About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Latest Entries

Actions Menu

Blog Roll

Other Links

Courting Disaster
Author: BobR    Date: 2014-07-02 10:12:11

(Note: Updated at 11:13 AM EDT - see bottom)

Monday's Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case has created a firestorm of opinions, predictions, anger, and calls for boycotts of Hobby Lobby. There is certainly cause for concern, and there are certainly things to be upset about, but it doesn't help when false information, exaggerations, and absurd predictions and analogies are tossed around. It's important to look at this rationally first before formulating a response.

The biggest misconception (or exaggeration) is that this allows any company to prevent women from getting birth control. In reality, the decision was based on Hobby Lobby's problem with 4 specific types of birth control:

  • 2 types of IUDs
  • 2 types of so-called "Morning After pills"

Their objection is that the affect of these 4 types of contraception are akin to abortion. The ruling in the Hobby Lobby case does NOT include "regular" birth control pills, which is a big misconception (no pun intended) among most of the outrage out there.

It also doesn't prevent insurance companies from providing coverage for those 4 types of birth control, but the employee will likely need to pay for that coverage rider themselves. While the cost will likely not be prohibitive, it will be an administrative nightmare.

The dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the launching pad for a lot of bad "if-then" logical thinking from pundits and regular people:
She contemplated slippery slope arguments based on the recognition of corporate religious practice.

“Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?” Ginsburg asked.

That "slippery slope" is where a lot of speculation has landed. It's certainly possible that a company could try to do this, but it would be fought in the court system - possibly all the way to the Supreme Court. It's unlikely they would get the same favorable treatment as Hobby Lobby.

There are plenty of good points to be made about how bad this decision is:

More court precedence to the personhood of corporations: Ginsberg writes "...the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities". The Constitution makes no mention of ANY rights guaranteed to corporations. The very rationale for creating a corporation is to provide a safety wall between the owners and the company itself.

"Closely-held" corporations account for the majority of companies employing workers in the U.S. That list includes Koch Industries and Wal-Mart. So this isn't as narrow a ruling as Justice Scalia is proposing.

Justice Scalia offers an "out" that is contrary to the law as written in the ACA: He wrote in the majority opinion that the government could pay for the coverage. The ACA was amended to ensure that no federal funds are used for abortions. If the religious fundamentalists believe these forms of birth control are akin to abortion, they are not going to stand by and let the government pay for them. Scalia should know this, and his ignorance of it is troubling.

It favors a specific religion: The anti-abortion activism is really specific to Christianity. Per Justice Alito:
But Justice Alito said that “it seems unlikely” that publicly held “corporate giants” would make religious liberty claims. He added that he did not expect to see “a flood of religious objections regarding a wide variety of medical procedures and drugs, such as vaccinations and blood transfusions.” Racial discrimination, he said, could not “be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction.”
But why not? Because they don't fit the Catholic framework of religion? This really shows that Alito is basing his judgement on what is a "valid" religious belief based on his own religious beliefs. THAT is government basing law on a specific religion, which violates the first amendment.

While the effects of the "slippery slope" remain to be seen, and even though most birth control is not affected by this ruling, the fact that ANY sort of concession to any law has been given to a for-profit company because of the religious beliefs of the corporations owners is scary enough. That is the true slippery slope here - special indulgences doled out to those favored by the court.

Isn't that the kind of thing we went to war against England to eliminate?

UPDATE: I was under the mistaken impression that Wal-Mart was solely owned by the heirs of Sam Walton, and therefore was a "closely-held" company. I was incorrect in that assumption.

Also (and more troubling), the court has instructed lower courts to extend its ruling to include ANY contraception, not just the four in the Hobby Lobby case (more info)
 

51 comments (Latest Comment: 07/02/2014 21:41:04 by Will in Chicago)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by wickedpam on 07/02/2014 13:16:20
Morning

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 13:19:51
If I may paraphrase Inigo Montoya from the "Princess Bride," Closely held, you keep saying that. I don't you know what is means.

Closely held in this context means the privately held as in with no stock available.
Wal Mart is not closely held, it is a publically traded company.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 13:37:30
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 13:45:08
Quote by Raine:
Regarding today's blog, this is what I am deeply concerned about.



That is the bigger problem, The fools have opened the floodgates.

Comment by BobR on 07/02/2014 13:50:17
Quote by Mondobubba:
If I may paraphrase Inigo Montoya from the "Princess Bride," Closely held, you keep saying that. I don't you know what is means.

Closely held in this context means the privately held as in with no stock available.
Wal Mart is not closely held, it is a publically traded company.

I know what it means. I was mistaken in thinking that it was privately-owned by the Walton heirs. Bad example on my part.

Comment by BobR on 07/02/2014 13:50:57
Quote by Raine:
Regarding today's blog, this is what I am deeply concerned about.

I wish I had seen that before I wrote the blog.

Comment by wickedpam on 07/02/2014 13:51:44
Caller's an idiot.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 13:54:50
This is something that irks me when I hear callers on the radio say that women should/could go pay for the Contraception out of pocket:
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision, “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.” Indeed, IUDs — which are the most effective form of birth control and the method that doctors are increasingly recommending — can cost more than $1,000 out of pocket. Before the Affordable Care Act took effect and began guaranteeing women’s access to no-cost birth control, many women didn’t use IUDs because the up front costs were too expensive.
There are some women who cannot use hormone therapy.

Plus, and this is the part that bothers the hell out of me. MANY MANY (if not most) people take certain jobs for the BENEFITS package. Insurance is a benefit of a job. Hobby Lobby is taking away benefits without reimbursing the employees for that.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 13:57:09
Quote by Raine:
This is something that irks me when I hear callers on the radio say that women should/could go pay for the Contraception out of pocket:
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision, “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.” Indeed, IUDs — which are the most effective form of birth control and the method that doctors are increasingly recommending — can cost more than $1,000 out of pocket. Before the Affordable Care Act took effect and began guaranteeing women’s access to no-cost birth control, many women didn’t use IUDs because the up front costs were too expensive.
There are some women who cannot use hormone therapy.

Plus, and this is the part that bothers the hell out of me. MANY MANY (if not most) people take certain jobs for the BENEFITS package. Insurance is a benefit of a job. Hobby Lobby is taking away benefits without reimbursing the employees for that.



There are plenty of women (include the late Mrs Mondo) who take birth control pills to regulate their periods.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 13:57:24
The bigger and most disturbing incident, as you mentioned Bobber, is that SCOTUS never bothered to listen to the solicitor General when he said that IUD's were not abortificants. Science be damned.



Comment by TriSec on 07/02/2014 13:57:44
If contraception is no longer covered, then nobody should cover ART either, ya dig?

Comment by BobR on 07/02/2014 14:00:28
Quote by Raine:
This is something that irks me when I hear callers on the radio say that women should/could go pay for the Contraception out of pocket:
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision, “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.” Indeed, IUDs — which are the most effective form of birth control and the method that doctors are increasingly recommending — can cost more than $1,000 out of pocket. Before the Affordable Care Act took effect and began guaranteeing women’s access to no-cost birth control, many women didn’t use IUDs because the up front costs were too expensive.
There are some women who cannot use hormone therapy.

Plus, and this is the part that bothers the hell out of me. MANY MANY (if not most) people take certain jobs for the BENEFITS package. Insurance is a benefit of a job. Hobby Lobby is taking away benefits without reimbursing the employees for that.

Did Hobby Lobby have that in their insurance benefit before the ACA mandated it? If not, then it isn't being taken away from them because they never had it in the first place. I don't know whether they did or not.

That said - Hobby Lobby is shooting itself in the foot, because women will go work for companies that WILL provide the benefit. "Good medical insurance" has always been a draw, and now there's another facet to that.

Comment by wickedpam on 07/02/2014 14:00:30
This guys an idiot - when you work you don't get health insurance for free, it comes out of your paycheck. Most people split the cost of their heathcare coverage. Caller is saying women should pay for BC on the side so even more comes out of their pocket.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 14:02:59
Quote by Raine:
The bigger and most disturbing incident, as you mentioned Bobber, is that SCOTUS never bothered to listen to the solicitor General when he said that IUD's were not abortificants. Science be damned.




That pissed me off as well.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 14:03:10
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
This is something that irks me when I hear callers on the radio say that women should/could go pay for the Contraception out of pocket:
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision, “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.” Indeed, IUDs — which are the most effective form of birth control and the method that doctors are increasingly recommending — can cost more than $1,000 out of pocket. Before the Affordable Care Act took effect and began guaranteeing women’s access to no-cost birth control, many women didn’t use IUDs because the up front costs were too expensive.
There are some women who cannot use hormone therapy.

Plus, and this is the part that bothers the hell out of me. MANY MANY (if not most) people take certain jobs for the BENEFITS package. Insurance is a benefit of a job. Hobby Lobby is taking away benefits without reimbursing the employees for that.



There are plenty of women (include the late Mrs Mondo) who take birth control pills to regulate their periods.
I bolding this because while the pill is an option, IUD as an option should not be taken away. There are a lot of people out there saying things akin to *But women can still take the pill* and speaking for myself, that isn't the point. The point is that choice is slowly being chipped away.

It's like TRAP laws. When speaking of TRAP laws I usually reference this documentary as evidence of that slippery slope. That was released in 2005.
FRONTLINE tracks how this happened over the past decade -- how it can all be traced back to a critical 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While the Court upheld Roe v. Wade, it changed the standard by which abortion laws would be judged. It allowed states to regulate abortion so long as they did not place an "undue burden" on the women seeking the procedure.

"… [E]ver since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, people got the impression that abortion was safe; Roe v. Wade was safe," explains William Saletan, the author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. "All the pro-choice people went home."

In the years after Casey, the pro-life movement has dramatically changed the landscape of abortion politics. In Mississippi alone, they helped pass 10 laws regulating abortion. And in the last two years, the state has passed legislation on fetal homicide prosecution, new clinic regulations, requirements to report abortion complications, rights of conscience, and a law that would prohibit the state's last abortion clinic from offering abortions beyond the first trimester.

Americans United for Life (AUL), the nation's oldest national pro-life organization, considers Mississippi an example for the nation. "Mississippi has an impressive track record," says AUL senior legal counsel Clarke Forsythe. "Our goal is to see that other states pass the type of legislation that Mississippi has passed over the past decade, and we see a lot of legislative activity."

With an ever-increasing number of state abortion regulations and a steady decline in abortion providers, the procedure, while still legal, has become daunting and expensive in Mississippi and elsewhere. Nationwide, there are now fewer abortion providers in the U.S. than at any time since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 -- 87 percent of U.S. counties don't have one.


This is why a lot of people are very upset. It's not that we still have things, it's that we have less.


Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 14:04:55
Quote by wickedpam:
This guys an idiot - when you work you don't get health insurance for free, it comes out of your paycheck. Most people split the cost of their heathcare coverage. Caller is saying women should pay for BC on the side so even more comes out of their pocket.
That's correct. and I know back in the day with my former spouse, we both had insurance, his was better and I declined to be insured from my company at the time. I was reimbursed the 20% of my salary the insurance would have cost me; In other words, I took home 20% more.

I dought that happens any more.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 14:07:29
Quote by Raine:
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Raine:
This is something that irks me when I hear callers on the radio say that women should/could go pay for the Contraception out of pocket:
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision, “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.” Indeed, IUDs — which are the most effective form of birth control and the method that doctors are increasingly recommending — can cost more than $1,000 out of pocket. Before the Affordable Care Act took effect and began guaranteeing women’s access to no-cost birth control, many women didn’t use IUDs because the up front costs were too expensive.
There are some women who cannot use hormone therapy.

Plus, and this is the part that bothers the hell out of me. MANY MANY (if not most) people take certain jobs for the BENEFITS package. Insurance is a benefit of a job. Hobby Lobby is taking away benefits without reimbursing the employees for that.

Did Hobby Lobby have that in their insurance benefit before the ACA mandated it? If not, then it isn't being taken away from them because they never had it in the first place. I don't know whether they did or not.

That said - Hobby Lobby is shooting itself in the foot, because women will go work for companies that WILL provide the benefit. "Good medical insurance" has always been a draw, and now there's another facet to that.
HEre,
The Greens re-examined the company’s health insurance policy back in 2012, shortly before filing the lawsuit. A Wall Street Journal story says they looked into their plan after being approached by an attorney from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty about possible legal action over the federal government’s contraceptives requirement.

That was when, according to the company’s complaint, they were surprised to learn their prescription drug policy included two drugs, Plan B and ella, which are emergency contraceptive pills that reduce the chance of pregnancy in the days after unprotected sex. The government does not consider morning-after pills as abortifacients because they are used to prevent eggs from being fertilized (not to induce abortions once a woman is pregnant). This is not, however, what the Green family believes, which is that life begins at conception and these drugs impede the survival of fertilized eggs.

At any rate, Hobby Lobby stopped covering those drugs in its plan and took the health care contraceptive mandate to court, represented by the Becket Fund.
ETA: the Becket Fund


Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 14:16:06
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
This is something that irks me when I hear callers on the radio say that women should/could go pay for the Contraception out of pocket:
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out in her scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision, “the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.” Indeed, IUDs — which are the most effective form of birth control and the method that doctors are increasingly recommending — can cost more than $1,000 out of pocket. Before the Affordable Care Act took effect and began guaranteeing women’s access to no-cost birth control, many women didn’t use IUDs because the up front costs were too expensive.
There are some women who cannot use hormone therapy.

Plus, and this is the part that bothers the hell out of me. MANY MANY (if not most) people take certain jobs for the BENEFITS package. Insurance is a benefit of a job. Hobby Lobby is taking away benefits without reimbursing the employees for that.



There are plenty of women (include the late Mrs Mondo) who take birth control pills to regulate their periods.
I bolding this because while the pill is an option, IUD as an option should not be taken away. There are a lot of people out there saying things akin to *But women can still take the pill* and speaking for myself, that isn't the point. The point is that choice is slowly being chipped away.

It's like TRAP laws. When speaking of TRAP laws I usually reference this documentary as evidence of that slippery slope. That was released in 2005.
FRONTLINE tracks how this happened over the past decade -- how it can all be traced back to a critical 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While the Court upheld Roe v. Wade, it changed the standard by which abortion laws would be judged. It allowed states to regulate abortion so long as they did not place an "undue burden" on the women seeking the procedure.

"… [E]ver since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, people got the impression that abortion was safe; Roe v. Wade was safe," explains William Saletan, the author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War. "All the pro-choice people went home."

In the years after Casey, the pro-life movement has dramatically changed the landscape of abortion politics. In Mississippi alone, they helped pass 10 laws regulating abortion. And in the last two years, the state has passed legislation on fetal homicide prosecution, new clinic regulations, requirements to report abortion complications, rights of conscience, and a law that would prohibit the state's last abortion clinic from offering abortions beyond the first trimester.

Americans United for Life (AUL), the nation's oldest national pro-life organization, considers Mississippi an example for the nation. "Mississippi has an impressive track record," says AUL senior legal counsel Clarke Forsythe. "Our goal is to see that other states pass the type of legislation that Mississippi has passed over the past decade, and we see a lot of legislative activity."

With an ever-increasing number of state abortion regulations and a steady decline in abortion providers, the procedure, while still legal, has become daunting and expensive in Mississippi and elsewhere. Nationwide, there are now fewer abortion providers in the U.S. than at any time since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 -- 87 percent of U.S. counties don't have one.


This is why a lot of people are very upset. It's not that we still have things, it's that we have less.



On of my coworkers is thinking about switching from pills to an IUD. Not because she can't use hormones, she's one of those folks who finds it hard to remember to take her pill at the same time every day or take it every day. I am glad we don't work for dicks.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 14:20:01
Quote by Mondobubba:
On of my coworkers is thinking about switching from pills to an IUD. Not because she can't use hormones, she's one of those folks who finds it hard to remember to take her pill at the same time every day or take it every day. I am glad we don't work for dicks.
I know a lot of people that forget to take the pill. Especially young women (teens) poor women struggling to juggle family and jobs, etc.

The reasons why for an IUD are not important, I guess. it should be there as a choice.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 14:20:06
John Oliver had a great comment on corporate personhood and Hobby Lobby V Sebelius. I can't find the actual quote but, it was something to the effect of if corporations are people, then like people they have to pay for things they don't like.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 14:21:58
Quote by Raine:
Quote by Mondobubba:
On of my coworkers is thinking about switching from pills to an IUD. Not because she can't use hormones, she's one of those folks who finds it hard to remember to take her pill at the same time every day or take it every day. I am glad we don't work for dicks.
I know a lot of people that forget to take the pill. Especially young women (teens) poor women struggling to juggle family and jobs, etc.

The reasons why for an IUD are not important, I guess. it should be there as a choice.



Exactly. Every woman should have the choice to have the contraceptive that best suits her needs. No matter what it is. See my previous comment about acting like a real person, corporations.

Comment by TriSec on 07/02/2014 14:35:42
This is really about fornication, as condemned by the Bible. Tell me again how this isn't Sharia?

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 14:39:56
Quote by TriSec:
This is really about fornication, as condemned by the Bible. Tell me again how this isn't Sharia?
because it's called Christian principles. and that isn;t Sharia according to the religious right?

Just look at What Santorum is up to.


Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 15:08:29
Comment by BobR on 07/02/2014 15:13:29
Quote by TriSec:
This is really about fornication, as condemned by the Bible. Tell me again how this isn't Sharia?

That's one of the most troubling aspects of this to me, which is why I put it in the blog - the court is determining which beliefs of which religions are allowed to be exempt from law. It's the opposite of the 1st Amendment.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 15:14:17
A yay, another man that is happy about the Hobby lobby decision.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 15:21:54
Caller has no clue how conception works.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 15:24:05
Caller said something right! he said: I don't know.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 15:25:10
I am sickened at this call. This guy is bartering away what we omens rights should be, and John is letting him.

Comment by wickedpam on 07/02/2014 15:27:14
Quote by Raine:
Caller has no clue how conception works.


caller has no idea about any of it. Why do they always fall to late term abortions. Those only happen if there is something horribly wrong.


Comment by clintster on 07/02/2014 15:30:38
Quote by Raine:
Oh Georgia MEn.


Yeah, I already have enough problems with social anxiety. Nothing will assuage that faster than the thought that multiple people have the ability to kill me on sight.

Comment by TriSec on 07/02/2014 15:35:16
Quote by BobR:

That's one of the most troubling aspects of this to me, which is why I put it in the blog - the court is determining which beliefs of which religions are allowed to be exempt from law. It's the opposite of the 1st Amendment.


Which comes right back to my mantra. "i'm glad you believe in X. Now tell me why YOUR beliefs need to be the law of the land?"

It is all sad and troubling.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 07/02/2014 15:44:49
Quote by Mondobubba:
Quote by Raine:
Regarding today's blog, this is what I am deeply concerned about.



That is the bigger problem, The fools have opened the floodgates.


I fear that these fools have sown into the wind and that we will reap the whirlwind.


Comment by TriSec on 07/02/2014 15:54:08
Mondo, did you hear the pencil snap in my hand just now?

trisec: I see the problem, try logging in to (link) with (username/password).

User: that's great, can you send me my user name?

Trisec: (mouth moves, no sound comes out)



Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 16:18:01
Quote by TriSec:
Mondo, did you hear the pencil snap in my hand just now?

trisec: I see the problem, try logging in to (link) with (username/password).

User: that's great, can you send me my user name?

Trisec: (mouth moves, no sound comes out)




Ah clients! They are so special! I'm not allowed to have sharp items at my desk any longer.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 16:39:57
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 17:02:04



I need to stop playing with that for right now. It is too cool.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 17:27:18
Quote by clintster:
Quote by Raine:
Oh Georgia MEn.


Yeah, I already have enough problems with social anxiety. Nothing will assuage that faster than the thought that multiple people have the ability to kill me on sight.
Did anyone catch this part?A
mong other things, the law also prohibits police from demanding to see the weapons permit of someone seen carrying a gun. Childress mentioned that last point when talking to the Daily Times about Tuesday's incident.

You know, that means that felons can carry openly. WAY TO GO GEORGIA!

Comment by livingonli on 07/02/2014 17:35:31
Good day, folks. Back to the grind tonight and I wish I could win the lottery because that may be the only way I could afford to retire.

The religious right whines so much about persecution but they want to be the ones who do the persecuting of those who won't go with their agenda. Let's just say it wasn't good to live in the Massachusetts colony if you weren't a puritan since those of other faiths had to flee to other colonies to escape religious persecution there. I think American Christians don't understand what the reformation created and why the 1st Amendment prohibits the establishing of a church.

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 17:37:32
Quote by livingonli:
Good day, folks. Back to the grind tonight and I wish I could win the lottery because that may be the only way I could afford to retire.

The religious right whines so much about persecution but they want to be the ones who do the persecuting of those who won't go with their agenda. Let's just say it wasn't good to live in the Massachusetts colony if you weren't a puritan since those of other faiths had to flee to other colonies to escape religious persecution there. I think American Christians don't understand what the reformation created and why the 1st Amendment prohibits the establishing of a church.
Good point, Liv.


Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 17:55:16
Comment by clintster on 07/02/2014 18:17:53
Quote by Raine:
Quote by clintster:
Quote by Raine:
Oh Georgia MEn.


Yeah, I already have enough problems with social anxiety. Nothing will assuage that faster than the thought that multiple people have the ability to kill me on sight.
Did anyone catch this part?A
mong other things, the law also prohibits police from demanding to see the weapons permit of someone seen carrying a gun. Childress mentioned that last point when talking to the Daily Times about Tuesday's incident.

You know, that means that felons can carry openly. WAY TO GO GEORGIA!


Yep, definitely looking into living the latchkey life. All I need is a work-from-home job.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 18:51:40
Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 19:15:57
Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 19:20:57
Missouri governor to women haters. Fuck off!

Ya got me. He didn't really say that, but I bet he was thinking it.

Comment by Mondobubba on 07/02/2014 19:25:47



You were stunned by Indian Elvis?

Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 19:34:35
McCain, India.

I predict problems in 1-2 years to start ramping back up between Pakistan and India.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 07/02/2014 19:41:58
Quote by Raine:
McCain, India.

I predict problems in 1-2 years to start ramping back up between Pakistan and India.



It is particularly troubling as both nations have fought wars before but are now nuclear powers.


Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 20:12:26
Comment by Raine on 07/02/2014 21:02:27
ROLL EYES.

Bill Ayers

Show All

Rev 3.7; Copyright � 2007-2017 by BobberBlogs�