a) The actual, practical effects that a ban on birth control in even ONE state would have. Effects that even Republicans claim to loathe (increase in crime, poverty, homelessness, people in jail, taxes, social safety net programs, abortions, unwanted children, etc.).

b) That Santorum’s agenda in pushing this is quite blatantly a religious one, i.e., he wants Catholic law to be U.S. law, his great concern about America is about the influence of Satan, and his great concern specifically about birth control is that it “doesn’t work” and enables women to have non-procreative sex, which is “bad” for them. Somehow.

c) That his classic argument, “Why would it be in the CA Constitution if it were already in the US Constitution?” collapses after a two-second glance at the CA Constitution will reveal a “freedom of speech” and “freedom of the press” clause.

d) That he keeps invoking DOMA as an example of how “bad” federal laws are, when it is in fact a PERFECT example of how “bad” it is when you allow states to ban a basic human right, which is exactly what he’s arguing FOR in the case of contraception.

e) That he equates “laws” with being against “freedom”, when in fact it’s quite demonstrably obvious that most laws in this country were enacted with the intention of PROTECTING freedom.

f) How seriously factually wrong he was about his little list of “bad” federal laws.

g) His inability to recognize the truly awful logic behind his belief that if one supports SOME federal laws, they must therefore support ALL federal laws.

Here’s your second shot, Tim. If you feel like addressing them now, I’m all ears.

If not…Gee, what is one to think? That you’re a douchebag who cowardly sidesteps all the stuff he can’t answer because he knows how totally fucking wrong he is but is too lame and childish to admit it?

Cause otherwise, I’m tapped.

Again, I say: Rather than taking knee-jerk offense at the profanity, why not actually read and even consider the point being made in the CONTENT of the post. Who knows, it might actually dawn on you WHY I’m being insulting.

And seriously, no profanity necessary here:

How is making a church-owned institution follow the same rules of health care as everyone else any different from making it follow the same rules of minimum wage as everyone else? If the church was against minimum wage, but forced to pay it anyway, would that be “going to war with the church” too?

Take your time.

Here’s a thought: Try pay attention to the content of what I’m saying rather than just whine over the profanity. And you’re saying…What, now? I learned profanity by way of “progressive brainwashing” at school? Public school teaches kids to write with profanity? That’s your point there? Um…Seriously?

>>Sadly a large percentage of the “new democrat party” consist of these drug addled, 60′s generation voters who can no longer think clearly, possess common sense or have their OWN true thoughts.

Which doesn’t describe me, and coming from yet another regurgitator of the Sean Hannity talking points, doesn’t mean a damn thing.

>>They are the minority of Americans however when coupled with the welfare cheats, illegal aliens and guilt ridden wealthy, we begin to see how the scales are dangerously close to the equal point.

That’s not even a coherent sentence.

Where did YOU learn to write?

Can you get a refund?

Another typo, obviously. Should read along the lines of:

If you’re against a law like DOMA, which ENABLES states to BAN gay marriage, how can you then argue FOR enabling the states to ban contraceptives?

Ah, the ad homs. That’s when I know you’ve surrendered, when you give up actually trying to make your case and focus on irrelevant personal shit. That is indeed an “Uncle!” I hear. Well, better late than never. And incidentally, it didn’t take me a half hour to write those responses, I posted them OVER THE COURSE of a half hour, but they each took about ten seconds of research, is how fucking lazy you are.

>>“Dude, YOU are the one who’s okay with some lawmakers in DC deciding that it should be okay for some lawmakers in Austin to decide to imprison some married couple in Dallas for using a condom while having sex in their own home. But I’M the freedom-quasher?” – Where do you get that out of anything I’ve said?!

Um…From the ten billion times you’ve defended the right of THE STATES to ban contraceptives? Are you back-pedaling on that now? Boy, this surrender is bigger than I expected!

>>I am arguing for exactly the opposite. I don’t think anyone should be denied the right to use contraception at all. But I think there is more freedom in the People of Texas deciding how they want to live than some representatives on the other side of the United States.

Right, exactly what I just said. The people of Texas should be free to ban contraceptives. Meaning some lawmakers in Washington should ALLOW them to ban contraceptives, so that some lawmakers in Austin can ban contraceptives. You have spent the last two days defending EXACTLY THAT RIGHT. Change your mind?

>>Are you going to tell me again that between 1780 and 1863 — one to two generations — that national governing would’ve been better than the State’s governing themselves?!

No, Mr. Bizarro World, I’m going to tell you that the nation would have been better off if banning of slavery had been a NATIONAL LAW in the FIRST place, instead of that whole series of compromises and deals and disagreements that led to the Civil War. Do you not agree with THAT? This I gotta see.

>>If you could wrap your head around unalienable and inalienable rights, you might start to get the big picture.

Please stop with that, it’s just a smoke-screen. If YOU could wrap your head around the facts that the 9th and 14th amendments guarantee certain basic HUMAN rights, that would be a fucking miracle, but instead you chose to not even address those simple facts so you could complain about some seemingly frivolous laws…and not even get THOSE right. And then not even address how totally fucking WRONG you got them. What a silly, stupid man you are.

>>The bottom line is that you can’t sit here and sing the praises of a large centralized government without singing the praises of the terrible governing that has negatively impacted everyone instead of just a few.

If what you’re trying to say is, “Because there are some bad federal laws, you can’t praise the GOOD federal laws”…or “Because you praise SOME federal laws, you therefore praise ALL federal laws”…And I’m pretty sure it’s one or both of those, but it’s really hard to tell with you sometimes, because you’re so bad at this…That’s just fucking bad logic. Really, really bad logic. Like “It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe” logic. Have I mentioned how not good at this you are?

>>When you wish the States have less power, then you wish slavery to have impacted more people in America for more generations.

That’s really as bad as it gets. Seriously, it is. Slavery is the ultimate argument AGAINST the States having more power. The slavery states are the ones who…wait for it…WANTED SLAVERY, and it was a FEDERAL LAW that put an end to that nonsense. This is 5th grade stuff we’re talking about here, Tim. You really should just stop. It’s getting hard to watch.

>>When you wish the States have less power, then you wish Internment Camps to have impacted more people in America during WWII.

Insane.

>>When you wish the States have less power, then you wish DOMA to have impact more people in America currently.

Again: DOMA is exactly analogous to the contraceptive issue. It doesn’t take power from the States, it GIVES THEM POWER TO BAN SOMETHING. Just like the contraceptive thing. If you’re arguing AGAINST a law like DOMA that ENABLES THE STATES TO BAN SOMETHING, how the fuck can you then argue against enabling the states to ban contraceptives? Seriously, how fucking dumb are you?

>>You love national governing. This is what you want.

I see. X defends a few federal laws and SCOTUS decisions that prevent states from banning some basic human rights, as granted by the Constitution. Therefore, X “loves national governing.” Or something. You’re a genuine fucking idiot.

>>And, by the way, glad to see you defending all the BIG things your national government is banning, controlling and legislating

Okay, so no comment on all those BIG laws that you were so mercilessly ridiculing that it turns out how completely fucking WRONG you were about?

No rigorous argument against the federal law banning re-selling items that have been deemed dangerous to children? No rigorous defense of the American citizen’s right to re-sell items that have been deemed dangerous to children?

I’m all ears. Knock yourself out.

This I gotta hear.

Really not hard to understand. Cloward-Piven. 1900′s Progressives. Really out in the open now!
God Bless America. Amen.

“Dude, YOU are the one who’s okay with some lawmakers in DC deciding that it should be okay for some lawmakers in Austin to decide to imprison some married couple in Dallas for using a condom while having sex in their own home. But I’M the freedom-quasher?” – Where do you get that out of anything I’ve said?! You’re so whacked out, it’s not even funny. I am arguing for exactly the opposite. I don’t think anyone should be denied the right to use contraception at all. But I think there is more freedom in the People of Texas deciding how they want to live than some representatives on the other side of the United States. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? Let’s turn the clock back to 1827 and apply your same argument, “Dude, YOU are the one who’s okay with some lawmakers in DC deciding that it should be okay for some lawmakers in Albany, NY to decide to imprison some land owning couple in New York City for using slaves on their own property. But I’M the freedom-quasher?” Are you going to tell me again that between 1780 and 1863 — one to two generations — that national governing would’ve been better than the State’s governing themselves?!

You don’t get it. You don’t. You think the relationship between the States and the Federal Government is the same as the relationship between a local municipality and the state government. It’s not. It’s not a chain going from the local government on up to the federal government where the local government takes care of the SMALL things and the federal government takes care of the BIG things (as you do eloquently put it). That’s not the relationship. You are just too small minded to know the difference. If you could wrap your head around unalienable and inalienable rights, you might start to get the big picture.

The bottom line is that you can’t sit here and sing the praises of a large centralized government without singing the praises of the terrible governing that has negatively impacted everyone instead of just a few (who probably want that terrible governing). When you wish the States have less power, then you wish slavery to have impacted more people in America for more generations. When you wish the States have less power, then you wish Internment Camps to have impacted more people in America during WWII. When you wish the States have less power, then you wish DOMA to have impact more people in America currently. When you wish the States have less power, then you wish The Patriot Act to have impact more people in America currently. And so on. You love national governing. This is what you want.

And, by the way, glad to see you defending all the BIG things your national government is banning, controlling and legislating. You’re something else.

I couldn’t resist. Had to do this one.

ALSO wrong.

I mean, it’s A LITTLE true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/mixedcase.asp

So NEW signs have to have a mix of upper and lower case (because they apparently are easier to read, and thus increase road safety. TYRANTS!)

But no, there is no law that EVERY STREET SIGN in the U.S. needs to use mixed letters.

There is NO REQUIREMENT to replace the current signs merely for the letters reason, only to get them up to retroreflectivity standards, which is a totally different issue, and again, a SAFETY one.

So basically, three of your four examples of these horrible federal laws weren’t even accurate, and the one that WAS accurate was about protecting children against burn injuries.

This bears repeating:

You’re not good at this.