# Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke



## MarcATL

When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.

The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.

I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.

Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.

Has The Republican Party sunk so low?

Why?!?!??


----------



## AmyNation

Birth control is a hot button issue, and Sandra Fluke distorted her story to fit the democratic agenda. While I think Rush is an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand how birth control works, and a pig, for calling her a slut, I can also understand why she didnt garner much sympathy from the right.


----------



## MarcATL

AmyNation said:


> Birth control is a hot button issue, *and Sandra Fluke distorted her story to fit the democratic agenda.* While I think Rush is an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand how birth control works, and a pig, for calling her a slut, I can also understand why she didnt garner much sympathy from the right.


Thanks for reminding me that he called her slut on the radio for about 4 days straight.

Now, how did she "distort her story to fit the Democratic agenda?" I don't quite get that one. Break it down for me if you can.

Thanks.

Edit: Also, seems like you're giving support to Rush and condoning his behavior. Phrases like "I can see why..." tends to signify support.


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Because Rush Limbaugh is a god to many republicans who really don't have an opinion until he tells them what it is.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

MarcATL said:


> He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.



She does.  Where is the distortion?


----------



## Katzndogz

Sandra Fluke is a slut.  Her entire speech was about how she needed to have someone else pay for her sex life.  She isn't a porn star, she doesn't have that much integrity.  I don't want to see her have sex, but it would be a good way to reimburse the taxpayers for their losses.


----------



## MarcATL

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She does.  Where is the distortion?
Click to expand...




Katzndogz said:


> Sandra Fluke is a slut.  Her entire speech was about how she needed to have someone else pay for her sex life.  She isn't a porn star, she doesn't have that much integrity.  I don't want to see her have sex, but it would be a good way to reimburse the taxpayers for their losses.


Your Honor:

I present to you Exhibits A and B.

Clearly the subjects are full-on supporters of Rush Limbaugh and agree with his every word, clearly.


----------



## Truthmatters

many women are on birth control for other medical reasons than pregnancy prevention


----------



## Truthmatters

Other Reasons to Take the Pill


----------



## Truthmatters

is it right to deny these reasons to patients for the sake of someone elses religious beliefs?


----------



## Truthmatters

Polycystic ovary syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Truthmatters said:


> is it right to deny these reasons to patients for the sake of someone elses religious beliefs?



Furthermore, Georgetown University sponsored health insurance provides birth control for faculty and staff, just not students.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

MarcATL said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She does.  Where is the distortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke is a slut.  Her entire speech was about how she needed to have someone else pay for her sex life.  She isn't a porn star, she doesn't have that much integrity.  I don't want to see her have sex, but it would be a good way to reimburse the taxpayers for their losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Honor:
> 
> I present to you Exhibits A and B.
> 
> Clearly the subjects are full-on supporters of Rush Limbaugh and agree with his every word, clearly.
Click to expand...


Clearly you are an intellectual midget who needs to look up the term Straw Man.

Sandra Fluke wants other people to pay for her birth control pills so she can go out and fuck without consequences.  Hence, she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.  Plain and simple.  It don't care who was the first to make the accusation.  It's a fact.  Take off your partisan glasses for two minutes and try thinking with that pea brain of yours and don't hurt yourself in the process.


----------



## Truthmatters

Endometriosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Truthmatters

should women that need this treatment for these medical conditions be denied the medications they need because you dont like its sideeffects?


----------



## edthecynic

MarcATL said:


> Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke


Because like their MessiahRushie the have no respect for women!

August 8, 2008
RUSH:   Now we're told the night Hillary speaks is the anniversary of *women getting the vote, which is what started the welfare state that now strangles us, by the way.  If women had never gotten the vote we wouldn't have a budget deficit,* but that's another story.


----------



## Sarah G

MarcATL said:


> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Have The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??



Why?  Because they keep losing elections and they don't get that the reason why is their stance on issues.  

She is not a slut, hardly.  You can see it by just looking at her.  

He's a slobby pig though.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

ArmyCowboy said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it right to deny these reasons to patients for the sake of someone elses religious beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, Georgetown University sponsored health insurance provides birth control for faculty and staff, just not students.
Click to expand...


And Walmart sells it for $9 a month. Regardless, the idea that someone who can afford to go to Georgetown Law School, yet can't afford birth control pills is absurd on its face.  Sandra Fluke is a spoiled, entitled little **** who has never lifted a finger to help herself in her entire life.  I hope she gets flattened by a bus.


----------



## Truthmatters

Endometriosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what if someone you loved who was NOT going to have sex anyway was denied what would help them?


----------



## MarcATL

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> She does.  Where is the distortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke is a slut.  Her entire speech was about how she needed to have someone else pay for her sex life.  She isn't a porn star, she doesn't have that much integrity.  I don't want to see her have sex, but it would be a good way to reimburse the taxpayers for their losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Honor:
> 
> I present to you Exhibits A and B.
> 
> Clearly the subjects are full-on supporters of Rush Limbaugh and agree with his every word, clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are an intellectual midget who needs to look up the term Straw Man.
> 
> Sandra Fluke wants other people to pay for her birth control pills so she can go out and fuck without consequences.  Hence, she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.  Plain and simple.  It don't care who was the first to make the accusation.  It's a fact.  Take off your partisan glasses for two minutes and try thinking with that pea brain of yours and don't hurt yourself in the process.
Click to expand...

You are a hard RW hack who want's to control other's actions and determine how they live their lives.

At no point in Sandra Fluke's account did she mention sex or her desire to have anyone pay for it. Yet, somehow, you and other far RW reactionary radicals intepreted her words that way.

Uncanny.

*SMH*


----------



## edthecynic

MarcATL said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She does.  Where is the distortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke is a slut.  Her entire speech was about how she needed to have someone else pay for her sex life.  She isn't a porn star, she doesn't have that much integrity.  I don't want to see her have sex, but it would be a good way to reimburse the taxpayers for their losses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You Honor:
> 
> I present to you Exhibits A and B.
> 
> Clearly the subjects are full-on supporters of Rush Limbaugh and agree with his every word, clearly.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they are perfect examples of the mindlessness of the Misinformation Voter the GOP depends upon.


----------



## Sarah G

Katzndogz said:


> Sandra Fluke is a slut.  Her entire speech was about how she needed to have someone else pay for her sex life.  She isn't a porn star, she doesn't have that much integrity.  I don't want to see her have sex, but it would be a good way to reimburse the taxpayers for their losses.



So in your opinion, porn stars have integrity?  They all use birth control you know.


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it right to deny these reasons to patients for the sake of someone elses religious beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, Georgetown University sponsored health insurance provides birth control for faculty and staff, just not students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Walmart sells it for $9 a month. Regardless, the idea that someone who can afford to go to Georgetown Law School, yet can't afford birth control pills is absurd on its face.  Sandra Fluke is a spoiled, entitled little **** who has never lifted a finger to help herself in her entire life.  I hope she gets flattened by a bus.
Click to expand...


Wait, she's attending law school so that she can have a career as a lawyer and provide for herself, but she has never lifted a finger to help herself in her entire life?

Either you don't read what you're typing or you're not very bright.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

MarcATL said:


> You are a hard RW hack who want's to control other's actions and determine how they live their lives.



Boy, that accusation is a riot coming from an oppressive authoritarian Marxist filth like you.  Actually, Carlton, I'm someone who wants people to be responsible for themselves, to make their own decisions with their lives, and suffer the consequences of those decisions when they make poor ones.



> At no point in Sandra Fluke's account did she mention sex or her desire to have anyone pay for it. Yet, somehow, you and other far RW reactionary radicals intepreted her words that way.



That was the premise of her entire testimony, but you already knew that.



> *SMH*



Keep shaking it until it falls off.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

edthecynic said:


> Exactly, they are perfect examples of the mindlessness of the Misinformation Voter the GOP depends upon.



I'm not GOP, but don't let facts get in the way of your bias, Komrade.  Who are you to accuse anybody of being misinformed?


----------



## MarcATL

You are a radical RW hack Taz. And one of the worse kind.

I always suspected you.

I never quite bought into your libertarian schtick.

You are just another hard core neo-con that fully supported Bush until he became unpopular and retreated to the RW closet under the guise of "Libertarian." 

I have no respect for you whatsoever.

I take your contempt as a sign of honor and wear it with pride.

Carry on.


----------



## Katzndogz

Why should people in terrible pain be denied painkillers just because some addicts take the pain killers who don't actually need them?

Ask Mayor Bloomberg.

Sandra Fluke was not talking about a few women with medical conditions but the financial burden birth control put on HER (she doesn't need anything except getting her hole filled) and other women who have to spend money getting to and from the clinic where they would get their BC free.

Wasn't it at one time a matter of courtesy for a man to provide a condom?   In reality, it isn't just that Fluke wanted her sex life subsidized.   She wanted the men to have their sex lives subsidized too!   If a woman intends to have promiscuous sex, the least she should be able to do for herself is ask the guy to contribute to her birth control obligation.  Each of them could kick in a couple of bucks.  Who knows, she might actually make a profit!


----------



## MarcATL

Katzndogz said:


> Why should people in terrible pain be denied painkillers just because some addicts take the pain killers who don't actually need them?
> 
> Ask Mayor Bloomberg.
> 
> Sandra Fluke was not talking about a few women with medical conditions but the financial burden birth control put on HER (she doesn't need anything except getting her hole filled) and other women who have to spend money getting to and from the clinic where they would get their BC free.
> 
> Wasn't it at one time a matter of courtesy for a man to provide a condom?   In reality, it isn't just that Fluke wanted her sex life subsidized.   She wanted the men to have their sex lives subsidized too!   If a woman intends to have promiscuous sex, the least she should be able to do for herself is ask the guy to contribute to her birth control obligation.  Each of them could kick in a couple of bucks.  Who knows, she might actually make a profit!


You should preach this message every chance you get, on every platform you have access to.

I believe it will work out good.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

MarcATL said:


> You are a radical RW hack Taz. And one of the worse kind.
> 
> I always suspected you.
> 
> I never quite bought into your libertarian schtick.
> 
> You are just another hard core neo-con that fully supported Bush until he became unpopular and retreated to the RW closet under the guise of "Libertarian."
> 
> I have no respect for you whatsoever.
> 
> I take your contempt as a sign of honor and wear it with pride.
> 
> Carry on.



Red Herring.  I take that as a sign of honor and wear it with pride.

Carry on, Carlton.


----------



## edthecynic

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are perfect examples of the mindlessness of the Misinformation Voter the GOP depends upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm not GOP,* but don't let facts get in the way of your bias, Komrade.  Who are you to accuse anybody of being *misinformed*?
Click to expand...

August 26, 2008
RUSH:  * "When critics get it right, then you reply,"* and when you reply to something they've gotten right, it's evidence that the critic has gotten to you.


----------



## JoeB131

Katzndogz said:


> Sandra Fluke is a slut.  Her entire speech was about how she needed to have someone else pay for her sex life.  She isn't a porn star, she doesn't have that much integrity.  I don't want to see her have sex, but it would be a good way to reimburse the taxpayers for their losses.



No, her speech was about how her friend had a medical condition that required the same drugs they use for birth control that her university won't include on the Health Plan students pay for. 

This is the point. The taxpayers don't pay for her health care. the Students or their parents do.  But because the Men In Dresses think their Magic Sky Pixie doesn't want anyone to have sex for the pure enjoyment of it, this woman had to jump through a lot of hoops to get what she had already paid for.  

There was also the sheer absurdity of congress holding hearings on this subject and not calling one woman to testify.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

edthecynic said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, they are perfect examples of the mindlessness of the Misinformation Voter the GOP depends upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm not GOP,* but don't let facts get in the way of your bias, Komrade.  Who are you to accuse anybody of being *misinformed*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> August 26, 2008
> RUSH:  * "When critics get it right, then you reply,"* and when you reply to something they've gotten right, it's evidence that the critic has gotten to you.
Click to expand...


So now you think Rush Limbaugh is credible?  You really need to make up your mind.  Which is it?


----------



## JoeB131

I think this incident is emblematic of the problem with not just the GOP, but the country as a whole. 

Because so many districts are gerrymandered, because only the most fanatical partisans participate in the primary process, in order to win nomination, you have to win over he extreme.  And in that process, you don't dare anger an opinion-maker of the extreme like Limbaugh.  

The thing is, Limbaugh has no interest in helping Republicans get elected.  He enjoys a much more rabid audience when criticizing a Clinton or Obama than he does trying to rationalize why a Bush had to make a comprimise to get something done.  

The same could be said to a lesser degree about the "opinion making" side of Fox News. (There is a side of Fox News that actually wants to be taken seriously as journalism, but find themselves pigeon-holed by the O'Reilly's and Hannitys of the world.)


----------



## Meathead

No one cares that Fluke is a slut except maybe the guys who wants to boink her. She can pay for her birth control or get her partners to chip in. It's when she asks the rest of us to pay for her desire to have sex without risking pregnancy, that Limbaugh and the rest of America have the right to opine. That's the way it works. Many, including myself, do not feel that her choices should come at our expense.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> No one cares that Fluke is a slut except maybe the guys who wants to boink her. She can pay for her birth control or get her partners to chip in. It's when she asks the rest of us to pay for her desire to have sex without risking pregnancy, that Limbaugh and the rest of America have the right to opine. That's the way it works. Many, including myself, do not feel that her choices should come at our expense.



Again, no one is asking you to pay for her birth control.  

Health Care is part of the package that Georgetown students pay for.  (Or their parents. Or the kids themselves when they indebt themselves for life on student loans.) 

The real question is, after someone has paid for health care or worked for health care, does an employer or a university or whoever is managing the health care plan you are paying/working for have a right to say what kind of treatment you can get because your Invisibile Sky Pixie doesn't approve? 

Common sense says, "No".


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one cares that Fluke is a slut except maybe the guys who wants to boink her. She can pay for her birth control or get her partners to chip in. It's when she asks the rest of us to pay for her desire to have sex without risking pregnancy, that Limbaugh and the rest of America have the right to opine. That's the way it works. Many, including myself, do not feel that her choices should come at our expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no one is asking you to pay for her birth control.
> 
> Health Care is part of the package that Georgetown students pay for.  (Or their parents. Or the kids themselves when they indebt themselves for life on student loans.)
> 
> The real question is, after someone has paid for health care or worked for health care, does an employer or a university or whoever is managing the health care plan you are paying/working for have a right to say what kind of treatment you can get because your Invisibile Sky Pixie doesn't approve?
> 
> Common sense says, "No".
Click to expand...

Common sense dictates that there is no such thing as a free meal. Common sense also tells us that birth control is a product whose producers charge for. She wants this product in much the same way an insurance company is bound to provide medication to those suffering from some sort of medical condition. 

Pay attention now, here common sense tells us everyone else's premiums must be raised to pay for it. A fertile woman who wishes to have sex is not a medial condition, it is a choice and as such is the responsibility of the woman and her partners. Policies where birth control is covered are clearly available with perhaps a slightly higher premium.

My policy does not cover flu shots, so if I wish to have a flu shot I must pay for it, or find another policy with higher premiums that will cover it. There is damn little I can do to avoid getting the flu in functioning day-to-day and perhaps coming in contact with those infected. Fluke, on the other hand has several choices.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Sandy Fluke wanted her twat to get national attention and Rush obliged


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Common sense dictates that there is no such thing as a free meal. Common sense also tells us that birth control is a product whose producers charge for. She wants this product in much the same way an insurance company is bound to provide medication to those suffering from some sort of medical condition.
> 
> Pay attention now, here common sense tells us everyone else's premiums must be raised to pay for it. A fertile woman who wishes to have sex is not a medial condition, it is a choice and as such is the responsibility of the woman and her partners. Policies where birth control is covered are clearly available with perhaps a slightly higher premium.
> 
> My policy does not cover flu shots, so if I wish to have a flu shot I must pay for it, or find another policy with higher premiums that will cover it. There is damn little I can do to avoid getting the flu in functioning day-to-day and perhaps coming in contact with those infected. Fluke, on the other hand has several choices.



This was never an economic issue. The Insurance companies are THRILLED to pay for birth control, guy.   Since birth control costs $300.00 and a live birth costs $10,000, it's a no-brainer.  That's why the insurance industry didn't squeak about this provision of the ACA. So please don't give me the "self-reliance" crap.  

This was about a bunch of religious people trying to impose their superstitions on others. 

Jesus H. Christ, are you fucking stupid or what?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

JoeB131 said:


> This was never an economic issue. The Insurance companies are THRILLED to pay for birth control, guy.   Since birth control costs $300.00 and a live birth costs $10,000, it's a no-brainer.  That's why the insurance industry didn't squeak about this provision of the ACA. So please don't give me the "self-reliance" crap.
> 
> This was about a bunch of religious people trying to impose their superstitions on others.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ, are you fucking stupid or what?



Yeah, we don't want any of that self-reliance crap.  We need to become a country of people who abdicate all of their personal responsibilities to some third party bureaucracy to make all of our decisions for us.  Why that's a recipe for success if I've ever heard one.

Jesus H. Chris, Forrest, are you really that fucking stupid or what??


----------



## PredFan

Liberals HATE it when conservatives use their tactics on them.


----------



## Truthmatters

women have a right to the medications they need without some smuck trying to force their religious views onto a type of medication


----------



## Ernie S.

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was never an economic issue. The Insurance companies are THRILLED to pay for birth control, guy.   Since birth control costs $300.00 and a live birth costs $10,000, it's a no-brainer.  That's why the insurance industry didn't squeak about this provision of the ACA. So please don't give me the "self-reliance" crap.
> 
> This was about a bunch of religious people trying to impose their superstitions on others.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ, are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we don't want any of that self-reliance crap.  We need to become a country of people who abdicate all of their personal responsibilities to some third party bureaucracy to make all of our decisions for us.  Why that's a recipe for success if I've ever heard one.
> 
> Jesus H. Chris, Forrest, are you really that fucking stupid or what??
Click to expand...


It's not, or despite, that he's that stupid. It's that he hates religion that much.
Invisible Sky Pixie? Really, Joe. Are you Cammmpbell's 7 year old son?


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was never an economic issue. The Insurance companies are THRILLED to pay for birth control, guy.   Since birth control costs $300.00 and a live birth costs $10,000, it's a no-brainer.  That's why the insurance industry didn't squeak about this provision of the ACA. So please don't give me the "self-reliance" crap.
> 
> This was about a bunch of religious people trying to impose their superstitions on others.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ, are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we don't want any of that self-reliance crap.  We need to become a country of people who abdicate all of their personal responsibilities to some third party bureaucracy to make all of our decisions for us.  Why that's a recipe for success if I've ever heard one.
> 
> Jesus H. Chris, Forrest, are you really that fucking stupid or what??
Click to expand...


There's a reason people buy insurance. It has nothing to do with not being self-reliant (which while a nice chest-beating GOP slogan, is complete crap in this day and age.)


----------



## rightwinger

Rush is a sacred cow to Conservatives

Whatever hate he spouts must be instantly and vigorously defended

Apology is not an option to conservatives.......it shows weakness


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> Rush is a sacred cow to Conservatives
> 
> Whatever hate he spouts must be instantly and vigorously defended
> 
> Apology is not an option to conservatives.......it shows weakness



Fluke is a cow


----------



## ArmyCowboy

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is a sacred cow to Conservatives
> 
> Whatever hate he spouts must be instantly and vigorously defended
> 
> Apology is not an option to conservatives.......it shows weakness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is a cow
Click to expand...


Evidently, engaging one's brain and behaving like an adult is also not an option.


----------



## Katzndogz

Don't people who need pain killers have a right to have them?   Mayor Bloomberg has imposed his opinion of why people in pain should suffer because he doesn't want drug addicts to get pain killers.   It's pretty much the same argument, and the only sky pixie is Mayor Bloomberg.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ArmyCowboy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush is a sacred cow to Conservatives
> 
> Whatever hate he spouts must be instantly and vigorously defended
> 
> Apology is not an option to conservatives.......it shows weakness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is a cow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidently, engaging one's brain and behaving like an adult is also not an option.
Click to expand...


You can't even imagine how highly I rate your opinion, you of the "Obama: Lord, Savior -- and Daddy!!" Party


----------



## ArmyCowboy

CrusaderFrank said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is a cow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently, engaging one's brain and behaving like an adult is also not an option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even imagine how highly I rate your opinion, you of the "Obama: Lord, Savior -- and Daddy!!" Party
Click to expand...


After such an ignorant post, I suppose an equally ignorant assumption should have been expected.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I said it before, Fluke wanted to make her twat a national issue and Rush helped. Why didn't Biden or Obama make Flukes twat a national issue? Why did they leave it up to Rush?


----------



## ArmyCowboy

CrusaderFrank said:


> I said it before, Fluke wanted to make her twat a national issue and Rush helped. Why didn't Biden or Obama make Flukes twat a national issue? Why did they leave it up to Rush?



Probably because the wanted to win the election while Limbaugh is concerned about making money off of his ignorant listeners.

I doubt too many politicians in the GOP were pleased with Limbaugh's comments.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ArmyCowboy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said it before, Fluke wanted to make her twat a national issue and Rush helped. Why didn't Biden or Obama make Flukes twat a national issue? Why did they leave it up to Rush?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because the wanted to win the election while Limbaugh is concerned about making money off of his ignorant listeners.
> 
> I doubt too many politicians in the GOP were pleased with Limbaugh's comments.
Click to expand...


You and the other Libs listen to Rush way more than I do, he's funny. I like how he puts out these flaming bags of pooh and you Libs fight each other to jump on them.

Rush is a talk show host. A talk show host, he's paid to express his own opinion and share his insights. Progs, being the hive-minded creatures you are have a very hard time understanding that our opinions are different from Rush's.  Yours is a political movement that prides itself on its 100% homogeneous thought, how can you possible understand what it's like to listen to a talk radio host and laugh?


----------



## ArmyCowboy

CrusaderFrank said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said it before, Fluke wanted to make her twat a national issue and Rush helped. Why didn't Biden or Obama make Flukes twat a national issue? Why did they leave it up to Rush?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because the wanted to win the election while Limbaugh is concerned about making money off of his ignorant listeners.
> 
> I doubt too many politicians in the GOP were pleased with Limbaugh's comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the other Libs listen to Rush way more than I do, he's funny. I like how he puts out these flaming bags of pooh and you Libs fight each other to jump on them.
> 
> Rush is a talk show host. A talk show host, he's paid to express his own opinion and share his insights. Progs, being the hive-minded creatures you are have a very hard time understanding that our opinions are different from Rush's.  Yours is a political movement that prides itself on its 100% homogeneous thought, how can you possible understand what it's like to listen to a talk radio host and laugh?
Click to expand...


I don't listen to political talk radio. I find it insular, repetative and intellectually boring.


----------



## edthecynic

rightwinger said:


> Rush is a sacred cow to Conservatives
> 
> Whatever hate he spouts must be instantly and vigorously defended
> 
> *Apology is not an option to conservatives*.......it shows weakness


January 16, 2009
RUSH:*  I don't apologize ever.

July 27,2009
RUSH:* Gods don't apologize.


----------



## Pogo

CrusaderFrank said:


> I said it before,



A frank confession, pun intended.



CrusaderFrank said:


> ... Fluke wanted to make her twat a national issue and Rush helped. Why didn't Biden or Obama make Flukes twat a national issue? Why did they leave it up to Rush?



Ummmm... because Sandra Fluke never said a word about her _own _life in the first place?  Is this a trick question? 

Matter o' fact nobody but Lash Rimjob suggested that she referred to herself.  That tells us more about where you get your misinformation than languid bedside disclaimers do.


----------



## Spoonman

ArmyCowboy said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it right to deny these reasons to patients for the sake of someone elses religious beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, Georgetown University sponsored health insurance provides birth control for faculty and staff, just not students.
Click to expand...


yea, why should a college pay for a students insurance or birth control?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ArmyCowboy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because the wanted to win the election while Limbaugh is concerned about making money off of his ignorant listeners.
> 
> I doubt too many politicians in the GOP were pleased with Limbaugh's comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other Libs listen to Rush way more than I do, he's funny. I like how he puts out these flaming bags of pooh and you Libs fight each other to jump on them.
> 
> Rush is a talk show host. A talk show host, he's paid to express his own opinion and share his insights. Progs, being the hive-minded creatures you are have a very hard time understanding that our opinions are different from Rush's.  Yours is a political movement that prides itself on its 100% homogeneous thought, how can you possible understand what it's like to listen to a talk radio host and laugh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't listen to political talk radio. I find it insular, repetative and intellectually boring.
Click to expand...


The fuck you don't. Why do you care what Rush said or thinks?


----------



## hjmick

Truthmatters said:


> should women that need this treatment for these medical conditions be denied the medications they need because you dont like its sideeffects?



No.

Should the taxpayers foot the bill?


----------



## edthecynic

hjmick said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> should women that need this treatment for these medical conditions be denied the medications they need because you dont like its sideeffects?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Should the taxpayers foot the bill?
Click to expand...

Taxpayers are not footing the bill, that is a GOP scripted lie fed to the Misinformation Voter. 

The STUDENTS are paying for insurance through the school as part of their tuition but the school is not allowing the insurance companies to provide birth control coverage to the students.


----------



## logical4u

MarcATL said:


> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??



First: you have been absolutely silent on how the left and the media treated conservative women: Sarah Palin, Condeleeza Rice, etc.  They were called worse names, and in the case of Sarah Palin, the left put those terrible names on T-shirts and wore them at the convention.

As for Rush: he was mocking Sandra Fluke.  He took "her words" you know how the left does this and says: he actually said those words (after carefully rearranging them), and used them to make the point that birth control = sex.  If you want to explain that a woman needs birth control for any other purpose, I would like to see that explanation.

Was him saying she was a slut nasty?  Yes, it was.
What do you say about a person that wants the taxpayer to pay for unhealthy practices? 
Can you imagine a person coming before congress and demanding the taxpayer, pay for their cigarettes?  alcohol?  supersized meals?

Yet because this was a woman that was touting an issue near and dear to the left, it is suddenly wrong to mock or criticize her behavior? 

I thought you guys were about "diversity" (that would include conservatives)?


----------



## RosieS

No taxpayer was harmed in the production of this issue.

The issue being why does the RCC allow insurance to pay for BC and the office visit for the Rx for employees and not students?

Also, why does the radio pay for insurance that pays for Viagra for Rush for his Dominican Republic golf trip with 3   male golfers and no women? Does he need it to get it up for a golf buddy? Or little Dominican boys?  Or both?

And what does that say about the boys....I mean men.... here who use Rush as such a great role model?

Why does insurance pay for Viagra and not pregnancy prevention? Ugly bastards like Rush talk trash  about young women but need a pill to get erect? Limbaugh ought to dose his sex victims with tranquilizers, that is sorta more humane.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: you have been absolutely silent on how the left and the media treated conservative women: Sarah Palin, Condeleeza Rice, etc.  They were called worse names, and in the case of Sarah Palin, the left put those terrible names on T-shirts and wore them at the convention.
> 
> As for Rush: he was mocking Sandra Fluke.  He took "her words" you know how the left does this and says: he actually said those words (after carefully rearranging them), and used them to make the point that birth control = sex.  If you want to explain that a woman needs birth control for any other purpose, I would like to see that explanation.
> 
> Was him saying she was a slut nasty?  Yes, it was.
> What do you say about a person that wants the taxpayer to pay for unhealthy practices?
> Can you imagine a person coming before congress and demanding the taxpayer, pay for their cigarettes?  alcohol?  supersized meals?
> 
> Yet because this was a woman that was touting an issue near and dear to the left, it is suddenly wrong to mock or criticize her behavior?
> 
> I thought you guys were about "diversity" (that would include conservatives)?
Click to expand...


"Diversity" would include conservatives, yes.  It would not include libel.  That's illegal.

You gave no documentation on Sarah Palin and Condi Rice, but in any case both are public political figures, whereas Sandra Fluke is a student.

I could say "nice try" here but that would be exaggerating.


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Spoonman said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it right to deny these reasons to patients for the sake of someone elses religious beliefs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, Georgetown University sponsored health insurance provides birth control for faculty and staff, just not students.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea, why should a college pay for a students insurance or birth control?
Click to expand...


Try to keep up here.

The college doesn't pay for the student's insurance, the student does. Fluke just wanted birth control included in Georgetown's insurance, the same thing they do for faculty and staff.


----------



## ArmyCowboy

CrusaderFrank said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and the other Libs listen to Rush way more than I do, he's funny. I like how he puts out these flaming bags of pooh and you Libs fight each other to jump on them.
> 
> Rush is a talk show host. A talk show host, he's paid to express his own opinion and share his insights. Progs, being the hive-minded creatures you are have a very hard time understanding that our opinions are different from Rush's.  Yours is a political movement that prides itself on its 100% homogeneous thought, how can you possible understand what it's like to listen to a talk radio host and laugh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't listen to political talk radio. I find it insular, repetative and intellectually boring.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fuck you don't. Why do you care what Rush said or thinks?
Click to expand...


I find the hero worship you guys have for him fascinating.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First: you have been absolutely silent on how the left and the media treated conservative women: Sarah Palin, Condeleeza Rice, etc.  They were called worse names, and in the case of Sarah Palin, the left put those terrible names on T-shirts and wore them at the convention.
> 
> As for Rush: he was mocking Sandra Fluke.  He took "her words" you know how the left does this and says: he actually said those words (after carefully rearranging them), and used them to make the point that birth control = sex.  If you want to explain that a woman needs birth control for any other purpose, I would like to see that explanation.
> 
> Was him saying she was a slut nasty?  Yes, it was.
> What do you say about a person that wants the taxpayer to pay for unhealthy practices?
> Can you imagine a person coming before congress and demanding the taxpayer, pay for their cigarettes?  alcohol?  supersized meals?
> 
> Yet because this was a woman that was touting an issue near and dear to the left, it is suddenly wrong to mock or criticize her behavior?
> 
> I thought you guys were about "diversity" (that would include conservatives)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Diversity" would include conservatives, yes.  It would not include libel.  That's illegal.
> 
> You gave no documentation on Sarah Palin and Condi Rice, but in any case both are public political figures, whereas Sandra Fluke is a student.
> 
> I could say "nice try" here but that would be exaggerating.
Click to expand...


Sandra Fluke made herself into a "public figure" by appearing in front of congress to beg for the taxpayer to pay for prevention of consequences of having sex.

Again, he was making fun (it is ok when Letterman says stuff about Palin's daughters).  If you are unaware of the left slamming conservative women you are intellectually dishonest.  Google it.  

BTW, Rush was "linguistically" correct if Sandra Fluke has had multiple sex partners in her life.  I know it is not "politically correct" in the "diverse" culture of corruption, but, do not worry, when Obama care is in full control of your health care, that type of behavior will be taxed (because it causes health problems).  Along with many other destructive behaviors, the health Czar will be telling you who you can partner with, what you can eat, what you can drink (and how much), how often you should exercise (and since the taxpayer is paying for it, they will have gov't reps verify you are doing things their way, since it "could save one life").  Go ahead, embrace corruption, and make a nation of wimps, our enemies are gathering, and when war comes, you will be the first to step up to fight, yes?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ArmyCowboy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't listen to political talk radio. I find it insular, repetative and intellectually boring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck you don't. Why do you care what Rush said or thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you guys have for him fascinating.
Click to expand...


You keep projecting your Obama Messiah fantasies onto the rest of us


----------



## CrusaderFrank

ArmyCowboy said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, Georgetown University sponsored health insurance provides birth control for faculty and staff, just not students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea, why should a college pay for a students insurance or birth control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to keep up here.
> 
> The college doesn't pay for the student's insurance, the student does. Fluke just wanted birth control included in Georgetown's insurance, the same thing they do for faculty and staff.
Click to expand...


Why? Because a box of Trojans is so prohibitively expensive that you need insurance to pay for it?


----------



## ArmyCowboy

CrusaderFrank said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck you don't. Why do you care what Rush said or thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you guys have for him fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep projecting your Obama Messiah fantasies onto the rest of us
Click to expand...


Funny, when given the chance to vote for Obama, I voted for Gary Johnson.

Now what were saying about projections there, smart one?


----------



## ArmyCowboy

CrusaderFrank said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea, why should a college pay for a students insurance or birth control?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to keep up here.
> 
> The college doesn't pay for the student's insurance, the student does. Fluke just wanted birth control included in Georgetown's insurance, the same thing they do for faculty and staff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Because a box of Trojans is so prohibitively expensive that you need insurance to pay for it?
Click to expand...


If you rely exclusively on condoms for birth control, you're not very smart.


----------



## Spoonman

ArmyCowboy said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't listen to political talk radio. I find it insular, repetative and intellectually boring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck you don't. Why do you care what Rush said or thinks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you guys have for him fascinating.
Click to expand...


I find the hero worship you have for yourself fascinating


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Spoonman said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck you don't. Why do you care what Rush said or thinks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you guys have for him fascinating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you have for yourself fascinating
Click to expand...


I suppose you felt you must reply in order to try and save face, but this is really the best retort you could make?

Disappointing.


----------



## Spoonman

ArmyCowboy said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you guys have for him fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you have for yourself fascinating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose you felt you must reply in order to try and save face, but this is really the best retort you could make?
> 
> Disappointing.
Click to expand...

consider the value of the retort worthy of the recipient of the retort


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Spoonman said:


> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the hero worship you have for yourself fascinating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you felt you must reply in order to try and save face, but this is really the best retort you could make?
> 
> Disappointing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> consider the value of the retort worthy of the recipient of the retort
Click to expand...


I've found that to be a version of the standard statement someone makes when they've posted something incredibly stupid and are trying to back peddle.


----------



## Spoonman

ArmyCowboy said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArmyCowboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you felt you must reply in order to try and save face, but this is really the best retort you could make?
> 
> Disappointing.
> 
> 
> 
> consider the value of the retort worthy of the recipient of the retort
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've found that to be a version of the standard statement someone makes when they've posted something incredibly stupid and are trying to back peddle.
Click to expand...


like your last two posts?  got it


----------



## Rozman

MarcATL said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control is a hot button issue, *and Sandra Fluke distorted her story to fit the democratic agenda.* While I think Rush is an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand how birth control works, and a pig, for calling her a slut, I can also understand why she didnt garner much sympathy from the right.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reminding me that he called her slut on the radio for about 4 days straight.
> 
> Now, how did she "distort her story to fit the Democratic agenda?" I don't quite get that one. Break it down for me if you can.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Edit: Also, seems like you're giving support to Rush and condoning his behavior. Phrases like "I can see why..." tends to signify support.
Click to expand...



Seems like Bill Maher can say whatever the fuck he feels like saying and you guys laugh your asses off....

I told you before...Rush's pimp hand is strong.


----------



## JoeB131

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This was never an economic issue. The Insurance companies are THRILLED to pay for birth control, guy.   Since birth control costs $300.00 and a live birth costs $10,000, it's a no-brainer.  That's why the insurance industry didn't squeak about this provision of the ACA. So please don't give me the "self-reliance" crap.
> 
> This was about a bunch of religious people trying to impose their superstitions on others.
> 
> Jesus H. Christ, are you fucking stupid or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, we don't want any of that self-reliance crap.  We need to become a country of people who abdicate all of their personal responsibilities to some third party bureaucracy to make all of our decisions for us.  Why that's a recipe for success if I've ever heard one.
> 
> Jesus H. Chris, Forrest, are you really that fucking stupid or what??
Click to expand...


It isn't an issue of self-reliance guy.  

The only people making medical decisions should be the patient and her doctor. PERIOD.  Not some guy in a dress who decides that because he decided to give up sex for life because a Invisible Sky Pixie told him to, everyone else needs to, too. 

Point is, Fluke paid for health insurance as part of her tuition. She should get whatever sensible health care she wants, not just those some guy who believes in a magic sky man thinks she should have.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> [
> 
> It's not, or despite, that he's that stupid. It's that he hates religion that much.
> Invisible Sky Pixie? Really, Joe. Are you Cammmpbell's 7 year old son?



If you substitute the words "Invisible Sky Pixie" for "God" in any sentence, the absurdity of it becomes apparent.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> First: you have been absolutely silent on how the left and the media treated conservative women: Sarah Palin, Condeleeza Rice, etc.  They were called worse names, and in the case of Sarah Palin, the left put those terrible names on T-shirts and wore them at the convention.
> 
> As for Rush: he was mocking Sandra Fluke.  He took "her words" you know how the left does this and says: he actually said those words (after carefully rearranging them), and used them to make the point that birth control = sex.  If you want to explain that a woman needs birth control for any other purpose, I would like to see that explanation.
> 
> Was him saying she was a slut nasty?  Yes, it was.
> What do you say about a person that wants the taxpayer to pay for unhealthy practices?
> Can you imagine a person coming before congress and demanding the taxpayer, pay for their cigarettes?  alcohol?  supersized meals?
> 
> Yet because this was a woman that was touting an issue near and dear to the left, it is suddenly wrong to mock or criticize her behavior?
> 
> I thought you guys were about "diversity" (that would include conservatives)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Diversity" would include conservatives, yes.  It would not include libel.  That's illegal.
> 
> You gave no documentation on Sarah Palin and Condi Rice, but in any case both are public political figures, whereas Sandra Fluke is a student.
> 
> I could say "nice try" here but that would be exaggerating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke made herself into a "public figure" by appearing in front of congress to beg for the taxpayer to pay for prevention of consequences of having sex.
> 
> Again, he was making fun (it is ok when Letterman says stuff about Palin's daughters).  If you are unaware of the left slamming conservative women you are intellectually dishonest.  Google it.
> 
> BTW, Rush was "linguistically" correct if Sandra Fluke has had multiple sex partners in her life.  I know it is not "politically correct" in the "diverse" culture of corruption, but, do not worry, when Obama care is in full control of your health care, that type of behavior will be taxed (because it causes health problems).  Along with many other destructive behaviors, the health Czar will be telling you who you can partner with, what you can eat, what you can drink (and how much), how often you should exercise (and since the taxpayer is paying for it, they will have gov't reps verify you are doing things their way, since it "could save one life").  Go ahead, embrace corruption, and make a nation of wimps, our enemies are gathering, and when war comes, you will be the first to step up to fight, yes?
Click to expand...


Pathetically wrong on all counts.
A citizen testifying before a Congressional committee is not a "public figure".  A citizen running for office or holding a cabinet position is.  You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own language.

Second, you're a rhetorical pissant if you expect other people to do your research for you.  It's not my point, so I don't have to Google jack shit.  *You *do.  When _you _make a point, _you _provide the examples -- not me.  Get off your lazy ass and do your homework and then we'll talk.  And when you do, if you do, you'll still have a red herring, since the topic is Lash Rimjob, not  "the left and the media" --- nor is that conglomeration a legitimate comparator. 

On the one example you did reference (sort of), if you're seriously proposing to compare a standup comic joke to a political talk show bloviator, then you're in more trouble than you think.

Third, you don't have the vaguest idea of Sandra Fluke's life history, so that entire paragraph is a non sequitur.  You don't get to just make up your own fantasies.  See #2.  Again.

You guys that come in here unprepared and then think you can just wing it kill me.


----------



## RosieS

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Diversity" would include conservatives, yes.  It would not include libel.  That's illegal.
> 
> You gave no documentation on Sarah Palin and Condi Rice, but in any case both are public political figures, whereas Sandra Fluke is a student.
> 
> I could say "nice try" here but that would be exaggerating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke made herself into a "public figure" by appearing in front of congress to beg for the taxpayer to pay for prevention of consequences of having sex.
> 
> Again, he was making fun (it is ok when Letterman says stuff about Palin's daughters).  If you are unaware of the left slamming conservative women you are intellectually dishonest.  Google it.
> 
> BTW, Rush was "linguistically" correct if Sandra Fluke has had multiple sex partners in her life.  I know it is not "politically correct" in the "diverse" culture of corruption, but, do not worry, when Obama care is in full control of your health care, that type of behavior will be taxed (because it causes health problems).  Along with many other destructive behaviors, the health Czar will be telling you who you can partner with, what you can eat, what you can drink (and how much), how often you should exercise (and since the taxpayer is paying for it, they will have gov't reps verify you are doing things their way, since it "could save one life").  Go ahead, embrace corruption, and make a nation of wimps, our enemies are gathering, and when war comes, you will be the first to step up to fight, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetically wrong on all counts.
> A citizen testifying before a Congressional committee is not a "public figure".  A citizen running for office or holding a cabinet position is.  You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own language.
> 
> Second, you're a rhetorical pissant if you expect other people to do your research for you.  It's not my point, so I don't have to Google jack shit.  *You *do.  When _you _make a point, _you _provide the examples -- not me.  Get off your lazy ass and do your homework and then we'll talk.  And when you do, if you do, you'll still have a red herring, since the topic is Lash Rimjob, not  "the left and the media" --- nor is that conglomeration a legitimate comparator.
> 
> On the one example you did reference (sort of), if you're seriously proposing to compare a standup comic joke to a political talk show bloviator, then you're in more trouble than you think.
> 
> Third, you don't have the vaguest idea of Sandra Fluke's life history, so that entire paragraph is a non sequitur.  You don't get to just make up your own fantasies.  See #2.  Again.
> 
> You guys that come in here unprepared and then think you can just wing it kill me.
Click to expand...


Oh, SNAP!  Reply perfection.

Pick your ass up, Logical. You aren't supposed to drop it when it is handed to you.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Stephanie

Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that

she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings

she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control

now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that
> 
> she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings
> 
> she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control
> 
> now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL



I suspect your form of Birth Control is your personality.  

That and guys probably run for the hills when they hear you rant about Obama for six hours straight... 

Incidently, she wasn't talking about HER birth control. She was talking about how women with valid medical conditions have to fight with the insurance provider because men in dresses won't provide health care promised because the Magic Sky Man said so.


----------



## Meathead

Stephanie said:


> Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that
> 
> she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings
> 
> she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control
> 
> now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL


Yup, spot on! Old JoeB wouldn't understand. He thinks whiny is a natural state.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that
> 
> she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings
> 
> she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control
> 
> now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect your form of Birth Control is your personality.
> 
> That and guys probably run for the hills when they hear you rant about Obama for six hours straight...
> 
> Incidently, she wasn't talking about HER birth control. She was talking about how women with valid medical conditions have to fight with the insurance provider because men in dresses won't provide health care promised because the Magic Sky Man said so.
Click to expand...


there you go, suspecting again. lol


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that
> 
> she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings
> 
> she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control
> 
> now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, spot on! Old JoeB wouldn't understand. He thinks whiny is a natural state.
Click to expand...


I understood perfectly. 

She paid for health care as part of her tuition.  She already paid for this.  

Keep your sky pixie and your religious stupidity in your churches.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that
> 
> she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings
> 
> she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control
> 
> now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, spot on! Old JoeB wouldn't understand. He thinks whiny is a natural state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understood perfectly.
> 
> She paid for health care as part of her tuition.  She already paid for this.
> 
> Keep your sky pixie and your religious stupidity in your churches.
Click to expand...


you people crack me up, you can make threads here about a Vice President liking black meat, but boy touch one of your human shields with the truth...


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, spot on! Old JoeB wouldn't understand. He thinks whiny is a natural state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understood perfectly.
> 
> She paid for health care as part of her tuition.  She already paid for this.
> 
> Keep your sky pixie and your religious stupidity in your churches.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you people crack me up, you can make threads here about a Vice President liking black meat, but boy touch one of your human shields with the truth...
Click to expand...


What truth? 

You guys keep claiming that Fluke was talking about her own birth control when she wasn't.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understood perfectly.
> 
> She paid for health care as part of her tuition.  She already paid for this.
> 
> Keep your sky pixie and your religious stupidity in your churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you people crack me up, you can make threads here about a Vice President liking black meat, but boy touch one of your human shields with the truth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What truth?
> 
> You guys keep claiming that Fluke was talking about her own birth control when she wasn't.
Click to expand...


oh boy


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Stephanie said:


> Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that
> 
> she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings
> 
> she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control
> 
> now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL



Glad to see the junior high section is piping in and giving their opinion.

Guess some folks grow old, but they never grow up.


----------



## editec

> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?



Because they're pandering to low people.


----------



## koshergrl

Everyone knows that lesbians and welfare recipients are the new elite these days.

Republicans didn't *side*with Rush. Rush voiced what we believe...that the church should not be forced to fund birth control for the masses, if that goes against it's creed.

In fact, it's not the job of anyone to fund birth control, except for those who want it. Buy your own pills.


----------



## Pogo

Stephanie said:


> Fluke wasn't a slut, she's too ugly for that
> 
> she's more like a  whore...she lets politicians pimp her out for her  ranting and ravings
> 
> she was a real JOKE..some poor little rich (30 year old) college student whining in front of the country about having to pay for here own birth control
> 
> now since I'm a woman I can make these judgments..LOL



So... women get to make stuff up?   I was not aware of that.  No wonder some guys get the operation.

There it is guys-- you want to contrive your own facts, you know what you gotta do...


----------



## ArmyCowboy

koshergrl said:


> Everyone knows that lesbians and welfare recipients are the new elite these days.
> 
> Republicans didn't *side*with Rush. Rush voiced what we believe...that the church should not be forced to fund birth control for the masses, if that goes against it's creed.
> 
> In fact, it's not the job of anyone to fund birth control, except for those who want it. Buy your own pills.



When a post begins with the words, "Everyone knows'", you can count on the fact that what follows is complete and utter tripe.


----------



## koshergrl

Wow, you've been watching body language/speech evaluations!

Good on ya! Way to stretch your horizons!

Do you have a degree in PBS as well?


----------



## Pogo

ArmyCowboy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that lesbians and welfare recipients are the new elite these days.
> 
> Republicans didn't *side*with Rush. Rush voiced what we believe...that the church should not be forced to fund birth control for the masses, if that goes against it's creed.
> 
> In fact, it's not the job of anyone to fund birth control, except for those who want it. Buy your own pills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a post begins with the words, "Everyone knows'", you can count on the fact that what follows is complete and utter tripe.
Click to expand...


Yup, the old argumentum ad populum fallacy.  A classic desperation move when you can't think of a point.  Here it's combined with ad hominem -- two fallacies for the price of one.   Such a deal.

Good to know that regardless how much the costs of living go up, fallacies are still cheap.


----------



## longknife

I can't believe you're still discussing this phoney broad. She was a paid Democrat blabbermouth who admitted she couldn't keep her panties on.

A slut?

A whore? - Uh, whores usually are honest about who and what they are and why they do it.

Can't we just forget about it so she can get back in bed with her latest?


----------



## Pogo

longknife said:


> I can't believe you're still discussing this phoney broad. She was a paid Democrat blabbermouth who admitted she couldn't keep her panties on.
> 
> A slut?
> 
> A whore? - Uh, whores usually are honest about who and what they are and why they do it.
> 
> Can't we just forget about it so she can get back in bed with her latest?



And when exactly did she "admit" that?
In fact when did Fluke even refer to herself at all?  Quote?  Link?

Swallowed the Rash Limpbag mythology hook line and sinker, huh?

PS ..... "broad"?


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Everyone knows that lesbians and welfare recipients are the new elite these days.
> 
> Republicans didn't *side*with Rush. Rush voiced what we believe...that the church should not be forced to fund birth control for the masses, if that goes against it's creed.
> 
> In fact, it's not the job of anyone to fund birth control, except for those who want it. Buy your own pills.



If the Church doesn't want to fund health care for its employees, it shouldn't be involved in businesses that have nothing to do with religion.  

They don't run a Law School and charge Sandra Fluke $30,000 because they are furthering their faith. They do it because there's money to be made.  Okay, fair enough.  BUt when you say, "Hey, part of that deal is your health care while you are here", it better damned well include family planning.


----------



## Dragonlady

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Sandra Fluke wants other people to pay for her birth control pills so she can go out and fuck without consequences.  Hence, she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.  Plain and simple.  It don't care who was the first to make the accusation.  It's a fact.  Take off your partisan glasses for two minutes and try thinking with that pea brain of yours and don't hurt yourself in the process.



It is not a fact.  That you continue to say it reveals the extent of your dependence on Rush Limbaugh for political ideas.  You know nothing about this woman and her life and yet you seek to insult and degrade her.  Why is that.  Why does the right have such a big problem with women having sex?  That you would call her a slut says a whole lot more about you than it does her.  It reveals your misogamy as well as your ignorance.  Well played.

Sandra Fluke wants her health insurance company to pay for her birth control.  Her premiums are paying for her health insurance, and most health insurance plans pay for birth control without question.  It is only plans for the students of Catholic universities that exclude birth control.

She has friends who use birth control pills to prevent cysts and those women would like their insurance to pay for that medication as well.  Even where a plan does pay for BC pills where they are used for medical reasons other than contraception, women have to fight to have them covered as insurance companies frequently refuse their legitimate claims.


----------



## Pogo

Dragonlady said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke wants other people to pay for her birth control pills so she can go out and fuck without consequences.  Hence, she wants the government to pay for her to have sex.  Plain and simple.  It don't care who was the first to make the accusation.  It's a fact.  Take off your partisan glasses for two minutes and try thinking with that pea brain of yours and don't hurt yourself in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a fact.  That you continue to say it reveals the extent of your dependence on Rush Limbaugh for political ideas.  You know nothing about this woman and her life and yet you seek to insult and degrade her.  Why is that.  Why does the right have such a big problem with women having sex?  That you would call her a slut says a whole lot more about you than it does her.  It reveals your misogamy as well as your ignorance.  Well played.
Click to expand...


  Well spake.

Meanwhile we're _still waiting_ for a quote, a link, a anything on this:


longknife said:


> She was a paid Democrat blabbermouth who admitted she couldn't keep her panties on.



_
Still waiting_... 

It's one thing to be duped by a manipulator bloviator into believing a bunch of made-up crap.  It's quite a denser thing to be shown that it is made-up crap and then continue to hold on to what one knows is crap.  I guess to some, that's what "conservative" means.


----------



## bripat9643

JoeB131 said:


> If the Church doesn't want to fund health care for its employees, it shouldn't be involved in businesses that have nothing to do with religion.



Where does the Constitution say that, asshole?



JoeB131 said:


> They don't run a Law School and charge Sandra Fluke $30,000 because they are furthering their faith. They do it because there's money to be made.  Okay, fair enough.  BUt when you say, "Hey, part of that deal is your health care while you are here", it better damned well include family planning.



How about if the government butts out of the private affairs of Americans?


----------



## Dragonlady

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't run a Law School and charge Sandra Fluke $30,000 because they are furthering their faith. They do it because there's money to be made.  Okay, fair enough.  BUt when you say, "Hey, part of that deal is your health care while you are here", it better damned well include family planning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if the government butts out of the private affairs of Americans?
Click to expand...


This is not a private affair.  This is a public institution, that is members of the public are invited to attend school there.  If you issue an open invitation to the public to attend your school, you had better offer a standard form of health insurance, not one which caters to your prejudices and religious  beliefs.  But the Constitution is clear, in matters of the public interest, relgious beliefs are not relevant.

It's the not the institution's belief's that matter, but rather the consumers' in matters pertaining to their health and welfare.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't run a Law School and charge Sandra Fluke $30,000 because they are furthering their faith. They do it because there's money to be made.  Okay, fair enough.  BUt when you say, "Hey, part of that deal is your health care while you are here", it better damned well include family planning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if the government butts out of the private affairs of Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a private affair.  This is a public institution, that is members of the public are invited to attend school there.  If you issue an open invitation to the public to attend your school, you had better offer a standard form of health insurance, not one which caters to your prejudices and religious  beliefs.  But the Constitution is clear, in matters of the public interest, relgious beliefs are not relevant.
> 
> It's the not the institution's belief's that matter, but rather the consumers' in matters pertaining to their health and welfare.
Click to expand...


they had BETTER? who are you to say what people BETTER do? you don't like what they offer DON'T go there..or be like the idiot FLUKE and try to impose her views on EVERYONE


----------



## JoeB131

bripat9643 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Church doesn't want to fund health care for its employees, it shouldn't be involved in businesses that have nothing to do with religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't run a Law School and charge Sandra Fluke $30,000 because they are furthering their faith. They do it because there's money to be made.  Okay, fair enough.  BUt when you say, "Hey, part of that deal is your health care while you are here", it better damned well include family planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if the government butts out of the private affairs of Americans?
Click to expand...


How about if the Church butts out of the private affairs of their employees?  

I honestly wish the Catholic Church showed as much concern about priests who molesting altar boys that they do about whether their employees are using the pill or not.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Church doesn't want to fund health care for its employees, it shouldn't be involved in businesses that have nothing to do with religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't run a Law School and charge Sandra Fluke $30,000 because they are furthering their faith. They do it because there's money to be made.  Okay, fair enough.  BUt when you say, "Hey, part of that deal is your health care while you are here", it better damned well include family planning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if the government butts out of the private affairs of Americans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about if the Church butts out of the private affairs of their employees?
> 
> I honestly wish the Catholic Church showed as much concern about priests who molesting altar boys that they do about whether their employees are using the pill or not.
Click to expand...


you don't like what the church is about, you people butt out and stop trying to impose your views and WANTS on others..but that is the liberal way..watch when people try to curb abortion..ALL HELL breaks loose


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> you don't like what the church is about, you people butt out and stop trying to impose your views and WANTS on others..but that is the liberal way..watch when people try to curb abortion..ALL HELL breaks loose



You have it backwards.  It's the Catholic Church and people like you who are trying to impose your beliefs on others.  If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it, but don't try to prevent others from using it - that's the part about imposing your beliefs on others.

When people try to curb abortions, they are telling tell others that what they are doing is wrong.  Again, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but telling others they can't have one is imposing your beliefs on others.

Isn't that what you said was wrong?  Imposing your beliefs on others?  You've admitted you're wrong so stop doing it.


----------



## rightwinger

Republicans never pass up an opportunity to call a woman a slut


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that, asshole?
> 
> How about if the government butts out of the private affairs of Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if the Church butts out of the private affairs of their employees?
> 
> I honestly wish the Catholic Church showed as much concern about priests who molesting altar boys that they do about whether their employees are using the pill or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't like what the church is about, you people butt out and stop trying to impose your views and WANTS on others..but that is the liberal way..watch when people try to curb abortion..ALL HELL breaks loose
Click to expand...


Georgetown Law School is not a "church". 

It's a business.  

It's a public institution. 

Therefore, the church has no standing to challenge the law. 

And the reason we get upset when you try to curb abortion is because women get them anyway, and they end up dying because the people performing them don't know what they are doing.


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> Republicans never pass up an opportunity to call a woman a slut



oh well, Democrats never pass up the opportunity to call women, cxxts


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Georgetown Law School is not a "church".
> 
> It's a business.
> 
> It's a public institution.
> 
> Therefore, the church has no standing to challenge the law.
> 
> And the reason we get upset when you try to curb abortion is because women get them anyway, and they end up dying because the people performing them don't know what they are doing.


You shouldn't post about things you know nothing about, so you should probably not post at all. 

The first line in Wiki's entry:

*Georgetown University is a private research university in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1789, it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.* 

Georgetown University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't like what the church is about, you people butt out and stop trying to impose your views and WANTS on others..but that is the liberal way..watch when people try to curb abortion..ALL HELL breaks loose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.  It's the Catholic Church and people like you who are trying to impose your beliefs on others.  If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it, but don't try to prevent others from using it - that's the part about imposing your beliefs on others.
> 
> When people try to curb abortions, they are telling tell others that what they are doing is wrong.  Again, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but telling others they can't have one is imposing your beliefs on others.
> 
> Isn't that what you said was wrong?  Imposing your beliefs on others?  You've admitted you're wrong so stop doing it.
Click to expand...


wrong, it is YOU who is trying to impose by saying they HAD BETTER.. here's how it works, you don't LIKE what they have to offer, DON'T go there
and another clue for you Canadian, I can criticize anyone I want, man or women..you don't get to tell me I can't..but I won't be as shallow as you


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgetown Law School is not a "church".
> 
> It's a business.
> 
> It's a public institution.
> 
> Therefore, the church has no standing to challenge the law.
> 
> And the reason we get upset when you try to curb abortion is because women get them anyway, and they end up dying because the people performing them don't know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't post about things you know nothing about, so you should probably not post at all.
> 
> The first line in Wiki's entry:
> 
> *Georgetown University is a private research university in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1789, it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.*
> 
> Georgetown University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Meaningless to my point, but you aren't very bright, are you?  

Fact is, they get public funds. They take government grants and research projects. They are a public accommedation and they don't have the option of ignoring laws they don't like. 

Sorry... you lose- again.  

Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgetown Law School is not a "church".
> 
> It's a business.
> 
> It's a public institution.
> 
> Therefore, the church has no standing to challenge the law.
> 
> And the reason we get upset when you try to curb abortion is because women get them anyway, and they end up dying because the people performing them don't know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't post about things you know nothing about, so you should probably not post at all.
> 
> The first line in Wiki's entry:
> 
> *Georgetown University is a private research university in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1789, it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.*
> 
> Georgetown University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless to my point, but you aren't very bright, are you?
> 
> Fact is, they get public funds. They take government grants and research projects. They are a public accommedation and they don't have the option of ignoring laws they don't like.
> 
> Sorry... you lose- again.
> 
> Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?
Click to expand...


If that is the facts, they get public funds, so does Planned Parenthood, so we should get to tell them, NO ABORTIONS


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't post about things you know nothing about, so you should probably not post at all.
> 
> The first line in Wiki's entry:
> 
> *Georgetown University is a private research university in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1789, it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.*
> 
> Georgetown University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaningless to my point, but you aren't very bright, are you?
> 
> Fact is, they get public funds. They take government grants and research projects. They are a public accommedation and they don't have the option of ignoring laws they don't like.
> 
> Sorry... you lose- again.
> 
> Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is the facts, they get public funds, so does Planned Parenthood, so we should get to tell them, NO ABORTIONS
Click to expand...


Or have all the abortions you want, because abortion is good for the country.  

Seriously, you guys don't want to take care of the kids who are out there now, you want to throw another million into the mix?


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgetown Law School is not a "church".
> 
> It's a business.
> 
> It's a public institution.
> 
> Therefore, the church has no standing to challenge the law.
> 
> And the reason we get upset when you try to curb abortion is because women get them anyway, and they end up dying because the people performing them don't know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't post about things you know nothing about, so you should probably not post at all.
> 
> The first line in Wiki's entry:
> 
> *Georgetown University is a private research university in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1789, it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.*
> 
> Georgetown University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless to my point, but you aren't very bright, are you?
> 
> Fact is, they get public funds. They take government grants and research projects. They are a public accommedation and they don't have the option of ignoring laws they don't like.
> 
> Sorry... you lose- again.
> 
> Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?
Click to expand...

Trying to make a point on a false premise means you had no point to begin with.  If you're worried about choir boys, I suggest you address Cardinals or the Pope. I have no idea what that has to do with Fluke's sex life since I haven't heard of her doing choir boys. If she has, then she is more a slut than some make her out to be.

JoeB, you are a whiny ignoramus. Living in a shit hole and not being able to keep a job is no excuse for that.


----------



## JoeB131

Meathead said:


> [Trying to make a point on a false premise means you had no point to begin with.  If you're worried about choir boys, I suggest you address Cardinals or the Pope. I have no idea what that has to do with Fluke's sex life since I haven't heard of her doing choir boys. If she has, then she is more a slut than some make her out to be.
> 
> JoeB, you are a whiny ignoramus. Living in a shit hole and not being able to keep a job is no excuse for that.



I can always tell when the person I am arguing with is losing, when he has to bring up Chicago or some other wrong guess about my life.  

Sorry, guy, the problem is, the Catholic Church ran an organized ring to hide pedophile priests for decades, paying off victims for their silence and moving these priests to other parishes.  Even the Pope was involved.   

Their ability to be a moral judge on anything is bullshit. 

That said, we have a sensible law. Family planning treatment should be between the woman and her doctor. Period. Not the government, not employers, not insurance companies and not churches.  

And if you aren't going to do the sensible thing of making health care a public service, then the least you should do is make sure that if it is compensation, it's fair compensation.


----------



## ArmyCowboy

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the Constitution say that, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> How about if the government butts out of the private affairs of Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about if the Church butts out of the private affairs of their employees?
> 
> I honestly wish the Catholic Church showed as much concern about priests who molesting altar boys that they do about whether their employees are using the pill or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't like what the church is about, you people butt out and stop trying to impose your views and WANTS on others..but that is the liberal way..watch when people try to curb abortion..ALL HELL breaks loose
Click to expand...


Georgetown provides birth control for staff and faculty, smart one.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Diversity" would include conservatives, yes.  It would not include libel.  That's illegal.
> 
> You gave no documentation on Sarah Palin and Condi Rice, but in any case both are public political figures, whereas Sandra Fluke is a student.
> 
> I could say "nice try" here but that would be exaggerating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke made herself into a "public figure" by appearing in front of congress to beg for the taxpayer to pay for prevention of consequences of having sex.
> 
> Again, he was making fun (it is ok when Letterman says stuff about Palin's daughters).  If you are unaware of the left slamming conservative women you are intellectually dishonest.  Google it.
> 
> BTW, Rush was "linguistically" correct if Sandra Fluke has had multiple sex partners in her life.  I know it is not "politically correct" in the "diverse" culture of corruption, but, do not worry, when Obama care is in full control of your health care, that type of behavior will be taxed (because it causes health problems).  Along with many other destructive behaviors, the health Czar will be telling you who you can partner with, what you can eat, what you can drink (and how much), how often you should exercise (and since the taxpayer is paying for it, they will have gov't reps verify you are doing things their way, since it "could save one life").  Go ahead, embrace corruption, and make a nation of wimps, our enemies are gathering, and when war comes, you will be the first to step up to fight, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetically wrong on all counts.
> A citizen testifying before a Congressional committee is not a "public figure".  A citizen running for office or holding a cabinet position is.  You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own language.
> 
> Second, you're a rhetorical pissant if you expect other people to do your research for you.  It's not my point, so I don't have to Google jack shit.  *You *do.  When _you _make a point, _you _provide the examples -- not me.  Get off your lazy ass and do your homework and then we'll talk.  And when you do, if you do, you'll still have a red herring, since the topic is Lash Rimjob, not  "the left and the media" --- nor is that conglomeration a legitimate comparator.
> 
> On the one example you did reference (sort of), if you're seriously proposing to compare a standup comic joke to a political talk show bloviator, then you're in more trouble than you think.
> 
> Third, you don't have the vaguest idea of Sandra Fluke's life history, so that entire paragraph is a non sequitur.  You don't get to just make up your own fantasies.  See #2.  Again.
> 
> You guys that come in here unprepared and then think you can just wing it kill me.
Click to expand...


What other "citizen" did the President call after "testimony"?  If he is calling her, she is in the political limelight, just sayin'.....

If you expect me to list the malice that the left/dems use on conservative women, it is because you want to waste my time.  Not because you are really interested, you are being intellectully dishonest or are in a state of "chosen" ignorance.

David Letterman, and Rush Limbaugh are entertainers.  If you want to apply different rules, you are bigotted, and not interested in "diversity".

Sandra Fluke is the person that "implied" she needs the US taxpayer to fund her sex life.  She wanted the entire nation to focus on her sexual habits.  Rush mocked her for it.  You were offended, ahhhh.


----------



## logical4u

RosieS said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke made herself into a "public figure" by appearing in front of congress to beg for the taxpayer to pay for prevention of consequences of having sex.
> 
> Again, he was making fun (it is ok when Letterman says stuff about Palin's daughters).  If you are unaware of the left slamming conservative women you are intellectually dishonest.  Google it.
> 
> BTW, Rush was "linguistically" correct if Sandra Fluke has had multiple sex partners in her life.  I know it is not "politically correct" in the "diverse" culture of corruption, but, do not worry, when Obama care is in full control of your health care, that type of behavior will be taxed (because it causes health problems).  Along with many other destructive behaviors, the health Czar will be telling you who you can partner with, what you can eat, what you can drink (and how much), how often you should exercise (and since the taxpayer is paying for it, they will have gov't reps verify you are doing things their way, since it "could save one life").  Go ahead, embrace corruption, and make a nation of wimps, our enemies are gathering, and when war comes, you will be the first to step up to fight, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetically wrong on all counts.
> A citizen testifying before a Congressional committee is not a "public figure".  A citizen running for office or holding a cabinet position is.  You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own language.
> 
> Second, you're a rhetorical pissant if you expect other people to do your research for you.  It's not my point, so I don't have to Google jack shit.  *You *do.  When _you _make a point, _you _provide the examples -- not me.  Get off your lazy ass and do your homework and then we'll talk.  And when you do, if you do, you'll still have a red herring, since the topic is Lash Rimjob, not  "the left and the media" --- nor is that conglomeration a legitimate comparator.
> 
> On the one example you did reference (sort of), if you're seriously proposing to compare a standup comic joke to a political talk show bloviator, then you're in more trouble than you think.
> 
> Third, you don't have the vaguest idea of Sandra Fluke's life history, so that entire paragraph is a non sequitur.  You don't get to just make up your own fantasies.  See #2.  Again.
> 
> You guys that come in here unprepared and then think you can just wing it kill me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, SNAP!  Reply perfection.
> 
> Pick your ass up, Logical. You aren't supposed to drop it when it is handed to you.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Another biggoted and intolerant liberal?


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't like what the church is about, you people butt out and stop trying to impose your views and WANTS on others..but that is the liberal way..watch when people try to curb abortion..ALL HELL breaks loose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.  It's the Catholic Church and people like you who are trying to impose your beliefs on others.  If you don't believe in birth control, don't use it, but don't try to prevent others from using it - that's the part about imposing your beliefs on others.
> 
> When people try to curb abortions, they are telling tell others that what they are doing is wrong.  Again, if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one, but telling others they can't have one is imposing your beliefs on others.
> 
> Isn't that what you said was wrong?  Imposing your beliefs on others?  You've admitted you're wrong so stop doing it.
Click to expand...


The church (Roman Catholic or others) are not forcing anyone to NOT use birth control (the Catholic Church actually teaches birth control methods that are natural, inexpensive, and have no harmful, cancer causing side effects, but you do have to act responsibly).  The church and a huge percentage of the population, simply, DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR OTHERS SEXUAL EXPERIENCES.  Is that hard for you to understand?  Is it difficult?

You tell me that telling you what to do is "wrong".  Does that make you "wrong" for telling me that I am "wrong"?  Isn't that "forcing" your beliefs onto me?  This is the USA, where freedom of speech is a right granted to us from our "Creator".  There is nothing about not being offended by what other people say (you have offended me that you think I am "forcing" you to believe as I do).  Disagreeing with another's actions and making a statement of opinion is not "forcing".  Or do you want to explain to me how you could possibly be so weak minded, that mere disagreement would cause you to fold on your own beliefs.

If I don't believe that chemical birth control is a good thing (in fact it is proven to cause some types of cancer and heart problems for many women), and I believe abortion is murder ("force"ably ending a life), why do you think that "you" have the "right" to force me to pay for such harmful services?  Isn't that "forcing" your beliefs onto others (not just by stating opinion), by actually forcing their resources (tax dollars) to be used to "fund" your "beliefs"?


----------



## edthecynic

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sandra Fluke made herself into a "public figure" by appearing in front of congress to beg for the taxpayer to pay for prevention of consequences of having sex.
> 
> Again, he was making fun (it is ok when Letterman says stuff about Palin's daughters).  If you are unaware of the left slamming conservative women you are intellectually dishonest.  Google it.
> 
> BTW, Rush was "linguistically" correct if Sandra Fluke has had multiple sex partners in her life.  I know it is not "politically correct" in the "diverse" culture of corruption, but, do not worry, when Obama care is in full control of your health care, that type of behavior will be taxed (because it causes health problems).  Along with many other destructive behaviors, the health Czar will be telling you who you can partner with, what you can eat, what you can drink (and how much), how often you should exercise (and since the taxpayer is paying for it, they will have gov't reps verify you are doing things their way, since it "could save one life").  Go ahead, embrace corruption, and make a nation of wimps, our enemies are gathering, and when war comes, you will be the first to step up to fight, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetically wrong on all counts.
> A citizen testifying before a Congressional committee is not a "public figure".  A citizen running for office or holding a cabinet position is.  You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own language.
> 
> Second, you're a rhetorical pissant if you expect other people to do your research for you.  It's not my point, so I don't have to Google jack shit.  *You *do.  When _you _make a point, _you _provide the examples -- not me.  Get off your lazy ass and do your homework and then we'll talk.  And when you do, if you do, you'll still have a red herring, since the topic is Lash Rimjob, not  "the left and the media" --- nor is that conglomeration a legitimate comparator.
> 
> On the one example you did reference (sort of), if you're seriously proposing to compare a standup comic joke to a political talk show bloviator, then you're in more trouble than you think.
> 
> Third, you don't have the vaguest idea of Sandra Fluke's life history, so that entire paragraph is a non sequitur.  You don't get to just make up your own fantasies.  See #2.  Again.
> 
> You guys that come in here unprepared and then think you can just wing it kill me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What other "citizen" did the President call after "testimony"?  If he is calling her, she is in the political limelight, just sayin'.....
> 
> If you expect me to list the malice that the left/dems use on conservative women, it is because you want to waste my time.  Not because you are really interested, you are being intellectully dishonest or are in a state of "chosen" ignorance.
> 
> David Letterman, and Rush Limbaugh are entertainers.  If you want to apply different rules, you are bigotted, and not interested in "diversity".
> 
> Sandra Fluke is the person that *"implied" she needs the US taxpayer *to fund her sex life.  She wanted the entire nation to focus on her sexual habits.  Rush mocked her for it.  You were offended, ahhhh.
Click to expand...

She neither said nor implied any such thing, that is just a rationalization your MessiahRushie fabricated and swallowed by the Misinformation Voter. 

 Taxpayers do not pay for her health insurance, SHE paid for it through the school as part of her tuition. The school is blocking coverage of birth control by the health insurance company. No taxpayers are involved in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## logical4u

JoeB131 said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgetown Law School is not a "church".
> 
> It's a business.
> 
> It's a public institution.
> 
> Therefore, the church has no standing to challenge the law.
> 
> And the reason we get upset when you try to curb abortion is because women get them anyway, and they end up dying because the people performing them don't know what they are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't post about things you know nothing about, so you should probably not post at all.
> 
> The first line in Wiki's entry:
> 
> *Georgetown University is a private research university in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1789, it is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.*
> 
> Georgetown University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaningless to my point, but you aren't very bright, are you?
> 
> Fact is, they get public funds. They take government grants and research projects. They are a public accommedation and they don't have the option of ignoring laws they don't like.
> 
> Sorry... you lose- again.
> 
> Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?
Click to expand...


They were trying to stop the molestation of alter boys.  They were naive in believing homosexual pedophiles when they said they would stop.  They have been working on correcting this problem for a very long time.  They have one of the lowest incidents for child molestation among any predominant group.

Now, where are you critizing school teachers for molesting children?  Gov't congressmen?  State run institutions entrusted with the care of children?  Other religious groups?  Universities?   What a sad little hypocrit you are.

If a group, a person is operating a business, they do not check their personal beliefs at the door (in many cases that is what makes the business successful).  The gov't has no "right" to tell them what they "shall" provide.  They can ensure safety, they can try to ensure that no discrimmination or abuse occurs, but they cannot tell the employer what to provide in the way of benefits.  Each business that provides health insurance selects that insurance from what is on the market.  The gov't has no "authority" to decide what those options are.


----------



## koshergrl

Liberals typically applaud school employees' exploitation of children, and are doing everything they can to hold them exempt from the mandatory reporting laws that requires them to report illegal sexual activity among children.


----------



## logical4u

koshergrl said:


> Liberals typically applaud school employees' exploitation of children, and are doing everything they can to hold them exempt from the mandatory reporting laws that requires them to report illegal sexual activity among children.



It would be refreshing to see one of the libs voice some disagreement with their behavior.


----------



## JoeB131

logical4u said:


> [
> 
> Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?



They were trying to stop the molestation of alter boys.  They were naive in believing homosexual pedophiles when they said they would stop.  They have been working on correcting this problem for a very long time.  They have one of the lowest incidents for child molestation among any predominant group..[/quote]

That's simply not true.  Frankly, I grew up Catholic, we all knew back then (like in the 1970's) the priests were a little weird and you didn't want to be alone with one of them. 

The Catholic Church just didn't "believe" the pedophiles (some of whom molested girls as well as boys, not that that should make a difference).  They actively paid off families, having them sign non-disclosure agreements.  They moved priests to other parishes without warning those communities. 

If you really care to be educated on this subject, I would suggest you rent a movie called Deliver us from Evil.   It tells the story of Fr. O'Grady in CA, who was moved from Parish to Parish without any warning to families. 




logical4u said:


> [Now, where are you critizing school teachers for molesting children?  Gov't congressmen?  State run institutions entrusted with the care of children?  Other religious groups?  Universities?   What a sad little hypocrit you are.



Actually, I was very strongly critical of teacher's unions that protect teachers accused of molestation.  Particularly the one who has been collecting a salary for 12 years because they don't dare put him back in a classroom, but the unions have made it impossible to fire him. 





logical4u said:


> [If a group, a person is operating a business, they do not check their personal beliefs at the door (in many cases that is what makes the business successful).  The gov't has no "right" to tell them what they "shall" provide.  They can ensure safety, they can try to ensure that no discrimmination or abuse occurs, but they cannot tell the employer what to provide in the way of benefits.  Each business that provides health insurance selects that insurance from what is on the market.  The gov't has no "authority" to decide what those options are.



Actually,the government has every right under the interstate commerce clause.


----------



## MarcATL

edthecynic said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetically wrong on all counts.
> A citizen testifying before a Congressional committee is not a "public figure".  A citizen running for office or holding a cabinet position is.  You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own language.
> 
> Second, you're a rhetorical pissant if you expect other people to do your research for you.  It's not my point, so I don't have to Google jack shit.  *You *do.  When _you _make a point, _you _provide the examples -- not me.  Get off your lazy ass and do your homework and then we'll talk.  And when you do, if you do, you'll still have a red herring, since the topic is Lash Rimjob, not  "the left and the media" --- nor is that conglomeration a legitimate comparator.
> 
> On the one example you did reference (sort of), if you're seriously proposing to compare a standup comic joke to a political talk show bloviator, then you're in more trouble than you think.
> 
> Third, you don't have the vaguest idea of Sandra Fluke's life history, so that entire paragraph is a non sequitur.  You don't get to just make up your own fantasies.  See #2.  Again.
> 
> You guys that come in here unprepared and then think you can just wing it kill me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What other "citizen" did the President call after "testimony"?  If he is calling her, she is in the political limelight, just sayin'.....
> 
> If you expect me to list the malice that the left/dems use on conservative women, it is because you want to waste my time.  Not because you are really interested, you are being intellectully dishonest or are in a state of "chosen" ignorance.
> 
> David Letterman, and Rush Limbaugh are entertainers.  If you want to apply different rules, you are bigotted, and not interested in "diversity".
> 
> Sandra Fluke is the person that *"implied" she needs the US taxpayer *to fund her sex life.  She wanted the entire nation to focus on her sexual habits.  Rush mocked her for it.  You were offended, ahhhh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She neither said nor implied any such thing, that is just a rationalization your MessiahRushie fabricated and swallowed by the Misinformation Voter.
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for her health insurance, SHE paid for it through the school as part of her tuition. The school is blocking coverage of birth control by the health insurance company. *No taxpayers are involved in any way, shape, or form.*
Click to expand...

Precisely!!!


----------



## rightwinger

Conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to defend Rush

Regardless of the hatred he spews

It is part of being a ditto head


----------



## RosieS

logical4u said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetically wrong on all counts.
> A citizen testifying before a Congressional committee is not a "public figure".  A citizen running for office or holding a cabinet position is.  You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own language.
> 
> Second, you're a rhetorical pissant if you expect other people to do your research for you.  It's not my point, so I don't have to Google jack shit.  *You *do.  When _you _make a point, _you _provide the examples -- not me.  Get off your lazy ass and do your homework and then we'll talk.  And when you do, if you do, you'll still have a red herring, since the topic is Lash Rimjob, not  "the left and the media" --- nor is that conglomeration a legitimate comparator.
> 
> On the one example you did reference (sort of), if you're seriously proposing to compare a standup comic joke to a political talk show bloviator, then you're in more trouble than you think.
> 
> Third, you don't have the vaguest idea of Sandra Fluke's life history, so that entire paragraph is a non sequitur.  You don't get to just make up your own fantasies.  See #2.  Again.
> 
> You guys that come in here unprepared and then think you can just wing it kill me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, SNAP!  Reply perfection.
> 
> Pick your ass up, Logical. You aren't supposed to drop it when it is handed to you.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another biggoted and intolerant liberal?
Click to expand...


No, jenius, just another observant  and accurate liberal. We're EVERYWHERE.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to defend Rush
> 
> Regardless of the hatred he spews
> 
> It is part of being a ditto head



like you people do with Obama, Maher and a few others
the only people who bring us Rush, is you on the LEFT


----------



## emilynghiem

MarcATL said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control is a hot button issue, *and Sandra Fluke distorted her story to fit the democratic agenda.* While I think Rush is an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand how birth control works, and a pig, for calling her a slut, I can also understand why she didnt garner much sympathy from the right.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reminding me that he called her slut on the radio for about 4 days straight.
> 
> Now, how did she "distort her story to fit the Democratic agenda?" I don't quite get that one. Break it down for me if you can.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Edit: Also, seems like you're giving support to Rush and condoning his behavior. Phrases like "I can see why..." tends to signify support.
Click to expand...


Dear MarcATL 
RE: seeing why vs. supporting?
I can "see why" slave owners did not or could not automatically free their slaves if these were legally property owned by banks mortgaged to the owners on loan along with land.
I do not support slavery though I can see why changing it took stages over time.
It was best not to go there in the first place, and once you're in it's not instant getting out.

To undo all the damage and mess that went into this conflict over Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh would also take a lot more work. So I can see why people would respond in different ways. I would keep doing the same thing I'm already doing by trying to resolve the root issue of stopping relationship abuse and bullying, respecting religious and political beliefs equally and not abusing govt, party, or either church or state authority to coerce, harass, exclude, or oppress others by dominating them with unequal force or pressure, which you can consider a collective form of relationship abuse as violating consent.

I believe in addressing relationship abuse in all forms in order to catch all these levels where it manifests.  This incident is just one of many, and I understand some people may respond to one case and not the other.  Some people react more strongly to the attack in Benghazi and others the rape and murder in India.  People questioned why was there unequal hype about Jessica Lynch and not other service people, or the journalist raped by a mob in Egypt or the young girls gang raped in LA and in TX when those hit the media.

Do you really want to start judging ppl and groups by who responds to what?
We could point fingers all day if you like, will that solve the problem causing rape and abuse? or political manipulation and bullying?

BTW with Christian rebuke the wrongdoer is supposed to be redressed in private first, one on one, to correct the problem, so how do you propose to do this once Rush makes a public statement and skips steps of addressing the person he was criticizing directly alone? how do you work backwards to fix that? again i see ppl already working locally to address those around them one on one and trying to fix the same things going on around us. not everyone responds the same way because of their relative role in addressing this collectively by starting with the relationships around them and working from there. thanks for asking, and i hope this helps connect this incident with the peacemaking process we participate in daily.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to defend Rush
> 
> Regardless of the hatred he spews
> 
> It is part of being a ditto head



careful rw

many say the same of the liberal media bias re obama
and now this NJ senator caught multiple times flying internationally to hook up with underaged prostitutes which sounds like they were trafficked to me 

my bf is asking me why do your fellow democrats and liberal media go after rubio for drinking water during his rebuttal and won't mention this democrat scandal

ppl are jumping on the catholic church and penn state for cya to cover up child rape
i guess we are human and all have our biases and limits
as christians say we are all sinners imperfect and none are perfectly fair or just


----------



## emilynghiem

RosieS said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, SNAP!  Reply perfection.
> 
> Pick your ass up, Logical. You aren't supposed to drop it when it is handed to you.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another biggoted and intolerant liberal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, jenius, just another observant  and accurate liberal. We're EVERYWHERE.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


i would say bigotry biases and limits to tolerance are everywhere
but not limited to liberals
we are happy to share the credit with other parties
and do so on a daily basis
thank you for doing your part to point this out!


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> careful rw
> 
> many say the same of the liberal media bias re obama
> and now this NJ senator caught multiple times flying internationally to hook up with underaged prostitutes which sounds like they were trafficked to me
> 
> my bf is asking me why do your fellow democrats and liberal media go after rubio for drinking water during his rebuttal and won't mention this democrat scandal
> 
> ppl are jumping on the catholic church and penn state for cya to cover up child rape
> i guess we are human and all have our biases and limits
> as christians say we are all sinners imperfect and none are perfectly fair or just



I guess the problem is, we have yet to have someone who is 16 years old show up in front of a camera and tell us, "Si, I was 16 and did the Nasty with Senator Menedez".  All we have so far a lot of accussations, and not a lot of evidence.  

If you prove it, I'll be the first one to call for his resignation. 

That all said, my problem with Rubio is not his drinking of water, it's that he's just taking the same anti-worker shit Romney said and wondering why it doesn't sell.


----------



## edthecynic

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to defend Rush
> 
> Regardless of the hatred he spews
> 
> It is part of being a ditto head
> 
> 
> 
> 
> careful rw
> 
> many say the same of the liberal media bias re obama
> and now this NJ senator caught multiple times flying internationally to hook up with underaged prostitutes which sounds like they were trafficked to me
> 
> my bf is asking me why do your fellow democrats and liberal media go after rubio for drinking water during his rebuttal and won't mention this democrat scandal
> 
> ppl are jumping on the catholic church and penn state for cya to cover up child rape
> i guess we are human and all have our biases and limits
> as christians say we are all sinners imperfect and none are perfectly fair or just
Click to expand...

The problem with your rant is these "underage prostitutes" appear to be as real as Manti Te'o's girlfriend. They exist only on the internet, not a single one has come forward and made an official complaint. No one has ever been able to even confirm that they exist.


Contrast that fact with the Right's defense of Herman Cain, even after many real women came forward and filed complaints, the Right insisted they all were lying and Cain was "innocent until proven guilty." But for a Democrat all it takes for the Right to establish guilt is an internet hoax!!!! And any media that does not spread that internet hoax has a "Liberal bias." 
Obviously a "Liberal bias" is a good thing!!!


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??



I don't recall siding with Rush.


----------



## Dragonlady

Yes, I found Rush Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the Republican Party.  That none of the Republican Presidential Candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.

Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in Republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of Republican Senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted Democrat.

The only female demographic to vote for Romney in large numbers was married white women.  So by all means, continue to refer to Ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  Every time you do, it reminds women that Republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting Republican is voting against their economic best interests.  Women vote with their pocket books too.


----------



## Rozman

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives have a knee-jerk reaction to defend Rush
> 
> Regardless of the hatred he spews
> 
> It is part of being a ditto head



ditto that....


----------



## Rozman

To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.


----------



## Dragonlady

Rozman said:


> To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
> Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.



On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee.  In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.  

When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans.  The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.

As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican.  Not the smart ones anyway.


----------



## whitehall

MarcATL said:


> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??



Didn't Sara Fluke testify that she wanted government mandated insurance to pay for her birth control? I'd call her a slut. You ought to see the things left wing pundits called Sara Palin. I didn't hear a peep from African American liberals when the newspapers featured unbelievably racist cartoons suggesting that Dr. Condie Rice was a slave mammy for president Bush.


----------



## Dragonlady

whitehall said:


> Didn't Sara Fluke testify that she wanted government mandated insurance to pay for her birth control? I'd call her a slut.



Every time a Republican supporter calls Fluke a slut, a bell rings,  and another feminist is born angel gets his wings.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
> Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee.  In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.
> 
> When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans.  The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.
> 
> As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican.  Not the smart ones anyway.
Click to expand...


I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Sara Fluke testify that she wanted government mandated insurance to pay for her birth control? I'd call her a slut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time a Republican supporter calls Fluke a slut, a bell rings,  and another feminist is born angel gets his wings.
Click to expand...


What if the person who calls her a slut supports Obama?


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.



What lies did she tell?  She was talking about the difficulty for women to get their birth control paid for when they have medical conditions, like endometriosis, for which BCP's are a primary form of treatment.  

The bald fact is that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance.  Period.  End of story.  Not covering birth control should not be any option for any employer.  Let the patient decide what is morally right for her, not her employer.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
> Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee.  In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.
> 
> When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans.  The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.
> 
> As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican.  Not the smart ones anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.
Click to expand...


_*What *_lying??  ??

The only lying has been from Rash Limpjaw and his sycophants in threads like this.  If that's not the case, then why did Lush issue a walletfelt apology on March 3rd?

Unless you can document this, your assertion of "lying" is itself a lie.  Like that guy back in post 95 four days ago.  I'm still waiting for documentation on that one, but once I called him on it, he ran away because he's a liar _and _a coward.

Your move...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lies did she tell?  She was talking about the difficulty for women to get their birth control paid for when they have medical conditions, like endometriosis, for which BCP's are a primary form of treatment.
> 
> The bald fact is that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance.  Period.  End of story.  Not covering birth control should not be any option for any employer.  Let the patient decide what is morally right for her, not her employer.
Click to expand...


No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee.  In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.
> 
> When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans.  The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.
> 
> As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican.  Not the smart ones anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*What *_lying??  ??
> 
> The only lying has been from Rash Limpjaw and his sycophants in threads like this.  If that's not the case, then why did Lush issue a walletfelt apology on March 3rd?
> 
> Unless you can document this, your assertion of "lying" is itself a lie.  Like that guy back in post 95 four days ago.  I'm still waiting for documentation on that one, but once I called him on it, he ran away because he's a liar _and _a coward.
> 
> Your move...
Click to expand...


Go back and read the threads form the time, there are plenty of them.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*What *_lying??  ??
> 
> The only lying has been from Rash Limpjaw and his sycophants in threads like this.  If that's not the case, then why did Lush issue a walletfelt apology on March 3rd?
> 
> Unless you can document this, your assertion of "lying" is itself a lie.  Like that guy back in post 95 four days ago.  I'm still waiting for documentation on that one, but once I called him on it, he ran away because he's a liar _and _a coward.
> 
> Your move...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read the threads form the time, there are plenty of them.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the instant cop-out.  At least I didn't have to wait four days.  

Guess it's _*my *_job to look up _*your *_point... unbelievable.

Pfffft.


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lies did she tell?  She was talking about the difficulty for women to get their birth control paid for when they have medical conditions, like endometriosis, for which BCP's are a primary form of treatment.
> 
> The bald fact is that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance.  Period.  End of story.  Not covering birth control should not be any option for any employer.  Let the patient decide what is morally right for her, not her employer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford* any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill,* and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
Click to expand...

She said no such thing, which is why you will never link to a quote from her. You can only find such a claim from your MessiahRushie and the GOP hate media echo chamber. 

 Before you can get the pill for $15 - $50 per month at Walmart you need to be examined by a doctor and then have the pill prescribed and the prescription periodically renewed. Those doctor visits are not free!


Why birth control pills need to be prescribed | Fox News


I fail to agree with the latest recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  declaring it is safe to sell birth control pills without prescriptions.
I do agree that birth control pills are relatively safe.  However, there are some patients who require an assessment of risk factors before taking birth control, and some of these can only be identified during a medical visit.  Many women in this country do not realize that lifestyle can affect the potential side effects of any prescription or non-prescription medication.  From obesity and hypertension to smoking and blood-clotting disorders, many factors can influence the behavior of certain drugs  especially birth control.
According to the World Health Organization, many women with certain conditions should refrain from using birth control pills altogether.  These conditions include liver disease, breast cancer, some types of diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, coronary artery disease and more.


----------



## RosieS

Pogo and Ed.....you guys are GOOD. Refuting with actual facts can be tiresome, but you both are doing a fantastic job. Kudos to you both, hat's off, three cheers and  x 2

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.



That is not what she said at all.  This is the text of Ms. Fluke's testimony:

Full Transcript of Sandra Fluke's Testimony - LGF Pages

This woman is a law student, giving serious testimony about violations of women's rights, not some air-head wanting to have her good time funded, as you and others here are painting her to be.

You're no better than those who told the lies in the first place.


----------



## MarcATL

Dragonlady said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
> Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee.  In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.
> 
> When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans.  The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.
> 
> *As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican.  Not the smart ones anyway.*
Click to expand...

So true.



RosieS said:


> Pogo and Ed.....you guys are GOOD. Refuting with actual facts can be tiresome, but you both are doing a fantastic job. Kudos to you both, hat's off, three cheers and  x 2
> 
> Regards from Rosie


I second that motion. 



Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what she said at all.  This is the text of Ms. Fluke's testimony:
> 
> Full Transcript of Sandra Fluke's Testimony - LGF Pages
> 
> This woman is a law student, giving serious testimony about violations of women's rights, not some air-head wanting to have her good time funded, as you and others here are painting her to be.
> 
> You're no better than those who told the lies in the first place.
Click to expand...

You know, if Far RW radical Republicans didn't lie....they'd have nothing to say.


----------



## JoeB131

The thing is, there actually was a valid policy argument here. 

Should organizations be forced to pay for insurance when it covers things that violate their beliefs.  Personally, I don't think there should be an exemption. If you are going to make health care a form of compensation instead of a public service like every other civilized country has done, then that compensation should not be limited to the beliefs of the provider. 

And it was completely overshadowed by Limbaugh's vile comments.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> The thing is, there actually was a valid policy argument here.
> 
> Should organizations be forced to pay for insurance when it covers things that violate their beliefs.  Personally, I don't think there should be an exemption. If you are going to make health care a form of compensation instead of a public service like every other civilized country has done, then that compensation should not be limited to the beliefs of the provider.
> 
> And it was completely overshadowed by Limbaugh's vile comments.



oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves

the fluke was a fluke and will remain one


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, there actually was a valid policy argument here.
> 
> Should organizations be forced to pay for insurance when it covers things that violate their beliefs.  Personally, I don't think there should be an exemption. If you are going to make health care a form of compensation instead of a public service like every other civilized country has done, then that compensation should not be limited to the beliefs of the provider.
> 
> And it was completely overshadowed by Limbaugh's vile comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves
Click to expand...


Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.  

Although it was  afew less after that.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, there actually was a valid policy argument here.
> 
> Should organizations be forced to pay for insurance when it covers things that violate their beliefs.  Personally, I don't think there should be an exemption. If you are going to make health care a form of compensation instead of a public service like every other civilized country has done, then that compensation should not be limited to the beliefs of the provider.
> 
> And it was completely overshadowed by Limbaugh's vile comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
Click to expand...


you people didn't get that upset when Maher called Palin a cxxt..or Letterman said she looked like a slutty flight attendant..you people are such phonies


----------



## Sarah G

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, there actually was a valid policy argument here.
> 
> Should organizations be forced to pay for insurance when it covers things that violate their beliefs.  Personally, I don't think there should be an exemption. If you are going to make health care a form of compensation instead of a public service like every other civilized country has done, then that compensation should not be limited to the beliefs of the provider.
> 
> And it was completely overshadowed by Limbaugh's vile comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
Click to expand...


And also he is desperately attempting to hold on to his wingnut rockstar status by finding more and more extreme things to say for 3 hours a day.

He's having trouble justifying his existence these days.


----------



## Sarah G

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you people didn't get that upset when Maher called Palin a cxxt..or Letterman said she looked like a slutty flight attendant..you people are such phonies
Click to expand...


HaHa.  She does dress like a slutty flight attendant.


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you people didn't get that upset when Maher called Palin a cxxt..or Letterman said she looked like a slutty flight attendant..you people are such phonies
Click to expand...


Palin is a politician and a public figure. 

My problem with Palin is how someone that stupid could be a public figure in this country, or rise to national prominance before everyone got the joke.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you people didn't get that upset when Maher called Palin a cxxt..or Letterman said she looked like a slutty flight attendant..you people are such phonies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palin is a politician and a public figure.
> 
> My problem with Palin is how someone that stupid could be a public figure in this country, or rise to national prominance before everyone got the joke.
Click to expand...


 you don't seem to mind all the stupid people in the Democrat party..how funny
Biden makes Palin look like a genius


----------



## JoeB131

Sarah G said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And also he is desperately attempting to hold on to his wingnut rockstar status by finding more and more extreme things to say for 3 hours a day.
> 
> He's having trouble justifying his existence these days.
Click to expand...


Which is part of the problem. Talk Radio is kind of going through the same death cycle that Talk shows went through. They have to get increasingly extreme to get attention. 

So much as we had the kind of devolution that started with Phil Donahue to Oprah to Geraldo to Maury to Jerry Springer....  In talk Radio, we have devolution from Paul Harvey to Rush Limbaugh to Glenn Beck.


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> [
> 
> you don't seem to mind all the stupid people in the Democrat party..how funny
> Biden makes Palin look like a genius



I seem to remember Biden handing Palin her ass.  Then he handed Ryan his.


----------



## Stephanie

You people have been predicting Rush's show on it's death bed for what? 30 years now

you all can do what I do with Bill Maher, turn him off, but no you have to have something  to bitch about, over some lames ass college student testifying before Congress..the majority of the people just laughed their asses off over her


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> You people have been predicting Rush's show on it's death bed for what? 30 years now
> 
> you all can do what I do with Bill Maher, turn him off, but no you have to have something  to bitch about, over some lames ass college student testifying before Congress..the majority of the people just laughed their asses off over her



I think you miss the point.  

Maher is not an opinion maker in the Democratic Party.  Limbaugh is an opinion maker in the GOP.  The tragedy of this Fluke thing is that Romney didn't condemn it despite how vile it was. He was too afraid to, with Rush's flock looking for ANY excuse to vote for Santorum. 

Limbaugh did apologize- AFTER his sponsors demanded he do so.  But where was the leadership?  Nowhere to be found, really.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people have been predicting Rush's show on it's death bed for what? 30 years now
> 
> you all can do what I do with Bill Maher, turn him off, but no you have to have something  to bitch about, over some lames ass college student testifying before Congress..the majority of the people just laughed their asses off over her
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you miss the point.
> 
> Maher is not an opinion maker in the Democratic Party.  Limbaugh is an opinion maker in the GOP.  The tragedy of this Fluke thing is that Romney didn't condemn it despite how vile it was. He was too afraid to, with Rush's flock looking for ANY excuse to vote for Santorum.
> 
> Limbaugh did apologize- AFTER his sponsors demanded he do so.  But where was the leadership?  Nowhere to be found, really.
Click to expand...


oh right, Maher isn't a oponion maker.. man oh man
Rush did apologize but that is never good enough for you people
Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people have been predicting Rush's show on it's death bed for what? 30 years now
> 
> you all can do what I do with Bill Maher, turn him off, but no you have to have something  to bitch about, over some lames ass college student testifying before Congress..the majority of the people just laughed their asses off over her
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you miss the point.
> 
> Maher is not an opinion maker in the Democratic Party.  Limbaugh is an opinion maker in the GOP.  The tragedy of this Fluke thing is that Romney didn't condemn it despite how vile it was. He was too afraid to, with Rush's flock looking for ANY excuse to vote for Santorum.
> 
> Limbaugh did apologize- AFTER his sponsors demanded he do so.  But where was the leadership?  Nowhere to be found, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh right, Maher isn't a oponion maker.. man oh man
> Rush did apologize but that is never good enough for you people
> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one
Click to expand...


I suspect that young lady will have a bright career ahead of her. 

Limbaugh didn't apologize because he was sorry he did it, he apologized because he got caught.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you people didn't get that upset when Maher called Palin a cxxt..or Letterman said she looked like a slutty flight attendant..you people are such phonies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Palin is a politician and a public figure.
> 
> My problem with Palin is how someone that stupid could be a public figure in this country, or rise to national prominance before everyone got the joke.
Click to expand...


Please!

The one thing that's been absolutely certain is Liberals have no claim on Intelligence

The Joe Biden Party think they can talk about smarts. That's a joke, right? Franken? Krugman? Fake Vet Senator in CT Fake Indian Senators in MA.

Who is the Liberal Intellectual Elite? 

Liberals talking about political intelligence is like Jerry Sandusky talking about child rearing


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> Please!
> 
> The one thing that's been absolutely certain is Liberals have no claim on Intelligence
> 
> The Joe Biden Party think they can talk about smarts. That's a joke, right? Franken? Krugman? Fake Vet Senator in CT Fake Indian Senators in MA.
> 
> Who is the Liberal Intellectual Elite?
> 
> Liberals talking about political intelligence is like Jerry Sandusky talking about child rearing



LIke I said, Guy, I was a Republican for years until the Crazies took it over. 

And frankly, "but that guy..." is what a fifth grader does when he's called out.  

Palin was someone who had a good sounding resume, but turned out to be a total dud when she showed up for the interview, but you clowns put her on the national stage, anyway.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Please!
> 
> The one thing that's been absolutely certain is Liberals have no claim on Intelligence
> 
> The Joe Biden Party think they can talk about smarts. That's a joke, right? Franken? Krugman? Fake Vet Senator in CT Fake Indian Senators in MA.
> 
> Who is the Liberal Intellectual Elite?
> 
> Liberals talking about political intelligence is like Jerry Sandusky talking about child rearing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIke I said, Guy, I was a Republican for years until the Crazies took it over.
> 
> And frankly, "but that guy..." is what a fifth grader does when he's called out.
> 
> Palin was someone who had a good sounding resume, but turned out to be a total dud when she showed up for the interview, but you clowns put her on the national stage, anyway.
Click to expand...


Palin was fine, it was you liberal snobs who showed your asses..
I'd rather have a Palin then most of these smooth talking liars like Obama


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> Palin was fine, it was you liberal snobs who showed your asses..



No, Palin was stupid.  She said stupid stuff and she showed she didn't have the chops to succeed the 72-year old man with a history of cancer she was running alongside. 

I knew a LOT of people in 2008 who were on the fence between Obama and McCain, until Palin made up their minds.  

It's not a matter of being a "snob".  It's a matter of wanting your potential vice president to know what the Bush Doctrine actually was.  It was a matter of wanting her to actually cite a case of judicial overreach other than Roe v. Wade if she really thought judicial overreach is a problem.  It's a matter of wanting her to be able to name a founding father other than Washington or name a newspaper she regularly reads.  

In the context of how bad policies get made when a stupid person is in charge (AKA the Bush Adminstration), Palin was the one who exposed her stupidity, and people said, "Nope!" 

The ironic thing is, if McCain had picked Tom Ridge, hed have picked up PA and VA and OH and probably won the election.  

But Tom wasn't all about telling women they can't have abortions, so the Crazy Wing didn't want him.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palin was fine, it was you liberal snobs who showed your asses..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Palin was stupid.  She said stupid stuff and she showed she didn't have the chops to succeed the 72-year old man with a history of cancer she was running alongside.
> 
> I knew a LOT of people in 2008 who were on the fence between Obama and McCain, until Palin made up their minds.
> 
> It's not a matter of being a "snob".  It's a matter of wanting your potential vice president to know what the Bush Doctrine actually was.  It was a matter of wanting her to actually cite a case of judicial overreach other than Roe v. Wade if she really thought judicial overreach is a problem.  It's a matter of wanting her to be able to name a founding father other than Washington or name a newspaper she regularly reads.
> 
> In the context of how bad policies get made when a stupid person is in charge (AKA the Bush Adminstration), Palin was the one who exposed her stupidity, and people said, "Nope!"
> 
> The ironic thing is, if McCain had picked Tom Ridge, hed have picked up PA and VA and OH and probably won the election.
> 
> But Tom wasn't all about telling women they can't have abortions, so the Crazy Wing didn't want him.
Click to expand...


oh bs, all that is just your speculation on things..nothing more
You have a senile buffoon in there now as Vice President and he makes Palin look like a genius..


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> [
> 
> oh bs, all that is just your speculation on things..nothing more
> You have a senile buffoon in there now as Vice President and he makes Palin look like a genius..



If you think there's any universe where Community College Palin looks like a "genius", I really have to wonder what the color of the sky is in your alternative dimension.


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> oh bs, all that is just your speculation on things..nothing more
> You have a senile buffoon in there now as Vice President and he makes Palin look like a genius..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think there's any universe where Community College Palin looks like a "genius", I really have to wonder what the color of the sky is in your alternative dimension.
Click to expand...


your snobbery is showing...

what was Biden before he became Vice President? nothing but a career politician..Palin was a mayor and then ELECTED Governor with a 80% approval rating..

give me a community college person any day than some buffoon career Politician
but I'm beginning to believe liberal Democrats could run a goat for office and their base of people would vote for it as long as it had a D next to it's name


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> [
> your snobbery is showing...
> 
> what was Biden before he became Vice President? nothing but a career politician..Palin was a mayor and then ELECTED Governor with a 80% approval rating..
> 
> give me a community college person any day than some buffoon career Politician
> but I'm beginning to believe liberal Democrats could run a goat for office and they would vote for it as long as it had a D next to it's name



Palin got elected in Alaska (which shouldn't even be a state) because she was a nice compliant thing that would go along with what the oil companies wanted to do up there. And, oh, yeah, she quit to go do reality TV.  Before that she was the Mayor of Alaska's Crystal Meth Capital. 

Meanwhile, Senator Biden had spent 30 years doing the hard work in the Senate of passing legislation. 

So, really, your "but...but...but Biden" schtick is getting old. People are going to remember Biden long after they forgot old, what's her name? Tina Fey?


----------



## Stephanie

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> your snobbery is showing...
> 
> what was Biden before he became Vice President? nothing but a career politician..Palin was a mayor and then ELECTED Governor with a 80% approval rating..
> 
> give me a community college person any day than some buffoon career Politician
> but I'm beginning to believe liberal Democrats could run a goat for office and they would vote for it as long as it had a D next to it's name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palin got elected in Alaska (which shouldn't even be a state) because she was a nice compliant thing that would go along with what the oil companies wanted to do up there. And, oh, yeah, she quit to go do reality TV.  Before that she was the Mayor of Alaska's Crystal Meth Capital.
> 
> Meanwhile, Senator Biden had spent 30 years doing the hard work in the Senate of passing legislation.
> 
> So, really, your "but...but...but Biden" schtick is getting old. People are going to remember Biden long after they forgot old, what's her name? Tina Fey?
Click to expand...



you should talk about, schtick...you are the expert on it
as for the "big oil" in Alaska, you bet your ass, and the profits from it is given back to the people who live there in a thing called, the permanent fund...Too bad your all's state don't think as much of you


----------



## MarcATL

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you miss the point.
> 
> Maher is not an opinion maker in the Democratic Party.  Limbaugh is an opinion maker in the GOP.  The tragedy of this Fluke thing is that Romney didn't condemn it despite how vile it was. He was too afraid to, with Rush's flock looking for ANY excuse to vote for Santorum.
> 
> Limbaugh did apologize- AFTER his sponsors demanded he do so.  But where was the leadership?  Nowhere to be found, really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh right, Maher isn't a oponion maker.. man oh man
> Rush did apologize but that is never good enough for you people
> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect that young lady will have a bright career ahead of her.
> 
> Limbaugh didn't apologize because he was sorry he did it, he apologized because he got caught.
Click to expand...

He didn't really apologize either. And I believe after his faux-apology, he resumed his attack on Fluke.

It's funny, you can tell the sense, or lack thereof, of the the far RW radical Republicans in their cult-like defense of a dumb-dumb like Sarah Palin and Lush Rimbaugh.

They like to pretend that Joe Biden is a dummy like their morons, yet he wiped the floors with both Palin and Ryan, their so-called "New Hope" with a smile on his face. Didn't even break a sweat.

They'll pretend that they won though, right until after election when they realized they lost...MASSIVELY. Yet again.


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one



Fluke is NOT a joke.  She was a bright and articulate spokeswoman for the issue she presented.  I would be proud to have a daughter like Ms. Fluke.

Your attitude towards this woman who is defending YOUR rights too, is disgraceful.  That you would parrot an idiot like Limbaugh, well, that just says it all.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is NOT a joke.  She was a bright and articulate spokeswoman for the issue she presented.  I would be proud to have a daughter like Ms. Fluke.
> 
> Your attitude towards this woman who is defending YOUR rights too, is disgraceful.  That you would parrot an idiot like Limbaugh, well, that just says it all.
Click to expand...


tough shit, I didn't PICK her to speak me so she wasn't defending anything for me..she was the disgrace as far I am concerned


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> tough shit, I didn't PICK her to speak me so she wasn't defending anything for me..she was the disgrace as far I am concerned



Did you read what said said?  

I consider you a disgrace - ill informed and unwilling to fact check.  Not only listening to but believing anything Rush Limbaugh says.  Defending that misognynistic drug addict.  I raised my girls to be a lot smarter than that.

Read some Naomi Klein for heaven's sake.  Assuming of course, you can read.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> tough shit, I didn't PICK her to speak me so she wasn't defending anything for me..she was the disgrace as far I am concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider you a disgrace - ill informed and unwilling to fact check.  Not only listening to but believing anything Rush Limbaugh says.  Defending that misognynistic drug addict.  I raised my girls to be a lot smarter than that.
> 
> Read some Naomi Klein for heaven's sake.  Assuming of course, you can read.
Click to expand...


like I care what you consider..I'm not defending Limbaugh or the little rich girl whining in front of congress.
I consider you and her a joke..now you should invest in some cheese and worry about your own country


----------



## edthecynic

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people have been predicting Rush's show on it's death bed for what? 30 years now
> 
> you all can do what I do with Bill Maher, turn him off, but no you have to have something  to bitch about, over some lames ass college student testifying before Congress..the majority of the people just laughed their asses off over her
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you miss the point.
> 
> Maher is not an opinion maker in the Democratic Party.  Limbaugh is an opinion maker in the GOP.  The tragedy of this Fluke thing is that Romney didn't condemn it despite how vile it was. He was too afraid to, with Rush's flock looking for ANY excuse to vote for Santorum.
> 
> Limbaugh did apologize- AFTER his sponsors demanded he do so.  But where was the leadership?  Nowhere to be found, really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh right, Maher isn't a oponion maker.. man oh man
> * Rush did apologize *but that is never good enough for you people
> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one
Click to expand...

Bullshit!

Your MessiahRushie used his fake apology to attack the Left!!!


March 05, 2012
RUSH: * I acted too much like the leftists* who despise me.* I descended to their level,* using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but *it's way beneath me.* And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why* I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. *


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> like I care what you consider..I'm not defending Limbaugh or the little rich girl whining in front of congress.



You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.  

If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests of every other woman in the US.  

You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.

I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I care what you consider..I'm not defending Limbaugh or the little rich girl whining in front of congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.
> 
> If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests of every other woman in the US.
> 
> You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.
> 
> I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.
Click to expand...


oh my gawd, you don't know what the hell I vote for, so shut up and WORRY about your own damn country
all this spew over some woman I didn't PICK or vote for to speak for me


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> oh my gawd, you don't know what the hell I vote for, so shut up and WORRY about your own damn country
> all this spew over some woman I didn't PICK or vote for to speak for me



Yes, spew is a good word for it.  

The women who attend Georgetown University did pick Sandra Fluke to speak for them.  That is the whole point.  THEY picked her to speak on their behalf because THEY knew her to be an articulate spokes woman.  And the Republican senators refused to let her speak (until after the ensuing uproar), because they could not see the relevance of a woman speaking to the need for coverage for contraception.

Unless you are paying tuition at this university, you don't have any right to pass judgement on who those students chose to represent them, nor do you have the right to call her a liar, a slut or any other disgusting name you and your a$$hat buddies think is appropriate.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh my gawd, you don't know what the hell I vote for, so shut up and WORRY about your own damn country
> all this spew over some woman I didn't PICK or vote for to speak for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, spew is a good word for it.
> 
> The women who attend Georgetown University did pick Sandra Fluke to speak for them.  That is the whole point.  THEY picked her to speak on their behalf because THEY knew her to be an articulate spokes woman.  And the Republican senators refused to let her speak (until after the ensuing uproar), because they could not see the relevance of a woman speaking to the need for coverage for contraception.
> 
> Unless you are paying tuition at this university, you don't have any right to pass judgement on who those students chose to represent them, nor do you have the right to call her a liar, a slut or any other disgusting name you and your a$$hat buddies think is appropriate.
Click to expand...


You don't know that the women who attend Georgetown picked her to speak for them, you don't even live here..
I have THE RIGHT to call her anything I want..Now go whine and lecture someone who might give a shit
man you really have the hots for this woman, don't you


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*What *_lying??  ??
> 
> The only lying has been from Rash Limpjaw and his sycophants in threads like this.  If that's not the case, then why did Lush issue a walletfelt apology on March 3rd?
> 
> Unless you can document this, your assertion of "lying" is itself a lie.  Like that guy back in post 95 four days ago.  I'm still waiting for documentation on that one, but once I called him on it, he ran away because he's a liar _and _a coward.
> 
> Your move...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the threads form the time, there are plenty of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the instant cop-out.  At least I didn't have to wait four days.
> 
> Guess it's _*my *_job to look up _*your *_point... unbelievable.
> 
> Pfffft.
Click to expand...


If I had just made the point, and never previously defended it, you could claim victory. On the other hand, since I have already made, and defended, the point, it is your job to refute it.

Feel free.


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> I have THE RIGHT to call her anything I want..Now go whine and lecture someone who might give a shit
> man you really have the hots for this woman, don't you



And I have the right to call you anything I want.  Stupid twat would be a start.

No, I don't have the hots for this woman.  I have the hots for stupid little twats who call women they don't know, sluts, because some misognyistic asshole tells them to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> What lies did she tell?  She was talking about the difficulty for women to get their birth control paid for when they have medical conditions, like endometriosis, for which BCP's are a primary form of treatment.
> 
> The bald fact is that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance.  Period.  End of story.  Not covering birth control should not be any option for any employer.  Let the patient decide what is morally right for her, not her employer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford* any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill,* and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She said no such thing, which is why you will never link to a quote from her. You can only find such a claim from your MessiahRushie and the GOP hate media echo chamber.
> 
> Before you can get the pill for $15 - $50 per month at Walmart you need to be examined by a doctor and then have the pill prescribed and the prescription periodically renewed. Those doctor visits are not free!
> 
> 
> Why birth control pills need to be prescribed | Fox News
> 
> 
> I fail to agree with the latest recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  declaring it is safe to sell birth control pills without prescriptions.
> I do agree that birth control pills are relatively safe.  However, there are some patients who require an assessment of risk factors before taking birth control, and some of these can only be identified during a medical visit.  Many women in this country do not realize that lifestyle can affect the potential side effects of any prescription or non-prescription medication.  From obesity and hypertension to smoking and blood-clotting disorders, many factors can influence the behavior of certain drugs  especially birth control.
> According to the World Health Organization, many women with certain conditions should refrain from using birth control pills altogether.  These conditions include liver disease, breast cancer, some types of diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, coronary artery disease and more.
Click to expand...


Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said. I use the fact that you can get it free from Planned Parenthood, can get free condoms everywhere, and that the pill is available for less than $10 a month to illustrate that she was lying.

By the way, Planned Parenthood provides free doctors exams for birth control. so you trying to argue you have to go to the doctor just adds to my point that Fluke, and you, are lying. In fact, I recall pointing out your lies specifically at the time, yet here you are again repeating them.

Do you remember how I pointed out that the government is the one forcing women to go to the doctor instead of allowing them to buy it OTC? Yet you stand here today and try to blame the insurance companies and the Catholic Church. 

Keep lying, you make my point every time you do it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RosieS said:


> Pogo and Ed.....you guys are GOOD. Refuting with actual facts can be tiresome, but you both are doing a fantastic job. Kudos to you both, hat's off, three cheers and  x 2
> 
> Regards from Rosie



Actual facts? Pogo didn't post a single fact, he just demanded I refute something that has been exploded more than once. As for Ed, all he did was repeat Fluke's lies and blame Rush for my opinion even though I never listen to him.

Maybe of you took the time to look at the facts, like the simple fact that HHS overruled the FTC on making the pill available OTC in December of 2011, which makes it a political decision that was supported by Obama. That means that, if you actually care about facts, you can't blame anyone else.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/...er-sale-of-emergency-contraceptives.html?_r=0


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford* any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill,* and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> 
> 
> She said no such thing, which is why you will never link to a quote from her. You can only find such a claim from your MessiahRushie and the GOP hate media echo chamber.
> 
> Before you can get the pill for $15 - $50 per month at Walmart you need to be examined by a doctor and then have the pill prescribed and the prescription periodically renewed. Those doctor visits are not free!
> 
> 
> Why birth control pills need to be prescribed | Fox News
> 
> 
> I fail to agree with the latest recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  declaring it is safe to sell birth control pills without prescriptions.
> I do agree that birth control pills are relatively safe.  However, there are some patients who require an assessment of risk factors before taking birth control, and some of these can only be identified during a medical visit.  Many women in this country do not realize that lifestyle can affect the potential side effects of any prescription or non-prescription medication.  From obesity and hypertension to smoking and blood-clotting disorders, many factors can influence the behavior of certain drugs  especially birth control.
> According to the World Health Organization, many women with certain conditions should refrain from using birth control pills altogether.  These conditions include liver disease, breast cancer, some types of diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, coronary artery disease and more.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said.* I use the fact that you can get it free from Planned Parenthood, can get free condoms everywhere, and that the pill is available for less than $10 a month to illustrate that she was lying.
> 
> By the way, Planned Parenthood provides free doctors exams for birth control. so you trying to argue you have to go to the doctor just adds to my point that Fluke, and you, are lying. In fact, I recall pointing out your lies specifically at the time, yet here you are again repeating them.
> 
> Do you remember how I pointed out that the government is the one forcing women to go to the doctor instead of allowing them to buy it OTC? Yet you stand here today and try to blame the insurance companies and the Catholic Church.
> 
> Keep lying, you make my point every time you do it.
Click to expand...

What she said EXACTLY was that 40% were STRUGGLING financially as a result of the school policy.


[FONT='Lucida Grande', Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]


> Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.


[/FONT]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what she said at all.  This is the text of Ms. Fluke's testimony:
> 
> Full Transcript of Sandra Fluke's Testimony - LGF Pages
> 
> This woman is a law student, giving serious testimony about violations of women's rights, not some air-head wanting to have her good time funded, as you and others here are painting her to be.
> 
> You're no better than those who told the lies in the first place.
Click to expand...


The woman is a fucking activist who is lying through her teeth. From your fucking link.



> Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.


That, in case you have a problem with English, means 40% of the students who go to an elite law school cannot afford to go to Planned Parenthood to get free condoms and/or a free screening for a prescription for the pill. If you factor in that most of these girls have rich parents and/or or get some sort of financial aid that includes living expenses, I find it mind boggling that they cannot afford free birth control.

Feel free to double down and insist that I am the one misrepresenting the facts again, I love slapping lying bitches around when they call me a liar.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
> Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee.  In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.
> 
> When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans.  The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.
> 
> *As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican.  Not the smart ones anyway.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So true.
> 
> I second that motion.
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what she said at all.  This is the text of Ms. Fluke's testimony:
> 
> Full Transcript of Sandra Fluke's Testimony - LGF Pages
> 
> This woman is a law student, giving serious testimony about violations of women's rights, not some air-head wanting to have her good time funded, as you and others here are painting her to be.
> 
> You're no better than those who told the lies in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, if Far RW radical Republicans didn't lie....they'd have nothing to say.
Click to expand...


Republicans? Excuse me? Tell me something, since Kathleen Sebelius, an Obama flunky, is the one who overruled the FDA when they wanted to allow pharmacies to sell the pill OTC, how the fuck is it the fault of the Republicans that we still live in the dark ages?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JoeB131 said:


> The thing is, there actually was a valid policy argument here.
> 
> Should organizations be forced to pay for insurance when it covers things that violate their beliefs.  Personally, I don't think there should be an exemption. If you are going to make health care a form of compensation instead of a public service like every other civilized country has done, then that compensation should not be limited to the beliefs of the provider.
> 
> And it was completely overshadowed by Limbaugh's vile comments.



Personally, I don't think you think. It was the Democrats that made health care a form of compensation when they decided to freeze the wages because they thought the free market was going to screw things up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh right, Maher isn't a oponion maker.. man oh man
> Rush did apologize but that is never good enough for you people
> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that young lady will have a bright career ahead of her.
> 
> Limbaugh didn't apologize because he was sorry he did it, he apologized because he got caught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't really apologize either. And I believe after his faux-apology, he resumed his attack on Fluke.
> 
> It's funny, you can tell the sense, or lack thereof, of the the far RW radical Republicans in their cult-like defense of a dumb-dumb like Sarah Palin and Lush Rimbaugh.
> 
> They like to pretend that Joe Biden is a dummy like their morons, yet he wiped the floors with both Palin and Ryan, their so-called "New Hope" with a smile on his face. Didn't even break a sweat.
> 
> They'll pretend that they won though, right until after election when they realized they lost...MASSIVELY. Yet again.
Click to expand...


He resumed his attack on her position. It takes a completely ignorant asshole to confuse an attack on an opinion with an attack on a person.

Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is NOT a joke.  She was a bright and articulate spokeswoman for the issue she presented.  I would be proud to have a daughter like Ms. Fluke.
> 
> Your attitude towards this woman who is defending YOUR rights too, is disgraceful.  That you would parrot an idiot like Limbaugh, well, that just says it all.
Click to expand...


You would be proud to have a daughter that went in front of Congress and lied?

This, more than anything, is what is wrong with your side of the debate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> tough shit, I didn't PICK her to speak me so she wasn't defending anything for me..she was the disgrace as far I am concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what said said?
> 
> I consider you a disgrace - ill informed and unwilling to fact check.  Not only listening to but believing anything Rush Limbaugh says.  Defending that misognynistic drug addict.  I raised my girls to be a lot smarter than that.
> 
> Read some Naomi Klein for heaven's sake.  Assuming of course, you can read.
Click to expand...


Did you?

I didn't think so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> She said no such thing, which is why you will never link to a quote from her. You can only find such a claim from your MessiahRushie and the GOP hate media echo chamber.
> 
> Before you can get the pill for $15 - $50 per month at Walmart you need to be examined by a doctor and then have the pill prescribed and the prescription periodically renewed. Those doctor visits are not free!
> 
> 
> Why birth control pills need to be prescribed | Fox News
> 
> 
> I fail to agree with the latest recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  declaring it is safe to sell birth control pills without prescriptions.
> I do agree that birth control pills are relatively safe.  However, there are some patients who require an assessment of risk factors before taking birth control, and some of these can only be identified during a medical visit.  Many women in this country do not realize that lifestyle can affect the potential side effects of any prescription or non-prescription medication.  From obesity and hypertension to smoking and blood-clotting disorders, many factors can influence the behavior of certain drugs  especially birth control.
> According to the World Health Organization, many women with certain conditions should refrain from using birth control pills altogether.  These conditions include liver disease, breast cancer, some types of diabetes, hypertension and heart disease, coronary artery disease and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said.* I use the fact that you can get it free from Planned Parenthood, can get free condoms everywhere, and that the pill is available for less than $10 a month to illustrate that she was lying.
> 
> By the way, Planned Parenthood provides free doctors exams for birth control. so you trying to argue you have to go to the doctor just adds to my point that Fluke, and you, are lying. In fact, I recall pointing out your lies specifically at the time, yet here you are again repeating them.
> 
> Do you remember how I pointed out that the government is the one forcing women to go to the doctor instead of allowing them to buy it OTC? Yet you stand here today and try to blame the insurance companies and the Catholic Church.
> 
> Keep lying, you make my point every time you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What she said EXACTLY was that 40% were STRUGGLING financially as a result of the school policy.
> 
> 
> [FONT='Lucida Grande', Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
> 
> 
> 
> Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> [/FONT]
Click to expand...


They were struggling because they can't afford free birth control?

Still lying.


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> READ THE TEXT OF HER PRESENTATION.
> 
> How can you be so bigotted and narrow to rag on this woman without even bothering to read what she said?


----------



## MarcATL

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I care what you consider..I'm not defending Limbaugh or the little rich girl whining in front of congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.
> 
> If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests of every other woman in the US.
> 
> You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.
> 
> I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.
Click to expand...

She's defending Lush Rimbaugh because people like her have more hatred towards anything Democratic, whether real or perceived. If it shines a good light on The Democrats, it's gotta be bad, and if it bashes The Democrats, it's gotta be good. That's how it is in her book.

Just like how the GOP is reacting to Obama, whatever's he's for....they're against it. Even if and when it was THEIR idea in the first place.


----------



## MarcATL

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that young lady will have a bright career ahead of her.
> 
> Limbaugh didn't apologize because he was sorry he did it, he apologized because he got caught.
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't really apologize either. And I believe after his faux-apology, he resumed his attack on Fluke.
> 
> It's funny, you can tell the sense, or lack thereof, of the the far RW radical Republicans in their cult-like defense of a dumb-dumb like Sarah Palin and Lush Rimbaugh.
> 
> They like to pretend that Joe Biden is a dummy like their morons, yet he wiped the floors with both Palin and Ryan, their so-called "New Hope" with a smile on his face. Didn't even break a sweat.
> 
> They'll pretend that they won though, right until after election when they realized they lost...MASSIVELY. Yet again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He resumed his attack on her position. It takes a completely ignorant asshole to confuse an attack on an opinion with an attack on a person.
> 
> Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
Click to expand...

No sir, you are wrong. An attack on her position does not involve, nor does it include slinging PERSONAL insults at the individual. Which is EXACTLY what he did....even AFTER his so-called apology.

Lush Rimbaugh is one of the biggest frauds in the world. Anyone with a lick of sense realizes this.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> READ THE TEXT OF HER PRESENTATION.
> 
> How can you be so bigotted and narrow to rag on this woman without even bothering to read what she said?



I did.

In fact, I quoted it to prove I actually read it, and not a single person has successfully argued that I misunderstand anything she said. Only one person even tried, but he had to resort to outright lies to make his point.

Feel free to step up and prove me wrong by actually addressing my points with facts that somehow prove that you can't get free condoms from Planned Parenthood.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't really apologize either. And I believe after his faux-apology, he resumed his attack on Fluke.
> 
> It's funny, you can tell the sense, or lack thereof, of the the far RW radical Republicans in their cult-like defense of a dumb-dumb like Sarah Palin and Lush Rimbaugh.
> 
> They like to pretend that Joe Biden is a dummy like their morons, yet he wiped the floors with both Palin and Ryan, their so-called "New Hope" with a smile on his face. Didn't even break a sweat.
> 
> They'll pretend that they won though, right until after election when they realized they lost...MASSIVELY. Yet again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He resumed his attack on her position. It takes a completely ignorant asshole to confuse an attack on an opinion with an attack on a person.
> 
> Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No sir, you are wrong. An attack on her position does not involve, nor does it include slinging PERSONAL insults at the individual. Which is EXACTLY what he did....even AFTER his so-called apology.
> 
> Lush Rimbaugh is one of the biggest frauds in the world. Anyone with a lick of sense realizes this.
Click to expand...


Feel free to point out any personal attacks I made on her. Failing that, you could just shut the fuck up.


----------



## Stephanie

MarcATL said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I care what you consider..I'm not defending Limbaugh or the little rich girl whining in front of congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.
> 
> If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests of every other woman in the US.
> 
> You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.
> 
> I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She's defending Lush Rimbaugh because people like her have more hatred towards anything Democratic, whether real or perceived. If it shines a good light on The Democrats, it's gotta be bad, and if it bashes The Democrats, it's gotta be good. That's how it is in her book.
> 
> Just like how the GOP is reacting to Obama, whatever's he's for....they're against it. Even if and when it was THEIR idea in the first place.
Click to expand...


lol, now you are a psychologist..
you should look in a mirror when speaking of who hates


----------



## RosieS

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I care what you consider..I'm not defending Limbaugh or the little rich girl whining in front of congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.
> 
> If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests ofjof every other woman in the US.
> 
> You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.
> 
> I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.
Click to expand...


There are many intelligent women in this ruby red area of Florida who vote against their own interests because they are avoiding cognitive dissonance. The pulpit and the party are congruent as to the Gawd-ordained subordinate role of women.

When Republicans complain that Dems take Gawd out of their platform they are talking directly about the Dems not having the pulpit - party link.

All the more reason to have churches pay property tax. They are electioneering, beyond a doubt. Let them pay taxes and be honest about directing church members votes.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Stephanie

don't you just love people who think they know and who tell others what their "best interest" SHOULD BE

that's why they love the little college rich girl, fluke..they are just like her..


----------



## RosieS

Dragonlady clearly elucidated intelligent reasons why self-reliant women should not vote Republican

If a woman feels she should only stay home, cook, clean, have babies and go to church twice a week then Republicanism is appropriate in maintaining the white male patriarchy.

No women, however, should believe any patriarchy is in her best interest. Only men are telling her it is from the pulpit, after all.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Stephanie

RosieS said:


> Dragonlady clearly elucidated intelligent reasons why self-reliant women should not vote Republican
> 
> If a woman feels she should only stay home, cook, clean, have babies and go to church twice a week then Republicanism is appropriate in maintaining the white male patriarchy.
> 
> No women, however, should believe any patriarchy is in her best interest. Only men are telling her it is from the pulpit, after all.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



omg, you two are both nuts..


----------



## MarcATL

Stephanie said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.
> 
> If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests of every other woman in the US.
> 
> You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.
> 
> I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.
> 
> 
> 
> She's defending Lush Rimbaugh because people like her have more hatred towards anything Democratic, whether real or perceived. If it shines a good light on The Democrats, it's gotta be bad, and if it bashes The Democrats, it's gotta be good. That's how it is in her book.
> 
> Just like how the GOP is reacting to Obama, whatever's he's for....they're against it. Even if and when it was THEIR idea in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, now you are a psychologist..
> you should look in a mirror when speaking of who hates
Click to expand...

You are giggling uncomfortably because I got you pegged dead-to-rights.

I got your pyschologist right here.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RosieS said:


> Dragonlady clearly elucidated intelligent reasons why self-reliant women should not vote Republican
> 
> If a woman feels she should only stay home, cook, clean, have babies and go to church twice a week then Republicanism is appropriate in maintaining the white male patriarchy.
> 
> No women, however, should believe any patriarchy is in her best interest. Only men are telling her it is from the pulpit, after all.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



Reality check, she actually elucidated all the ways the Democratic Party keeps women from being self reliant.


----------



## MarcATL

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> He resumed his attack on her position. It takes a completely ignorant asshole to confuse an attack on an opinion with an attack on a person.
> 
> Sorry, I forgot who I was talking to.
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, you are wrong. An attack on her position does not involve, nor does it include slinging PERSONAL insults at the individual. Which is EXACTLY what he did....even AFTER his so-called apology.
> 
> Lush Rimbaugh is one of the biggest frauds in the world. Anyone with a lick of sense realizes this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out any personal attacks I made on her. Failing that, you could just shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Lush Rimbaugh my friend, not you. Take it easy big fella.


----------



## Stephanie

MarcATL said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> She's defending Lush Rimbaugh because people like her have more hatred towards anything Democratic, whether real or perceived. If it shines a good light on The Democrats, it's gotta be bad, and if it bashes The Democrats, it's gotta be good. That's how it is in her book.
> 
> Just like how the GOP is reacting to Obama, whatever's he's for....they're against it. Even if and when it was THEIR idea in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, now you are a psychologist..
> you should look in a mirror when speaking of who hates
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are giggling uncomfortably because I got you pegged dead-to-rights.
> 
> I got your pyschologist right here.
Click to expand...


the only you got is a over inflated ego


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, you are wrong. An attack on her position does not involve, nor does it include slinging PERSONAL insults at the individual. Which is EXACTLY what he did....even AFTER his so-called apology.
> 
> Lush Rimbaugh is one of the biggest frauds in the world. Anyone with a lick of sense realizes this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out any personal attacks I made on her. Failing that, you could just shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was referring to Lush Rimbaugh my friend, not you. Take it easy big fella.
Click to expand...


Fine then, point out any way Rush personally attacked Fluke after his apology where he admitted he was wrong for personally attacking her.


----------



## Stephanie

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out any personal attacks I made on her. Failing that, you could just shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Lush Rimbaugh my friend, not you. Take it easy big fella.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine then, point out any way Rush personally attacked Fluke after his apology where he admitted he was wrong for personally attacking her.
Click to expand...


He can't because he's full of bs


----------



## Dragonlady

Did you?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I did read what she said.  

Planned Parenthood's funding has been cut to the point where they can't just hand out free contraceptives to anyone who asks for them, without need.  These are, as you pointed out, women who paid $30K for college tuition which includes medical insurance.  

Georgetown is a top 10 law school, which means, having a better chance of getting hired on graduation.  It is a school which students will mortgage their souls to get into, and not a school you attend just because your daddy's rich.  So yes, for students working their way through law school, having to jump through additional hoops for the insurance company to provide those BCP's are for your tumours and not so you can have sex for fun, is a real problem.

Not to mention, male law students don't have to deal with this crap.


----------



## Dragonlady

I would also like to add, that students don't get to pick and choose their medical plans.  If they could, those with a need would most certainly ensure it including contraception.  90% of Catholic women use contraception regardless of what the Church teaches.  The pointed omission of contraception from this plan, may be what the Church wants, but it isn't what its women want, and should the government be asking the women what THEY want, since, they after all, are the ones who are paying for it with their tuition.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out any personal attacks I made on her. Failing that, you could just shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Lush Rimbaugh my friend, not you. Take it easy big fella.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine then, point out any way Rush personally attacked Fluke after his apology where he admitted he was wrong for personally attacking her.
Click to expand...


Funny -- when I demanded documentation, I got this:


Quantum Windbag said:


> If I had just made the point, and never previously defended it, you could claim victory. On the other hand, since I have already made, and defended, the point, it is your job to refute it.



-- haven't you heard?  It's *your *job to refute.  Can't say you didn't get the memo-- you _wrote _the memo.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Yes, I did read what she said.
> 
> Planned Parenthood's funding has been cut to the point where they can't just hand out free contraceptives to anyone who asks for them, without need.  These are, as you pointed out, women who paid $30K for college tuition which includes medical insurance.
> 
> Georgetown is a top 10 law school, which means, having a better chance of getting hired on graduation.  It is a school which students will mortgage their souls to get into, and not a school you attend just because your daddy's rich.  So yes, for students working their way through law school, having to jump through additional hoops for the insurance company to provide those BCP's are for your tumours and not so you can have sex for fun, is a real problem.
> 
> Not to mention, male law students don't have to deal with this crap.



Bullshit. No wonder you would be proud if your daughter lied, you are not teaching her dig for the facts and find the truth. You prefer a daughter that parrots your talking points without thinking. The women who fought for their rights a century ago would be ashamed if they could see what has become of their efforts. 

Take a look at the numbers and show me how the fact that Planned Parenthood is reporting record levels of government support somehow proves their funding has been cut. This year 45% of their budget comes from taxes.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm

By the way, what makes you think male students don't have to deal with the imaginary funding cuts if they stop by Planned Parenthood to get free condoms?


----------



## Pogo

Sarah G said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh brother, Limbaugh's vile comments..the only reason people heard what he said is because of you on the left having a cow over it...blame yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And also he is desperately attempting to hold on to his wingnut rockstar status by finding more and more extreme things to say for 3 hours a day.
> 
> He's having trouble justifying his existence these days.
Click to expand...


Astute point.  Limbo was trying to stretch out his TSL according to this analysis from the conservative side:

... But even more than the total size of the audience, radio advertisers care about a measure called TSL: time spent listening. The people who listen longest are of course the most ideologically intense.

Here&#8217;s how this operates in the real world. Limbaugh knows that his share of big markets like Dallas or Atlanta has dropped from his old 5 percent in any given hour to, say, 3 percent. But if he can entice that 3 percent to listen twice as long, he can more than make up the loss.

That imperative explains why Limbaugh kept talking about Sandra Fluke for so long. He was boosting his TSL to compensate for his dwindling market share. Few things boost TSL like getting the old folks agitated over how much sexy sex these shameless young hussies are having nowadays. (And make no mistake: Limbaugh&#8217;s audience is very old. One station manager quipped to me, &#8220;The median age of Limbaugh&#8217;s audience? Deceased.&#8221


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> I would also like to add, that students don't get to pick and choose their medical plans.  If they could, those with a need would most certainly ensure it including contraception.  90% of Catholic women use contraception regardless of what the Church teaches.  The pointed omission of contraception from this plan, may be what the Church wants, but it isn't what its women want, and should the government be asking the women what THEY want, since, they after all, are the ones who are paying for it with their tuition.



I would like to point out that, until Obamacare passed, anyone was free to pick and choose whatever medical plan they wanted. I know this for a fact because I used to have my own medical plan before you idiots stepped in to save me from my own choices.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Lush Rimbaugh my friend, not you. Take it easy big fella.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine then, point out any way Rush personally attacked Fluke after his apology where he admitted he was wrong for personally attacking her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny -- when I demanded documentation, I got this:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had just made the point, and never previously defended it, you could claim victory. On the other hand, since I have already made, and defended, the point, it is your job to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- haven't you heard?  It's *your *job to refute.  Can't say you didn't get the memo-- you _wrote _the memo.
Click to expand...


And, if you keep reading, you will see I ended up pointing out the exact lies she made when previous posters came into this thread and tried to spread their lies.

You loose.


----------



## Pogo

For what it's worth, I don't remember Limblob revisiting Sandra Fluke after his walletfelt apology where he claimed "the Left did it".  What I do remember is him moving on to the next woman to attack, which was Tracie McMillan.

Of course with the Fluke outrage and the attendant advertiser exodus going on, the McMillan story pretty much played Wally Pipp to Fluke's Lou Gehrig, but it was just the latest in a long legacy of Limblobian misogyny.


----------



## RosieS

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did read what she said.
> 
> Planned Parenthood's funding has been cut to the point where they can't just hand out free contraceptives to anyone who asks for them, without need.  These are, as you pointed out, women who paid $30K for college tuition which includes medical insurance.
> 
> Georgetown is a top 10 law school, which means, having a better chance of getting hired on graduation.  It is a school which students will mortgage their souls to get into, and not a school you attend just because your daddy's rich.  So yes, for students working their way through law school, having to jump through additional hoops for the insurance company to provide those BCP's are for your tumours and not so you can have sex for fun, is a real problem.
> 
> Not to mention, male law students don't have to deal with this crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. No wonder you would be proud if your daughter lied, you are not teaching her dig for the facts and find the truth. You prefer a daughter that parrots your talking points without thinking. The women who fought for their rights a century ago would be ashamed if they could see what has become of their efforts.
> 
> Take a look at the numbers and show me how the fact that Planned Parenthood is reporting record levels of government support somehow proves their funding has been cut. This year 45% of their budget comes from taxes.
> 
> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm
> 
> By the way, what makes you think male students don't have to deal with the imaginary funding cuts if they stop by Planned Parenthood to get free condoms?
Click to expand...


Because no male ever needs a doctor visit and prescription for a condom, is why. Try to get a month's supply of BC pills without an Rx.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> your snobbery is showing...
> 
> what was Biden before he became Vice President? nothing but a career politician..Palin was a mayor and then ELECTED Governor with a 80% approval rating..
> 
> give me a community college person any day than some buffoon career Politician
> but I'm beginning to believe liberal Democrats could run a goat for office and they would vote for it as long as it had a D next to it's name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palin got elected in Alaska (which shouldn't even be a state) because she was a nice compliant thing that would go along with what the oil companies wanted to do up there. And, oh, yeah, she quit to go do reality TV.  Before that she was the Mayor of Alaska's Crystal Meth Capital.
> 
> Meanwhile, Senator Biden had spent 30 years doing the hard work in the Senate of passing legislation.
> 
> So, really, your "but...but...but Biden" schtick is getting old. People are going to remember Biden long after they forgot old, what's her name? Tina Fey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you should talk about, schtick...you are the expert on it
> as for the "big oil" in Alaska, you bet your ass, and the profits from it is given back to the people who live there in a thing called, the permanent fund...Too bad your all's state don't think as much of you
Click to expand...


Maybe the folks in Alaska need to see what happens to a region when the oil dries up...


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine then, point out any way Rush personally attacked Fluke after his apology where he admitted he was wrong for personally attacking her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny -- when I demanded documentation, I got this:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had just made the point, and never previously defended it, you could claim victory. On the other hand, since I have already made, and defended, the point, it is your job to refute it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- haven't you heard?  It's *your *job to refute.  Can't say you didn't get the memo-- you _wrote _the memo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if you keep reading, you will see I ended up pointing out the exact lies she made when previous posters came into this thread and tried to spread their lies.
> 
> You loose.
Click to expand...


No, I tight.  _You _loose.  Watch, I show you.

Here what you loosely wrote:


Quantum Windbag said:


> Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said. I use the fact that you can get it free from Planned Parenthood, can get free condoms everywhere, and that the pill is available for less than $10 a month to illustrate that she was lying.



Here what Sandra Fluke actually say:
Without insurance coverage contraception can cost a woman over $3000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary.  Forty percent of female students at Georgetown law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.


Different.  You try water statement down to mean something it not mean.  You not "fucking prove" squat.  Ergo you loose, me tight.  Pogo punch holes in you post like loose leaf paper.  It fun.


----------



## Sarah G

Stephanie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you people didn't get that upset when Maher called Palin a cxxt..or Letterman said she looked like a slutty flight attendant..you people are such phonies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palin is a politician and a public figure.
> 
> My problem with Palin is how someone that stupid could be a public figure in this country, or rise to national prominance before everyone got the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't seem to mind all the stupid people in the Democrat party..how funny
> Biden makes Palin look like a genius
Click to expand...


What would someone who calls it the "Democrat" party know about genius?


----------



## Pogo

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Palin is a politician and a public figure.
> 
> My problem with Palin is how someone that stupid could be a public figure in this country, or rise to national prominance before everyone got the joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don't seem to mind all the stupid people in the Democrat party..how funny
> Biden makes Palin look like a genius
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What would someone who calls it the "Democrat" party know about genius?
Click to expand...


Ruh-roh, dead giveaway there.  That's a Limblob invention.  
They love to protest "oh but I don't listen to him" and then they leave these clues like land mines ::blam:: ::blam::
"Who, me?"


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RosieS said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did read what she said.
> 
> Planned Parenthood's funding has been cut to the point where they can't just hand out free contraceptives to anyone who asks for them, without need.  These are, as you pointed out, women who paid $30K for college tuition which includes medical insurance.
> 
> Georgetown is a top 10 law school, which means, having a better chance of getting hired on graduation.  It is a school which students will mortgage their souls to get into, and not a school you attend just because your daddy's rich.  So yes, for students working their way through law school, having to jump through additional hoops for the insurance company to provide those BCP's are for your tumours and not so you can have sex for fun, is a real problem.
> 
> Not to mention, male law students don't have to deal with this crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. No wonder you would be proud if your daughter lied, you are not teaching her dig for the facts and find the truth. You prefer a daughter that parrots your talking points without thinking. The women who fought for their rights a century ago would be ashamed if they could see what has become of their efforts.
> 
> Take a look at the numbers and show me how the fact that Planned Parenthood is reporting record levels of government support somehow proves their funding has been cut. This year 45% of their budget comes from taxes.
> 
> https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report-4661.htm
> 
> By the way, what makes you think male students don't have to deal with the imaginary funding cuts if they stop by Planned Parenthood to get free condoms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because no male ever needs a doctor visit and prescription for a condom, is why. Try to get a month's supply of BC pills without an Rx.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Aren't you the girl who praised the other people for posting facts when they didn't? Do you really want to tr and argue from a snarky perspective now, because I am a antural born smart ass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny -- when I demanded documentation, I got this:
> 
> 
> -- haven't you heard?  It's *your *job to refute.  Can't say you didn't get the memo-- you _wrote _the memo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, if you keep reading, you will see I ended up pointing out the exact lies she made when previous posters came into this thread and tried to spread their lies.
> 
> You loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I tight.  _You _loose.  Watch, I show you.
> 
> Here what you loosely wrote:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said. I use the fact that you can get it free from Planned Parenthood, can get free condoms everywhere, and that the pill is available for less than $10 a month to illustrate that she was lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here what Sandra Fluke actually say:
> Without insurance coverage contraception can cost a woman over $3000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary.  *Forty percent of female students at Georgetown law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.*
> 
> 
> Different.  You try water statement down to mean something it not mean.  You not "fucking prove" squat.  Ergo you loose, me tight.  Pogo punch holes in you post like loose leaf paper.  It fun.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to tell me that struggling financially actually means they can afford it? Because, if that is what you are saying, then you just called Fluke a liar.


----------



## MarcATL

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to point out any personal attacks I made on her. Failing that, you could just shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Lush Rimbaugh my friend, not you. Take it easy big fella.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine then, point out any way Rush personally attacked Fluke after his apology where he admitted he was wrong for personally attacking her.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna pull a Cain...

*I don't have the facts to back it up, but,* to my recollection, he went on to do a few more jabs at Sandra Fluke even after the so-called apology.

I'm not prone to go digging for that info though, however, it's how I recall things to have happened.


----------



## RosieS

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny -- when I demanded documentation, I got this:
> 
> 
> -- haven't you heard?  It's *your *job to refute.  Can't say you didn't get the memo-- you _wrote _the memo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, if you keep reading, you will see I ended up pointing out the exact lies she made when previous posters came into this thread and tried to spread their lies.
> 
> You loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I tight.  _You _loose.  Watch, I show you.
> 
> Here what you loosely wrote:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said. I use the fact that you can get it free from Planned Parenthood, can get free condoms everywhere, and that the pill is available for less than $10 a month to illustrate that she was lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here what Sandra Fluke actually say:
> Without insurance coverage contraception can cost a woman over $3000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary.  Forty percent of female students at Georgetown law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
> 
> 
> Different.  You try water statement down to mean something it not mean.  You not "fucking prove" squat.  Ergo you loose, me tight.  Pogo punch holes in you post like loose leaf paper.  It fun.
Click to expand...


Pogo dear, a splurt alert would be nice! My coffee has beaucoup sugar. LOL!

Will those who are often offering tissues please hand me a few? TYVM!

Regards from Rosie


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, if you keep reading, you will see I ended up pointing out the exact lies she made when previous posters came into this thread and tried to spread their lies.
> 
> You loose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I tight.  _You _loose.  Watch, I show you.
> 
> Here what you loosely wrote:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said. I use the fact that you can get it free from Planned Parenthood, can get free condoms everywhere, and that the pill is available for less than $10 a month to illustrate that she was lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here what Sandra Fluke actually say:
> Without insurance coverage contraception can cost a woman over $3000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary.  Forty percent of female students at Georgetown law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
> 
> 
> Different.  You try water statement down to mean something it not mean.  You not "fucking prove" squat.  Ergo you loose, me tight.  Pogo punch holes in you post like loose leaf paper.  It fun.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that struggling financially actually means they can afford it? Because, if that is what you are saying, then you just called Fluke a liar.
Click to expand...


Are you actually going to dip into the dumpster of denialism to defy the meaning of words in the English language to the point where "report struggling financially" (verb: _report_) and "cannot afford" (verb: _can_) are the same thing?

That very loose indeed.  Why you play loose with facts?
Because you loose, dat why.


----------



## theHawk

MarcATL said:


> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??



We side with him because he was right about her.  She was a prop thrown up there by the Dems for their own agenda.  He was being facetious when talking of Fluke: 

_RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back._

Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.

So please, grow a fucking pair and stop acting like you're still butt-hurt about Rush's jokes on Sandra "the Slut" Fluke.


----------



## Dragonlady

theHawk said:


> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.



He said she wanted the government to pay for her contraception.  



> She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.



That was and is a complete lie.  She wanted the health care, which she paid for in her $30,000 per year tuition, and which she had no choice but to accept, to pay for her contraception.  I don't think that's being unreasonable.  

And no she is not a slut, but you're definitely an asshole.


----------



## Pogo

theHawk said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We side with him because he was right about her.  She was a prop thrown up there by the Dems for their own agenda.  He was being facetious when talking of Fluke:
> 
> _RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back._
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> So please, grow a fucking pair and stop acting like you're still butt-hurt about Rush's jokes on Sandra "the Slut" Fluke.
Click to expand...


Apparently someone's not entirely clear on the distinction between a "joke" and "character assassination".

Just for a starter-hint, "jokes" do not go on for _three days_.
Duh.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0]53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]

"Was he wrong about the facts?"   Just for one example at 6:31: "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.".  No, it was not, because Fluke never talked about herself; it was Rash Pimpjob who said that, and no one else.  Do me a favor and count up how many times he repeats the same lie, because I can't sit through it.

Had Limblob's rant actually been about the issue of funding sources of contraception, that would be the issue remembered and discussed.  It wasn't.  Limblob as usual makes it a personal fantasy, spewing his ad hominem all over Fluke (and others, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) so that the issue that remains, even now a year later, is the personal attack by the fake morals of a man on his fourth wife who was busted coming back from the DR with a stash of Viagra.

Only a misogynist could possibly defend that level of self-indulgent subhumanoid hypocrisy.


----------



## Dragonlady

I repeat again, Fluke was asking that the medical insurance which students at Georgetown pay for as part of their tuition, include contraception, no questions asked.  The Catholic Church wanted to exclude contraception from the insurance, which would give the Church an exception under the ACA, and Fluke argued against it on behalf of Georgetown's female students.  That to ask female students to pay for contraception, over and above tuition which is double the cost of state universities, was a hardship for many students, especially those women who needed the BCP's to treat painful cysts, and other conditions which have nothing to do with contraception.

But that's not what Rush said happened at all.  He said that this woman wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  It was Rush who went off on this middle-aged man/schoolgirl fantasy trip.  Sandra Fluke went to the Senate and talked about women's health issues, and Rush Limbaugh lied about what she said and turned the whole thing into a monologue about slutty co-eds.  

Those of you here who claim he was right have no idea what Fluke said, nor do you care.  You just wanna have a go at one them femi-nazis.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Lush Rimbaugh my friend, not you. Take it easy big fella.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine then, point out any way Rush personally attacked Fluke after his apology where he admitted he was wrong for personally attacking her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm gonna pull a Cain...
> 
> *I don't have the facts to back it up, but,* to my recollection, he went on to do a few more jabs at Sandra Fluke even after the so-called apology.
> 
> I'm not prone to go digging for that info though, however, it's how I recall things to have happened.
Click to expand...


No facts, just your bigotry.

At least you admit it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I tight.  _You _loose.  Watch, I show you.
> 
> Here what you loosely wrote:
> 
> 
> Here what Sandra Fluke actually say:
> Without insurance coverage contraception can cost a woman over $3000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary.  Forty percent of female students at Georgetown law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.
> 
> 
> Different.  You try water statement down to mean something it not mean.  You not "fucking prove" squat.  Ergo you loose, me tight.  Pogo punch holes in you post like loose leaf paper.  It fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that struggling financially actually means they can afford it? Because, if that is what you are saying, then you just called Fluke a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually going to dip into the dumpster of denialism to defy the meaning of words in the English language to the point where "report struggling financially" (verb: _report_) and "cannot afford" (verb: _can_) are the same thing?
> 
> That very loose indeed.  Why you play loose with facts?
> Because you loose, dat why.
Click to expand...


What do you think the difference between struggle financially and cannot afford is? $5?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said she wanted the government to pay for her contraception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was and is a complete lie.  She wanted the health care, which she paid for in her $30,000 per year tuition, and which she had no choice but to accept, to pay for her contraception.  I don't think that's being unreasonable.
> 
> And no she is not a slut, but you're definitely an asshole.
Click to expand...


It was hyperbole, learn the difference.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> I repeat again, Fluke was asking that the medical insurance which students at Georgetown pay for as part of their tuition, include contraception, no questions asked.  The Catholic Church wanted to exclude contraception from the insurance, which would give the Church an exception under the ACA, and Fluke argued against it on behalf of Georgetown's female students.  That to ask female students to pay for contraception, over and above tuition which is double the cost of state universities, was a hardship for many students, especially those women who needed the BCP's to treat painful cysts, and other conditions which have nothing to do with contraception.
> 
> But that's not what Rush said happened at all.  He said that this woman wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  It was Rush who went off on this middle-aged man/schoolgirl fantasy trip.  Sandra Fluke went to the Senate and talked about women's health issues, and Rush Limbaugh lied about what she said and turned the whole thing into a monologue about slutty co-eds.
> 
> Those of you here who claim he was right have no idea what Fluke said, nor do you care.  You just wanna have a go at one them femi-nazis.



No she was not.

She was asking that the government force Georgetown to cover it. There is a difference that is important here, if you believe in freedom.


----------



## theHawk

Dragonlady said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said she wanted the government to pay for her contraception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was and is a complete lie.  She wanted the health care, which she paid for in her $30,000 per year tuition, and which she had no choice but to accept, to pay for her contraception.  I don't think that's being unreasonable.
> 
> And no she is not a slut, but you're definitely an asshole.
Click to expand...


Oh really?  You ask Georgetown University's insurance company to pay for contraception by going to CAPITAL HILL?

Holy fuck you liberals are dumb.  The AGENDA was to have government force insurance companies to pay for college co-ed's sluts, and the end game for the liberal agenda is to have taxpayer funded government health care.

You're not fooling anyone.


----------



## theHawk

Dragonlady said:


> I repeat again, Fluke was asking that the medical insurance which students at Georgetown pay for as part of their tuition, include contraception, no questions asked.  The Catholic Church wanted to exclude contraception from the insurance, which would give the Church an exception under the ACA, and Fluke argued against it on behalf of Georgetown's female students.  That to ask female students to pay for contraception, over and above tuition which is double the cost of state universities, was a hardship for many students, especially those women who needed the BCP's to treat painful cysts, and other conditions which have nothing to do with contraception.
> 
> But that's not what Rush said happened at all.  He said that this woman wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  It was Rush who went off on this middle-aged man/schoolgirl fantasy trip.  Sandra Fluke went to the Senate and talked about women's health issues, and Rush Limbaugh lied about what she said and turned the whole thing into a monologue about slutty co-eds.
> 
> Those of you here who claim he was right have no idea what Fluke said, nor do you care.  You just wanna have a go at one them femi-nazis.



Ever wonder why anyone would go to a Catholic University and expect  them to pay for something that is totally against their religion?  Well that's the sort of thing Rush brought up when talking about Fluke and the Democrat agenda with this whole farce.  If you actually had listened to Rush instead of cherry picking sound bites you might have a clue.  Instead, you're a political hack that has to display phoney outrage over Rush joking about the Slutter, Sandra Fluke.


----------



## theHawk

Pogo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We side with him because he was right about her.  She was a prop thrown up there by the Dems for their own agenda.  He was being facetious when talking of Fluke:
> 
> _RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back._
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> So please, grow a fucking pair and stop acting like you're still butt-hurt about Rush's jokes on Sandra "the Slut" Fluke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently someone's not entirely clear on the distinction between a "joke" and "character assassination".
> 
> Just for a starter-hint, "jokes" do not go on for _three days_.
> Duh.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0]53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> "Was he wrong about the facts?"   Just for one example at 6:31: "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.".  No, it was not, because Fluke never talked about herself; it was Rash Pimpjob who said that, and no one else.  Do me a favor and count up how many times he repeats the same lie, because I can't sit through it.
> 
> Had Limblob's rant actually been about the issue of funding sources of contraception, that would be the issue remembered and discussed.  It wasn't.  Limblob as usual makes it a personal fantasy, spewing his ad hominem all over Fluke (and others, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) so that the issue that remains, even now a year later, is the personal attack by the fake morals of a man on his fourth wife who was busted coming back from the DR with a stash of Viagra.
> 
> Only a misogynist could possibly defend that level of self-indulgent subhumanoid hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.

_Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke

If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.


----------



## koshergrl

Free if you walk to the nearest clinic, which is, generally speaking, located within walking distance of most universities.


----------



## koshergrl

There's a reason they call them street walkers, after all. One presumes even the student hookers can walk a couple of blocks, if the cookie they receive is FREE CONTRACEPTION!!


----------



## koshergrl

Plus maybe they can pick up a coupla bucks on the way...


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said she wanted the government to pay for her contraception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was and is a complete lie.  She wanted the health care, which she paid for in her $30,000 per year tuition, and which she had no choice but to accept, to pay for her contraception.  I don't think that's being unreasonable.
> 
> And no she is not a slut, but you're definitely an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was hyperbole, learn the difference.
Click to expand...


Oh poster please.

The statement "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it." is not "hyperbole".  It's a flat declarative statement.  And since the statement has no basis whatsoever in fact (i.e. Fluke never said any such thing) it has another name: slander.

That is a direct quote.  It's in the video.  You can post all the denials you want; it doesn't change the history.  Don't come waddling in here insulting everybody's intelligence with this "hyperbole" bullshit.

And this from the same guy who posted:


Quantum Windbag said:


> I don't recall siding with Rush.


----------



## koshergrl

Pssst...nobody gives a shit. Fluke's primary motivation was to earn herself a spot as a commentator with the State Propaganda Corps.

And I think she got it.


----------



## Dragonlady

theHawk said:


> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _&#8220;Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that&#8217;s practically an entire summer&#8217;s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.



You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.  

Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.

The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.


----------



## koshergrl

No, she's not correct. If they are low income, they are eligible to receive free screenings and birth control at the nearest county clinic.

Try again.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that struggling financially actually means they can afford it? Because, if that is what you are saying, then you just called Fluke a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually going to dip into the dumpster of denialism to defy the meaning of words in the English language to the point where "report struggling financially" (verb: _report_) and "cannot afford" (verb: _can_) are the same thing?
> 
> That very loose indeed.  Why you play loose with facts?
> Because you loose, dat why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the difference between struggle financially and cannot afford is? $5?
Click to expand...


"What the difference is" is irrelevant.  The point is you claimed Fluke was "lying" thusly:


Quantum Windbag said:


> Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said.


 
Well now, I quoted the testimony and it seems you fucking can't prove that at all, so you're fucking wrong.  Testifying that 40% "report struggling financially" is in no way the same thing as declaring they "can't afford" it.  Again, and I told you this yesterday, the verb there is "report". 

Moreover, at the same time back there you said:


Quantum Windbag said:


> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.



-- _None of which_ exists in the transcript.

So there is lying here, but Sandra Fluke ain't the one doing it.

Back on, as it happens, Valentine's Day, some other wag named Longknife who also apparently didn't bother to read the transcript, also came in spewing the Limblob lies about stuff Fluke never said.  I immediately challenged him to back that up.  He backed up so far that he never returned to the thread at all, and that was five days ago.  But at least he didn't keep beating a dead horse that had no legs to run on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said she wanted the government to pay for her contraception.
> 
> That was and is a complete lie.  She wanted the health care, which she paid for in her $30,000 per year tuition, and which she had no choice but to accept, to pay for her contraception.  I don't think that's being unreasonable.
> 
> And no she is not a slut, but you're definitely an asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was hyperbole, learn the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh poster please.
> 
> The statement "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it." is not "hyperbole".  It's a flat declarative statement.  And since the statement has no basis whatsoever in fact (i.e. Fluke never said any such thing) it has another name: slander.
> 
> That is a direct quote.  It's in the video.  You can post all the denials you want; it doesn't change the history.  Don't come waddling in here insulting everybody's intelligence with this "hyperbole" bullshit.
> 
> And this from the same guy who posted:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall siding with Rush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Incredible.

If you read the post I responded to you won't find a single comment about how much sex Fluke was having. The specific claim I was responding to was that Rush said she wanted taxpayers to pay for her contraception. That is hyperbole, and thus you are the one that pegged this meter, not me.



 
By the way, have you figured out how much the difference between "Struggle financially" and "Can't afford" is? I am still curious about exactly how much it is, especially since you took so much time to bash on me for not knowing what the difference is.


----------



## Pogo

theHawk said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> We side with him because he was right about her.  She was a prop thrown up there by the Dems for their own agenda.  He was being facetious when talking of Fluke:
> 
> _RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back._
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> So please, grow a fucking pair and stop acting like you're still butt-hurt about Rush's jokes on Sandra "the Slut" Fluke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently someone's not entirely clear on the distinction between a "joke" and "character assassination".
> 
> Just for a starter-hint, "jokes" do not go on for _three days_.
> Duh.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0]53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> "Was he wrong about the facts?"   Just for one example at 6:31: "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.".  No, it was not, because Fluke never talked about herself; it was Rash Pimpjob who said that, and no one else.  Do me a favor and count up how many times he repeats the same lie, because I can't sit through it.
> 
> Had Limblob's rant actually been about the issue of funding sources of contraception, that would be the issue remembered and discussed.  It wasn't.  Limblob as usual makes it a personal fantasy, spewing his ad hominem all over Fluke (and others, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) so that the issue that remains, even now a year later, is the personal attack by the fake morals of a man on his fourth wife who was busted coming back from the DR with a stash of Viagra.
> 
> Only a misogynist could possibly defend that level of self-indulgent subhumanoid hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _&#8220;Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that&#8217;s practically an entire summer&#8217;s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
Click to expand...


And if you think you can get through law school in a year you must be an idiot.  Or Rush Limbaugh.  But I repeat myself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.
> 
> Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.
> 
> The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.
Click to expand...


Not true. If you have a prescription for contraception that you take every day there is at least a week out of every cycle that you are not actually taking any medication.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was hyperbole, learn the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poster please.
> 
> The statement "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it." is not "hyperbole".  It's a flat declarative statement.  And since the statement has no basis whatsoever in fact (i.e. Fluke never said any such thing) it has another name: slander.
> 
> That is a direct quote.  It's in the video.  You can post all the denials you want; it doesn't change the history.  Don't come waddling in here insulting everybody's intelligence with this "hyperbole" bullshit.
> 
> And this from the same guy who posted:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall siding with Rush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> If you read the post I responded to you won't find a single comment about how much sex Fluke was having. The specific claim I was responding to was that Rush said she wanted taxpayers to pay for her contraception. That is hyperbole, and thus you are the one that pegged this meter, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, have you figured out how much the difference between "Struggle financially" and "Can't afford" is? I am still curious about exactly how much it is, especially since you took so much time to bash on me for not knowing what the difference is.
Click to expand...


Already addressed.  The difference is irrelevant.  You're trying to ask me how much an apple is different from an orange.  A false equivalence is a false equivalence; it's not a relative comparison.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually going to dip into the dumpster of denialism to defy the meaning of words in the English language to the point where "report struggling financially" (verb: _report_) and "cannot afford" (verb: _can_) are the same thing?
> 
> That very loose indeed.  Why you play loose with facts?
> Because you loose, dat why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the difference between struggle financially and cannot afford is? $5?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "What the difference is" is irrelevant.  The point is you claimed Fluke was "lying" thusly:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying she did not claim that 40% of Georgetown students cannot afford birth control? Because I can fucking prove that is exactly what she said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well now, I quoted the testimony and it seems you fucking can't prove that at all, so you're fucking wrong.  Testifying that 40% "report struggling financially" is in no way the same thing as declaring they "can't afford" it.  Again, and I told you this yesterday, the verb there is "report".
> 
> Moreover, at the same time back there you said:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- _None of which_ exists in the transcript.
> 
> So there is lying here, but Sandra Fluke ain't the one doing it.
> 
> Back on, as it happens, Valentine's Day, some other wag named Longknife who also apparently didn't bother to read the transcript, also came in spewing the Limblob lies about stuff Fluke never said.  I immediately challenged him to back that up.  He backed up so far that he never returned to the thread at all, and that was five days ago.  But at least he didn't keep beating a dead horse that had no legs to run on.
Click to expand...


No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poster please.
> 
> The statement "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it." is not "hyperbole".  It's a flat declarative statement.  And since the statement has no basis whatsoever in fact (i.e. Fluke never said any such thing) it has another name: slander.
> 
> That is a direct quote.  It's in the video.  You can post all the denials you want; it doesn't change the history.  Don't come waddling in here insulting everybody's intelligence with this "hyperbole" bullshit.
> 
> And this from the same guy who posted:
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> If you read the post I responded to you won't find a single comment about how much sex Fluke was having. The specific claim I was responding to was that Rush said she wanted taxpayers to pay for her contraception. That is hyperbole, and thus you are the one that pegged this meter, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, have you figured out how much the difference between "Struggle financially" and "Can't afford" is? I am still curious about exactly how much it is, especially since you took so much time to bash on me for not knowing what the difference is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already addressed.  The difference is irrelevant.  You're trying to ask me how much an apple is different from an orange.  A false equivalence is a false equivalence; it's not a relative comparison.
Click to expand...


What the fuck does fruit have to do with this discussion? There is no difference between the two phrases other than whatever exist in your deluded mind. It there was one you would be able to explain it.

Fluke lied, end of discussion.


----------



## Care4all

Jimminne Christmas the Hawk, how uninformed are you about birth control pills?

It costs no more a year, to be on birth control pills if you screw every day, screw 10 times a day, screw once a week or screw once a YEAR....You don't take the pill only the day you get laid, you have to take it every single day of the week in most forms of it.

Why in the world did you say: 


> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.


Are you truly that ignorant on the topic of Birth Control Pill use?

In addition to all of this garbage being said by all of you who "side with Rush",

YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE COVERAGE at Georgetown university or anywhere....It costs no more money for the insurance companies to cover birth control, policies with birth control coverage vs without birth control coverage is the same....  Actuaries for the insurance companies have put a pencil to it, and with birth control coverage it saves them in areas of health care that  'the  without coverage' costs them such as more in pregnancy coverage...thus the price of the pills etc, pay for themselves....it's a break even and insurance policies are NOT higher with birth control coverage.

So what's the beef all about?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the difference between struggle financially and cannot afford is? $5?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "What the difference is" is irrelevant.  The point is you claimed Fluke was "lying" thusly:
> 
> 
> Well now, I quoted the testimony and it seems you fucking can't prove that at all, so you're fucking wrong.  Testifying that 40% "report struggling financially" is in no way the same thing as declaring they "can't afford" it.  Again, and I told you this yesterday, the verb there is "report".
> 
> Moreover, at the same time back there you said:
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- _None of which_ exists in the transcript.
> 
> So there is lying here, but Sandra Fluke ain't the one doing it.
> 
> Back on, as it happens, Valentine's Day, some other wag named Longknife who also apparently didn't bother to read the transcript, also came in spewing the Limblob lies about stuff Fluke never said.  I immediately challenged him to back that up.  He backed up so far that he never returned to the thread at all, and that was five days ago.  But at least he didn't keep beating a dead horse that had no legs to run on.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.
Click to expand...


You'll do no such thing, and I see you looking for a way out here but that ain't happening.
The fact that Fluke never actually said any of the things you and Rash Pimpjob would have us believe did, doesn't make _her _the liar.  Perhaps this distinction is elusive.

Again for the slow reader:
"Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *report *...."
is a different statement from the direct:
"Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *can't afford*..."

- and you don't get to just morph other people's words to what would be more convenient to your agenda by some personal fiat.  Moreover, she said nothing about "deliberately going to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge".  That's not in there either.  Nor did she mention Planned Parenthood, Wal-Mart or "any form" of contraception or anything else.

You've apparently confused Fluke's words with Limblob's.  This is why we linked the transcript -- so you could tell them apart.


----------



## rightwinger

Care4all said:


> Jimminne Christmas the Hawk, how uninformed are you about birth control pills?
> 
> It costs no more a year, to be on birth control pills if you screw every day, screw 10 times, screw once a week or screw once a YEAR....You don't take the pill only the day you get laid, you have to take it every single day of the week in most forms of it.
> 
> Why in the world did you say:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you truly that ignorant on the topic of Birth Control Pill use?
> 
> In addition to all of this garbage being said by all of you who "side with Rush",
> 
> YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE COVERAGE at Georgetown university or anywhere....It costs no more money for the insurance companies to cover birth control, policies with birth control coverage vs without birth control coverage is the same....  Actuaries for the insurance companies have put a pencil to it, and with birth control coverage it saves them in areas of health care that  'the  without coverage' costs them such as more in pregnancy coverage...thus the price of the pills etc, pay for themselves....it's a break even and insurance policies are NOT higher with birth control coverage.
> 
> So what's the beef all about?
Click to expand...


My health insurance paid for a vasectomy. Cost a lot more than Sandra Flukes birth control pills


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible.
> 
> If you read the post I responded to you won't find a single comment about how much sex Fluke was having. The specific claim I was responding to was that Rush said she wanted taxpayers to pay for her contraception. That is hyperbole, and thus you are the one that pegged this meter, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, have you figured out how much the difference between "Struggle financially" and "Can't afford" is? I am still curious about exactly how much it is, especially since you took so much time to bash on me for not knowing what the difference is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed.  The difference is irrelevant.  You're trying to ask me how much an apple is different from an orange.  A false equivalence is a false equivalence; it's not a relative comparison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck does fruit have to do with this discussion? There is no difference between the two phrases other than whatever exist in your deluded mind. It there was one you would be able to explain it.
> 
> Fluke lied, end of discussion.
Click to expand...


Translation: "I can't prove it and I'm running away".
Apples and oranges is an analogy.  You're trying to tell me two different things are in fact the same thing, because it's the only way you get to invent "lies" that were never there.  

The liar is Limblob.  You got caught up in those lies, which is why it's important to call them out for what they are.  And so we do.


----------



## Pogo

rightwinger said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimminne Christmas the Hawk, how uninformed are you about birth control pills?
> 
> It costs no more a year, to be on birth control pills if you screw every day, screw 10 times, screw once a week or screw once a YEAR....You don't take the pill only the day you get laid, you have to take it every single day of the week in most forms of it.
> 
> Why in the world did you say:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you truly that ignorant on the topic of Birth Control Pill use?
> 
> In addition to all of this garbage being said by all of you who "side with Rush",
> 
> YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE COVERAGE at Georgetown university or anywhere....It costs no more money for the insurance companies to cover birth control, policies with birth control coverage vs without birth control coverage is the same....  Actuaries for the insurance companies have put a pencil to it, and with birth control coverage it saves them in areas of health care that  'the  without coverage' costs them such as more in pregnancy coverage...thus the price of the pills etc, pay for themselves....it's a break even and insurance policies are NOT higher with birth control coverage.
> 
> So what's the beef all about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My health insurance paid for a vasectomy. Cost a lot more than Sandra Flukes birth control pills
Click to expand...


Looking at your avatar I can see why it cost so much ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "What the difference is" is irrelevant.  The point is you claimed Fluke was "lying" thusly:
> 
> 
> Well now, I quoted the testimony and it seems you fucking can't prove that at all, so you're fucking wrong.  Testifying that 40% "report struggling financially" is in no way the same thing as declaring they "can't afford" it.  Again, and I told you this yesterday, the verb there is "report".
> 
> Moreover, at the same time back there you said:
> 
> 
> -- _None of which_ exists in the transcript.
> 
> So there is lying here, but Sandra Fluke ain't the one doing it.
> 
> Back on, as it happens, Valentine's Day, some other wag named Longknife who also apparently didn't bother to read the transcript, also came in spewing the Limblob lies about stuff Fluke never said.  I immediately challenged him to back that up.  He backed up so far that he never returned to the thread at all, and that was five days ago.  But at least he didn't keep beating a dead horse that had no legs to run on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll do no such thing, and I see you looking for a way out here but that ain't happening.
> The fact that Fluke never actually said any of the things you and Rash Pimpjob would have us believe did, doesn't make _her _the liar.  Perhaps this distinction is elusive.
> 
> Again for the slow reader:
> "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *report *...."
> is a different statement from the direct:
> "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *can't afford*..."
> 
> - and you don't get to just morph other people's words to what would be more convenient to your agenda by some personal fiat.  Moreover, she said nothing about "deliberately going to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge".  That's not in there either.  Nor did she mention Planned Parenthood, Wal-Mart or "any form" of contraception or anything else.
> 
> You've apparently confused Fluke's words with Limblob's.  This is why we linked the transcript -- so you could tell them apart.
Click to expand...


I see, we are changing the attempt to defend Fluke from her saying struggling financially against me saying can't afford to her saying that they report they can't afford it.

Report it to whom? Where is the study that backs up the claim that 40% of the female law students are so stupid they don't know they can get free birth control?

Fluke lied.

End of conversation.

Again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already addressed.  The difference is irrelevant.  You're trying to ask me how much an apple is different from an orange.  A false equivalence is a false equivalence; it's not a relative comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does fruit have to do with this discussion? There is no difference between the two phrases other than whatever exist in your deluded mind. It there was one you would be able to explain it.
> 
> Fluke lied, end of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "I can't prove it and I'm running away".
> Apples and oranges is an analogy.  You're trying to tell me two different things are in fact the same thing, because it's the only way you get to invent "lies" that were never there.
> 
> The liar is Limblob.  You got caught up in those lies, which is why it's important to call them out for what they are.  And so we do.
Click to expand...


The problem here is you keep talking about Rush instead of dealing with my words. Guess what, the fact that Rush lied does not mean that Fluke didn't.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liar is Limblob.  You got caught up in those lies, which is why it's important to call them out for what they are.  And so we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is you keep talking about Rush instead of dealing with my words. Guess what, the fact that Rush lied does not mean that Fluke didn't.
Click to expand...


I was being diplomatic and assigning the lie to Plush instead of you.  But OK, have it your way.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll do no such thing, and I see you looking for a way out here but that ain't happening.
> The fact that Fluke never actually said any of the things you and Rash Pimpjob would have us believe did, doesn't make _her _the liar.  Perhaps this distinction is elusive.
> 
> Again for the slow reader:
> "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *report *...."
> is a different statement from the direct:
> "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *can't afford*..."
> 
> - and you don't get to just morph other people's words to what would be more convenient to your agenda by some personal fiat.  Moreover, she said nothing about "deliberately going to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge".  That's not in there either.  Nor did she mention Planned Parenthood, Wal-Mart or "any form" of contraception or anything else.
> 
> You've apparently confused Fluke's words with Limblob's.  This is why we linked the transcript -- so you could tell them apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see, we are changing the attempt to defend Fluke from her saying struggling financially against me saying can't afford to her saying that they report they can't afford it.
> 
> Report it to whom? Where is the study that backs up the claim that 40% of the female law students are so stupid they don't know they can;t get free birth control?
> 
> Fluke lied.
> 
> End of conversation.
> 
> Again.
Click to expand...


That testimony hasn't changed at all.  It's been out there for a year.  The only one who changed her words was you.  Well, you and Plush Limpbag.

"Where some imaginary study is" is again your irrelevant contrivance.  Where are these reports?  Probably with Georgetown LSRJ.  Doesn't matter, and the fact that it's not sitting in your lap doesn't make it not exist; you claimed Fluke lied; you were unable to prove any.  So you "loose".

Next time do your homework and you won't be so loose.

See ya.


----------



## rightwinger

Pogo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimminne Christmas the Hawk, how uninformed are you about birth control pills?
> 
> It costs no more a year, to be on birth control pills if you screw every day, screw 10 times, screw once a week or screw once a YEAR....You don't take the pill only the day you get laid, you have to take it every single day of the week in most forms of it.
> 
> Why in the world did you say:
> 
> 
> Are you truly that ignorant on the topic of Birth Control Pill use?
> 
> In addition to all of this garbage being said by all of you who "side with Rush",
> 
> YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE COVERAGE at Georgetown university or anywhere....It costs no more money for the insurance companies to cover birth control, policies with birth control coverage vs without birth control coverage is the same....  Actuaries for the insurance companies have put a pencil to it, and with birth control coverage it saves them in areas of health care that  'the  without coverage' costs them such as more in pregnancy coverage...thus the price of the pills etc, pay for themselves....it's a break even and insurance policies are NOT higher with birth control coverage.
> 
> So what's the beef all about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My health insurance paid for a vasectomy. Cost a lot more than Sandra Flukes birth control pills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking at your avatar I can see why it cost so much ...
Click to expand...


They charge by the pound


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll do no such thing, and I see you looking for a way out here but that ain't happening.
> The fact that Fluke never actually said any of the things you and Rash Pimpjob would have us believe did, doesn't make _her _the liar.  Perhaps this distinction is elusive.
> 
> Again for the slow reader:
> "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *report *...."
> is a different statement from the direct:
> "Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law *can't afford*..."
> 
> - and you don't get to just morph other people's words to what would be more convenient to your agenda by some personal fiat.  Moreover, she said nothing about "deliberately going to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge".  That's not in there either.  Nor did she mention Planned Parenthood, Wal-Mart or "any form" of contraception or anything else.
> 
> You've apparently confused Fluke's words with Limblob's.  This is why we linked the transcript -- so you could tell them apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, we are changing the attempt to defend Fluke from her saying struggling financially against me saying can't afford to her saying that they report they can't afford it.
> 
> Report it to whom? Where is the study that backs up the claim that 40% of the female law students are so stupid they don't know they can;t get free birth control?
> 
> Fluke lied.
> 
> End of conversation.
> 
> Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That testimony hasn't changed at all.  It's been out there for a year.  The only one who changed her words was you.  Well, you and Plush Limpbag.
> 
> "Where some imaginary study is" is again your irrelevant contrivance.  Where are these reports?  Probably with Georgetown LSRJ.  Doesn't matter; you claimed Fluke lied; you were unable to prove any.  So you "loose".
> 
> Next time do your homework and you won't be so loose.
> 
> See ya.
Click to expand...


There is no study? Does that mean I was right?


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.
> 
> Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.
> 
> The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. If you have a prescription for contraception that you take every day there is at least a week out of every cycle that you are not actually taking any medication.
Click to expand...

It's amazing just how many on the Right don't know any women at all!

There are some pills you take for 3 weeks and are off for 1 week, but there is also a pill you take for 12 weeks and then stop for 1 week, and there is also the mini pill that you take every day without a break.


----------



## Pogo

rightwinger said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> My health insurance paid for a vasectomy. Cost a lot more than Sandra Flukes birth control pills
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at your avatar I can see why it cost so much ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They charge by the pound
Click to expand...


How many trees died for that erector set, RW?  _How many trees_??



Quantum Windbag said:


> There is no study? Does that mean I was right?



Actually you're close.  There is no study, there never was.  You made that part up.  The entire transcript says nothing of any "study".

-- Which of course makes *her *a liar.


----------



## Pogo

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.
> 
> Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.
> 
> The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you have a prescription for contraception that you take every day there is at least a week out of every cycle that you are not actually taking any medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing just how many on the Right don't know any women at all!
> 
> There are some pills you take for 3 weeks and are off for 1 week, but there is also a pill you take for 12 weeks and then stop for 1 week, and there is also the mini pill that you take every day without a break.
Click to expand...


I'm still doubled over laughing at this bit of ignorance:


theHawk said:


> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.



-- because the more sex you engage in, the more BC pills you need! 

Push Limbag made this same stupid mistake, and a year later his drones are still repeating it.  Incroyable.  Props to Care4All for pointing that one out.  Too funny.


----------



## koshergrl

It depends on what sort of bc you're talking about.

cuz remember, you pointed out...there are different types


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.
> 
> Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.
> 
> The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you have a prescription for contraception that you take every day there is at least a week out of every cycle that you are not actually taking any medication.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's amazing just how many on the Right don't know any women at all!
> 
> There are some pills you take for 3 weeks and are off for 1 week, but there is also a pill you take for 12 weeks and then stop for 1 week, and there is also the mini pill that you take every day without a break.
Click to expand...


You have to take the minipill at the same time every day, which is why it is highly unlikely that anyone you know actually uses it.

 Don't worry though, I don't know anything about women.


----------



## edthecynic

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you have a prescription for contraception that you take every day there is at least a week out of every cycle that you are not actually taking any medication.
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing just how many on the Right don't know any women at all!
> 
> There are some pills you take for 3 weeks and are off for 1 week, but there is also a pill you take for 12 weeks and then stop for 1 week, and there is also the mini pill that you take every day without a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to take the minipill at the same time every day, which is why it is highly unlikely that anyone you know actually uses it.
> 
> Don't worry though, I don't know anything about women.
Click to expand...

You are supposed to take EVERY type of BC pill the same time each day for best results and yet the pill is quite popular no matter what type.


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. If you have a prescription for contraception that you take every day there is at least a week out of every cycle that you are not actually taking any medication.
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing just how many on the Right don't know any women at all!
> 
> There are some pills you take for 3 weeks and are off for 1 week, but there is also a pill you take for 12 weeks and then stop for 1 week, and there is also the mini pill that you take every day without a break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to take the minipill at the same time every day, which is why it is highly unlikely that anyone you know actually uses it.
> 
> Don't worry though, I don't know anything about women.
Click to expand...


Yes, because it is so hard to take your pill first thing when you get up in the morning


----------



## Care4all

it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....

thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.

it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.


----------



## koshergrl

Again, it depends on what you use. 

If you use condoms, yes, it costs more.


----------



## MarcATL

Care4all said:


> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.


The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.

I know that mindset.

My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

edthecynic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing just how many on the Right don't know any women at all!
> 
> There are some pills you take for 3 weeks and are off for 1 week, but there is also a pill you take for 12 weeks and then stop for 1 week, and there is also the mini pill that you take every day without a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to take the minipill at the same time every day, which is why it is highly unlikely that anyone you know actually uses it.
> 
> Don't worry though, I don't know anything about women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are supposed to take EVERY type of BC pill the same time each day for best results and yet the pill is quite popular no matter what type.
Click to expand...


The minipill has to be taken at the same time everyday or it flat out fails. The same is not true of other methods of birth control.

Like I said, I don't know anything about women.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing just how many on the Right don't know any women at all!
> 
> There are some pills you take for 3 weeks and are off for 1 week, but there is also a pill you take for 12 weeks and then stop for 1 week, and there is also the mini pill that you take every day without a break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to take the minipill at the same time every day, which is why it is highly unlikely that anyone you know actually uses it.
> 
> Don't worry though, I don't know anything about women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is so hard to take your pill first thing when you get up in the morning
Click to expand...


Because no 21 year old coed ever sleeps late.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Care4all said:


> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.



Funny, the only people in this thread that ever said it was are the ones that want it for free.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.
Click to expand...


You know the mindset that insist on arguing against a position no one has?


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to take the minipill at the same time every day, which is why it is highly unlikely that anyone you know actually uses it.
> 
> Don't worry though, I don't know anything about women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is so hard to take your pill first thing when you get up in the morning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because no 21 year old coed ever sleeps late.
Click to expand...


Then you take it right after dinner, or right before you go to bed

It ain't rocket science


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the only people in this said that ever said it was are the ones that want it for free.
Click to expand...


Rush Limbaugh said it


----------



## theHawk

Dragonlady said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.
> 
> Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.
> 
> The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.
Click to expand...


Oh, so its only $500 a year.  Its so sad these whores can't afford $500 a year to pay for their sexual activities.  

And by the way, if the Slutters didn't like the health insurance coverage, they are welcome to go to a different school.

Most universities are run by liberals, I'm sure plenty out there will be happy to cater to women by offering "free" papsmears and contraception for them.

So, spare us the phoney outrage already.


----------



## theHawk

Care4all said:


> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.



How about using something other than "the pill".  Especially when you can't afford it.

Talk about uninformed....


----------



## rightwinger

theHawk said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.
> 
> Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.
> 
> The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so its only $500 a year.  Its so sad these whores can't afford $500 a year to pay for their sexual activities.
> 
> And by the way, if the Slutters didn't like the health insurance coverage, they are welcome to go to a different school.
> 
> Most universities are run by liberals, I'm sure plenty out there will be happy to cater to women by offering "free" papsmears and contraception for them.
> 
> So, spare us the phoney outrage already.
Click to expand...


God, I love Conservatives

The gift that keeps on giving to the Party of Stupid


----------



## theHawk

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know the mindset that insist on arguing against a position no one has?
Click to expand...


That's the hallmark of liberals - fabricate the conservative postion and declare yourself the victor in a fantasy arguement.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear MarcATL:
I did not see a reply either way to the response below.

In general I believe the unequal bias in response or lack of responses
is due to people addressing issues in a different order or level of priority,
where all of these changes and corrections are connected in a related process.

Also a lot of the hypocritical complaints and charging one person with representing
what is wrong with a whole group is part of the process of learning to redress
grievances directly at the source with the parties involved so it does not escalate
into group namecalling and a mutual fingerpointing contest to bully each other down.

Most issues get resolved dealing one on one with mutual corrections,
not with shouting anyone down, so that is why people quit responding at some
point and turn attention to things they do feel they can do something about.



MarcATL said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birth control is a hot button issue, *and Sandra Fluke distorted her story to fit the democratic agenda.* While I think Rush is an idiot, who clearly doesn't understand how birth control works, and a pig, for calling her a slut, I can also understand why she didnt garner much sympathy from the right.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reminding me that he called her slut on the radio for about 4 days straight.
> 
> Now, how did she "distort her story to fit the Democratic agenda?" I don't quite get that one. Break it down for me if you can.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Edit: Also, seems like you're giving support to Rush and condoning his behavior. Phrases like "I can see why..." tends to signify support.
Click to expand...


Dear MarcATL 
RE: seeing why vs. supporting?
I can "see why" slave owners did not or could not automatically free their slaves if these were legally property owned by banks mortgaged to the owners on loan along with land.
I do not support slavery though I can see why changing it took stages over time.
It was best not to go there in the first place, and once you're in it's not instant getting out.

To undo all the damage and mess that went into this conflict over Sandra Fluke and Rush Limbaugh would also take a lot more work. So I can see why people would respond in different ways. I would keep doing the same thing I'm already doing by trying to resolve the root issue of stopping relationship abuse and bullying, respecting religious and political beliefs equally and not abusing govt, party, or either church or state authority to coerce, harass, exclude, or oppress others by dominating them with unequal force or pressure, which you can consider a collective form of relationship abuse as violating consent.

I believe in addressing relationship abuse in all forms in order to catch all these levels where it manifests.  This incident is just one of many, and I understand some people may respond to one case and not the other.  Some people react more strongly to the attack in Benghazi and others the rape and murder in India.  People questioned why was there unequal hype about Jessica Lynch and not other service people, or the journalist raped by a mob in Egypt or the young girls gang raped in LA and in TX when those hit the media.

Do you really want to start judging ppl and groups by who responds to what?
We could point fingers all day if you like, will that solve the problem causing rape and abuse? or political manipulation and bullying?

BTW with Christian rebuke the wrongdoer is supposed to be redressed in private first, one on one, to correct the problem, so how do you propose to do this once Rush makes a public statement and skips steps of addressing the person he was criticizing directly alone? how do you work backwards to fix that? again i see ppl already working locally to address those around them one on one and trying to fix the same things going on around us. not everyone responds the same way because of their relative role in addressing this collectively by starting with the relationships around them and working from there. thanks for asking, and i hope this helps connect this incident with the peacemaking process we participate in daily.


----------



## koshergrl

theHawk said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know the mindset that insist on arguing against a position no one has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the hallmark of liberals - fabricate the conservative postion and declare yourself the victor in a fantasy arguement.
Click to expand...

 
Yup.


----------



## emilynghiem

MarcATL said:


> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.



Fine but pls be consistent.
Let people have equal freedom to pay for the health care of those who live by the same policies, so no one is forced to fund costs of a lifestyle choice they disagree with
or perceived being forced to etc.

We wouldn't see as much griping if people didn't feel things were
being forced on them to pay for. Take that out of the equation
and people would be too busy working on and paying for what
they believe are good solutions and policies, they wouldn't have time
to mess with what other people are paying for. They just don't want that on them!


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> God, I love Conservatives
> 
> The gift that keeps on giving to the Party of Stupid



Don't you think it is equally stupid to claim to be feminist
and yet put up with contraceptive drugs that are unnatural,
have side effects and put the burden on women while men
don't have to answer to any of the responsibility or consequences?

I had a liberal feminist friend shock the life out of a feminist
group by saying to put the burden back on the men. Make them agree to go get vasectomies before they have sex if they don't want kids. And get it reversed later.
And quit putting it all on women, and then judging women for it.


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.



40% of Georgetown law students are struggling financially doesn't equal we can't afford birth control, but it does mean that extra expenses make that struggle harder, extra expenses like doctors appointments, pap smears, and prescriptions.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, I love Conservatives
> 
> The gift that keeps on giving to the Party of Stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it is equally stupid to claim to be feminist
> and yet put up with contraceptive drugs that are unnatural,
> have side effects and put the burden on women while men
> don't have to answer to any of the responsibility or consequences?
> 
> I had a liberal feminist friend shock the life out of a feminist
> group by saying to put the burden back on the men. Make them agree to go get vasectomies before they have sex if they don't want kids. And get it reversed later.
> And quit putting it all on women, and then judging women for it.
Click to expand...


I think that contraceptive drugs have freed women

I grew up in a time when women had 4-6 children. My great grandmother had nine children. Contraception has freed women to have only the children they want, to pursue other vocations than motherhood.


----------



## MarcATL

emilynghiem said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine but pls be consistent.
> Let people have equal freedom to pay for the health care of those who live by the same policies, so no one is forced to fund costs of a lifestyle choice they disagree with
> or perceived being forced to etc.
> 
> We wouldn't see as much griping if people didn't feel things were
> being forced on them to pay for. Take that out of the equation
> and people would be too busy working on and paying for what
> they believe are good solutions and policies, they wouldn't have time
> to mess with what other people are paying for. They just don't want that on them!
Click to expand...

Now you're getting my hackles up Emily.

See, life doesn't work that way.

In government, there's always going to be things you dont like and don't want to pay for.

I certainly didn't like nor want to pay for going to war with Iraq, and yet, here I am in2013 paying for it.

We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.

So what works for God, doesn't necessarily work for government, unless they claim to be a nation under the rules and laws of God, and that is ALL of them. And no matter what many RW fundamental Christians think....that's not the case. Not now or not ever.

The same fellow who used the phrase "City on a hill" wasn't even Christian, barely set foot in a church, so let's stop with the pretenses.


----------



## MarcATL

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know the mindset that insist on arguing against a position no one has?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can have a mindset and hold public positions that do not fully reflect that mindset.

The mindset I'm referring to is the conservative Christian mindset that's anti-pre-marital sex. I know it very well.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, I love Conservatives
> 
> The gift that keeps on giving to the Party of Stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it is equally stupid to claim to be feminist
> and yet put up with contraceptive drugs that are unnatural,
> have side effects and put the burden on women while men
> don't have to answer to any of the responsibility or consequences?
> 
> I had a liberal feminist friend shock the life out of a feminist
> group by saying to put the burden back on the men. Make them agree to go get vasectomies before they have sex if they don't want kids. And get it reversed later.
> And quit putting it all on women, and then judging women for it.
Click to expand...


Ah -- you want this:
&#9836;.... &#9835;
 I'll sing you all a song about a wondrous new device
The nation's latest contraceptive plan
That funny little object they call the I U D
Has recently been changed to fit a man

It's the I P D, the I P D
It may not feel too good to you but it's not hurting me
So every time the pain begins to fill your eyes with tears
Remember I put up with it for years

They tested it on whales and they tried it out on mice
They used it in the poorer parts of town
It's the cleverest invention since the automatic lift
Guaranteed to never let you down

It was proven to be safe for the average human male
Though testing showed some minor side-effects
There were two died from infection and six were sterilised
But only ten per cent were too depressed - from

But you know, some people are never satisfied
So scientists are working once again
They've got something even better than the good old I P D
It's called the morning-after pill for men

Final chorus:
It's the pill, it's better than the I P D
It may not be too safe but we'll just have to wait and see
So put away your worries and put away your fears
And remember I put up with it for years

(sorry, not on YouTube)


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> I think that contraceptive drugs have freed women
> 
> I grew up in a time when women had 4-6 children. My great grandmother had nine children. Contraception has freed women to have only the children they want, to pursue other vocations than motherhood.



Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?

How much of this is more from MEN wanting the sex
and not carrying equal responsibility as the women.

So it's the MEN who want the liberation 
from the women taking responsibility for contraception.

Note: contraception still does not prevent the higher risks of
HPV and cancer, that have higher rates in women if their
male partners had multiple partners in the past.  So women
are going to carry a higher burden of responsibility than men
even if they don't get pregnant, it is not going to be equal.


----------



## Dragonlady

Women can never trust men to deal with birth control because men don't get pregnant, and don't have to deal with the consequences of being pregnant and having babies.  

Yes, having reliable, safe birth control really changed everything for women, and their families.  No longer could employers hold women back on the excuse that you never knew when they would have a baby.


----------



## Dragonlady

emilynghiem said:


> Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?



Some of us want to have sex and get pregnant, but on our own terms.


----------



## RosieS

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that contraceptive drugs have freed women
> 
> I grew up in a time when women had 4-6 children. My great grandmother had nine children. Contraception has freed women to have only the children they want, to pursue other vocations than motherhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?
> 
> How much of this is more from MEN wanting the sex
> and not carrying equal responsibility as the women.
> 
> So it's the MEN who want the liberation
> from the women taking responsibility for contraception.
> 
> Note: contraception still does not prevent the higher risks of
> HPV and cancer, that have higher rates in women if their
> male partners had multiple partners in the past.  So women
> are going to carry a higher burden of responsibility than men
> even if they don't get pregnant, it is not going to be equal.
Click to expand...


That is correct. Women also incur the expense of birth control. IF she gets pregnant and the man leaves, she has all the pregnancy expenses to pay. She does not get any financial help if she carries to term until paternity is established and child support starts.

You need good health insurance as a single woman.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## emilynghiem

MarcATL said:


> Now you're getting my hackles up Emily.
> 
> See, life doesn't work that way.
> 
> In government, there's always going to be things you dont like and don't want to pay for.
> 
> I certainly didn't like nor want to pay for going to war with Iraq, and yet, here I am in2013 paying for it.
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> So what works for God, doesn't necessarily work for government, unless they claim to be a nation under the rules and laws of God, and that is ALL of them. And no matter what many RW fundamental Christians think....that's not the case. Not now or not ever.
> 
> The same fellow who used the phrase "City on a hill" wasn't even Christian, barely set foot in a church, so let's stop with the pretenses.



1. if you believe in separation of church and state, then that's even MORE reason to support separating policies and funding per issue and per party to AVOID imposing
religious bias on dissenting groups. EXACTLY!!!!

2. the govt does not work this way as long as we the people don't ask it to.
The govt used to not have the federal reserve, but people got together and created it.
Ralph Nader pushed the legislation that created OSHA and the Consumer Protections
system we have now. My friends in the historic district where I live wrote federal legislation to convert public housing into a sustainable campus system with integrated health care and social services provided by student interns in an educational program
to break the cycle of poverty and mentor families and communities to become self-reliant.

So we can also push for reform by agreement between parties to pay for their own policies.

Marc wouldn't you LOVE for taxpayers to be paid back for the Iraqi War spending
and use that for health care reform, such as by converting prisons, VA and public housing to provide public services and accessible treatment through cost-effective systems
integrated in medical education to train more doctors, nurses and service providers?

Well, why not ask?
If the Fed is issuing notes and getting interest off debts, why not issue notes against this spending and redirect those funds to things we AGREE to pay for?

Why not reduce federal govt to just the functions and policies that we AGREE should be the role of federal govt, and delegate the rest to states or through parties to manage programs that people have different ways of running and funding.

Why not? Why not localize democracy so people's representation MEANS something
and you do have a direct say in which parties or programs you support and putting
your resources THERE. 

I think we'd have more direct participation and better representation that way,
and less conflict trying to bully one party's policies over others, etc. etc.

If the people are the government, why not REWARD taxpayers for taking
responsibility for their own solutions? And delegate different issues or parts of the
budget to different groups that specialize in those areas.  Wouldn't parties be more motivated to work together if their input COUNTED and policies were based on agreement?


----------



## emilynghiem

Dragonlady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us want to have sex and get pregnant, but on our own terms.
Click to expand...


OK just don't pick terms that are still putting more burden on women than on men,
and then complain about the inequality in that.  If you're not complaining about
the terms you choose, there's no problem with that.

I believe if people want to prevent unwanted sex, pregnancy, children, abortion
the responsibility needs to be equally with the men, and quit just harping on the responsibility of women and then having to "liberate" women from those conditions.  
It takes both partners to have sex, so if either the sex or the relationship is being abused, we shouldn't keep putting that on the women.  Unfortunately the level of intervening to prevent or stop relationship abuse by both partners is personal and not the jurisdiction of the state unless a crime occurs such as harassment, rape etc. So that is where people would have to AGREE how to address that level of prevention, either through education, or perhaps having an option to create some other level of law (not criminal and not civil) where relationship abuse, drug abuse, etc. falls under some kind of health and safety violation where complaints are subject to mandatory counseling to correct the problem, without criminalizing or penalizing anyone; again since that is personal, people would have to AGREE to such policies, it could not be effectively legislated from outside authority.

Equal responsibility, in preventing "relationship abuse" from resulting in unwanted sex/children/pregnancy/abortion, would be fair to men and women as equal partners.


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that contraceptive drugs have freed women
> 
> I grew up in a time when women had 4-6 children. My great grandmother had nine children. Contraception has freed women to have only the children they want, to pursue other vocations than motherhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?
> 
> How much of this is more from MEN wanting the sex
> and not carrying equal responsibility as the women.
> 
> So it's the MEN who want the liberation
> from the women taking responsibility for contraception.
> 
> Note: contraception still does not prevent the higher risks of
> HPV and cancer, that have higher rates in women if their
> male partners had multiple partners in the past.  So women
> are going to carry a higher burden of responsibility than men
> even if they don't get pregnant, it is not going to be equal.
Click to expand...


You have a 19th century view of sex where it is the primitive sexual urges of men that force the act. Women enjoy sex too. It is part of a normal adult relationship. 

Like it or not, women have the primary responsibility for ensuring that contraception is used.  If a mistake is made, THEY bear the consequences. They will bear the child and they will bear the responsibility for raising it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> it doesn't matter when you have to take it etc, it doesn't matter that there is a week of placebo pills a month that you take on some, it doesn't matter what 'make or model' suits the woman's body best....the POINT is that you don't just take a pill the day you get laid, you take it for a year period of protection, and implants of it, for even longer....so ITS COST is NOT RELATED TO HOW MANY TIMES YOU SCREW A DAY....screw in a week or screw in a year.....
> 
> thus the comment regarding her being a prostitute because of the money spent on birth control pills is just an UNINFORMED and ignorant statement.
> 
> it doesn't cost more, the more you screw around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the only people in this said that ever said it was are the ones that want it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh said it
Click to expand...


I bet you can't prove that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because it is so hard to take your pill first thing when you get up in the morning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because no 21 year old coed ever sleeps late.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you take it right after dinner, or right before you go to bed
> 
> It ain't rocket science
Click to expand...


Try it sometime, I bet you can't keep it up for more than a week.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40% of Georgetown law students are struggling financially doesn't equal we can't afford birth control, but it does mean that extra expenses make that struggle harder, extra expenses like doctors appointments, pap smears, and prescriptions.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight, you are arguing that struggling financially does not mean struggling financially simply because you want to pretend Fluke didn't lie.


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because no 21 year old coed ever sleeps late.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you take it right after dinner, or right before you go to bed
> 
> It ain't rocket science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try it sometime, I bet you can't keep it up for more than a week.
Click to expand...


My wife did it for 20 years


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine but pls be consistent.
> Let people have equal freedom to pay for the health care of those who live by the same policies, so no one is forced to fund costs of a lifestyle choice they disagree with
> or perceived being forced to etc.
> 
> We wouldn't see as much griping if people didn't feel things were
> being forced on them to pay for. Take that out of the equation
> and people would be too busy working on and paying for what
> they believe are good solutions and policies, they wouldn't have time
> to mess with what other people are paying for. They just don't want that on them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you're getting my hackles up Emily.
> 
> See, life doesn't work that way.
> 
> In government, there's always going to be things you dont like and don't want to pay for.
> 
> I certainly didn't like nor want to pay for going to war with Iraq, and yet, here I am in2013 paying for it.
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> So what works for God, doesn't necessarily work for government, unless they claim to be a nation under the rules and laws of God, and that is ALL of them. And no matter what many RW fundamental Christians think....that's not the case. Not now or not ever.
> 
> The same fellow who used the phrase "City on a hill" wasn't even Christian, barely set foot in a church, so let's stop with the pretenses.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute, aren't you one of the people that argued that Obamacare is not a government takeover of health care? If the government has nothing to do with health care despite the existence of Obamacare why are you pointing out that dealing with the government means we have to pay for things we don't want?

You blew your lines.


----------



## rightwinger

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, the only people in this said that ever said it was are the ones that want it for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh said it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet you can't prove that.
Click to expand...


Read this thread

It is quite interesting


----------



## Quantum Windbag

MarcATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, they don't care about those details...they simply want to be able to rail against women having pre-marital sex.
> 
> I know that mindset.
> 
> My thing is this, just like how God gives us each the freedom to choose or reject him, we, as individuals, have the freedom to conduct their lives however they see fit. Whether or not that goes against the will of God is another matter, and the individual will have to answer for their actions at some point and usually face the consequences of their actions before that point as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know the mindset that insist on arguing against a position no one has?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you can have a mindset and hold public positions that do not fully reflect that mindset.
> 
> The mindset I'm referring to is the conservative Christian mindset that's anti-pre-marital sex. I know it very well.
Click to expand...


Only conservative Christians are against premarital sex? Can we bet on that?


----------



## Dante

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh said it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read this thread
> 
> It is quite interesting
Click to expand...


Windy gets told this often. It seems to fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us want to have sex and get pregnant, but on our own terms.
Click to expand...


If you want to do it on your terms stop whinging about the fact that other people do not want to be forced to buy insurance that covers it.


----------



## emilynghiem

Pogo said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, I love Conservatives
> 
> The gift that keeps on giving to the Party of Stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think it is equally stupid to claim to be feminist
> and yet put up with contraceptive drugs that are unnatural,
> have side effects and put the burden on women while men
> don't have to answer to any of the responsibility or consequences?
> 
> I had a liberal feminist friend shock the life out of a feminist
> group by saying to put the burden back on the men. Make them agree to go get vasectomies before they have sex if they don't want kids. And get it reversed later.
> And quit putting it all on women, and then judging women for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah -- you want this:
> &#9836;.... &#9835;
> I'll sing you all a song about a wondrous new device
> The nation's latest contraceptive plan
> That funny little object they call the I U D
> Has recently been changed to fit a man
> 
> It's the I P D, the I P D
> It may not feel too good to you but it's not hurting me
> So every time the pain begins to fill your eyes with tears
> Remember I put up with it for years
> 
> They tested it on whales and they tried it out on mice
> They used it in the poorer parts of town
> It's the cleverest invention since the automatic lift
> Guaranteed to never let you down
> 
> It was proven to be safe for the average human male
> Though testing showed some minor side-effects
> There were two died from infection and six were sterilised
> But only ten per cent were too depressed - from
> 
> But you know, some people are never satisfied
> So scientists are working once again
> They've got something even better than the good old I P D
> It's called the morning-after pill for men
> 
> Final chorus:
> It's the pill, it's better than the I P D
> It may not be too safe but we'll just have to wait and see
> So put away your worries and put away your fears
> And remember I put up with it for years
> 
> (sorry, not on YouTube)
Click to expand...


I think my approach is worse than yours, or my friend's suggestion of vasectomies
(I also heard a feminist say all men should get vasectomies and put sperm in a bank etc)

So crazy why not just go back to the natural ways of having sex with people
you want to have children with, so it won't matter if pregnancy happens or not?

Anyway my suggestion when men push legislation and bans against abortion without considering if the laws are written to penalize, burden, or affect women more than the men, is to ask them why not pass laws making it a "statutory form of rape"
where MEN are held accountable for acts that result in unwanted sex, children
pregnacy or abortion as "relationship abuse"? When the tables are turned, and men consider what if the law were biased toward putting the burden on MEN more than women,
that stirs people up.  But it brings out the point that the laws are not equal,
so more needs to be done to address prevention and solutions that do not
penalize or burden women legally or financially more than the men.  

NOTE: In general I believe focusing on "relationship abuse" would hold partners equally accountable and subject to counseling until the problems are identified and solved causing the abuse.  Even if it can't be legally proven if a woman was raped or if the man or woman is lying over who abused whom, as long as there is a complaint, or an unwanted pregnancy, or a child one or both partners does not want to support, that could be grounds for requiring counseling for relationship abuse, if people FREELY agree to abide by that standard. I don't see how it could be imposed by regulation, but could be adopted per community as with colleges that have a policy of written consent form if couples agree to have sex. If "relationship abuse" is considered against some internal policy agreed to voluntarily by people in a group or community, this would avoid complications of criminal issues or civil liability, and could promote solving and preventing problems by shared responsibility for counseling instead of fighting to put the burden on the other person.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that contraceptive drugs have freed women
> 
> I grew up in a time when women had 4-6 children. My great grandmother had nine children. Contraception has freed women to have only the children they want, to pursue other vocations than motherhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?
> 
> How much of this is more from MEN wanting the sex
> and not carrying equal responsibility as the women.
> 
> So it's the MEN who want the liberation
> from the women taking responsibility for contraception.
> 
> Note: contraception still does not prevent the higher risks of
> HPV and cancer, that have higher rates in women if their
> male partners had multiple partners in the past.  So women
> are going to carry a higher burden of responsibility than men
> even if they don't get pregnant, it is not going to be equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a 19th century view of sex where it is the primitive sexual urges of men that force the act. Women enjoy sex too. It is part of a normal adult relationship.
> 
> Like it or not, women have the primary responsibility for ensuring that contraception is used.  If a mistake is made, THEY bear the consequences. They will bear the child and they will bear the responsibility for raising it.
Click to expand...


You have a mentality where that mixes a distorted version of chivalry where the stronger protect the weaker because of a moral obligation that only exist if we assume that might makes right.

Anything that involves forcing other people to your viewpoint is, by definition, wrong. That means you lose the war even if you win the battle.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you take it right after dinner, or right before you go to bed
> 
> It ain't rocket science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try it sometime, I bet you can't keep it up for more than a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My wife did it for 20 years
Click to expand...


Liar.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Limbaugh said it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read this thread
> 
> It is quite interesting
Click to expand...


I have, which is why I know no one opposed to the birth control mandate, even Rush, ever said that birth control is more expensive if you have more sex. Feel free to provide the quote to prove me wrong.


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> You have a 19th century view of sex where it is the primitive sexual urges of men that force the act. Women enjoy sex too. It is part of a normal adult relationship.
> 
> Like it or not, women have the primary responsibility for ensuring that contraception is used.  If a mistake is made, THEY bear the consequences. They will bear the child and they will bear the responsibility for raising it.



Not what I mean at all.
Let me clarify, that in proportion to the men and women both wanting sex
the responsibility on the women is greater.  And YES I will say that there are 
more cases of men raping women (and creating unwanted pregnancy or abortion
against their will where it is more the fault of the man and not the woman's choice), 
than women raping men, so that is not equal either.

So saying that contraception "liberated" women is unfair because it doesn't really address the issue of why women need to be liberated. It may have created more choices
and reduced the incidents of women limited in freedom; but the same problems that cause women to be treated unequally STILL occur without getting pregnant and having children, if the ATTITUDE toward women hasn't changed. For example, even without having kids and staying at home, there are plenty of stories where women give up their careers to support their husband's because women tend to take the caretaking role in relationships.

This can be changed. Many men take on the role of caretaker, and
men CAN accept equal responsiblity for raising children, not just women as you assume.
Maybe it is you who have an old-fashioned way of framing relations biased this way.
But THAT is the issue, and not just trying to fix it on the outside by contraception.

The only part that women do that men don't is carrying and bearing the child.
Before and after is equal responsibility that either or both parties can share.
So if women have a greater burden physically, it is still the equal personal responsiblity of both men and women NOT to do things that put greater burden on women!

Instead of knowing this, and still doing it, claiming that's just the way it is.


----------



## MarcATL

emilynghiem said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're getting my hackles up Emily.
> 
> See, life doesn't work that way.
> 
> In government, there's always going to be things you dont like and don't want to pay for.
> 
> I certainly didn't like nor want to pay for going to war with Iraq, and yet, here I am in2013 paying for it.
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> So what works for God, doesn't necessarily work for government, unless they claim to be a nation under the rules and laws of God, and that is ALL of them. And no matter what many RW fundamental Christians think....that's not the case. Not now or not ever.
> 
> The same fellow who used the phrase "City on a hill" wasn't even Christian, barely set foot in a church, so let's stop with the pretenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. if you believe in separation of church and state, then that's even MORE reason to support separating policies and funding per issue and per party to AVOID imposing
> religious bias on dissenting groups. EXACTLY!!!!
> 
> 2. the govt does not work this way as long as we the people don't ask it to.
> The govt used to not have the federal reserve, but people got together and created it.
> Ralph Nader pushed the legislation that created OSHA and the Consumer Protections
> system we have now. My friends in the historic district where I live wrote federal legislation to convert public housing into a sustainable campus system with integrated health care and social services provided by student interns in an educational program
> to break the cycle of poverty and mentor families and communities to become self-reliant.
> 
> So we can also push for reform by agreement between parties to pay for their own policies.
> 
> Marc wouldn't you LOVE for taxpayers to be paid back for the Iraqi War spending
> and use that for health care reform, such as by converting prisons, VA and public housing to provide public services and accessible treatment through cost-effective systems
> integrated in medical education to train more doctors, nurses and service providers?
> 
> Well, why not ask?
> If the Fed is issuing notes and getting interest off debts, why not issue notes against this spending and redirect those funds to things we AGREE to pay for?
> 
> Why not reduce federal govt to just the functions and policies that we AGREE should be the role of federal govt, and delegate the rest to states or through parties to manage programs that people have different ways of running and funding.
> 
> Why not? Why not localize democracy so people's representation MEANS something
> and you do have a direct say in which parties or programs you support and putting
> your resources THERE.
> 
> I think we'd have more direct participation and better representation that way,
> and less conflict trying to bully one party's policies over others, etc. etc.
> 
> If the people are the government, why not REWARD taxpayers for taking
> responsibility for their own solutions? And delegate different issues or parts of the
> budget to different groups that specialize in those areas.  Wouldn't parties be more motivated to work together if their input COUNTED and policies were based on agreement?
Click to expand...

I like this idea of yours Emily, I really do.

However, this is a total re-working of the system including The Constitution, as it's a different type of representative Government than what we have now.

I don't see this happening anytime ever.

The country is too divided. You have folks that would say that the sky is green because Obama says it's blue. We have war-mongers and peace-niks, we have people who want to kill people for stealing and we have folks who barely want to incarcerate people for killing people. There's too many fractions or factions in our society, as it should be, so we have to govern based on compromised consensus.

It's not perfect, but it works.

You idea sounds pretty good though.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point is that, unless you can tell me what the fuck the difference is, she lied. Since you just admitted you can't tell me what it is I will take this as a concession on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40% of Georgetown law students are struggling financially doesn't equal we can't afford birth control, but it does mean that extra expenses make that struggle harder, extra expenses like doctors appointments, pap smears, and prescriptions.
Click to expand...


Why not solve the problem with both health care costs AND the need for more service providers if we are going to serve more of the population

by creating or expanding more medical education and health training programs
to provide services through interns and residencies as part of their course credits
(supervised of course) and/or through free or low-cost clinics to pay for their education? 

BTW I believe a lot of the extra expenses and complications in medicine could be reduced by promoting more natural healing and preventative helath and quit relying on things pushed for profit by the industry.  Some of this is more cost-effective in the longrun, but some stuff is not necessary. I think that needs to be addressed not just in terms of cost but also how much can be simplified and reduced by promoting natural health and healing.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dragonlady said:


> Women can never trust men to deal with birth control because men don't get pregnant, and don't have to deal with the consequences of being pregnant and having babies.
> 
> Yes, having reliable, safe birth control really changed everything for women, and their families.  No longer could employers hold women back on the excuse that you never knew when they would have a baby.



Again why is responsibility being drawn at the point of birth control?
Aren't BOTH people equally responsible for the sex regardless of birth control?

So why have sex with a man who does not accept equal responsibility?
Why not put equal responsibility on him for the sex and pregnancy
and consequences, or refuse to have sex?

Why just the responsibility for birth control?


----------



## emilynghiem

MarcATL said:


> I like this idea of yours Emily, I really do.
> 
> However, this is a total re-working of the system including The Constitution, as it's a different type of representative Government than what we have now.
> 
> I don't see this happening anytime ever.
> 
> The country is too divided. You have folks that would say that the sky is green because Obama says it's blue. We have war-mongers and peace-niks, we have people who want to kill people for stealing and we have folks who barely want to incarcerate people for killing people. There's too many fractions or factions in our society, as it should be, so we have to govern based on compromised consensus.
> 
> It's not perfect, but it works.
> 
> You idea sounds pretty good though.



Thanks for your open honesty and directness, Marc.
And tolerating opinions even where they disagree with yours.

If you didn't have major reservations about this drastic a change in how we operate, that would mean you are not realistic; but expressing SERIOUS doubt how this could be pursued shows you are reasonable about what can and can't be done. I appreciate that!

I don't think it would require a change in the Constitution to allow people to organize reforms by party, but would be following the darn thing instead of party politics and bias.

The tax rate could be reduced incrementally for example from 25% to 20% to 15%
until the government could operate at 10%.

And anything paid above that amount could be considered a LOAN and directed through parties to invest in the programs that those taxpayers manage through their parties on terms they agree with.  so the point is to propose sustainable solutions that would pay back for themselves over time.

So the programs that are optional for federal govt to be carrying and not expressly in the Constitution, such as health care, can be transferred more to states and managed by parties by AGREEMENT. Even within the same state, taxpayers could choose programs by party and not be restricted by majority rule vote.
There is nothing unconstitutional about exercising rights of the people and of the states, or using parties
to organize the leadership, programs and resources to cover their membership base.

Currently things are being pushed through Congress ALREADY by party where there is NOT agreement, so this would be an improvement to what is going on now!

Thanks for being open-minded to this idea.
The main reservation I get from people is "the other party isn't going to do it"
so if each party just focuses on what THEY are willing to take on and do,
then they wouldn't get stalled out worrying about the other party objecting.

I think people would stop griping about what they disagree on, if they want the fed govt
to handle it, and would gladly take on what they want to see managed right.

Thanks, Marc! I hope this idea can be revamped into some working policy
to get parties either on the same page or separate out what are better managed and funded as private or localized programs from what are the fundamental federal responsibilities of govt to manage.

Also the reason people are pushing petty arguments for the sake of disagreement
IS BECAUSE people resent being forced to be under this policy or that representation.
So this disagreement issue would take care of itself by letting people fund their own choices,
and they wouldn't need to make emotional arguments to bully each other down that way!
A lot of it is the symptom of the problem that feeds on itself and escalates the divisions.
But by the same token, by removing that factor the problems also solve themselves and de-escalate
the more we quit threatening to force compromise of people's core principles but respect freedom of choice
consistently. That restore trust and relations so people can contest issues WITHOUT the side personal attacks.


----------



## MisterBeale

MarcATL said:


> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.


That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.

The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.

There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.


----------



## RosieS

MisterBeale said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
Click to expand...


It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation. 

Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.

The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## emilynghiem

MisterBeale said:


> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.



To put it in consistent terms the First Amendment call for balancing BOTH sides regarding BOTH free exercise of religion and NOT imposing religion or religious bias through Govt.

The problem is only enforcing one side of this out of context with the other.

What I find in practice, to be consistent in protecting all people's views and beliefs not just organized or recognized religion, is to interpret free exercise to mean free will or consent of the governed, within the bounds of respecting all the other laws for all people as well.
That would be fair to all people's views, whether expressed by religious personal or political beliefs. Again the problem is taking ANY freedom out of context and defending that without equal regard of the equal protection of the rights and freedoms of others. People need to practice the Golden Rule of Reciprocity, so I agree people need to be consistent!


----------



## theHawk

MisterBeale said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
Click to expand...


This is one of the main pillars of liberalism: Proclaim there must a "separation of church and state" then have the state take over every aspect of our lives, which pushes religion out.

This is what has led to government seeping into health care, and now they are trying to force a religious institution that provides health care to do something against their own religion.  Its trying to force religion out of health, to supplant it with government.

The end game is always have the government in charge, and no religion in sight.


----------



## RosieS

theHawk said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one of the main pillars of liberalism: Proclaim there must a "separation of church and state" then have the state take over every aspect of our lives, which pushes religion out.
> 
> This is what has led to government seeping into health care, and now they are trying to force a religious institution that provides health care to do something against their own religion.  Its trying to force religion out of health, to supplant it with government.
> 
> The end game is always have the government in charge, and no religion in sight.
Click to expand...


To do something against their own religion?  To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.

The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.

The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## MisterBeale

RosieS said:


> It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.
> 
> Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie


It IS unconstitutional.  If the corrupt government didn't like what a particular congregation was saying, it could tax them into oblivion.  They have no right to interfere with church business.  If the religious organization is not making a profit, if it is only bringing in revenue to support it's own services, spread information about it's own views of morality according to it's spiritual views Vis-à-vis it's teachings concerning how the states governance affects the people, and serving the community, then the government has no right to pass laws or meddle in it's business.

_"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."_

It really is pretty straight forward.  If you think the church is subject to taxation, than there is nothing I can do for you other than to say that you do not really know to what purpose the framers intended the synagogs, mosques, and churches or this nation to serve; that is to keep the politicians and people ethical and moral.  That purpose has now been circumscribed and nullified.  Now did they ever intend there to be a national compulsory education system, with a national school curriculum.  If they had, they would have set one up, wouldn't have they?  They would have been opposed to such a very tyrannical notion. 

_Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other._
~John Adams


----------



## MisterBeale

RosieS said:


> Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



You're either a hypocrite or an unwitting dupe of the Jesuits.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.   How dare you imply that the state use it's taxing powers against your enemies but not against your friends is not unconstitutional.  

My case rests.  There is no "separation of Church and State," the state has become corrupt and evil with it's use of the 501c "law," to arbitrarily threaten it's revivals in the social-political sphere of society.   Do you think the IRS should go after James Hal Cone's allies, and the POTUS' allies as well?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KF5p57WHE]Black Liberation Theology - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah. . . . some how I thought not.


----------



## theHawk

RosieS said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the main pillars of liberalism: Proclaim there must a "separation of church and state" then have the state take over every aspect of our lives, which pushes religion out.
> 
> This is what has led to government seeping into health care, and now they are trying to force a religious institution that provides health care to do something against their own religion.  Its trying to force religion out of health, to supplant it with government.
> 
> The end game is always have the government in charge, and no religion in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To do something against their own religion?  To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.
> 
> The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.
> 
> The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


If the Catholic Church is already doing it, then why was she there to testify at Capital Hill in order to get the Catholic Church's university to cover it?  Can you seriously be this obtuse?

The liberals also want to force Catholic institutions to cover abortion.  Case in point: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Radical NY abortion bill could close Catholic hospitals, Church warns

Again, the end game is to force religious institutions out of the health care biz in favor of government run.


----------



## koshergrl

RosieS said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.
> 
> Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Bullshit. Taxation has nothing to do with whether or not people discuss politics. PP has tax exempt status and they fund politicians, and put out ads that attack politicians.


----------



## koshergrl

*Planned Parenthood Action Fund Ad Says It Was "Paid For By Planned Parenthood Action Fund."*  The Planned Parenthood Action Fund ad on the Planned Parenthood Action  Fund Facebook page states: "Planned Parenthood Action Fund is  responsible for the content of this advertising." Screenshot from the  website:







Planned Parenthood Action Fund Ad Does Not Violate Tax Laws As Fox Suggested | Research | Media Matters for America


----------



## rightwinger

emilynghiem said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a 19th century view of sex where it is the primitive sexual urges of men that force the act. Women enjoy sex too. It is part of a normal adult relationship.
> 
> Like it or not, women have the primary responsibility for ensuring that contraception is used.  If a mistake is made, THEY bear the consequences. They will bear the child and they will bear the responsibility for raising it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I mean at all.
> Let me clarify, that in proportion to the men and women both wanting sex
> the responsibility on the women is greater.  And YES I will say that there are
> more cases of men raping women (and creating unwanted pregnancy or abortion
> against their will where it is more the fault of the man and not the woman's choice),
> than women raping men, so that is not equal either.
> 
> So saying that contraception "liberated" women is unfair because it doesn't really address the issue of why women need to be liberated. It may have created more choices
> and reduced the incidents of women limited in freedom; but the same problems that cause women to be treated unequally STILL occur without getting pregnant and having children, if the ATTITUDE toward women hasn't changed. For example, even without having kids and staying at home, there are plenty of stories where women give up their careers to support their husband's because women tend to take the caretaking role in relationships.
> 
> This can be changed. Many men take on the role of caretaker, and
> men CAN accept equal responsiblity for raising children, not just women as you assume.
> Maybe it is you who have an old-fashioned way of framing relations biased this way.
> But THAT is the issue, and not just trying to fix it on the outside by contraception.
> 
> The only part that women do that men don't is carrying and bearing the child.
> Before and after is equal responsibility that either or both parties can share.
> So if women have a greater burden physically, it is still the equal personal responsiblity of both men and women NOT to do things that put greater burden on women!
> 
> Instead of knowing this, and still doing it, claiming that's just the way it is.
Click to expand...


The birth control pill liberated women more than the vote did.

Prior to the pill, women would have 4-6 children over their lifetime and be tied to raising them. Career opportunities were limited by a woman having to leave the workplace to bear children and daycare is not practical with large numbers of children

Should men bear an equal responsibility for birth control and raising kids?  Theoretically, yes. But practically, if a birth control pill for men was available why would women trust men to take it?  They are the ones who will get pregnant


----------



## koshergrl

The pill didn't liberate women, unless you think being a single parent is liberating. There are more single parent households now than ever before, thanks to the pill and the pratice of exercising one's right to fuck as many unsuitable partners as possible without the safety net of marriage.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> The pill didn't liberate women, unless you think being a single parent is liberating. There are more single parent households now than ever before, thanks to the pill and the pratice of exercising one's right to fuck as many unsuitable partners as possible without the safety net of marriage.



Taking the pill liberates women like Sandra Fluke to continue their education


----------



## koshergrl

Sure it does. Cuz we all know there are no pregnant students.


----------



## koshergrl

Besides, women like Sandra Fluke are lesbian. Chances of accidentally getting pregnant are pretty slim.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> Besides, women like Sandra Fluke are lesbian. Chances of accidentally getting pregnant are pretty slim.





But Rush said she is a slut.....Which is it?


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> Sure it does. Cuz we all know there are no pregnant students.



Good point

Think of all the college women who would be getting abortions if it weren't for the pill?


----------



## koshergrl

They still get abortions. More women have sex, more birth control fails, more abortion. More women get abortions than got abortions before the pill.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> They still get abortions. More women have sex, more birth control fails, more abortion. More women get abortions than got abortions before the pill.



Abstenance has failed once again


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read this thread
> 
> It is quite interesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have, which is why I know no one opposed to the birth control mandate, even Rush, ever said that birth control is more expensive if you have more sex. Feel free to provide the quote to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...


You're actually arguing the Limblob side without being aware of this??

"She's having* so much sex she can't afford* the contraception." -- Limblob, 2/29

"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having *so much sex they're going broke*, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control." -- Limblob, 3/1

And in this thread, this was a classic -- I include the whole quote for the fuzzy linear time logic:


theHawk said:


> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _&#8220;Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that&#8217;s practically an entire summer&#8217;s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> *If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.*



::urp:: I gotta get off this low-hanging fruit diet...


----------



## koshergrl

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still get abortions. More women have sex, more birth control fails, more abortion. More women get abortions than got abortions before the pill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abstenance has failed once again
Click to expand...


As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.

In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still get abortions. More women have sex, more birth control fails, more abortion. More women get abortions than got abortions before the pill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abstenance has failed once again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?
Click to expand...


How many would there be with abstenance only and the rhythm method?


----------



## RosieS

theHawk said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the main pillars of liberalism: Proclaim there must a "separation of church and state" then have the state take over every aspect of our lives, which pushes religion out.
> 
> This is what has led to government seeping into health care, and now they are trying to force a religious institution that provides health care to do something against their own religion.  Its trying to force religion out of health, to supplant it with government.
> 
> The end game is always have the government in charge, and no religion in sight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To do something against their own religion?  To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.
> 
> The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.
> 
> The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the Catholic Church is already doing it, then why was she there to testify at Capital Hill in order to get the Catholic Church's university to cover it?  Can you seriously be this obtuse?
> 
> The liberals also want to force Catholic institutions to cover abortion.  Case in point: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Radical NY abortion bill could close Catholic hospitals, Church warns
> 
> Again, the end game is to force religious institutions out of the health care biz in favor of government run.
Click to expand...


How dishonest of you to leave out the "lay employee"  part. And Ms. Fluke was at the hearing to point out just that.....that the Church already covers employees, so it is discriminatory and not legal to exclude students.

I am not surprised that rightwingers would pretend not to understand the issue; or actually not understand the issue.

Issa's Committee could NOT let Fluke address it and have Fluke publically embarrass the Church by airing such dirty laundry. Laundry you dishonestly claim does not exist.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## RosieS

MisterBeale said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a hypocrite or an unwitting dupe of the Jesuits.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.   How dare you imply that the state use it's taxing powers against your enemies but not against your friends is not unconstitutional.
> 
> My case rests.  There is no "separation of Church and State," the state has become corrupt and evil with it's use of the 501c "law," to arbitrarily threaten it's revivals in the social-political sphere of society.   Do you think the IRS should go after James Hal Cone's allies, and the POTUS' allies as well?
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KF5p57WHE]Black Liberation Theology - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Yeah. . . . some how I thought not.
Click to expand...


You cannot argue the points on the merits, so you go off the deep end..

Whoever Cone is, Jeremiah Wright, whoever.....if they are politicking from the pulpit, tax them. If not, not. It is not a complicated concept.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## RosieS

koshergrl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still get abortions. More women have sex, more birth control fails, more abortion. More women get abortions than got abortions before the pill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abstenance has failed once again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?
Click to expand...


Abortion works best. It definitely ends an unwanted pregnancy. Prevention should occur  before then.  If prevention works, abortion is prevented.

Geez, you are confuzzled.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## koshergrl

RosieS said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abstenance has failed once again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion works best. It definitely ends an unwanted pregnancy. Prevention should occur  before then.  If prevention works, abortion is prevented.
> 
> Geez, you are confuzzled.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...



Apparently prevention doesn't work.

Back to abstinence. The great experiment failed.


----------



## koshergrl

RosieS said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a hypocrite or an unwitting dupe of the Jesuits.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.   How dare you imply that the state use it's taxing powers against your enemies but not against your friends is not unconstitutional.
> 
> My case rests.  There is no "separation of Church and State," the state has become corrupt and evil with it's use of the 501c "law," to arbitrarily threaten it's revivals in the social-political sphere of society.   Do you think the IRS should go after James Hal Cone's allies, and the POTUS' allies as well?
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KF5p57WHE"]Black Liberation Theology - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Yeah. . . . some how I thought not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot argue the points on the merits, so you go off the deep end..
> 
> Whoever Cone is, Jeremiah Wright, whoever.....if they are politicking from the pulpit, tax them. If not, not. It is not a complicated concept.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


You wouldn't know a merit if it sat on your face and wiggled.

I assume you also intend to tax the crap out of planned parenthood?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RosieS said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.
> 
> Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Let me make this simple for you.

The First Amendment says *Congress shall make no law *respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of  speech...

It does not say Congress shall make no law unless we are talking about taxes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides, women like Sandra Fluke are lesbian. Chances of accidentally getting pregnant are pretty slim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Rush said she is a slut.....Which is it?
Click to expand...


You can't be a slutty lesbian?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read this thread
> 
> It is quite interesting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have, which is why I know no one opposed to the birth control mandate, even Rush, ever said that birth control is more expensive if you have more sex. Feel free to provide the quote to prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're actually arguing the Limblob side without being aware of this??
> 
> "She's having* so much sex she can't afford* the contraception." -- Limblob, 2/29
> 
> "A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having *so much sex they're going broke*, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control." -- Limblob, 3/1
> 
> And in this thread, this was a classic -- I include the whole quote for the fuzzy linear time logic:
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> *If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ::urp:: I gotta get off this low-hanging fruit diet...
Click to expand...


I was right then, he did not say contraception cost more if you have more sex, you just want to pretend he did.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RosieS said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To do something against their own religion?  To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.
> 
> The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.
> 
> The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Catholic Church is already doing it, then why was she there to testify at Capital Hill in order to get the Catholic Church's university to cover it?  Can you seriously be this obtuse?
> 
> The liberals also want to force Catholic institutions to cover abortion.  Case in point: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Radical NY abortion bill could close Catholic hospitals, Church warns
> 
> Again, the end game is to force religious institutions out of the health care biz in favor of government run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How dishonest of you to leave out the "lay employee"  part. And Ms. Fluke was at the hearing to point out just that.....that the Church already covers employees, so it is discriminatory and not legal to exclude students.
> 
> I am not surprised that rightwingers would pretend not to understand the issue; or actually not understand the issue.
> 
> Issa's Committee could NOT let Fluke address it and have Fluke publically embarrass the Church by airing such dirty laundry. Laundry you dishonestly claim does not exist.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Huh?

It is not discrimination to give employees something you do not offer students. The simplest proof of this is that every university in this country actually pays thei employees to come to school, and none of them offer the same compensation to students, even if they spend more time there than the employees. In fact, they actually charge students to come to school.

That makes you dumber than Fluke, which is quite a challenge. She at least knew she was misrepresenting the facts, you believe her.


----------



## logical4u

JoeB131 said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were trying to stop the molestation of alter boys.  They were naive in believing homosexual pedophiles when they said they would stop.  They have been working on correcting this problem for a very long time.  They have one of the lowest incidents for child molestation among any predominant group..
Click to expand...


That's simply not true.  Frankly, I grew up Catholic, we all knew back then (like in the 1970's) the priests were a little weird and you didn't want to be alone with one of them. 

The Catholic Church just didn't "believe" the pedophiles (some of whom molested girls as well as boys, not that that should make a difference).  They actively paid off families, having them sign non-disclosure agreements.  They moved priests to other parishes without warning those communities. 

If you really care to be educated on this subject, I would suggest you rent a movie called Deliver us from Evil.   It tells the story of Fr. O'Grady in CA, who was moved from Parish to Parish without any warning to families. 




logical4u said:


> [Now, where are you critizing school teachers for molesting children?  Gov't congressmen?  State run institutions entrusted with the care of children?  Other religious groups?  Universities?   What a sad little hypocrit you are.



Actually, I was very strongly critical of teacher's unions that protect teachers accused of molestation.  Particularly the one who has been collecting a salary for 12 years because they don't dare put him back in a classroom, but the unions have made it impossible to fire him. 





logical4u said:


> [If a group, a person is operating a business, they do not check their personal beliefs at the door (in many cases that is what makes the business successful).  The gov't has no "right" to tell them what they "shall" provide.  They can ensure safety, they can try to ensure that no discrimmination or abuse occurs, but they cannot tell the employer what to provide in the way of benefits.  Each business that provides health insurance selects that insurance from what is on the market.  The gov't has no "authority" to decide what those options are.



Actually,the government has every right under the interstate commerce clause.[/QUOTE]

The interstate commerce clause is the most abused "clause" in the Constitution.  It was to prevent states from abusing citizens and businesses of other states, not to allow the gov't to decide how those businesses are run.


----------



## logical4u

RosieS said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, SNAP!  Reply perfection.
> 
> Pick your ass up, Logical. You aren't supposed to drop it when it is handed to you.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another biggoted and intolerant liberal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, jenius, just another observant  and accurate liberal. We're EVERYWHERE.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Yep, no apprehension about "shoving your beliefs" onto everyone else.


----------



## koshergrl

I notice that Rosie disappeared when faced with the fact that PP also publicly throws itself into politics.

Can't interfere with abortion money. That would violate our right to kill certain people, under certain circumstances!!! It's so much more important that religious freedom, after all.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have, which is why I know no one opposed to the birth control mandate, even Rush, ever said that birth control is more expensive if you have more sex. Feel free to provide the quote to prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're actually arguing the Limblob side without being aware of this??
> 
> "She's having* so much sex she can't afford* the contraception." -- Limblob, 2/29
> 
> "A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having *so much sex they're going broke*, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control." -- Limblob, 3/1
> 
> And in this thread, this was a classic -- I include the whole quote for the fuzzy linear time logic:
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _&#8220;Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that&#8217;s practically an entire summer&#8217;s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> *If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ::urp:: I gotta get off this low-hanging fruit diet...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was right then, he did not say contraception cost more if you have more sex, you just want to pretend he did.
Click to expand...


Oh come off it, you're embarrassing yourself.  All three of those statements are a comparison of degree: "_so much_ that she _can't afford_" means what she can afford, and therefore how much it costs, *depends on* how much sex she has.  "So much sex that they're going broke" -- exactly the same thing; "if they were having less sex, they wouldn't go broke".  Both of these require a direct relationship between the cost of birth control and the amount of sex.  I can't believe I have to actually explain this to anyone who's presumably attained the age of six who speaks English.

Then there's "If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute", a veritable Certs roll of logical fallacies, which like the two Limblob idiocies, lives ignorant of the fact that birth control is a fixed expense regardless whether the woman is having "much" sex or no sex at all, ergo how much sex a woman has changes the expense of BC not one iota.

I can't believe you're actually _willing _to play this dumb.   You have no shame.


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Yes, I found Rush Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the Republican Party.  That none of the Republican Presidential Candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.
> 
> Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in Republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of Republican Senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted Democrat.
> 
> The only female demographic to vote for Romney in large numbers was married white women.  So by all means, continue to refer to Ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  Every time you do, it reminds women that Republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting Republican is voting against their economic best interests.  Women vote with their pocket books too.



Just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves?  The libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).

Will this be enough for you to "change your opinion" of the democrat party, or is this just more hype from another brainwashed liberal that thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the President to hang with people that use "ho", "bitch", and worse names for women, but want to pretend you are offended when Rush says that a woman in her late twenties asking the congress of the USA (there on taxpayers' dimes) to force the free market insurance to "give" her birth control, and that she cannot afford birth control, is a slut?


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Catholic Church is already doing it, then why was she there to testify at Capital Hill in order to get the Catholic Church's university to cover it?  Can you seriously be this obtuse?
> 
> The liberals also want to force Catholic institutions to cover abortion.  Case in point: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Radical NY abortion bill could close Catholic hospitals, Church warns
> 
> Again, the end game is to force religious institutions out of the health care biz in favor of government run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How dishonest of you to leave out the "lay employee"  part. And Ms. Fluke was at the hearing to point out just that.....that the Church already covers employees, so it is discriminatory and not legal to exclude students.
> 
> I am not surprised that rightwingers would pretend not to understand the issue; or actually not understand the issue.
> 
> Issa's Committee could NOT let Fluke address it and have Fluke publically embarrass the Church by airing such dirty laundry. Laundry you dishonestly claim does not exist.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> It is not discrimination to give employees something you do not offer students. The simplest proof of this is that every university in this country actually pays thei employees to come to school, and none of them offer the same compensation to students, even if they spend more time there than the employees. In fact, they actually charge students to come to school.
> 
> That makes you dumber than Fluke, which is quite a challenge. She at least knew she was misrepresenting the facts, you believe her.
Click to expand...


Oh no - a double shot.  This is like the worst false comparison ever.

They're paying the employees _because they're employees_ facilitating the school's ability to provide a _*service*_, i.e. education.  They're charging the students because they are the _*buyers *_of that service.  Buyer; seller -- know the difference.  Holy shit I'd hate to be your accountant...

I might take this quote in bold to put in my signature. It's _hilarious_.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, i found rush limbaugh's attack on sandra fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the republican party.  That none of the republican presidential candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.
> 
> Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of republican senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted democrat.
> 
> The only female demographic to vote for romney in large numbers was married white women.  So by all means, continue to refer to ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  Every time you do, it reminds women that republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting republican is voting against their economic best interests.  Women vote with their pocket books too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves?  *the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air* (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).
Click to expand...


.
I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of.  That explains his expression --


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> 
> To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
> Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee.  In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.
> 
> When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans.  The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.
> 
> As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican.  Not the smart ones anyway.
Click to expand...


Please list the Republicans that want to "control" women's reproductive issues.
Are they suggesting women be forced into having abortions?
Are they suggesting women be kept in prison like enclosures for "birthing"?

People that do not want to "pay" for other peoples' reproductive issues are not trying to control those people.  They are suggesting that those people should be responsible for their own actions. 
 If you don't want a child:
Don't have sex
Use birth control that is available for on the spot sex
Use a birth control that is medically received
Use an IUD
Have your tubes stapled
Use an inexpensive timing and temperature method (that requires personal responsibility).

If "you" choose not to do any of those and end up with a child in your womb, do not ask other people to pay for the murder of that child.

There is no "force" there.  It is just your deception against others to "force" them to pay for something that is the resposibilty of the person engaging in the sexual act and the consequenses of said act.


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Sara Fluke testify that she wanted government mandated insurance to pay for her birth control? I'd call her a slut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time a Republican supporter calls Fluke a slut, a bell rings,  and another feminist is born angel gets his wings.
Click to expand...


Yeah... the same "feminist"s that are speaking up against the muslims beating, raping, mutilating, and murdering women all over the world, including the USA.  The same women that are speaking up against rappers that use worse language for women and "sing" about hurting women using sex.  The silence is deafening......
Oh, that's right, you only do "imagined" outrage.


----------



## PredFan

I'll side with Rush on anything if it will make lefties piss their panties in anger. Always cracks me up.


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember anyone saying she didn't have a right to speak. I do remember calling her out for lying. I also recall the knee jerk reaction from people like you defending her, and her lies, despite the proof that birth control is not a major expense for the average college student.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lies did she tell?  She was talking about the difficulty for women to get their birth control paid for when they have medical conditions, like endometriosis, for which BCP's are a primary form of treatment.
> 
> The bald fact is that birth control pills should be covered by health insurance.  Period.  End of story.  Not covering birth control should not be any option for any employer.  Let the patient decide what is morally right for her, not her employer.
Click to expand...


The problem with socialism is... you eventually run out of someone else's money, according to Maggie Thatcher.  If you want insurance costs to go up for everyone (other people paying for your sex life), then yes, it should be covered.

Insurance is for medical hardships/emergencies, not frivolous proceedures and recreational choices.  That is like asking the gov't to give gas allowance for cars and arguing that your Porche should get more fuel than my Toyota Corolla because "it should be paid for".

No wonder medical costs are so high, people want the medical community to shoulder the burden of costs that they could pay for by themselves.


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she wasn't, she said that the average co ed couldn't afford any form of contraception, even free condoms from Planned Parenthood or the $10 bucks a month at the local WalMart to get the pill, and admitted she deliberately went to a Catholic University to force them to provide birth control to everyone free of charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what she said at all.  This is the text of Ms. Fluke's testimony:
> 
> Full Transcript of Sandra Fluke's Testimony - LGF Pages
> 
> This woman is a law student, giving serious testimony about violations of women's rights, not some air-head wanting to have her good time funded, as you and others here are painting her to be.
> 
> You're no better than those who told the lies in the first place.
Click to expand...


from different places in her testimony:
We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. 

Many of the women whose stories Ive shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need. 

Im also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. 

Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. 

.........
Yes, she is saying that "we" (that would include herself) faced "financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a results of not having birth control costs covered.


----------



## RosieS

koshergrl said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're either a hypocrite or an unwitting dupe of the Jesuits.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.   How dare you imply that the state use it's taxing powers against your enemies but not against your friends is not unconstitutional.
> 
> My case rests.  There is no "separation of Church and State," the state has become corrupt and evil with it's use of the 501c "law," to arbitrarily threaten it's revivals in the social-political sphere of society.   Do you think the IRS should go after James Hal Cone's allies, and the POTUS' allies as well?
> Black Liberation Theology - YouTube
> 
> Yeah. . . . some how I thought not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot argue the points on the merits, so you go off the deep end..
> 
> Whoever Cone is, Jeremiah Wright, whoever.....if they are politicking from the pulpit, tax them. If not, not. It is not a complicated concept.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know a merit if it sat on your face and wiggled.
> 
> I assume you also intend to tax the crap out of planned parenthood?
Click to expand...


Planned Parenthood is a religion? They hold church services there?

It is too much to hope, but I'll type it anyway. Stop babbling.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## koshergrl

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, under the same tax code, 501(c)(3), and subject to the same restrictions, you hypocritical asswipe. But I don't expect you to know that. Or to care...

Though baby killing certainly is a religion to some.


----------



## logical4u

Sarah G said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I thought the reason we heard about it was because 500 radio stations across the country carry his show.
> 
> Although it was  afew less after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you people didn't get that upset when Maher called Palin a cxxt..or Letterman said she looked like a slutty flight attendant..you people are such phonies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HaHa.  She does dress like a slutty flight attendant.
Click to expand...


I guess that qualifies as "real shit".....


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is a joke and will always be looked at as one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluke is NOT a joke.  She was a bright and articulate spokeswoman for the issue she presented.  I would be proud to have a daughter like Ms. Fluke.
> 
> Your attitude towards this woman who is defending YOUR rights too, is disgraceful.  That you would parrot an idiot like Limbaugh, well, that just says it all.
Click to expand...


She will have a long career sucking tax payer dollars all the way with the recommendations of the lib politicians that used her to push their ideas onto others.....


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> tough shit, I didn't PICK her to speak me so she wasn't defending anything for me..she was the disgrace as far I am concerned
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read what said said?
> 
> I consider you a disgrace - ill informed and unwilling to fact check.  Not only listening to but believing anything Rush Limbaugh says.  Defending that misognynistic drug addict.  I raised my girls to be a lot smarter than that.
> 
> Read some Naomi Klein for heaven's sake.  Assuming of course, you can read.
Click to expand...


Do you comprehend "common sense"?  At what point do you realize that the American taxpayer cannot pay for all the programs the libs are promising (and have already promised).  Your agendas have created urban areas full of gov't dependent people that will be devastated (many are already cesspools of corruption and decay from local and state gov't promises failing) when the gov't handouts crash.  You are not teaching independent thinking, you are not teaching people how to use their intellect.  You are teaching people how to throw tantrums to get other people to give them things.  Just like children that get violent when the "adult" can no longer give them what they want, these urbanites will be the same (see "occupy" crimes).


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh my gawd, you don't know what the hell I vote for, so shut up and WORRY about your own damn country
> all this spew over some woman I didn't PICK or vote for to speak for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, spew is a good word for it.
> 
> The women who attend Georgetown University did pick Sandra Fluke to speak for them.  That is the whole point.  THEY picked her to speak on their behalf because THEY knew her to be an articulate spokes woman.  And the Republican senators refused to let her speak (until after the ensuing uproar), because they could not see the relevance of a woman speaking to the need for coverage for contraception.
> 
> Unless you are paying tuition at this university, you don't have any right to pass judgement on who those students chose to represent them, nor do you have the right to call her a liar, a slut or any other disgusting name you and your a$$hat buddies think is appropriate.
Click to expand...


Amusing how the libs are always telling others not to "pass judgement", yet they are passing judgement on anyone that disagrees with them.  To bad you don't follow your own advise (but that is a lib thing: do as I say, not as I do)....


----------



## RosieS

koshergrl said:


> Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization, under the same tax code, 501(c)(3), and subject to the same restrictions, you hypocritical asswipe. But I don't expect you to know that. Or to care...
> 
> Though baby killing certainly is a religion to some.



I expect you know that no one preaches about political candidates at Planned Parenthood. I know a strawman, and badly done, at that.

Thou art an ignorant blowhard cretin who needs to. stop. babbling.

Regards from Rosie


----------



## logical4u

RosieS said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I care what you consider..I'm not defending Limbaugh or the little rich girl whining in front of congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.
> 
> If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests ofjof every other woman in the US.
> 
> You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.
> 
> I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many intelligent women in this ruby red area of Florida who vote against their own interests because they are avoiding cognitive dissonance. The pulpit and the party are congruent as to the Gawd-ordained subordinate role of women.
> 
> When Republicans complain that Dems take Gawd out of their platform they are talking directly about the Dems not having the pulpit - party link.
> 
> All the more reason to have churches pay property tax. They are electioneering, beyond a doubt. Let them pay taxes and be honest about directing church members votes.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


Maybe those women choose to "vote against their own interests" because they are voting for the good of the country and not their own self centered interests.....

No, when the dems took the LORD out of their platform, it left room for all that is "anti-LORD" (that would be evil: corruption, deception, decay, death, destruction).  So far, it looks like the libs are embracing all that is anti-LORD.


----------



## logical4u

RosieS said:


> Dragonlady clearly elucidated intelligent reasons why self-reliant women should not vote Republican
> 
> If a woman feels she should only stay home, cook, clean, have babies and go to church twice a week then Republicanism is appropriate in maintaining the white male patriarchy.
> 
> No women, however, should believe any patriarchy is in her best interest. Only men are telling her it is from the pulpit, after all.
> 
> Regards from Rosie



What a little chicken shit, you are.....
Where in the republican platform does it say that women should "only stay home, cook, clean, have babies and go to church twice a week"?
Please feel free to point out all those "professional" women that Obama has in his close circle.  Continue to ignore the "doormats" the dems call "women" (and yes that would include Hillary Clinton that lied to protect her lying husband).
And please explain why libs "HATE" women that "choose" to stay home and raise a family?


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said she wanted the government to pay for her contraception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was and is a complete lie.  She wanted the health care, which she paid for in her $30,000 per year tuition, and which she had no choice but to accept, to pay for her contraception.  I don't think that's being unreasonable.
> 
> And no she is not a slut, but you're definitely an asshole.
Click to expand...


Under Obamacare, the gov't will be paying for the insurance: thus the gov't will be paying for her contraception.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> When citizen Sandra Fluke's story first hit the media the response from Rush was to INSTANTLY and IMMEDIATELY attack her. He distorted her words and message to say that she wants the government to pay for her to have sex. He went as far as suggesting that we all should watch her have sex. He literally went THAT far.
> 
> The worst part of the story isn't how disgusting that fat slob and bastard is, but that there was not ONE Republican, not one self-proclaimed Conservative, not one fundamentalist RW Christian that stood up against Rush and that reprehensible message. What we saw instead were many RWers who immediately began parroting him and that bigoted message. On this very board even...and quite recently too.
> 
> I mean, do you really agree with that? Do you REALLY believe that Sara Fluke believes in having the government pay for her to have sex? Do you side with Rush in wanting to see her have sex, since, in your minds, you are already paying for it, so you might as well be able to watch it <--- that was his reasoning by the way.
> 
> Edit: He even called the girl a slut on national radio, for at least 4 days straight...no apologies.
> 
> Has The Republican Party sunk so low?
> 
> Why?!?!??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We side with him because he was right about her.  She was a prop thrown up there by the Dems for their own agenda.  He was being facetious when talking of Fluke:
> 
> _RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back._
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> So please, grow a fucking pair and stop acting like you're still butt-hurt about Rush's jokes on Sandra "the Slut" Fluke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently someone's not entirely clear on the distinction between a "joke" and "character assassination".
> 
> Just for a starter-hint, "jokes" do not go on for _three days_.
> Duh.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0]53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> "Was he wrong about the facts?"   Just for one example at 6:31: "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.".  No, it was not, because Fluke never talked about herself; it was Rash Pimpjob who said that, and no one else.  Do me a favor and count up how many times he repeats the same lie, because I can't sit through it.
> 
> Had Limblob's rant actually been about the issue of funding sources of contraception, that would be the issue remembered and discussed.  It wasn't.  Limblob as usual makes it a personal fantasy, spewing his ad hominem all over Fluke (and others, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) so that the issue that remains, even now a year later, is the personal attack by the fake morals of a man on his fourth wife who was busted coming back from the DR with a stash of Viagra.
> 
> Only a misogynist could possibly defend that level of self-indulgent subhumanoid hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


Are you admitting that Rubio is having his character assasinated by the left (because it has been more than 3 days over the water bottle)?


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character.  Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.
> 
> _Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy."_ -- Sandra Fluke
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about birth control, do you?  First off, the birth control pill must be taken whether or not the woman is having sex at all, because it's not good to stop and start.  Going on and off the pill and makes the possibilty of failure higher.
> 
> Secondly, Fluke said "over $3,000 *during law school*", not in one year - in Canada, that's a total of 6 years - 4 for your BA, and 2 years for your LLB.  In order to get the pill, you have to have a doctor's prescription, and an annual pap smear.  Those doctor visits and tests are not covered by the Georgetown health insurance plan and add substantially to the costs of obtaining contraception.  What she said was a female student has to work an entire summer to make that kind of money, and she's correct.
> 
> The female students in law school completed a survey and 40% said these additional costs were a hardship for them, and why wouldn't they be, since most are already going into debt for school.  Any additional expense, especially one that should be covered by their health insurance, which they've already paid for, is going to increase their level of debt once they graduate.
Click to expand...


Boy, do you guys talk out of both sides of your mouth: punish the rich (if they are in law school, they are rich), pay for the college, make them pay their fair share, etc....  make up your mind.


----------



## logical4u

Care4all said:


> Jimminne Christmas the Hawk, how uninformed are you about birth control pills?
> 
> It costs no more a year, to be on birth control pills if you screw every day, screw 10 times a day, screw once a week or screw once a YEAR....You don't take the pill only the day you get laid, you have to take it every single day of the week in most forms of it.
> 
> Why in the world did you say:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you truly that ignorant on the topic of Birth Control Pill use?
> 
> In addition to all of this garbage being said by all of you who "side with Rush",
> 
> YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE COVERAGE at Georgetown university or anywhere....It costs no more money for the insurance companies to cover birth control, policies with birth control coverage vs without birth control coverage is the same....  Actuaries for the insurance companies have put a pencil to it, and with birth control coverage it saves them in areas of health care that  'the  without coverage' costs them such as more in pregnancy coverage...thus the price of the pills etc, pay for themselves....it's a break even and insurance policies are NOT higher with birth control coverage.
> 
> So what's the beef all about?
Click to expand...


Well!  Since it costs no money, why doesn't the one using it, pay for it?


----------



## logical4u

rightwinger said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jimminne Christmas the Hawk, how uninformed are you about birth control pills?
> 
> It costs no more a year, to be on birth control pills if you screw every day, screw 10 times, screw once a week or screw once a YEAR....You don't take the pill only the day you get laid, you have to take it every single day of the week in most forms of it.
> 
> Why in the world did you say:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you truly that ignorant on the topic of Birth Control Pill use?
> 
> In addition to all of this garbage being said by all of you who "side with Rush",
> 
> YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE COVERAGE at Georgetown university or anywhere....It costs no more money for the insurance companies to cover birth control, policies with birth control coverage vs without birth control coverage is the same....  Actuaries for the insurance companies have put a pencil to it, and with birth control coverage it saves them in areas of health care that  'the  without coverage' costs them such as more in pregnancy coverage...thus the price of the pills etc, pay for themselves....it's a break even and insurance policies are NOT higher with birth control coverage.
> 
> So what's the beef all about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My health insurance paid for a vasectomy. Cost a lot more than Sandra Flukes birth control pills
Click to expand...


Thank you for having that done......


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely defending Limbaugh.  You're saying he was right.  The only people dumber than Limbaugh, are those who cannot see through his sleeze and his lies.  Especially women, who allow him to preach his misogny and hatred of women, unchallenged.
> 
> If you actually thought about how the Republic Party's platform disrespects and marginalizes women, you're realize that you are voting against your own best interests, and the interests ofjof every other woman in the US.
> 
> You claim that Democrats are "sheeple", but here you are voting against equal pay for women, and voting in favour of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, and giving the state the right to determine when and if you should have a baby.  You also give the state the right to determine who you can love.  It wasn't that long ago that inter-racial marriage was illegal.
> 
> I'm not prepared to give up those rights, but you are.  Talking about voting for the nanny state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many intelligent women in this ruby red area of Florida who vote against their own interests because they are avoiding cognitive dissonance. The pulpit and the party are congruent as to the Gawd-ordained subordinate role of women.
> 
> When Republicans complain that Dems take Gawd out of their platform they are talking directly about the Dems not having the pulpit - party link.
> 
> All the more reason to have churches pay property tax. They are electioneering, beyond a doubt. Let them pay taxes and be honest about directing church members votes.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those women choose to "vote against their own interests" because they are voting for the good of the country and not their own self centered interests.....
> 
> No, when the dems took the LORD out of their platform, it left room for all that is "anti-LORD" (that would be evil: corruption, deception, decay, death, destruction).  So far, it looks like the libs are embracing all that is anti-LORD.
Click to expand...


You want a theocracy?  Book a flight to Riyadh.  We have government independent of religion in this country.  Don't like it?  There's the door.

Asinine self-righteous crap.  There is no "lord" in a political platform.  There's also no Buddha, no Allah, no Krishna, no nuttin'.  There's just We the People.  Like it or lump it.


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you do all that without having sex and getting pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of us want to have sex and get pregnant, but on our own terms.
Click to expand...


Right!  Now pay for it, yourself!


----------



## koshergrl

Oh look, another atheist ignoramus who doesn't understand the difference between "freedom of religion" and "theocracy".

Moron.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> We side with him because he was right about her.  She was a prop thrown up there by the Dems for their own agenda.  He was being facetious when talking of Fluke:
> 
> _RUSH: What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We're not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word. Okay, so she's not a slut. She's "round heeled." I take it back._
> 
> Was he wrong on his facts?  No, he wasn't.  She was there to testify that contraception should be paid for.  So he made a joke about it, whoopty shit.   Anyone that's going to Congress to testify isn't just some innocent private citizen, she was a political hack putting on a show for her Democrat masters.
> 
> So please, grow a fucking pair and stop acting like you're still butt-hurt about Rush's jokes on Sandra "the Slut" Fluke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently someone's not entirely clear on the distinction between a "joke" and "character assassination".
> 
> Just for a starter-hint, "jokes" do not go on for _three days_.
> Duh.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1oOjKQflN0]53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> "Was he wrong about the facts?"   Just for one example at 6:31: "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.".  No, it was not, because Fluke never talked about herself; it was Rash Pimpjob who said that, and no one else.  Do me a favor and count up how many times he repeats the same lie, because I can't sit through it.
> 
> Had Limblob's rant actually been about the issue of funding sources of contraception, that would be the issue remembered and discussed.  It wasn't.  Limblob as usual makes it a personal fantasy, spewing his ad hominem all over Fluke (and others, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) so that the issue that remains, even now a year later, is the personal attack by the fake morals of a man on his fourth wife who was busted coming back from the DR with a stash of Viagra.
> 
> Only a misogynist could possibly defend that level of self-indulgent subhumanoid hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that Rubio is having his character assasinated by the left (because it has been more than 3 days over the water bottle)?
Click to expand...


You're having a torrid romance with this guy tonight huh?






Red non sequitur herring made of straw, all packed into a single line.  Bravo.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Oh look, another atheist ignoramus who doesn't understand the difference between "freedom of religion" and "theocracy".
> 
> Moron.



Religion has nothing to do with a political party platform -- unless that platform is theocracy.  Illogic4All brought up a red herring; so I ate it.  Go get your own dinner.  ::urp::


----------



## logical4u

RosieS said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.
> 
> Want tax exempt status?  No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


I was unaware that "freedom of speech" had locations written in the Constitution, where "freedom of speech" was applicable, and other locations where "freedom of speech" was not applicable.


----------



## koshergrl

Read my comment again until it sinks in.

"....doesn't understand the difference between "freedom of religion" and "theocracy".


----------



## koshergrl

logical4u said:


> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children. There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State." The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people. Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them. Most comply with 501c regulations. What does this mean? It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear. However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it? They can't. Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue. But you won't find it in any public library or school library. Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.
> 
> Want tax exempt status? No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.
> 
> The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was unaware that "freedom of speech" had locations written in the Constitution, where "freedom of speech" was applicable, and other locations where "freedom of speech" was not applicable.
Click to expand...

 
She also maintains that PP is somehow exempt from the imaginary rules she maintains the church must adhere to...

Just another zealot wanting to torch the churches. SSDD


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Read my comment again until it sinks in.
> 
> "....doesn't understand the difference between "freedom of religion" and "theocracy".



Thanks but your posts don't sink.  They evaporate.


----------



## koshergrl

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
Posts: 2,406 
Thanks: 826
Thanked 690 Times in 494 Posts 
Rep Power: 425 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





































































You'll pardon me if I don't look to you as the arbiter of worthwhile posting.


----------



## logical4u

RosieS said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children.  There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State."  The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.  This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.
> 
> The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people.  Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.
> 
> There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them.  Most comply with 501c regulations.  What does this mean?  It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear.  However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it?  They can't.  Find and read the book, "_In Caesar's Grip_," to fully understand this issue.  But you won't find it in any public library or school library.  Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the main pillars of liberalism: Proclaim there must a "separation of church and state" then have the state take over every aspect of our lives, which pushes religion out.
> 
> This is what has led to government seeping into health care, and now they are trying to force a religious institution that provides health care to do something against their own religion.  Its trying to force religion out of health, to supplant it with government.
> 
> The end game is always have the government in charge, and no religion in sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To do something against their own religion?  To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.
> 
> The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.
> 
> The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
Click to expand...


It could be pointed out that "employees" are typically married (adults on their own), and not impressionable college students that are "unmarried".  That the church providing contraceptives for students could be seen as "corrupting" the young students (doesn't matter what the facts are).  That would be leading the youth into sinful ways.


----------



## Pogo

koshergrl said:


> Join Date: Dec 2012
> Location: Carolinia Agresticia; the Forest Primeval
> Posts: 2,406
> Thanks: 826
> Thanked 690 Times in 494 Posts
> Rep Power: 425
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll pardon me if I don't look to you as the arbiter of worthwhile posting.



--- see what I mean?


----------



## logical4u

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abstenance has failed once again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.
> 
> In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many would there be with abstenance only and the rhythm method?
Click to expand...


Ummm, if "abstenance" was used, there would be NO unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, i found rush limbaugh's attack on sandra fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the republican party.  That none of the republican presidential candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.
> 
> Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of republican senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted democrat.
> 
> The only female demographic to vote for romney in large numbers was married white women.  So by all means, continue to refer to ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  Every time you do, it reminds women that republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting republican is voting against their economic best interests.  Women vote with their pocket books too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves?  *the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air* (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of.  That explains his expression --
Click to expand...


Got it.
That makes one lib hypocrit..... 

next


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many intelligent women in this ruby red area of Florida who vote against their own interests because they are avoiding cognitive dissonance. The pulpit and the party are congruent as to the Gawd-ordained subordinate role of women.
> 
> When Republicans complain that Dems take Gawd out of their platform they are talking directly about the Dems not having the pulpit - party link.
> 
> All the more reason to have churches pay property tax. They are electioneering, beyond a doubt. Let them pay taxes and be honest about directing church members votes.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those women choose to "vote against their own interests" because they are voting for the good of the country and not their own self centered interests.....
> 
> No, when the dems took the LORD out of their platform, it left room for all that is "anti-LORD" (that would be evil: corruption, deception, decay, death, destruction).  So far, it looks like the libs are embracing all that is anti-LORD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want a theocracy?  Book a flight to Riyadh.  We have government independent of religion in this country.  Don't like it?  There's the door.
> 
> Asinine self-righteous crap.  There is no "lord" in a political platform.  There's also no Buddha, no Allah, no Krishna, no nuttin'.  There's just We the People.  Like it or lump it.
Click to expand...


Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform.  So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times.  The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.

And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes.  I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible.  Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD.  Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.

BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?  Why?


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently someone's not entirely clear on the distinction between a "joke" and "character assassination".
> 
> Just for a starter-hint, "jokes" do not go on for _three days_.
> Duh.
> 
> 53 of Rush Limbaugh's most vile smears against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke - YouTube
> 
> "Was he wrong about the facts?"   Just for one example at 6:31: "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex she can't afford it.".  No, it was not, because Fluke never talked about herself; it was Rash Pimpjob who said that, and no one else.  Do me a favor and count up how many times he repeats the same lie, because I can't sit through it.
> 
> Had Limblob's rant actually been about the issue of funding sources of contraception, that would be the issue remembered and discussed.  It wasn't.  Limblob as usual makes it a personal fantasy, spewing his ad hominem all over Fluke (and others, e.g. Nancy Pelosi) so that the issue that remains, even now a year later, is the personal attack by the fake morals of a man on his fourth wife who was busted coming back from the DR with a stash of Viagra.
> 
> Only a misogynist could possibly defend that level of self-indulgent subhumanoid hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that Rubio is having his character assasinated by the left (because it has been more than 3 days over the water bottle)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're having a torrid romance with this guy tonight huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red non sequitur herring made of straw, all packed into a single line.  Bravo.
Click to expand...


Did I catch you in your own words?  Ahh, bring out the dodges.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves?  *the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air* (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of.  That explains his expression --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got it.
> That makes one lib hypocrit.....
> 
> next
Click to expand...


No, it makes one more strawman torched.

New at this?


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe those women choose to "vote against their own interests" because they are voting for the good of the country and not their own self centered interests.....
> 
> No, when the dems took the LORD out of their platform, it left room for all that is "anti-LORD" (that would be evil: corruption, deception, decay, death, destruction).  So far, it looks like the libs are embracing all that is anti-LORD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want a theocracy?  Book a flight to Riyadh.  We have government independent of religion in this country.  Don't like it?  There's the door.
> 
> Asinine self-righteous crap.  There is no "lord" in a political platform.  There's also no Buddha, no Allah, no Krishna, no nuttin'.  There's just We the People.  Like it or lump it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform.  So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times.  The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.
> 
> And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes.  I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible.  Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD.  Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.
> 
> BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?  Why?
Click to expand...


I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it.  Because it's *irrelevant*.  A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.  

I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no.  I can't imagine why one would want that.  My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness.  Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.   

You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever.  Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics.  We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of.  That explains his expression --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it.
> That makes one lib hypocrit.....
> 
> next
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it makes one more strawman torched.
> 
> New at this?
Click to expand...


The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".  I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed)."

And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.

This is why libs cannot win.  If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want a theocracy?  Book a flight to Riyadh.  We have government independent of religion in this country.  Don't like it?  There's the door.
> 
> Asinine self-righteous crap.  There is no "lord" in a political platform.  There's also no Buddha, no Allah, no Krishna, no nuttin'.  There's just We the People.  Like it or lump it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform.  So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times.  The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.
> 
> And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes.  I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible.  Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD.  Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.
> 
> BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?  Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it.  Because it's *irrelevant*.  A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.
> 
> I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no.  I can't imagine why one would want that.  My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness.  Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.
> 
> You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever.  Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics.  We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.
Click to expand...


Again, the dodge.  I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated".  I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.  

Christianity is about sharing the "good news".  It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket".  Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose.  It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't).  Just in case you are interested in "truth".

BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history.  But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Say it ain't so.... another liberal that is unaware of the vote at the Democrat convention where a vote was taken to put "God" back into the Democrat platform.  So many booed and voiced oposition the vote was taken three times.  The third time there was no clear winner, but the vote was called for "God" to be put back in the platform because the Dems knew how bad it would be if the LORD was not in their platform.
> 
> And I do not care to go to Riyadh, that is more in line with lib thinking: have a tyrant or dictator to force people to "go along" with the tyrant's wishes.  I prefer Christianity where people can have discussions about the LORD and what is in the Bible.  Each person is responsible for their "own" relationship with the LORD.  Those that try to live according to the LORD are blessed, and those that are near them, also receive those blessings or the affects of them.
> 
> BTW, do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?  Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it.  Because it's *irrelevant*.  A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.
> 
> I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no.  I can't imagine why one would want that.  My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness.  Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.
> 
> You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever.  Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics.  We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the dodge.  I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated".  I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.
> 
> Christianity is about sharing the "good news".  It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket".  Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose.  It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't).  Just in case you are interested in "truth".
> 
> BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history.  But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.
Click to expand...


No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"

What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"?  Or a "Christian neighbourhood"  Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way?  I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares?  What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here.  This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it.  And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.

Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization.  Or maybe the other way round.  Either way, entirely irrelevant here.

(/offtopic)


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got it.
> That makes one lib hypocrit.....
> 
> next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it makes one more strawman torched.
> 
> New at this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".  I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed)."
> 
> And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
> 
> This is why libs cannot win.  If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.
Click to expand...


My lack of god, you _*are *_new at this.

I didn't "ignore a legitimate question"; I highlighted an *il*legitimate one.  Nobody said anything about women needing or not needing guns; you just made that up.  That's what "strawman" means; something you just make up, then attribute it to some opponent (in this case a disembodied blanket) and then attack your own point.  

Can't believe I have to explain this.  Methinks you need a new name, because this one's way ironic.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
> 
> This is why libs cannot win.  If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.



"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?

Oh wait... that was all your side. 
Never mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're actually arguing the Limblob side without being aware of this??
> 
> "She's having* so much sex she can't afford* the contraception." -- Limblob, 2/29
> 
> "A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having *so much sex they're going broke*, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control." -- Limblob, 3/1
> 
> And in this thread, this was a classic -- I include the whole quote for the fuzzy linear time logic:
> 
> 
> ::urp:: I gotta get off this low-hanging fruit diet...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was right then, he did not say contraception cost more if you have more sex, you just want to pretend he did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh come off it, you're embarrassing yourself.  All three of those statements are a comparison of degree: "_so much_ that she _can't afford_" means what she can afford, and therefore how much it costs, *depends on* how much sex she has.  "So much sex that they're going broke" -- exactly the same thing; "if they were having less sex, they wouldn't go broke".  Both of these require a direct relationship between the cost of birth control and the amount of sex.  I can't believe I have to actually explain this to anyone who's presumably attained the age of six who speaks English.
> 
> Then there's "If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute", a veritable Certs roll of logical fallacies, which like the two Limblob idiocies, lives ignorant of the fact that birth control is a fixed expense regardless whether the woman is having "much" sex or no sex at all, ergo how much sex a woman has changes the expense of BC not one iota.
> 
> I can't believe you're actually _willing _to play this dumb.   You have no shame.
Click to expand...


Can I point out the obvious here, or will it cause you brain to explode. Even if a woman is on the pill every doctor and health expert in this country recommends that she use a condom and/or a dental dam when she has sex. That is because, despite your abysmal ignorance, the Pill does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases, and even lesbians can catch a disease from having sex with an infected partner. 

The cost of that would actually be dependent upon how much sex one has. 

That said, Rush was using reductio ad absurdum to make a fucking point, one which obviously escaped the mental capacity that insists there is a difference between cannot afford and struggles financially.


----------



## koshergrl

Yeah, I tried to make the point that there are different types of contraceptives but they didn't get it.

No wonder std incidence is out of control, and we're getting more and more virulent ones.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RosieS said:
> 
> 
> 
> How dishonest of you to leave out the "lay employee"  part. And Ms. Fluke was at the hearing to point out just that.....that the Church already covers employees, so it is discriminatory and not legal to exclude students.
> 
> I am not surprised that rightwingers would pretend not to understand the issue; or actually not understand the issue.
> 
> Issa's Committee could NOT let Fluke address it and have Fluke publically embarrass the Church by airing such dirty laundry. Laundry you dishonestly claim does not exist.
> 
> Regards from Rosie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> It is not discrimination to give employees something you do not offer students. The simplest proof of this is that every university in this country actually pays thei employees to come to school, and none of them offer the same compensation to students, even if they spend more time there than the employees. In fact, they actually charge students to come to school.
> 
> That makes you dumber than Fluke, which is quite a challenge. She at least knew she was misrepresenting the facts, you believe her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh no - a double shot.  This is like the worst false comparison ever.
> 
> They're paying the employees _because they're employees_ facilitating the school's ability to provide a _*service*_, i.e. education.  They're charging the students because they are the _*buyers *_of that service.  Buyer; seller -- know the difference.  Holy shit I'd hate to be your accountant...
> 
> I might take this quote in bold to put in my signature. It's _hilarious_.
Click to expand...


That is interesting, you agree with me that there is a difference between a customer and an employee, yet you are not mocking the idiot that tired to argue that is is discrimination to treat them differently.

Your bias is showing again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, i found rush limbaugh's attack on sandra fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the republican party.  That none of the republican presidential candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.
> 
> Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of republican senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted democrat.
> 
> The only female demographic to vote for romney in large numbers was married white women.  So by all means, continue to refer to ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex.  Every time you do, it reminds women that republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting republican is voting against their economic best interests.  Women vote with their pocket books too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves?  *the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air* (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .
> I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of.  That explains his expression --
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Actually, it comes from Colorado, not Oz.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it.  Because it's *irrelevant*.  A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.
> 
> I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no.  I can't imagine why one would want that.  My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness.  Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.
> 
> You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever.  Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics.  We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the dodge.  I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated".  I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.
> 
> Christianity is about sharing the "good news".  It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket".  Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose.  It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't).  Just in case you are interested in "truth".
> 
> BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history.  But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"
> 
> What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"?  Or a "Christian neighbourhood"  Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way?  I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares?  What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here.  This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it.  And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.
> 
> Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization.  Or maybe the other way round.  Either way, entirely irrelevant here.
> 
> (/offtopic)
Click to expand...


You are the one that attacked Christians.  I was pointing out that the very people that "cry" about Christianity "choose" to live in neighborhoods where there are many Christians (atheists will not set up their own neighborhoods, wonder why?).  Those neighborhoods seem to be more stable, more safe, the homes better maintained than neighborhoods where non-Christians are the majority.  Yet you never consider "why" you "choose" to live among Christians.  Its okay, I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.

And the last paragraph was pointing out a historical fact: when religion is forcibly removed from a society, the murders are tremendous.  Again, I expect no intellectual honesty from you on this matter, just superficial nonsense to justify your "choice" not to pay attention to the LORD.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the dodge.  I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated".  I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.
> 
> Christianity is about sharing the "good news".  It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket".  Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose.  It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't).  Just in case you are interested in "truth".
> 
> BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history.  But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"
> 
> What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"?  Or a "Christian neighbourhood"  Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way?  I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares?  What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here.  This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it.  And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.
> 
> Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization.  Or maybe the other way round.  Either way, entirely irrelevant here.
> 
> (/offtopic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that attacked Christians.  I was pointing out that the very people that "cry" about Christianity "choose" to live in neighborhoods where there are many Christians (atheists will not set up their own neighborhoods, wonder why?).  Those neighborhoods seem to be more stable, more safe, the homes better maintained than neighborhoods where non-Christians are the majority.  Yet you never consider "why" you "choose" to live among Christians.  Its okay, I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.
> 
> And the last paragraph was pointing out a historical fact: when religion is forcibly removed from a society, the murders are tremendous.  Again, I expect no intellectual honesty from you on this matter, just superficial nonsense to justify your "choice" not to pay attention to the LORD.
Click to expand...


Oh horseshit.

This thread isn't about Christainism or religion; that's your tangent.  And your imaginary fantasies of neighbourhoods with religious police are equally irrelevant.  Neither Sandra Fluke nor Rash Rimjob said anything about Christianism or neighbourhoods or atheists... or murders or crime or stability etc etc.  You're just hijacking a thread with a lot of irrelevant crap.

And FWIW I never "attacked Christianity"; I attacked your ideas that we should be a theocracy.  When that happens, the ideals that founded this country cease to exist.  If you don't like people defending the Constitution -- oh well.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it makes one more strawman torched.
> 
> New at this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".  I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed)."
> 
> And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
> 
> This is why libs cannot win.  If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My lack of god, you _*are *_new at this.
> 
> I didn't "ignore a legitimate question"; I highlighted an *il*legitimate one.  Nobody said anything about women needing or not needing guns; you just made that up.  That's what "strawman" means; something you just make up, then attribute it to some opponent (in this case a disembodied blanket) and then attack your own point.
> 
> Can't believe I have to explain this.  Methinks you need a new name, because this one's way ironic.
Click to expand...


Except I did not make it up:

Biden on Self-Defense: Fire a Shotgun in the Air
...."I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.  You don't need an AR-15  it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"....

Michelle Malkin » Colorado morons want to leave women defenseless: ?Vomiting or urinating? better than carrying a gun

....."1) The first via Jesse Byrnes here in Coloradoheres what the University of Colorado- Colorado Springs advises innocent victims to do when they fall prey to attackers:...............Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
 Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone."........
"2) Via Dana Loesch and Revealing Politics, Colorado state rep. John Salazar doesnt think women need a gun to protect them from rapists. Instead, they should be happy with rape whistles."



Cupp: Why Is it Okay for Men to Tell Women How to Defend Themselves? | TheBlaze.com


......"Colorado Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar said on the floor of the House that I should, apparently, buy a rape whistle. Why? Because as a woman, I cant be trusted to shoot a gun. I wouldnt encourage any would-be attackers out there to test that theory with me.

Its why we have call boxes, its why we have safe zones, its why we have whistles, he said. Indeed, compelling points. So then why do we still have rape on college campuses? Why, according to the Department of Justice, will one in five college women be raped during their college years with all the call boxes and safe zones? Why are college aged women four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than the average female population if they are all effectively armed with whistles?


Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar (Youtube)

He went on to insist that we women shouldnt own guns for self-defense because you just dont know who youre going to be shooting at. Yes, that does put us at a disadvantage with men, who always know the criminals they encounter. And weve all heard of thousands of instances where a woman mistakenly shoots her best friend instead of the knife-wielding predator straddling her on the ground with his hand over her mouth.

He continued: And you dont know if you feel like youre gonna be raped, or if you feel like someones been following you around or if you feel like youre in trouble when may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop a round at somebody.

How does that work? Men, you tell me  do you know if you feel like youre gonna be robbed or murdered? The further we go down Salazars kooky rabbit hole, the more he starts sounding like Todd Akin. Im pretty sure if you unpacked his meandering treatise on a womans inability to properly exert her trigger finger, youd find a case for legitimate rape.

Elsewhere in Colorado, the state House passed a package of gun safety bills this week, one of which includes banning concealed carry on college campuses.

No problem there, because the University of Colorado has some awesome tips for women, posted as an updated advisory on their website. One recommendation?  Kick off your shoes because, presumably, the stilettos we wear to class might be hard to run in.

Another? Dont take time to look back; just get away. If only someone had told college rape victims to just get away earlier, think how many women could have been saved from sexual assault.

Ominously, they also warn us that some actions on your part might lead to more harm but dont bother delineating what those are. Women are essentially told to roll the dice and see what happens.

And finally, the University of Colorado wants us to vomit or urinate on our attackers. Alright sir.

As silly and dangerous as these suggestions are, and as asinine as some of these Democratic male legislators sound, the idea that I cant be trusted to defend myself with a weapon is offensive, paternalistic and even misogynistic. And where is the National Organization for Women or Planned Parenthood or any other liberal womens group denouncing these boneheaded men and institutions for telling us how to protect our bodies? Silence." ......


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
> 
> This is why libs cannot win.  If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Calling names" like "slut"?
> Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
> 
> Oh wait... that was all your side.
> Never mind.
Click to expand...


Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......

If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.
> 
> This is why libs cannot win.  If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Calling names" like "slut"?
> Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
> 
> Oh wait... that was all your side.
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
> Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
> 
> If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
Click to expand...


Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?

I haven't proffered "ideas" here.  _*You *_have.  Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic.  You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.

This thread _was _about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant.  I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible.  Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.

Thread hijacked: check.  The end.


----------



## Synthaholic

_*Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke  *_

Because he told them to.  Period.


----------



## Pogo

Synthaholic said:


> _*Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke  *_
> 
> Because he told them to.  Period.



Voilà.  How hard was that.


----------



## edthecynic

Synthaholic said:


> _*Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke  *_
> 
> Because he told them to.  Period.


October 14, 2011
RUSH:  I say it, you believe it, with no questions.


----------



## RosieS

Synthaholic said:


> _*Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke  *_
> 
> Because he told them to.  Period.



You da man, Synth!

Regards from Rosie


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Calling names" like "slut"?
> Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
> 
> Oh wait... that was all your side.
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
> Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
> 
> If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?
> 
> I haven't proffered "ideas" here.  _*You *_have.  Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic.  You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.
> 
> This thread _was _about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant.  I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible.  Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.
> 
> Thread hijacked: check.  The end.
Click to expand...


Again, you wanted to bring Christianity into it.  I was just following up on your comments to see how you really felt (it appears that you are just fine with using Christians, but you do not want them to be able to use the first ammendment).
Rush "mocked" Sandra Fluke.  He was not as vile as many on the left (entertainers, politicians, political activists that called conservative women far worse than "slut" without them standing in front of congresss asking the gov't to ensure their contraceptives are paid for by "others").  You will not respond to the obvious condescending comments towards women made by the left (which implies that you support that insulting rhetoric).
It appears that "you" are the one that does not want to deal with reality or answer the hard questions.  I have answered the questions about Sandra Fluke.  Like a dutiful little zombie, you ignore the insults to women made by the left, and offer your undying loyalty to them, no matter that they do things far worse, than call women demanding that others pay for their contraceptives "slut".

Again, you have shown that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest.  You have shown that obvious humor offends you when it targets your pet idealogy.  I am  amused.


----------



## logical4u

edthecynic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke  *_
> 
> Because he told them to.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> October 14, 2011
> RUSH:  I say it, you believe it, with no questions.
Click to expand...


Wow, I didn't know Sandra Fluke spoke before congress in 2011, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.


----------



## Pogo

logical4u said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
> Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
> 
> If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?
> 
> I haven't proffered "ideas" here.  _*You *_have.  Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic.  You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.
> 
> This thread _was _about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant.  I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible.  Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.
> 
> Thread hijacked: check.  The end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you wanted to bring Christianity into it.  I was just following up on your comments to see how you really felt (it appears that you are just fine with using Christians, but you do not want them to be able to use the first ammendment).
> Rush "mocked" Sandra Fluke.  He was not as vile as many on the left (entertainers, politicians, political activists that called conservative women far worse than "slut" without them standing in front of congresss asking the gov't to ensure their contraceptives are paid for by "others").  You will not respond to the obvious condescending comments towards women made by the left (which implies that you support that insulting rhetoric).
> It appears that "you" are the one that does not want to deal with reality or answer the hard questions.  I have answered the questions about Sandra Fluke.  Like a dutiful little zombie, you ignore the insults to women made by the left, and offer your undying loyalty to them, no matter that they do things far worse, than call women demanding that others pay for their contraceptives "slut".
> 
> Again, you have shown that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest.  You have shown that obvious humor offends you when it targets your pet idealogy.  I am  amused.
Click to expand...


Lying again.  You want to float this turd that I brought Christianity in here?  Go find it.  Quote it here.  I'll come back in a week to see what you came up with.  Which will be nothing.

Apart from outright fabrication, you seem fond of the tu quoque fallacy today.  I guess the red herrings weren't flying?
And you want to talk "intellectual honesty".  Pfft. Poster please.

Sorry but your "logic" is a joke.  Not only making stuff up but bending over backward in every way you can think of to avoid the topic.
Courageous.


----------



## Dragonlady

logical4u said:


> The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".  I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).".



No woman needs to own a gun, nor does any man, unless they live on a farm and need to put down an animal from time to time, or they live in a remote area and hunt for their food.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".  I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No woman needs to own a gun, nor does any man, unless they live on a farm and need to put down an animal from time to time, or they live in a remote area and hunt for their food.
Click to expand...


Why do you oppose people making their own choices?


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> Why do you oppose people making their own choices?



I don't oppose people making their own choices.  I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.  

I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world.  Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping.  I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.  

Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell.  The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.

Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.


----------



## Pogo

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you oppose people making their own choices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't oppose people making their own choices.  I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.
> 
> I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world.  Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping.  I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.
> 
> Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell.  The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.
> 
> Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.
Click to expand...


 Well said.

We're saddled with a gun culture in this country which bizarrely reasons that the answer to violence is more violence.  The most glaring example I can think of that demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking is a simple comparison of our two cities that meet at the Detroit River.  But that's another topic.


----------



## logical4u

Pogo said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Calling names" like "slut"?
> Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?
> 
> Oh wait... that was all your side.
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
> Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......
> 
> If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?
> 
> I haven't proffered "ideas" here.  _*You *_have.  Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic.  You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.
> 
> This thread _was _about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant.  I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible.  Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.
> 
> Thread hijacked: check.  The end.
Click to expand...


False Witness!  Where did I suggest a theocracy?  Where did I suggest "religious-policed neighborhoods?  Where did I suggest murders?  Where did I suggest theocratic party conventions?  Please be specific. 

Talk about hijacking a thread with a strawman......  If you can't defend your own position lie about what other people say.


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".  I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No woman needs to own a gun, nor does any man, unless they live on a farm and need to put down an animal from time to time, or they live in a remote area and hunt for their food.
Click to expand...


I didn't see that the location of your home was listed in the second Ammendment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you oppose people making their own choices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't oppose people making their own choices.  I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.
> 
> I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world.  Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping.  I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.
> 
> Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell.  The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.
> 
> Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you have never been the victim of a crime.

Tell the woman who is being stalked by her ex who has threatened to beat the crap pout of her, rape her, and drag her off to his souse in the woods she doesn't need a gun. Keep in mind that the police will admit up front they can't do anything for her, and usually advise women in this situation to call them and wait for them to show up in 15 minutes or so.

Tell the woman who has to live in a bad neighborhood because she is unemployed when the police are too worried about getting shot to drive on the streets that she doesn't need a gun.

Tell the woman who lives in a rural area that she doesn't need a gun.

Me, I will never tell anyone that they don't need something, even if I think they don't. I might if I was an arrogant *XXXX*, but just being a male asshole I don't see the pleasure.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Pogo said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you oppose people making their own choices?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't oppose people making their own choices.  I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.
> 
> I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world.  Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping.  I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.
> 
> Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell.  The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.
> 
> Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> We're saddled with a gun culture in this country which bizarrely reasons that the answer to violence is more violence.  The most glaring example I can think of that demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking is a simple comparison of our two cities that meet at the Detroit River.  But that's another topic.
Click to expand...


You are saddened that women don't want to be raped? What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> You are saddened that women don't want to be raped? What the fuck is wrong with you?



The word rape was not mentioned in the previous post.

I know of no one who has successfully defended themelves against rape with a gun.  But I do know more than one woman who successfully fought back without the use of weapons.


----------



## Pogo

Quantum Windbag said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't oppose people making their own choices.  I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.
> 
> I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world.  Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping.  I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.
> 
> Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell.  The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.
> 
> Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> We're saddled with a gun culture in this country which bizarrely reasons that the answer to violence is more violence.  The most glaring example I can think of that demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking is a simple comparison of our two cities that meet at the Detroit River.  But that's another topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are saddened that women don't want to be raped? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

 
Are you talking to me?  Did you not recognize the word _saddled_?
Where did anyone say "saddened"?
Where do you see anything about "rape"?
Where do you see anything about "women" ?
Wtf are you talking about?


----------



## Katzndogz

According to democrats women can easily fight back against a rapist by pissing themselves so if any woman is raped, she wanted it otherwise she would have pissed herself.


----------



## Katzndogz

A Rape Survivor Knows the Effect of Armed Self-Defense | SlowFacts

&#8220;For the second time, Evelyn encountered a serial rapist who chose her for a victim.  This time, she prevented the attack.  From then on, she would describe herself by saying, &#8220;I am a rape survivor, and a rape attempt survivor.  The difference is, the second time, I had a gun!&#8221;

After defending a few hundred rapists, I have enough foundation to form an opinon.   Most rapes are not violent rapes.  Most rapes are by men well known to the victim.     Violent forcible rape does not usually occur when the rapist has a gun.   Guns are just not as frightening as knives, which is the weapon of choice among rapists.   They enjoy the fear, especially after the woman has been cut a few times.   Do a search on raped and stabbed to death, you'll get hundreds of results.   There are few instances of women being raped and then shot to death.    Slicing open a woman's face during the rape adds extra excitement.  Unarmed women do not normally fight off a knife wielding assailant  They are usually sliced and diced even if they survive.   The methodology of a rapist is to heighten the fear before the rape occurs.   He won't fight to kill, he wants to wound.  They take pride in how many times they can stab or slice a woman open and still keep her alive enough to rape.   Guns don't give them the same kind of excitement.  Ordinarily it would seem that a woman could be trained in knife fighting and how to take down an assailant with her own brute force.   Alas, as we know now, women that have been trained in military fighting tactics are as easily raped as any college girl.

It's true "don't bring a knife to a gun fight".   Just make sure it's your gunfight.


----------



## koshergrl

Need has nothing to do with anything, anyway. We aren't currently a society that is restricted to ownership only of things we *need*. We are a society that is allowed ownership of items we want, provided we pay for them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are saddened that women don't want to be raped? What the fuck is wrong with you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The word rape was not mentioned in the previous post.
> 
> I know of no one who has successfully defended themelves against rape with a gun.  But I do know more than one woman who successfully fought back without the use of weapons.
Click to expand...


And how are you defining "successfully defended themselves against rape"?  Why do I think your methodology includes, "Well, she wasn't raped, so how do you know he was GOING to?  Doesn't count"?


----------



## Dragonlady

Cecilie1200 said:


> And how are you defining "successfully defended themselves against rape"?  Why do I think your methodology includes, "Well, she wasn't raped, so how do you know he was GOING to?  Doesn't count"?



Two of my friends were walking home from their summer job at a local factory when three drunk guys in an old car pulled along beside them.  Two of the guys got out of the car, and tried to and tried to drag the girls into the car.  I doubt they had plans to take them dancing.  The girls fought back, and they yelled and screamed.  Lights came on all over the neighbourhood, the guys took off.


----------



## logical4u

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you defining "successfully defended themselves against rape"?  Why do I think your methodology includes, "Well, she wasn't raped, so how do you know he was GOING to?  Doesn't count"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of my friends were walking home from their summer job at a local factory when three drunk guys in an old car pulled along beside them.  Two of the guys got out of the car, and tried to and tried to drag the girls into the car.  I doubt they had plans to take them dancing.  The girls fought back, and they yelled and screamed.  Lights came on all over the neighbourhood, the guys took off.
Click to expand...


What would have happened if no lights came on, or if they were in a more deserted area?


----------



## Dragonlady

logical4u said:


> What would have happened if no lights came on, or if they were in a more deserted area?



My one friend had laid out the guy she was up against, and was going after the second one.  My friends would NOT have been walking down a deserted road at night so the possiblility of there not being houses or lights doesn't exist.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you defining "successfully defended themselves against rape"?  Why do I think your methodology includes, "Well, she wasn't raped, so how do you know he was GOING to?  Doesn't count"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of my friends were walking home from their summer job at a local factory when three drunk guys in an old car pulled along beside them.  Two of the guys got out of the car, and tried to and tried to drag the girls into the car.  I doubt they had plans to take them dancing.  The girls fought back, and they yelled and screamed.  Lights came on all over the neighbourhood, the guys took off.
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## Meathead

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how are you defining "successfully defended themselves against rape"?  Why do I think your methodology includes, "Well, she wasn't raped, so how do you know he was GOING to?  Doesn't count"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two of my friends were walking home from their summer job at a local factory when three drunk guys in an old car pulled along beside them.  Two of the guys got out of the car, and tried to and tried to drag the girls into the car.  I doubt they had plans to take them dancing.  The girls fought back, and they yelled and screamed.  Lights came on all over the neighbourhood, the guys took off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...

...and obviously we have to pay for Flukes' being a slut...or not being raped...or..,this is very confusing.


----------



## Pogo

Meathead said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of my friends were walking home from their summer job at a local factory when three drunk guys in an old car pulled along beside them.  Two of the guys got out of the car, and tried to and tried to drag the girls into the car.  I doubt they had plans to take them dancing.  The girls fought back, and they yelled and screamed.  Lights came on all over the neighbourhood, the guys took off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...and obviously we have to pay for Flukes' being a slut...or not being raped...or..,this is very confusing.
Click to expand...


It's really quite simple.

Rash Limblob is a slut.  So much so that he made up complete salacious fabrications slandering a woman he doesn't know, so that he could prop up his ratings.  And he wanted_ *us* to pay for it_, in the form of buying the products his show sells with "confiscatory ad rates" (his words).

What does it say about the radio fluke, that he would go that far to prop up his ratings?  What does that make him?  It makes him a slut, right?  It makes him a prostitute.

Those advertisers then started dropping the show like a hot potato.  They were "lined up around the block!".  They said, Rash and the rest of you radio Nazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for misogynistic slander, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to issue an apology so we can all watch."

They got that walletfelt apology ..... exactly one year ago today.

Happy anniversary, Rash.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Dragonlady said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would have happened if no lights came on, or if they were in a more deserted area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one friend had laid out the guy she was up against, and was going after the second one.  My friends would NOT have been walking down a deserted road at night so the possiblility of there not being houses or lights doesn't exist.
Click to expand...


The only way that would be 100% true is if you don't have friends.


----------



## Dragonlady

Quantum Windbag said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would have happened if no lights came on, or if they were in a more deserted area?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My one friend had laid out the guy she was up against, and was going after the second one.  My friends would NOT have been walking down a deserted road at night so the possiblility of there not being houses or lights doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way that would be 100% true is if you don't have friends.
Click to expand...


That statement doesn't even make sense, but I think you just called me a liar.  Why would two high school girls from a small town go walking down a deserted road at late?  We may have been foolhardy but we were never suicidal.  Guys went on booze cruises up and down country roads in the years before breathalizer tests.  You'd have to be out of your mind.


----------

