created by: Rick | Jun 8, 2010

Arkansas

5,879 votes

Did you vote today?

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)
Comments
27,541 - 27,560 of 29,674 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29968 Apr 3, 2014
The owners of Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, were so offended by the idea of having to include emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices in their health insurance plans that they sued the Obama administration and took the case all the way up to the Supreme Court. But Mother Jones reported on Tuesday that the company's retirement plan has invested millions of dollars in the manufacturers of emergency contraception and drugs used to induce abortions.

Hobby Lobby's 401(k) employee retirement plan holds $73 million in mutual funds that invest in multiple pharmaceutical companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and abortion-inducing medications.

The companies Hobby Lobby invests in include Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2. Hobby Lobby's mutual funds also invest in two health insurance companies that cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in their health care policies.

Hobby Lobby's attorneys argue that the provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires most employers to cover contraception in their health plans infringes on the company's right to exercise religious freedom because the company's owners believe that emergency contraception and IUDs are actually forms of abortion. Medical studies have debunked this claim.

Mother Jones reported that all nine of the mutual funds Hobby Lobby's retirement plan holds include investments that clash with the owners' religious beliefs about abortion.
Reality Check

Camden, AR

#29969 Apr 3, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
POST # 29950 by Reality Check
"I don't know what your idea of release date is but several outlets such as The Blaze, Forbes, Breitbart, Newsmax, and others are reporting the same story. No, you won't find any liberal sources reporting this"
There you go, they all said it, must be true, correct, you was you implying something else?
When you wrote "this little nugget", then cut and pasted the so called " little nugget", it was pretty clear as to what you were referring to. I was just as clear in referring to the same " little nugget as you did, not the whole damn article.
SPIN IT AGAIN SAM!
I have told you time and again that I don't BELIEVE anything but what I see and I don't always believe that depending on the circumstances surrounding what I see. Now if you saying that me pointing out that the study had been released, due to multiple sources reporting on it, is the same thing as me saying that it's true then that's your problem. They are not the same thing. And you say I'm the one spinning.
guest

Tampa, FL

#29970 Apr 3, 2014
This thread is so retarded!! It makes no since. Keep it in the topic you stupid fool!!! Go get you some strange!! You may feel better if u do isn't that what you like anyway???

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29971 Apr 3, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I have told you time and again that I don't BELIEVE anything but what I see and I don't always believe that depending on the circumstances surrounding what I see. Now if you saying that me pointing out that the study had been released, due to multiple sources reporting on it, is the same thing as me saying that it's true then that's your problem. They are not the same thing. And you say I'm the one spinning.
So you don't, "believe anything you don't see", then that leads me to this question.

Why do you post material that you don't believe, or are we to presume you were a I witness to these events.

Another question- Did any of the "multiple sources" , say the report had been released, or did you assume that it had been.

Can you show me where any of them did?

My guess is that Rand report will never be released, you see these Right Wing think tank studies get a whole lot of lip service, with out verifiable data, and have a way of disappearing once it has accomplished it purpose, its called propaganda.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29972 Apr 3, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I have told you time and again that I don't BELIEVE anything but what I see and I don't always believe that depending on the circumstances surrounding what I see. Now if you saying that me pointing out that the study had been released, due to multiple sources reporting on it, is the same thing as me saying that it's true then that's your problem. They are not the same thing. And you say I'm the one spinning.
" No, you won't find any liberal sources reporting this"

Think maybe that could be because the report was never released?
Still laughing at Barney

Conway, AR

#29973 Apr 3, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
POST # 29950 by Reality Check
"I don't know what your idea of release date is but several outlets such as The Blaze, Forbes, Breitbart, Newsmax, and others are reporting the same story. No, you won't find any liberal sources reporting this"
There you go, they all said it, must be true, correct, you was you implying something else?
When you wrote "this little nugget", then cut and pasted the so called " little nugget", it was pretty clear as to what you were referring to. I was just as clear in referring to the same " little nugget as you did, not the whole damn article.
SPIN IT AGAIN SAM!
There are no words to add to this hilarity! I just thought I'd replay the laughing hyena's antics!
Reality Check

Lonoke, AR

#29974 Apr 3, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
So you don't, "believe anything you don't see", then that leads me to this question.
Why do you post material that you don't believe, or are we to presume you were a I witness to these events.
Another question- Did any of the "multiple sources" , say the report had been released, or did you assume that it had been.
Can you show me where any of them did?
My guess is that Rand report will never be released, you see these Right Wing think tank studies get a whole lot of lip service, with out verifiable data, and have a way of disappearing once it has accomplished it purpose, its called propaganda.
Poor Barney, you have been reduced to nit-picking non political parts of my posts because you can't stand and defend your liberal ideology. Back to your post. You apparently have forgotten the countless times I have said that you can't fully believe anything that comes from a source outside what you see yourself. They are reference points and nothing else. That goes for every article I reference and CERTAINLY every article you reference. The multiple sources may have been the very ones that released the results. I'm quite sure that the multiple sources I listed didn't all get together, break into the RAND Corporation and steal the study. That would be absurd to believe. Since you have gone out on a limb and labeled it propaganda, where are your counterpoints that prove it to be propaganda?
Still laughing at Barney

Conway, AR

#29975 Apr 3, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"Liberal hypocrisy",
Why don't you show me just how hypocritical that list is by posting the same list with the top ten conservatives.
Why, why, why...???
You don't appear to be laughing now...but you do sound like you are about to tear up and cry whole you ignore the facts, point your finger, and ask 'why...?'
Yep, you are funny, funny, funny!!!

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29976 Apr 4, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Barney, you have been reduced to nit-picking non political parts of my posts because you can't stand and defend your liberal ideology. Back to your post. You apparently have forgotten the countless times I have said that you can't fully believe anything that comes from a source outside what you see yourself. They are reference points and nothing else. That goes for every article I reference and CERTAINLY every article you reference. The multiple sources may have been the very ones that released the results. I'm quite sure that the multiple sources I listed didn't all get together, break into the RAND Corporation and steal the study. That would be absurd to believe. Since you have gone out on a limb and labeled it propaganda, where are your counterpoints that prove it to be propaganda?
Since you mention the Rand report.

Where is your proof Rand even did a legitimate study, several sources reported on it, they must have found it, why can't you?

Why did you not answer the question , "did they say it had been released"

BTW- Right wing think tanks are very much a part of the political landscape today.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29977 Apr 4, 2014
Still laughing at Barney wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, why, why...???
You don't appear to be laughing now...but you do sound like you are about to tear up and cry whole you ignore the facts, point your finger, and ask 'why...?'
Yep, you are funny, funny, funny!!!
That is where you are wrong, after reading this - "whole"- post while I was siting here, I'm still ROF-LMFAO.

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29979 Apr 4, 2014
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Barney, you have been reduced to nit-picking non political parts of my posts because you can't stand and defend your liberal ideology. Back to your post. You apparently have forgotten the countless times I have said that you can't fully believe anything that comes from a source outside what you see yourself. They are reference points and nothing else. That goes for every article I reference and CERTAINLY every article you reference. The multiple sources may have been the very ones that released the results. I'm quite sure that the multiple sources I listed didn't all get together, break into the RAND Corporation and steal the study. That would be absurd to believe. Since you have gone out on a limb and labeled it propaganda, where are your counterpoints that prove it to be propaganda?
Counter point:

Two caveats. First, we know little about RANDís survey methodology at this time; weíll have to see the actual study to see the details of what they did. Second, we donít know how many previously uninsured people signed up for off-exchange coverage, above and beyond the normal rate of churn that this market would traditionally see.

Article above by Forbes
Still laughing at Barney

Conway, AR

#29980 Apr 4, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
That is where you are wrong, after reading this - "whole"- post while I was siting here, I'm still ROF-LMFAO.
As any hysterical hyena would!
I am laughing too

United States

#29981 Apr 4, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
"when i laugh" OMG, what have we here, I do not know, care to tell me?
What we have here, is a failure to communicate...
And a lower case 'i'....Oh, and now, we have a chance to see this post again, so that we can appreciate just how funny and predictable we knew you were...especially the part about how you ignore facts and keep posting like a giddy, giggly little girl!

"
I am laughing too wrote:
<quoted text>
You are laughing, Barney, because you are a mindless fool. You can't even see the truth behind these numbers and what the reason for them even are!
In reality, we are all laughing too, Barney.
Of course, it is AT you, and not with you!
You are a sad, predictable little man, without the mental capacity to realize what an embarrassment you are to yourself.
Without consulting a psychic or a crystal ball, those that post have been predicting your return quickly after the deadline, boasting of poll numbers, and falsely proclaiming yourself some sort of obamacare guru, while touting the facade of its success, even though you couldn't be further from the actual reality of this healthcare debacle!
So you see, while you ignore facts and reality, and you continue to be giddy and giggly like a little girl in fairytale land choosing to believe your prince has saved the day, the rest of us will also be laughing...laughing at you.
For the most part, it will be the normal, every day, run of the mill mocking laughter that your posts always generate because of the insanity behind them.
Occasionally, there is a moment when i laugh in a pitiful sort of,'oh bless his poor old dumb heart, he really is this stupid' way.
But then you follow with some sort of stomping, cussing, rip roaring, backed in a corner, rambling post that reminds me you choose to believe lies, and then I'm laughing at you all over again!
But hey, at least you're able to laugh, too!
(Did ya catch the pity in that last sentence? It's a vicious cycle...)

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29982 Apr 4, 2014
Still laughing at Barney wrote:
<quoted text>
As any hysterical hyena would
Does eating Crow have any thing to do with the unusual briefness of your post, or is this just a coincidence.
I am laughing too

United States

#29983 Apr 4, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
POST # 29950 by Reality Check
"I don't know what your idea of release date is but several outlets such as The Blaze, Forbes, Breitbart, Newsmax, and others are reporting the same story. No, you won't find any liberal sources reporting this"
There you go, they all said it, must be true, correct, you was you implying something else?
When you wrote "this little nugget", then cut and pasted the so called " little nugget", it was pretty clear as to what you were referring to. I was just as clear in referring to the same " little nugget as you did, not the whole damn article.
SPIN IT AGAIN SAM!
You are never clear, and you should never 'infer' what you decide someone is saying as opposed to what they actually are saying!
You hardly speak in a lucid manner with any clarity of thought, yourself. You are incapable of reading comprehension, so the idea that you would infer anyone's post and in turn use your crazy inference against them...well, it's no wonder you roll around like a lunatic on the floor laughing like a hyena all of the time. And as often as you say you roll around laughing, you must really be in that round, padded cell I've often wondered if you live in!

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29984 Apr 4, 2014
I am laughing too wrote:
<quoted text>
What we have here, is a failure to communicate...
And a lower case 'i'....Oh, and now, we have a chance to see this post again, so that we can appreciate just how funny and predictable we knew you were...especially the part about how you ignore facts and keep posting like a giddy, giggly little girl!
"<quoted text>
Tell me is it proper to use a lower case I in the application it was used?

I'm thinking a world class grammarian who is so concern with glass houses and stones and such could answer this for me.

What do you think Cupcake, you up to the task?
Speller Feller

United States

#29985 Apr 4, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
That is where you are wrong, after reading this - "whole"- post while I was siting here, I'm still ROF-LMFAO.
You misspelled 'sitting' in your above post where you are pointing out type o's of others.
You might want to rethink opening this door again, and using a diversion tactic you don't have the mental capacity of sustaining.
You have misspelled and been grammatically incorrect in 99% of your posts from yesterday alone.
I can show you, if you'd like...however, it just upsets you and causes you to rant and rave, which soon turns into pouting and crying.
You give far more grammatical ammunition to shoot yourself in the foot than you will ever muster to find from others!
But if you want to...
Speller Feller

United States

#29986 Apr 4, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me is it proper to use a lower case I in the application it was used?
I'm thinking a world class grammarian who is so concern with glass houses and stones and such could answer this for me.
What do you think Cupcake, you up to the task?
The real question, fruitcake, would be are you?
Speller Feller

United States

#29987 Apr 4, 2014
BARNEYII wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me is it proper to use a lower case I in the application it was used?
I'm thinking a world class grammarian who is so concern with glass houses and stones and such could answer this for me.
What do you think Cupcake, you up to the task?
'Concerned' fruitcake...You should have used 'concerned'.
I'll take my chances...

Since: Dec 10

Washington DC

#29988 Apr 4, 2014
I am laughing too wrote:
<quoted text>
You are never clear, and you should never 'infer' what you decide someone is saying as opposed to what they actually are saying!
You hardly speak in a lucid manner with any clarity of thought, yourself. You are incapable of reading comprehension, so the idea that you would infer anyone's post and in turn use your crazy inference against them...well, it's no wonder you roll around like a lunatic on the floor laughing like a hyena all of the time. And as often as you say you roll around laughing, you must really be in that round, padded cell I've often wondered if you live in!
I have to agree, if you care to look back you will see that I ask for a clarification.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pocahontas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
are u voting for keith sloan in november? (Sep '10) 1 hr hmmm 34
Fine blonde in grey Kia 3 hr Daman 1
jobs. moving 5 hr Guest 10
new dollar store on hwy. 62 5 hr guest 28
Justin P 5 hr melissa 3
Older women make better lovers! 6 hr Just saying 4
Cannot take walks, afraid of peoples' dogs 6 hr Just me 19
•••
•••
•••

Pocahontas Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Pocahontas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Pocahontas News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pocahontas
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••