Say what?!!
I don't think so Mark.

This took me 2 seconds to find on Google:DarkAngel wrote:(For example, in the USA, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense birth control prescriptions if they have "religious grounds" for such refusal.) - Mark
Say what?!!
I don't think so Mark.
Someone give that record player a kick, I think the needle's stuck.DarkAngel wrote:Consider: There are about 400 recognized terrorist groups in the world. Over 90 percent of these are Islamist groups. Over 90 percent of the current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements. The vast majority of world terrorism is religiously motivated by Islam.
"400 recognized terrorist groups" - recognised by whom? By the US? A country that has for years had a policy of supporting terrorist groups (sorry, I mean "freedom fighters")...the Provisional IRA, for example, or the Contras in Nicaragua who deemed it appropriate to bomb schools and health clinics that were run by that country's legitimate government.DarkAngel wrote:Consider: There are about 400 recognized terrorist groups in the world. Over 90 percent of these are Islamist groups. Over 90 percent of the current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements. The vast majority of world terrorism is religiously motivated by Islam.
Sorry, but that's a load of boll-ocks, and quite likely overly influenced by current US political trends and thinking. Even if the statistics were valid (which I doubt) it doesn't even take the size of the various groups into account. How can 2 lads in the back of a van and a continent-spanning organisation make the same 0.25% contribution?DarkAngel wrote:Consider: There are about 400 recognized terrorist groups in the world. Over 90 percent of these are Islamist groups. Over 90 percent of the current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements. The vast majority of world terrorism is religiously motivated by Islam.
Rubbish. Does it take various civil wars in African states into account, for example? I don't think so. Is it a perfect example of how (initially dubious) statistics can be manipulated to prove an invalid point? Yes.DarkAngel wrote:Over 90 percent of the current world fighting involves Islamist terror movements.
Hold on - I live in Ireland. We've just had over 30 years of terrorism which was NOT motivated by Islam in any way, shape, mean or form. So please don't give me BS sweeping statements like this, I've lived it and grown up in it, and I know that no matter what the initial cause it eventually just boils down to primitive human bloodthirstiness and greed. You know, I know, and we all know, that one of the prime motivations in the current situation is control over oil producing resources. I could just as easily say that the vast majority of world terrorism is motivated by the automobile industry.DarkAngel wrote:The vast majority of world terrorism is religiously motivated by Islam.
That's backward Mississippi - not the whole country!smiscandlon wrote:This took me 2 seconds to find on Google:DarkAngel wrote:(For example, in the USA, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense birth control prescriptions if they have "religious grounds" for such refusal.) - Mark
Say what?!!
I don't think so Mark. :eek:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... pill_x.htm
Why is it so hard for you to apply the same differentiation on other countries like you just did for your own country.DarkAngel wrote:That's backward Mississippi - not the whole country!smiscandlon wrote:This took me 2 seconds to find on Google:DarkAngel wrote:(For example, in the USA, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense birth control prescriptions if they have "religious grounds" for such refusal.) - Mark
Say what?!!
I don't think so Mark.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... pill_x.htm
First paragraph: "For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control."DarkAngel wrote:That's backward Mississippi - not the whole country!
Now what the hell have you proved by jumping on one mistake?EvilBastard wrote:Thank you for playing "I'm full of s**t!", but I'm afraid you really are the weakest (and possibly the missing) link.DarkAngel wrote:That's backward Mississippi - not the whole country!
Some words of advice of a Belgian boy who is normally very peacefull: go f*ck yourself and take your quotes and statistics with you.9while9 wrote:Now what the hell have you proved by jumping on one mistake?EvilBastard wrote:Thank you for playing "I'm full of s**t!", but I'm afraid you really are the weakest (and possibly the missing) link.DarkAngel wrote:That's backward Mississippi - not the whole country!![]()
Other then maybe your a vindictive asshole, nothing really.
This smacks of an earlier post where someone points out how
"if you don't like what someone has said certain people on here
act out like the mental midgets they really are."
I can go back and look at posts that most of us have made and find mistakes, etc.. If I point them out to you will that make me superior?
Try to act like the intelligent individuals that most of you are and less like band wagon droons.
You have responded like a trueHisWimmNess wrote:Some words of advice of a Belgian boy who is normally very peacefull: go f*ck yourself and take your quotes and statistics with you.9while9 wrote:Now what the hell have you proved by jumping on one mistake?EvilBastard wrote: Thank you for playing "I'm full of s**t!", but I'm afraid you really are the weakest (and possibly the missing) link.![]()
Other then maybe your a vindictive asshole, nothing really.
This smacks of an earlier post where someone points out how
"if you don't like what someone has said certain people on here
act out like the mental midgets they really are."
I can go back and look at posts that most of us have made and find mistakes, etc.. If I point them out to you will that make me superior?
Try to act like the intelligent individuals that most of you are and less like band wagon droons.
end of transmission.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. In my country there is a difference between state law and federal law. If someone says the U.S. has made it legal for pharmacists to refuse birth control and I point out that it is not the U.S. but a state - I am simply correcting that misconception that it is a federal law.canon docre wrote:Why is it so hard for you to apply the same differentiation on other countries like you just did for your own country. :?:DarkAngel wrote:That's backward Mississippi - not the whole country!smiscandlon wrote: This took me 2 seconds to find on Google:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... pill_x.htm
this is so much bollocks it's unreal. don't you read the newsDarkAngel wrote:http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html
Like the recent rendition law, you mean?DarkAngel wrote:This refusal to give out birth control is unconstitutional and will most likely go through the process and change.
@ 9W9 : you're a vindictive assholeOther then maybe your a vindictive asshole
paint it black wrote:@ 9W9 : you're a vindictive assholeOther then maybe your a vindictive asshole![]()
![]()
![]()
vindictive being, in this case, an optional extra
They can do that here too, though they are obliged to direct you to another chemist where you would be able to obtain the birth control.DarkAngel wrote:(For example, in the USA, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense birth control prescriptions if they have "religious grounds" for such refusal.) - Mark
Say what?!!
I don't think so Mark.
USARicheyJames wrote:i've clearly been gone for far too long. where the hell did these eejits come from?