Page 1 of 2
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:12 pm
by Malcolm
The Supreme Court.
So:
1) 30% on the judicial
2) less than 20% on legislative
3) less than 50% on executive
Someone remind me again what an awesome system of gov't we have when half the population does not approve of the ass-clowns that get elected.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:18 pm
by GORDON
Is that because the S.Court said companies didn't need to pay for peoples' birth control?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:22 pm
by TheCatt
The article states:
7% legislative
29% executive
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:23 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Is that because the S.Court said companies didn't need to pay for peoples' birth control?
In very specific cases.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:26 pm
by GORDON
Yeah, I just saw teh interweb blowing up, "war on women," the US is now a caliphate, etc etc.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:05 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:The article states:
7% legislative
29% executive
30% executive? I found the approval rating today was somewhere on the 49-50% margin. Then again, that could've been prior to a couple Supreme Court rulings.
30% + 7% + 29% = 66% divided by 3 branches of ineffective, impotent, bloated, corrupt, useless gov't = on average less than one-quarter of the citizens approve of any given branch.
I oscillate back and forth between blaming the fucktards in DC and the fucktards who elected the fucktards in DC.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:11 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:Yeah, I just saw teh interweb blowing up, "war on women," the US is now a caliphate, etc etc.
I responded to a few people. We'll see what happens.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:31 pm
by GORDON
Seriously, it is like anyone who uses the phrase "war on women" unironically... you can use it as a moron litmus test.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:45 pm
by TheCatt
TheCatt
Curious choice of words, forcing the word "access" in there, when really, access has nothing to do with today's decision. Only coverage/payment.
Jeff Gordon Not really. Think of the person who works at Hobby Lobby. Hourly wage of $11.50 (max and only in DC - most states are <$8/hr). If they work full time, that gives them a monthly salary of $1,993. BEFORE Fed tax and before deducting for base health insurance. After Fed tax, they have about $1706.53. Health insurance for a single woman is about $328. Let's assume HL is generous and picks up 50% of that cost, leaving $164 for this person to pay. We're now down to $1,542.53
An average one-bedroom apartment in a metropolitan area (where HL likes to put their stores) is, say $450/mo (and I'll throw in electric and water into that). That brings us to $1,092.53. Food is anywhere from $200-400, so let's say $300. Now we're down to $792.53. They probably don't own a car, but are making payments also somewhere in the $200-400 neighborhood, so again, let's go with $300. Now we're down to $492.53.
But they need gas for their car to get to/from work and anywhere else. I doubt that their car is incredibly fuel efficient - so I'm going to use my SUV and my 20min commute as a proxy and say that they need to fill up about 1x/10 days. I'll be generous and say 2x/month. At $3.50/gallon on an 18 gallon tank, that's $126. Now we're down to $366.53.
Cellphone, TV and Internet - well, there are a lot of choices today, but even a basic set of services is going to be about $150 all in. This brings us to $216.53.
I'm not including any costs for education (because these folks probably don't want to work at HL forever), investing/saving, or fun.
Do you really think they have the ability to pay the uninsured cost for contraception? Sure, condoms aren't expensive. But why should women have to bear the burden?
21 mins · Like
TheCatt Why do I care what other people spend their money on? If they want contraception, they can make the decision to pay for it.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:56 pm
by GORDON
Yeah, I am looking at his budget breakdown and thinking, "how is this relevant to anything?"
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:06 pm
by GORDON
For some reason your conversation with him ended up on my facebook feed so I called him stupid. Well, I called his picture stupid.
But I think he is probably stupid too.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:08 pm
by thibodeaux
My FB friend:
I swear, we are >thisclose< to A Handmaid's Tale becoming a goddamn reality here in the first world. What the everloving fuck.
Wow just wow I cant even. Yes, folks, we've turned the clock back to the Dark Days of 2010.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:21 pm
by TheCatt
People all up in histrionics.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 5:24 pm
by GORDON
Your friend sure feels ways about stuff.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:23 pm
by Malcolm
thibodeaux wrote:My FB friend:
I swear, we are >thisclose< to A Handmaid's Tale becoming a goddamn reality here in the first world. What the everloving fuck.
Wow just wow I cant even. Yes, folks, we've turned the clock back to the Dark Days of 2010.
I had to go look that shit up. Never heard of it.
Wait, wait, wait ... they're calling B. Rock's administration a militaristic Christian theocracy? Has the snake finally lost its fucking mind and started eating its own tail?
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:42 pm
by GORDON
Some guy said
[The left's hysterical reaction is] instructive because it demonstrates the extent to which the Left is emotionally and ideologically committed to the power of the regulatory state. For some time, the Left has been selling the public and the courts on the notion that somehow the act of forming a corporation and opening for business operates as an effective waiver of your most basic liberties, including free speech, free exercise of religion, and virtually the entire panoply of property rights. In effect, your business is not “your” business at all, but instead all aspects of its operations exist at the whim of the state, and if the state wants to draft you into its child-killing abortion crusade —-- or wants to muzzle you during political campaigns -- then you best salute and fall in line.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:03 pm
by Vince
Somehow having a woman pay for her own birth control is a war on women, but telling a woman she can't carry a concealed firearm so she can protect herself from rapists is good for her.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:22 pm
by GORDON
Just teach men to not rape, duh.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:38 pm
by GORDON
Catt, yet another of your idiot friend's posts ended up on my feed because you commented on it. I went ahead and blocked everything from him.... and reported it as spam, heh.... how can you tolerate it? I see you throwing one fact after another at him, and it will never change his mind, and you will never fix him. Why bother. Just sever and keep him in mind if times get hard and you need to worry about who is going to come loot you because you have more than you deserve and other people need it more.
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:45 pm
by thibodeaux
I only had the one friend say anything about it...I think because I already blocked the rest of them who would have.