View Full Version : Georgetown Univ./Birth control
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dems-stage-single-witness-hearing-frame-their-reproductive-rights-argument
It costs nearly $47,000.00 per year in tuition to attend the Georgetown Law school, I guess that just doesn't leave any money for birth control. This student activist knew that when she was accepted at the school she would not be eligible for birth control under her student health care policy, but she chose to attend anyway. (Its a Catholic School) After all she would be attending a top rated law school which was a priority of hers. Of course we all know that the dems think that we should be providing birth control on demand free of charge to all who want it. Personally I do not see it that way, but my wife had the following suggestion we start a fund to get Ms. Fluke sterilized thus alleviating her need for birth control. Our government has gone fucking nuts. I know I am singing to the choir..........................
" Fluke testified. "One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception."
WOW!!!:rolleyes: Then maybe she should learn how to tell her F@#k buddy to put on a condom.
Was the unnamed student in question using birth control just as a contraceptive or was she taking the pill for some of its medical side effects?
Does the fact that we may disagree with a fellow American's POV justify calls for her forced sterilization?
Ok, explain to me why giving birth control to "dems" is a bad idea?
The Reaper
03-01-2012, 20:01
Was the unnamed student in question using birth control just as a contraceptive or was she taking the pill for some of its medical side effects?
Does the fact that we may disagree with a fellow American's POV justify calls for her forced sterilization?
I think the issue is that she seems to think it should be a right.
She would require others to pay for her choices. Which is what this administration wants.
I guess I missed that in the Bill of Rights.
TR
John_Chrichton
03-01-2012, 20:05
Does the fact that we may disagree with a fellow American's POV justify calls for her forced sterilization?
Well, that would provide a permanent, lasting solution to her issues.
But in all seriousness, her argument is nonsense. Why must we restructure the entirety of our healthcare system to provide for her vision of "reproductive rights"?
She should have known, before choosing to attend Georgetown, what the University's healthcare plan entailed. If she wasn't satisfied, then she should have a). gone to a different school which offers a healthcare plan that meets her "needs" b). gotten a job and paid for her own healthcare plan, or c) the most obvious of all--make the dudes she's mackin' put on a condom
This is just another Democratic ploy to win over support for their latest Quixotic socialist monstrosity.
DevilSide
03-01-2012, 20:11
She can't pay for her own birth control? Condoms are like $3-$5, and I imagine the pills can't be that much different, it's not surgery.
I think the issue is that she seems to think it should be a right.
She would require others to pay for her choices. Which is what this administration wants.
I guess I missed that in the Bill of Rights.
TR
To me, thanks to my public education at a lefty university, it is important to remember that many women consider access to birth control to be a core issue, not just as a contraceptive or because of its other medical uses, but as a symbol of individual freedom from patriarchy.
I believe that there are ways to discuss issues of women's reproduction, and the government's proper role in health care, without resorting to "jokes" that might activate the underlying symbolism and widen the gender gap.
IMO, 2008 presented a missed opportunity for the GOP. The Democratic Party's treatment of Senator Clinton and Governor Palin opened the eyes of many women. However, because of the gender gap, we weren't in the best possible position to welcome more women under the "big tent."
More generally, I think this issue is another example of the Democrats using hot button issues to change the debate as we head towards the general election.
My $0.02.
Well, that would provide a permanent, lasting solution to her issues.
She should have known, before choosing to attend Georgetown, what the University's healthcare plan entailed. If she wasn't satisfied, then she should have a). gone to a different school which offers a healthcare plan that meets her "needs" b). gotten a job and paid for her own healthcare plan, or c) the most obvious of all--make the dudes she's mackin' put on a condom
This is just another Democratic ploy to win over support for their latest Quixotic socialist monstrosity.
From what I can gather she knew she would not be covered, she wanted to challenge the policy and felt that exceptions should be made for her and those who felt like she did.
http://themadjewess.com/2012/02/29/georgetown-law-student-sandra-fluke-testifies-in-front-of-nancy-pelosi-for-government-paid-birth-control/
Fluke said she chose to go to law school at Georgetown because it offers a quality education, but she also expected the school to accommodate students who do not share the Catholic belief that contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization are immoral.
She is getting her 15 minutes of fame thanks to Nancy, she will make the perfect politician someday, its obvious she only wants to help others.
John_Chrichton
03-01-2012, 21:17
From what I can gather she knew she would not be covered, she wanted to challenge the policy and felt that exceptions should be made for her and those who felt like she did.
http://themadjewess.com/2012/02/29/georgetown-law-student-sandra-fluke-testifies-in-front-of-nancy-pelosi-for-government-paid-birth-control/
Fluke said she chose to go to law school at Georgetown because it offers a quality education, but she also expected the school to accommodate students who do not share the Catholic belief that contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization are immoral.
She is getting her 15 minutes of fame thanks to Nancy, she will make the perfect politician someday, its obvious she only wants to help others.
Right, what she wants to do is pretty clear. However, that doesn't change the core issue at hand in this debate.
To me, thanks to my public education at a lefty university, it is important to remember that many women consider access to birth control to be a core issue, not just as a contraceptive or because of its other medical uses, but as a symbol of individual freedom from patria
My $0.02.
I would be the last person that would deny her or any woman access to birth control, the issue I have is that she, a person that does not seem to be liberated enough to supply her own birth control would expect others to supply hers through health insurance. Maybe getting that first rate law degree is not worth having to put up with such second class insurance, she needs to make that call. When do the give aways end ? What is her personal responsibilty in regards to her own birth control?
1. Why is it that men get to decide what women can, and can not do?
2. as for the government giving money out to the undeserving....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/middle-class-welfare-state-invisible-by-design-commentary-by-ezra-klein.html
To me, thanks to my public education at a lefty university, it is important to remember that many women consider access to birth control to be a core issue, not just as a contraceptive or because of its other medical uses, but as a symbol of individual freedom from patriarchy.
My $0.02.
There's a liberal phrase twist in there, though, that's much more disconcerting when the MSM performs that particular gymnastic, rather than simply a liberal presenting their POV. I'm still hoping to find a reporter here and there who has lost his agenda and simply reports the facts.
If I wait outside MacDonalds, with $20 in my pocket, hoping for someone to come along and pay for my Big Mac and fries, have I been deprived of "Big Mac access", if I don't find a patron?
I understand the "make someone else pay for it" concept. But, as someone who pays several $K for family medical deductibles each year, I don't feel that I "have been denied access" to medical care.
Of course, if my neighbor has to pay for my care out of his pocket, or the customers of my employer have to pay for it out of their pocket, it's called "free". That's an equally disconcerting misnomer.
1. Why is it that men get to decide what women can, and can not do?
2. as for the government giving money out to the undeserving....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/middle-class-welfare-state-invisible-by-design-commentary-by-ezra-klein.html
That was an interesting read, thanks Penn :)
Maybe this is part of the plan to get everyone into college, as the POTUS wishes. Lots of sex and free birth control.
I'm waiting for the day when firearms are free as well. Which line do I get in for those???
I'm waiting for the day when firearms are free as well. Which line do I get in for those???
Right next to the university union office of fake I.Ds.
longrange1947
03-01-2012, 22:20
1. Why is it that men get to decide what women can, and can not do?
2. as for the government giving money out to the undeserving....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-01/middle-class-welfare-state-invisible-by-design-commentary-by-ezra-klein.html
My problem is that they have stretched the meaning of a handout (gov't handout ie welfare to all) and something such as Social Security, Medicare, etc that is paid into as insurance. One is just giving money away and the other is money invested.
Student loans are paid back, except when Obama decides they don't have to, handouts are free.
I am not against gov't "assistance" I am against just giving it away. Right now the Dims are giving it hand over fist for votes.
John_Chrichton
03-01-2012, 22:33
To me, thanks to my public education at a lefty university, it is important to remember that many women consider access to birth control to be a core issue, not just as a contraceptive or because of its other medical uses, but as a symbol of individual freedom from patriarchy.
More generally, I think this issue is another example of the Democrats using hot button issues to change the debate as we head towards the general election.
Really? How many women in the United States of America, would seriously view receiving birth control as their assertion of "individual freedom from patriarchy"? My money'd be on not too many. That's why approaching this issue from this particular angle would be highly erroneous for the GOP.
More generally, I think this issue is another example of the Democrats using hot button issues to change the debate as we head towards the general election.
The Dems can certainly try, but aside from the small minority of female voters who follow Rachel Maddow's party line, and considering the inherent suspicion of the general public against ObamaCare, I'd bet most voters will end up recognizing this woman's testimony, and this hearing, for what it really is: another political attempt by the out-of-touch left in Congress to gain votes before election day.
Geez. This woman wants her lifestyle funded. This isn't about healthcare. It's about recreational sex. If she can't afford the birth control, she can abstain from the activity. :rolleyes:
Susan
Surgicalcric
03-02-2012, 07:20
...When I was in college I trotted down to the local Planned Parenthood and got pills for $5 per month. Has she tried the Target generic program?
That would not help her push the agenda of the left.
Does Army provide birth control to female soldiers?
I would be the last person that would deny her or any woman access to birth control, the issue I have is that she, a person that does not seem to be liberated enough to supply her own birth control would expect others to supply hers through health insurance.
Others to supply her birth control??? She is required to pay for the GU health care insurance policy.
1stindoor
03-02-2012, 08:04
Does Army provide birth control to female soldiers?
I don't see the correlation, but yes they do. Then again, any GI can go to any clinic and pick up a handful of condoms too.
I think you all are missing a huge part in this board discussion. A lot of you keep saying that this woman is taking birth control, for the reason of birth control, and that if she can't afford the pill she should use a condom.
What if in fact she is taking the pill for different medical reasons? The same reason I just put my 14 year old daughter on the pill. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with birth control. It is a health issue, the same one every woman in my family has ever had to deal with.
So I think the ones that claim to know why she is taking the pill need to shut up and color until you have a woman's body, and then maybe you will be qualified to comment on her "reasoning" for taking the pill. You men out there, having a wife, girlfriend, daughter who goes through her monthly cycle, that you have only witnessed, and never experienced means squat! YOu have no dog in the fight with this point of the discussion, unless and until you can PROVE this woman is taking BC for BC.
With that being said............ I do not believe that GU should be forced to provide her the pill, even if it is for a health issue unrelated to BC. She knew the policy before she went to a Catholic University. If it is for reasons other than BC, I would think it would behoove her to find other means of trying to get the medication she needs without the hefty price tag. They do exist.
I think you all are missing a huge part in this board discussion. A lot of you keep saying that this woman is taking birth control, for the reason of birth control, and that if she can't afford the pill she should use a condom.
What if in fact she is taking the pill for different medical reasons? The same reason I just put my 14 year old daughter on the pill. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with birth control. It is a health issue, the same one every woman in my family has ever had to deal with.
So I think the ones that claim to know why she is taking the pill need to shut up and color until you have a woman's body, and then maybe you will be qualified to comment on her "reasoning" for taking the pill. You men out there, having a wife, girlfriend, daughter who goes through her monthly cycle, that you have only witnessed, and never experienced means squat! YOu have no dog in the fight with this point of the discussion, unless and until you can PROVE this woman is taking BC for BC.
With that being said............ I do not believe that GU should be forced to provide her the pill, even if it is for a health issue unrelated to BC. She knew the policy before she went to a Catholic University. If it is for reasons other than BC, I would think it would behoove her to find other means of trying to get the medication she needs without the hefty price tag. They do exist.
Whatever the reason, I should no more be required to pay for her birth control than I should her grooming products.
The whole issue has been blown out of proportion by the media to aid a dem diversionary tactic, anyway.
I'd be interested in exploring this more with you Dusty. Are you speaking from a religious perspective, in the sense that you think birth control is wrong...or basically, you think all insurance companies should not cover birth control?
All insurances? No; my daughter's Medicaid lowers her BC cost to like 3 bucks for the quarterly cycle. She's been diagnosed as autistic with cerebral palsy, biotenidase, Angelman's syndrom and PKU, and is blind; she's not sexually active.
This student, I believe, is talking about a grand a year. (Must include toys and whatnot.)
Besides, as I said, you can go back to the Stephanopholous "prod" and catch a snap on the reason for the whole contraceptive brouhaha.
Gotcha. Yes, agreed that this was definitely a case of political posturing. Birth control pills are pretty darn inexpensive, from what I remember. On top of that, she's getting a boatload of student loans for law school, so this whole "I can't afford it" is BS. Either she's getting loans or she's able to pay for law school herself (or her parents) so if someone can afford $47k per year,she can definitely afford birth control.
The core issue is that Republicans are so ham-fisted and dense that they continually fall into the Democrats' traps. That f***ing moron Limbaugh calling her a slut, whore and prostitute? Too bad she wasn't Hispanic, he could have called her a wetback whore and alienated another 20% of the voter base as well.
The secondary issue is a total lack of perspective and preening hubris in R candidates who are willing to destroy the party to attain a nomination.
Unless we want civil unrest and a lost generation standing in bread lines the R's focus should be the DEFICIT, leveling the playing field with China, and energy independence.
Romney had a good chance and it's slipping away.
The core issue is that Republicans are so ham-fisted and dense that they continually fall into the Democrats' traps. That f***ing moron Limbaugh calling her a slut, whore and prostitute? Too bad she wasn't Hispanic, he could have called her a wetback whore and alienated another 20% of the voter base as well.
Would you mind providing a quote or other proof that Limbaugh called her a "slut, whore and prostitute"?
Your branding of Limbaugh as a "f**cking moron"-reckon that might alienate anybody? :munchin
Would you mind providing a quote or other proof that Limbaugh called her a "slut, whore and prostitute"?
Your branding of Limbaugh as a "f**cking moron"-reckon that might alienate anybody? :munchin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html?tid=pm_local_pop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html?tid=pm_local_pop
Thanks, afchic, I would have never thought to look for it in the Washington Post.
I have little difficulty with the notion that some women view access to certain methods of birth control as a symbol of individual freedom from patriarchy.
I suspect that there are some citizens who view unfettered access to certain firearms and accessories as their symbol of individual freedom from an oppressive government or even an individual freedom from being a victim of violent crime.
Personally, I prefer that both of THESE GROUPS pay for their celebration of individual freedom, themselves.
So, to THESE FOLKS, please stop asking taxpayers to pick up the tab for YOUR "suppressors."
FWIW, Planned Parenthood's web site suggests that birth control pills cost between $15-$50 / month. PP web site also suggests that there are two clinics in DC. I suspect that condoms are free. ImpactGuns reportedly has some Gemtechs for between $300 and $1,400, plus stamp tax. ;)
I imagine that the young lady attending Georgetown Law school is smart enough to figure out how to pay for her own contraceptives - if not - she has a hell of a road ahead of her repaying those student loans. Would she ask that taxpayers pick up that tab as well?
Afchic: Do you want to take this one, or shall I? :rolleyes:
These Groups? Gee, Tonyz, have you figured out a way that women can get pregnant on their own? Cause that would be really interesting to hear. :munchin
Please, allow me...
tonyz, you piece of chauvinistic pig shit. How dare you make me roar this early in the morning!
Go back to your mancave. :mad:
:D
Afchic: Do you want to take this one, or shall I? :rolleyes:
These Groups? Gee, Tonyz, have you figured out a way that women can get pregnant on their own? Cause that would be really interesting to hear. :munchin
Read again carefully...THESE GROUPS consist of very specific subsets...
The contraceptive issue is the new abortion issue. It does an outstanding job of shifting focus from the economy, A-stan, ad nauseum.
Communism is a sneaky camel.
John_Chrichton
03-02-2012, 10:25
Let's just hope the GOP doesn't take the bait and make this a major issue.
PedOncoDoc
03-02-2012, 10:32
Afchic: Do you want to take this one, or shall I? :rolleyes:
These Groups? Gee, Tonyz, have you figured out a way that women can get pregnant on their own? Cause that would be really interesting to hear. :munchin
Last time I checked, most free clinics hand out condoms at no cost, and if not, condoms are also very inexpensive and available. Not only are they effective at preventing pregnancy, they also prevent STD's.
Condoms don't regulate menstruation, but the argument is about "reproductive freedom", not medical indications for hormone pills.
Reproductive freedom is a sex-specific legal argument. A man cannot go out and have unrpotected sex, get someone pregnant, and chose not to deal with the consequences. He can (and typically will) be held financially responsible for the child whether or not he had any intention of making the kid in the first place. He has no say in whether or not a woman carries a kid to term.
heh, heh. Stop it Dusty, that's not at all what I meant to say...out loud. ;)
Ok, fair enough. But, take a look a little closer and the idea behind what Sig mentioned earlier. Whether we like it or not, women are the ones that get pregnant and carry the baby for 9 months -- obviously physically, and often professionally limiting. The "freedom from patriarchy" thing, while sounding pretty harsh (and indeed, there are the feminists who are very anti-men, but I think they're not the majority) could be as simple as being able to decide what happens to your own body and when. In contrast to the turn of the century when a woman was just married, at home with as many babies as ...well as she was "given." (for lack of a better term)
I'm not hardcore into "insurance should give me birth control." I would think, that from a business perspective, the insurance companies should want to. Sure is a heck of a lot cheaper than labor and delivery in a hospital, but there are plenty of inexpensive options, and if you're going to partake, then you should consider birth control a budget priority.
I'm glad that you took a closer read of my post that originally got you spun up. It was quite limited and quite specific.
And gee, I used the pretty pink font and all...how about addressing the portion of my post that was not in pink.
Let's just hope the GOP doesn't take the bait and make this a major issue.
Does it really matter? The media will do that for them.
If you think the Country's polarized now, wait 'til the summer/early fall...this is the year of OWS.
I have little difficulty with the notion that some women view access to certain methods of birth control as a symbol of individual freedom from patriarchy.
I suspect that there are some citizens who view unfettered access to certain firearms and accessories as their symbol of individual freedom from an oppressive government or even an individual freedom from being a victim of violent crime.
Personally, I prefer that both of THESE GROUPS pay for their celebration of individual freedom, themselves.
So, to THESE FOLKS, please stop asking taxpayers to pick up the tab for YOUR "suppressors."
FWIW, Planned Parenthood's web site suggests that birth control pills cost between $15-$50 / month. PP web site also suggests that there are two clinics in DC. I suspect that condoms are free. ImpactGuns reportedly has some Gemtechs for between $300 and $1,400, plus stamp tax. ;)
I imagine that the young lady attending Georgetown Law school is smart enough to figure out how to pay for her own contraceptives - if not - she has a hell of a road ahead of her repaying those student loans. Would she ask that taxpayers pick up that tab as well?
I have no problem with insurers or companies or churches not providing birth control if they have a moral objection to it. But in terms of everyone else, if they are paying for Viagra for you men to get your groove on, then they damn well better be paying for Birth Control.
Additionally, back to my first comment. BC isn't always used as a "suppressor" as you call it. It can be for other health reasons. Do you still advocate for them to "pay for it themselves" if indeed it is being prescribed for things such as endometriosis, anemia, etc....
Tricare pays for the old snip snip for guys, doesn't that fall under the auspices of Birth Control? Why should I have to pay for that?
I have no problem with insurers or companies or churches not providing birth control if they have a moral objection to it. But in terms of everyone else, if they are paying for Viagra for you men to get your groove on, then they damn well better be paying for Birth Control.
Additionally, back to my first comment. BC isn't always used as a "suppressor" as you call it. It can be for other health reasons. Do you still advocate for them to "pay for it themselves" if indeed it is being prescribed for things such as endometriosis, anemia, etc....
Tricare pays for the old snip snip for guys, doesn't that fall under the auspices of Birth Control? Why should I have to pay for that?
My original post was for very specific subsets...valid medical reasons were not one of those subsets. Moreover, I'm old school. If it doesn't get up legit no artificial sweeteners for me. To each his own. :D
I thought, but I'm not sure, that many insurers had "carve outs" in which they covered "the pill" when used for medical rather than BC purposes.
I don't know because I have used military health care since the day my mom birthed me. :) But I have friends that have had the experience of getting a prescription for the pill for health reasons, and they had to pay out of pocket for it, while little johnnie that sat in cubical next to them got Viagra for free.
Additionally, my best frind in college had life threatening endometriosis. Her insurance wouldn't pay for her to be on the pill to help regulate it, but they would pay for her hyserectomy at age 20. Things that make you go huh?????
Last time I checked, most free clinics hand out condoms at no cost, and if not, condoms are also very inexpensive and available. Not only are they effective at preventing pregnancy, they also prevent STD's.
Condoms don't regulate menstruation, but the argument is about "reproductive freedom", not medical indications for hormone pills.
Reproductive freedom is a sex-specific legal argument. A man cannot go out and have unrpotected sex, get someone pregnant, and chose not to deal with the consequences. He can (and typically will) be held financially responsible for the child whether or not he had any intention of making the kid in the first place. He has no say in whether or not a woman carries a kid to term.
This is spot on. In the US where women have complete control of getting pregnant or not. It is cheap and widely available.
Women control their own pregnancies.
Men, by contrast, do not control women’s fertility, nor their pregnancies. This is why men have no right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, nor any right to limit a woman’s use of pre-conception birth control.
Thanks, afchic, I would have never thought to look for it in the Washington Post.
Would his own words make you feel better???
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
Women control their own pregnancies.
Men, by contrast, do not control women’s fertility, nor their pregnancies. This is why men have no right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy, nor any right to limit a woman’s use of pre-conception birth control.
You mean "let their child live"? I think that, in many cases, that would depend on the man's influence.
You mean "let their child live"? I think that, in many cases, that would depend on the man's influence.
I would hope so as well, but legally it doesn't matter if he disagrees with whatever choice was made.
Would his own words make you feel better???
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/01/left_freaks_out_over_my_fluke_remarks
Sure does, thanks.
He's right. Again.
Sure does, thanks.
He's right. Again.
I understand his sentiment, I really do. But when he says shit like this, it really makes conservatives look bad. I know he is a shock jock , but I think he is an idiot, personally.
All I know is, you don't see me asking for government help to pay for my priapism treatments.
Sure does, thanks.
He's right. Again.
And, at least Rush didn't go all SNL and start with..."Jane (or whatever this young woman's name is) you ignorant..."
Maybe Rush is mellowing in his old age.
I would hope so as well, but legally it doesn't matter if he disagrees with whatever choice was made.
Nope, and the controversy the issue creates is the best smokescreen the dems have at their disposal right now.
Where does it stop, anyway?
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/medical-journal-advocates-killing-newborns.html
Wonder just how much Fluke is getting in scholarships grants and loans.
More from Rush...
I want to go back and get this out of the way 'cause I'm sure that there is voluminous tune-in today to hear about this controversy that has arisen with my blunt talk about Sandra Fluke. We've run some numbers on this. According to Planned Parenthood -- and they should know -- birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month. So, at most, that would be $600 a year. What is Sandra Fluke buying? We then -- I didn't do this, but a member of the staff well-versed in these matters went to Amazon to check the purchase of condoms. And essentially what we found is that you could buy the equivalent of using five condoms a day for $953, and if you paid for it at once you could get free shipping. And everybody's in a hurry here. So free shipping would matter. Nine hundred fifty-three dollars. So Planned Parenthood, $600 bucks a year. Condoms, $953 a year.
Maybe she's including the price of the drinks needed to impair the vision of her prospective partners.
and this..
If Fluke is gonna ask the government to force anybody to foot the bill for her friends' birth control, shouldn't it be these guys? Who pays for the abortions? Oops! We already know that, too. So that's where this all started, that story. That's where it all started. A woman who goes to law school at Georgetown goes to a congressional hearing where Pelosi is (crying), "I'm going broke having sex! I need... I need the government to provide me condoms and contraception. It's not fair." Okay, so this is a law student at a congressional committee asking for us ... to ... pay ... for ... the ... things ... that ... make ... it ... possible ... for ... her ... to ... have ... sex.
Therefore we are paying her to have sex.
Therefore we are paying her for having sex.
We are getting screwed even though we don't meet her personally![/COLOR]
What would you call this?
No reach around?
lol The whole thing sure is good for taking a guy's mind off the gas he can't afford to drive from the house he's losing to the job he can't get because of the stimulus that didn't work, heh?
lol The whole thing sure is good for taking a guy's mind off the gas he can't afford to drive from the house he's losing to the job he can't get because of the stimulus that didn't work, heh?
Exactly. And Limbaugh is acting like a useful idiot. Pick your battles. Stay on point or lose the war.
My, my, my...who would have guessed:
Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke
Posted by Just a Grunt on Mar 02, 2012 at 10:49 am
For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.
While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice (http://lsrj.org/).
More here. (http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/)
Pat
Exactly. And Limbaugh is acting like a useful idiot. Pick your battles. Stay on point or lose the war.
lol If the war is lost, it won't be because Limbaugh doesn't stay on point.
How's your radio program doing, mugwump?
Whatever the reason, I should no more be required to pay for her birth control than I should her grooming products.
.
Many people probably feel the same way about paying for your daughter's medicaid benefits.
Many people probably feel the same way about paying for your daughter's medicaid benefits.
I'm sure you're right about that, because I'm one of those people, to an extent. I was and still am conflicted about it.
I thought about it a long time before I applied for her SSSI, too, but I figure that if I'm paying into Social Security, I shouldn't feel guilty that she receives SSSI.
That's the same reason I'm gonna apply for SS when I'm 62, because I've put money in over the years.
I didn't have any compunctions about receiving CRSC or VA Disability, although somebody's footing that bill, as well...
Surgicalcric
03-02-2012, 15:10
Many people probably feel the same way about paying for your daughter's medicaid benefits.
The biggest difference is Dusty's daughter cannot provide for herself whereas this activist can but wont - as is the case with the vast majority of those receiving Medicaid that I have treated and transported to a MTF.
The two are hardly comparable and if people cannot (will not) see the difference we have a bigger issue than health care.
It's interesting that she got the publicity about her testimony as well as the call from Obama while the contraception issue is peaking.
Almost seems manufactured.
The biggest difference is Dusty's daughter cannot provide for herself whereas this activist can but wont - as is the case with the vast majority of those receiving Medicaid/Medicare that I have treated and transported to a MTF.
The two are hardly comparable and if people cannot (will not) see the difference we have a bigger issue than health care.
Excuse me, but Medicare is insurance (earned by working), while Medicaid is welfare, so why are you grouping them together?
Surgicalcric
03-02-2012, 15:51
Excuse me, but Medicare is insurance (earned by working), while Medicaid is welfare, so why are you grouping them together?
Opps... Fingers out-typed by BHG, meant Medicaid alone. Edited to reflect such...
However the point remains...
Geeez, what's with all the heartburn in this thread?
Just go get a free abortion. Heck, if she was a highschool chick her teacher would tale her on down to the clinic. Surely as a college chick she should be able to find her own way.
My sense is that Ms. Fluke is anything but. She is indeed an activist (much like a certain presidential caller) who believes that there are few areas that big government should not fund.
In any event, I suspect that Ms. Fluke is an arguably intelligent, accomplished (and as a law student at thirty years old) experienced activist.
She certainly does not appear disadvantaged or underprivileged in any way - except maybe in the common sense department...or maybe in her political leanings.
It sure does sound like she's got an active social life. In one tape that I watched today she nearly cried that first year law students at Georgetown Law had little time to sleep...now we know why.
I think what the left is saying is that Fluke shouldn't have to pay for her sex stuff any more than this lady should have to pay for her mortgage or for gasoline...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
I think what the left is saying is that Fluke shouldn't have to pay for her sex stuff any more than this lady should have to pay for her mortgage or for gasoline...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Fluke is the uptown version...
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-center-03032
Tweeder11
03-02-2012, 16:40
What Fluke needs to understand is :
1) If you're smart enough to get into Georgetown Law, then you're smart enough to decide if the student environment (ie catholic school) and insurance policy suites your "needs".
2) She can explore "sexuall freedom" without taking a pill. If she doesn't like condoms then practice the pull out method, because it's obvious it's not STD's she's concenerned about.
3) I'm assuming her insurance will still cover a trip to the OBGYN and if medically she needs it, I'm sure she can find a manner to receive the healthcare she needs in a cost-effective manner.
4) If she doesn't medically need birth control, than it's not a HEALTH CARE ISSUE, it's a LIFESTYLE ISSUE. If this is the case I want taxpayers to buy all my Whiskey (if I drink enough of that it's like birth control):D
The fact is what should be a non issue and a discussion that ends in the Dean's office, has now become MO for the Dems during election time. Rush, served this one on a platter and big O gets to look like the hero to a lot of undecided sexually active women (been to a college campus recently by the way?)
MAYBE, one one of the GOP front runners can use this as an oppurtunity to say something intelligent... Unfortunately, I don't see us winning any NEW votes over on this one.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
Yup, use the word contraceptive in any sentence that might not be deemed politically correct and many otherwise rational females jump to incorrect conclusions expounding that it takes two, it's our bodies, etc., etc., often completely bypassing/missing the underlying political argument about who should be footing the bill for purely discretionary contraceptive protection of otherwise healthy and able bodied folks.
Pelosi and Obama have a winner with this one in the arena of undecided female public opinion - they have them at the mere utterence of the words contraception and Rush...
Yup, use the word contraceptive in any sentence that might not be deemed politically correct and many otherwise rational females jump to incorrect conclusions expounding that it takes two, it's our bodies, etc., etc., often completely bypassing/missing the underlying political argument about who should be footing the bill for purely discretionary contraceptive protection of otherwise healthy and able bodied folks.
Pelosi and Obama have a winner with this one in the arena of undecided female public opinion - they have them at the mere utterence of the words contraception and Rush...Are "otherwise rational" women the only ones jumping to the "incorrect conclusions" about the "underlying political argument"?
(It will be ironic if, after the GOP hands the 2012 general election to opposition, the Democrats start talking about getting rid of "free parking." After all, why should the government subsidize a discretionary life style choice?)
The fact is what should be a non issue and a discussion that ends in the Dean's office, has now become MO for the Dems during election time. Rush, served this one on a platter and big O gets to look like the hero to a lot of undecided sexually active women (been to a college campus recently by the way?)
MAYBE, one one of the GOP front runners can use this as an oppurtunity to say something intelligent... Unfortunately, I don't see us winning any NEW votes over on this one.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
Yeah, well-if they're spending that much on rubbers and whatnot, they prolly don't have time to vote, anyway.
Don't forget-the collegiates who bought into Obama in '08 have for the most part graduated, hopeless and changeless.
Are "otherwise rational" women the only ones jumping to the "incorrect conclusions" about the "underlying political argument"??)
...certainly the most obvious...I suspect Chris MattHews and folks at the Huffpo et al might be in that group. Ezra Klein anyone...
What Fluke needs to understand is :
1) If you're smart enough to get into Georgetown Law, then you're smart enough to decide if the student environment (ie catholic school) and insurance policy suites your "needs".
2) She can explore "sexuall freedom" without taking a pill. If she doesn't like condoms then practice the pull out method, because it's obvious it's not STD's she's concenerned about.
3) I'm assuming her insurance will still cover a trip to the OBGYN and if medically she needs it, I'm sure she can find a manner to receive the healthcare she needs in a cost-effective manner.
4) If she doesn't medically need birth control, than it's not a HEALTH CARE ISSUE, it's a LIFESTYLE ISSUE. If this is the case I want taxpayers to buy all my Whiskey (if I drink enough of that it's like birth control):D
The fact is what should be a non issue and a discussion that ends in the Dean's office, has now become MO for the Dems during election time. Rush, served this one on a platter and big O gets to look like the hero to a lot of undecided sexually active women (been to a college campus recently by the way?)
MAYBE, one one of the GOP front runners can use this as an oppurtunity to say something intelligent... Unfortunately, I don't see us winning any NEW votes over on this one.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
You seem to have missed the part where she is a activist plant and targeted Georgetown specifically.
It doesn't seem to be much of an issue with her classmates:
Sandra Fluke Does Not Speak for Me
Mar 2, 2012 by Angela Morabito
I’m a proud Georgetown woman upset about another Georgetown woman who may have no pride at all. How else do you explain - Ms. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, now famous for testimony she never gave – jumping up to talk about her sex life (with the Senate Minority Leader and with the liberal media) and ask for the cost of her sex life to be subsidized by other students at a Jesuit School?
Sandra Fluke was declined the privilege (a privilege, not a right) of testifying in front of a Senate Committee on the proposed contraceptive mandate.
Her name was submitted too late to be admitted to testify. She’s not a lawyer. She’s not a member of the clergy – crucial for a hearing on religious freedom, wouldn’t you say? That’s what Representative Issa said. Her one claim to fame in the reproductive health care debate is…drumroll, please…being a student club leader! You go, Sandra! Hang those posters girl. Wear out those Sharpies.
Me? I love me some extracurricular involvement. The difference between Sandra and me is that I don’t think it qualifies me to speak in front of Congress. ”The Chair calls to the stand the captains of the intramural ultimate frisbee team!”
(...)
She doesn’t speak for those of us who worked hard to be able to choose to come to a great institution with a great tradition of faith and scholarship. She certainly can’t speak for the Jesuits who dedicated their lives to God and Education with a long established set of rules. There are only ten of them, and Ms. Fluke would do well to give them a quick read.
If she wants a more liberal sex life, she can go to Syracuse. (Syracuse, I must apologize – but we are in March and basketball matters – sorry you got caught up in this.)
Sandra doesn’t even speak for all skanks! She only speaks for the skanks who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices.
(...)
Funny how the same side that cries “Get your rosaries off my ovaries” is the same side saying, “on second thought…please pay for me to have all the sex I want!” The people who espouse “pro-choice” “values” are the same people who say religious institutions have no right to choose.
More here. (http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-does-not-speak-for-me/)
Pat
Tweeder11
03-02-2012, 17:32
Yeah, well-if they're spending that much on rubbers and whatnot, they prolly don't have time to vote, anyway.
Don't forget-the collegiates who bought into Obama in '08 have for the most part graduated, hopeless and changeless.
They put him in once, they will do it again. However, when I was at University in '08 (one of VERY few R's) Obama was the COOL thing. Not many people Knew his politics, but a big O or "CHANGE" was cool to have on a T-shirt and his name was transformed into many catch-phrases that were synonamous with "cool". There was not only a lot of "peer pressure" to support his campaign, but to actually show up and vote. In reverse effect, it got you laid with a lot of non-conservatives (in some circles). And the fact that we'd have a POTUS of a different race for the first time in office also served as an inspiration to drive many to the poles just to see it done. I don't predict the same outcome.
(above based on my personal experience, yours may differ)
However, one way he can win this sub-generation's support is fighting for "women's rights", specifically on this platform where he KNOW'S a conservative can't agree without losing votes. The last thing conservatives need is his name to become synonamous with sex, he'll become "cool" all over again.
Tweeder
They put him in once, they will do it again. Tweeder
Remind me about the second week of November.
Tweeder11
03-02-2012, 17:42
You seem to have missed the part where she is a activist plant and targeted Georgetown specifically.
It doesn't seem to be much of an issue with her classmates:
Sir,
This is true, and she got all the responses she wanted from the right people. Rush played into her hands and O came to her rescue saving herself and undecided sexually active female voters from swaying to the right.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
Tweeder11
03-02-2012, 17:44
Remind me about the second week of November.
QP Dusty,
I'd rather say you were right.
Humbly,
Tweeder
...The last thing conservatives need is his name to become synonamous with sex...
Tweeder
Too late...when I hear his name I can't help but think how he's f$$&ed the country. ;)
Sir,
This is true, and she got all the responses she wanted from the right people. Rush played into her hands and O came to her rescue saving herself and undecided sexually active female voters from swaying to the right.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
Rush could have praised her, and the left would have claimed that he was mocking her. If he sneezes, the Left goes into hysterics. Did you hear the flack he got for calling Danica Patrick a "woman driver"? :D
Pat
Tweeder11
03-02-2012, 17:50
Rush could have praised her, and the left would have claimed that he was mocking her. If he sneezes, the Left goes into hysterics. Did you hear the flack he got for calling Danica Patrick a "woman driver"? :D
Pat
I still say she caused Jimmy to wreck :D
I still say she caused Jimmy to wreck :DMisogynist pig! :eek:
Pat
BMT (RIP)
03-02-2012, 18:10
What law firm would hire this nut?
BMT
What law firm would hire this nut?
BMT
Steinem, Steinem, Streisand and Reddy.
Hey, she was influential enough to get the President involved when she let this pussy out of the sack. Some leftish firm's bound to jump all over her-prolly before she graduates.
What law firm would hire this nut?
BMT
Perhaps an activist type firm or more likely an ACORN or Brady or ACLU type organization. There is never a shortage of folks fighting to spend more of your money.
What law firm would hire this nut?
BMT
Allred, Maroko & Goldberg (http://www.amglaw.com/bio/GloriaAllred.asp)
Pat
The Reaper
03-02-2012, 19:15
What law firm would hire this nut?
BMT
Probably almost all of them.
TR
The government should not pay for men's viagra IMO; if it does, then it makes women justified in demanding birth control be paid for.
No, it doesn't. Viagra isn't subsidized so that men can have casual sex, but as a treatment for a physical problem.
The activist Fluke (evidently pronounced to rhyme with "duck", not "puke") wants casual sex subsidized. So does Obama. Doesn't want kids punished with a baby as a result of casual sex.
Doesn't want kids punished with a baby as a result of casual sex.
To be fair... I wouldn't want to be punished with that either...
I'm just sayin'...
1stindoor
03-02-2012, 22:19
What law firm would hire this nut?
BMT
Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe perhaps?
But isn't the physical problem it treats related to men having sex?:confused:
Of course, but it's apples vs. oranges.
This left-wing activist isn't having a problem with performing sex; her problem is affording it, supposedly.
To be fair... I wouldn't want to be punished with that either...
I'm just sayin'...
If you're in a bind, Bro-I'll front you a couple sixpacks of my Trojans; caveat is the size: Triple Magnum...
You know that doesn't count when you use them for water-balloons, right?:D
Umm, are there other reasons besides sex that a man needs an erection?
:D
I'm just gonna drop the subject; it's a lose-lose.
This is it just another one of those Sal Alinsky coincidences that coincides with the Administration handywork....Obama and Sebilius wage war on the Catholic's by forcing them to accept abortion and contraception And AB-RA-CA-DA-BRA, a Catholic University is getting challenged on their insurance contraceptive policy by some coed in Law School.
Not just any coed, the fomer President of Law Student for Reproductive Justice (http://lsrj.org/).
As one blog states:
For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.
http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/
Regarding Rush Limbaugh, I think his comments on this woman make great fodder for the Democratic party and the media, but I don't remember all these feminists being so outraged when the Left were calling Sarah Palin all sorts of names back in '08.
Well aside from sex, men do need erections to keep the penis oxygenated and healthy. In the flaccid state, the penis doesn't get much air, so it will often erect itself at night while the man is asleep to "breath." So maybe subsidized Viagra could be justified for health reasons:cool:
Like I said, it's a lose-lose...
longrange1947
03-03-2012, 14:24
Oh good grief. ......................................... Their insurance premiums, their rules.
And that is what pisses me with libs, they do not understand that very basic tenet.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
(In case the link decays, it's an apology for calling Fluke a slut.)
http://www.ajc.com/business/a-7th-advertiser-pulls-1373180.html
The Associated Press
NEW YORK — A flower company is the seventh advertiser to pull its ads from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's radio program in reaction to his derogatory comments about a law student who testified about birth control policy.
FILE - In this Jan. 13, 2009 file photo, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh talks with guests in the East Room of the White House in Washington. Limbaugh apologized Saturday, March 3, 2012, to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a "slut" and "prostitute" after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program. The student, Sandra Fluke, had testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control. Limbaugh apologized Saturday, March 3, 2012, to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a "slut" and "prostitute" after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program. The student, Sandra Fluke, had testified to congressional Democrats in support of their national health care policy that would compel her college to offer health plans that cover her birth control. ProFlowers said Sunday on its Facebook page that it has suspended advertising on Limbaugh's program because his comments about Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke "went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company."
The six other advertisers that say they have pulled ads from his show are mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and online legal document services company LegalZoom.
ProFlowers had said on Twitter that posts it received about Limbaugh's remarks affected its advertising strategy. ProFlowers is an online flower delivery service.
Limbaugh called the 30-year-old Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" last week after she testified to congressional Democrats in support of national health care policies that would compel employers and other organizations, including her university, to offer group health insurance that covers birth control for women.
He apologized to Fluke on Saturday after being criticized by Republican and Democratic politicians and after several advertisers left the show.
Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. hosts Limbaugh's program, one of the country's most popular talk radio shows. The company is supporting Limbaugh, whose on-air contract with Premiere runs through 2016.
"The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue," Premiere Networks said in a statement emailed Sunday by spokeswoman Rachel Nelson. "We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions."
Clear Channel Media and Entertainment operates more than 850 radio stations in the U.S., and Premiere says it's the largest radio content provider in the country, syndicating programs to more than 5,000 affiliate stations.
When asked which companies or organizations were the largest advertisers on Limbaugh's show, Nelson said that that information was "proprietary." Nelson declined to say how much revenue the company will lose with the advertiser defections or how much revenue Limbaugh's show brings in.
Clear Channel's parent company was taken private in 2008 by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital.
___
Mr. Limbaugh called Ms. Fluke a "slut" during two different broadcasts on two different days. Now he wants us to believe that he "did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke."
How about that.:rolleyes:
GratefulCitizen
03-03-2012, 19:49
Not sure what Ms. Fluke was worried about.
All she had to do was make her political views known to potential sex partners.
Anyone willing to have sex with her would have a sperm count too low to cause pregnancy.
ZonieDiver
03-03-2012, 20:19
Regarding Rush Limbaugh, I think his comments on this woman make great fodder for the Democratic party and the media, but I don't remember all these feminists being so outraged when the Left were calling Sarah Palin all sorts of names back in '08.
Well aside from sex, men do need erections to keep the penis oxygenated and healthy. In the flaccid state, the penis doesn't get much air, so it will often erect itself at night while the man is asleep to "breath." So maybe subsidized Viagra could be justified for health reasons:cool:
I've thought for some time - since he's been around, actually - that Rush was a plant of the ultra-libs! (Glenn Beck, too.)
I've thought for some time - since he's been around, actually - that Rush was a plant of the ultra-libs! (Glenn Beck, too.)
You may be onto something...Did you know Limbaugh and Beck were both born in Roswell, NM in 1947 into the same family of Sasquatches?
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
(In case the link decays, it's an apology for calling Fluke a slut.)
http://www.ajc.com/business/a-7th-advertiser-pulls-1373180.html
The Associated Press
NEW YORK — A flower company is the seventh advertiser to pull its ads from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's radio program in reaction to his derogatory comments about a law student who testified about birth control policy.
The six other advertisers that say they have pulled ads from his show are mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and online legal document services company LegalZoom.
ProFlowers had said on Twitter that posts it received about Limbaugh's remarks affected its advertising strategy. ProFlowers is an online flower delivery service.
Limbaugh called the 30-year-old Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" last week after she testified to congressional Democrats in support of national health care policies that would compel employers and other organizations, including her university, to offer group health insurance that covers birth control for women.
He apologized to Fluke on Saturday after being criticized by Republican and Democratic politicians and after several advertisers left the show.
Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. hosts Limbaugh's program, one of the country's most popular talk radio shows. The company is supporting Limbaugh, whose on-air contract with Premiere runs through 2016.
"The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue," Premiere Networks said in a statement emailed Sunday by spokeswoman Rachel Nelson. "We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions."
Clear Channel Media and Entertainment operates more than 850 radio stations in the U.S., and Premiere says it's the largest radio content provider in the country, syndicating programs to more than 5,000 affiliate stations.
When asked which companies or organizations were the largest advertisers on Limbaugh's show, Nelson said that that information was "proprietary." Nelson declined to say how much revenue the company will lose with the advertiser defections or how much revenue Limbaugh's show brings in.
Clear Channel's parent company was taken private in 2008 by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital.
xx
I've thought for some time - since he's been around, actually - that Rush was a plant of the ultra-libs! (Glenn Beck, too.)MOO, Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Beck, like their counterparts on the left, know that they can make more money (and get more attention) by stirring the pot than by helping to develop sustainable solutions to this country's problems.
of COURSE its all about oxygenation!!! Why else would so many people engage in "mouth-to-gland resuscitation"...??? Jeesh :rolleyes:
Any more questions? (pre-med...pre-law, its all the same). You knew the fix was in with the smirky look on her face... kind of makes you want to give her a good smack right in the puss!!! (Come to think of it....yet another use for an erect Penis.) I'll go now before we devolve into the sex habits of farmyard animals. :eek:
...kind of makes you want to give her a good smack right in the puss!!! (Come to think of it....yet another use for an erect Penis.) I'll go now before we devolve into the sex habits of farmyard animals. :eek:
I can see the charges now...assault with a friendly weapon. :D
Or....
Receipt of swollen property...
Running for cover now but proudly making three tracks....;)
The Reaper
03-05-2012, 17:11
Let's get back on the original topic and clean it up or this thread is going to be locked.
TR
Really? How many women in the United States of America, would seriously view receiving birth control as their assertion of "individual freedom from patriarchy"? My money'd be on not too many. That's why approaching this issue from this particular angle would be highly erroneous for the GOP. Many, if not most, of the women I know.
The Dems can certainly try, but aside from the small minority of female voters who follow Rachel Maddow's party line, and considering the inherent suspicion of the general public against ObamaCare, I'd bet most voters will end up recognizing this woman's testimony, and this hearing, for what it really is: another political attempt by the out-of-touch left in Congress to gain votes before election day. I must have overlooked the exit polls in which respondents said "I voted like Rachel told me."
MOO, I think you're falling into a trap that we on the right side of the aisle too often dig for ourselves. That is, we assign our perception of a cohort's POV to a talking head as if that talking head speaks for that cohort instead of doing our due diligence. IMO, this practice flies in the face of the received wisdom of those who have studied activists. The history of opposition in America is a story told from the bottom up, not from the top down.
In my view, this practice communicates a profound amount of disconnect from--if not also disrespect for-- the concerns of tens of millions of Americans who have different points of view than ours. If the Republican party wants to make inroads to contingents that traditionally vote blue, I think we need to address this dynamic. But then, stereotyping the opposition worked really well in 2008. Let's just stick to the script.
I also think you're misunderstanding badly the circumstances of Ms. Fluke's comments. It was not a hearing in the traditional sense. She did not testify before Congress. She "testified" in an "event" staged by the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. The made-for-media event in question was staged by the Democrats to look like a congressional hearing. This "event" was the response of congressional Democrats to a hearing in which the Republican controlled House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform did not allow Ms. Fluke to testify.
The fact that Ms. Fluke was participating in a made for media event was the first point some of the news broadcasts made about this event. I think that the staging of the event provides a better opportunity to dog the Democrats on health care than Ms. Fluke's controversial comments. That is, once again, the party that wants transparency resorts to the smoke and mirrors of faux officialism.
(But then, the Democrats' ironic reply is as obvious as it is devastating. But I'm not bitter.)
My $0.02.
I am not sure about Glenn Beck, but I think Rush Limbaugh is very passionate and honest in what he says. Whenever you watch him be interviewed, say by Greta Van Susteran, he speaks with enormous passion. He doesn't strike me as someone just out to make a buck by stirring the pot. I think he cares deeply about America.
I agree.
Incidentally, one of the Webster's definitions for "slut" is "promiscuous woman". An unmarried woman requiring an annual budget of $1K for BC could be perceived as inherently promiscuous to some.
I agree.
Incidentally, one of the Webster's definitions for "slut" is "promiscuous woman". An unmarried woman requiring an annual budget of $1K for BC could be perceived as inherently promiscuous to some.
While promiscuous men who are her partners are Studs.:rolleyes:
This keeps popping up in this thread. Am I missing something? What taxpayer funds? If we're discussing private insurance paid for by a University or an employer, where are the taxpayer funds coming into it?
Exactly. From the funding perspective this was never a case of taxpayer funds going to birth control, it was about a tiny increase in the premiums of individuals who were in a private policy's shared pool (and we're talking tiny, not even a rounding error tiny).
There's a small philosophical issue here about the federal govt forcing private entities to include birth control reimbursement into their policies. It's a non-issue IMO in that it is already on the SCOTUS's radar.
My primary concern on this issue used to be the inability of the Republicans and their proxies to avoid falling into the Dem's traps. It's now morphed into growing cynicism regarding the ability of this country to have a meaningful and civil debate over the existential issues we face.
I've contributed to the coarsening and incivility of the debate--I apologize for calling Limbaugh an effing moron. But I think that some here make the mistake of poo-pooing these missteps. Money buys elections. Every time the far right steps on their...tongue...letters go out to the Democratic base and money pours into Obama's coffers.
Incidentally, one of the Webster's definitions for "slut" is "promiscuous woman". An unmarried woman requiring an annual budget of $1K for BC could be perceived as inherently promiscuous to some.
She could be unmarried and monogamous or celibate and taking birth control for other health related reasons. There are plenty of women in both situations.
PedOncoDoc
03-06-2012, 11:21
The difference with the men in the equation is that only non-permanent form of birth-control available for them is also the one with the least effectiveness. Therefore, to be truly as careful as possible, the prevention of an unplanned pregnancy falls on one person even though there are two involved.
Actually - men have 2 options: Condoms and Coitus interruptus (i.e. withdrawal/"pulling out"). Both are quite effectively when properly used.
When used properly, condoms are 98% effective. Condoms are also the most effective form of birth control at preventing infections.
Withdrawal, when done properly is 96% effective for preventing pregnancy; the exception being if the man had ejaculated in the previous 2 hours as pre-ejaculate will contain live sperm in that setting.
While these are less effective than hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices (both have <1% failure rate when used properly), they are 2 effective methods.
There are also alternative sexual practices that can be pursued to minimize the risk lof pregnancy if one does not want to use any of these methods. Some men seem to be big fans of these other practices (but many women are not).
I agree.
Incidentally, one of the Webster's definitions for "slut" is "promiscuous woman". An unmarried woman requiring an annual budget of $1K for BC could be perceived as inherently promiscuous to some.
Seriously? I might call her a lazy consumer--price seems kinda high--but I wouldn't call her a slut. People have sex. Responsible people use birth control. Rosy-cheeked, virtuous female teens who take "virginity pledges" have sex at the same rate as those awful Democratic sluts, they just have higher pregnancy and STD rates because they don't use contraception.
"Virginity pledgers and similar non-pledgers don't differ in the rates of vaginal, oral or anal sex or any other sexual behavior. Strikingly, pledgers are less likely than similar non-pledgers to use condoms and also less likely to use any form of birth control." -- Pediatrics, Jan 2008
I think maybe we should start from the position that most people are passionate and patriotic, even those with whom we disagree. I was in Madison WI during the raucous demonstrations over their Governor's efforts to reign in public sector unions at an event near the local hangout (nice bar!) of the paid union operatives shipped in from Ohio. I spent two hours debating with them. I found them patriotic and passionate on the most part and incredibly uneducated about the issues. I made several of them really think and question their positions. The key is remaining respectful, using words of one syllable, and drawing very, very simple analogies. :) We parted on friendly terms.
To win, we have to win them over. Think of it as a hearts and minds campaign.
PedOncoDoc
03-06-2012, 11:26
Pod -- right, not arguing with your medical knowledge. However, I don't think you will disagree that condoms plus the pill or an IUD does increase the effectiveness over condoms alone.
And some of us in monogamous relationships, married or not, for one reason or another, abhor the use of condoms. Options are always good.
See the addendum to my earlier post for additional options that also do not require prescriptions and/or health care coverage.
And not wanting to use condoms is a personal preference - just because someone does not want to use effective non-prescription contraceptives doesn't mean their health care provider should have to provide an alternative.
Actually - men have 2 options: Condoms and Coitus interruptus (i.e. withdrawal/"pulling out"). Both are quite effectively when properly used.
When used properly, condoms are 98% effective. Condoms are also the most effective form of birth control at preventing infections.
Withdrawal, when done properly is 96% effective for preventing pregnancy; the exception being if the man had ejaculated in the previous 2 hours as pre-ejaculate will contain live sperm in that setting.
While these are less effective than hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices (both have <1% failure rate when used properly), they are 2 effective methods.
You can stake your daughter's future on that. I wouldn't. All this talk about self-sufficiency, two-is-one-and-one-is-none, and personal responsibility yet a woman is supposed to trust her entire future on the willpower of some guy or his skill at applying a condom?
One preemie in neonatal intensive care for three months can cost $2M. I pay 100% of my medical premiums. I say bring on the funded birth control.
She could be unmarried and monogamous or celibate and taking birth control for other health related reasons. There are plenty of women in both situations.
Yeah. My daughter is in a similar situation.
Wonder what the percentage is? Prolly less than 1%.
afchic-
yougotme ;)
I am of the opinion that generally no one should have to pay for anyone's medical care with regards to a few exceptions (elderly people, people caught in a Catch-22 where they need medicine in order to be able to work again, but can't afford said medicine unless they can work, etc...). Birth control for people who want to engage in sexual intercourse, they can purchase, just as they purchase Tylenol if they have a cold, or cough medicine, or a multivitamin for nutritional purposes, or any of a variety of things.
One day non-libs will realize that the libs are working toward a goal of "free" stuff for everybody. Everything. With each incremental piece of legislation, they get closer to realizing the ultimate objective.
There are already areas, in my understanding, where you get your housing, trans, communication (cells included), food and medical treatment, basically, for free. In this Country.
Who's paying for it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA
Nope, not that easy. It's coming from the 1 percenters.
This keeps popping up in this thread. Am I missing something? What taxpayer funds? If we're discussing private insurance paid for by a University or an employer, where are the taxpayer funds coming into it?
I must be missing that same thing. BTW, GU students are required to pay for the GU insurance plan.
Ok, well, in that case -- just because someone doesn't want to put the donut down and get on the treadmill doesn't mean his healthcare provider should have to provide him with high-blood pressure medication.
Just because someone doesn't want to put the cigarette down doesn't mean his healthcare provider should have to provide him with chemotherapy.
Makes you start to wonder about the term "healthcare provider" doesn't it?
They pay higher premiums for such things. Now should we pay for their higher premiums or Ms. Flukes? I think not...
I am of the opinion that generally no one should have to pay for anyone's medical care with regards to a few exceptions (elderly people, people caught in a Catch-22 where they need medicine in order to be able to work again, but can't afford said medicine unless they can work, etc...). Birth control for people who want to engage in sexual intercourse, they can purchase, just as they purchase Tylenol if they have a cold, or cough medicine, or a multivitamin for nutritional purposes, or any of a variety of things.
Do you have health care insurance, or do pay as you go?
In the end, all Ms. Fluke will have accomplished is to offer her name up as a euphemism for a sexual act alongside Ms. Lewenski.
Pat
alright4u
03-06-2012, 15:58
They do? I have hypothyrodism that requires daily medication...I don't pay higher premiums. My husband's ex wife had breast cancer treatment, he didn't pay higher premiums for her. Maybe if you're self employed and have to pay premiums out of pocket, but otherwise I don't see it. I think you may be thinking of life insurance, which is a little different ball game.
Broadsword: You kind of already do pay for other people's medical treatment. (Let's shelve the Obama care thing, cause that's a whole different thread.) But the premiums either you or your employer pay for private health insurance help pay for the care of all the people ( including you) that utilize that insurance plan.
That is the difference.
craigepo
03-06-2012, 17:03
This conversation has made me curious.
In today's moral/immoral/amoral society, is the term "slut" archaic? I assume we all define "slut" as a sexually hyperactive unmarried female human. Well, almost 1/2 of all children born in the U.S. are born out of wedlock. TV shows such as Jersey Shore and Sex in the City prevail on television primetime. Essentially, our society has beaten into the heads of our single females that sexual promiscuity is ok, and even a good thing.
If this is the case, why would we use the term "slut", which has a wholly derogatory meaning, for an activity that is now within normal limits?
Health Insurance?
Why is health insurance not like car insurance - an individual shops around for the coverage they want - and pays that premium?
When it goes into a group policy "you" end up funding someone else's life choices - and wishes.
This conversation has made me curious.
In today's moral/immoral/amoral society, is the term "slut" archaic? I assume we all define "slut" as a sexually hyperactive unmarried female human. Well, almost 1/2 of all children born in the U.S. are born out of wedlock. TV shows such as Jersey Shore and Sex in the City prevail on television primetime. Essentially, our society has beaten into the heads of our single females that sexual promiscuity is ok, and even a good thing.
If this is the case, why would we use the term "slut", which has a wholly derogatory meaning, for an activity that is now within normal limits?
It's socially acceptable to be a "slut", by definition, in these times. It's one of the effects of the feminist movement.
Another effect can be seen on most commercials involving couples where the man is portrayed as a dumbass sissy milquetoast cringing while his better half roars.
"Empowerment" of females is all well and good unless reality steps in and a mouse, bug or boogie man appears. :D
........"Empowerment" of females is all well and good unless reality steps in and a mouse, bug or boogie man appears. :D
Or Flat Tire............
I generally stay completely away from posting in any debate or hardy conversation thread on here because I am usually way out of my intellectual depth.
However, as a young, female who uses prescription birth control for both the purpose of preventing pregnancy and for other health related issues, I am at least throwing in my two cents.
I think Rush very effectively played in to the hands of his political opposition and could have chosen his words better but he's Rush Limbaugh, so it really wasn't surprising.
I will admit that I haven't followed this issue very closely, so I might not have complete facts. I did see above where someone mentioned a $1,000 annual expense for birth control. I find contention and fault with those numbers. I was uninsured for the entire year of 2008, a full time student, and working when I could. My income at the time was considered below poverty level. I still managed to afford my prescription every month. I opted to change over to the generic version and had it filled at Walmart. The most I ever paid was $25/month. 25 x 12 = $300. That's a far cry from $1000. I also had and have friends who went to the local Health Department, where the cost was negligible.
It has never occurred to me that someone else should pay for my pills. Though, I guess one could argue in theory since I have Tricare now and do not pay a co-pay for them, that someone else does. I've also never viewed my choice to take them so I could prevent pregnancy as a "right".
Should they be available to every woman? Yes. Should they be free or government subsidized? No.
Oh and just to throw it out there. I squash my own bugs and change my own tires. :)
This conversation has made me curious.
In today's moral/immoral/amoral society, is the term "slut" archaic? I assume we all define "slut" as a sexually hyperactive unmarried female human. Well, almost 1/2 of all children born in the U.S. are born out of wedlock. TV shows such as Jersey Shore and Sex in the City prevail on television primetime. Essentially, our society has beaten into the heads of our single females that sexual promiscuity is ok, and even a good thing.
If this is the case, why would we use the term "slut", which has a wholly derogatory meaning, for an activity that is now within normal limits?Judge--
With respect, I believe you may be unfairly grouping a show like Sex in the City with Jersey Shore. Yes, the two shows do center around the life styles of "party girls."
However, SITC constantly raised questions about what do party girls do when it is time to become women? And, what are the long term implications of a sexually liberated life style when a practitioner of that lifestyle decides she no longer wants to play life "just for fun"?*
My observation, based in part from having a party girl as a housemate and watching her and her friends make the transition from "playing for fun" to living for keeps, is that "slut," and the behavior the word signifies, still have unflattering connotations.
IMO, these connotations remain unflattering, and therefore controversial, because discussions of women and women's behavior in America often take place in arenas and use terms that are defined by men and that are enforced by the dynamics of patriarchy. While such discussions and the terms thereof have their merits, there's a price to paid for imposing a set of normative assumptions when discussing matters of endless subjectivity--the nature and power of women's sexuality.
Consequently, when Mr. Limbaugh repeatedly called Ms. Fluke a "slut" he was intentionally pressing a button to send a clear message: I, a man, am going to put you, a woman, in your place. And that place--by the nature of your wanton sexuality--is subservient to me, a man.**
So now, the discussion is no longer about the proper role of government in healthcare or the relationship among insurance providers, medical doctors, and patients, or about understanding American women in their own terms.***
Now, it is now about power. Specifically, the power of men over women.
__________________________________________________ __
* See, especially, SITC, episode 3.6, "Are We Sluts?" (original air date, 16 July 2000). Currently, NBC's Whitney and Are You There, Chelsea, address some of the same issues but with less success.
** IMO, it is instructive that AFCHIC who can hardly be described as Birkenstock wearing, tree hugging feminist has attempted with limited success--yet--to draw our attention to contradictory nature of Mr. Limbaugh's comments. (MOO, the man's fear of women's sexuality was announced to the world when he got arrested for smuggling Viagra. (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html))
*** It is ironic that in her "testimony," Ms. Fluke was essentially raising the concern that opponents to the Demcrats' health care bill raised--the prospect of third parties intervening in a patient's options because of business decisions. Why is it that some opponents preferred the hypothetical example of a "death panel" when there were real world examples ready to use?
The Reaper
03-06-2012, 19:20
....Consequently, when Mr. Limbaugh repeatedly called Ms. Fluke a "slut" he was intentionally pressing a button to send a clear message: I, a man, am going to put you, a woman, in your place. And that place--by the nature of your wanton sexuality--is subservient to me, a man.**
Are we to understand that you are now telepathic, Sigaba?
My system must be broken, I did not get that from my reading of his comments.
TR
Judge--
With respect, I believe you may be unfairly grouping a show like Sex in the City with Jersey Shore. Yes, the two shows do center around the life styles of "party girls."
However, SITC constantly raised questions about what do party girls do when it is time to become women? And, what are the long term implications of a sexually liberated life style when a practitioner of that lifestyle decides she no longer wants to play life "just for fun"?*
My observation, based in part from having a party girl as a housemate and watching her and her friends make the transition from "playing for fun" to living for keeps, is that "slut," and the behavior the word signifies, still have unflattering connotations.
IMO, these connotations remain unflattering, and therefore controversial, because discussions of women and women's behavior in America often take place in arenas and use terms that are defined by men and that are enforced by the dynamics of patriarchy. While such discussions and the terms thereof have their merits, there's a price to paid for imposing a set of normative assumptions when discussing matters of endless subjectivity--the nature and power of women's sexuality.
Consequently, when Mr. Limbaugh repeatedly called Ms. Fluke a "slut" he was intentionally pressing a button to send a clear message: I, a man, am going to put you, a woman, in your place. And that place--by the nature of your wanton sexuality--is subservient to me, a man.**
So now, the discussion is no longer about the proper role of government in healthcare or the relationship among insurance providers, medical doctors, and patients, or about understanding American women in their own terms.***
Now, it is now about power. Specifically, the power of men over women.
__________________________________________________ __
* See, especially, SITC, episode 3.6, "Are We Sluts?" (original air date, 16 July 2000). Currently, NBC's Whitney and Are You There, Chelsea, address some of the same issues but with less success.
** IMO, it is instructive that AFCHIC who can hardly be described as Birkenstock wearing, tree hugging feminist has attempted with limited success--yet--to draw our attention to contradictory nature of Mr. Limbaugh's comments. (MOO, the man's fear of women's sexuality was announced to the world when he got arrested for smuggling Viagra. (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-1753947.html))
*** It is ironic that in her "testimony," Ms. Fluke was essentially raising the concern that opponents to the Demcrats' health care bill raised--the prospect of third parties intervening in a patient's options because of business decisions. Why is it that some opponents preferred the hypothetical example of a "death panel" when there were real world examples ready to use?
How metro.
.......Now, it is now about power. Specifically, the power of "Conservative" men over women....................
It would appear that this is about "Conservative" men and power over women. Libs don't seem to have any problem with their kind calling conservative women sluts.
Oh, right. Conservative women at sluts so the libs are just telling the truth.
So it boils down to this. You want to have sex and are of childbearing age? PAY FOR YOUR OWN DAMNED BIRTH CONTROL. Or don't have sex.
So now, the discussion is no longer about the proper role of government in healthcare or the relationship among insurance providers, medical doctors, and patients, or about understanding American women in their own terms.**
Sigaba, there is no proper role of government in any of the above.
Are we to understand that you are now telepathic, Sigaba?
My system must be broken, I did not get that from my reading of his comments.
TRI'm not telepathic. I use Twitter. If Mr. Limbaugh's comments were as innocent he alleges, then why does the controversy arc across the political spectrum? Is everyone else misunderstanding him?
It would appear that this is about "Conservative" men and power over women. Libs don't seem to have any problem with their kind calling conservative women sluts.
Oh, right. Conservative women at sluts so the libs are just telling the truth. FWIW, feminists critics of liberal activism have been making this point for decades. (And it is among the first points made in college courses.)
MOO, the Democrats demonstrated during Clinton presidency and again during the 2008 primary season that they are as good at this as any other cohort in America. Yet, we give them excuses to point the finger at the right rather than to look in the mirror.
tom kelly
03-06-2012, 21:31
The best form of birth control is Abstinence; By both male & female and that does not cost the Taxpayer one cent...TK
ZonieDiver
03-06-2012, 21:50
For me, there is this: I equate conservatives with SF. In SF, I found you had to be a 'step above' because EVERYone had you in their crosshairs. You couldn't make mistakes that others could. You are held to a higher standard
Conservatives, like SF, operate in the environment that exists, not necessarily the environment that should be. As such, they (conservatives, or SF) MUST conform to that environment, not 'swim against it.'
Libs are going to get a 'pass' for saying slut, conservatives aren't. Duh! DON'T use that language. Use some SA. Work to change the environment, but don't disregard it!
Pissing into the wind just gets piss all over you. Limbaugh is a clown. He should be disavowed, ridiculed, and minimized by ALL true conservatives. He does us no good, and I posit that he never has.
GratefulCitizen
03-06-2012, 21:51
Coming to a math textbook in your public school:
Ms. Fluke only had three condoms left and five guys to have sex with that day.
If each condom cost the school that she attends $12 each how much money does Nancy Pelosi say that Catholic Church should pay per month for Ms. Fluke's sex adventures and how many condoms does Ms. Fluke need to buy in a month?
It would appear that this is about "Conservative" men and power over women. Libs don't seem to have any problem with their kind harassing women in any way, shape or form.
Had to fix that for you, Pete, as most of the left seems to have conveniently forgotten their bad boys' behavior (Clinton and Letterman, to name just two high profilers).
[QUOTE=Sigaba;438406]Judge--
With respect, I believe you may be unfairly grouping a show like Sex in the City with Jersey Shore. Yes, the two shows do center around the life styles of "party girls."
However, SITC constantly raised questions about what do party girls do when it is time to become women? And, what are the long term implications of a sexually liberated life style when a practitioner of that lifestyle decides she no longer wants to play life "just for fun"?*
My observation, based in part from having a party girl as a housemate and watching her and her friends make the transition from "playing for fun" to living for keeps, is that "slut," and the behavior the word signifies, still have unflattering connotations.
IMO, these connotations remain unflattering, and therefore controversial, because discussions of women and women's behavior in America often take place in arenas and use terms that are defined by men and that are enforced by the dynamics of patriarchy. While such discussions and the terms thereof have their merits, there's a price to paid for imposing a set of normative assumptions when discussing matters of endless subjectivity--the nature and power of women's sexuality.
Consequently, when Mr. Limbaugh repeatedly called Ms. Fluke a "slut" he was intentionally pressing a button to send a clear message: I, a man, am going to put you, a woman, in your place. And that place--by the nature of your wanton sexuality--is subservient to me, a man.**
So now, the discussion is no longer about the proper role of government in healthcare or the relationship among insurance providers, medical doctors, and patients, or about understanding American women in their own terms.***
Now, it is now about power. Specifically, the power of men over women.
__________________________________________________ __
Some thoughts for the sake of argument…
Could one argue that by virtue of this woman’s sexual indulgence that she was subservient to men as a “slut,” and that by calling her out on it, Limbaugh could be insinuating that she need not or should not (depending on the orientation of one's moral compass) be subservient to men (by having recreational sex with them) and should discontinue her practices or at the very least, accept the costs/consequences of her lifestyle decisions?
On a more elementary level...if I hear someone referred to as a slut, I don't think of putting her in "her place" below men but something more like putting her in her place as a person of lower class.
IMO, when I hear (or give) an insult, it has more to do with revealing to the target person the undesirability or repugnance of some particular character or physical trait. Ex) "She won't go out on a date with you because you're an a$$hole." If he wasn't mean/selfish/arrogant (undesirable traits about the man) then he may be a suitable date for the girl in my scenario. It's analogous to "If Fluke wasn't such a slut, this wouldn't be a problem." If Fluke didn't enroll at a school that didn't fit with her healthcare preferences and did not engage in recreational intercourse AND expect others to support it, this wouldn't be a problem. I could see the preceding as possible interpretations of using derogatory remarks.
YMMV
- Dan P
Some thoughts for the sake of argument…
Could one argue that by virtue of this woman’s sexual indulgence that she was subservient to men as a “slut,” and that by calling her out on it, Limbaugh could be insinuating that she need not or should not (depending on the orientation of one's moral compass) be subservient to men (by having recreational sex with them) and should discontinue her practices or at the very least, accept the costs/consequences of her lifestyle decisions?Dan P--
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and to consider its points.
Now, to return the favor.
If your hypothetical were the case, my response would be as follows. What business is it of Rush Limbaugh's to lecture anyone on the face of the earth IRT self-indulgent behavior? Is his moral compass pointing so true that he can take such a line with a person like Ms. Fluke--whom he's never met? And even if he could, what happened to the notion of praising in public and criticizing in public?
Insofar as a woman subordinating herself to men through "indulgent" behavior, this point is part of a sprawling debate on a massive BB elsewhere as well as on Twitter. My position there is the same as it is here. It is each woman's choice in how she expresses herself sexually as long as (a) her participation reflects an act of free will and an understanding of what she's doing, (c) she does not infringe upon the rights of her fellow citizens, and (b) she's willing to accept the consequences of her choices in her personal and professional life.
If I don't agree with a specific woman's specific choices, I have the ability to articulate my disagreement. However, I understand that my reservations are my problem, not hers.
On a more elementary level...if I hear someone referred to as a slut, I don't think of putting her in "her place" below men but something more like putting her in her place as a person of lower class. Is a barb thrown in the name of classicism any better or worse than one thrown in the name of gender identity? (IMO, the answer is 'no.')
IMO, when I hear (or give) an insult, it has more to do with revealing to the target person the undesirability or repugnance of some particular character or physical trait. Ex) "She won't go out on a date with you because you're an a$$hole." If he wasn't mean/selfish/arrogant (undesirable traits about the man) then he may be a suitable date for the girl in my scenario. It's analogous to "If Fluke wasn't such a slut, this wouldn't be a problem." If Fluke didn't enroll at a school that didn't fit with her healthcare preferences and did not engage in recreational intercourse AND expect others to support it, this wouldn't be a problem. I could see the preceding as possible interpretations of using derogatory remarks.
YMMV
- Dan PI understand your argument and we shall have to agree to disagree IRT Ms. Fluke. I agree with QP Zonie Diver that we need to do a better job at holding ourselves to our own values and to walking the talk. This need is especially urgent when we discuss matters centering around women's health. A slogan among many feminists is "The personal is political."* So why make it personal if one can keep the discussion about politics?
(And also, if one takes advance courses in snark, there are ways to get one's jabs in without calling someone a slut. Or so I've heard.)
__________________________________________________ _
* For a contrasting perspective, I'd refer one to Charlotte Beers's insightful discussion with Tavis Smiley on 20 February 2012 <<VIDEO LINK (http://video.pbs.org/video/2199093746/)>>.
Dan P--
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and to consider its points.
Now, to return the favor.
If your hypothetical were the case, my response would be as follows. What business is it of Rush Limbaugh's to lecture anyone on the face of the earth IRT self-indulgent behavior? Is his moral compass pointing so true that he can take such a line with a person like Ms. Fluke--whom he's never met? And even if he could, what happened to the notion of praising in public and criticizing in public?
Insofar as a woman subordinating herself to men through "indulgent" behavior, this point is part of a sprawling debate on a massive BB elsewhere as well as on Twitter. My position there is the same as it is here. It is each woman's choice in how she expresses herself sexually as long as (a) her participation reflects an act of free will and an understanding of what she's doing, (c) she does not infringe upon the rights of her fellow citizens, and (b) she's willing to accept the consequences of her choices in her personal and professional life.
If I don't agree with a specific woman's specific choices, I have the ability to articulate my disagreement. However, I understand that my reservations are my problem, not hers.
Is a barb thrown in the name of classicism any better or worse than one thrown in the name of gender identity? (IMO, the answer is 'no.')
I understand your argument and we shall have to agree to disagree IRT Ms. Fluke. I agree with QP Zonie Diver that we need to do a better job at holding ourselves to our own values and to walking the talk. This need is especially urgent when we discuss matters centering around women's health. A slogan among many feminists is "The personal is political."* So why make it personal if one can keep the discussion about politics?
(And also, if one takes advance courses in snark, there are ways to get one's jabs in without calling someone a slut. Or so I've heard.)
__________________________________________________ _
* For a contrasting perspective, I'd refer one to Charlotte Beers's insightful discussion with Tavis Smiley on 20 February 2012 <<VIDEO LINK (http://video.pbs.org/video/2199093746/)>>.
You have really gotten in touch with your feminine side, Sig. :D
You have really gotten in touch with your feminine side, Sig. :DIt comes from the Neutrogena skin care products.
It comes from the Neutrogena skin care products.
Neutrogena's made from veal extract...
It's socially acceptable to be a "slut", by definition, in these times. It's one of the effects of the feminist movement.
Another effect can be seen on most commercials involving couples where the man is portrayed as a dumbass sissy milquetoast cringing while his better half roars.
"Empowerment" of females is all well and good unless reality steps in and a mouse, bug or boogie man appears. :D
I have one of the most masculine husbands you will ever meet, who is scared to death of cob spiders. I have to do all the killing in our house.
Or Flat Tire............
I wasn't allowed to get my drivers license until I could change a flat tire, the oil, and a fan belt. And no, none of those things involved me going to Valvoline and having it done for me :)
I have one of the most masculine husbands you will ever meet, who is scared to death of cob spiders. I have to do all the killing in our house.
Who wouldn't be scared of cob spiders?
On a more elementary level...if I hear someone referred to as a slut, I don't think of putting her in "her place" below men but something more like putting her in her place as a person of lower class.
- Dan P
When I hear a woman referred to as a slut or skank (which I think is a rough equivalent), it's generally by another woman who is simply describing her as having low moral standards. So, I suspect you're right.
MOO
Tweeder11
03-07-2012, 11:30
Libs are going to get a 'pass' for saying slut, conservatives aren't. Duh! DON'T use that language. Use some SA. Work to change the environment, but don't disregard it!
Pissing into the wind just gets piss all over you. Limbaugh is a clown. He should be disavowed, ridiculed, and minimized by ALL true conservatives. He does us no good, and I posit that he never has.
AGREED 100%
Olbermann and Bill Maher can insult people because they represent "the small people", but when Rush said his gem it's the "big bad conservatives picking on little Miss college student who can't afford healthcare".
Right now on all forms of social media, you have women (and men) outraged at this "Conservative PIG" creating sympathy for liberals during election season. Wanna drive a woman to the poles? Call her a slut.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
AGREED 100%
Olbermann and Bill Maher can insult people because they represent "the small people", but when Rush said his gem it's the "big bad conservatives picking on little Miss college student who can't afford healthcare".
Right now on all forms of social media, you have women (and men) outraged at this "Conservative PIG" creating sympathy for liberals during election season. Wanna drive a woman to the poles? Call her a slut.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
You guys are doing exactly what the liberals want you to.
I also don't think either of you actually listen to Rush.
You guys are doing exactly what the liberals want you to.
I also don't think either of you actually listen to Rush.
Tet Offensive. Facts don't matter.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've said "have you ever actually listened to Limbaugh/O'Reilly?" I agree with about 80% of what they say. That doesn't lessen the damage. Obama's approval rating with independent women is spiking and if he doesn't get an additional $10M from just this issue alone I'll be shocked.
Tweeder11
03-07-2012, 13:04
QP Dusty,
You guys are doing exactly what the liberals want you to.
What is it the liberals want me to do?
I also don't think either of you actually listen to Rush.
I don't see this as relevant IMHO. I am a conservative. I will vote Republican, however I can fully understand how a woman (on the fence or independent) who sees this as an attack against her lifestyle, be swayed to vote for BHO.
That's all I'm referring to, it doesn't alter my vote either way. This is politics sadly.
Respectfully
Tweeder
QP Dusty,
What is it the liberals want me to do?
I don't see this as relevant IMHO. I am a conservative. I will vote Republican, however I can fully understand how a woman (on the fence or independent) who sees this as an attack against her lifestyle, be swayed to vote for BHO.
That's all I'm referring to, it doesn't alter my vote either way. This is politics sadly.
Respectfully
Tweeder
How often do you listen to the Limbaugh radio program?
Tweeder11
03-07-2012, 13:25
How often do you listen to the Limbaugh radio program?
QP Dusty,
I do not. Ever. I'm not claiming to. Neither does the CIC, who called and slammed Rush. I'm just saying this is MO for liberals.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
QP Dusty,
I do not. Ever. I'm not claiming to. Neither does the CIC, who called and slammed Rush. I'm just saying this is MO for liberals.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
Gotcha.
How often do you listen to the Limbaugh radio program?
Not since the last commercial break - and since it was leading into the 3:00PM news break that's it until tomorrow.
Not since the last commercial break - and since it was leading into the 3:00PM news break that's it until tomorrow.
Roger.
I find I disagree with the man almost .3% of the time, you know.
I find I disagree with the man almost .3% of the time, you know.
Racist
:D
This is a separate issue from this thread, but that happens in sitcoms too (the man is the lumbering oaf kept in check by the straight-thinking woman). Started around the early 1980s I think. It was from the feminist movement and a reaction I suppose to the old stereotypes of the helpless woman and the toughguy man. The part of the feminist movement that seeks to destroy old-fashioned manliness (as opposed to the part that just seeks equality) I think unfortunately confused old-fashioned manliness with chauvinism, its nasty cousin that it often gets confused with. So much have "man skills" gone into decline among many men that websites like this have become very popular: Art of Manliness (http://artofmanliness.com/)
One thing some have commented on in the media is how when all is well and good in the world, the metrosexual type men are popular with a lot of women. But then when the proverbial crap hits the fan (natural disaster, terrorist attack, etc...) the old-fashioned tough-guy man that the left wants to destroy suddenly comes into fashion. We saw that when 9/11 hit and suddenly firefighters, police officers, soldiers, etc...all had a newfound respect from the populace.
Exactly.
When I came of age, what is referred to as a "metrosexual" these days would be called a "sissy" or worse. In Dallas, definitely worse.
And the women these days-somebody tell me exactly when it became en vogue to be a man with tits?
IMO, I think the two extremes may finally be converging to a middleground. A man can be cultured, "in touch with his emotions," etc...but still a MAN and a woman can be able to hunt, fish, use firearms, kill a moose, etc...but still very much an effiminate woman (Sarah Palin I think pulls that image off brilliantly).
"Outdoorsiness" isn't exactly the quality I was inferring by "man with tits", but I understand what you mean.
tom kelly
03-07-2012, 15:16
I have one of the most masculine husbands you will ever meet, who is scared to death of cob spiders. I have to do all the killing in our house.
You may not want to tell your husband this, but everyone is within 7 feet of a spider:......TK
You may not want to tell your husband this, but everyone is within 7 feet of a spider:......TK
Not Cob Spiders, though. (They're nearly extinct.)
This is a separate issue from this thread, but that happens in sitcoms too (the man is the lumbering oaf kept in check by the straight-thinking woman). Started around the early 1980s I think. Have you ever studied the classics? (And I mean dudes like Homer, not Homer Simpson.)
Bluntly, I think you do a little too much spit balling on some very important issues. (In this case, the use of American mass popular culture to address gender relations.) One does not need to be a SME to have an opinion. However, frequent demonstrations of vagueness and imprecision raise the question: Is one confusing matters of opinion for matters of fact?
Not only has the "wise woman" setting the straight the oafish man been a convention for centuries, that theme in American situation comedies was established well Diane Chambers walked into Sam Malone's bar. (I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Flintstones, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Maude, All in the Family, Alice, One Day at a Time, The Jeffersons, Good Times . . .if one is not going to study a subject seriously, one can at least point one's web browser at IMDB.COM, fire up the the cable set-top box, and pop open a can of Coca Cola.)
Don't forget that wise Latina - Justice Sonia Sotomayor...
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
She'll be setting us straight for some time.
Have you ever studied the classics? (And I mean dudes like Homer, not Homer Simpson.)
Bluntly, I think you do a little too much spit balling on some very important issues. (In this case, the use of American mass popular culture to address gender relations.) One does not need to be a SME to have an opinion. However, frequent demonstrations of vagueness and imprecision raise the question: Is one confusing matters of opinion for matters of fact?
Not only has the "wise woman" setting the straight the oafish man been a convention for centuries, that theme in American situation comedies was established well Diane Chambers walked into Sam Malone's bar. (I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Flintstones, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Maude, All in the Family, Alice, One Day at a Time, The Jeffersons, Good Times . . .if one is not going to study a subject seriously, one can at least point one's web browser at IMDB.COM, fire up the the cable set-top box, and pop open a can of Coca Cola.)
This post should bleed pink. The Classics? One Day at a Time, The Jeffersons, Good Times...Bwaha!
You funny, Sig.
Besides, "oafish" is all right if you're a bus driver, dockworker, et al. The weenie husbands these days are literally, visibly frightened and intimidated by their wives.
The Reaper
03-07-2012, 20:52
The weenie husbands these days are literally, visibly frightened and intimidated by their wives.
Not Ralphie Boy!
"One of these days, Alice. POW!! Right to the moon!!"
TR
Besides, "oafish" is all right if you're a bus driver, dockworker, et al. The weenie husbands these days are literally, visibly frightened and intimidated by their wives.You should see members of a cohort I call "yoga moms" out here in the TMZ. They send a strong "I'll drive this Prius through the front of this Whole Food Market if you mess with me" vibe. They talk trash without accountability as they read the current edition of Helicopter Parenting Made Easy on their iPads.
I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek here, but my point remains the same. Members of the opposition are as angry as some of us are. (Not me, of course, I'm even tempered...I'm pissed off all the time.) If we take the high ground by ratcheting down the vitriol, we may lose some of the political skirmishes but in the long run, we'll carry the day.
My $0.02.
Dan P--
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and to consider its points.
Now, to return the favor.
If your hypothetical were the case, my response would be as follows. What business is it of Rush Limbaugh's to lecture anyone on the face of the earth IRT self-indulgent behavior? Is his moral compass pointing so true that he can take such a line with a person like Ms. Fluke--whom he's never met? And even if he could, what happened to the notion of praising in public and criticizing in public?
I’ll admit that I do not follow Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, and that I know little of his moral compass. I might add that, and this ties into your point about “walking the talk,” that if one is not guilty of the alleged transgression that he’s pointing out in others, then he may have ground to stand on. That being said, that is often not the case with 99.9% of people. If we use the analogy of a murderer or pedophile, I think many people would feel justified in lecturing/judging those who are guilty of these acts insofar as they have not committed them themselves. Now to contradict myself, I think all of us are guilty of some transgression or another and may be unfit for publicly criticizing others for doing the same things we have, which may have been the case with Limbaugh.
Insofar as a woman subordinating herself to men through "indulgent" behavior, this point is part of a sprawling debate on a massive BB elsewhere as well as on Twitter. My position there is the same as it is here. It is each woman's choice in how she expresses herself sexually as long as (a) her participation reflects an act of free will and an understanding of what she's doing, (c) she does not infringe upon the rights of her fellow citizens, and (b) she's willing to accept the consequences of her choices in her personal and professional life.
Concur.
If I don't agree with a specific woman's specific choices, I have the ability to articulate my disagreement. However, I understand that my reservations are my problem, not hers.
Is a barb thrown in the name of classicism any better or worse than one thrown in the name of gender identity? (IMO, the answer is 'no.')
WRT gender identity, correct me if I’m wrong since I’m not putting words in your mouth, but by your post I was given the impression that the barb was more about sex than gender identity. Specifically, this “I, a man, am going to put you, a woman, in your place. And that place--by the nature of your wanton sexuality--is subservient to me, a man.”
If this were the case, a person’s sex is unchangeable (barring surgery) and therefore is not a “fair” characteristic to attack someone for. However, WRT my comments on pointing out a woman’s behavior and her being of low class, those are lifestyle decisions that people can decide to engage in or not, and may be “fair game” for attack (Not that it’s necessarily morally sound to slander someone). Criticizing someone’s lifestyle choices is different from attacking them based on sex. As to how “right” Limbaugh was in speaking of Fluke this way, I think we’d agree that it was not a good decision, as it was not constructive criticism but just an offensive comment.
- Dan P.
Not Ralphie Boy!
"One of these days, Alice. POW!! Right to the moon!!"
TR
You just brought up a great memory of my dad, he LOVED that show.
You just brought up a great memory of my day, he LOVED that show.
Not to hijack, but remember when Ralph wouldn't let Ed fix his sandwich because he hadn't washed his hands? Ed goes, "My hands are in water all day!" :D
Not to hijack, but remember when Ralph wouldn't let Ed fix his sandwich because he hadn't washed his hands? Ed goes, "My hands are in water all day!" :D
:D
I loved watching reruns of this show, wish I could find them again.
ZonieDiver
03-08-2012, 19:44
:D
I loved watching reruns of this show, wish I could find them again.
Everything is available somewhere! I've got "Lone Ranger," "Sea Hunt," "Branded," "Cisco Kid"... and a couple others. When I get maudlin...
Everything is available somewhere! I've got "Lone Ranger," "Sea Hunt," "Branded," "Cisco Kid"... and a couple others. When I get maudlin...
I'd like to find "T.H.E. Cat" "The Rebel" and "The Rat Patrol".
FedFarmer
03-08-2012, 20:29
Have you ever studied the classics? (And I mean dudes like Homer, not Homer Simpson.)
Bluntly, I think you do a little too much spit balling on some very important issues. (In this case, the use of American mass popular culture to address gender relations.) One does not need to be a SME to have an opinion. However, frequent demonstrations of vagueness and imprecision raise the question: Is one confusing matters of opinion for matters of fact?
Not only has the "wise woman" setting the straight the oafish man been a convention for centuries, that theme in American situation comedies was established well Diane Chambers walked into Sam Malone's bar. (I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, The Flintstones, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Maude, All in the Family, Alice, One Day at a Time, The Jeffersons, Good Times . . .if one is not going to study a subject seriously, one can at least point one's web browser at IMDB.COM, fire up the the cable set-top box, and pop open a can of Coca Cola.)
I agree. FWIW, Ancient Greek comedies by the likes of Aristophanes and Plautus often contained a half-witted father/husband who was the target of ridicule from the audience (the "lusty old man."); some of those comedies by Plautus seem like ancient versions of "Modern Family." It seems pretty harmless to me, especially when you consider that they are designed to make people laugh, not change societal mores.
"The Rat Patrol".
I have been watching TRP on Netflix Steaming. About 1/3 of the way through the episodes they dropped streaming and now only offer it on DVDs. That's two different subscriptions. I have both anyway, but this is why some are pissed at NF.
I grimace every time I see those guys on the M2's bouncing over the dunes. :D
Pat
longrange1947
03-08-2012, 21:53
.......................................
I grimace every time I see those guys on the M2's bouncing over the dunes. :D
Pat
You do realize that some teeth were lost on the dune jump right?? :munchin :D
ZonieDiver
03-08-2012, 22:45
I have been watching TRP on Netflix Steaming. About 1/3 of the way through the episodes they dropped streaming and now only offer it on DVDs. That's two different subscriptions. I have both anyway, but this is why some are pissed at NF.
I grimace every time I see those guys on the M2's bouncing over the dunes. :D
Pat
I'm coming to your house! I'd love "Rat Patrol" episodes... whether it was "Has Gudegast" as the bad guy or his later incarnation in daytime soap operas as Eric Braedan in "The Young and the Restless"! (Which, by the way, starred a HS graduating classmate of mine - Jaime Lynn Bauer... Norma Bauer at Maryvale HS class of '67).
Of course, Christopher Day George married Lynda Day George, from North HS, Phoenix, AZ... along with Nick Nolte!
Of course, Christopher Day George married Lynda Day George, from North HS, Phoenix, AZ... along with Nick Nolte!
Double ceremony?
Anyway, Maher got a pass where Limbaugh didn't. Who'd have thought?
You do realize that some teeth were lost on the dune jump right?? :munchin :D
I didn't, but I'm not surprised. I am surprised that spines weren't snapped. :eek:
I'm coming to your house! I'd love "Rat Patrol" episodes... whether it was "Has Gudegast" as the bad guy or his later incarnation in daytime soap operas as Eric Braedan in "The Young and the Restless"! (Which, by the way, starred a HS graduating classmate of mine - Jaime Lynn Bauer... Norma Bauer at Maryvale HS class of '67).
Of course, Christopher Day George married Lynda Day George, from North HS, Phoenix, AZ... along with Nick Nolte!
The "Welcome Mat" is out, but the deck is still a work-in-progress. And Gennie is still our sole source of power.
Pat
I have been watching TRP on Netflix Steaming. About 1/3 of the way through the episodes they dropped streaming and now only offer it on DVDs. That's two different subscriptions. I have both anyway, but this is why some are pissed at NF.
I grimace every time I see those guys on the M2's bouncing over the dunes. :D
Pat
I managed to get both seasons in before they dropped it from streaming. You guys had some good TV back in the day :D
http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-oreilly/2012/03/08/factor-investigation-ex-obama-official-running-sandra-fluke
frostfire
03-09-2012, 16:48
While promiscuous men who are her partners are Studs.:rolleyes:
Saw this coming from a mile away:rolleyes: The ever-present ***** envy.
I've heard this objection since grade school till today. Is it really case of mars vs venus origin? A case of misogynist prevalence? A double standard?
I submit to you that it is not for there's a logical explanation.
Stud vs slut. Good vs negative connotation. Winners vs losers. How so?
Well, last time I checked....even to this day, the majority case is still male chasing the female. Male on the offense, female on the defense. Thus, the term "to score." It's like the reverse of marriage, where the bride is complemented by the term"nice catch." So when the gal loses it, she's the loser, and the guy is the winner. A simple empirical evidence are gals who say they play hard to get as not to be labelled a slut.
Female bear the physiological manifestation of loss of virginity. Male does not. Both bear the mental/psychological/spiritual aftermath. Male produce millions of sperm, whereas female one or two eggs in the same time frame. In the reproductive supply-demand analogy, hers is more "precious" and therefore worth defending from millions of crap. Once again, offense and defense. Stud vs slut.
'course, thanks to the continuous degradation of society's moral fabrique and feminazi movement, both are now on the same grounds with the term "man-slut." Equality at all cost, right?
FWIW, I don't view promiscious-james-bond-type guys as studs or winners, but fools at best who set themselves up for failure with their future or current marriage, parenthood, etc. Likewise with the gals.
It is sad that thanks to feminist/feminazi movement, for some gals, the means to gain women empowement is to plunge into the same immoral level that most guys indulge in. Most are in rude awakening once they realize that the playing field does not stay level as they age.
I disagree with RL's name calling. There are more eloquent ways to call a spade as a spade. At the same time, with many years of practice, he surely knows some words are way more potent than others to evoke strong emotinal response which he successfully empoyed as evidenced by this thread and many others. The student is just as masterful as stirring the pot as RL. She was/is a reproductive advocate fer cyrin' out loud. Yea, I'm sure she takes birth control for other medical reasons :rolleyes:
I just always likened this envy to the masterlock theory.
A key that opens many doors is a master key while a lock that is opened by every key is a shitty lock
It is sad that thanks to feminist/feminazi movement, for some gals, the means to gain women [empowerment] is to plunge into the same immoral level that most guys indulge in.I question the cause/effect relationship depicted in this statement--and not just because it imposes a patriarchal definition of morality on women. The argument that the changing sensibilities of women's sexuality is primarily due to feminazism:rolleyes: is difficult to sustain if one is familiar with twentieth century American history.
Even a casual study of feminisms in America would reveal that there are deep cleavages (pardon the pun) among feminists about sexual behavior and personal responsibility. Just because "some gals" decide to explore their sexuality and have multiple partners doesn't mean that they're feminists. One of the longest running debates among feminists is about the fundamental nature of pr0n. Some feminists view it as liberating, others contend that it re-enforces the sexual objectification of women. (Give me a $50,000 research grant and I'll settle this issue once and for all.) The most sexually active woman I've met in the last twenty years is, in fact, a conservative who is to the right of many QPs on this BB and despises the concept of feminism with a passion. In her memoir, Kayla Williams spends time discussing the sexual activities of herself and her fellow soldiers in Iraq (http://www.amazon.com/Love-Rifle-More-than-You/dp/0393329224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331336287&sr=8-1). These two three suggest that other factors may be in the mix.
I think that it is very important that we discussthe social, political, economic, cultural, and interpersonal implications of Americans' sexual practices. As a society, we might need to do more to help keep the "girl next door" from getting a one way ticket to Pr0n Valley because she thinks that's the only way she can gain affection.
Yes, strippers have to come from somewhere. For many it is an informed career choice. But some strippers may gain a higher sense of self efficacy if they wrap their hands around a college text book than a pole.
Consequently, I do think that this conversation needs to be responsible. Our own personal preferences, political views, beliefs, experiences, and best practices do not preclude us from understanding the differences between matters of fact and matters of opinion.
But then, that's just my opinion.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73829.html
Rush Limbaugh has drawn the ire of celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who sent a letter to the Palm Beach County state attorney requesting an investigation into whether the popular radio host should be prosecuted for calling a law student a “slut” and “prostitute” last week.
“Mr. Limbaugh targeted his attack on a young law student who was simply exercised her free speech and her right to testify before congress on a very important issue to millions of American women and he vilified her. He defamed her and engaged in unwarranted, tasteless and exceptionally damaging attacks on her,” Allred told POLITICO Friday afternoon. “He needs to face the consequences of his conduct in every way that is meaningful.”
In a letter dated March 8, Allred, writing on behalf of the Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund, requested that Palm Beach County State Attorney Michael McAuliffe probe whether the conservative radio personality had violated Section 836.04 of the Florida Statutes by calling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke the two derogatory words.
The statute stipulates that anyone who “speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity” is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. Allred explained that the statute recently came to her attention as having never been repealed, and that it could very well apply to Limbaugh’s remarks as his show is broadcast from West Palm Beach.
It is now entirely up to the prosecutor to exercise his discretion on whether there will be a prosecution. McAuliffe did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Allred, whose most recent high-profile clients have included Sharon Bialek, who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment, and porn star Ginger Lee, who exchanged explicit emails with former Rep. Anthony Weiner, said Friday that she has not yet been in touch with Fluke.
“I don’t reach out to women, they reach rout to me,” she said. “If she did reach out to me, obviously I would respond.”
Limbaugh’s contentious remarks, made against Fluke for testifying on Capitol Hill about women’s access to contraception, resulted in widespread public outrage and dozens of advertisers pulling their commercials from his three-hour program.
“I understand why sponsors are abandoning Mr. Limbaugh in droves,” Allred said. “I think sponsors that remain with him are supporting him and providing commercial dollars to him and his program, condoning what he said.”
She added, “Hitting him economically is one price that he has to pay. He needs to be accountable in every way possible.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73829.html#ixzz1ofZI0UG8
Gloria Allred co-hosted a radio talk show in Los Angeles several years ago. Before the '96 election, she had her 11 year-old grand-daughter on her show and asked her who she would vote for, if she could, and why. The grand-daughter proudly said Bill Clinton because he'd keep abortion legal.
Interesting that GA's daughter, Lisa Bloom, took her mother's maiden name, Bloom, but Gloria kept her married name, Allred. I wonder why (?)
Pat
MOO, Ms. Allred chases the spotlight too often. Also, I'd like to know what type of message she's trying to convey with her new television show. Her studio audience is increasingly populated by very good looking young women. The contestants/litigants are also often good looking women.
At a time when many raise questions about the objectification of women, is it okay to reenforce the premise that sex sells? (See what I did there?)
...Her studio audience is increasingly populated by very good looking young women. The contestants/litigants are also often good looking women...
As they say...useless without pics...;)
Interesting that GA's daughter, Lisa Bloom, took her mother's maiden name, Bloom, but Gloria kept her married name, Allred. I wonder why (?)
I thought all the men in that family were neutered. I wonder how they keep having offspring. :rolleyes:
I thought all the men in that family were neutered. I wonder how they keep having offspring. :rolleyes:
Sperm bank, perhaps? What man would knowingly procreate with either one of those harpies? Allred will huff and puff and push this until she somehow gets a settlement out of it. Some people continue to keep paying her to shut up (ie. Tiger Woods). Interesting little business plan she has crafted for herself and for her law firm.
Female bear the physiological manifestation of loss of virginity. Male does not. Both bear the mental/psychological/spiritual aftermath. Male produce millions of sperm, whereas female one or two eggs in the same time frame. In the reproductive supply-demand analogy, hers is more "precious" and therefore worth defending from millions of crap. Once again, offense and defense. Stud vs slut
Frostfire, while you are close IMHO, i do think you are a little off.
The reason women have been more chaste than men is because they bear the burden of pregnancy as well as the raising the child and that shouldn't be entered into lightly.
and not just because it imposes a patriarchal definition of morality on women
Sigaba, please give us the matriarchal definition of morality on women.
The argument that the changing sensibilities of women's sexuality is primarily due to feminazism is difficult to sustain if one is familiar with twentieth century American history.
That is exactly the cause IMHO.
I think that it is very important that we discussthe social, political, economic, cultural, and interpersonal implications of Americans' sexual practices. As a society, we might need to do more to help keep the "girl next door" from getting a one way ticket to Pr0n Valley because she thinks that's the only way she can gain affection.
What might this be. what else must society do to keep girls from being strippers and turning to porn as opposed to how we treat our boys....women already make up more then 60% of university/college students while still for the most part shunning the STEM subjects....Like maybe, just maybe some of the differences between men and women can be attributed to biological differences instead our rabid patriarchal society as feminist would have you believe.
Yes, strippers have to come from somewhere. For many it is an informed career choice. But some strippers may gain a higher sense of self efficacy if they wrap their hands around a college text book than a pole.
I thought you knew....stripping is just a means for women to pay for college.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmGcS-1PcKw
I thought you knew....stripping is just a means for women to pay for college.
Well...:eek:
Teacher With Porn Past Began X-Rated Career While Studying To Be An Educator
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Sigaba, please give us the matriarchal definition of morality on women.As noted in my previous post--which you apparently did not have the time to read very carefully--there are many types of feminism. For example, Mary Shelley called for holding men and women to the moral standards. Some feminists called for a higher level of standards for women and a 'separate sphere' because women are tasked with raising children. Others--especially those whose perspective is informed by psychoanalytic psychology--have called into question the entire construct of patriarchy and matriarchy because these categories get in the way of the individual's development of the self.
Again, the underlying point is that there is not a single type of feminism. All feminists do not walk to the same beat. Does painting feminists with the same brush expose effectively the myriad shortcomings and failings of their views? Or does the practice just point to the deficits of one's own knowledge?
That is exactly the cause IMHO.
Mono-causality makes for powerful political rhetoric when preaching to the choir. However, when it comes to making credible historical arguments--or getting those who disagree to reconsider their views--this approach is, IMO, of limited utility. [/COLOR]What might this be. what else must society do to keep girls from being strippers and turning to porn as opposed to how we treat our boys....women already make up more then 60% of university/college students while still for the most part shunning the STEM subjects....Like maybe, just maybe some of the differences between men and women can be attributed to biological differences instead our rabid patriarchal society as feminist would have you believe.For starters, you could read what I actually wrote. I said we "might need" to do more, I did not say "must."
What we might do is take a second and third look about the objectification of women as sexual objects in American culture. While you could point to "biological differences," between men and women there's also the possibility that, as rational beings, we can remind ourselves of Freud's central question: Does the horse ride the man or does the man ride the horse?
After all, when a woman with a pleasing form walks by a red blooded American male, does the ghost of Charles Darwin point a gun to his head and says "Look at her ass, or else I'll blow your brains out in the name of natural selection"? Or does the guy make a decision? FWIW, I make the decision to inspect carefully Orion5's avatar every time I see it--without Darwin's help. Wait, I actually do that. Ignore the pink, please.
(By the way, how does the practice of privileging biological imperatives over thought fit with the concept of American Exceptionalism? That concept is largely that predicated on the notion that the founders, as children of the Enlightenment, figured out a better way to do things and put in place a political philosophy that laid the ground work for continuous improvement within the framework of that philosophy?)
I thought you knew....stripping is just a means for women to pay for college. Well done!
PedOncoDoc
03-10-2012, 05:24
Male produce millions of sperm, whereas female one or two eggs in the same time frame. In the reproductive supply-demand analogy, hers is more "precious" and therefore worth defending from millions of crap.
Women produce and have all the eggs they will make at birth, but ovulate once a month (typically with one egg per cycle, but not always - hence fraternal twins).
Men make millions of sperm daily (and they call us lazy!:D)
Men can impregnate many female in a short period time - a women can only be impregnated once at a time (regardless of the number embryos fertilized). If carried to term, this takes ~40 weeks, and a woman often cannot get pregnant for a few months after delivering, especially if breastfeeding.
On a purely biologic level, one man could repopulate the species, but it would take many females in order for the species to survive. I think this is part of why men and women tend to view sex differently.
In nature - the male is driven to spread his seed/bloodline as much as possible while the female is driven to select the most genetically desirable mate.
............. while the female is driven to select the most genetically desirable mate.
Except the females as shown on cops..........
Except the females as shown on cops..........
...and commercials.
...and commercials.
Bud Lite commercials. ;)
Richard :munchin
frostfire
03-10-2012, 07:35
Frostfire, while you are close IMHO, i do think you are a little off.
The reason women have been more chaste than men is because they bear the burden of pregnancy as well as the raising the child and that shouldn't be entered into lightly.
I failed to set my boundary condition. I was referring to the current realm where with so much contraceptive measures, pregnancy can be 99%+ ruled out
entiire post
Hey Doc, thanks for upgrading my 3rd grade level assertion to college level and beyond :D
What we might do is take a second and third look about the objectification of women as sexual objects in American culture. While you could point to "biological differences," between men and women there's also the possibility that, as rational beings, we can remind ourselves of Freud's central question: Does the horse ride the man or does the man ride the horse?[/COLOR]
Again, trees vs the forest and the usual what is is. How about objectification of women as sexual object in men's eyes? Do we need any double blinded study to show this to be the case from Papua New Guinea to Alaska? From 1st to 21st century? From victorianism to liberalism?
Then again, you are correct. In the end, this is just my opinion ;) It might as well be winter in hades before I even come close to understanding the female psyche. I can only suspect that there's the attraction of power when it comes to promiscuity. Heard a stripper who said the ability to turn a guys head and reign in it with a single glance, a hip sway, a one night stand, or exposure of skin, etc. made her feel empowered.
PedOncoDoc
03-10-2012, 09:18
Except the females as shown on cops.............and commercials. Bud Lite commercials.
You've gone and taken my statement out of it's intended context, but given me an excellent and much needed chuckle.
In nature - the male is driven to spread his seed/bloodline as much as possible while the female is driven to select the most genetically desirable mate.
This was intended to mean animals - beings that supposedly act on instinct and biologic drive. Sadly, it seems a portion of the females of our species have neglected their part of the unspoken biologic agreement somewhere along the evolutionary chain, and the males haven't picked up the slack. For a sizable chunk of our population, neither seems to be taking appropriate responsibility/precautions to keep recreational practice of procreatoin just that - recreational practice.
(Note: I didn't use the terms "man" and "women" - I reserve these terms for those who have earned it.)
GratefulCitizen
03-10-2012, 12:05
On a purely biologic level, one man could repopulate the species,
PICK ME! PICK ME!
I will gladly volunteer for this duty.
PICK ME! PICK ME!
I will gladly volunteer for this duty.
Yeah, but the fine print reads you'll be strapped down on the operating table, then they take the scalpel and...........
Do we need any double blinded study to show this to be the case from Papua New Guinea to Alaska? From 1st to 21st century? From victorianism to liberalism?Does saying "That's the way things have always been" advance your case or undermine it?
Earlier, you pointed to feminism as the culprit behind the alleged promiscuity of some modern American women. Now, you're suggesting that sexuality has been a feature of human civilization since its inception. Are you suggesting that men and women throughout time have not had to negotiate the role of sexual desires throughout time? Or are you saying that since this dynamic has been a persistent feature of human relations, there's no difference between long standing practices and best practices?
If you agree with the latter, then how does that view fit with the concept of American Exceptionalism? Critics of that concept argue that the American Revolution really wasn't a revolution because it did not change the underlying basics of social relationships. Doesn't arguing that biological determinism ("hard wiring") drives human behavior support that anti-Consensus view?
If you agree with notion that men and women have had these kinds of issues throughout time, how does that view fit with your argument that the "feminazis" have upset the apple cart? Are you suggesting that American women would be better off today if they'd accepted the same old same old of the olden days?
Millions of women struggle in their every day lives to reconcile who they'd like to be and the expectations of American society. Some make choices with which we may agree, others make decisions we may find counterproductive to their declared best interests. Even so, it is their lives, and their choices. And eventually, it is going to be their majority when it comes to the vote. How do you want to participate in this transition of power?
Gloria Allred is the female Jesse Jackson. :rolleyes: I think suggesting that Rush should be prosecuted for calling this student a slut is stoopid.
GratefulCitizen
03-10-2012, 16:46
All this nationwide furor over "insurance".
Insurance is a system where a group of people pool resources to spread risk among the group.
A "health plan" which pays for things so the beneficiary doesn't have to is not "insurance".
You don't "insure" yourself against a specific, definable expense which you know with certainty that you're going to incur.
This is just trying to stick someone else with the bill (whereby you will eventually run out of other people's money).
I need insurance against being overworked.
Instead of calling it "paid leave", and contracting for it as such, I'll demand it as "health insurance" under obamacare.
After all, my health will be much better if I can be resting instead of working.
:rolleyes:
Some interesting observations...at just what age does someone become an adult?
Mark Steyn
IBD
March 9, 2012
I'm writing this from Australia, so, if I'm not quite up to speed on recent events in the United States, bear with me — the telegraph updates are a bit slow here in the bush. As I understand it, Sandra Fluke is a young coed who attends Georgetown Law, and recently testified before Congress.
Oh, wait, no. Update: It wasn't a Congressional hearing; the Democrats just got it up to look like one, like summer stock, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid doing the show right here in the barn, and providing a cardboard set for the world premiere of Miss Fluke Goes To Washington, with full supporting cast led by Chuck Schumer strolling in through the French windows in tennis whites and drawling, "Anyone for bull****?"
Oh, and the "young coed" turns out to be 30, which is what less-evolved cultures refer to as early middle age. She's a couple of years younger than Mozart was at the time he croaked, but, if the Dems are to be believed, the plucky little Grade 24 schoolgirl has already made an even greater contribution to humanity. She's had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else (and this is where one is obliged to tiptoe cautiously, lest offense is given to gallant defenders of the good name of American maidenhood such as the many prestigious soon-to-be-former sponsors of this column who've booked Bill Maher for their corporate retreat with his amusing "Sarah Palin is a c***" routine ...
Where was I? Oh, yes. The brave middle-aged schoolgirl had the courage to stand up in public and demand that someone else pay for her sex life.
Well, as noted above, she's attending Georgetown, a nominally Catholic seat of learning, so how expensive can that be?
Alas, Georgetown is so nominally Catholic that the cost of her sex life runs to three grand — and, according to the star witness, 40% of female students "struggle financially" because of the heavy burden of maintaining a respectable level of pre-marital sex at a Jesuit institution.
As I said, I'm on the other side of the planet, so maybe I'm not getting this. But I'd say the core issue here is not religious liberty — which in these Godless times the careless swing voter now understands as a code phrase meaning that uptight Republicans who can't get any action want to stop you getting any, too.
Nor is the core issue liberty in its more basic sense — although it would certainly surprise America's founders that their republic of limited government is now the first nation in the developed world to compel private employers to fully fund the sex lives of their employees.
Nor is it even the distinctively American wrinkle the Republic of Paperwork has given to governmentalized health care, under which the "right to privacy" the Supreme Court claimed to have discovered in Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade will now lead to thousands and thousands of self-insuring employers keeping computer records of the morning-after pills and herpes medication racked up by Miss Jones on reception.
Nor is the issue that America has 30-year-old schoolkids — or even 30-year-old school kids who expect someone else to pick up the tab for their extracurricular activities, rather than doing a paper route and a bit of yard work to save up for their first IUD, as we did back in my day.
After all, the human right to government-mandated free contraception is as American as apple pie and far healthier for you. In my most recent book, I quote one of Sandra Fluke's fellow geriatrics gamboling in the groves of academe and complaining to The Washington Post about the quality of free condoms therein:
"'If people get what they don't want, they are just going to trash them,' said T Squalls, 30, who attends the University of the District of Columbia. 'So why not spend a few extra dollars and get what people want?'"
All of us are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and a lifetime supply of premium ribbed silky-smooth ultrasensitive spermicidal lubricant condoms. No taxation without rubberization, as the Minutemen said. The shot heard round the world, and all that.
Nor is the core issue that, whatever the merits of government contraception, America is the Brokest Nation in History — although the Fluke story is a useful reminder that the distinction between fiscal and social conservatism is generally false. As almost all those fashionable split-the-difference fiscally conservative/socially liberal governors from George Pataki to California's pathetically terminated Terminator eventually discover, their social liberalism comes with a Hell of a price tag.
Ask the Greeks how easy it is for insolvent nations to wean the populace off unaffordable nanny-state lollipops: When even casual sex requires a state welfare program, you're pretty much done for.
No, the most basic issue here is not religious morality, individual liberty, or fiscal responsibility. It's that a society in which middle-aged children of privilege testify before the most powerful figures in the land to demand state-enforced funding for their sex lives at a time when their government owes more money than anyone has ever owed in the history of the planet is quite simply nuts. As stark-staring nuts as the court of Ranavalona, the deranged nymphomaniac queen of Madagascar at whose funeral the powder keg literally went up, killing dozens and burning down three royal palaces.
Indeed, one is tempted to arrange an introduction between "T Squalls, 30," now 32 going on 33, and Sandra Fluke, 30 going on 31, like a skillfully negotiated betrothal between two royal houses in medieval Europe. The student prince would bring to the marriage his impressive fortune of a decade's worth of Trojan Magnums, while the Princess Leia would have a dowry of index-linked RU 486s settled upon her by HHS the Margravine of Sebelius. They would not be required to produce an heir.
Insane as this scenario is, the Democrat-media complex insists that everyone take it seriously. When it emerged the other day that Amanda Clayton, a 24-year-old Michigan million-dollar lottery winner, still receives $200 of food stamps every month, even the press and the bureaucrats were obliged to acknowledge the ridiculousness.
Yet the same people are determined that Sandra Fluke be treated with respect as a pioneering spokesperson for the rights of the horizontally challenged.
Sorry, I pass.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom," wrote Benjamin Franklin in 1784. In the absence of religious virtue, sexual virtue, and fiscal virtue, one might trust to the people's sense of sheer preposterousness to reject the official narrative of the Fluke charade. Yet even that is not to be permitted.
Full disclosure: I will be guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh this Monday, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment here on Rush's intervention. But let me say this. Almost every matter of the moment boils down to the same story:
The left's urge to narrow the bounds of public discourse and insist that "conventional wisdom" unknown to the world the day before yesterday is now as unquestionable as the Laws of Physics.
Nothing that Rush said is as weird or as degrading as what Sandra Fluke and the Obama administration are demanding. And any freeborn citizen should reserve the right to point that out as loudly and as often as possible.
© Mark Steyn, 2012
http://news.investors.com/Article.aspx?id=603899&p=1&ibdbot=1
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1494328573001/limbaugh-advertisers-flee-stocks-tumble/?playlist_id=87185&intcmp=obnetwork
This is pretty funny. :D
New York-based musical comedy duo Reformed Whores have always had a lot to say about what it means to be a modern woman, so in the wake of Rush's Slut-Gate 2012, they took it upon themselves to record a song for tawdry birth-control-using, college-degree-holding women everywhere.
After all, if wanting medical insurance to cover the pill makes us sluts and seeking to educate ourselves so we can be more competitive in the job market makes us snobs (as Rick Santorum seems to think) shouldn't we have our own theme song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZK75pXLlbY&feature=player_embedded#!
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
alright4u
03-13-2012, 17:28
Health Insurance has been divided into group and into individual policies. Many years ago, Mutual of Omaha was perhaps the largest individual health insurer in the nation. Back then women would call asking to insure them for maternity benefits when they were already pregnant. No could do. Same with a family wanting to insure 12 year old Billy or Jen who had diabetes. We could insure them for everything except the diabetes. Likewise, a man or woman who had survived cancer and had been cancer free for 5 years could have the cancer covered for a 50% premium incresae also called a B rate.
Group health insurance spreads the risks out, so; preexisting conditions are/can be covered. The problem is a young perfectly healthy 22 year old pays the same rate a 57 year old female/male with cancer who is 5'1" and 210 lbs does. The 5'1" 210 lb. morbidly obese female/male could not qualify for a private policy.She/he does under group plans. Now universal health insurance was taught in college in 1970 as Social Insurance. The professor I had was a real looney tunes in Omaha.
The one thing we always worried about was the person with a bad back who refused to take out insurance as his/her back was excluded. It is like having 5,000 cattle vs 5,000 diseases. If one cow gets out of the gate do you shut it and protect the other 4,999 or do you let them all run loose.
Obama and pals want us to cover those who left the gates open.
Limbaugh was exercising his free speech rights too, wasn't he?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/22/radio-campaign-next-step-against-rush-limbaugh/
NEW YORK — Rush Limbaugh’s opponents are starting a radio campaign against him Thursday, seizing upon the radio star’s attack of a Georgetown law student as a “slut” to make a long-term effort aimed at weakening his business.
The liberal Media Matters for America is using a past campaign against Glenn Beck as a template. In Limbaugh, however, they’re going after bigger game. He’s already fighting back and the group’s stance has provoked concerns that an effort to silence someone for objectionable talk is in itself objectionable.
Media Matters is spending at least $100,000 for two advertisements that will run in eight cities.
The ads use Limbaugh’s own words about student Sandra Fluke, who told congressional Democrats that contraception should be paid for in health plans. Limbaugh, on his radio programs, suggested Fluke wanted to be paid to have sex, which made her a “slut” and a “prostitute.” In return for the money, he said Fluke should post videos of herself having sex. Under sharp criticism, Limbaugh later apologized.
In one of the anti-Limbaugh ads, listeners are urged to call the local station that carries Limbaugh to say “we don’t talk to women like that” in our city.
Ad time was purchased in Boston; Chicago; Detroit; Seattle; Milwaukee; St. Louis; Macon, Ga.; and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The cities were selected to support active local campaigns against Limbaugh or because of perceptions Limbaugh may be vulnerable in that market, said Angelo Carusone of Media Matters.
“What we’re really looking for is a way to demonstrate the persistence of the effort and the fact that it is on a wide scale,” Carusone said.
A spokeswoman for Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates Limbaugh’s show to nearly 600 radio stations nationally, said Media Matters has gone beyond criticism of Limbaugh’s words to an attempt to silence him and intimidate advertisers.
“This is not about women,” said Rachel Nelson, Premiere spokeswoman. “It’s not about ethics and it’s not about the nature of our public discourse. It’s a direct attack on America’s guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech. It’s essentially a call for censorship masquerading as high-minded indignation.”
Limbaugh, on his radio show Wednesday, said he’s being targeted in an attack that was long-planned — not mentioning it was his words that lit the fuse.
“They’re not even really offended by what happened,” he said. “This is just an opportunity to execute a plan they’ve had in their drawer since 2009.”
Determining how much of a financial impact the Fluke comments have already had on Limbaugh is murky business.
Radio stations in Hawaii and Massachusetts have dropped his show. Media Matters claims that 58 companies have specifically asked that their ads be excluded from Limbaugh’s show. Radio-Info.com’s TRI Newsletter said Premiere has circulated a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid “environments likely to stir negative sentiments,” essentially all politically pointed talk shows.
There’s more. TRI also said a group with several stations that air Limbaugh sent out a list of 31 advertisers who don’t want to be on Limbaugh’s show.
Premiere notes that a list is sent out four times a year reminding stations of advertisers who don’t want to be part of controversial programming, and suggests a reported exodus is exaggerated. The company offered no list of its own, or a comparison that could show advertisers resistant to Limbaugh or other controversial shows that predated the Fluke comments.
Streck-Fu
03-22-2012, 13:04
So the campaign against Mahr's speech will begin soon?
So the campaign against Mahr's speech will begin soon?
Hannity's been all over Maher's ass, but he's the Lone Ranger, basically. Many prominent political chicks love Maher because he bitches about the lack of women's rights in the middle east. Even Coulter likes him, I think.
I think this will backfire in another way. The Silent Majority is like a volcano ready to pop, but they have the collective class to wait 'til the presidential election (provided there is one).
This Keystone BS is another blatant display of hypocrisy that even the media can't spin well enough to remove the shit stench. Gonna be a long 7 months.
WFNC AM 640 is a little short on lib talks but you folks with Radio Stations inhabited by mouths from the left should call in anytime one of them uses one of the "bad words" talking about someone on the right.
WFNC AM 640 is a little short on lib talks but you folks with Radio Stations inhabited by mouths from the left should call in anytime one of them uses one of the "bad words" talking about someone on the right.
lol That's the station where I first heard Rush. If I remember, there was at one time a female personality who was prit tee damn lib; she would stick her rhetorical foot in her mouth on a daily basis.
Even Coulter likes him, I think.
She dated him for awhile several years ago.
Pat
She dated him for awhile several years ago.
Pat
:eek: That's akin to Rush dating Pelosi.
lol That's the station where I first heard Rush. If I remember, there was at one time a female personality who was prit tee damn lib; she would stick her rhetorical foot in her mouth on a daily basis.
Wendy Riddle & Jeff Thompson (libs) and Terry Jordan (righty but nice) were fired by Cum. Radio years ago.
It's never been the same since then. While for the most part Wendy was nice - every now and again she would flat out fly off the handle at a caller and let out some not so nice put downs. One time I remember driving down the highway when she launched and I went "Holy Crap, did I just hear what I thought I heard?"
And within a few days she was ratting on Rush about how mean he was to his callers.
Jeff claimed to be the "progressive" and you could almost hear him swell up with himself as he torched a caller and hung up on them.
Terry ran the hour of half truths - because he gave equal time to the left.
All in all the three of them were a good fit for the market and most days were pretty informative and entertaining - but every once in a while :eek: .
Jeff claimed to be the "progressive" and you could almost hear him swell up with himself as he torched a caller and hung up on them.
lol That's what he did to me circa '96 when he had some Nation of Islam guest on there. I called up and asked "So, when does the Mother Ship pull in?" and he hung up and I could hear him as he huffed and puffed self-righteously about ignorant callers. :D:D
How does arguing that hard-wiring drives human behavior go against the concept of American Exceptionalism?IMO, the concept of American Exceptionalism rests in no small part upon on the primacy of ideals and character as the motive forces behind human history.
Moreover, notwithstanding some of our public and military manpower policy choices during the Second World War, America's participation in that conflict was implicit and explicit repudiation of political philosophies that placed "hard wiring" at the center of human affairs.
After the war, our deepening rivalry with the USSR was premised upon the belief that ideas and character were timeless concepts and not the products of a materialistically determined "phase" of global history.
My $0.02.
Buffalobob
11-21-2012, 14:29
The core issue is that Republicans are so ham-fisted and dense that they continually fall into the Democrats' traps. That f***ing moron Limbaugh calling her a slut, whore and prostitute? Too bad she wasn't Hispanic, he could have called her a wetback whore and alienated another 20% of the voter base as well.
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving and I am going to give thanks for morons like Limbaugh. Hope he keeps broadcasting through the 2016 election so we can win back the House. :D
............. Hope he keeps broadcasting through the 2016 election so we can win back the House. :D
Why wait - do it in 2014 so you can pave the way for HRC's election as President in 2016.
I like ham!
Short, concise & clear!:D