Sunday 6 July 2014
7 comments:
Anonymous commenters - please add a signature (doesn't have to be your real name) on each post of yours. Anne O'Namus, Norm D. Ploom, Angry from Kent, Demosthenes, or even your real initials, it doesn't matter.
Commenters are expected to be polite to each other, but the same standard doesn't apply to comments regarding me.
Australian commenters are very very strongly advised to publish anonymously. Sydney alone has more defamation actions than the entire USA and UK. Nearly double that of the UK in fact.
As Google does not reliably inform me that a comment has been posted, and I have no control over first publication, I assert that all comments are innocently disseminated under the NSW DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - SECT 32 and similar acts.
When government controls culture you have war.
ReplyDeleteSims
The woman on the left is an ally in the present fight against mandatory contraception coverage. (I don't think I would agree with the political opinions of her great-grandparents.)
ReplyDeleteThe woman on the right is the great-grandmother of people who will fight to keep circumcision legal. (I don't think I would agree with her political opinions.)
The difference is time.
Two sides. Same coin.
ReplyDeleteI expect the lass on the left isn't going to strap on a suicide vest and kill innocent people.
ReplyDeletedin
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/sex-change-surgery-health-care-coverage-108853.html
ReplyDeleteMade some good comments about how those who are denied medically necessary treatment should file a request with HHS in the same manner as was the case for sex reassignment surgery; I also commented that all 3 of the board members that made the decision were Republican-appointed (which seemed to cause confusion in one of the other users). (Basically, they've been saying it has all been Obama and the Democrats, but they give Obama and the Democrats far too much credit for finally removing this.)
The woman on the left is an ally in the present fight against mandatory contraception coverage.
ReplyDeleteAn ally of yours, maybe, but not of mine. Why should employers be allowed to opt out of the law on religious grounds?
On what do you base your opinion that the woman on the left is unlikely to kill any innocent people?
athel
"Why should employers be allowed to opt out of the law on religious grounds?"
ReplyDelete==============
In a free country that gives liberty as a right, no cultural behavior control is legal.
Government is not in charge of individual morals. Forced payment to support other people's morals is not a free country it is socialist.
Carney