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

Last post 12 years ago by tailgater. 183 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234
Sandra Fluke
wheelrite Offline
#151 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
]
HockeyDad wrote:
I have no idea who Sandra Fluke is.


a Lib Dyyke that wants Free Birth control...
Flapper
HockeyDad Offline
#152 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
What the hell would she do with free birth control. Plant it in a garden and grow pine trees?
wheelrite Offline
#153 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
HockeyDad wrote:
What the hell would she do with free birth control. Plant it in a garden and grow pine trees?


I know,right...
HockeyDad Offline
#154 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
wheelrite wrote:
I know,right...



This is why I rarely post on the politics forum......way too darn confusing.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#155 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
HockeyDad wrote:
What the hell would she do with free birth control. Plant it in a garden and grow pine trees?



YOu and your smug nose...poking it out from under the cone to see what us groveling proles are busy doing. Make me sick!

As for the pine trees...It could be a pitchfork handle boon!
HockeyDad Offline
#156 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
DrMaddVibe wrote:

As for the pine trees...It could be a pitchfork handle boon!




I trusted liberal douchebags once with pitchforks.....

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#157 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
HockeyDad wrote:
I trusted liberal douchebags once with pitchforks.....

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.



Liberal douchebag...kinda redundant!

whip
rfenst Offline
#158 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,424
HockeyDad wrote:
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, won't get fooled again.



Someone appears to have watched a movie! But, if you are going to quote it accurately, use ellipses and perhaps a long parenthetical to try to convey to the long pause that took place.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#159 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554

Fluke: Some Women Need More Expensive Contraception Than Others



Contraception activist Sandra Fluke tells MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell that private insurance should cover contraception just like the government does. Fluke says that it is "completely untrue" that taxpayers would have to subsidize contraception.

"The entire point, the policy point which is what I have always been trying to talk about and there's certainly a lot of misinformation that's been circulating about this being a taxpayer program where taxpayers were going to be paying for contraception or the government was going to pay for contraception. And that is just completely untrue," Fluke said on MSNBC.

"This is a program about private insurance. And it has nothing to do with government funding. The government does and should pay for contraception access for the very poorest women through programs like Medicaid, but it is important to be clear that this policy is not about that. This is about insurance that women pay for through their own premiums through their own employers and their universities," she said on Wednesday night.

In the segment, Fluke was informed that widely-accessed pharmacies, such as Wal-Mart, that sell generic contraception often do at $9 a month or lower. Fluke says this is not true in all circumstances and then cities an obscure story about a woman with a genetic condition that wrote her. According to Fluke, this woman had to take a special type of birth control due to her condition and it cost $1200.

Fluke, however, did not specify if $1200 was the cost for a month or for a year. Regardless, Fluke said the point is so many have different "medical needs" so they need to have access to all types of expensive contraception.

"I'd like to share the response of a woman who saw some of that type of coverage and e-mailed me because it upset her very much," Fluke said when asked about cheap, normal contraption. "She actually has a genetic condition and she's unable to use cheap forms of contraception, less expensive forms because of her genetic condition."

"So for her, her contraception costs $1200. And I think that the point really is that different women have different kinds of medical needs and that requires them to use different forms of contraception," Fluke said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/14/fluke_some_women_require_more_expensive_contraception_than_others.html



Oh, yeah...that's a horse of a different color!Brick wall

Go to the link to actually see this mouthbreather in action!
snowwolf777 Offline
#160 Posted:
Joined: 06-03-2000
Posts: 4,082
She's hitting 14:30 on the fame-O-meter. They're mocking up her Trivial Pursuit card as we speak.

horse
DrMaddVibe Offline
#161 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-OozrfwbjVA

Either she's flustered and doesn't know how to talk to people or she's severely out of shape from walking!
DrMaddVibe Offline
#162 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
Sandra Fluke admits she doesn’t know what birth control costs

A perfect ending to an iconic tale of political manipulation.

CNS News caught up with leftist agitator and media darling Sandra Fluke, fresh off her appearance in a Capitol Hill forum, and asked her a very important question:

On Tuesday, Fluke spoke at an event at the U.S. Capitol in celebration of women’s history month. After the event, CNSNews.com asked Fluke: “Were you aware of the Target store that’s 3 miles from Georgetown Law that sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for $9 a month without insurance coverage? Were you aware of that?”

Fluke said: “So, I’m not familiar with specific department store policies. I know that some generic forms of contraception are less expensive than others and that that has been widely reported. But what has not been widely reported is that many women cannot use those forms of contraception.”

(Emphasis mine.) Let that sink in for a minute. This is a professional liberal activist masquerading as a college student, who signed up at Georgetown University for the sole purpose of using compulsive force to make Catholics purchase other people’s birth control, in defiance of their religious rights. The Democrat Party tried to slip her into a Congressional hearing as a last-minute, un-vetted substitution. When that didn’t work, they held a phony pseudo-hearing photo-op, at which Fluke testified that the co-eds of Georgetown were going broke because they had to pay a thousand dollars a year for contraceptives. This dire financial need was supposed to trump the religious and economic liberty of her targets.

And she just admitted, in public, on the record, that she has no idea what she’s talking about. She doesn’t know what contraceptives cost at Target. She presumes the power to change the lives of everyone in the country, but she couldn’t be bothered to pop into a drugstore and ask a simple question, or do ten minutes of online research.

So how she come up with the ridiculous figure that made her famous, a thousand percent higher than the true cost of contraceptives? She claims it’s because one person told her so, and she believed them without question:

“Women have different types of medical needs that require much more expensive forms,” she said. “One woman contacted me. She was very, very upset that that quote was being emphasized because she has a genetic condition that requires her to use contraception that costs $1,500.”

“So, this is medicine,” said Fluke. “It’s not one-size-fits-all, and while it’s great that some women can access more affordable contraception, contraception needs to be accessible and affordable for all of the women who need all of the different kinds.”

So there you have it. This woman is a total and complete fraud, and so is everyone trying to use her for their political advantage. It was never about Georgetown’s co-eds marching to the poor house en masse, hanging their heads and sobbing as they clutched thousand-dollar invoices for contraception they could never pay, as a result of impulses they could never hope to control. One person told Fluke she had to spend $1500 on some form of radically different treatment due to a genetic condition.

Fluke, by the way, was at that Capitol Hill forum to advocate her brand of feminist totalitarian politics, as reported by the Daily Caller:

Fluke, an advocate for the Obama administration’s plan to force health insurers to cover birth control, was on Capitol Hill for a forum on “Opportunities and Challenges for a New Generation of Women,” in celebration of Women’s History Month.

“There should be a litmus test that they be pro-women so our votes have to include that requirement at least,” Fluke said. “And it should be a litmus test that applies to male candidates as well.”

She also spoke about the possibility of running for office in the future:

“Numerous American women have actually written to me in the last few weeks saying that I should run for office, and maybe someday I will.”

A con artist who demands limitless power over others, and thinks that requiring people to pay for their own goods is equivalent to “denying access” to those goods? She’d be a perfect fit for the Democrat Party. The future belongs to the gullible, and those who know how to manipulate them.



http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50380
tweoijfoi Offline
#163 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
I'd have a hard time writing a more biased "news" article. Thanks for posting, that was pretty funny.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#164 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
tweoijfoi wrote:
I'd have a hard time writing a more biased "news" article. Thanks for posting, that was pretty funny.



It was the best of times...it was the worst of times...I hear ya!

Just thought it worthy to be on here.
tailgater Offline
#165 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tweoijfoi wrote:
I'd have a hard time writing a more biased "news" article. Thanks for posting, that was pretty funny.


It was biased because it brings to light only negative facts surrounding this person. Maybe it should have emphasized a character attribute (if one exists) to even things up?

But if you're suggesting that the article was anything less than accurate, I'd like you to point out an example.

tweoijfoi Offline
#166 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
tailgater wrote:
It was biased because it brings to light only negative facts surrounding this person. Maybe it should have emphasized a character attribute (if one exists) to even things up?

But if you're suggesting that the article was anything less than accurate, I'd like you to point out an example.



Here, I bolded some of the biased verbiage.



Quote:

CNS News caught up with leftist agitator and media darling Sandra Fluke, fresh off her appearance in a Capitol Hill forum, and asked her a very important question:

On Tuesday, Fluke spoke at an event at the U.S. Capitol in celebration of women’s history month. After the event, CNSNews.com asked Fluke: “Were you aware of the Target store that’s 3 miles from Georgetown Law that sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for $9 a month without insurance coverage? Were you aware of that?”

Fluke said: “So, I’m not familiar with specific department store policies. I know that some generic forms of contraception are less expensive than others and that that has been widely reported. But what has not been widely reported is that many women cannot use those forms of contraception.”

(Emphasis mine.) Let that sink in for a minute. This is a professional liberal activist masquerading as a college student, who signed up at Georgetown University for the sole purpose of using compulsive force to make Catholics purchase other people’s birth control, in defiance of their religious rights. The Democrat Party tried to slip her into a Congressional hearing as a last-minute, un-vetted substitution. When that didn’t work, they held a phony pseudo-hearing photo-op, at which Fluke testified that the co-eds of Georgetown were going broke because they had to pay a thousand dollars a year for contraceptives. This dire financial need was supposed to trump the religious and economic liberty of her targets.

And she just admitted, in public, on the record, that she has no idea what she’s talking about. She doesn’t know what contraceptives cost at Target. She presumes the power to change the lives of everyone in the country, but she couldn’t be bothered to pop into a drugstore and ask a simple question, or do ten minutes of online research.

So how she come up with the ridiculous figure that made her famous, a thousand percent higher than the true cost of contraceptives? She claims it’s because one person told her so, and she believed them without question:

“Women have different types of medical needs that require much more expensive forms,” she said. “One woman contacted me. She was very, very upset that that quote was being emphasized because she has a genetic condition that requires her to use contraception that costs $1,500.”

“So, this is medicine,” said Fluke. “It’s not one-size-fits-all, and while it’s great that some women can access more affordable contraception, contraception needs to be accessible and affordable for all of the women who need all of the different kinds.”

So there you have it. This woman is a total and complete fraud, and so is everyone trying to use her for their political advantage. It was never about Georgetown’s co-eds marching to the poor house en masse, hanging their heads and sobbing as they clutched thousand-dollar invoices for contraception they could never pay, as a result of impulses they could never hope to control. One person told Fluke she had to spend $1500 on some form of radically different treatment due to a genetic condition.

Fluke, by the way, was at that Capitol Hill forum to advocate her brand of feminist totalitarian politics, as reported by the Daily Caller:

...


All of these have some negative connotation and are unnecessary.

For example, if you wanted to write that first sentence in a less biased way...

Quote:
CNS News caught up with leftist agitator and media darling Sandra Fluke, fresh off her appearance in a Capitol Hill forum, and asked her a very important question:


Quote:
CNS News caught up with left-wing women's reproductive health advocate Sandra Fluke, fresh off her appearance in a Capitol Hill forum, and asked her a very important question:


Bias usually isn't as simple as a lie. It's using words to shed negative or positive connotations on one side or the other.
tweoijfoi Offline
#167 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
If it's $9/mo for most women--great, health care can provide a service that saves money at little cost. But keep in mind, every woman reacts differently to different birth control pills. Some cannot take the $9 pill because they have a bad reaction to it.

Also, she never "presumed the power to change the lives of everyone in the country". She was advocating for change by spreading facts. She did not lie during her speech. Birth control can be very expensive in some rare cases.

If this is so controversial, why does health insurance cover vasectomies and viagra?

If I understand this correctly, the Christians in this nation are okay with paying for men to get boners, but not for women to have birth control.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#168 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,554
tweoijfoi wrote:
If I understand this correctly, the Christians in this nation are okay with paying for men to get boners, but not for women to have birth control.



Eh? Eh?

ONLY Christians?
ZRX1200 Offline
#169 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,661
Someone is deranged.

Sandra's mom should have abstained.
tweoijfoi Offline
#170 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Eh? Eh?

ONLY Christians?


Haha. Well, I won't argue with the boner part. I just think ladies should get theirs too.
tailgater Offline
#171 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tweoijfoi wrote:


All of these have some negative connotation and are unnecessary.


Bias usually isn't as simple as a lie. It's using words to shed negative or positive connotations on one side or the other.


But just because words invoke a negative connotation doesn't make them innaccurate. I would consider a story truly biased when the slant portrayed results in something less than truthful.

She IS a "leftist agitator" and a "Media darling".
When the truth sheds a negative light, it need not be construed as overtly biased. Especially considering the pass she's been given in the mainstream media.

tailgater Offline
#172 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tweoijfoi wrote:
If it's $9/mo for most women--great, health care can provide a service that saves money at little cost. But keep in mind, every woman reacts differently to different birth control pills. Some cannot take the $9 pill because they have a bad reaction to it.

Also, she never "presumed the power to change the lives of everyone in the country". She was advocating for change by spreading facts. She did not lie during her speech. Birth control can be very expensive in some rare cases.

If this is so controversial, why does health insurance cover vasectomies and viagra?

If I understand this correctly, the Christians in this nation are okay with paying for men to get boners, but not for women to have birth control.


You're ignoring the important fact that the health insurance in question was being provided by the religious organizations who oppose birth control. (which I think is ridiculous, but that's not the point.)
If this healthcare provider covered vasectomies, I would bet they would also cover tubal ligation. So your comparison is disingenuous at the very least.
And technically, viagra is a medication for a medical condition.

Birth control is a personal responsibility.
If a birth control pill was the best option for a medical condition such as endometriosis, then it would probably be covered.

This whole issue is stupid, and the government is simply continuing their power-play to gain even more control over our lives.

tailgater Offline
#173 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tweoijfoi wrote:
If it's $9/mo for most women--great, health care can provide a service that saves money at little cost. But keep in mind, every woman reacts differently to different birth control pills. Some cannot take the $9 pill because they have a bad reaction to it.

Also, she never "presumed the power to change the lives of everyone in the country". She was advocating for change by spreading facts. She did not lie during her speech. Birth control can be very expensive in some rare cases.

If this is so controversial, why does health insurance cover vasectomies and viagra?

If I understand this correctly, the Christians in this nation are okay with paying for men to get boners, but not for women to have birth control.


You're ignoring the important fact that the health insurance in question was being provided by the religious organizations who oppose birth control. (which I think is ridiculous, but that's not the point.)
If this healthcare provider covered vasectomies, I would bet they would also cover tubal ligation. So your comparison is disingenuous at the very least.
And technically, viagra is a medication for a medical condition.

Birth control is a personal responsibility.
If a birth control pill was the best option for a medical condition such as endometriosis, then it would probably be covered.

This whole issue is stupid, and the government is simply continuing their power-play to gain even more control over our lives.

DADDYO49 Offline
#174 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2008
Posts: 29
" Randy Sandy " Fluke wants the insurance companies to " put up " so she can continue to " put out " for every ******, Tom & Harry that COMES by..........

Ya gotta love how she risks STDs and unwanted pregnancies by boffing horse any guy who won't wear a condom but who will pop for a $ 2 beer for her............
tweoijfoi Offline
#175 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
DADDYO49 wrote:
" Randy Sandy " Fluke wants the insurance companies to " put up " so she can continue to " put out " for every ******, Tom & Harry that COMES by..........

Ya gotta love how she risks STDs and unwanted pregnancies by boffing horse any guy who won't wear a condom but who will pop for a $ 2 beer for her............


Ya... it was so obvious what a slut she is. I think she might have been fondling herself under the table while she spoke at that "photo op". Damn, these chicks be crazy. /s
tailgater Offline
#176 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tweoijfoi wrote:
Ya... it was so obvious what a slut she is. I think she might have been fondling herself under the table while she spoke at that "photo op". Damn, these chicks be crazy. /s



Why do you defend her with such vigor?
Although I don't know, nor care, if she's a slut or whore, I also don't care what Rush Limbaugh calls anyone.

Further, I dislike Ms Fluke because she has energized the government to reign in even MORE control than they already have.
You obviously see this as a good thing, based on your defense of the catalyst.

Why is more government intervention and regulations a "good" thing?


tweoijfoi Offline
#177 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
tailgater wrote:
Why do you defend her with such vigor?
Although I don't know, nor care, if she's a slut or whore, I also don't care what Rush Limbaugh calls anyone.

Further, I dislike Ms Fluke because she has energized the government to reign in even MORE control than they already have.
You obviously see this as a good thing, based on your defense of the catalyst.

Why is more government intervention and regulations a "good" thing?




Because the only reason you guys are hating on her, so to speak, is because of the Rush Limbaugh "slut" comment controversy. If it wasn't for that, she'd still be just a person who advocates for something you disagree with (much like tens of thousands of other people across the country) and you wouldn't even remember her name.

While I don't like Rush, I think the blowback from his comment was overkill.

All this vilification comes off as immature and whiney. Almost as whiney as the people were so hurt by Rush's comment.
tailgater Offline
#178 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
tweoijfoi wrote:
Because the only reason you guys are hating on her, so to speak, is because of the Rush Limbaugh "slut" comment controversy. If it wasn't for that, she'd still be just a person who advocates for something you disagree with (much like tens of thousands of other people across the country) and you wouldn't even remember her name.

While I don't like Rush, I think the blowback from his comment was overkill.

All this vilification comes off as immature and whiney. Almost as whiney as the people were so hurt by Rush's comment.


So we agree on a lot.
But I was "hating on her" even before I knew her name. And before Limbaugh called her a name.

The local stations were talking about the Catholics losing their right to insure without government forcing them to go against their beliefs.
The talks back then focused on the results, not on the instigator.
So I didn't know her, or her name, or even that there was a "her".
But I was disgusted by the outcome, so she's guilty by association.
HockeyDad Offline
#179 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
I still do not know who she is but assume she sports a whale tail.
FuzzNJ Offline
#180 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
tailgater wrote:
So we agree on a lot.
But I was "hating on her" even before I knew her name. And before Limbaugh called her a name.

The local stations were talking about the Catholics losing their right to insure without government forcing them to go against their beliefs.
The talks back then focused on the results, not on the instigator.
So I didn't know her, or her name, or even that there was a "her".
But I was disgusted by the outcome, so she's guilty by association.


So you didn't know her and hated on her before you knew she existed?

Far out man.
HockeyDad Offline
#181 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,190
FuzzNJ wrote:
So you didn't know her and hated on her before you knew she existed?



Wait.....is that wrong to do?
tweoijfoi Offline
#182 Posted:
Joined: 09-22-2010
Posts: 395
Meh.
tailgater Offline
#183 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
FuzzNJ wrote:
So you didn't know her and hated on her before you knew she existed?

Far out man.


Yeah. That's what I meant.

Next time I'll include small words and picture so you can follow along.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234