Ann Coulter gives Sandra Fluke and her supporters a reality check.

As usual Anne_da_man claims a falsehood. The vitriolic lashing Boss Rush gave Ms. Fluke was hardley deserved criticizism. Her response was in fact the only female response to the all male crew the Republicans had testify about Womens reproductive rights.

Anne is still a puke.

The Committee meeting and the people appearing before it were to speak to the issue of the constitutional overreach of the mandate and the First Amendment to the Constitution; "The committee heard from a Catholic, a Lutheran, a Baptist, a rabbi and university administrators united in their opposition to the administration’s mandate. These men and women spoke eloquently about their concerns, not because they share the same views about contraception or even abortion (they do not) but because they value their religious freedom, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution"

As per the usual rules for the operation of committees hearing testimony in the House (or Senate) the Democratss were given the right to have their own witness appear. They asked the committee to invite Rev. Barry Lynn [head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State], to speak to the issue before the committtee. They cancelled him at the last minute and tried to impose Ms. Fluke without time for proper vetting of a witness to speak before a house committee. She did not have the expertise of the witnesses solicited and she was denied an appearance.

I can accept that the Dems were playing politics to embarass the Reps. That does not make el_rash-butts' diatribe against her deserved criticism in anyway shape or form.
 
Last edited:
"Ann Coulter" and "reality" should never be used in the same sentence. Just sayin' . . .
 
I can accept that the Dems were playing politics to embarass the Rebs.

Rebs?

Is that what you designate those who cling to the constitution?

That does not make el_rash-butts' diatribe against her deserved criticism in anyway shape or form.

Why not? She was sent in as an attack on the First Amendment, by the Obama team in their ongoing war against the Catholic church. Why not call her what she is, a scumbag? I don't mind calling her a slut, I just don't find "slut" to be pejorative.. (Some of my better memories involve sluts.)
 
Last edited:
This has pretty much nothing to do with birth control/contraception and everything to do with a bitch who believes government has the authority to force a business to provide a product - even more so - force a religious institution to pay for a product that goes against their faith.

The left is using the Big Lie as their primary weapon in their war on the First Amendment.

Of course RW is lying, the more outrageous the lie and more often it's told, the more effective it is.

One would have to be an authoritarian lunatic to believe the government has those powers.

Can I introduce you to Obama, and his minions like RW?

Flukes opinion is ignorant at best and tyrannical at worst.

Fluke launched a kamikaze attack on the Catholic Church, she was intended to be casualty; it's the whole point.

Not to mention she is a slut - she claimed she spends $1,000 a year on contraceptives, when birth control is only 9 bucks a month - so you do the math. That's $892.00 in condoms a year. That's a lot of condoms.

When I was single, I really loved and appreciated sluts. Fluke is a partisan thug seeking to end the First Amendment.

The best part is Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze does nothing but post videos of progressives in the media (and other public progressives) talking shit and saying the most egregious things and the second Rush calls a slut a slut the leftist media goes bonkers.

Hell some progressive radio personality Stephanie (something) recently said Palin should have her ovaries cut out for pretty much having a conservative position on the Fluke circus-like fiasco.

What, no public outcry there? oh of course not, "its different" - as in - progressives are held to no standards while republicans are.
 
"Ann Coulter" and "reality" should never be used in the same sentence. Just sayin' . . .

And still not saying much.

Ann Coulter only hits on one side of the equation.

If she carved up the right the way she does the left, you'd all worship her (she is 10 times smarter than most of what you have on your side.....How I love to listen to Katrina Vander Stupid).

She addresses reality as well as anyone in the current stupid media we have.
 
Do progressives become lawyers just to destroy our constitution??

What type of law student could possibly believe the government has any authority to force a business to carry a product and force a religious institution to pay for it??

All that does is set precedent for further abuse of the first amendment..

Besides, that is pretty much what the Obama administration is doing anyways - setting precedent for the destruction of our Constitution.

The sad part is that most Americans are too dumb to see that.

For example - Obamacare essentially will allow government to regulate all food products and at minimum your diet... You know why? because you're paying for me and I'm paying for you and we don't need any unnecessary "health risks" so of course the "logical" thing to do is either a) regulate our diets or b) regulate food... You know, tax burgers at 500%... Of course that will totally destroy industries, killing jobs and making more people dependent on government. Obamacare is nothing more than a move in a chess game.

That is the whole point of Obamacare and the media is already brainwashing people into a food obsession mindset.

Bitches like Fluke, Pelosi, Obama, Frank, Reid etc are the devil...

Their objective is to control every aspect of your lives while they play the SIMS in real life...
 
Last edited:
I can accept that the Dems were playing politics to embarass the Rebs.

Rebs?

Is that what you designate those who cling to the constitution?

That does not make el_rash-butts' diatribe against her deserved criticism in anyway shape or form.

Why not? She was sent in as an attack on the First Amendment, by the Obama team in their ongoing war against the Catholic church. Why not call her what she is, a scumbag? I don't mind calling her a slut, I just don't find "slut" to be pejorative.. (Some of my better memories involve sluts.)

Nope. Just a typo corrected just for you. You whinners don't deserve to be called Rebs as in Rebels.

Bwahahahahaha. Team Obama sent her in huh? You must think they are pretty smart to know in advance that el-Rashy would devote hours denigrating her.....no wait....I know. Rush is a secrect double mole for the Dems right.....:cuckoo:
 
What does this have to do with federally mandating contraceptive coverage which will raise rates on everyone?

EVIDENCE! SHOW SOME FUCKING EVIDENCE, OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

I'm so tired of this babble about how everyone else's rates are going to be raised by this. It's nothing but invented BS to create a reason to bitch and complain. Insurance companies already has contraceptive coverage in their plans. All the law mandates is that an employer not bar the insurance company from offering the plan to employees. The woman is the one who would end up paying the additional costs associated with plans that cover contraception.

If you want the woman to pay for her own contraception, then you should support the law as it already exists. It's the whining and bitching and the church trying to impose it's own will over employees that lead to Obama's compromise suggestion (which is not even law at this point). So if you have a problem with that, then blame the church. Even still, it's an unfounded assumption that the cost "will be paid by everyone else." The truth is that even under the compromise solution, insurance companies would simply raise the premiums for the women at those particular employers who are receiving "free" contraception coverage. They wouldn't raise it on everyone. That's just standard business.

Let's also be honest about something else: insurance coverage that doesn't include contraceptive coverage already is a pretty rare thing. Health insurance isn't a salad bar where you get to pick and choose, and everything is marked with a little price tag of a few cents for whatever given item you might like. You are offered packages. And contraceptive coverage is almost always going to be included in the package because there are too many women who are going to find it useful, even if it's not necessary. There are alot of women whose insurance pays for contraception, who don't need the coverage. But they use it because it's part of their package. It's the equivalent of two side items on your dinner at a restaurant. (Fun fact: Did you know that if you order a $20 steak dinner with two side items at a restaurant, the total overhead of the steak cost the restaurant about $8, while the overhead for the side items cost about $0.25? But when you look at the a la carte menu, you'll see that the steak by itself would be about $16 and the two sides a la carte would be about $4. The steak is marked up 100% but the sides are marked up 1600%. This is a normal marketing tactic. The sides are "fillers" that make the package, i.e. the full entree, more appealing to the customer than the constituent parts would be worth individually, and allow the business to justify a strong price increase in a way that will remain appealing from a customer's perspective. It's used in many industries. A used car dealer may offer you a free detailing which costs the business $15 in overhead in order to justify charging you the extra $200 that you don't want to spend. An electronics may offer you a free year-long warranty normally "valued" at $80 on your $1600 computer in order to close the deal, which will end up probably only costing the company $5. Or, it could be something more similar to what I do for a living, and a hotel could end up giving you a "free" upgrade into a better room that will literally end up costing the company less than a dollar in extra housekeeping labor when all is said and done, in order to close the deal to get you to book a two week stay at $200 a night, plus whatever you purchase in food, beverage, and other amenities.) Including contraception in packages adds more value to the total plan than the contraception coverage by itself would cost. This is why insurance companies LOVE and WANT to cover contraception. Because it's one of those things that generate the most money for them, and make the rest of the policy worth the money.
 
Nope. Just a typo corrected just for you. You whinners don't deserve to be called Rebs as in Rebels.

Hey, I think you Obama minions could turn your brown shirts in for nice, white plastic Storm Trooper attire..

meh.ro5911.jpg


Bwahahahahaha. Team Obama sent her in huh?

Oh, you think she was just strolling down the hall, tripped over a rug and accidentally fell into a room where a hearing on religious liberty was being held, just in time to launch an assault on the First Amendment.

Serendipity, eh?

You must think they are pretty smart to know in advance that el-Rashy would devote hours denigrating her.....no wait....I know. Rush is a secrect double mole for the Dems right.....:cuckoo:

Her Alinsky handlers knew her attack would garner a response. From whom, didn't much matter.
 
38 minutes until Rush! I hope he called Fluke a "Fucking twat", just for the comedic value of course
 
38 minutes until Rush! I hope he called Fluke a "Fucking twat", just for the comedic value of course

If I was Rush I would break down how one would have to be a slut in order to spend $1,000 a year on contraception.

Fluke is factually either a slut or a liar...
 
Do progressives become lawyers just to destroy our constitution??

What type of law student could possibly believe the government has any authority to force a business to carry a product and force a religious institution to pay for it??

All that does is set precedent for further abuse of the first amendment..

Perhaps a law student that has fully studied, and understands what regulation of commerce among the states means, and what the first amendment clause regarding making laws respecting religious establishment means.

What, exactly, is the public purpose of picking and choosing one prescription drug, and prohibiting making it part of legislation regarding what baseline health insurance ought cover? Does this violate the 19th amendment? How about the 9th? Is privacy, in our bedrooms, settled case law?
 
38 minutes until Rush! I hope he called Fluke a "Fucking twat", just for the comedic value of course

If I was Rush I would break down how one would have to be a slut in order to spend $1,000 a year on contraception.

Fluke is factually either a slut or a liar...

Yeah, he should. After all, he proved himself to be quite a medical expert when diagnosing Terry Shiavo and Michael J Foxx.
 
Nope. Just a typo corrected just for you. You whinners don't deserve to be called Rebs as in Rebels.

Hey, I think you Obama minions could turn your brown shirts in for nice, white plastic Storm Trooper attire..

meh.ro5911.jpg


Bwahahahahaha. Team Obama sent her in huh?

Oh, you think she was just strolling down the hall, tripped over a rug and accidentally fell into a room where a hearing on religious liberty was being held, just in time to launch an assault on the First Amendment.

Serendipity, eh?

You must think they are pretty smart to know in advance that el-Rashy would devote hours denigrating her.....no wait....I know. Rush is a secrect double mole for the Dems right.....:cuckoo:

Her Alinsky handlers knew her attack would garner a response. From whom, didn't much matter.

And the American Taliban Right fell for it right on queue. :eusa_boohoo:

Nah, Rush is a mole. Deep under cover mole :cuckoo:
 
Anne meet kettle. And has anyone heard all the hubbub about Viagra and all those slutty men who use it. :lol:

So the Catholic Church is providing Viagra to Georgetown student?

Oh, you're just engaging in the Big Lie, as a proud member of the fucking liars (formerly democratic) party.

Carry on, Herr Goebbels.

No, but the Catholic church is providing Viagra as that too is part of the healthcare they provide through insurance. Why is that not mentioned? Does it not strike you as odd that it is only women who are under attack by the right? Not sure what Goebbels has to do with the lack of support and consideration for a woman's personal life?

"...the best way to act on concern for the not-yet-born is to work for equality between men and women. The great and utter tragedy of the abortion debates is that if, as a culture, we truly wanted to protect babies, then we would empower women over all aspects of their lives. Global development projects find, over and over, that the best way to raise children's standard of living is to channel resources to their mothers. If women are educated and have access to opportunity, including the opportunity to control their own fertility, then children are far more likely to flourish. But Rick Santorum’s candidacy shows us that actual existing children and their mothers are far less important, politically, than the heady brew of parental grief and public solace Santorum enacts." The Contemporary Condition: Making Sense of Rick Santorum
 
Jesus Christ......it's just birth control, it's been around for fifty years

Why the sudden GOP outrage that women actually want to have sex without getting pregnant?

Let us not forget about all the GOP politicians that want to have sex without getting their interns pregnant.....
 
The Catholic Church would rather pay for the pregnancy.

But that isn't the issue. The question is, does Obama have the power to revoke the First Amendment and dictate ecumenical law to the Catholics? Can he decide whether they provide contraception?

{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. }

Obama and his disciples are fighting a war to end the above. Obama demands that HE will decide religious questions. If HE dictates the Catholic Church provide birth control or abortion, then they will do so.


The Big Lie is that this is about birth control.

Birth Control is legal and available everywhere. So what is Obama and his brownshirts fighting?

Well, they're fighting to end the First Amendment, simple as that. This is a direct attack on the constitution, with the Big Lie as the primary weapon of the fascist left.

Uncensored, I get the part about saying the government doesn’t have a right to tell an employer that they can’t ban their employees from receiving safe and effective contraceptive – I get that – you can save the lecture, because I sympathize and understand that point of view. It’s completely valid.

What’s not valid is when people take the approach, “why should I have to pay out of pocket so that you can get contraceptives, so you can have sex”… ie the financial approach. They claim that by adding BC pill coverage as an insurance option, this is going to somehow drive premiums up.

I disagree.

I think that it will drive premiums down, because it will reduce the amount of UNWANTED pregnancies. Why would this drive premiums down? Because a pregnant woman is much costlier to an insurance company than a non-pregnant woman on the pill.

The less costlier people you have in your pool, the less your premiums will be overall.

So that’s my point.

Do you agree with my reasoning?
 
Last edited:
And the American Taliban Right fell for it right on queue. :eusa_boohoo:

Nah, Rush is a mole. Deep under cover mole :cuckoo:

Last week you fascists claimed he was a pimple on the ass of America, now he's a mole..

Can't your handlers make up the hive-mind?
 

Forum List

Back
Top