am. I could no more debate the divinity of Christ with you as discuss aliens. We have no common ground. So, when I discuss issues of morality I must base my premises on ground we can both firmly stand upon.

          I am sorry for the muck on your shoe by the way but I do like reading what you have to say.

        • #3200172

          Politics and religion

          by jck ·

          In reply to Who said anything about religion?

          Abortion is not just a business. It is a medical procedure involving the termination of a biological entity, whether at a sentient viable stage or not.

          Even though the law of this country expressly denies the mixture of church and state, religious sects are still trying to place their belief system within law as the defacto standard.

          Hence when discussing abortion and you discuss “life” or “child” as anything other than a governmentally legal term…you have injected a belief. And, the religious factions (the great majority of whom are affiliated with the Republican Party) have tried to put their belief into law to coerce all Americans (those who agree and those who don’t) into conforming to their religiously-directed moral standard.

          Hence, I bring up religion due to the greatest majority of the abortion debate being spurred by the “religious right” involved in the political system.

          Give me a legal definition of what a “child” is and a law built around that…and I’ll abide by it.

          Tell me your God says a child is…and…I’ll respect your right to your religious opinion…but I won’t follow it like a lemming. I decide based on what I feel is God’s direction as to whether or not I believe certain conditions as a part of my religious and moral ethic.

          As for your second part…No, I said no such thing. You’re trying to tangent the argument.

          But when your only ground on which you base the legal definition of what a “child” is…is your religion…then, your belief is one, if placed into law, infringes upon my right to freedom of religion and that infracts upon my Constitutional right to worship as I choose.

          As I said before: give me a law that establishes [b]scientifically[/b] what a human child is and what factors distinguishes it as such, i.e.- a human child versus a chimpanzee offspring…both in utero, and I’ll accept it.

          Otherwise…worship as you wish…tell me your opinion.

          But, don’t tell me I have to behave like you based on your religion and beliefs.

        • #3283202

          Duplicity anyone? (told you so Neil)

          by pser ·

          In reply to The “conservative” point of view. . . . .

          This is obviously another one of ?their? duplicitous threads started about this poor business owner ?being forced to sell a drug he has moral issues with?. While all along the intent was yet another opportunity to ?slam? anything or anyone ?Democratic?. Pro-Choice ? a Dem. issue ? hhmmmm, this will work! Spew ? Spew ? Spewwww!

          In this thread alone ? ?killing Babies?, ?Pro-Abortion, as long as it Liberals?, ?liberals think in the “no morals” world that they live in?, ?While the liberals are too busy having meaningless sex with people they don’t care about and then killing off their progeny before they are born (or in some cases during).? Again ? WTF?!?!? You guys believe in freedom of choice ? as long as it fit?s into YOUR ?belief structure? PERIOD!!! That?s a Theocracy mindset NOT one of a DEMOCRACY!

          WTF is the matter with you people?!?!? You go around crying in almost every single post you make about how the Dem.?s ?Blame everything on Bush? or are at the root of all evil in America or how all they do is ?spew their venom and hate filled words? at you poor Republicans! But y?all are ALWAYS Spewing at Dem.s, I don?t get it. You slam Clinton all you want with your ?oral office? remarks (and every other chance you get) ? when he left office there was a surplus in the TRILLIONS (yes with a T, Max) lower unemployment rates, lower gas prices, the economy was booming but all you guys can remember is a F?n bl0w J0b!! Says more about y?all and your arguments than it does about him and his term(s) as a legitimate President!

          You guys are just stewing in wrong sauce on so many different levels ? it truly is nauseating!


        • #3283176

          Try reading a few of the posts

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Duplicity anyone? (told you so Neil)

          Not EVERYBODY is busily slamming Democrats. Not EVERYBODY is pushing a “belief structure”. Not EVERYBODY is doing ANYTHING.

          As much as I disagree with you, if you were put in the position of selling a product you didn’t want to sell, I would defend your choice and your right to make that choice. That is the gist of this thread.

          You don’t like the views expressed? Fine. But keep your globalisations to yourself. And if you find the direction of discussion so bloody nauseating, don’t read it and STFU.

          We all know each other pretty well. I know that I disagree with many people here. But I recognise that I will change no minds by yelling that my position is somehow more “holy” than theirs.

          Where I WILL get traction is by presenting my views repectfully and carefully reading theirs. And by treating my peers with the respect they deserve.

          Your rant does you no credit.

          And incidentally- I value my Bible. I respect and value your right to NOT value my Bible. I DO NOT accept your right to trash my Bible. I don’t trash yours.

        • #3283129

          Practice what you preach

          by pser ·

          In reply to Try reading a few of the posts

          “I DO NOT accept your right to trash my Bible.”
          No … but as an American … I can say whatever I want, without
          your acceptance, believe it or not.

          Try actually READING mine! I have read the article and every post
          to this point, thank you very much. That is why I can see it for
          what it is. Bait ? Bait ? Bait ? Spew ? Spew ? Spew!

          This yahoo in the article is on the same playing field as those I
          am speaking of, NOT EVERYONE who has posted. He is in the
          pharmaceutical business; he sells drugs to people for a living.
          Good, bad, right or wrong ? that is ? until it reaches HIS
          MORAL COMPUSS! Okay, I can live with that. However, HE is the
          one who has to deal with the consciences of his decision. By
          using his ?believes? to guide his business practices he has
          openly taken a stance against ?abortion?, one of the most
          controversial of our time. By his own actions, he has brought
          this problem on his self. Good for him, standing up for what he
          believes in ? shame on him for his reasoning. Now the big bad
          government is involved ? Boo Friggin? Hoo for him! As pointed
          out by others in this thread (paraphrased) he HAD other options
          to get around it. But he took a stand now he has to live with the

          That?s what happens when any given person uses his belief
          structure to impose HIS on others, by depriving goods or
          services because of his religious beliefs in this particular
          situation. What a Dumba$$!

          Yeah, this section of TR is ALL about respect, huh? For the
          record, I am giving them the respect they deserve ? bunch of
          hypocrites (y?all know who you are). I also am getting the respect
          you so highly speak of from you as well, aren?t I now.

          My rant does me know credit but y?alls gives you yours ? right?
          Waaaaaa ? a bunch of nut jobs gives me no credit ? I?ll be
          crying myself to sleep tonight ? NOT.

          Tell me, of your ?valued bible? ? in what passage does Shut the
          F*ck Up come from? As I have read it and just can?t recall what
          part that comes from. Hmmm, is that OT or NT, guess I?ll have
          to wiki that one.


          Edit: for spelling

        • #3283116

          Piss off!

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Practice what you preach

          Congratulations a$$clown (thank you JD!) you have finally managed to irritate me.

          You have the right under “Freedom of Speech” to say anything you wish about my Bible. If, however, your goal was to become a contributor to this discussion, attacking the things that are holy to another might be seen as extreme.

          STFU does not appear in the Bible. But as I have said on numerous occaisions, I am not perfect and just as capable as devolving as… well oddly enough, YOU!

          I am a business owner. I reserve the right to sell only those services that I deem acceptable. That is MY RIGHT. Why should thi store owner’s be different?

          You have done nothing to earn the respect of anyone on this board. Last time you showed up here all you could manage was a whine because “you had two tigers on your tail”. Tony and I disagreed with your self serving BS. You whined about it. Why should I respect you?

          You are a perfect example of the point of the last discussion- people that skate through on the backs of others that are willing to work. It surprises me not at all that you are back again with your “save my a$$” attitude.

          I am just so sorry that you haven’t found the perfect climate for your crap here.


        • #3283074


          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Ooooo, Now I am scared.

          The hypocritical Christian lady has got her panties in a bunch
          cause she don?t like what I have to say! Waaaaaaaa ?

          ?You are a perfect example of the point of the last discussion-
          people that skate through on the backs of others that are willing
          to work. It surprises me not at all that you are back again with
          your “save my a$$” attitude.?

          That shows how much you can read into as supposed to reading
          my posts.

          Go pray for us both and stop responding if you?re so irritated
          with me.

        • #3283067

          Don’t remember the fella

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Tigger, what we do to him ?
          There can’t be two Tony’s after all, most people say one’s too f’ing many.

        • #3283062


          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          I was addressing Max in a previous post and they were the only
          ones responding. So, I made an observation (I thought was
          ironic) about how max had not responded but I had a couple of
          tigers on my tail.

          It was a Joke not whining as she believes.

        • #3283023

          Oh that Tony

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          That’s OK then, no one would confuse him with me.

          I try not to tear people a new one unintentionally and your alias didn’t ring a bell. So I wondered if I’d f’ed up.

        • #3199972

          The difference

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          of course, is that Tiggers are wonderful, but Tony the Tiger is Grrrreat! 🙂

        • #3199905

          I had something more profound in mind

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Like a proper surname.


        • #3201416

          When will you Americans understand the Constitution you live by?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Not you Tigger, but the first knob who claims he can have his say here because he has a right to free speech.

          First of all, the 1st Ammendment does NOT (that means IT DOESN’T)imply you can say what yuo want want where you want. You guys are here all the time stating your right to free speech allows you to post as you feel.


          Yes, yuo live in a democratic country and it’s full of freedom of choice (as long as it is ‘the American’ way of course). This does NOT reflect the firts ammendment though.

          The first ammendment, the right to freedom of speech, merely states that your government cannot squelch your right to speak freely about your government or religion. In other words, you wont’ get shot for flaming Bush. It has NOTHING to do with your ability to say what you want whenever you want. Speak out in a courtrom and we’ll see how far YOUR version of ‘Freedom of Speech’ helps you.

          TO bring you up to speed, (seeing as all your school seems to have taught you is how to bow to the great Lord Bush and wave a flag),the first ammendment states:

          [i]”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”[/i]


          Please, oh delusional one, how does this apply to your posts on Tech Republic?

          What a tool. Free speech, thrown around all the time and nobody knows what it means.

        • #3201414


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          I’ve read your complaints and I’ve thought avbout your position. While I don’t warrant having religion thrown in my face, I am big enough to understand that everyone needs faith in something, whether religion or not. I accept people’s freedom to choose a religion and respect their beliefs.

          As fo ryourself? You have proven only that you are;
          1) incorrect
          2) a mouthpiece with nothing relevant to add
          3) unable to form a resonable debate with someone
          4) quite cowardly and defensive
          5) American

          that’s strike 5 you lose. (In Canada we get 5 strikes because our beer is better).

        • #3230661

          My My …

          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          OZ, this is a tightly nit ?click? here, isn?t it? Say something that may offend one of your ?virtual friends? and there?ll be Hell to pay! Check please ?

          First off, as an American, I DO have the right to say whatever I want, whenever I want, about anything I want. It IS our right whether you believe (or like) it or not. Yes, even in a courtroom I would have the RIGHT to defend myself if I were to choose to do so. This right is given to everyone as an American, even to such idiots as members of the KKK (for example). They can spew their hate filled verbiage all they want, as can those who oppose them. “Open mouth … insert foot” God given right as Americans! As far as how this ?applies to my posts on TR? in the ?miscellaneous? section, well ? this is an even more open place to speak ones mind (I THOUGHT). I agree that it DOES appear that one of us does NOT understand what ?free speech? means.

          As for your,
          1)incorrect ? I beg to differ
          2) a mouthpiece with nothing relevant to add ? your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions, don’t you?
          3) unable to form a reasonable debate with someone ? unlike yourself, right? Is this YOUR formation of a ?reasonable debate? with me? I think NOT!
          4) quite cowardly and defensive ? defensive, perhaps. Cowardly, you could NOT be further from the truth about that. But, it really does not matter either way now does it?
          5) American ? and damned proud of it!

          BTW: how many glasses of scotch did you have before, during, and after reading my post? ?Bowing before Lord Bush? ? you had to be high if you got that from my posts!!!

          Last and least of all, for your ?edit: for spelling?? post ? see above, sober up and re-read your own post.

          Good day, sir.

          Edit: for (I THOUGHT)

        • #3230659

          Oz: (Re: free speech) I could have said it better myself!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          I was going to say, I couldn’t have said it better myself; but since I could have said it better myself, I can’t say that. I won’t say it any differently either, because you said it just fine. A rare time when Oz and I are in 100 percent agreement.

        • #3230642

          PSer – You do not post. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          …your messages on this TechRepublic web site because of any “free speech” basis. You do so because the folks at TechRepublic are gracious enough to give you some server space to post your garbage and their bandwidth to spout your crap. They could wipe out your messages at will, and there’s nothing you can do about it. They don’t even need a reason. They could even state that they disagree with your views as their reason for deleting them. They can delete you too!

          So no, you have no idea what Oz was referring to when he corrected your “free speech” comments. Any “government protected free speech” comments simply do not apply in this forum, because it is a privately owned forum, not a government controlled one. You are not here because of any rights you may or may not possess. You are here because you have been allowed such a privilege.

        • #3230638

          Actually you CAN

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          say what you want, whenever and wherever you you happen to be … but that does not guarantee that there won’t be consequences for doing so 🙂

        • #3230633

          Okay then

          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Max, I suppose we should both thank the good folks at TR for being gracious enough to host such a forum for us to both speak our peace.

          Thank you, TR!!

          Your turn Max, thank them for letting you post such threads as ?I hate Democrats? as well as ALL of the other ?Crap? you and those of your ilk spew.

          You have a good day as well Max.

        • #3230623

          You know …

          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Your absolutely correct Tony ? just like the pharmacist in the article has to face the consequences of his ?statement?.

        • #3230582

          In all actuality…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          (this is for Oz)

          The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides, via court ruling and interpretation the right to express [b]opinion or personal belief[/b], whether that is popular or not…religious or not.

          Freedom of speech is the right to express yourself…not just religiously…and it does not right to go to the point that endangers others or abridges others’ right to the same constitutional rights you have.

          The best example of this being the racist groups being able to obtain permits to hold marches and speak their beliefs with megaphones outside black churches in cities in the past.

          Their language and belief is not very popular or acceptable in this country, but they have their constitutional right to speak their belief under the First Amendment upheld by the courts in this country…and…at the same time…you have the right to walk up to them…and tell them what a stupid orgish baffoon you think they are. 🙂

          For reference, please go to the website of any United States university that has an online law library, such as the University of Minnesota, Columbia, or Harvard.

        • #3230551

          Call the heart cart.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Max,OZ and myself on the same page…

          There must be sombody having a massive coronary.

          Max, Phew! He’s OK.. OZ…
          OZ…. OZ…

        • #3230547

          Just a

          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Heads up jck, I made a similar post about ?free speech? and was swiftly corrected! In America, we Americans have the right to free speech but here at TR it is a privilege NOT a right. It seems like a privilege that only exists for those inside of a ?small circle of friends?. If you?re an ?outsider? ? there appears to be a different set of rules.

          I guess I need to do a little research and find out exactly WHAT I (an outsider) am ALLOWED to post and HOW I am ALLOWED to post. So as to not offend ANYONE, as it appears there are some EXTREMELY sensitive people here who ?dishes it out? very well, but does not like it reciprocated.

          Oh well, live and learn?

        • #3230533

          Exactly, PSer

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          That’s what freedom’s all about. If he loses some (hell, even ALL!) business because of his decision, so be it.

        • #3230528

          Can not remember for sure…

          by jck ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          But I think as a part of your signing up for TR (as with most sites), you agreed to a “Terms of Agreement” for usage of this site which probably (if it’s like anyone else’s) gives TR carte blanche to censor you, modify or restrict your posts…without recourse for you.

          In essence, TR has the same right to tell you “You won’t do that in our house.” as you have to tell someone in your house.

          This website, even though the door is open, is theirs to run as they see fit…and (as I said) you can agree to use it “as is” and by their “terms”…or find somewhere else to go.

          Not saying that I approve of “cliquish” or “cowboy politics” type behaviour.

          But, you can’t place blame on them for you eating crow if you agreed to eat it in the first place.

        • #3230526

          PSer – Obviously in need of a clue

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          This is a personal plea for all who hear.

          Please provide a “clue” for PSer.

          It is painfully obvious that my message did not connect; PSer has no idea what I said; and PSer is in desperate need for a clue.

          If anyone has an extra clue lying around that they could donate to the cause, PSer could sure use one.

        • #3230516

          Max: Waste of time

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          The problem as I see it is that we don’t use the same communication filters. I have read a number of his posts and don’t get his point at all. Obviously I am not understanding him but all I know about him stems from two discussions in which he entered at full flame.

          I have noted his tendancy to flame anyone not agreeing wth him. I am not yet certain how that colours his language or communication patterns.

          I have also noted a tendancy to generalise- but we all do that at some points. I am just not yet understanding those patterns either.

          I guess I shall just have to continue to read and try to understand.

          Clue? Sorry- I can’t offer one. Not to him nor to anyone else. Perhaps someone else has feedback? I’m sure it won’t take long for him to flame back… even though this post is not directed to him, nor is it a flame.

        • #3230504

          Tony & JCK

          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Tony, I agree. As I have already said in one of my earlier posts about him having to deal with the consequences of his stance.

          JCK, I have no problem ?using it “as is” and by their “terms”. However, it is NOT the ?powers that be? at TR who are telling me what and how, it is other members. That, I have an issue with! If TR wants to censor me or even kick me off the site, so be it. But if this ?cliquish? group of members who are crying foul think they have any say over my what?s, why?s, and how?s ? they are sorely mistaken. Sling all of the mud they care to, not gonna stop me. Insult me, spit on me, spew at me, whatever ? don?t really give a damn!

          As for eating crow, I?ll just have a drumstick please? For missing what I can only assume was OZ?s point. ?Can?t use America?s Freedom of speech rights to proclaim the same rights exist here?.

          Sorry OZ, I get it.

        • #3230476


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Piss off!


        • #3230473


          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Sorry to disappoint you Tig but no ?flame? for you, actually ? just the opposite. I appreciate and respect the fact you are still willing to ?continue to read and try and understand?, despite our differences.

          Now, stay tuned whilst “they” TRY and beat me to a bloody pulp!

          Take care ?

          PS: Just curious, did you read my very last reply to you in the ?social programs? thread? I was 100% open and honest with you (as I always am, not ALWAYS brutally) about recent events in my life and why I went with the tag that I did. Was there something in there that was offensive to you? If so, as previously stated, I apologize to you.

        • #3230466

          PoSer NO your are still wrong

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Yuo suggest that as an American you can say what you want, when you want?

          Is that why people are removed from Bush’s private addresses if they wear a t-shirt that opposes him? Freedom of speech apply there? How does your 1st ammendment to the Bill of Rights protect you in such a case?

          Ever heard the term, contempt of court?
          Contempt of court is punichable with time in jail. So where YOU feel you can say what you want, WHENEVER you want, your misunderstood freedom of speech would see you placed in jail by your government’s standards.

          Yes you can have your say in court, but so doe severyone else and ONLY when you are TOLD you can speak by teh judge. YOU do not have that freedom, the judge is in 100% control, not you. Get it yet?

          Your government simply can’t pass a law to stop you from expressing your politicval or religious opinion. It has NOTHING to do with any special Constuitutional freedom afforded to Americans that Canadians, British, Australians, Germans or any other free democratic nation isn’t afforded also. We had that war and won, now we are ALL free to share our opinions and beliefs.

          Fact of the matter is Canadians have much more freedom of speech than Americans. In America, if your opinion doesn’t support America, you are seen as a traitor or even a terrorist.
          Only in America.

          Think about it, really, if YOU tell me to shut up because YOU have free speech, then the person you are telling to shut up can reciprocate because HE has free speech also. Then YOU are allowed to rebut because YOU have free speech, but HE’s allowe dto rebiut because HE claims to have free speech, and so on and so on. IN essence the whole theory of stating you can say whatever and whenever, actually in itself tells others that YOUR permission to speak, trumps their own. It’s nonsensical and that’s also a reason why it IS NOT A GIVEN RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN.

        • #3230461


          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          What I tend to find offensive is any over-generalisation. In this thread, you came in screaming about “all anti-Democrat”. That wasn’t true. Many of us, myself included, made very clear statements that seperated the issue- whether someone has a right to sell as they wish within legal requirements, or should be forced to sell a product even though no legal requirement pertains.

          I don’t consider that to be a partisan issue in the slightest. I consider it to be a business decision. And I had already pointed out the requirements under law- adherance to the formulary. This medication is not yet in the formulary as there is an OTC element to it.

          Regardign the last thread, I have different views than you do regarding how I have personally seen existing social programmes used- and abused. I believe an overhaul is in order. I know that determined people will survive no matter what programme is or is not there. While I appreciate your position, I am not likely to change mine. I simply acknowledge that we have a difference of opinion.

          At the time of that last thread, I was preparing to walk 60 miles in an awareness event that I had spent 6 months preparing for. I chose to not continue to participate in that discussion because my focus at that time could not be divided.

          As I see this, the issue has nothing to do with anything beyond my perception that the discussion was once again going down a partisan road when it is not a partisan issue.

          When the pharmacist in question chose to hang his rationale for not carrying something that he is not yet legally obligated to carry on a moral issue, he invited the sh*t storm. That is on him to deal with. But the foundations don’t change because he did that. Until he is legally obligated to provide the drug in question, he has the right in my opinion to refuse to do so. That right is neither liberal or conservative.

        • #3230458

          JCK- The facts

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          I have been to MANY legal libraries and cases regarding freedom of speech, copyright infringement and defamation. As you know by now, law is something I was immersed in but never persued. As an artists manager, I have also faced these same issues so many times it’s not funny.

          So many people come to court spewing this and that only to find out how horribly misinterpreted their version of teh law really is. Believe me, it is definitely not as black and white as most people think.

          The ONLY thing the first ammendment guarantees is that Congress cannot pass a law to stop your freedom of speech/expression. It doesn’t apply here or anywhere else someone may want to say what they want when they want either, simply that no congressional order can be passed against it.

          As Max so eloquently stated, TR is a private forum, if you think you have freedom of speech, push the envelope and watch your posts and account disappear with no explanation needed.

        • #3230452

          PoSer- look at your hypocrisy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          On one hand, you claim a right to express yourself freely. Which you are afforded but NOT without someone else choosing to express themselves also.

          On the other hand, yuo are trying to stop others from speaking out against YOUR opinions because YOU have a right to say what you have to say.

          See the hypocrisy yet?

          You can say what you want, but nobody else can speak out against you, because YOU have the freedom to say what you want, WELL SO DO THEY!!!

          THIS is why teh whole freedom of speech argument in a pulic forum is just stupid, it doesnt and CAN’t apply.

          [b]IF[/b]freedom f speech applied here, TR could not step in and stop a thread that’s out of hand. TR could NOT say “YOU can’t speak but Oz can.” As Freedom of speech does NOT apply here, I can rebut your comments and you can rebut mine, but neither of us has a right to hush the other, we can simply argue or debate until the PTB decide they had enough and pull teh plug on it.

          So to say others can’t speak out against you because you have freedom of speech, is just hypocritical.

        • #3230447


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Stop the train I need to cross the tracks!!

          I just realized I was being lumped in wiht Anti-Democrats. Well that’s not so bad but I sure as hell don’t want to become some form of pseudo republican either.

          I better listen to what my mum says and start hanging out with a ‘more savoury’ crowd.

        • #3230444


          by pser ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Well, when you put it like that!

          ?In America, if your opinion doesn’t support America, you are seen as a traitor or even a terrorist.
          Only in America?

          I couldn?t agree more. Hell, here in this discussion group I (as an extreme liberal) have been deluged with name calling from those on the ?right? whom I take an opposing viewpoints with. You don?t have to tell me that going up against this corrupt regime and their blind minions that is in control of this country is dangerous (to say the least)! However, in theory, I happen to believe (hope) that ?our freedom?s? as a Nation means something. Our Constitution, Our Bill of Rights, means something. They mean something to me, as well as a LOT of others. So, maybe, just maybe one day, if enough of us are loud enough then we as a Nation just might have a chance of actually being ?Free?. If not today, maybe tomorrow, so on and so on. As for myself, I choose to ?speak freely? today and everyday ? be damned the consequences! That is EXACTLY why I speak so loudly.

          Thanks for your posts

        • #3230441

          I promise not to flame anyone who isn’t OZ!

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Without reading the post.

          OZ is my favorite heat sink…

        • #3230395


          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          You really are currying favor with OZ.

          Just be warned, Oz occasionally endures the slings and arrows of righteous indignation. I applaud your courage…. (clap) but I still do reserve the right question your intelligence and honesty.

        • #3200921

          Some good points, some bad points, some pointless

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          How odd it was to see Oz going after a rabid liberal. Don’t see that often. Guess even he can only handle so much ignorance of what is and isn’t a right being thrown around alllllll the time by the rabid left. I wonder if he will tackle the “Separation of church and state” myth next? ;\ If he approaches it the same LOGICAL way he did free speech, maybe the far left will listen for a change?

          First, we have seen why many on the very far left are in the mental state that they are. They FEEL that they have rights that they don’t, and don’t really understand the laws in this country. Feeling instead of thinking will do that to you.

          JCK, like usual, you were wrong, but it was strange to have Oz be the one to TRY to reason with you and set you straight. Sure, you didn’t listen to anything he said, but he tried being reasonable and civil (for him).

          PSer, you have a victim complex. You walk in angry as hell, attack everyone, and then cry foul if they say anything back. Two way street, don’t cha know? You CAN say a lot and get away with it, but the WAY you say it will depend on if people listen to you or shut you down. You will not ever win anyone over with your current approach, but that really doesn’t matter to you does it? That wasn’t ever your intention. Tone it down and discuss and people will discuss. Scream and people will scream back. Not a difficult concept, but you SEEM more like a young pup without the real life experiences to mature you yet.

          Tig, nice and calm this time. the advil must be working? ;\ Without your stress buildup from the walk, you posted a very reasonable, level headed post stating your position without rising to the screams and shrillness of this thread. Well done.

          Max? Right to the point, and on point.

          X-MarCap? What can I say? Calling it like you see it, but sure not backing down from the fight, huh? 😀 That and carrying a grudge? :0

          TonyTT, actually kept to the topic at hand! Wow, one of the few to do so. B-)

          NB, ya, lots of strange things happening and what better to cause lunacy than our lunar neighbor?

        • #3200837


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          While our political preferences may differ, I do agree with most of your post. Believe me, my reputation here is as a left wing, bush hating terrorist.

          I am nowhere near the left wing by Canadian standards though, so it’s just that typical political box that people MUST place you in so that they can judge the relevance of your every word based on your political preference which, if it isn’t stated, is simply assumed.

          But, you must see my point. You have as much freedom to comment as anyone else here does. In that same sense, you can’t get on someone else’s case for not accepting what YOU have to say, that’s all I was getting at.

          As far as your and anyone else’s freedom to speak here, that is 100% up to TR’s own discretion, not The Bill of Rights.

          Now as for all the friends getting together and ganging up on people. I don’t think that applies in my case. While I have had many peers here that agree with my “Anti-US, Bush hating, terrorist” views, most have since long given up on the simple-minded, inward looking, cowboys who actually believe everything the president has to say…even when he changes his mind and comments once a week to suit his own agenda.

          The one person who actually did agree with me here, is actually the one person I have had the most toe to toe’s with over the last 5 or 6 years…or so. We can hardly share a compliment without it becoming a flame war; so nobody is rallying the troops against you, it’s just an agreement in common opinions, a RARE agreement, as the posts indicate also.

        • #3200835


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          About questioning intelligence…not to worry, everyone questions yours too.

          Here you are and you have already placed PoSer in a little box on the shelf. I don’t understand why Americans are so intent on instant judgement and then simply close their eyes after the initial assumptions.

          It’s definitely your loss and nobody else’s though

        • #3200772


          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          I will say clearly and for all to hear- I don’t like Bush. I won’t defend hin, I don’t care for many things he has done.

          I think. I think critically.

          This means that I see clearly- or as clearly as I am given to think on any given day.

          My issue with PSer was based in his generalisations. I believe I have said as much. I note he has done me no favour of a reply- even though I was willing to meet him on his ground.

          I am sure that he is a fine person but one I have disagreed with twice for what I see is good reason.

          I will endeavour to keep my replies to a standard within reason and avoid flaming where I can. I think that is reasonable.

          I believe that if you come in flaming, you should not be surprised at the responses you get. We had our own “cross-thread issue” some time back. Didn’t stop me from agreeing with you when I thought you were right.

          I believe what I believe. It makes me who I am. I don’t disavow my beliefs. I have room for yours as I may yet learn things.

        • #3200759

          Ozzie Fudd

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          “Kill the Wabbit”

          I really was joking about Flaming only you, I can agree with you when I think you are right…

        • #3201078

          Woah Tigger!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          Did I throw you inot a generalized melting pot by accident or something?

          I was not speaking about you, your political preference or anything else, I think you’ve misunderstod my intent.

          the right wing nut bags I speak of know exactly who they are.

        • #3201043

          We’re good Oz

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Piss off!

          I know that you understand.

          And I appreciate your post. I guess I feel like I have been in “react mode” through the issue and have been trying to get back to the original point.

          I’m not out to fry another peer, trying to understand him, failing miserably, dealing with it. While I know that I will not always agree with everyone, I do try to be clear. Sometimes it doesn’t work so well.

          Least I try.

          In a way too, I was trying to give you better information. I didn’t jump on this guy for no reason- I thought I had a few. Still think so but not so willing to jump.

          We’re good.

          And Thanks…

        • #3201419

          Edit: for spelling?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Practice what you preach

          Guess you need to edit again then.

        • #3201379

          Maybe he misspelled “spew”

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Edit: for spelling?

          the first time out. 😀

        • #3201205


          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Practice what you preach

          [i]However, HE is the one who has to deal with the consciences of his decision. By using his ?believes? to guide his business practices he has openly taken a stance against ?abortion?, one of the most controversial of our time. By his own actions, he Has brought this problem on his self. [/i]

          Thank you. I think I now have a better understanding of the liberal mindset. Let’s see if I’ve got this right: Whenever anybody does something that is perceived as wrong (whether it is actually right or wrong is irrelevent), they are not responsible for any ‘problem’ created because of it, the person who stands up against it “brought the problem on himself”?

          Wow. It must seem great to never have to be responsible for anything… to have a scapegoat for all occasions. But I’m curious, what do you plan to do once [b]everybody’s[/b] a victim, and you run out of people to blame? Wait, I know… you’ll reverse your abortion stance and have more babies, so you can blame them. No, wait, never mind… I forgot… Some of you are already doing that!

        • #3201164


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Wow!

          how it all seems reasonable and fair to these people to act like this, but YOU will be seen as hateful for actually pointing it out.

          But don’t worry, we still have plenty of people to play the victim. We have the whole new group of “undocumented workers” that are the “backbone of our country” that we should be allowing to become delfacto citizens with full benifit including collecting Social security regardless of the fact that they have not been paying taxes or contributing to the social security fund.

          We don’t need the evil Republicans do “do away with social security” because the compasionate Democrats are going to bankrupt it first.

          No one gets hurt or shorted, accept for the real citizens that HAVE been paying into these systems all of their lives.

        • #3201150

          Slightly disagree

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Wow!

          Unless they change the rules, they have to have 40 quarters (of paying into the system) to be eligible for benefits. And unless they have free room and board and are returning every cent to the homeland, they’re paying taxes (though perhaps not as much as the rest of us). And while I agree with you on the illegal part, I love the immigration part. It brings competition to the workforce, which is very healthy in the long run both for businesses and consumers. And there’s another quasi-benefit… For the most part you could say… “At least they work!” 🙂

        • #3201135

          Paying taxes when you work under the table?

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Wow!

          These people do NOT pay income tax, nor do the have the FICA taken out.

          They pay sales tax only, and that is by no stretch of the imagination “close enough” to contributing to the costs of running out country.

          Competition to the workforce is good as long as you don’t flood the workforce with people willing to work for $6 an hour.

          We also hear about the percent of illegals (crimials) that make up our work force. That percent almost perfectly matches the national unemployment rate. Funny how that works, huh?

          so someone pays in for 10 years that was living here for 20, and they deserve full benifits?



          Gangs and crime in LA is a high percent of illegals.

          these people leach more out of our country than they ever put back. People are always complaining about the budget, yet how much is wasted on crimials? It blows my mind that Democrats wanted to give DRIVERS LICESNSES to illegals! The only thing you give them js a kick in the ass as you throw them back over the newly built wall that has electronic monitoring. Make it so people willing to legally contribute are able to come in, all for it. Others? As you find them, like a fish that is too small, you throw them back. each and every time. No delays or long trials. Not a citizen with proper papers? A ride straight to the border.

        • #3201115

          As I said,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Wow!

          I agree with you 100% about the illegal part.

          [i]Competition to the workforce is good as long as you don’t flood the workforce with people willing to work for $6 an hour.[/i]

          If left alone (capitalist view) it’s a self-righting mechanism. Lower wages leads to lower prices eventually. The reverse is also true. (Which is why I’m against the minimum wage). If you want more, you should have to compete. If cheaper/better/faster comes along, it’s just the nature of the beast. The only people who have to worry are the ones who aren’t worth what they’re being paid.

          [i]so someone pays in for 10 years that was living here for 20, and they deserve full benifits?[/i]

          No, and they won’t get them. Up to a maximum value (I’m not sure what it is exactly), benefits are calculated on how much total you paid into FICA during your career, and your life expectancy. In other words, if you and the guy next-door were born close together and had similar careers except that you made more money, you’re benefit will be higher at retirement (unless you’re both at the maximum).

          [i]Gangs and crime in LA is a high percent of illegals[/i]

          because of competition… they ran the other gangs out (or killed most of them). Same thing happenned with the more ‘organized’ criminals (immigrants coming here for ‘opportunity’).

          [i]these people leach more out of our country than they ever put back.[/i]

          Hard to figure… some of ‘what they put back’ is in the form of lower consumer prices on some items and/or higher profits for some companies (which is either spent or invested… with all that implies).

          Again though, I agree that if they’re not legal… they shouldn’t be here.

        • #3201054


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Wow!

          How different our countries are.

          In Canada, Dems are the ‘victimized’ left wing. They are the tree huggers, the constant whiners etc. They are the ones who feel th egovernment shoul dcarry you womb to tomb, but this will really make you laugh…their campaign slogan was “Vote Democrat and build an independent nation” LOL, talk about hypocrisy!

          The Liberals are just known for f***ed up tax spending and tax cuts to some of the more ‘publicly important’ government services. They got the boot for not being good enough at hiding money.

          Conservs are our right wing.

          Republicans? Who are they? Must be American. 🙂

        • #3201052


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Wow!

          Your headline had me going. I thought you were going to spew some righteous BS about how it is only right to pay taxes when you work under the table.

          That would be about the most retarded action one could take. if you work under the table, you actually get paid less than the normal hourly wage but take home more, no benefits, no retirement, no nothing. So why in the hell would you pay taxes too?

          As for the people who work tax free, is this really the fault of the worker? Or should we not look at the people who employ them and offer tax free income?

          in the same context;
          Is it the illegal alien’s fault for working without a VISA or the company that hired him?

        • #3201013

          Frankly, Oz

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Wow!

          I haven’t seen a [b]real[/b] conservative in a major office for many years. The ones who call themselves that are really only [i]slightly less liberal[/i].

        • #3282962

          Oz, I blame “the government”, past and present

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Wow!

          It is easy for illegals to get paperwork that says they ARE legal, but the employers are not able to verify if the papers are real or not because that would be discrimination and hateful, don’tchaknow?

          I blame the government for intentionally refusing to guard the border.

          I blame the government for refusing to process illegals when they are found.

          I blame the government for not making a process to verify citizenship and then nailing to the wall each and every employer that knowingly hires illegals.

          This is just the OVER=THE-TABLE jobs! LEGAL jobs.

          Now, under-the-table jobs, it is tax evasion and if it could put Capone away, it should do the same for the employers AND the employess that work this way.

          Before you mention the part about lower wages, I don’t know what the exact cutoff is anymore, but I know the poorest of the poor file a tax return and pay NO taxes. I have actually seen a single mother get $1600 MORE back than she paid in. It put a new set of rims on her 69 camaro. We have “Earned income credits” where if you make less than $24k, you get a $1400 credit for each kid.

          The poor are given a pass on taxes when they do this legally. Sure, they still will pay “use taxes” and “sin taxes” and “road taxes” but if they follow the system they do NOT pay income tax. They DO pay into their social security though.

          The EMPLOYERS save mostly on not having to give benifits to people working under the table. The employee just gets screwed in the long run, but typically isn’t smart enough to know it or doesn’t have the option to get a legal job.

          Oh yeah, people with judgements against them will get an under-the-table job too so it isn’t just the aliens. It can be from a lawsuit, running up massive debt, or not paying child support.

          Historicaly in the US, Child custody has been a disgrace and should have been illegal the way it was handled. If you had a vagina during a divorce, you automatically got the kids AND child support that was often up to half of the income of the father, AND little-to-no visitation rights. That is where the then-popular-term “deadbeat dads” came in. Demand an unreasonable amount of the fathers income, deny him access to the kids that he is paying to support, and then act surprised when he stops paying. Lucky things are changing for that as well.

        • #3226891

          It’s a bit different here JD

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Wow!

          While I haven’t known anyone to work under the table in some years now (I just hang with a different crowd these days, must be for the better though)I know they are ually well paid and would be paying a good 25% off the top for taxes.

          I remember $15/hr jobs (in the 80’s) that people were getting under the table for $12/hr, that’s not too bad. Not too great either BUT, they are also able to collect unemployment or welfare this way too. If I remember correctly, most peopl ewho worked under the table did so becaus ethey were on UI or welfare.

          Yes, I think it’s a scam, yes these people shoul dbe punished for federal fraud (tax and benefit fraud too)but if the employers didn’t dangle the carrot, these guys would not be takng on such ‘opportunities’.

          Right now, with a major Vancouver suburb seeing over 300,000 chinese and Japanese immigrants in a few short years, there has been a lot of new corruption found.

          The Motor Vehicle Branch has been shut down twice for selling licences to asians. Several driver training schools have been shut down, they allow one person to take a driving lesson and family to watch/learn from the backseat (before they fail and buy the licence anyway).

          That segue was to lead into my next fear, as this immigration influx has occurred and ‘they’ (sorry to sound prejudiced)only hire from their own race, operate entire shipping malls where you can’t even read a parking sign and have a reputation of shifty business, I can only wonder how many are illegally working too.

          Thankfully our new government has started to tighten the strings on immigration now, and perhaps in part due to the 9/11 wakeup call.

          Oh well, I do a bunch of side work under the table, just favours for favours or a few bucks here and there. But I wouldnt take a real ‘job’ under the table, whereas I would have when I was younger of course.

        • #3283157

          What an angry person you are

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Duplicity anyone? (told you so Neil)

          First of all, you are sniviling about people going on and on, yet it seems like you didn’t learn from their lesson as you did the exact same thing your crying about. Reflects poorly on you, really it does.

          As for the oral office, your just upset because I said something funnier than you could come up with. No sense of humor? Yeap, sounds like a crazy liberal to me.

          Boiling clintons problems down to a bl0wj0b, again, well done as even the most uninformed know that was the least of Clintons issues. But you concentrate on that if it makes you happy.

          Did you forget to take your meds today or what?

        • #3283150

          Prozac anyone?

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Duplicity anyone? (told you so Neil)

          I must take exception. I have stated in many threads here that my original point here is the rights of the business owner to sell what he or she wishes, employ whom he or she wishes, and doing so while being unmolested by any form of government oversight.

          If you will read through the posts you will see that, like, Maxwell I believe that killing the unborn is wrong but I also believe that killing the doctors who perform abortions is wrong or blowing up abortion clinics is wrong.

          This was not intended to be a discussion on abortion and I admitted that I had not looked into whether the pill is contraceptive or abortive. In the first instance, like Maxwell, people should be able to take it as much as they want to. In the second case, again like Maxwell, I believe it is the killing of a person.

          I haven’t remarked about Bill Clinton since he caused traffic jams in Seattle when he came here for his book tour. He’s looking kind of run down lately and he’s admitted he doesn’t think he’s aging well.

          So, why are you so angry? Why can you not rationally discuss the topic? I won’t tell you to go away as I would like to discuss all these points with you but not if you?re going to be so angst ridden.

        • #3283086

          Actually … Xanax

          by pser ·

          In reply to Prozac anyone?

          Well, ProtiusX, if you actually could not see this becoming about
          abortion, then why choose this ?instance? of governmental
          control over businesses? As there have been MANY threads
          along that very topic. But hey, for the sake of argument, let?s say
          you had the most innocent of intentions. So, we?ll start there ?

          In another post you used an analogy of a Bar owner choosing
          NOT to sell Marijuana over Whiskey because he ?believed? it was
          worse than the other. Okay, so don?t sell weed at a bar, sell it at
          a head shop, don?t care either way. Believe it or not, I agree that
          the government should NOT be able to impose in such a way as
          we are speaking. (although he did bring this on hiself, see reply
          to Tig) That was NOT what I was posting about.

          My issues come into play in this ?discussion group?. You have to
          admit, even if it was NOT your intent to make it about abortion
          ? that?s where many have taken it. I have seen many of these so
          called; ?discussions? started about one issue with full intent of
          going somewhere else with it. The old Bait and Switch so some
          of these yahoos can climb up on their soapbox and spew their
          political and or religious believes. ALL, coming from the ?Right?
          side, not to be confused with being right. They spew and spew,
          hell, they spew about being spewed at, they spew about other
          people spewing at other people! All the while, B!tching and
          moaning about how the liberals and or Democrats are ALL to
          blame for ALL of the troubles in our Country. Well, I hate to
          brake it to Those of you of whom I speak ? you are DEAD

          Our Country has become so polarized by both parties. We have
          become polarized because of the left and right media outlets.
          We have become polarized because of RELIGION(S). We, as a
          Country right now is simply BLUE or RED and all the while the
          rest of the world is looking to this so called supper power with
          less and less respect every day. WE, left, right, middle, whatever
          are having a harder and harder time seeing the big picture
          because of all of this. Everyone in this county, day by day is
          having a harder time seeing outside of their ?own?. Yes, this
          makes me angry ? yes, it p!sses me off to no ends! And once
          again, these so called debates, could not be further from
          debating (the majority of the time).

          This is such a unique forum filled with highly intelligent people
          from all over the world, and what are we doing with it? Showing
          those from other Countries just how F*cked up we are as a
          society by stooping to such levels as I have seen people stoop.
          Once again, mainly from the ?right?(whether y?all want to admit
          it or not). So, yeah, it angers me. Hell, it embarrasses me as an
          American to read so much of the swill I do on this site. And
          before y?all even start, I know I don?t have to be here, I know
          where the door is, I know I can choose NOT to read through
          these threads. However, I choose to. I also choose to speak out
          when I see fit however I see fit, just as you all do. If you don?t
          like it, flame me, tell me to go away, tell me to STFU ? it really
          does not bother me in the least. You don?t gotta love me but ya
          gotta love the Internet.

          What do I have to gain from this site? Still, get a LOT of Techie
          info. What do I hope to gain by posting ? same as all of you ? a
          place to speak MY peace, like it or not.


          Edit: for spelling

        • #3283053

          See you can do it!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to Actually … Xanax

          Much better. Except it is bait not bate. Sorry. Don’t you feel better?

        • #3199929


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Actually … Xanax

          If people like PSer aren’t allowed here…

        • #3199913


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to .

          You seem to thing that anyone in this board has that ability to boot him or you?

          If he posts a loud, spit flying rant, people will respond in the same tone, as you well know.

          He did not come in to have a calm discussion, and try to engage someone, unlike you.

          People treat you like you treat them, and that is what happened and that is why he got the responses that he did. But he (not sure of gender?) did get exactly what he came looking for. Nothing more, nothing less.

          Also, unlike you, he has yet to add to a discussion.

        • #3199901


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to .


        • #3284588

          It isn’t a difference of oppinion that sets people apart

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to .

          It is if they have the social skills to have a conversation with someone they disagree with.

          If someone can not keep a civil, respectful tone, then they will get the exact same responses your friend PSer got.

          His lack of social skills has been consistent in other discussions as well. That doesn’t mean he/she/it will be banned or not allowed to post. But people return in kind what they dish out.

        • #3283112

          You are a very special person

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Duplicity anyone? (told you so Neil)

          So I give you a very special message:

        • #3283093


          by protiusx ·

          In reply to You are a very special person

          Now that was funny! When I read it I heard Jim Carry’s voice in my head when he did “The Grinch” and was in his cave talking to himself. Brilliant!

        • #3283081


          by pser ·

          In reply to You are a very special person

          I expected better than that from you. Your typical reply when the
          truth hurts you. Common, I deserve a better flame than that.

          Oh Well, Here’s one for you and your buddies

          Whatch the whole thing and tell me where I am wrong, Oh
          mighty one …

        • #3283066

          More specificly

          by pser ·

          In reply to Max

          This one

          Although you should watch them all.

        • #3283065

          More specificly

          by pser ·

          In reply to Max

          Either A$$hole v 1 or v2

          Although you should watch them all.

        • #3283022

          and excellent example

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Max

          of how it is the concervatives that are calling names. Well done.

        • #3199925


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to You are a very special person


        • #3200856


          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Duplicity anyone? (told you so Neil)

          how bad somethng can be made to appear when words are taken out of context. I’ve read all the posts you quoted from and while I don’t agree with all the opinions expressed, I don’t see everybody “ALWAYS Spewing at Dem.s”

          In fact, based on the following,I’m forced to conclude that your thought processes are deficient and your reasoning fallacious:

          [i]…when he [Clinton] left office there was a surplus in the TRILLIONS (yes with a T, Max)…[/i]

          The budget surplus at the completion of the final Clinton budget (Fiscal year 2001) was $158 [b]billion[/b] (yes, with a B, PSer). That’s $.158 trillion, or about 16% of a trillion.

          Since the data you used is incorrect, perhaps your conclusions are the same? After all, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

        • #3200672

          Fair enough

          by pser ·

          In reply to Strange

          Sorry, my bad. I was going by memory and obviously was
          thinking of his “projected Budget plan”.

          “The FY 2001 budget surplus is $158 billion, the second largest
          in U.S. history, according to the Mid-Session Budget Review
          released today by the Office of Management and Budget. The
          projected FY 2002 surplus is $173 billion and the estimated
          2002 ? 2011 total surplus is $3.1 trillion”

          However, despite my memory flaw (should have researched for
          exact numbers, I’ll be more diligent in the future) my point was,
          in essence. A comparison between the Dubbya and Clinton
          Administrations priorities in budgeting. As well as the “Right’s
          shell games” to keep Americans in conflict over issues such as
          civil union rights for homosexuals , Building Walls surrounding
          our countries borders (can you say Berlin Wall), and A woman’s
          right to Choose, to name but a few, to keep us divided on these
          issues so they can get away with murder (literally).

          “United States’ Congress recently (March 2006) voted to increase
          the Federal debt limit to 9 trillion dollars. Any other nation in
          similar circumstances would have had to approach IMF for help.
          IMF would then have forced that nation to cut spending and
          devalue its currency. But U.S. does not need to do this. U.S. can
          just print some more dollars. But how long can this continue
          before the world loose faith in the greenback, sending it
          crashing to unimaginable levels. (So Bush and Company took a
          $158Billion Surplus and has now okayed an increase up to a
          $9Trillion Deficit, and I doubt if they stop there)

          As though there is not enough pressure on the dollar, the U.S.
          government keeps spending money in an un-winnable war in
          Iraq and is considering starting another one in Iran. The total
          cost of Iraq war, including the future payment to the disabled
          soldiers, replacement of equipment, etc., is estimated be
          between 1 to 2 trillion dollars. While Corporations Such as
          Halliburton and the Carlyle Group stand to make profits in the
          Billions, if not in the Trillions

          Any attack on Iran will substantially increase this cost. Even if
          there is no attack, the tense situation in the region will keep the
          oil prices at uncomfortable levels, contributing to both a
          reduction in U.S. growth and an increase in its deficit.”

          So, you caught me fair. My numbers were wrong but these
          numbers/facts are NOT. Feel better? I don’t.

          And no, EVERYBODY does not ALWAYS spew at the Dem.s. A LOT
          do a LOT of the time, also my bad. Should not generalize, sorry
          for that. The ones that do are pretty damned nasty about it
          though, “All for abortion, as long as it is the liberals killing off
          their progeny before they are born (or in some cases during).”
          Yes, I have made some mistakes in my posts and stooped to
          others levels but you have to admit those are some pretty
          inflammatory remarks regardless of which “side” your on.

          Before you start, yeah, I am unintelligent, an idiot, a victim, only
          think with my feelings, a typical leftist nut job, uninformed,
          uneducated, dishonest, in need of therapy, and whatever else
          you guys want to label me as. I will not dispute any of it.

        • #3200662

          The budget surplus under Clinton

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          You can spin those numbers however you’d like, but it doesn’t look at reality. [i]”Clinton’s budget surplus”[/i] was something unexpected, even by him, and was literally dropped in his lap as a gift. It was caused, primarily, by the boom in the technology industries, and a baboon could have been sitting there and “caused” the same thing!

          All you have to do is remember Clinton’s budget projections from his early years, which you probably don’t, when he’s on the record (many, many times) saying things like, I don’t know when the budget will be balanced, or I don’t even know if the budget can be balanced, or any other number of iterations. He simply was not projecting budget surpluses. To the contrary, he was projecting more deficit spending that’s been plaguing our economy for thirty years.

          But to claim that Clinton caused it, much less even predicted it, is no less than hero-worship, and another case of you being terribly wrong.

          By the way, what’s your “conclusion” to all those budget numbers?

        • #3200641

          Of course

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          in government-think, any surplus is bad. It means someone didn’t spend all of “Their” money yet 🙂

        • #3200600

          Surplus is illegal

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Of course

          It means that the government (A non-profit organization) over taxed the citizens.

          The Government can levy taxes on the working people to pay for the running of government and the country. They can NOT make a profit on this.

          The budget is suppose to be a “break even” deal. They have expenses, they generate “revenue” to cover the expenses. They should not be allowed to spend more than they have though.

        • #3201217

          Which is why

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Of course

          the last couple of months of the fiscal year, there’s a mad rush to spend every dime left in “Their Budget”. It gives them a reason to say “Well, we had [i]barely[/i] enough for this year. and the way prices are going, we’ll probably need xx% more for next year.”

          I don’t have any direct control over purchasing in my department, but I do make old equipment last longer, and otherwise economize however I can. We are cosistently under budget (one year we were less than 50%!) but it seems it’s all for naught… someone upstairs will notice that we have money left and turn some political screw to get it re-appropriated to a department where it [b]will[b] be spent 🙁

        • #3200632

          And to make matters worse

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Fair enough

          your from Texas too…….. :p

        • #3200625

          Very Good!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Strange

          I was wondering if anyone else noticed that blatant error.

        • #3201229

          It wasn’t really that hard to catch

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Very Good!

          The only thing the Federal government does in the trillions is budget and debt. Even the deficits have so far not hit the trillion per year mark.

    • #3283226

      Some interesting issues about “Plan B” that we haven’t been hearing

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      First it starts like this:
      If you vomit within a half hour of taking EC, call your clinic. Vomiting can decrease the effectiveness of EC. To decrease nausea and vomiting take an anti-vomiting medication 30 minutes before taking the first dose. Some over the counter medications include Benadryl and Dramamine. Take as directed on the package. Both can cause drowsiness.

      Every woman is different. Due to the risk of serious health problems, women with the following conditions may not be able to use Emergency Contraception:

      * Established pregnancy
      * Past heart attack or stroke
      * Blood clots in the legs or lungs
      * Breast or genital cancers
      * Liver cancer

      EC may not be recommended for women who plan to have intercourse within 5 days, are breastfeeding or have given birth in the last 6 weeks, have epilepsy, cardiovascular or kidney disease, migraine headaches, diabetes, or hypertension. Call your clinic to ask if EC is safe for you.

      Women who experience any of the following symptoms while taking EC should call the clinic immediately:

      * Abdominal pains (severe)
      * Chest pain or shortness of breath
      * Headaches (severe)
      * Eye problems, such as blurred vision
      * Severe leg or arm pain or numbness

      EC does not prevent future pregnancies and is [b]less effective than other methods of birth control[/b].

      Get Pills In Advance!

      Go ahead – ask your doctor or pharmacist to give you the pills or the prescription ahead of time. Then you’ll have EC before you need it.
      back to top

      * Can be used after intercourse.
      * Can use regular birth control pills. (see dosages above
      * Can get pills ahead of time so you have them when you need them.
      * Easy to use.
      * Does not affect future fertility.


      * Does not protect against sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS.
      * Most effective when taken as soon as possible after unprotected vaginal intercourse.
      * Side effects may include nausea.
      * Must be readily available.

      [b]Plan B? is not RU-486 (the abortion pill); it will not work if you are already pregnant.[/b]
      A throw back to our race and genetics discussion!
      Chinese women experience a higher pregnancy rate with Plan B (which is the true with the Yuzpe method). While the reason is not known in this case, typically racial/ethnic group related decreases in drug effectiveness are due to a genetic tendency to metabolize the drug faster. This means that those of Chinese descent will be affected, no matter where they live. Typically, such differences are dealt with by increasing the dose or simply using a drug regiment that doesn’t show this difference.

      6. The Immediate Experience

      While the chance of nausea is dropped in half, it still afflicts about a fourth of its patients. This may cause a woman to take some time off of work or school in order to deal with this side effect. Some doctors suggest adding an anti-nausea medication to combat this.

      Other immediate common side effects reported by women taking Plan B include abdominal pain (17.6%), fatigue (16.9%), and headache (16.8%). Women will need to consider these factors in planning activities the two days after starting the medication.
      And if all else fails
      If a woman does become pregnant, it is more likely to be an ectopic pregnancy. Plan B doesn’t cause ectopics per se. But since the uterus is not very receptive to the eggs that wind up there, by process of elimination, the tubal pregnancies become a higher percentage of the ones left. A woman should see a doctor right away if suspects she is pregnant, has pelvic pain, or any other concerns about her health.

      The good news is that if a post-Plan B pregnancy goes to term, there hasn’t been any adverse effects on the babies reported.

      sounds like a lot has been left in the fine print that the average teenage girl will not ever know about until afterwards, if ever.

      • #3283217


        by maecuff ·

        In reply to Some interesting issues about “Plan B” that we haven’t been hearing

        look at ANY add in a magazine for nearly ANY drug and there will be a page to two pages of small print listing the possible negative side effects. This is true of just about any drug on the market.

        • #3283196

          At least they don’t try to print it

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to JD

          on the pill itself 🙂

        • #3283189

          It would require

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to At least they don’t try to print it

          a very talented person to swallow that pill.

        • #3283181


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to JD

          Do you think that a 16 year old girl should be making that decision on her own?

          It seems to almost be pushed off as a dinner mint. Go out, drink, dance, don’t worry about birthcontrol, because you have this pill you can take the next day that will clean you out! How GRAND!

          I see STD’s going through the roof.

        • #3283161

          Of course not

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Mae

          but 16 year old boys and girls make that decision ALL the time, regardless of whether or not this pill is available. I don’t think this will make much of a difference on whether teenagers behave responsibly or not. If a kid decides to have sex, they will. Or they won’t. It depends on their values, their maturity, their upbringing, etc.

        • #3283171

          She speaks the truth

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to JD

          The side effects and contra-indications of aspirin are worth a full page. We won’t even discuss acetominophen.

          They noted that women treated for Breast and Cervical Cancer should not take this drug. After radiation, they don’t recommend that you get pregnant. For many women, pregnancy after cancer treatment is no longer a possibility- period.

          My cousin was given the option of banking sperm prior to radiation. I was asked what I wanted to do but since I can’t have children, it was simply not an issue.

          Bottom line- any side effect that is provably a side effect gets noted. Liability, dontchaknow?

      • #3283213

        Seems to me…

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to Some interesting issues about “Plan B” that we haven’t been hearing

        [i]Go ahead – ask your doctor or pharmacist to give you the pills or the prescription ahead of time. Then you’ll have EC before you need it.[/i]

        If someone doesn’t have enough sense to plan ahead for other forms of birth control, they’re not suddenly going to develop enough sense to get this one ahead of time either.

      • #3283148

        Great Information

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Some interesting issues about “Plan B” that we haven’t been hearing

        So, it appears as though Plan B is contraceptive and not abortive.

        • #3283136


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Great Information

          And they come right up front and say so on the web sites.

          If more people were aware of this, there would probably be less hubbub about it all. The old guy himself made the statement in the article that this was akin to an abortion and that was why he was against it.

        • #3283119

          That’s what I was mumbling about

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Correct

          back up the thread. They’ll believe you more than me though as my bias is well known. 😀

          Interestingly, there is debate that the pill, both “normal” and “morning after” have properties that stop implantation of the fertilised egg. We’re back into slightly greyer areas here. But neither actually have any effects on an already implanted embryo.

        • #3283104

          Put the bloody tea and crumpets down

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to That’s what I was mumbling about

          and speak up next time then! :p

          Now, what were you mumbling about? I must have missed it! 😀

          They DO warn that if you end up knocked up even after this dosage, you are probably in trouble as the egg might ahve attatched outside the tube as the mega dose only works INSIDE there.

          Come to think of it, it was the same south park episode dealing with taking meds for abortion as the nambla organizations. both of them. :0

          I am going to have to get those on DVD!

        • #3283091

          Ectopic pregnancy

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Put the bloody tea and crumpets down

          What they do say (and here comes the science) is that the fertilized egg is less likely to implant correctly in the uterus so that pregnancies that [b]do[/b] follow on after unsuccessfully taking the morning after pill are statistically more likely to be ectopic (extra-uterine) when compared to normal pregnancies. The ME pill doesn’t cause ectopics.

          Still worth knowing though as ectopic pregnancies can be very nasty – peritonitis and all sorts of goodies…

          It’s good to see that you’ve brushed up on the subject


          ps found the original post

        • #3283018

          Every now and then

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Ectopic pregnancy

          I have my moments.

          Did want more information than the article was giving, and all of the news coverage on this was only that “The Morning After” pill was forced through by HR Clinton who held this hostage by refusing to allow the position in the FDA to be filled.

          This didn’t get through the FDA based on it’s own merits, it was extorted through.

          And like most people coming into this conversation, it was assumed that this was the famous French “Abortion in a pill” pill. It is clear that is what the pharmasyst thought it was based on his quotes ASSUMING that the media didn’t just make up the quotes as they have been known to do. ;\

          I still think this will increase the amount of unprotected sex, causing a rise in the spread of STD’s, but that is just my not so humble oppinion. B-)

      • #3283020

        As this is a presription drug for younger teenages

        by nicknielsen ·

        In reply to Some interesting issues about “Plan B” that we haven’t been hearing

        The doctor and pharmacist should explain all of this to both the parent and the child. It’s the 18- & 19-year-olds that won’t get the message because they can buy it off the shelf.

        • #3282998

          As it is still behind the counter

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to As this is a presription drug for younger teenages

          I wonder if it will get explained as it is dispensed? I would hope so.

        • #3200150

          Probably not

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to As it is still behind the counter

          Birth control is prescription. A woman (either under or over 18, depending on State and where obtained) may or may not be told what the action of birth control is. I know many women (over 18) who take “the Pill” daily but have no idea what the potential ramifications are.

          I have rarely had a pharmacist explain my medications to me. I am willing to research them myself as there are a number of medications that I should not or cannot take.

          The difficulty here will be that it is OTC in some States, dispensed in others. Until that is defined across borders, there will be problems with getting accurate information out.

        • #3200037

          The FDA has approved Plan B as follows

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Probably not

          OTC for 18 and older

          Prescription for younger than 18.

        • #3199961

          Here in Australia

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Probably not

          The pharmacists ALWAYS tell you the ramifications of using any prescription or ‘controlled sales’ drugs – unless they know that you already know. First script, you get the full run down, nothing on the repeat unless it’s been a while since you had it filled – then they confirm that you still know the details.

        • #3199950

          Can be hit or miss here, Ernest

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to Here in Australia

          I have had some really good pharmacists that discussed all the medications, potential side effects, and contra-indications with me and asked questions that verified that I had listened. And they sent me home with print information as well. As print information aimed at communicating with the layman has gotten more prevallent, I have had some pharmacists just hand me the printed info and not say a word.

          Given the type of medication this is, I should think that it would be very important to have a level of communication. Especially as the med is available without prescription to legal adults. Therefore the only ones presenting a prescription are teen aged girls.

      • #3199934


        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Some interesting issues about “Plan B” that we haven’t been hearing

        While I accept that many teenage girls may nto be fully aware of ALL the side effects or issues with either system, a great deal do.

        I remember my neice having similar conversation with a a friend when I was visiting, they wer both VERY educated on the issue and I actually learned quite a bit from them myself.

        They were taught in grade 10. It was part of the sex ed classes they took, the ones where Girls and Boys are divided to learn more personal issues about their own sexuality.

        I assume, (from comments over time) that in the US, there are some states that would support such education in schools and others who would contest it. Often this contest would be based on religious and moral resons to ensure ‘children’ aren’t going to learn how to grow up by themselves. I will further assume that many would also be states where the majority is opposed to gay marriage for similar reasons. It seems that many wish to remain in teh dark ages and not actually move forward as it seems safer without such information. “The girls should nto be having sex to begin with, such a pill will envoke a false feeling of safety.

        Example, we have had people here say the mornign after pill should not be used, as it will be used as a form of cntraceotion and girls shouldn’t have sex anyway.

        News flash, they DO and WILL, no matter what is available. Lets educate them and hope they will then make the right choices themselves.

        Sorry for the segue.

        • #3199924


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Education


        • #3228437


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to .

          In Canada it starts in grade 6 sometimes 5.

        • #3284589

          Back in the 80’s, it was 9th grade

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Education

          that we had “Health class”. Half the year spent going over STD’s, drugs and their affects, and the changing body. “lenny made a bad choice”!

          People today act like this is something new that was just introduced. Maybe they didn’t go into as much detail as people would like? Maybe because much of it was movie based the kids slept through a lot of it? Maybe maybe maybe.

        • #3284576


          by ontheropes ·

          In reply to Back in the 80’s, it was 9th grade


        • #3284488

          private school

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to .

          There were a few years when the “millage” didn’t pass, so middle school was moved up to the high schools, but they went from noon till six. The high schoolers went from six till noon.

          I had no intention of going to school from noon to six so I went to a private school for those years, so I can’t speak if public school talked about it earlier or not.

      • #3199899
    • #3200100

      Can we discuss gay marriage/civil unions here, too

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      I mentioned it above, but I think that it’s directly related as an individual rights issue, so I’ll bring it up again.

      Shouldn’t an individual have the right to select the person he or she chooses to have all rights as next of kin? Why does the gender of the partner matter?

      From that perspective, why not allow polygamy? Is it not the individual’s right to determine whom he or she defines as part of the family?

      I would think that the govt’s role would only be as a determinant of how it affects tax laws or other areas where the govt is affected, not as a moral arbiter.

      (Just brought up as a matter of discussion. I do not favor polygamy. To me it violates the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. I certainly learned my lesson the first time 😀 )

      For that matter, why does the gov’t get involved in assisted suicide when it’s clear that the patient has made a rational decision? And I would not accept an arguement that a terminal patient is in too much pain or is too distressed to think rationally. That’s too sweeping a generalization. It’s an individual decision, isn’t it??

      • #3200090

        Well, first of all

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Can we discuss gay marriage/civil unions here, too

        Gays don’t get pregnant so they will not need this pill. :0

        Should the government be involved at all in any part of our lives?

        Why is it agaisnt the law to kill yourself in the first place? If you fail, you get arrested (for your own good?)

        Why are sheep off limits? because of very valid health concerns and hazards.

        Why is it still illegal to have backdoor sex in many states? Because it is a well known health risk and hazard. Was the law written for that reason, or was that just the excuse given? wasn’t there, can’t tell you.

        Seatbelts, helmet laws, and other programs put in place to protect people from themselves. Should government be able to dictate this to us?

        Same sex partners and multiple partners. Which children are more at risk, children from a stable home with a constant mother and rather, or one where one or the other is missing? It has been clearly shown that kids from that stable home will have a better chance in life. The attempt by government to encourage stable families is a good idea that isn’t so easy once things get real. I understand the idea behind it. Just like a couple that gets married and has a child IS more likely to stay together than a couple that just shack up and have a child.

        Broken homes have much lower income, leading to lower quality of life quite often. Some even claim this will affect their educational opportunities.

        And yes, the punishment for polygamy is two mother-in-laws. 😀

        I know I didn’t answer what should be done, but I hope I started the conversation towards WHY somethings are like they are. We can go from there.

        • #3200033

          And the ultimate irony

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to Well, first of all

          I remember many years ago seeing one of those “stupid laws” lists that pointed out that attempted suicide in New South Wales or one of the other Australian states was a capital crime.

          I wonder how many people walked into a police station to slash their wrists…

        • #3199941

          Sheep are off limits,

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Well, first of all

          because it’s impossible to determine consent !

          Suicide is against the law because if it wasn’t your insurance might have to pay out.

          Seatbelts and helmets, probably gone a bit two far with that. At one point in the UK, they were talking about lap belts for motorcyclists. Only a total f’ing moron or a committee could come up with an idea like that.

          As for the marriage argument, you are having a laugh aren’t you?

          The committment required to make a relationship work over time, just isn’t considered important any more. It’s not because divorce is too easy, it’s because marriage is.
          As soon as you define it as a bit of paper, that’s what it becomes, arse wipe.

          I’m getting married next year. We’ve only been together twenty years. Two kids, lots of downs, a few ups. No doubt, it will add a fresh and exciting zing to the relationship. Change her name it will by like having a new woman, he says with with a starry eyed innocent expression.

          In my saner moments, I see the certificate wrapped round her trusty rolling pin. Add the weight of conformity to the blow, got to hurt more hasn’t it?

          In china, the pictograph for contentment is a roof , a woman and a pig.
          For discord, it’s a roof and two women.

          Wise, some of these foreign types, I can barely keep one woman happy, two, absolutely no chance of even getting all the shelves up is there?

        • #3199928

          Ha ha ha!

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Sheep are off limits,

          Cracking post.


        • #3199909

          some contentment I have seen

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Sheep are off limits,

          yes there was a roof, but the other two were one and the same! :0

          And yes, I do amuse myself quite nicely! 😀

          Marriage. My uncle loves to get married, just not BE married. I believe he is on sever or eight right now. Just a reason to throw a party?

          It doesn’t HAVE to be just a piece of paper, and I am silly enough to want one that means more. Some people never learn.

        • #3199903

          If you say marriage is better than cohabitation

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to some contentment I have seen

          then the differences can only be either a bit of paper , or inviting a particular god.

          Gods change, forms change, relationships evolve.

          Unless you want to define marriage as announcing your relationship to your community, then we could find some common ground.

        • #3284579

          there is no comon ground here

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If you say marriage is better than cohabitation

          Just allowing others to walk away thinking differently about the same thing. My first post was to try to set the reasons things are the way they are, as a starting place, not as a form of judgement.

          That being said, single parents in the US is a big problem.

          I grew up thinking of marriage to mean more than a piece of paper, but am not trying to push that same belief on you. And yes, it is a union blessed by a God I believe in. Guess that makes the difference? I like ham sandwiches, but will not be hurt one bit if you don’t. Same thing about marriage. Whatever makes you happy.

          I do disagree when pro-marriage people look down on anti-marriage people, or the other way around. (anti? Non? UN? what is correct term here?)

          All part of the American dream that I bought into.
          Having lost the first time around has not bittered me to the ideal of marriage, it just showed how poorly the choice was the first time around.

          Our house
          is a very, very fine house
          With two cats in the yard
          Life used to be so hard
          Now everything is easy
          ‘Cause of you

        • #3284552

          Oh I think there might be in places

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to If you say marriage is better than cohabitation

          Marriage is a life time commitment between two or more people who care at least as much about each other, as they do about themselves.

          Single parents is a big problem in the UK as well.
          You get exceptions but it’s got to be the toughest row to hoe properly ever concieved (no pun).

          The missus was sentenced to life on welfare, by some c*** who wouldn’t meet his responsibilities. I came along, gave her, her second child and turned out not to be a c***.

          I have her blessing, our parents, our children’s and their children’s, I don’t need anyone else’s, family is my ‘religion’.

          My dad taught me that by the way, in words and deeds.

        • #3284531

          I didn’t mean this in an arguemenative way

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Oh I think there might be in places

          Just a difference of opinion.

          The same word meaing differnt things to different people. The amount of religion and flavors of said religion also plays a role in determining the meaning.

          A joining together that should be more than just a piece of paper. People make of life what they want.

          The is in no way meant as being judgemental of you or your position. If your happy, good enough. Differnt people want different things.

          As an example, I personally have no desire to have the big fancy EXPENSIVE house that some people contribute to “making it”. I do not begrudge them their house if that is what they want, but I sure will not be very sympathetic when they don’t have money to go and do something because they spent it all on a house.

        • #3284432

          No problem mate

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to Oh I think there might be in places

          and don’t say the M word. I’ve been looking at how much it’s costs to get married. No wonder relationships fail, when you have the anvil of a 10 k debt hanging round your neck before you’ve even got down the damn aisle.

          The big surprise to me isn’t how many times married or otherwise, how many relationships fail, it’s how many succeed.

          It’s not so much god’s blessing, the fact that you love each other, tax advantages from making it legal, that make it work, it’s a desire to make at least that part of your life stable.

          To be able percieve, predict and cope with change, you have to have some island of stability to do these things from. Does’nt matter what the island is called, but it does have to exist, otherwise you’ll fail.

          Course I didn’t know this when I started out, who does.

      • #3200070

        yes, let’s discuss…

        by jck ·

        In reply to Can we discuss gay marriage/civil unions here, too

        …this at a nudie bar, DMambo ]:)

        (I hope they’re not illegal there.) 😀

      • #3228521

        Another post

        by protiusx ·

        In reply to Can we discuss gay marriage/civil unions here, too

        While this does speak to personal freedoms I would suggest it deserves its own thread. I have addressed this in the past a bit too vociferously so if you do create a new topic I will try to frame my argument with a bit more tact and a bit less jest.

    • #3200064

      If it keeps just one young hottie out for a good time …

      by too old for it ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      … from becoming pregnant (or conversely, some young stud out for a good time from a life of involuntary servitude, courtesy of child support payments), I think “Plan-B” should be availble at the checkout counter next to the breath mints.

      (Naturally, I think that if a woman is old enough to need tampons, she’s old enough to buy Plan-B, but the FDA disagrees with me. Guess which of the two organizations is filled with political appointees?)

    • #3199935

      No Coke… PEPSI !!.

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      >”Two cheeseburgers and a 2 Cokes please.”

      “No Coke, Pepsi!”

      >”Okay I’ll have a Pepsi then.”

      “Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, Pepsi, Pepsi!!”

      I am sure every one remembers THAT Saturday Night sketch. The happy greasy spoons restraunteur who only had Pepsi, cheeseburgers and chips.
      Funny enough he had te freedom to do so.
      In Canada, I don’t know of anywhere where I have heard such uproar over a store refusing to carry a product, I have seen it when the DO cary a controversial product but not like this. Then again, our system is fairly heavily regulated but the pharmacies have their say.

      As the article says, forcing someone to cary a product is totalitarian, I would think even close to dictatorship.

      A recent conversation was regarding the fored use of specific language on some signage in some provinces. The way I see it, if you don’t place correct signage to draw as much business as you can, that is your choice. If you lose business because your sign can’t be read, then so be it. To force anyone to use a specific language or format for signage, outside of reasons such as safety or being an eyesore that lowers property value, is a borderline dictatorship.

      NBow what I didn’t get in the article was political preference of those involved. It appears you have hastily written them off as leftist liberals (in Canada that is not quite left wing). Yet we have seen many people here that show som esupport for Liberal mindset and morals but also strong support for many republican issues.

      How is it that anyone who complains about a system not being fair is automatically a bleeding heart left wing liberal?

      You guys should start placing more attention on what is said instead of what political box you can fit people in.

      You are the only country that judges or itemizes its people this way, nobody else gives a toss what side you’re on.

      • #3199927


        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to No Coke… PEPSI !!.


        • #3199907

          It’s OK, NB

          by nicknielsen ·

          In reply to .

          He’ll either be ignored or shouted down, just like all the rest. 😉

    • #3199064

      Freedom of choice: why not in Education.

      by x-marcap ·

      In reply to Freedom of Choice

      In Ohio, the best private schools are ghastly expensive if you are not Catholic. Vouchers make sense. Put your students voucher where your student attends.

      The public school unions are trying to make it so difficult to home school that it is nearly impossible… The volunteers that they would get are from the population that now home schools. This requires more employees for the district. (I heard this at the school board multiple times.) The local boards want approval in who can, and can’t home school.

      The same people who want freedom of choice in so many other things in OH do not want any freedom of choice for education. Why is it that when a 6’10 center who is home schooled can participate in athletics, but a music student cannot participate in a marching band? Both are electives? If the person has talent, why make the distinction for the athlete?

      Or is it that the Athlete can bring in money to the public coffers? Why is the government spending tons of cash to get me to vote for a levy? How does the slick advertising campaign come together for a tax levy, when the school is claiming financial disaster looms? (A percentage of the take, not a flat fee, of course?)

      Why are the public schools always begging for money and then building edifices that are magnificent for about 10 years?

      I think the one room schoolhouse is the way to go. Hire a good teacher for a locale, and don’t try to educate the uneducatable. Diminishing returns. We spend nearly 20g per disfunctional child, 8.5 g per normal child, and 2.5 g per advanced child. (We should reverse this to concentrate on maximizing returns. Or, just make it revenue neutral/student. Equal access and equal opportunity, not equal results.)

      With the $8,500 / per student the family of 4 children can hire a pretty good teacher. With classes of 30+ where does most of the money really go?

      • #3199028


        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to Freedom of choice: why not in Education.


        • #3199017

          summer school

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to .

          When my boys were younger, we would enroll them in summer school. Not because they were dumb or in trouble, but because they LIKED school and it kept them learning.

          We are no longer ALLOWED to do that anymore. If your not a jerkoff that is failing every class or being punished for something you did, you don’t GET to go to summer school anymore.

          Thanks to the corrupt and lazy Teachers Union, they teach to the middle of the curve. If you are slow, they now will have a class for you. If you are ahead of the curve, they will try to dumb you down to fit in with everyone else.

          The public educational systems only solution is to throw a kid ahead a year, which my or maynot be a good idea as they just skipped a whole year of foundation building and now they are in with average people of a higher maturity level.

        • #3199012

          A long time ago and Far Away….

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to summer school

          When you had the credits in English, Math, and Science, and History/Government OH let you set sail for College. You got to come back and walk down the Aisle with your class, but you were graduated 1 year/ 1& 1/2 year early. You also had to have an elective or Foreign language.

          Now the school system would keep me in the school to “raise the average on standardized tests”, and they would not free me from durance vile to start my life, but they would allow me to take college classes for credit while maintaining my “High School status”

          “Money! Money! Money!!!”

        • #3201621

          Same at college level

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to A long time ago and Far Away….

          just look at the price of books and how they have to change the version number all the time just to keep you from being able to get a used book.

          I am just getting ready to order my books, and for my two college classes (6 credits) I fully expect the bill to be about $200, and that is only if I can get a used book! And books are the only thing that work isn’t paying for, dang it! guess I shouldn’t complain because they are picking up the rest of the tab! B-)

          If someone will pay for me to move my degree to the next level, it would be silly not to! 😀

        • #3201562