Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, February 16, 2012

With the growing popularity of vegan and vegetarian restaurants, it's time we take a serious look at policy toward these establishments, and consider mandating that they offer meat on their menu. People can choose not to order the meat so no one's freedoms are being curbed. Under this plan, the government would simply create more choice and, in this way, be enhancing freedom.

The health benefits of red meat, at this point, are beyond denial. The Food and Drug Administration has determined that a moderate amount of red meat consumption is a vital part of a balanced diet. Red meat is high in Zinc, which is healthy for the human immune system, as well other vitamins and minerals, including phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, selenium, and b vitamins.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

paneocon

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Why not vote with you feet, asshouse-lover? If you don't eat there, you don't need to worry about what they serve.

There might be a precedence if all other restaurants that sell meat were mandated to have Vegan/Vegetarian alternatives.

#1 | Posted by axe

Hint: If the government can make religious organizations provide abortion and contraception services when they have a moral objection then what is the difference in making Vegans prepare meat dishes? They are not forced to eat meat only offer it to their clientele thus providing a better selection of food to all. Win, win?

Asshouse lover,

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. What's the matter, your cable TeeVee get cut off for non-payment? No Fuck Snooze to spoon feed you talking points to parrot?

Perhaps you should adjust your tinfoil hat to the All-Babbler frequency. I'm sure he can feed you some better talking point that this bullshit. Or try the Total-Tosser-Tinfoil-Network. Plenty of insane batshit there.

#1 | Posted by axe

So to answer your eloquently posted question, it's because the government knows what is best for ALL of us.

#4 | Posted by axe

Don't make me send my Republican dog over to your house again.

what is the difference in making Vegans prepare meat dishes?

Your analogy is stupid at best Loki.

Isn't this the same government that got rid of smoking in all restaurants whether the owners wanted it smoke free or not? Seems like we are constantly now screwing over the individual because the public wants everything everywhere all the time.

Isn't this the same government that got rid of smoking in all restaurants whether the owners wanted it smoke free or not?

Do vegan meals cause cancer?

Do vegan meals cause cancer?

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-16 03:15 PM |

there is no cause and effect link between second hand smoke and cancer either as there are many smokers who don't get cancer and many non-smokers who do per the CDC report on the issue.

And it is simple: if you don't like the smoke, go somewhere else. If you want to eat meat, don't go to a vegan restaurant.

And it is simple: if you don't like the smoke, go somewhere else. If you want to eat meat, don't go to a vegan restaurant.

#11 | Posted by kanrei
And if you want free birth controll, work somewhere else, real simple.

I say screw the meat at a vegan restraunt, I want to know why the Obama anit choice administration is for restricting a women's right to eat health food, by not forcing the insurance companies to provide it as part of the health care. Why is Obama so anti women's health?

Save the grass! Eat more cows!

And if you want free birth controll, work somewhere else, real simple.

#12 | Posted by freechoice

What a stupid analogy. Also, ironic that someone named "freechoice" is hostile to contraceptives.

And it is simple: if you don't like the smoke, go somewhere else. If you want to eat meat, don't go to a vegan restaurant.
#11 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2012-02-16 03:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

For the employees too?

www.cancer.gov

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?

Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5, 7).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

what is the difference in making Vegans prepare meat dishes?

Your analogy is stupid at best Loki.

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-16 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

You must be a Danforth fan. He calls everyone Lokisfur as well. He is also delusional (or acting, or both)

there are many smokers who don't get cancer

There are people who get shot in the head and live, but I would not recommend it.

What a stupid analogy. Also, ironic that someone named "freechoice" is hostile to contraceptives.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian
How is that hostile, and how is it that not paying for something is restricting choice, under that plan, Obama is hostile to healthy food.

#16 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-16 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Almost all people who have had cancer have eaten vegetables, it must be linked...

The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent (4).

Estimates.

As I said, there is no cause and effect link per the CDC as non-smokers get cancer and smokers don't.

#16 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-16 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Almost all people who have had cancer have eaten vegetables, it must be linked...

#20 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2012-02-16 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think it is like "98%" of cancer patients eat or have eaten vegetables.

He is also delusional (or acting, or both)

www.youtube.com

#20 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION

Here's another good one:

History has shown that as ice cream sales rise, so do the number of shark attacks. Cause or correlation?

Almost all people who have had cancer have eaten vegetables, it must be linked...

Actually everyone who has cancer has breathed at one time, so there must be a link.

Which is more important to a womens health, Good food, or birth control? And why is it only women count, what about children, men, grandparents. Why does Obama want to give companies the ability to deny their right to healthy food? Why is Null so hostile to a childs right to eat healthy?

#21 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2012-02-16 03:34 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Good luck with that.

If smoking caused cancer, then all smokers would get cancer. All smokers to not get cancer, therefore...

See how that works?

It contributes to cancer for sure. It increases your chances of developing it if you were already predisposed to it, but it does not cause it.

Now then, since all first hand smokers do not get cancer, then after the smoke is drawn through a filter, filtered again by the smoker's lungs, and then dissipated as a gas in a room, the average nonsmoker who lives with a smoker inhales maybe 3 cigarettes a year. You can safely smoke up to 5 per day, so do the math.

Lovin' the post, Paneo! The fact that Axe went straight to foaming at hte mouth and babbling insults means he knows you're right and can't formulate any intelligent counter-argument until he gets guidance from Debby Watsername-Shillz.

I have always believe that total equality was a double-edged sword and that very few people who claim to be advocates for equality actually want "equality for them" (e.g. social justice). If you want equality, to follow the lead of mandatory meat dishes at vegan restaurants....

There should be a percentage of Miss Black America participants that are required to be Caucasian, Asian, American-Indian, etc...that's fair, right? Discrimination against non-blacks, I say!!

I had to register for the draft and the military just lifted remaining restrictions on women in combat roles...so isn't it time for women to start registering for the draft? Why are we discriminating against men!?!?

"there is no cause and effect link"

*headdesk*

www.cdc.gov

The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
www.surgeongeneral.gov

Lie some more.
It's why I drop by from time to time; For the laughs.

Medical tests cause cancer. No one ever has cancer until their doctor runs a test and tells them they have cancer.

It's why I drop by from time to time; For the laughs.

#31 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-16 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought you only dropped by from time to time because your incontinence makes it hard for you to do anything for even a short period of time without having to run to the bathroom.

If you didn't want to breath in smoke, why the hell would you be stupid enough to WANT to give your money to someone that allowed smoking in their restaurant?

That's almost as moronic as and Occupy Idiot opening a BoA savings account or a Tea Bagger patronizing Planned Parenthood.

Lie some more.
It's why I drop by from time to time; For the laughs.

#31 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2012-02-16 03:42 PM |

Don't lie. Why not post more links that don't prove what you said. I saw nothing there about there being a clear cause and effect link between second hand smoke and cancer. I see it can increase your chances, but not a cause and effect link.

*headdesk*

No wonder you are such a moron...you probably have a concussion.

It contributes to cancer for sure. It increases your chances of developing it if you were already predisposed to it, but it does not cause it.
#28 | POSTED BY KANREI

Smokers who develop lung cancer are less likely to have a family history than nonsmokers that develop lung cancer. That said, however, for those who have a genetic predisposition to lung cancer, smoking appears to amplify that risk.
lungcancer.about.com

The latter statement fits your argument. The former does not.

Just adding to the conversation.

No wonder you are such a moron...you probably have a concussion.

#35 | Posted by kanrei at 2012-02-16 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's toxoplasma-gondii overrunning is brain. His cats did it.

#36 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2012-02-16 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

And we know it is not some other shared behavior of smokers how?

So most seem to be OK with the government mandating that religious organizations provide insurance that include services immoral to them but you are not OK with vegans being mandated to serve meet which most vegans have a moral objection to their customers. Both outcomes offer greater customer choice and fulfill health requirements. You rationalize this how?

www.nycclash.com

Count how many times they use the word "may" in a factual report. May is not a fact.

Whether or not second hand smoke causes or is correlated with cancer is irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone who owns a restaurant should or should not be able to make the decision whether to serve or not serve smokers.

Funny thing here in NC they banned smoking in bars... Including hookah bars... where the only people there are the ones that are smoking.

Second hand smoke must be really dangerous to smokers...

There's no government like no government.

Whether or not second hand smoke causes or is correlated with cancer is irrelevant to the question of whether or not someone who owns a restaurant should or should not be able to make the decision whether to serve or not serve smokers.


Or if a vegan restaurant should be forced to serve meat.

Can I force Chilli's to serve pizza? Can I force McDonald's to serve a Whopper?

As a business owner, I have the right to choose what I want to serve, the setting I want to have, and when.

Can I force Chilli's to serve pizza? Can I force McDonald's to serve a Whopper?

As a business owner, I have the right to choose what I want to serve, the setting I want to have, and when.

#42 | Posted by kanrei
It is not that they should have to serve it to their customers, even if they do not offer it to their custs, they should have to provide it for their employees. All vegan restraunts should have to provide free of charge meat dishes to their employees, otherwise they are anti choice, healthy food restricting women haters.

Posted by freechoice at 2012-02-16 03:59 PM

Different issue until Chilli's is given tax-exempt status.

#40 | POSTED BY KANREI

Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth:
Exposure to second hand smoke (SHS) is believed to cause lung cancer. Pathological angiogenesis is a requisite for tumor growth. Lewis lung cancer cells were injected subcutaneously into mice, which were then exposed to sidestream smoke (SHS) or clean room air and administered vehicle, cerivastatin, or mecamylamine. SHS significantly increased tumor size, weight, capillary density, VEGF and MCP-1 levels, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPC). Cerivastatin (an inhibitor of HMG-coA reductase) or mecamylamine (an inhibitor of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors) suppressed the effect of SHS to increase tumor size and capillary density. Cerivastatin reduced MCP-1 levels, whereas mecamylamine reduced VEGF levels and EPC. These studies reveal that SHS promotes tumor angiogenesis and growth. These effects of SHS are associated with increases in plasma VEGF and MCP-1 levels, and EPC, mediated in part by isoprenylation and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
Zhu, Heeschen, Sievers, Karliner, Parmley, Glantz, and Cooke. (2003) Second hand smoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth. Cancer Cell Volume 4. Retrieved from
www.cell.com

Different issue until Chilli's is given tax-exempt status.

#44 | Posted by kanrei
Did obama make that difference? Did the rule only apply to tax exempt orgs?

So most seem to be OK with the government mandating that religious organizations provide insurance that include services immoral to them but you are not OK with vegans being mandated to serve meet which most vegans have a moral objection to their customers.
#39 | Posted by paneocon

Are you trolling? Because you are much smarter than this flawed argument demonstrates. I'm not even going to take a position on whether your point is right or wrong. It's just that your analogy does a terrible job of making it.

Firstly, we aren't talking about religious organizations, we are talking about hospitals with a religious affiliation. That's not an insignificant difference. Secondly, your analogy... good grief... where to begin... Hospitals providing insurance to their employees is nothing like a restaurant serving a customer. For the analogy to even come close to starting to work, there would have to be a restaurant being forced to pay for the customer to get a meal somewhere else because hospitals are not forced to actually provide the services, only pay for them to be had elsewhere as part of a comprehensive health insurance package. And the relationship between a restauranteur and a customer v a hospital and its employee, well they don't have the same obligations to one another.
You do see that, right?

Can I force Chilli's to serve pizza? Can I force McDonald's to serve a Whopper?

Now you have gone from absurd to silly.

#48 | Posted by 726

Yes it is absurd but it points to the potential pitfalls of having Government mandate what a business has to do or offer.

45 proves my point. Second hand smoke is BELIEVED. Not a fact nor a link.

"Not a fact nor a link."

Didn't take kantread long to come back and lie again.
LOL!!

Idiot.

Still didn't lie. You always seem to see may no think will. You see could and think would. Word s have meaning. You should learn a few.

#47 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine Firstly, we aren't talking about religious organizations, we are talking about hospitals with a religious affiliation

No we are talking all business. If I own a plumbing and heating business and I'm a practicing Catholic, this law would require that I provide reproductive services that my religion is against. My compliance with the health care law puts me at odds with my church and my morals. No diferent that the confirmed Vigen being forced to prepare and serve meat.

#47 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine
And the relationship between a restauranteur and a customer v a hospital and its employee, well they don't have the same obligations to one another. You do see that, right?

Other than the Hippocratic Oath there is no difference in the relationship. Its retail sales, service for payment.

It is funny zat calls me kantread when he always posts links that disprove what he claims.

"He calls everyone Lokisfur as well."

Only the hopelessly stupid.

#55 | Posted by Danforth

You've have been "owned" so many time on the DR that you should be paying rent.

Uh oh. Kan is touching a sacred cow. LOL.

My favorite 2nd hand smoke claim was that 2nd hand smoke is "worse" than 1st hand smoke. This claim should be laughed off as ridiculous on its face but people kept repeating it for a while. As if the smoker's lung adds something to 1st hand smoke that makes it worse for people to breathe in after it is exhaled and becomes 2nd hand smoke.....

Is breathing in 2nd hand smoke bad for you? Yes. But the issue is so politicized that we'll never get an honest answer as to how harmful it reallly is. If smoking is a legal activity that people can choose to engage in then frequenting or working in a bar that allows smoking should fall under the same category.

nor a link.
#50 | POSTED BY KANREI

The research in the one experiment of many exposes the link, supporting the "belief" that second hand smoke causes cancer. The importance of this research is the exposure of angiogenesis (def - the physiological process involving the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing vessels.) The article states that second hand smoke stimulates angiogenesis. Without stimulation of angiogenesis, cancer does not develop (vascularization). Second hand smoke is the turn key in this process.

Touching?

You'd think he ordered up a rare sacred cow ribeye with the bone still in at the local vegan dive...

They tried to ban smoking in hookah bars cuz of 2nd hand smoke in NC.

"He calls everyone Lokisfur as well."

Only the hopelessly stupid.

#55 | Posted by Danforth

I'm Lokisfur!
--Glasshouse

No, I'm Lokisfur!
--KBM

Liars! I'm Lokisfur!
--Sniper

#57 | POSTED BY SULLY

It was politicized because of Big Tobacco: Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study

"They tried to ban smoking in hookah bars cuz of 2nd hand smoke in NC."

Really? That's pretty bad. I live in NJ where smoking in bars and restaurants is banned. The exception is that an establishment that earns a certain % of its income by selling smoking products can allow smoking. So cigar bars, hookah lounges and tobacco stores with a liquor license (only know of one of those) are exempt.

"It was politicized because of Big Tobacco"

Undoubtedly. But lies are also told the other way. The bullshit 2nd hand smoke being worse than 1st hand smoke claim is a clear example of people going out of their way to lie in order to advance an anti-smoking in public position. The sad part is that the anti-smoking arguement can be made without resorting to exageration and outright lies. The tobacco companies are scum but at least they lie because the truth totally kills them....

Posted by Sully at 2012-02-16 04:41 PM | Reply

I believe "bars" was anyplace that sells booze and some of our hookah bars do. But they didn't want to touch the titty clubs that the politicians hang out at so they put in a "private club" exception.

So I believe all the places that wanted to continue to allow people to smoke just offer free "memberships"...

Politicians don't even try to hide or excuse their hypocrisy here in NC. At least when I lived in NH and a pol got called out doing something stupid, folks could act surprised. Down here, its just SSDD...

Anywho, heading home and apologies for getting on your case earlier.

Sheeple they did add the exemption to hookah bars in the end. They also added an exemption for any place that does not allow children. Seems funny as a state we grew strong on tobacco and now all you damn Yankees are coming down and banning our second largest cash crop.

all you damn Yankees are coming down and banning our second largest cash crop.
#65 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

Yea? Well all you damn Cons have been coming down on Cali's number one cash crop since the 1930s.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

"You've have been "owned" so many time on the DR that you should be paying rent."

Aren't you the mook who's been caught posting bullshit twice within the last 24 hours?

#66 I'm no con and if you have some of that Cali stuff I'll be glad to put it in my pipe and smoke it.

BTW your #1 cash crop and ours is the same.

#68 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

The Headband is the flavor of the month. And it hasn't ever been cheaper; or prettier for that matter.

My apologies for the 'Con' label - just providing some friendly competition.

The Blaze?

Lawls.

Do NOT want they are smoking.

Worst. Argument. EVAH.

Jonathan Swift that guy aint.

Any kind of "swift", really.

Be Well.

#70 | POSTED BY DETHSPUD

LOL. Yea.... any link that starts with www.theblaze.com/blog is questionable.

#70 | Posted by dethspud
#71 | Posted by rstybeach11

Oh grow up, it's published other places too. I know it's a tough reach for you mental midgets but it's a think piece and not fact centered journalism so participate or don't participate no one will care.

Headband is in my pipe tonight. :)

ironic that someone named "freechoice" is hostile to contraceptives.

#15 | Posted by nullifidian

..ironic that someone named "nullifidian" is hostile to a balanced diet
~ what gives? healthier people mean lower health costs .. soo, why do you hate "healthy people"?

#72 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

Ease up and find a sense of humor. =P``````````````````O

Yes it is absurd but it points to the potential pitfalls of having Government mandate what a business has to do or offer.

#49 | POSTED BY PANEOCON AT 2012-02-16 04:21 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Well if you cannot see a difference between what a business offers it's customers who are free to buy from someone else and an employee that cannot get their health insurance from the restaurant next door, then you are hopeless.

Why should employees be allowed to go to the bathroom during work hours if it against the owner's moral code? Why should they be allowed a lunch break during work hours? Why pay them for overtime? They should be good an damn happy just to have a job!

No one is advocating that the Church give out birth control pills, only that Churchoporations provide access to insurance that will cover it.

No different from what is already law in many states right now.

Why do you poofers feel the need to gin up these fauxtroversies every other week?

"Why should employees be allowed to go to the bathroom during work hours if it against the owner's moral code?"

You're comparing a biological necessity to something that isn't medically necessary at all. Why? Its an illogical comparison. Big Pharma can claim that birth control pills are something every woman needs to survive all it wants and it will never be anywhere close to true.

isn't medically necessary at all.

So we are only going to cover medically necessary procedures? What about reconstructive surgery when someone is in a fire or disfigured?

Viagara isn't medically necessary, yet no one in the Church is arguing against that.

Although they are most commonly prescribed to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills are also used to treat a variety of menstrual disorders including amenorrhea (absence of menstruation), dysmenorrhea (abnormally painful menstruation) and hypermenorrhea (abnormally Menstruation is the periodic shedding of the lining of the uterus, causing bloody vaginal discharge.heavy menstrual bleeding). They may also be prescribed to treat a number of other conditions, including polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), hirsutism (abnormal hair growth) and endometriosis.

I suggest you re think your idea of what the pill is used for.

#78 | Posted by 726 at 2012-02-17 09:37 AM | Reply | Flag: 100% correct and well said!

"So we are only going to cover medically necessary procedures? What about reconstructive surgery when someone is in a fire or disfigured?"

You're comparing a pill that serves a purpose that can be achieved a number of other ways to reconstructive surgery? Save the drama.

"Viagara isn't medically necessary, yet no one in the Church is arguing against that."

So what? If they stop covering Viagra that would make you happy? I wouldn't give a shit either way.

"Although they are most commonly prescribed to prevent pregnancy, birth control pills are also used to treat a variety of menstrual disorders including amenorrhea (absence of menstruation), dysmenorrhea (abnormally painful menstruation) and hypermenorrhea (abnormally Menstruation is the periodic shedding of the lining of the uterus, causing bloody vaginal discharge.heavy menstrual bleeding). They may also be prescribed to treat a number of other conditions, including polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), hirsutism (abnormal hair growth) and endometriosis.

I suggest you re think your idea of what the pill is used for."

Well the obvious compromise is to cover it when it is being used for a medical rather than recreational purpose. But Big Pharma has you all pretending that this is a medical necessity for all women, which is bunk.

Well the obvious compromise is to cover it when it is being used for a medical rather than recreational purpose.

Won't work. You will see a rise in "medically necessary" cases. See the medical marijuana laws in California.

You're comparing a pill that serves a purpose that can be achieved a number of other ways to reconstructive surgery?

So because the analogy disproves your argument, it is bad.

Got it.

Well the obvious compromise is to cover it when it is being used for a medical rather than recreational purpose.

Medical privacy laws prevent anyone from disclosing what it is being used for, and rightly so.

This ginned up fauxtroversy is ridiculous at best given that many states already have laws requiring the pill be covered. The right has to have something to distract the public from a) what utter jokes their candidates are and b) the economy is improving.

The simple solution would be to give the Churches a choice between tax exempt status or following all guidlines. They can pick religious freedom, but that comes with an end to funding that is aiding in establishing a religion.

You will see a rise in "medically necessary" cases.

Precisely.

And what of cases where the pill is taken to prevent pregnancy that would endanger the life of the mother?

"If the government can make religious organizations provide abortion and contraception services..."

Except they didn't want to be a "religious organization", they wanted to be a "corporation", so they could protect their "religious organization" from nasty things like medical malpractice lawsuits.

Then, when a law is passed affecting corporations, they suddenly want to be a church again.

Churches should lose their tax exempt status the moment they attempt to influence the political process. No exceptions.

They should want to give it up if you ask me. I am not Catholic and theoretically should not have any say in how the Church operates, but because they are tax exempt, my taxes are going to help pay for that gap and therefore I do have a say.

#86 | Posted by 726

So Planned Parenthood and Media Matters should lose their tax exempt status also?

If they stop covering Viagra that would make you happy?

It would neither make me happy or unhappy. I bet more than a few people would be displeased with that.

I didn't know Media Matters was tax exempt. They absolutely should.

#88 Yep.

#88 As well as the Heritage Foundation, etc.

Perhaps we need a full audit of tax exempt entities to see if they really qualify for tax exempt status and maybe rewrite the codes regarding said status.

Can you imagine the screeching and bitching that would prompt in Congress?

Why Boner's blubbering alone would boost Kleenex stock 10%.

It is one place Ron Paul was correct: we need to audit the Fed and see where exactly the money is going and how much exactly they are taking in.

"This ginned up fauxtroversy is ridiculous at best given that many states already have laws requiring the pill be covered. The right has to have something to distract the public from a) what utter jokes their candidates are and b) the economy is improving."

The right didn't gin up the controversy. The reaction to Obama's hamfisted actions was real. The right pathetically latched onto the issue once they saw it had some traction. And there is still no getting around the undeniable truth that the pill is mostly prescribed for recreationl rather than medical reasons. What bothers me really has nothing to do with religion. Its the government stepping in where it isn't needed to mandate something under false premises. Really has the stench of the pharmaceutical industry all over it...

Makes sense. If they can regulate fat, salt and additives, then excluding other foods from regulation violates due process....just a little lefty 'logic' there for y'all.

The right didn't gin up the controversy. The reaction to Obama's hamfisted actions was real.

Yeah, it was real. And it was from the same antiquarians who want the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and compulsory prayer in public schools.

And there is still no getting around the undeniable truth that the pill is mostly prescribed for recreationl rather than medical reasons.

Explain how avoidance of pregnancy isn't a medical issue.
You're saying pregnancy is not a medical condition?

What I'm hearing from the right sounds like this:
Let the restaurants decide for themselves if they want to serve black people.
Otherwise, freedoms are being trampled.

Explain how avoidance of pregnancy isn't a medical issue.
You're saying pregnancy is not a medical condition?

#99 | Posted by snoofy
Excplain how avoiding starvation and death is not a medical issue. Your saying starvation is not a medical issue? if you, like Obama, are not in favor of providing free healty food for women, then you must hate women, be anit choice, and pro starvation of women and children. Why are you so hostile to healthy food, and why do you hate women and children so much?

Explain how avoidance of pregnancy isn't a medical issue.
You're saying pregnancy is not a medical condition?

#99 | Posted by snoofy

kudos .. sadly you have proved your point ..
your parasite status has become a scourge on an otherwise healthy society

your parasite status has become a scourge on an otherwise healthy society

"Otherwise healthy" gets you a funny flag.

Excplain how avoiding starvation and death is not a medical issue.

Wow, the argument for single payer universal coverage is getting more compelling by the minute!

Instead of buying food, let's instead provide everyone with a food insurance card, and then the restaurants we eat in can submit claims to the food insurance bureaucracy.

I wonder which will be a more efficient way to process all the claims: have some faceless government bureaucrats in Washington do it mindlessly, or have a zillion different private companies, all with different rate schedules for each restaurant in the country, and certain restaurants they'd prefer for you to eat and and will only cover a portion of your meal's expense if you decide to eat at a restaurant not on their preferred list because they're trying to eke a profit out of this scheme?

#103 .. what if I don't wish to submit claims either way?
~ what if I usually cook my own meals?
~ and occasionally when I DO use a restaurant, will I get the best seat & service 'cause I'll pay & tip the server out of my pocket? (rhetorical)

on a mostly unrelated note:
UK finalizes plans to PRIVATIZE failing N-Healthcare-System ..
UK patients hiring personal private nurses to suppliment their NHS medical care

And there is still no getting around the undeniable truth that the pill is mostly prescribed for recreationl rather than medical reasons.

So what?

I provided you with several examples of actual medical reasons for the pill and you double down on recreational use?

If the pill treats ONE medical condition other than preventing pregnancy that should be reason enough to cover it hands down. Or I suppose women menstruating until the blacked out is an acceptable price to pay to keep the egos of a handful of old men intact.

until the = until they.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable