They say there's three sides to every story....

Can't refute a single point huh. That's sorta what I thought. Have fun kids.



Af must be on duty at McDonald's. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

I could probably refute every single one of the points since they're mostly bullshit, but here's just one by way of example:

This General Boykin guy whose prayer meeting invitation was rescinded is a religious bigot and a whack job. His remarks in the past even led President Bush to publicly disagree with the crazy shit he says. Among other things, he thinks the First Amendment shouldn't apply to Islam. Now, there's a good idea. Let's let the Christian crazies decide who gets our constitutional protections. Here's a bit more balanced report on exactly why the folks at West Point decided maybe they didn't want him spewing his hate-filled invective at their institution:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/us...oint-talk.html

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

this says it best

Tim, You Know your religion looks down on "ASS FUCKING"... right....

Tim, You Know your religion looks down on "ASS FUCKING"... right.... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Political Discourse at its finest.

Good job Kayla. I see nothing that responds just insults and innuendo. Religion has no business in government AND government has absolutely no business in religion and the Constitution backs that up. The Constitution restricts government and not religion. As for slant, it is a recitation of facts. Can you disprove any of them?

I looked up Steven Ertelt, one of your prominently listed "sources" for the "third side" to every story. He's a righty-tighty Catholic neocon and hardly a pillar of the rational community. He pimps the usual radical Pro-Life agenda on his publication "Life News." The linked article below is the typical parsing of the methodology of the study he attempts to refute. The short-bus version of it, for you TP-ers, is that he contends that study is flawed because it doesn't take into account Catholic women who don't use birth control because their situations preclude its necessity. Now, you TP-ers may want to read that last sentence 10-12 times since it is has more than five words. Anyway, I suppose studying people using birth control who are actually in a situation where it may be a useful option doesn't pass his litmus test.

Glenna, I bit on this for a minimal amount of time (15 minutes, max) - that's all you get. Let's just say that your overwrought list is populated with "sources" that after a careful reading of the content and cross checking a couple of things once again shows that there's no there there, as usual.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/13/f...trol-debunked/