Or they just kill the girl, for being an embarrassment to the family. Problem solved . . . probably to Akin's satisfaction.
He&#039;s probably find Sharia law to his liking, if he tried it. <i>I do not like Sharia law. I do not like it, not at all.</i> (Green Eggs and Q&#039;ran)
you may have seen elsewhere that i&#039;m one of those obamacare bots doing my bit for the ACA. she&#039;s one of the dems who&#039;ve been most supportive / helping most / coming to even the smallest events.
if you don&#039;t mind getting outraged, this &#039;fresh air&#039; segment was pretty shocking. and i&#039;m pretty aware of wingnut shenanigans:
Well, so long as it&#039;s free, and it doesn&#039;t make life better for women in <i>their</i> states, there might be a few of the teabagging GOPpers who&#039;ll go along.
Any bets that if Reid DOES bring this up, Boehner will immediate claim it&#039;s &quot;unnecessary&quot; and &quot;business-killing&quot;?
I can&#039;t wait to hear what insightful, nuanced analysis our rightwing brethren will offer to explain the position they will take on this/rationale for opposing this. I think it&#039;ll probably break down like this: 37%: oppose because religious freedom/birth control (regardless of actual treaty text). 33%: oppose because national soveriegnty is threatened by it/all treaties all the time. 20%: oppose because treaty has no point because laws are already there to protect women. 10%: oppose because international conspiracy to turn girls in boy-hating feminazis. 5%: oppose because why no violence against men act? 5%: all of them, Katie.
Or they just kill the girl, for being an embarrassment to the family. Problem solved . . . probably to Akin&#039;s satisfaction.
He&#039;s probably find Sharia law to his liking, if he tried it. <i>I do not like Sharia law. I do not like it, not at all.</i> (Green Eggs and Q&#039;ran)
you may have seen elsewhere that i&#039;m one of those obamacare bots doing my bit for the ACA. she&#039;s one of the dems who&#039;ve been most supportive / helping most / coming to even the smallest events.
AND she&#039;s a huge arts supporter.
i have a girl crush.
Angel Miguel? Wasn&#039;t he a shortstop for the Pirates?
if you don&#039;t mind getting outraged, this &#039;fresh air&#039; segment was pretty shocking. and i&#039;m pretty aware of wingnut shenanigans:
<a href="http:\/\/www.npr.org\/2013\/11\/21\/246534132\/personhood-in-the-womb-a-constitutional-question" target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.npr.org/2013/11/21/246534132/personhoo...">http://www.npr.org/2013/11/...
Buncha Doctors.
Well, so long as it&#039;s free, and it doesn&#039;t make life better for women in <i>their</i> states, there might be a few of the teabagging GOPpers who&#039;ll go along.
They come at night, doh.
It&#039;s too bad women don&#039;t have teeth down there.
If a Muslim girl is raped, and is at risk of producing a baby Muslimette -- is that a gift from Jeebus? Somebody should check that with Todd Akin.
Any bets that if Reid DOES bring this up, Boehner will immediate claim it&#039;s &quot;unnecessary&quot; and &quot;business-killing&quot;?
I can&#039;t wait to hear what insightful, nuanced analysis our rightwing brethren will offer to explain the position they will take on this/rationale for opposing this. I think it&#039;ll probably break down like this: 37%: oppose because religious freedom/birth control (regardless of actual treaty text). 33%: oppose because national soveriegnty is threatened by it/all treaties all the time. 20%: oppose because treaty has no point because laws are already there to protect women. 10%: oppose because international conspiracy to turn girls in boy-hating feminazis. 5%: oppose because why no violence against men act? 5%: all of them, Katie.