NEWSFLASH: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire:...

NEWSFLASH: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: N.C. Gov. Signs Anti-Abortion Bill

There are 22 comments on the Ms. Magazine story from Jul 30, 2013, titled NEWSFLASH: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: N.C. Gov. Signs Anti-Abortion Bill. In it, Ms. Magazine reports that:

Politicians should never make promises they can't keep. Yes, No. Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, I'm speaking to you-as a North Carolinian born and bred, let me officially say on behalf of my home state: The recent House version allows the medical professionals at the Department of Health and Human Services to write the rules which will ensure women's ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ms. Magazine.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Notaplaya1965

Tulsa, OK

#1 Jul 30, 2013
To the surprise of no one, yet another So-Called Republican has done the opposite of what he said he would do, as regards protecting access to health care for 50% of the voters in his State.

REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER, Ladies.
And the men who love us, you need to remember too.
Dan

Atlanta, GA

#2 Jul 31, 2013
Notaplaya1965 wrote:
To the surprise of no one, yet another So-Called Republican has done the opposite of what he said he would do, as regards protecting access to health care for 50% of the voters in his State.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER, Ladies.
And the men who love us, you need to remember too.
Nonsense.

The author of this piece even admits it doesn't do what the Texas law does:

"While S. B. 353 does not explicitly require abortion clinics to meet unnecessary and expensive ambulatory surgical care standards..."

Can't use "it's legal" as a default position on pro-choice arguments and then bitch about the law on the other hand when it doesn't go your way. Either the law is the arbiter or it isn't.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#3 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Nonsense.
The author of this piece even admits it doesn't do what the Texas law does:
"While S. B. 353 does not explicitly require abortion clinics to meet unnecessary and expensive ambulatory surgical care standards..."
Can't use "it's legal" as a default position on pro-choice arguments and then bitch about the law on the other hand when it doesn't go your way. Either the law is the arbiter or it isn't.
Where did her post speak of Texas, Dan? She spoke of the fact that the man broke campaign promise. And he did.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#4 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did her post speak of Texas, Dan? She spoke of the fact that the man broke campaign promise. And he did.
Predictably (he IS a politician) McCrory denies that charge.

"These higher standards will result in safer conditions for North Carolina women," McCrory said. "This law does not further limit access and those who contend it does are more interested in politics than the health and safety of our citizens."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Predictably (he IS a politician) McCrory denies that charge.
"These higher standards will result in safer conditions for North Carolina women," McCrory said. "This law does not further limit access and those who contend it does are more interested in politics than the health and safety of our citizens."
You said it yourself, he is a politician.

Still, where did the other poster's comments compare this to Texas?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#6 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You said it yourself, he is a politician.
Still, where did the other poster's comments compare this to Texas?
The article mentioned it.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#7 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You said it yourself, he is a politician.
Still, where did the other poster's comments compare this to Texas?
I said "the author of this piece" in reference to the magazine article.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#8 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I said "the author of this piece" in reference to the magazine article.
You weren't responding to the author, but the poster. You claimed her post was "nonsense" because "even the author" said it wasn't the same as Texas, when the poster you responded to never MENTIONED Texas. Why?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#9 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You weren't responding to the author, but the poster. You claimed her post was "nonsense" because "even the author" said it wasn't the same as Texas, when the poster you responded to never MENTIONED Texas. Why?
I declared her post "nonsense" as she was parroting the "access" thing.

I then segued to the source article to elaborate. The source article of this thread certainly did mention the Texas law RE: access.

I hope that this response eases your mind respective to what I posted to someone other than you.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#10 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
I declared her post "nonsense" as she was parroting the "access" thing.
I then segued to the source article to elaborate. The source article of this thread certainly did mention the Texas law RE: access.
I hope that this response eases your mind respective to what I posted to someone other than you.
Open forum. If you don't like others responding to your responses, send private messages instead.

The other poster never mentioned the Texas bill, and so your post to them WAS inappropriate.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#11 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Open forum. If you don't like others responding to your responses, send private messages instead.
The other poster never mentioned the Texas bill, and so your post to them WAS inappropriate.
Open forum, as you say.

I can include source article reference if I want, and you don't get to make declarations of appropriateness one way or the other.

Go boss your husband around if you have a big need to be in charge this morning.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#12 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Open forum, as you say.
I can include source article reference if I want, and you don't get to make declarations of appropriateness one way or the other.
Go boss your husband around if you have a big need to be in charge this morning.
The source had nothing to do with the poster's comment. Thus, it was inappropriate.

My, aren't you whiny today.

If you're feeling bullied this morning, perhaps you shouldn't be here. If you're going to comment, your posts are open to criticism.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#13 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The source had nothing to do with the poster's comment. Thus, it was inappropriate.
My, aren't you whiny today.
If you're feeling bullied this morning, perhaps you shouldn't be here. If you're going to comment, your posts are open to criticism.
Sure did have something to do with the poster's comment.

Poster: "....regards protecting access to health care....

Source Article: "this bill greatly limits access to abortion care as well as to other health services that women depend on..."

So, your admonition to me was "inappropriate".

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#14 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure did have something to do with the poster's comment.
Poster: "....regards protecting access to health care....
Source Article: "this bill greatly limits access to abortion care as well as to other health services that women depend on..."
So, your admonition to me was "inappropriate".
Yes, your implication that they were comparing it to the Texas bill WAS inappropriate.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#15 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The source had nothing to do with the poster's comment. Thus, it was inappropriate.
My, aren't you whiny today.
If you're feeling bullied this morning, perhaps you shouldn't be here. If you're going to comment, your posts are open to criticism.
Poster: "...yet another so-called Republican.."

Article: Mentions McCrory and Perry, only them, and both are Republican.

Ergo, she included the Texas matter in her post as the article does.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#16 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, your implication that they were comparing it to the Texas bill WAS inappropriate.
The poster read the article which references McCrory and Perry and the laws they signed, decrying them both as restricting access.

Poster then commented that "yet another So-Called Republican has done the opposite of what he said he would do, as regards protecting access to health care "; the only Republicans in play here are McCrory and Perry (whom the article correctly notes is FROM Texas and links to an article on the law he signed).

But, the poster made no reference to the Texas law.

Got it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#17 Jul 31, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The poster read the article which references McCrory and Perry and the laws they signed, decrying them both as restricting access.
Poster then commented that "yet another So-Called Republican has done the opposite of what he said he would do, as regards protecting access to health care "; the only Republicans in play here are McCrory and Perry (whom the article correctly notes is FROM Texas and links to an article on the law he signed).
But, the poster made no reference to the Texas law.
Got it.
That's right, they didn't. You're attempting to twist. Not a surprise, you do it all the time.

Unless Perry ALSO made a campaign promise on the subject that he then broke, the OP could have been referencing ANY Republican. They made no mention in their post of Texas, or Perry. They in no way implied that they were talking about the only other Republican mentioned in the article just by being on a thread of that article. The subject of women's healthcare is bigger than this one article. YOU responded to their post inappropriately by trying to pretend they did. Period.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#18 Jul 31, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right, they didn't. You're attempting to twist. Not a surprise, you do it all the time.
Unless Perry ALSO made a campaign promise on the subject that he then broke, the OP could have been referencing ANY Republican. They made no mention in their post of Texas, or Perry. They in no way implied that they were talking about the only other Republican mentioned in the article just by being on a thread of that article. The subject of women's healthcare is bigger than this one article. YOU responded to their post inappropriately by trying to pretend they did. Period.
Um, the thread is sourced with the article. Should I ignore it to help you out here?

I'm "twisting".

Sure.

Commenting on an article that mentioned ONLY McCrory and Perry, the poster could have been referring to any Republican. Of course. I'M twisting on this, naturally. Not you, of course, by playing hall monitor-it's me who's twisting by actually citing the posters' comments and the article contextually.

Her reference to "yet another so-called Republican" when only two are mentioned in the article was merely a happy accident.

Whatever gets you through the day, Bit.

pbfa

Scottsdale, AZ

#20 Jul 31, 2013
McCrory is just another loathsome PLM liar.
Jamar
#21 Sep 24, 2013
I have ordered 2 times from this website PILLSMEDSHOP. COM . I called yesterday the customer care and asked for a discount as i was about to order twice the regular amount.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Rick Perry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Rick Perry said something weird about being on ... 11 hr Parden Pard 4
News Rick Perry's Texas giveaways: There's something... Jan 6 jim 1
News Oil business seen in strong position as Trump t... Jan 4 Tax Them Blind 18
News Trump's cabinet, in summary: How rich, how cons... Dec 23 gwww 1
News U of T profs host event to preserve environment... Dec '16 Jim 1
News Rick Perry can champion 'clean energy revolution' Dec '16 Solarman 1
News Essential Politics: Donald Trump's picks, Jerry... Dec '16 Le Jimbo 5
More from around the web