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

[rightwinger]

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.

Rush Limbaugh said it

 

[theHawk]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

God, I love Conservatives

The gift that keeps on giving to the Party of Stupid

 

[theHawk]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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?

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

Yup.

 

[emilynghiem]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

Ah -- you want this:
♬.... ♫
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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.