America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Oh, perhaps I overstated the angst a tad . . . . .

But the gist of the OP is that this pizzes you off. Not that Time was wrong for any real of discernable reason.

I guess you’re just angry that your team is losing.

Yo...moron...I said I'd RATHER eat Holy crap...IDK, maybe from the Pope than eat a tuna melt from Subway. Then you turned it into me actually eating it... ...thanks for being a real douchebag fuckhole.

You know, if you’re not careful you are going to hurt my feelings . . . . .


How about I send you a Subway tuna melt?

I never realized there was a demand for melted tuna.... I wonder if I can get funding for a solar tuna melter....

Read it.
But I already responded to that post.

Just because you can cite opposing examples doesn't mean I omitted anything.

Fluke is somehow relevant because she became the poster child to prove the GOP hate women. Stick with the subject at hand.

Its truly amazing that some much time and energy is wasted on public debate regarding what is prolly one of the cheapest prescription Meds on the market. What is also truly amazing is that the GOP continues to alienate right of center moderates such as myself by defining the party using a pennies getting in the way of dollars approach.

BTW, yesterday's Subway sammich was tasty.

I, I, I, I, Me, Me, Me.

Vic, this isn't about you.
It's about Fluke.

Of course she's relevant. Otherwise Time wouldn't nominate her.
I don't care what YOU said. The post is about Time and their warped viewpoints.
It's about how this woman became the poster child for a sickening interpretation of what people are entitled to.
Time line aside, it is Fluke who became the example to prove how anti-women the GOP are.

You're beginning to scare me here with your narcissistic rants.

OK.
In post #9, I wanted to know what was untrue regarding my opening post.
My original text:

She is a despicable child of the entitlement generation.
The media used her to paint conservatives as being anti-women even though this subject has zero relevance toward that end. The issue of who pays for female contraception is not about gender equality or a right to control the reproductive capacity, yet that's how most of the liberals perceived it and then perpetuated it.

So, yes. She had an impact on America 2012.
But her nominiation will not be met with indifference or with deserved notoriety.
Rather, she will be praised by the media and the liberal lemmings who failed to comprehend what the term "access" means when dealing with contraception


Tell me where I waivered from the truth.
Tell me why you've spent a dozen posts to tell me I am somehow wrong for making these statements.

I'm disappointed in how weak your argument truly is.

How can she insist on insurance coverage for something that doesn't deserve it, yet not embody an entitlement mentality?
And you needed stray any further than a nearby bar after a rugby game to hear the liberals paint the GOP as women haters because they "refuse contraception".
Your portrayal is much more accurate, I admit, to what the truth is. But it is NOT the public perception. Not by a long shot.

As for fading into oblivion? Yeah. That's why she's nominated for person of the year by Time magazine.

Why does Sandra Fluke need contraception? I'm just saying.

1 - she never "insisted" she made a case for why paying for your own is a hardship, and pointed out issues that it creates. This is not "entitlement".
2 - this is not unusual, every politician in that room asks for money for their own special interest or cause. The proper response is either "yes, we can fund that" or "no, I don't think your request is reasonable", not "SLUT WHORE PROSTITUTE COME DUMPSTER!!!!"


Yes. It started right away. When a group of men told some random woman that she wasn't qualified to talk about the impact paying for birth control has on women, people started talking. Not "the GOP hates women", but "The GOP doesn't really want to hear from women". The "GOP hates women" didn't really start until they proved it with Rush.

Seriously, this sh$t doesn't happen in a vacuum. It starts gradually, and the feedback the GOP provided caused it to gain traction and credibility. It grew and gained credibility BECAUSE of the GOP response.


And you guys keep talking about her. You consider her despicable, short-bus thinks she's a come dumpster. If Rush et al hadn't decided to call her a whore after she spoke, she'd have been just a random person that talked about health care.

1 - Look up entitlement. Asking for assistance is not "entitlement" it's a request for financial assistance. Entitlement would be demanding assistance.
2 - "Everybody doing it" relates to "every politician asks for $$ for their pet projects" this has nothing to do with entitlement, nor am I justifying it. I'm just pointing out that you're singling out one person for doing something that all groups do, as if this is something new and unusual.
3 - Lying is absolutely irrelevant. I don't care if she said she needs the birth control to keep every Georgetown law student from inadvertently birthing dragons that will take over the world. We aren't discussing the veracity of her argument, don't start bringing that up now.


Again. look at the factors that brought her to the spotlight. There are at least 2 points where a different action on the part of the GOP would have led to a completely different outcome (I'm speculating, of course). You keep insisting on believing that this is just magically happening, when the reality is that there is a feedback loop.


because its true. Politicians throw sh$t out all the time. How many accusations did both obama and romney throw at each other during the campaign (along with all the additional talking heads)... only a small percentage of those accusations stuck. There is a reason some gained traction and some didn't. If this crap could be created in a vacuum then every little thing these guys claimed would stick.

The only vacuum here is Vic's arguments...

Not to get into the middle of this beeotchfest, but some of the arguments, on this thread got me to wondering something. Unfortunately we, probably, will not ever know the answer. If the insurance policy, provided by Flukes' employer, paid for Viagra, she might have had a compelling argument, for them to provide birth control.
Just my .02

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

^ to some extent I agree with TG, while at the same time disagreeing with him.
Insurance is a business... they choose what to cover and what not to cover and their choices really shouldn't have anything to do with "entitlement". They are paid for their services, it's part of a package.

Lets look at it this way....
If I purchased my own insurance, I would pay for a company that covered the things I saw having greatest value (probably wouldn't care about birth control coverage).

Similarly, if I were hired on by an employer, I would look at the insurance they provide and it's ranking as part of the package (ie, very good insurance has a $$ value allowing them to pay me slightly less while maintaining the same level of satisfaction).

Students is actually no different. When I went to grad school, they offered money and health insurance as part of the "package" to entice the best students. I chose a school based on their academic capability, research capacity AND monetary package. Again, NOT entitlement, as they were getting huge amounts of research out of me. While law schools are slightly different, and the student is paying the university, the university is still trying to entice these students (and their tuitiion dollars), by offering a plan.

As long as the organizations are private, I don't think the government should be involved at all in what sort of package they offer (this is where I disagree with you Homebrew, they should be perfectly free to offer a double-standard in their package).

HOWEVER - this is not because they are a "religious" organization, but rather just because they're a private organization. AND, this doesn't change the fact that the GOP was unable to have a logical discussion on the topic, instead running immediately to calling a random woman a "whore". If they had managed to make this a rational discussion, where people from all sides were given the opportunity to state their case (ie what are the impacts of the decision, why do they think you should agree with them... etc etc) this would have been a non-starter.

a GOP mouthpiece did. Until the GOP stops using him to rile up the idiots, they're stuck with the stupid stuff he says


Don't disagree, never disagreed. Don't agree on the "religious based" idea I just think private companies can make their own decisions.




Ahh... the Rush Limbaugh argument (see, told you he was GOP).
Your assumption that her sex life has anything to do with her taking birth control is completely ridiculous and seriously suggests you haven't had sex with many different women. (not really an insult, just seems like you haven't been around this discussion much)....

Sex and birth control medication are not linked. You think it is, Rush tells you it is, but they aren't. What's even more insulting about the entire thing i that you assume in point 2 that she isn't having sex because Georgetown won't pay for her birth control. Yet that's not true, she just bought it herself (read the transcript). And you wonder how you and Rush get so easily labeled as being anti-women.... You assume that since no one will buy it for them, they just aren't going to do it themselves?

If you keep using things you don't believe in, just to get my gourd, then people are going to get the wrong opinion of your views.

Rather than ask me questions, why don't you ever ask the internet?
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html

The simple reality is that "being on the pill" is not satisfactory for casual sex, since diseases are all over the place. Primary birth control in non-committed relationships is still condoms, because of the disease protection. The only women that would use the pill as their primary birth control method would be in committed relationships (you know, married or together for a while). Outside of a committed relationship it's a "backup" in case of breaks (or something worse, like a sexual assault). So the women you're trying to call prostitutes are usually wives and girlfriends.

But I'll let you stick with your Limbaugh logic. Seems to work well for you.

Right...because who in their right mind would have sex AND use birth control? That's just crazy talk! Crap, they can have umpteen abortions now that Owedumba won and Mittens and his 13 wives wanted to outlaw them! WINNING for the Flukeanator on that one!

Rush, while it is a thinking man's band from Canada has written many thought provoking songs but I cannot think of one right off the bat that says anything about sex or birth control. They're a musical band not some fortune teller with a penchant for delivering free goods and services.

So, once again you're wrong.

That's a whole lotta bushes if it became a forest and those ladies should shave anyways!

They're too lazy to get off of the sofa! Besides Hillary Clinton types can't even bend their legs that far apart to get a razor in there!

Huh?

I heard that too.

But they're not in the rock n roll hall of fame!

He sounds like Elmo....

They all do when you stick your hand up their...., I mean when you're fist...uh, nevermind.