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

[rightwinger]

No, she has the right to purchase insurance that covers items she wants covered not demand that she be given insurance that suits her demands.

That Fluke broad needs to grow the fuck up.

As an American citizen she has a right to go to Congress and request anything she wants

And Congress has an obligation to tell her that she can ask all she wants, but they have no rightful power to oblige her.

Your statement is rather interesting.

I can go to Congress and ask them to deport you or shoot your family. Well, if I could get in front of Congress. You see, this wasn't a legitimate hearing. This was a gathering put together by a bunch of democrats who didn't like the fact that American put them in the minority and thus limited their ability to hold official hearings.

You see, on the left, because you are in the right (regardless of the facts), you can use whatever means you want to achieve your ends. After all, the left knows best....just ask Al Gore.

That's the way things work.....if Congess will hear you, you can make any request you want

The Democrats also can hold any meeting or hearing they wish. As can the Republicans

 

[Dick Tuck]

As an American citizen she has a right to go to Congress and request anything she wants

What normal, functioning human being goes in front of Congress and requests free contraceptives?

Palease.

This chick's a nut.

So she requested to be exempt from paying a premium, as in her coverage would be free (just wanted to confirm)?

No, she wanted her insurance to provide the baseline services that all other insurance provides, as required by law.

 

[Dick Tuck]

No, she has the right to purchase insurance that covers items she wants covered not demand that she be given insurance that suits her demands.

That Fluke broad needs to grow the fuck up.

As an American citizen she has a right to go to Congress and request anything she wants

And Congress has an obligation to tell her that she can ask all she wants, but they have no rightful power to oblige her.

Your statement is rather interesting.

I can go to Congress and ask them to deport you or shoot your family. Well, if I could get in front of Congress. You see, this wasn't a legitimate hearing. This was a gathering put together by a bunch of democrats who didn't like the fact that American put them in the minority and thus limited their ability to hold official hearings.

You see, on the left, because you are in the right (regardless of the facts), you can use whatever means you want to achieve your ends. After all, the left knows best....just ask Al Gore.

I suggest you read the clause about "bills of attainder" in our Constitution, and then go find out what that means. Your strawman is idiotic.

 

[rightwinger]

No, she has the right to purchase insurance that covers items she wants covered not demand that she be given insurance that suits her demands.

That Fluke broad needs to grow the fuck up.

As an American citizen she has a right to go to Congress and request anything she wants

What normal, functioning human being goes in front of Congress and requests free contraceptives?

Palease.

This chick's a nut.

She didn't ask for free contraception any more than a diabetic asks for free insulin

 

[Dick Tuck]

No, she has the right to purchase insurance that covers items she wants covered not demand that she be given insurance that suits her demands.

That Fluke broad needs to grow the fuck up.

As an American citizen she has a right to go to Congress and request anything she wants

What normal, functioning human being goes in front of Congress and requests free contraceptives?

Palease.

This chick's a nut.

Anyone who doesn't want to be denied equal protection, as the public law requires health insurance companies to provide contraception as a baseline service. Anyone who finds that proposed law, like the Blunt amendment, violates the first amendment prohibition on enacting laws recognizing religious establishment.

 

[frazzledgear]

She uses BCP. She just doesn't demand people who don't want birth control pills must buy them for her so she doesn't have to. The belief it is the responsibility of society to provide them with carefree fucking is a left wing extremist thing, not something normal people buy into.

Fluke isn't normal, and a women on a quest to be a tool of the left that will soon be forgotten as Sheehan once her purpose is served.

So why wouldn't Blunt allow a law student, with standing regarding Georgetown's policy, to speak, in spite of being asked to by the Democratic members of that committee? In fact, why didn't Blunt ask for any medical experts who advised on that policy to speak? Perhaps he just wanted a pony show for the Evangelicals, without any consideration of the public purpose of the Amendment he proposed. Nope, all he wanted was a set of hand picked theologians to speak on the subject.

It is interesting to see the right wing try to smear her like they did with Cindy Sheehan.

She wasn't allowed to speak because the issue before the subcommittee had nothing to do with birth control pills and birth control pills had nothing to do with the function of that committee, they were never going to be dealing with a bill that has anything to do with it! Democrats had intended to totally hijack the meeting with this woman and when they weren't able, pretended it amounted to near constitutional violations of this woman's rights. (Do you think Republicans have the right to hijack Congressional committees, prevent it from getting on with it's business in order to listen to some whacko's activist agenda that has nothing to do with the function of the committee? Or is that a "right" only left wing extremists and their kooks have?)

However there is NO constitutional right to an audience as part of ANYONE'S free speech, no constitutional right to hold a group that gathered for another purpose hostage and force them to listen to your bullshit - and certainly no constitutional right to hijack a Congressional committee and prevent it from carrying out its REAL function- which had absolutely nothing to do with this woman's spoiled, entitled brat routine. So Democrats just turned around and hijacked another committee meeting instead and forced them to sit through that crap even though it also had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING that committee was doing either. Because Democrats believe they are so........noble-y and all, it gives them the right to do that kind of thing. Oh, at taxpayer expense of course.

All so this person -someone even a Democrat congressional aide admitted was the least qualified person to testify before Congress in decades - could explain to a committee whose function had nothing to do with it about why she believed being a privileged and entitled law student and her desire for a more carefree sex life made it the obligation of society to give it to her at their expense. In effect claiming a right to force others who don't Ben want birth control pills to buy them for her so sh could keep her money for herself. She wants birth control pills and to keep her money. So she thinks it's fair if the people who don't want birth control pills get neither the pills nor to keep heir own money-while SHE, as the privileged spoiled brat -gets both. And THAT is what leftwing extremists always thinks is "fair". One of those "my money is my money and your money also my money" things. There is a reason Obama took a hit among women after this manufactured bullshit.

Think about what this SPOILED PRIVILEGED PERSON was bitching about. The fact that while attending one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, she was actually expected to pay for her own birth on troll pills if she felt like fucking someone. Are you kidding? When she was criticized for her whiny, spoiled bitch routine and wasting this committee's time, she turned around and LIED about what she said, claiming she had been talking about POOR women. Except she wasn't and what she did say is a matter of record.

So it turns out she isn't just a spoiled, whiny ass bitch. She is actually a spoiled, whiny LYING ass bitch. But thank God we've put aside such silly issues like unsustainable debt, Congress' out of control spending spree and the impending nuclear threat posed by Iran to pretend who should pay for birth control pills -those who want them or those who don't - is actually a national issue.

Do not drag Sheehan into this and pretend she is a "victim" of some kind. The woman was no mother to her own children, walked out them all with only sporadic contact. She knew her son would have hated what she did, the father and sister (his REAL family and those who knew him best) knew he would have hated it, they hated what she was doing, they hated her phony act pretending to a grieving mother of a man she barely knew and for whom she had zero respect. She didn't respect him while alive and she fucked him over big time after his death in the worst way. Her daughter cut out of her life because of it. She kicked her own son in the teeth for a political agenda she had long before her son died. They held totally different political views, he despised her radical views and claimed she always put it before her relationship with her own children, which he resented. She so despised him she figured out how to really kick him in the teeth and exploit his death for th political agenda she knew he absolutely despised and rejected. If I was going to call any woman the C word, a woman who betrayed her son like that would be top of my list. An alley cat is a better mother.

 

[snjmom]

Bullshit. All health coverage has a moral component.

Fat and diabetic?

Your fault, pay out of pocket.

Heart attack?

Your fault, pay out of pocket.

Cancer?

Your fault, pay out of pocket.

It's all bullshit, you know it is.

 

[Listening]

Bullshit. All health coverage has a moral component.

Fat and diabetic?

Your fault, pay out of pocket.

Heart attack?

Your fault, pay out of pocket.

Cancer?

Your fault, pay out of pocket.

It's all bullshit, you know it is.

Not within the framework of the federal government.

Government can't enforce morality...or have you forgotten that ?

Get your own insurance.

If you can't get something you can afford....figure out why not...you'll find government in the middle of it.

Chose not to purchase insurance and get cancer....pay out of pocket. Can't ? Hope you have friends who will help you.

And that's a wrap.

All the rest of this post is horsehockey.

 

[Listening]

As an American citizen she has a right to go to Congress and request anything she wants

And Congress has an obligation to tell her that she can ask all she wants, but they have no rightful power to oblige her.

Your statement is rather interesting.

I can go to Congress and ask them to deport you or shoot your family. Well, if I could get in front of Congress. You see, this wasn't a legitimate hearing. This was a gathering put together by a bunch of democrats who didn't like the fact that American put them in the minority and thus limited their ability to hold official hearings.

You see, on the left, because you are in the right (regardless of the facts), you can use whatever means you want to achieve your ends. After all, the left knows best....just ask Al Gore.

I suggest you read the clause about "bills of attainder" in our Constitution, and then go find out what that means. Your strawman is idiotic.

Well, I believe your twin brother was the one who claimed that anyone can go before Regress and ask for anything they want.kj

Please let him know he's the idiot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, people have had sex for years and years (millions? really?)

And the result of sex has always been pregnancy.

Which is why we have institutions like marriage...to protect women when they are pregnant, and to provide a stable environment for children.

Because for many years, it has been in man's best interests to procreate.

Responsibly. That means..have sex responsibly.

When you don't, you end up with a whole population of criminal and neglected people...

Telling them they should have unfettered sex is not the answer.

And if you don't like the consequences of sex, I advise you to take it up with God. Because there ARE consequences to sex, whether you like it or not.

The goal of sex doesn't always have to be "have a baby", nor does it always have to be the "result" of sex. You can also enjoy sex for fun.

It's a great way to spend an afternoon, and burn a couple of calories.

.
.

This is the same theory which, when applied to eating, results in the shoppers at your local WalMart.

Just because something feels good does NOT put it in the "purely entertainment" category, nor does it mean we should try to pass laws to circumvent the laws of nature that we don't like.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wanting women to maintain their reproductive rights, with over 40 years of case law, is tyrannical? Yeah, and day is night and up is down when you step to the right wing looking glass.

Wouldn't it be up to WOMEN to decide what is and isn't tyrannical over them? Here's a newsflash, Penis Bearer: you're lecturing a bunch of women on what "women's reproductive rights" are and should be and how they should be protected. If you had two brain cells to rub together in your whole, testosterone-soaked head, you would clue in to how completely ass-backward, bullshit WRONG that is.

And you'll notice that I'm not objecting to HER two cents worth here. I'm objecting to YOURS.

You might also want to notice that there are whole bunches of women out there who disagree with you AND her, and our vaginas make us just as qualified to set the boundaries of "women's rights issues" as hers does. And your penis disqualifies YOU entirely, by your own words.

Once again, Penis Bearer, butt out until you have a vagina. We girls are perfectly capable of talking it out without your input.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Almost as funny as a Georgetown law student insisting the church foot the bill for her and her lezbo friends fake birth control.

If the Republicans were paying attention to the compromise that Obama offered, and didn't want to have a hearing on the silly Blunt Amendment, this Georgetown law student wouldn't have had anything to complain about and the Catholic Church wouldn't have been put in the position to have to pay for anything it found objectionable, as long as it was self-insuring.

Her and her lezbo friends? What an asshole. BTW, you might have missed the memo. The latest smear is that Fluke's SO is a liberal Jew, from a liberal Jewish family. http://wonkette.com/467177/the-vetting-of-sandra-fluke-her-boyfriends-father-is-some-kinda-super-jew"

Obama Compromise = Just give in and do what I want, and we'll call it by another name

Obama should remember that not EVERYONE is as pig-stupid as his voters are.

 

[rdean]

You have to live in this reality to give anyone a "reality check".

 

[bripat9643]

You have to live in this reality to give anyone a "reality check".

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, people have had sex for years and years (millions? really?)

And the result of sex has always been pregnancy.

Which is why we have institutions like marriage...to protect women when they are pregnant, and to provide a stable environment for children.

Because for many years, it has been in man's best interests to procreate.

Responsibly. That means..have sex responsibly.

When you don't, you end up with a whole population of criminal and neglected people...

Telling them they should have unfettered sex is not the answer.

And if you don't like the consequences of sex, I advise you to take it up with God. Because there ARE consequences to sex, whether you like it or not.

The goal of sex doesn't always have to be "have a baby", nor does it always have to be the "result" of sex. You can also enjoy sex for fun.

It's a great way to spend an afternoon, and burn a couple of calories.

.
.

This is the same theory which, when applied to eating, results in the shoppers at your local WalMart.

Just because something feels good does NOT put it in the "purely entertainment" category, nor does it mean we should try to pass laws to circumvent the laws of nature that we don't like.

Couples rarely have sex for the purpose of creating a child. The greater purpose of sex has always been to develop a close personal, physical bond in a couple. And yes, that involves sex for fun. That is the reason people have sex

To imply that a couple desiring to have sex without the possibility of children is somehow immoral is ridiculous

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ann Coulter is really a man.

Perfect example of liberalism. Disagree with the message, attack the messenger.
No rebuttal or even an attempt to engage in debate.
You people are low class.

 

[koshergrl]

The goal of sex doesn't always have to be "have a baby", nor does it always have to be the "result" of sex. You can also enjoy sex for fun.

It's a great way to spend an afternoon, and burn a couple of calories.

.
.

This is the same theory which, when applied to eating, results in the shoppers at your local WalMart.

Just because something feels good does NOT put it in the "purely entertainment" category, nor does it mean we should try to pass laws to circumvent the laws of nature that we don't like.

Couples rarely have sex for the purpose of creating a child. The greater purpose of sex has always been to develop a close personal, physical bond in a couple. And yes, that involves sex for fun. That is the reason people have sex

To imply that a couple desiring to have sex without the possibility of children is somehow immoral is ridiculous

Did somebody imply that?

Nope, didn't think so.

 

[rightwinger]

This is the same theory which, when applied to eating, results in the shoppers at your local WalMart.

Just because something feels good does NOT put it in the "purely entertainment" category, nor does it mean we should try to pass laws to circumvent the laws of nature that we don't like.

Couples rarely have sex for the purpose of creating a child. The greater purpose of sex has always been to develop a close personal, physical bond in a couple. And yes, that involves sex for fun. That is the reason people have sex

To imply that a couple desiring to have sex without the possibility of children is somehow immoral is ridiculous

Did somebody imply that?

Nope, didn't think so.

Yes, a Mr Limbaugh implied just that

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is the same theory which, when applied to eating, results in the shoppers at your local WalMart.

Just because something feels good does NOT put it in the "purely entertainment" category, nor does it mean we should try to pass laws to circumvent the laws of nature that we don't like.

Couples rarely have sex for the purpose of creating a child. The greater purpose of sex has always been to develop a close personal, physical bond in a couple. And yes, that involves sex for fun. That is the reason people have sex

To imply that a couple desiring to have sex without the possibility of children is somehow immoral is ridiculous

Did somebody imply that?

Nope, didn't think so.

And I'm going to bet that a) couples having sex as an expression of love and bonding aren't going through $1000 a year in birth control, and b) Sandra Fluke wasn't pestering Congress on behalf of loving, committed, monogamous relationships.

None of which changes the fact that it's not the government's job to force insurance companies to cover things, or to force employers to have certain types of coverage, no matter WHO wants it or for what.

 

[rightwinger]

Couples rarely have sex for the purpose of creating a child. The greater purpose of sex has always been to develop a close personal, physical bond in a couple. And yes, that involves sex for fun. That is the reason people have sex

To imply that a couple desiring to have sex without the possibility of children is somehow immoral is ridiculous

Did somebody imply that?

Nope, didn't think so.

And I'm going to bet that a) couples having sex as an expression of love and bonding aren't going through $1000 a year in birth control, and b) Sandra Fluke wasn't pestering Congress on behalf of loving, committed, monogamous relationships.

None of which changes the fact that it's not the government's job to force insurance companies to cover things, or to force employers to have certain types of coverage, no matter WHO wants it or for what.

Sandra Fluke was lobbying congress on behalf of ALL women who use birth control. That includes married women (who use the majority of birth control), women in monogamous relationships, promiscuous women and prostitutes.

Yes the Government can set the requirements for insurance companies to do business in this country