Bingo!
When a student chooses a universty, the quality of education is part of the choice, why not include the type of insurance in that choice??
Limbaugh's message to 'feminazis'
- Thread starter B00Mer
- Start date
Bingo!
When a student chooses a universty, the quality of education is part of the choice, why not include the type of insurance in that choice??
Or how about just simply to adhere to the principles of that institution, should it happen to not be a public one? That's what you weigh the quality education against, whether or not you can accept the rules and restrictions placed upon you from an institution you choose to attend. Is the quality of education available at Institution A worth the restrictions I would not have if I went to Institution B where the educational quality may not be so good? Seems a simple enough question to me.
and if they believe that a Catholic institution will give them the best education for their vocation, then they should be prepared to follow the rules of that institution.
What I'm saying is that benefits are remuneration and there is no difference between wages, health benefits, company vehicle etc...
If company A gives it's employees a 200 benefit plan and company B gives its employees a 200 raise, folks like you think that employees from company A are "getting something for free" whereas the employees from company B are not. You are wrong. Not the first time. Won't be the last.
BS as usual.
There's a huge difference. Revenue Canada see things much differently.
LOL.
Mean while, back in the real world.
Try taking your benefits package to the auto dealership and buying a new truck.
... Don't work too well.
The benefit package won't buy a truck but the money saved can.
But, using your logic, people with benefit packages are worse off. That kinda flies in the face of Das' nonsense that people with benefits are getting something for free.
I know, rhetorical question, but did you actually expect anything but?
Better yet, try telling Revenue Canada that they can't tax your raise, because you took it, instead of a health package.
I see you ignored the post that punched a great big hole in your silly claim.
DaS said that? Are we at the point of the conversation, where you start making stuff up about what people have said, already?
My time flies when Jimmy starts talking out his ass.
BS as usual.
There's a huge difference. Revenue Canada see things much differently.
I forgot to mention...
Of course you paid. The place you worked gave you a benefit instead of raise in pay. As I said. If Company A gave its employees a benefit plan and Company B gave its employee an equivalent raise in salary, you wouldn't say the employees at company B are getting something for free. The companies (and the employees if it was negotiated) have simply agreed to a different type of remuneration.
Soon to change.
Fluke spoke to this in her testimony, and she did factor in the insurance coverage. She chose to place education ahead of the insurance plan.
Advertisers Limbaugh has lost to date.. say's a lot for tolerance of hate speech.. Free Speech, yes.. lol
...so they pulled their advertising why?? I mean if you're going to reply with a blanket statement like that, why don't you explain then why advertisers are pulling ads from his radio show??
Maybe they don't want to go down with a sinking ship??
I wouldn't want my product associated with that kind of rhetoric and anti-feminist "hate speech".
For 1. I don't approve of that kind of bashing or hate speech, and 2. the almighty dollar.
..
Last edited:
Of course they don't. But they are not pulling their advertising for some lofty ideals. Advertisers don't like controversy, they want a nice quiet way of getting you to buy their product. Pure and simple.
To be clear, I think Limbaugh is a tool. He's crass and overly theatrical. Not my cup of tea.
...and this whole issue is because the state is going to pay for contraceptives, so women will be able to have more sex without getting pregnant..
Now please show me the downside here??
Now please show me the downside here??
...and this whole issue is because the state is going to pay for contraceptives, so women will be able to have more sex without getting pregnant..
Now please show me the downside here??
Ah, so it's less about your disdain with "anti-feminist hate speech" and more about you just looking for a little easy action?
Lol, invest in Trojans.
... And you would be equally supportive if the gvt had planned to mandate religious ideals on the entire population 'for their own good'?
Careful what you wish for
This says a lot. Fluke targeted a school that did not meet her individual needs but chose it for the opportunity to push her agenda.
The way I see it, she chose her agenda ahead of both her education and well being.
Lol, invest in Trojans.
Apparently the sex isn't any good unless they are gvt issued Trojans.
Maybe Fluke has some weird kink that she fantasies about screwing the gvt on their own dime
Elaborate on your first statement.
If she made the choice then why the push to have the government intervene?