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.

tailgater wrote:

Maybe the come dumpster can now afford her own birth control.
One could only hope she doesn't reproduce.

dubleuhb wrote:

Yet you continue to believe that the democrats were able to paint the republicans as "anti-women" in a vacuum.

I gave you a timeline of things that actually happened, on both sides (I'm nice like that) which showed how this managed to stick so well. You simply refuse to believe anything other than "Sandra Fluke demanded free contraception from the church!!! The Republicans said no and then the democrats said republicans hate women!!!"

Simply not the actual timeline. But you go on believing what you do....

I never said she's relevant. I don't think she's relevant. Hell, look back at my statements, I never said she's relevant. I only got involved to point out that you were lying by omission when you thought the democrats were able to magically attach "woman hating" to republicans.

The GOP brought this on themselves with the Limbaugh thing. ("But victor!!! Limbaugh isn't the GOP!!") suck it. Limbaugh is part of the GOP. They use him to rally the masses of stupid people (dems have their own, see, I'm fair), you get the bad with the good.

victor809 wrote:

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.

tailgater wrote:

Except Im not arguing that she should be nominated for Time's cover. I'm only arguing your statement back at post 9.

She's simply a figurehead the two sides are fighting around, a symbol, nothing more/less and who she is is irrelevant, could be replaced with just about anyone.

victor809 wrote:

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 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.

tailgater wrote:

And again... I said that you were correct at the basest level, but in your depiction of the situation, completely neglected to include anything the GOP did, therefore lying by omission. If I get in a fight at a bar, and neglect to mention the part where I first tell the guy that his mother is a whore, but just tell everyone that "the guy just hit me". I'm lying by omission. Kind of the same situation.

Lets see here:
"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"

In your views, she apparently claimed she was entitled to birth control (your use of the word entitled), which is incorrect, which when they said "no" the conservatives were painted as "anti-women".

You're neglecting the following:
1 - The panel, in which the coverage of birth control was going to be discussed, was only populated by priests and old men. She was considered "unqualified". That's like having hearings on allowing smoking in cigar bars without allowing any bar-owners or smokers to be heard.

2 - Rush Limbaugh and the rest of his crowd. They make it too easy.

So yeah, "Democrats painted Republicans as anti-women".... after republicans said they didn't want to hear from women and that any who ask about financial assistance with their birth control are whores.


Seriously, this isn't a big deal. She would fade into oblivion if you guys could just shut up about how "despicable" you think she is....

victor809 wrote:

Seriously, this isn't a big deal. She would fade into oblivion if you guys could just shut up about how "despicable" you think she is....

victor809 wrote:

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

HockeyDad wrote:

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?

tailgater wrote:

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.

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.

victor809 wrote:

Wow.
Just....wow.


So it's not entitlement because everyone else does it? Nice junior high reasoning.
She's a liar. $3000 for contraception during time at law school?
40% of the Georgetown women find contraception to be a financial hardship?

That's BS and you know it. Don't defend a liar, Victor.

tailgater wrote:

She's relevant because WE keep talking about her? Go back to the OP. We're talking about her because a major magazine has nominated her for POTY. Quite an accomplishment for some random person that talked about health care.

Nothing is created in a vacuum when it comes to politics. Why do you insist that this has to be?

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

tailgater wrote:

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[whip], she might have had a compelling argument, for them to provide birth control.
Just my .02

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

Homebrew wrote:

Actually, that's a weak argument.
It's the "two wrongs don't make a right" thingy.

I think it's irresponsible for insurance to cover Viagra unless a medical (not age related) condition can be blamed.

Likewise, birth control in the form of "the pill" can be covered if it's medially necessary for reasons such as uteristic cysts.

Hell, I wish my parents blue cross blue shield covered my condoms when I was in college.
But I wouldn't go on record as calling it a financial hardship.

tailgater wrote: