The Democrats' Fake Freedoms

The president's party can't seem to distinguish between defending rights and soliciting subsidies.

Sandra Fluke’s claim to fame, aside from provoking Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic ire, is that she chose to attend Georgetown Law School, knowing full well that the Catholic university's student health plan did not cover birth control, and then demanded that the policy be changed, under force of law, as a matter of "reproductive justice." Although Fluke could have picked a different school, she told The Washington Post last February, "I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care." 

Fluke's sense of entitlement and her casual resort to the use of force made her an ideal speaker for last week's Democratic National Convention, where she was joined by many others who believe justice requires that they receive whatever they want (including automaker bailouts and cheap student loans), even if other people have to pay for it. This mentality is so pervasive among Democrats that they seem unable to distinguish between defending rights and soliciting subsidies.

The 2012 Democratic platform includes 1,400 words on "Protecting Rights and Freedoms." Among the alleged rights that the Democrats promise to defend: freedom from "discrimination in the workplace and other settings," "paycheck fairness" for women, "job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons," "evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education," government subsidies for Planned Parenthood, and taxpayer-supported health care, including "free access" to "prenatal screenings, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, breast-feeding supports, and contraception." These items all amount to promises of other people's money or demands that they be compelled to enter into contracts they would otherwise eschew.

Even "putting Americans back to work"—a rather vague mandate that presumably means whatever President Obama says it does—appears in the section on "rights and freedoms," specifically as a women's issue. Why? Because "the challenges of supporting and raising a family are often primarily a woman's responsibility." All right then.

The platform does mention a few real rights, including "the individual right to bear arms." I also give the Democrats credit for "freedom to marry," since they argue (persuasively, in my view) that equality under the law means the government should not discriminate between couples based on sexual orientation.

Similarly, "a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion," is based on a constitutional argument—not a very sound one, at least as laid out in Roe v. Wade, but nevertheless an argument about the proper relationship between government and the individual. True to form, the Democrats immediately add that women have a right to obtain abortions "regardless of ability to pay," once again conflating freedom from coercion with a claim on other people's resources. If the right to arms does not entail a right to gun subsidies, why would a right to abortion entail a right to abortion subsidies?

This fundamental confusion about rights was on display throughout the Democratic convention. Although Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, opposes legal restrictions on contraceptives, Fluke warned that a vote for him would be a vote for "an America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it." Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards likewise claimed that if you question government subsidies for her organization, or if you think insurers and employers should not be forced to offer health plans that cover contraceptives, you "want to end access to birth control." 

Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, declared that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shows Obama "believes in a woman's right to make her own decisions." Yes, as long as the woman is not an insurer, an employer, or a consumer interested in a health plan that does not meet the government's specifications. 

Keenan also praised Obama for defending Fluke's "right to tell her story." At last: an actual right! Fluke surely should be free to tell her story, but that does not mean we have to listen.  

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    What kind of 24/7 newsfeed doesn't cover the assassination of a US Ambassador?

    Reports say he was killed by film critics. I dread our coming Global War on Film Criticism

  • ||

    Are you talking about Reason, or the Drudge Report? Because I don't see it over there either. Are you sure it really happened?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yeah, the reason newsfeed only links to published articles. There doesn't seem to be anything specific yet on what's going on in Libya, which is what I assume we're talking about.

  • SIV||

    It was on LA Times and Yahoo News before I OT commented here. I believe AP had already confirmed. I suspect a snoozing news aggregation monkey at Reason 24/7.

    Instapundit: BREAKING NEWS Amazon Sale on Kitchen-Aid mixers

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    reason has bowed to your pressure.

  • Ted S.||

    Reports say he was killed by film critics.

    I didn't realize what a badass Kurt Loder is.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Reports say he was killed by film critics. I dread our coming Global War on Film Criticism"

    Not I. Ebert has it coming.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care."

    Georgetown can't be that great if its students don't learn about false choices.

  • ||

    Awesome.

  • some guy||

    And at one point she argued that she needed several thousand dollars a year to cover birth control. How many condoms does she go through each day?

    "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised."

  • ||

    "...seem unable to distinguish between defending rights and soliciting subsidies."

    They deliberately conflate the two. I am confident that TONY will appear shortly to do exactly that by explaining how they are actually the same.

    Christ, I need more coffee

  • Mickey Rat||

    When Democrat's said they were for positive rights, they apparently were serious, who knew?

  • Drake||

    "Why should we have to fund a middle-aged schoolgirl’s sex life?"

    Mark Steyn

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    I can see instances when I should fund a middle aged schoolgirl's sex life, but I'm thinking more on a retail level. The added bureaucracy needed for a full federal subsidy would make me feel dirty.

  • Anomalous||

    And middle-aged women in schoolgirl outfits are just sad.

  • Crimson Alliance||

    Nice.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Romney may personally support contraception rights but he has said he would appoint judges who oppose such.

  • ||

    You disappoint me, ass cork. No mention of Bush?

  • ||

    I'm curious, Shriek, do you support government subsidizing of your own stupidity?

  • fish||

    Like the air around us Shrieks stupidity is both infinite and free for all to enjoy!

  • aelhues||

    I suppose by that you are including abortion in "contraception rights"? Regardless, actual contraception is not going to be outlawed by the supreme court, and likewise for abortion.

    If you think so, you're and idiot...oh wait, you are an idiot, so I certainly wouldn't put this past you.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, idiot. I am talking about birth control pills. The Santorum Fundie-Freak wing of the GOP opposes them. Many pharmacists won't dispense them citing religious conscience.

  • aelhues||

    The Santorum Fundie-Freak wing is a small minority, and certainly don't control the courts.

    If a pharmacist won't dispense them, go somewhere else? What does that have to do with the law?

    Pfft...idiot.

  • Drake||

    What pharmacist isn't going to fulfill a birth control prescription? S/He would be fired from the pharmacy.

    Does Shriek shop and Joe Bob's Bible Pharmacy?

  • SugarFree||

    It's happened a number of times. Mostly Plan B emergency contraception and small owner-operated pharmacies.

  • Drake||

    Have you tried CVS?

  • ||

    Evil corporations!

  • R C Dean||

    Plan B emergency contraception

    Also know as "abortifacient pills".

  • SugarFree||

    And vaccines cause autism.

  • ||

    When has Romney (not Santorum) said he would criminalize contraception.

    Opposition to contraception is a Catholic (and Islamic) position. Most evangelical and fundamentalist protestants have no problem with birth control.

    And has it occurred to you that the "pharmacists won't dispense them citing religious conscience" problem would not be there if oral contraceptives were available OTC, something no one (except the libertarians) is in favor of.

  • James Sinclair||

    Not even Santorum supports making contraception illegal. I'm pretty sure during one of the debates he said something like, "despite all the wrong-headed bullshit you've heard from me over the years, I don't have a problem with contraception being available to people who want to destroy their lives via sinful pre-marital relations" (I'm paraphrasing).

    I'm sure he doesn't lose any sleep over policies that make contraceptives more expensive or more difficult to obtain, but still.

  • ||

    Good point. The number of Catholics (or other religionista, Mormons etc, who disapprove of contraception) who want to criminalize birth control is pretty much zero.

    Shrike obviously is one of those people who have a hard time comprehending that unlike him, some people are able to disapprove of something without actualy wanting to kill people over it.

  • ||

    Obviously you are in need of re-education: Thought crimes are just as bad, per the left. You cannot even "think" bad things about any protected group.
    To further clarify: Every group is protected except white men.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Having trouble getting birth-control pills, shrike?

  • ||

    "Many pharmacists won't dispense them citing religious conscience."

    See article above.

  • ||

    When has Romney said he would appoint judges who oppose contraception rights?

  • aelhues||

    He hasn't....

  • Drake||

    He told Shriek in private.

  • ||

    Exactly.

    Ever notice that shriek is never actually willing to provide any backup for his little fictions.

  • KPres||

    Guerrilla trolling?

  • 0x90||

    "Sandra Fluke’s claim to fame [... ] is that she chose to attend Georgetown Law School, knowing full well that the Catholic university's student health plan did not cover birth control, and then demanded that the policy be changed, under force of law, as a matter of 'reproductive justice.'"

    Words are fun things. See that geek over there in the corner, Sandra? He's been a victim of reproductive discrimination. Justice beckons, won't you answer the call? Go and do your duty, girl (or else).

  • hk||

    lmfao!

  • Longtorso||

    Words are fun things. See that geek over there in the corner, Sandra? He's been a victim of reproductive discrimination. Justice beckons, won't you answer the call? Go and do your duty, girl (or else).

    Your vagina? You didn't build that.....

  • Bean Counter||

    ^^I'm impressed!! However, in fairness, she really didn't build it - her parents gave her the genes and then it just developed.

  • some guy||

    Her parents provided the seed funding. But she did most of the work herself.

  • Joe R.||

    She didn't build it, but she has been responsible for the maintenance for a while.

  • JW||

    Fluke or death?

  • ||

    death

  • JW||

    Among the alleged rights that the Democrats promise to defend: freedom from "discrimination in the workplace and other settings," "paycheck fairness" for women, "job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons," "evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education," government subsidies for Planned Parenthood, and taxpayer-supported health care,

    This is why precisely we should never, EVER, have another Constitutional convention.

    OTOH, it would be much shorter, less open to vague judicial review, since it will consist solely of one page with COMMERCE CLAUSE BITCHES! written on it and a second page, consisting of a single, full page picture of Veruca Salt.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is why precisely we should never, EVER, have another Constitutional convention.

    Yeah. We'd probably end up with something like this:

    http://www.departments.bucknel.....36toc.html

  • fish||

    Soviet constitution.....? Way too much discussion of "organs"!

  • IceTrey||

    Any changes resulting from a Convention would require 3/4's of the states to ratify them. With the country split 50/50 it's unlikely anything radical would get passed.

  • R C Dean||

    I find it oddly gratifying that, due to a recent purchase, I am getting auto-ads for "Chain Saws Direct" on this article.

  • 0x90||

    Bought a hockey mask, did you.

  • ||

    A nice one.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fluke knew damn well what she was doing - either that, or her handlers knew how to guide her into being the next Cindy Sheehan-style poster-girl for Team Perpetual Griefery.

    Someone should tell Fluke that, eventually, she'll be as shunned and ignored as Sheehan.

  • fish||

    Fluke is aiming straight for mid level management in one of the "we'll sue you until your broke or dead or both if you don't comply with our arbitrary rules" bureaus.

    Attached to the federal tit forever...she'll have a nice life!

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Yeah, they really took advantage of Sheehan's grief, then tossed her aside once Boooosh was gone.

    This slut will be next once the election is over.

  • T o n y||

    We are not confused about rights. We simply don't buy your bullshit that the only rights we should have are the ones that don't mean anything for people with no money.

    You're selling rights minimalism. Great. Don't expect everyone else to go along with it, because most of us like more rights rather than fewer. And not paying taxes has never been a right.

  • DJK||

    Not really. We're selling a consistent set of rights that doesn't require caprice and whim in its assignment. You're selling the right to be subject to the whim of whichever legislator is on a crusade.

  • T o n y||

    Nonsense. You're explicitly selling caprice and whim. The only rights that should exist are the ones that you claim should exist, no appeal allowed.

    All rights are subject to democratic debate, just as they should be. There shouldn't be a higher authority than the people, and I certainly don't want the strange, misguided little people who buy into libertarianism telling me what my rights are. It is simply absurd to claim that all the rights we could ever want were discovered in the 18th century. That was not a great time for a lot of people.

  • oncogenesis||

    All rights are subject to democratic debate, just as they should be.

    You're not talking about rights. You're talking about entitlements. Stop trying to destroy language.

  • Juice||

    There shouldn't be a higher authority than the people

    "The people" is a meaningless term. What you're really saying is that the state should have ultimate authority.

  • Zeb||

    I don't think that many are claiming that we know exactly and perfectly what all rights that people should have are. What I would claim, quite strongly, is that rights have nothing to do with using force to make people pay for stuff for other people. Those things are called "entitlements". Real rights do not require the violation of other people's rights. Of course, you can use words however you want to, but if you are talking to me and use the word "rights" in the sense that you do, I will point out to you that I utterly reject that usage because it is contrary to my definition of what rights are.

  • dinkster||

    Tony's right are whatever is best for him, damn everyone it negatively affects.

    Likewise, I have a right to 60 armed guards and a bullet proof Mercedes, filled to the brim with Sonic cheeseburgers. You must hate freedom if you don't feel that is a legitimate right.

  • Other John||

    "All rights are subject to democratic debate, just as they should be."

    Tony you're wasting your time. This is why democrats (progressives, and socialists) won't find common ground with libertarians (and classic liberals).

    Libertarians specifically believe in rights that are inseverable, intrinsic properties of being a living human. Those are rights that are not open to debate. They extend out only as far as when they interfere with the equal rights of other individuals.

    You're basing entire philosophy of thinking (progressivism) on a different understanding of human rights. You're yelling orange, and we're yelling apple.

    A democrat will say we need to pass laws to make weed legal. A libertarian will say remove all the laws that make it illegal (remove the obstructions to the exercise of the negative right). Get it?

  • T o n y||

    I get that religion is, indeed, a conversation stopper. What you're describing as mere semantics importantly affects whether we're entitled to certain types of rights.

    And libertarians are not consistent. They all call for property rights, which aren't "negative" by any stretch.

  • dinkster||

    They all call for property rights, which aren't "negative" by any stretch.

    So I don't have ownership over the things I create or the labor of my hands? If I did, I would be stealing from someone? Got it.

  • Other John||

    It is not mere semantics, its nuance. There is a distinction. Property, the first property you own is your own body. I would hope you'd understand that. Having someone else, even in part, own you would effectively make subordinate to them.

    Ownership of self is the very first right, which all others are bound to. It is most certainly a negative right. I don't know why you put quotes around it. Do you understand the term as it applies to rights?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    You can't be this stupid, can you?

    A "right" isn't a "right" if it infringes on someone's else's rights.

    If you are forcibly seizing someone else's property for your own personal use, that is not a right, it's an entitlement.

    I suspect you know this but are just a paid shill, as you don;t come across as uninformed.

  • Joe R.||

    All rights are subject to democratic debate, just as they should be.

    I suppose rape and slavery should be on the ballot, then.

    You are one morally deficient piece of shit. I am glad I don't know you.

  • DarrenM||

    All rights are subject to democratic debate, just as they should be. There shouldn't be a higher authority than the people...

    By this reasoning, slavery was perfectly acceptable as long as "the people" voted in favor of it.

  • T o n y||

    Who decides that it isn't acceptable? I don't believe in God.

  • dinkster||

    Did you even think twice before writing this? Now I know why Sevo calls you shithead.

  • ||

    Tony, ethically speaking, do you go for moral subjectivism? Or some sort of utilitarianism?

    Who decides that slavery isn't acceptable? Since I am a moral objectivist, this question sounds like, "Who decides the earth is round?" No one. It is round. The people who say it is so are right, and the people who say it is not so are wrong.

    Who decides that slavery isn't acceptable? No one. It isn't, and those who know this are right, and those who don't are wrong.

    Similarly, your conception of rights as being derived from some sort of social consensus is so unethical, for reasons pointed out, that I'm surprised you can't see it. As if slavery became wrong only when people decided to govern as if it were so.

    Do you actually have your own ideas about what is right or wrong? Or do you just attempt to live your life as some mirror, off of which some form of progressivist consensus reflects?

  • Anomalous||

    A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
    – Barry Goldwater (1964)

  • Juice||

    And not paying taxes has never been a right.

    So you claim that there is no such thing as a right to be free from coercion and force? Bullying, threats, and violence are acceptable and in certain circumstances no one has a right to stop it?

  • T o n y||

    I just said there has never, ever been a right not to pay taxes. You can't go around piously claiming you have all the knowledge about what rights there should be, then claim a right that has never been.

  • dinkster||

    This after your defense of slavery being a democratic process because of hurka durka atheism. Good grief.

  • ||

    And then they pat themselves on the back for being so compassionate and understanding and charitable, after they claim that the right to avoid being enslaved hinges on our social consensus as dictated by our legislative process, absent of any ethical foundation. Because God doesn't exist. It's what I see, over and over again: blatant, ethical immaturity, parading around as progressive human thought. It would be funny if it weren't so common. Instead, it's just sad.

  • Brendan||

    So when some guy proclaims his right to have sex and demands that the government force your wife/daughter/sister to dtop denying him his right(s), you won't have too big a problem with that, right?

  • IceTrey||

    Humans only have one right, the right to liberty. That means we have the right to be free from the initiatory use of force, threats of force or fraud. That's it, end if story, put out the cat, that's all she wrote. Learn it, live it, love it.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    ""We simply don't buy your bullshit that the only rights we should have are the ones that don't mean anything for people with no money."

    Uh huh. You're just shovelling out another line of BS altogether; that "rights" really equate to your "right"to surrender money and liberties to the government, and that no measure is too authoritarian to be imposed on the American people under a paper-thin guise of supporting the poor.

  • DarrenM||

    don't mean anything for people with no money

    Without many of those rights you disparage, any money an individual might have would be taken placing him in the group that would not need those rights anyway. Makes perfect sense.

  • fish||

    Don't expect everyone else to go along with it,

    C'mon everyone enlist in the "Free Shit Army"! U n c l e T o n y wants you!

  • Anomalous||

    This stupid woman didn't know that she could get birth control pills for $9 a month. Tha's $108 a year. She probably pays that much a month for lattes at Starbucks.

  • triclops||

    She knows, but she would never lower herself by going to Walmart.

    She only uses free-range, fair trade, organic birth control pills.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "If the right to arms does not entail a right to gun subsidies, why would a right to abortion entail a right to abortion subsidies?"

    Because, because, uh... WAR ON THE WOMENZ!!!!!

  • Robert Enders||

    "I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care."

    She could have bypassed this issue by going to a state university. Is she saying that private schools offer a better education?

  • hotsy totsy||

    Fluke warned that a vote for him would be a vote for "an America in which access to birth control is controlled by people who will never use it."

    And yet she still wants to receive an education, that is, BE EDUCATED BY, these very same people.

  • Robert||

    Their claim to subsidies is based on the idea that they're doing society a favor by not having unwanted children. Just like farmers do society a favor by not producing products that would lower prices.

  • The Derider||

    Except having more children raises prices.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider| 9.12.12 @ 7:29PM |#
    "Except having more children raises prices."

    Deidiot, I'll bet you're stupid enough to think that had some sort of meaning.
    It doesn't. Go away.

  • XM||

    The non white parts of the democrats (the future of that party, as it were), especially ones who aren't Americanized, don't really care about gay rights, right to own guns, contraceptives, or legalizing drugs. No Asian college student is going to reject Georgetown law school in favor of a progressive community college that pays for contraception.

    Most Latinos aren't biased against "big business" either (unless they're arguing with a Republican), especially if the CEO was Latino.

    The democrats do nothing for the minorities, and they only receive their support because of identity politics. The non white democrat politicians are a total disgrace to their community.

  • The Derider||

    Assume everything you said is true. Why do minorities still vote overwhelmingly for democrats?

    1) They're stupid.
    2) They think the Republican party is worse.

    It's got to be one of the two.

  • JWatts||

    A) The Democrats are offering lots of Free Stuff.
    B) The Republicans are offering significantly less Free Stuff.
    C) More Free Stuff Less Free Stuff
    D) Republican part is worse.

    If that's as deep as your thoughts go, it's an air tight argument.

  • JWatts||

    Should be:
    A) The Democrats are offering lots of Free Stuff.
    B) The Republicans are offering significantly less Free Stuff.
    C) More Free Stuff GreaterThan Less Free Stuff
    Therefore, the Republican party is worse.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider| 9.12.12 @ 7:27PM |#
    "Assume everything you said is true. Why do minorities still vote overwhelmingly for democrats?"

    Quite a few of them still hope for free shit, deidiot.
    Go away.

  • T o n y||

    Why are minorities more likely to want free shit, exactly?

  • Libertarian Barbarian||

    Minorities have lower IQs. BTW, that is scientific fact, so they are more prone to prefer instant gratification rather than delayed gratification. Whatever they can get immediately outweighs the long-term consequences. Animals exhibit very similar behavior.

  • The Derider||

    Rights libertarians support that are paid for through taxes:

    1) The right to vote.
    2) The right to own private property.

  • Sevo||

    The Derider| 9.12.12 @ 7:36PM |#
    Rights libertarians support that are paid for through taxes:
    1) The right to vote.
    2) The right to own private property."

    Strawmen deidiot supports:
    Too many to count.
    Go away, asshole.

  • teuiwnmbjhb||

  • teuiwnmbjhb||

    More characteristics, novel style,varieties,and good quality low price
    http://l2y.eu/dddqh

    http://l2y.eu/dddqh

  • Cool Story, Bro||

    With the all of the cock this Fluke is taking, her vag must look like someone fired off a gun from inside her.

  • Libertarian Barbarian||

    The only cock Fluke is taking is a plastic strap-on from a scissoring hardware store dyke.

  • DarrenM||

    What is it about getting up in front of a camera that makes people stupid?

  • Sevo||

    I don't think she had to get in front of a camera to be stupid.

  • Sevo||

    T o n y| 9.12.12 @ 11:11AM |#
    "All rights are subject to democratic debate,"

    Right, shithead. We vote you should die, OK?

  • Crimson Alliance||

    Is this really suprising? The Democratic Party has been completely assimilated by the radical progressives. How do you collapse the system? By making everything a right that has to be subsidised by the government. Food, shelter, cell phone, internet, contraception... on and on ad nauseum.

  • Ardelle||

    Like I said, no problem with articles they have run. But to have so few about Johnson is a missed opportunity to educate those who do then come to the website.

  • KB Marx||

    I just want to say something in defence of the libertarian women who are not at all represented by Sandra Fluke or the other feminists believing that any comment involving a woman not having access to birth control pills means the government wants to ban all contraceptives.
    I want abortion and contraceptives to be legal, but I don't want to have to pay for others to get them...

    Oh and I believe Fluke has been widely misrepresented in the media, when she advocated for pills to be given to her, they were already covered by her university insurance plan. The policy allowed the pills to be given to women who were dealing with other problems such as ovarian cysts, but were not given to women who wanted it for the purpose of preventing pregnancy... That's kind of fucked up. If you don't believe in contraception then you don't believe in contraception period, there shouldn't be exceptions. I hate it as well when people say "abortion is ONLY ok only in the case of rape," that doesn't make sense... So if a person choses to have sex and something happens they deserve to be punished with a child? But if it's a rape, then well she didn't have good sex therefore she can choose to abort? If you believe a life is a life, then even in cases of rape, you should stand by your views.
    Sorry got carried away with my rant...

  • LarryA||

    Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

    Yeah. Gun-rights lite.

  • mustking||

    batteria HP Pavilion dv6 ,http://www.buonabatteria.com/hp-pavilion-dv6.html

  • mustking||

  • mustking||

    batteria HP Pavilion dv6,,Caricabatterie / Alimentatore HP Pavilion dv6
    Portatile batteria per hp pavilion dv6 , batteria hp pavilion dv6,Caricabatterie / Alimentatore hp pavilion dv6. Sconti, promozioni, offerte speciali per Portatili HP su buonabatteria.com.

  • suming||

    By turning off hardware that is not in use, the laptop will not use as much power and the batteries will not die as fast.
    http://www.akkus-adapter.com/asus-p43s.html

  • LifeStrategies||

    "If the right to arms does not entail a right to gun subsidies, why would a right to abortion entail a right to abortion subsidies?" Exactly!

    But I still don't understand how the right to associate apparently does NOT give you the right NOT to associate. If I want sex with you, don't you have the right to decline? Fluke would presumably say yes.

    Yet consistency about freedom and rightns requires a principled approach - something lacking in many/most policitians.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement