Now, here's something Rush Limbaugh said yesterday. He was talking about Sandra Fluke, "a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to having so much sex that she can't afford it anymore." Fluke is a woman who testified last week at an unofficial hearing (set up by Nancy Pelosi) in support of requiring health insurance coverage for birth control, even for those who get their health insurance from institutions affiliated with religions that see birth control as sinful. Opponents of that requirement had crafted their argument around respect for religious belief, and before Rush's loud voice took over, they seemed to want us to think about the exalted religious feeling underlying the objection to birth control. But Rush dragged our attention to the spectacle of a woman having sex, over and over — 3 times a day! — and she wants us "to pay for it." Heh heh. Wants us to pay for it?!! So she's a slut! A prostitute!
When [President Obama telephoned Fluke and] asked her if she's okay, she said that Obama told her that she should tell her parents they should be proud. (pause) Okay, I'm button [sic] my lip on that one. The president tells Sandra Fluke (chuckling), 30-year-old Sandra Fluke, that her parents should be proud. Okay. Let me ask you a question. I might be surprised at the answer I would get to this question. Your daughter appears before a congressional committee and says she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it. Would you be proud? I don't know about you, but I'd be embarrassed. I'd disconnect the phone. I'd go into hiding and hope the media didn't find me. See, everybody forgets what starts this, or what started this whole thing. Or maybe they don't! Maybe that's normal behavior on the left now, for all I know.If that were your daughter, you should be ashamed. Shame! She's having so much sex. Shame. 3 times a day. Wants to get paid. Shame. That's Rush's theme. He can't let it go. That's where he found the resonance with the audience he imagines as he speaks. Who are those listeners? They're not those people on the left. (Who knows what "normal behavior" for them is now?) But his audience, he knows how to talk to them, and he's sounding the theme of shame — shame for the woman who openly enjoys her sexuality. Rush is plying the audience, playing on their haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. So much sex!
Now, I know he's also got the small government theme in there. "We" shouldn't have to pay for it. There shouldn't be "a new welfare program" for it. That's distorted. It's not a welfare program funded by taxpayers. It's an insurance regulation that will have some effect on insurance premiums. That's a conservative theme that resonates with listeners who don't worry about how much sex other people are having. But he doesn't bother to get the conservative argument straight. He has to distort it so it works with his joking about prostitution, and he's only talking about it in connection to sex — that very, very frequent sex that somebody else is having.
And whatever happened to religion? I mean religion as the exalted aspiration toward God, the theme that other Republicans had worked so hard to refine and articulate before Rush's big voice drowned them out. Now, the connection to religion seems to be about the old sexual Puritanism. This is a theme that makes many modern American women suspect that what people like Rush are really about is preserving the body's uncontrolled sexual function for the purpose of subordinating women. How dare women seize the power to disconnect sexuality from the consequences God built in!
But it is fundamental to women's freedom that we have the ability to decide for ourselves when our bodies will go through pregnancy and bear children. At some point, society ought to intervene to protect a developing child, and we will argue until doomsday about exactly where that point is, but it is nevertheless crucial to the equality of women that we control our bodies' reproductive function. There are in this world societies that appropriate the reproductive function and use it as a means of intimidating and punishing women who might act upon sexual desire, but that is not the United States, not since quite a long time ago. Now, we could become a society like that, and I suspect some of Rush's listeners, if not Rush himself, love that idea.
Yes, yes, no one is currently proposing taking away birth control. The debate is about who pays for it. Of course. But the political effort to channel public opinion reaches more deeply into the human mind. Politicians make choices about what emotions to stimulate. The Republican Party and the Republican candidates seem to have decided that their emotional theme would be freedom of religion. That might elegantly balance the Democratic Party's theme of reproductive freedom. And then Rush lumbered into the spotlight and spouted about sex. Sex! The women are having too much sex! Sex, sex, sex, all the time, 3 times a day! Sex!
In the long comments thread on yesterday's post about Limbaugh and Fluke, Mark O said:
This is part of a wonderfully orchestrated maneuver to distract the voters from Obama's economic failures to something nearly irrelevant.And I said:
Nice of Rush to sit in on Obama's orchestra.
Posts
535 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 535 Newer› Newest»"I can't imagine that any station out there could get away with suspending him."
This what the left hates most about Limbaugh - he's popular far beyond any pundit on the left, they can't even boycott him. He's like daddy holding the car keys, and asking uncomfortable questions.
As far as I can tell, Limbaugh basically makes the stations that carry him. His audience is huge, and people would tune out. I can't imagine that any station out there could get away with suspending him.
My impression was that Limbaugh is free though an ad barter.
They have to carry Limbaugh's ads and are then free to run their own.
Limbaugh's ads are direct response marketing. He gets paid when you call the number.
It might be that there's some money changing hands now in addition, with Clear Channel involved.
I favor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says health care is indeed a human right.
Unless you plan on running the United States based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then no - health care is NOT a right.
You cant just selectively pick and choose when to follow the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and when not to.
"(c) mentions the cost as being $3000 if one doesn't have insurance "during law school" (which is to say, over three years, which comes out to a little over $80 per month, which isn't out of line when it comes to getting prescription medication)
I was on insurance that didn't cover BC and sexually active from around 1999 through 2002 or 3. The most I ever paid (and I've tried a lot of options) was when I was on a name brand monthly injection, which cost $30 for the drug and $10 for my doc's office to do the injection. Part of that time I was a part-time waitress and college student. On the list of problematic expenses, BC didn't even make the top-20. It's one dinner out at a casual restaurant; it's one Sephora-run or a new shirt on sale, or a half-tank of gas. It's just not that much money.
So, yes, $80 is way out of line, is my point.
"I favor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says health care is indeed a human right."
This! They walk among us. Make no mistake.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
Ritmo: At which point Fen will get his buddies together and determine a quota.
Ritmo fails and knee-jerks into ad hom.
Bottom line: if you're making me pay for your sex life, the amount of sex you're having becomes my business. You don't want me in your bedroom, don't bring my checkbook into your bedroom.
"Except when you jump right back in and say it's about how many times per day the sex was being had.
Shift your pretend-argument back and forth into shaming and blaming mode as you see fit. A neutral and objective case can obviously pack only so much of a punch!"
Buddy, you are attempting to assign meaning and priority to my arguments, which is precisely the playground that this meme was invented to play out on.
If I was twenty years old and sitting in the commons at good old GW and spied a hot and tasty young lady across the way and decided we needed to get closer, but found out I would have to wait a week or two to get in the rotation, I'd think "SLUT". If I was a parent sending thousands of dollars a month to GW where my little princess was spending more time on the County Health Department Notification List than the Dean's List, I might be a little less than proud.
Do either statements or situation have crap all to do with whether Ms. Fluke's contention that her lady parts are hostage to Evil Conservative Agendas?
Hell. No.
You don't get to define the power of gravity, or the color of the sun.
Her behaviour is her business. Right up until the tab is presented to me for payment.
That is the planet we live on. My NOT PAYING for HER ACTIONS is the debate. Not whether or not I approve. See there? She's pursuing happiness. Or a record for rug burns. I don't know, don't care.
I respect her freedom. But I demand mine, now, too.
Like I said, the playground is closed. That game is over.
As more and more items land on the "it's free" list, the higher the price tag goes.
Darleen makes the best points.
Some stupid politician will require car insurance to cover oil changes, and we will watch in confused dismay as our auto insurance premiums sky-rocket.
No matter, it's a "right" and it's "free!" and after all it's for the "common good", and "I am my brother's keeper" and we are too stupid to manage our own lives and we need cradle to grave government regulations.
Soon, we will all be sluts of the state.
And here is another right-wing lie about Fluke debunked. There are claims that she went to Georgetown for the purpose of changing their insurance policy (not because it's a top law school and she wanted to go to school in DC, etc.). See the following: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
So in other words, she was a pro-choice student who wanted to go to the best law school she could get into (not a bad move in this job market) and wasn't going to let the school's health insurance policies dissuade her from going. Instead, she tried to peacefully change the policies from within, as any student has the right to do for any issue. Burn the witch!
But it is fundamental to women's freedom that we have the ability to decide for ourselves when our bodies will go through pregnancy and bear children. ... but it is nevertheless crucial to the equality of women that we control our bodies' reproductive function. There are in this world societies that appropriate the reproductive function and use it as a means of intimidating and punishing women who might act upon sexual desire, but that is not the United States, not since quite a long time ago. Now, we could become a society like that, and I suspect some of Rush's listeners, if not Rush himself, love that idea.
Come on. This is ridiculous. No one is trying to control women's bodies here, and Rush is highly unlikely to control either it or their sexual desire either.
It is purely about personal responsibility and who pays for this woman's recreational sex.
Yes, yes, no one is currently proposing taking away birth control. The debate is about who pays for it. Of course. But the political effort to channel public opinion reaches more deeply into the human mind. Politicians make choices about what emotions to stimulate. The Republican Party and the Republican candidates seem to have decided that their emotional theme would be freedom of religion. That might elegantly balance the Democratic Party's theme of reproductive freedom.
I disagree that the Republicans picked the religious freedom fight. It was apparently a Roman Catholic (who had been asked by her Archbishop not to take Communion because of her position on abortion), Kathleen Sebelius, and, is thus presumptively assumed to know well the views and theology of her church, who recently promulgated the rules that are in question here that require religiously affiliated institutions (primarily affecting institutions run by her own church) to pay for abortions and birth control, thereby violating the conscience, morality, and theology of her own church.
She promulgated the rules without seriously considering the views of her own church, and then after she did so, was asked to reconsider, by those same leaders, and offered, instead, an accounting gimmick that most everyone saw through of allowing people to opt out of contraction and abortion coverage, but these religiously affiliated and run organizations would still have to pay for these services, at the same price to both those opting out and to their employer. As I said, an accounting gimmick.
Kathleen Sebelius and Barrack Obama knew what they were doing when they promulgated the rules in question. They made the first move, and so it is inaccurate to claim that the Republicans and religious conservatives picked this fight. The Administration picked it, and mostly likely did it to distract the voters from how poorly they have done economically over the last 3-5 years, and, as some have pointed out, to fire up women by claiming that the evil Republicans are trying to steal their lady parts and control their bodies.
Peter Hoh-
So in most states it is illegal for any citizen to not own a health insurance policy that covers women's contraceptive devices and breast pumps at zero copay?
I believe the GOP did try very hard to influence this bill. Isn't that why it was passed by the Democrats just before Scott Brown took away their veto proof majority?
somefeller
But you repeat yourself.
And that doesn't make it true, or what anyone else thinks either.
Just own it already. You run with the thieves.
It came up on this show that BC pills only cost $5/month at Wallmart. Is that true? If it is, why is congress bothering with all this just to save women from losing one free Starbucks coffee a month?
You could say: Rush called Fluke a slut because slut still means something to Rush.
I wouldn't be inclined to call Fluke a slut, but rather a pathological moocher.
somefeller said...
Here is a link to Fluke's testimony. As you can see, despite the ignorant comments of Limbaugh and his acolytes here, Fluke (a) doesn't talk about her personal sexual activity, much less the three times a day calculus that the Limbaugh brigade is citing, (b) does talk about people who use birth control pills for purposes like treatment for ovarian cysts, (c) mentions the cost as being $3000 if one doesn't have insurance "during law school" (which is to say, over three years, which comes out to a little over $80 per month, which isn't out of line when it comes to getting prescription medication) and (d) makes it clear that she is a reproductive rights/feminist activist, so no hiding of the ball there.
She already did that. She was presented in the media as a 23 year old law student and didn't change that until her Today interview - in her testimony, she only IDs herself as a 3rd year law student, so some phony folksy hands us another of his half truths.
She also claims to be a Catholic, but she wants the Church to violate its teaching and be forced to provide government-sponsored birth control, so she lies there.
Her selection of Gerogetown was specifically to pick this fight and highlight her cause.
I know none of these things would matter much to the imbecile and grumbling loser set that is attacking Fluke, but facts are stubborn things.
Aren't they. As I've shown, the woman has consistently shown herself to be a fraud and, almost certainly, a Democrat plant. that Rush didn't call her a liar, instead of a slut, which would have been more effective, is his mistake.
Some phony folksy as always is more interested in puffing up his ego by calling any who dare disagree with him names than getting to the facts.
Mencken's famous line is almost always used to describe conservatives, but today it better describes leftists.
"Instead, she tried to peacefully change the policies from within, as any student has the right to do for any issue. Burn the witch!"
Instead, she did of course what ANY student would do, she allowed herself to be used by and for the purposes of, the democrat apparatchik, from WITHOUT, as 'folks' do, EVERY DAY.
//fixed
And as long as we are quoting Mencken:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
The so-called "social" issues became prominent through the efforts of left-wing ideologues. Their efforts are well-intentioned, but they are also corrosive as they are progressively incompatible with both the natural (i.e. evolutionary fitness) and enlightened (i.e. individual dignity) orders. Their policies are principal sponsors of dysfunction and corruption.
The purpose of insurance is to distribute risk. The demand for condoms, as well as abortion, etc., do not generally meet that criteria. The so-called "health care reform" is little more than a program to conduct involuntary exploitation in order to purchase votes. It serves to marginalize personal responsibility and does nothing to address the causes of progressively costly provision of medical services.
The prerequisite for liberty is individuals capable of self-moderating behavior. There is a large and growing minority of Americans who are failing to meet that requirement. They dream of physical, material, and ego instant gratification, principally through redistributive and retributive change, but also through fraudulent and opportunistic exploitation.
Fluke is just another left-wing ideologue who prefers to avoid discussing issues on their merit (and ignoring reality) by appealing and exploiting human emotions. Her personal self-gratification is her business, but so is the means by which she funds it. She needs to accept personal responsibility for her voluntary behaviors.
Let the grand social and natural experiment continue. May the distortion and dysfunction it spawns be properly assessed.
Lyssa says: So, yes, $80 is way out of line, is my point.
That was a decade ago, prices may have risen, particularly depending on the treatment. But it still came out to about $40 a month, which would be around $1500 over the course of law school. As any financial planner will tell you, recurring expenses are the worst. Also, I suspect the attacks on her would have come in even if she didn't quote a specific cost range.
Don't Tread says: But you repeat yourself. And that doesn't make it true, or what anyone else thinks either. Just own it already. You run with the thieves.
Weak response, even for the likes of you. I simply run with the people who aren't offended by birth control and think it should be a part of any decent health insurance policy. And as far as the thieves thing goes, I probably have contributed a lot more to society (both culturally and financially) than you have.
I have absolutely no idea what the Republican myth that Somefeller was attempting to "disprove" in his 11:29 post was supposed to be. She knew that GT didn't cover BC, but went anyway because it was a good school? OK, yay for her. She made a choice based on her priorities. If I had had the opportunity to attend a school that expensive, I might have done the same.
In all of the costs associated with law school, $30-40 per month for the pill is pretty darn minor.
"If using birth control for acne, cancer, cramps or sex makes me slut, well I'm another Slut for Obama 2012."
but it is true that condoms lend themselves to the couple sharing the cost rather than the woman alone a lot more easily, also.
Sharing the cost? I've always paid for my own condoms. As a male, you are stupid and irresponsible if you have unprotected sex, regardless of whether she is using birth control.
I think you're trying to frame this as the female covering the entire cost. That's simply not true.
BTW, the condoms are much more expensive than female birth control. And you can't go to some Planned Parenthood clinic and get them for "free", and even if you could, they would be so cheaply made that you couldn't rely on them to not break.
Chill, professor. Take two Valium and go to bed.
Edutcher at 11:32am, I already shot you down at 11:29am. Try to keep up. Also, the fact that some media outlets said she was 23 rather than 30 until they were corrected is completely irrelevant to the substance of this discussion (look, a squirrel!) and you haven't shown that she's lied about anything. In fact, she was up-front about the causes she supports and groups she's a part of. Better luck next time.
Let me maybe clarify my point about Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius.
Let me suggest that if a jury were to have to decide whether or not she inadvertently, accidentally, or intentionally promulgated rules that would be unacceptable to the Roman Catholic terms, and which they could not accept, that such a jury would in high likelihood determine it to have been intentional.
I, being a Protestant, might get away with claiming inadvertence. Not her. She was born and raised in the Roman Catholic church, and had been asked by her Archbishop not to take Communion over just this issue. She can not.
Yea, Mencken quote is a total Non Sequitur here.
If it was: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, had a dollar more than they needed."
or "... someone, somewhere, had to make any sacrifice for their enjoyment."
Then it would be closer to the argument.
Lyssa wonders:I have absolutely no idea what the Republican myth that Somefeller was attempting to "disprove" in his 11:29 post was supposed to be.
There have been comments about how Fluke chose to go to Georgetown for the purpose of attacking its health insurance policies. You can find them at this website and elsewhere. I'm pointing out that aside from the absurdity of the idea that people choose law schools for such purposes, the "proof" that's cited for that proposition isn't much of a proof.
You decide when to go through pregnancy at the time you decide when to have sex. Both the man and woman should accept responsibility for the predictable outcome of their voluntary behavior.
The only objective standard for assigning dignity to human life is at conception. Anything else is arbitrary and even perverse.
Somefeller said: That was a decade ago, prices may have risen, ... As any financial planner will tell you, recurring expenses are the worst.
Prices may have risen, but they may not have. As far as I have been able to tell (I've been on the pill continuously since then until just last fall), they've gone down if anything. PP has been quoted as saying that they range between 15 and 50/ month. The generic that I've been on for the last few years was ridiculously cheap.
Regardless, recurring costs are a fact of life, at least for adults.
"Weak response, even for the likes of you. I simply run with the people who aren't offended by birth control and think it should be a part of any decent health insurance policy. And as far as the thieves thing goes, I probably have contributed a lot more to society (both culturally and financially) than you have."
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, somefeller. But, I think you give yourself far too much credit in this case. The self-congratulatory tone of your remarks is very telling.
You see, people that take personal responsibility for themselves generally insist that others do the same. That's fairness as I know it.
Those that don't usually reveal themselves as such in short order.
I comment to see the newer comments. Is there another way to see them?
These comments reveal the true ignorance of the “birth control = slut” mindset. There are many reasons why a virgin with no plans to have sex would take birth control pills as a medical necessity. This is what Fluke’s testimony to Congress was about (not sex), but nonetheless the screams of “slut” reveal the ugliness of the right.
When you think about it, Rush actually has quite an incentive to assist Obama’s re-election. I’m starting to think it may be a Democratic landslide.
There have been comments about how Fluke chose to go to Georgetown for the purpose of attacking its health insurance policies.
Actually, I understood your quote to say that (That she went "interested in birth control"), and that was the first that I've noticed anything like that. Why would a person go to a very expensive law school just to change it's birth control policy?
"Take away the $$$ concerns, and see who cares to peer into Ms. Fluke's bedroom, or condemn her personal practices."
I agree wholeheartedly with Mary on this.
It always comes down to the money.
And when they say it isn't about the money, or that its about the sex, its DEFINITELY about the money.
@phx:
I favor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says health care is indeed a human right.
The UDHR is a meaningless and powerless document, the vast majority of whose signatories neither respect nor recognize the "rights" set down. It is the product of a corrupt institution that trumpets this sham document while Russia and China enable continuing massacres in Syria. The UDHR has all the moral and intellectual power of dissolving toilet paper washing through the sewer.
Regardless, it does not trump the Constitution.
Health care is a commodity. Commodities are not "rights."
AJ Lynch
Yes, simply refresh the page - the little icon with the rotating arrow, or just press F5.
When you think about it, Rush actually has quite an incentive to assist Obama’s re-election.
Bingo. His dopey listeners are too dense to figure he makes more money with a Democrat in the White House.
Now if ONLY this could be an argument about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights!
Lyssa says:Actually, I understood your quote to say that (That she went "interested in birth control"), and that was the first that I've noticed anything like that. Why would a person go to a very expensive law school just to change it's birth control policy?
I don't know. Ask edutcher or this guy. It seems to be a meme among the mouthbreather set. Like I said, the idea is absurd and in any case, their big proof for that contention proves nothing. She went to Georgetown because she wanted to go there and she was accepted. She cares about reproductive rights issues so she looked at their health insurance policies. She didn't agree with them, but she wasn't going to turn down admission to a top school for that so she lobbied for change while there. Such horrors, I tell you.
Well isn't [sic.] our (mandated) tax dollars some kind of pooling?
Yeah, 50% of the population pools its tax money. The other 50% pools its demand for the former's money.
Thanks Don't Tread- but I meant when it goes over 200, it seems I have to comment to see the comments over 200.
I'm waiting for Warren Buffet to say that since his secretary pays more for contraception than he does, insurance companies should be willing to lose money on contraception fulfillment of its policy holders.
Can we all agree that insurance companies are as real a bogeyman as energy companies and investment bankers? The large, national insurance companies are complicit in this now-stampeding entitlement expansion. They'll offer new policies and make tidy profits on all of them. Should Warren Buffett get rich because Ms. Fluke likes to have an insane amount of sex? (3x a day; wow. Impressive.)
AJ Lynch
Sorry, you should see at the top or bottom of the page with the first 200 comments, 'newer' or 'newest'. If you click on that it should get you to the next 200.
Thank You Professor,
As with my previous comments, this issue is grave to me. The research on Natural Family Planning is pretty valid and respected in medical circles. Catholic Institutions, like Georgetown, have worked on better understanding of our reproductive systems.
The slut remark harmed Catholics, as much as this mandate.
phx wrote: Hombre tries again. You lost me at "Pravda Media."
Of course I did. It's easier to be lost than to provide a thoughtful response.
garage mahal said...
Rush is right. While unpleasent to publicly say, money for sex is prostitution and by demanding that others help pay for her sex life she has defined herself.
Only to emotionally stunted mental midgets like you and Limbaugh.
The most common reason U.S. women use oral contraceptive pills is to prevent pregnancy, but 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes. The study documenting this finding, “Beyond Birth Control: The Overlooked Benefits of Oral Contraceptive Pills,” by Rachel K. Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, also found that more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons. Link
3/3/12 11:20 AM
Right because there is no difference between a medically indicated condition and lifestyle choice. If Fluke stated she needs the pills for a medically indicated reason there would be no discussion. But she didn't say that. So as per usual you once again demonstrate your usual foolishness.
Hey my lifestyle requirement to live a happy content stress free (and thus avoid depression and stress related illnesses) require me to have a Palm Beach lifestyle, which requires a mid five figure Rolls Royce and a mid eight figure single family home. I have a positive right to these things in the pursuit of my happiness and subsequent good health and you have an obligation to wire me the money. Hey If I am obligated to finance Fluke's happiness you are obligated to finance mine.
Simple enough for even a stunted mental midget like you to grasp. I need the money ASAP so start slaving away right now.
I have to make new posts to see the second page of posts at all; there's no link on the main posts page that I can see and it only shows up when I make a fresh post.
You're *all* going so far off the rails over this - starting with you, Ann - I can't think straight,...
"The slut remark harmed Catholics, as much as this mandate."
I don't know, Renee, as one who values personal responsibility in myself, my family members, coworkers, and others, I think the only one it hurts are the utterer(s).
I don't think Catholics bear responsibility for this, they are already in hot water going way back to the 30's when they 'partnered' with government and signed on to the 'social justice' thing.
Maybe Limbaugh's remark hurts them, but it wouldn't be justified.
??
Nice, the rest of the election season boils down to Obama saying "vote for me instead of those evil, scary women-hating Republicans who hate sex".
It is fundamental to women's freedom that we have the ability to decide for ourselves when our bodies will go through pregnancy and bear children.
And they should KEEP THEIR LEGS CLOSED until then.
Jeez - and you, a law professor!
Nice, the rest of the election season boils down to Obama saying "vote for me instead of those evil, scary women-hating Republicans who hate sex".
And it's so simple. It plays itself.
The is a teaching moment and for that I thank you all.
What is needed is free prostitutes for all men, paid for by the government. Some women might qualify for this health care right (you all must admit psychosexual health is a right right?) too but the details will come later.
Since men pay a lot of taxes, this is fair in that their health needs cannot be ignored by cruel, heartless females unconcerned with mens' health and ability to lead a life with dignity.
Whether because of direct or indirect conniving and bigotry, women have refused to give away sex, thereby creating scarcity and war itself, if not indeed all problems or annoyances that have ever existed.
Take away this scarcity, caused by women, as a group, and there will be no need for anyone to consume in a conspicuous manner or compete with your neighbor and brother.
I say we shed this veil of tears we call freedom and do what I feel feels good now.
They can't hit it. They can't lay off it.
I hope that females have plenty of sex, as close as possible to me in fact, but I only want to buy dinner on the nights I'm taking her home. I'm a gentleman, not a sucker.
Got it.
Women: Henceforth be warned.
You are not to have any more sex than the pseudonymous CEO who comments on the Althouse blog as "Bag O'H20" is capable of paying for.
Now let's get to making some policy!
"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
Liberalism: The overwhelming feeling that happiness, despite who else it bothers, inconveniences, or robs, depends upon always getting your way.
Canuck said...
Do you even have a clue what the concept of insurance is? What is an insurable event? If you did you wouldn't keep making the ridiculous assertions you make. Maybe your assertions might make sense in a Canadian context but they absolutely do not in a US context.
phx wrote: And it's so simple. It plays itself.
That's how the Dems like it, simple!
Who wants to bother with complicated stuff like the First Amendment and basic economics?
Dupes.
phx wrote: Hombre tries again. You lost me at "Pravda Media."
Of course I did. It's easier to be lost than to provide a thoughtful response.
Or maybe it's just easier for him to let you lose yourself in your shopworn propaganda and Old Fart inability to see the end of the Cold War.
I sleep all morning and this is what I get.
I thought of a political cartoon WAAAAY before this happened. It was in response to the idiocy of Pelosi and others complaining that they were having hearings (Congressional? Senate?)about the contraception mandate and how it impacted freedom of reglion and how everyone asked to testify was male. In fact, they were all old male theologians. Men who'd spent lifetimes on their study.
So I thought of a political cartoon with a panel of people asked to testify and they each introduce themselves: The first wizened old fellow explains he has a doctorate of theology and they should listen to him, the second explains that he represents a global organization that equals the population of the entire United States and they should listen to him, the third explains that he has made economics his life study and has counseled world leaders and they should listen to him.
On the end sits a cute young woman, she bats her lashes and explains: You should listen to me, because I have a vagina.
So Pelosi found someone with a vagina to testify in place of the old men, and this young pretty woman testified that... she's got a vagina.
Never mind how profoundly insulting this is to women. Is it really more important that Rush is a jerk who points out that the entire basis of this young lady's "expertise" is that she's got a vagina and she uses it?
It frames everything pretty perfectly when the man who got arrested for taking Viagra on his overseas vacation repeatedly uses the word “slut”.
Obama is a very very very lucky man.
This flux of stories about Fluke's fucking has generated a lot of foolish flakiness.....Ultimately it's not about the word slut, but about who uses that word. If you have a posh English accent, you criticize the working class in muted tones, if at all. Blacks and gays can describe themselves in words that are verboten to whites and straights. I think among women of a certain demographic, the word slut means a female stud, i.e. someone who gets a certain amount of variety and pleasure out of their sex lives. But that's among themselves. Don't you try it. Even Brad Pitt would probably catch hell if he jokingly described Angelina as a slut. And Rush has not built up the reserves of good will among the female community that Brad Pitt can draw on.....He lobbed this right to their wheelhouse. He lost this issue not on the merits, but on his presentation of it.......The martyr mills are ginning up. Not since Valerie Plame has the left encountered a more violated female. There will soon be a major motion picture starring either Anne Hathaway or Natalie Portman about Ms. Fluke's courage under oppression. Soon all women will stand up and say I am Fluke.
It may actually be a good thing that Rush and the discussion here is bringing the debate about birth control right into another area where there ought to be discussion but isn't. For the past 100 years we've been going downhill in terms of any kind of discussion about morals and sexuality. Among lots of my friends in the post-college, grad school and early career generation, it's been called "terrifying" that anyone would ever suggest that people deserve to give themselves MORE than just a bunch of random sexual partners and ensuing heartbreaks over the years. As if it's self-evident. I've also seen FB comments calling anyone who believes such things as causing "retrogression" in society.
Society is certainly progressing in some ways and retrogressing in others. But it's becoming clear that there are two different camps, and they view the areas of progression and retrogression as precisely the opposite of each other. And I really do feel that this is reaching a point where it's impossible to compromise or co-exist. Just saying it like I see it.
I'm happy to be friends with all types and hear their points of view. But being a traditionalist when it comes to religion and family, I've had to check "hide story" on several postings. I grew up in the 80s and 90s, and certainly have been in the minority my whole life. So why the sudden change? As I said, it's the self-evidentness with which all this is talked about. And the pushiness with which it is insisted upon. Basically, there is no respect for the traditional view anymore, and I'm not wasting my time on those who won't even consider other people's deeply-held religious sensibilities as at all valid.
It takes so much thought to pretend that the Soviet Union still exists.
Me, I prefer Russia Today. It's actually got some decent reporting, and Alyona is a hell of a lot smarter and nicer to look at than those Fux News bimbos.
Haven't asked her if she's had as much sex as Bag O' can "pay for", yet. But you know me. I don't care. I'm a bit less controlling of the female sex thing than these chumps.
Ann Althouse,
I'm talking about how Rush is hurting his own party. Maher may hurt Democrats too, but that doesn't clear Rush out of center stage where he is actively damaging the Republican Party's prospects in this fall's elections.
And when it comes to common sense or bedrock principles, isn't that what really matters? As the old saying goes - and in the spirit of the topic - "We've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price," right?
Sorry, Ann, but that's not conservatism,...
The point is this woman wants to pretend that she's a responsible 30 year old adult attending a prestigious Catholic law school, but she doesn't want to take responsibility for her sex life. She wants to shift the cost for her birth control to other insureds who contribute to the insurance pool.
Anybody with even the tiniest knowledge of insurance knows that insurance theory requires there be an "insurable event" before a claimant is reimbursed. An "insurable event" is an event that probability theory suggest happens infrequently but can have large, even catastrophic financial consequences, if the event occurs. Death, fires, auto accidents, floods, etc. are examples of "insurable events" that actuaries can use empirical evidence to predict the frequency and the financial consequence when the event occurs. With that knowledge, they can determine the appropriate insurance premium to charge against everyone who is in the insurance pool (some of whom will never file a claim to be reimbursed).
Insurance purists have long noted that health insurance is not insurance. Neither is the recurring, annuity like nature of reimbursing someone for birth control.
That's why the idea is absurd and deserves to be ridiculed. What's next, you want Congress to mandate that toothpaste be covered by "insurance" since frequently brushing your teeth often leads to fewer cavities? Why not have oil changes for your car covered by the collective since regular oil changes increases the useful life of a car? There's really no end to this slippery slope.
And that's what Rush's larger point was. Unfortunately, he got very carried away and he enjoyed outrage he generated by tweaking the left with the "slut" comments.
So Pelosi found someone with a vagina to testify in place of the old men, and this young pretty woman testified that... she's got a vagina.
Never mind how profoundly insulting this is to women.
Not as profoundly insulting to people with hearts to hear Republicans pontificating on the merits or drawbacks of cardiac surgery.
Crack wrote: Liberalism: The overwhelming feeling that happiness, despite who else it bothers, inconveniences, or robs, depends upon always getting your way.
Hear, hear. My grandchildren, the oldest of whom is ten, have this figured out. I expect them to outgrow it.
"When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11 (Sorry, Crack. It seemed apropos.)
Let's say we accept the idea that health insurance should cover birth control. Insurance companies may think birth control pills are too expensive. Therefore insurance companies decide to cover condoms, but if you exhaust your condom allotment for the year, then you have to pay for it yourself. Now let's talk about how much that allotment should be? Wow, the government gets to decide how much sex we can have!!
Further, will insurance companies be commanded to pay for any brand of birth control or can they get away with the generic as well? That's what they do with all the other generics available. If you want brand name you gotta pay.
The government needs to stay out of this.
I guess I should leave a window open to this blog.
It may actually be a good thing that Rush and the discussion here is bringing the debate about birth control right into another area where there ought to be discussion but isn't.
Right, and the flag-bearer for your side is...Rush Limbaugh. And the context is the 2012 elections.
It may be a good thing for you, but I don't see how it's a good thing for Republicans.
So, can we expect that a female sexual activity quota will be written into the Republican platform at this year's convention?
They need to get their message out in persuasive terms, then. And they can't be heard over Rush Limbaugh's big voice.
The most effective form of birth control --it works 100% of the time-- is also 100% free. Consider that Limbaugh is telling Fluke that, in his own inimitable way, illustrating the absurdity of her position by being absurd.
And that's not even getting to the fact that YOU are the one amplifying and trumpeting what Limbaugh said.
To those of you who are so sure Rush has lost this one, I assure you, you have absolutely no clue about media tweaking - or the man who fights with half his brain behind his back just to keep it fair:
He's laughing at all of you.
And look out, Ann, because I wouldn't be surprised if - through your unhinged feminist bellyaching - you haven't put a target on your back this time,...
Crack wrote: Liberalism: The overwhelming feeling that happiness, despite who else it bothers, inconveniences, or robs, depends upon always getting your way.
Hear, hear.
Well that caricature was easy enough, wasn't it? Here's the obvious corollary:
Conservatism: The overwhelming feeling that happiness, despite who else it bothers, inconveniences, or robs, depends on exerting arbitrary control over others.
And that's not even getting to the fact that YOU are the one amplifying and trumpeting what Limbaugh said.
Right, Ann should shut up and let Rush Limbaugh handle this.
To those of you who are so sure Rush has lost this one, I assure you, you have absolutely no clue about media tweaking - or the man who fights with half his brain behind his back just to keep it fair:
Oh! Is that what he did with his brain? I just figured that grossly fat head of his was filled with adipose tissue. I didn't realize it was reserve brain space for the parts that were being, er, "tied up".
Wonder what the Viagra does to it.
Soon all women will stand up and say I am Fluke.
This.
Ritmo - so having sex 10 times a day with multiple partners is A-OK with you.
phx said...
Nice, the rest of the election season boils down to Obama saying "vote for me instead of those evil, scary women-hating Republicans who hate sex".
And it's so simple. It plays itself.
3/3/12 12:20 PM
Yes indeed it plays itself. Why Obama is going to around saying "vote for me instead of those evil, scary woman hating Republicans who hate paying for your sex life". All the republican candidate has to say are you a moocher or a producer? If you are a moocher then vote for the democrats. If you are not a parasite vote republican. Indeed it plays itself very well.
I understand Fluke has a problem financing her sex life but I along with millions of other voters do not see our obligation to finance her lifestyle choices. Leave it to Obama and the democrats to dig their own political graves.
Ritmo - so having sex 10 times a day with multiple partners is A-OK with you.
Since it's the Republican platform, why not let THEM figure out the correct number?
Ritmo - so having sex 10 times a day with multiple partners is A-OK with you.
Hey, Alex!
It's not my business to know or care what takes place in your imagination, while in the bathroom with a tub of vaseline (or whatever) and a bunch of tissues.
So good to see you back here and fighting the good fight against freedom again (while marrying the label to your cause). Was wondering when you'd chime in.
O Ritmo Segundo,
Well that caricature was easy enough, wasn't it? Here's the obvious corollary:
Conservatism: The overwhelming feeling that happiness, despite who else it bothers, inconveniences, or robs, depends on exerting arbitrary control over others.
That is the stupidest,...Ghaw! Here, Ritmo, let me try this on you:
The government should have to provide me with a gun, otherwise they're blocking my Second Amendment rights, correct?
Or how about the government should have to buy my toothpaste because it's a medical need, maybe?
You guys, I swear, are off on Cloud Nine and I warn you:
Elections have a way of getting people to focus on reality.
You got lucky last time, you won't be so fortunate twice,...
When Rush takes Viagra, his big bony bald head swells.
It's why he had to cut short his Dominican sex tourism vacation.
somefeller said...
And here is another right-wing lie about Fluke debunked. There are claims that she went to Georgetown for the purpose of changing their insurance policy (not because it's a top law school and she wanted to go to school in DC, etc.). See the following: Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.
So in other words, she was a pro-choice student who wanted to go to the best law school she could get into (not a bad move in this job market) and wasn't going to let the school's health insurance policies dissuade her from going. Instead, she tried to peacefully change the policies from within, as any student has the right to do for any issue. Burn the witch!
3/3/12 11:29 AM
And as a law student she should know the school has no contractual obligation to accommodate. You may have missed that concept.
"Perversely, I would support free government condoms to the young and horny, but do not want to have government mandate free condoms via health insurance. I guess I'm just a fan of plain talking, i.e. take [what] you want and pay for it." (emphasis mine)
I wish everyone were as clear thinking as you. What a lot of nonsense over a non-issue. Why the need for the govt to get involved in BC at all? Let insurance companies offer coverage for BC or not. Let people pay a higher premium for it or not. What the hell is wrong with most people's ability to think concisely?
Althouse- you have made statements that lead me to believe you are not a fan of the steaming pile of crap (my opinion) that is Obamacare, which is the signature accomplishment of this administration, and yet you would still consider voting against the GOP because Rush Limbaugh - who is not running for anything as far as I know - called a female political tool a name? And because the GOP is stupid enough to always allow the Dems to frame the issues of the day as the Dems see fit? Can you really not get beyond that smokescreen, or are you just worried that others are too mushy-headed to do so?
That is the stupidest,...Ghaw! Here, Ritmo, let me try this on you:
Nothing like starting off your diatribe with an homage to Homer Simpson.
The government should have to provide me with a gun, otherwise they're blocking my Second Amendment rights, correct?
No. But one of those pesky amendments requires payment for representation by a lawyer.
And the bill of rights doesn't apply here. Tell your friends that not every political issue is a constitutional issue.
Or how about the government should have to buy my toothpaste because it's a medical need, maybe?
Sure, if that's what the representative gov't decides.
You guys, I swear, are off on Cloud Nine and I warn you:
Elections have a way of getting people to focus on reality.
But not with a microscope. There's where you're wrong. Just because you fixate on trivialities - as "real" as they are to your mind - doesn't mean they're the sort of thing that anyone else gives a shit about.
They care about more important realities.
You got lucky last time, you won't be so fortunate twice,...
Why are you comparing your sex life to mine?
pompous montanus aka ritmo the sock puppet weighs in with his usual ad hominum profundity: Or maybe it's just easier for him to let you lose yourself in your shopworn propaganda and Old Fart inability to see the end of the Cold War.
Oh, sorry. Are historical references now impermissible because they confound the dim bulbs of the left?
No one cares what anyone else does in their own bedrooms. No. One.
They care that people or organizations are forced to participate in what someone does in their bedroom. And in particular, participate in something they have religious convictions over.
Without that forced participation, no one would care.
Georgetown, while not covering contraception in order to be following the rules of the church it's a part of *does not care* if the students get it elsewhere. No one is intruding. No one is checking. No one is trying to force anyone to do anything.
So someone is demanding that the other party comply... that the other party be forced to act in a certain way, provide a service for them.
And it's the other party that is intruding into bedrooms?
"... I think Rush reveals what lurks in the hearts of many men, Republicans in particular, which is a fear of women who want more control over their lives..."
Yeah while simultaneously asking for someone else to pay for their birth control.
That's comedy gold.
I have to admit the picture of Limbaugh's gross, sweaty, obese body writing on top of a female is enough to gross me out for 4 days.
ritmo the sock puppet wrote: And the bill of rights doesn't apply here. Tell your friends that not every political issue is a constitutional issue.
Is that your professional, legal opinion, Sock??
Oh, sorry. Are historical references now impermissible because they confound the dim bulbs of the left?
Bring 'em up all you want, Gramps!
Of course, your "bulbs" are too dim to realize that they don't apply or are irrelevant, but don't let that stop your rants. I'm sure in your day burning crosses were all the rage, too. Why stop at using aspirin between a woman's knees as birth control? Your whole party is stuck in a time warp, so keep the asynchronous flashbacks coming as often as they rattle their way out of your faulty circuits.
Ritmo - I don't have a problem with Fluke getting the nasty on 3 times a day. I just don't want to pay for it. Now if she gave live streaming, I'd think about it.
Ritmo - do you think everyone here is gramps? What are you some 20-something whippersnapper?
Does shortening your name from "El Hombre" to "Hombre" constitute sock-puppetry, too?
Pretty interesting that my credentials are being questioned by someone who's too inept to figure out how to use a comments section on Blogger.
Even Blogger has gone to the dogs. Google is fucking incompetent. They deserve to have their asses handed to them by Microsoft.
Ritmo - I don't have a problem with Fluke getting the nasty on 3 times a day. I just don't want to pay for it. Now if she gave live streaming, I'd think about it.
3/3/12 1:03 PM
Alex said...
Ritmo - do you think everyone here is gramps? What are you some 20-something whippersnapper?
Dude, youth may be your only virtue, Alex - if only you made use of it.
Do you, too, not realize that oral contraception does not have a "sexual activity" limit on its effectiveness?
That other guy in question is, by his own admission and demonstration, a dumb old fuck. He had some successes in his day, but now rants about how being anti-butthole sex is a VERY important issue for Texas police to regulate. He also doesn't know how to figure out whether identities are being concealed on the internet.
Let him rant in peace. It's his own way of dying.
Ok let me get this straight. This chick is 30 years old, a law student at Georgetown....Georgetown, and is screwing three times a day and can't afford birth control and needs it paid for by health insurance.
Is she fucking serious? I mean this isn't a joke? Seriously?
ritmo the sock puppet wrote: Conservatism: The overwhelming feeling that happiness, despite who else it bothers, inconveniences, or robs, depends on exerting arbitrary control over others.
Let's see, the gov't, run by libs, orders religious institutions to provide insurance that provides contraceptives, etc., contravening their beliefs. The gov't then orders insurance companies to pay for same if the religious institutions object.
Conservatives object to the gov't's action based on the First Amendment and principles of limited gov't.
And you apparently think objecting to the gov't ordering said entities to provide contraceptives amounts to "exerting arbitrary control over others."
Evidently, you and the other kids in the dorm are stupefied by the issues here -- not to mention concepts like "critical thinking" and "conservative."
The best solution to the deep hole Rush has dug for himself and the GOP would be a sex change operation for the Elle Rushbo.
The Professor's post was spot on.
I believe it was back in 1962 when the struggle to control sluts was lost forever. A counter revolution is not going to happen unless Obama's energy strangulation removes Medical Rx supplies in new found poverty.
So let's us men get our heads out of our asses and start talking about Energy Security in the age of Obama the invader.
Since it's the Republican platform, why not let THEM figure out the correct number?
http://youtu.be/q2PLls02gOU
Ok let me get this straight. This chick is 30 years old, a law student at Georgetown....Georgetown, and is screwing three times a day and can't afford birth control and needs it paid for by health insurance.
No, you haven't gotten it straight. The "three times a day" nonsense came from her vulgar critics, not her statement to the committee and she is saying that the health insurance that she and her classmates pay for should include standard benefits that other plans include. But this is providing a great object lesson regarding what a lot of conservatives think about when the topic of contraception comes up.
screwing three times a day and can't afford birth control
There's your answer, Synova.
Hoosier, like so many of these other nimrods, DOES care about what people do in the bedroom.
Notice how the effectiveness of A REGIMEN of oral contraception has nothing to do with how often one has sex. And yet, nearly every one in your army of Promise Ring-Bearing footsoldiers brings it up.
Why is that?
They are proving that they are old fogies (literally or otherwise) who either resents the fact that someone has more sex than they do or that they are the wrong gender for expressing that capability so openly.
And every time they open their mouths they prove that.
Enjoy fighting last century's election seasons!
Canuck:
It is not clear yet which side, if any, will gain an election advantage from Ms. Fluck's idiotic lament and testimony to Congress.
My money is on the common sense of the American taxpayer who is tired of hearing about govt edicts & programs for free cell phones, free housing, free day care, and now free condoms etc.
cubanbob says:And as a law student she should know the school has no contractual obligation to accommodate. You may have missed that concept.
I didn't say the school had a contractual obligation to accommodate. I simply said she has a right to try and lobby to change the policy, which she is doing, and the claim that she went to Georgetown for the primary purpose of changing their policy is absurd. You may have missed that concept. And thanks for playing internet lawyer.
The Crack Emcee said...
O Ritmo Segundo,
Crack two things to know about Ritmo:
1-he has never uttered an intelligent statement.
2-the honest Brazilian has yet to be born.
However Brazil is a lovely country and the woman often times are amazingly hot and the food is good.
Interesting country as well, Germanic almost to the point of being nearly neo-nazi in some parts of the south to being nearly West African in the northeast.
Gorgeous blued blonds in the south and absolutely beautiful Nubian Princesses in the North East. And a delectable mixture everywhere else in the country including Japanese and Portuguese. The Brazilians have a saying the God is a Brazilian and when it comes to woman they might even be right.
Hmmm come to think of it my health requirements and perhaps yours might require a fully paid for by for by Ritmo, Garage, Somefeller and the Canuck of an all expense paid for top class extended stay vacation along with a truck load of Viagra and any necessary lifestyle accouterments. Because it's our right to pursue our happiness and maintain our health at their expense. Works for me.
In the meantime back here in the good ole US of A perhaps the boys can explain to us why if we are obligated to pay the fee for Flukes sex life she isn't obligated to service us? Simple concept: fee for service. You are right about Rush, he is playing us all like a violin. he knows what he is doing and by deliberately mocking Fluke he has exposed a raw nerve that is making many people reconsider things that the left thought was a done deal, things that they fear now might be rolled back. It may work or it may not but the shrillness on the left is telling indeed.
And you apparently think objecting to the gov't ordering said entities to provide contraceptives amounts to "exerting arbitrary control over others."
Well, yeah. When it comes with a sexual activity frequency quota it does.
Responding to you was a kindness. I don't know why I did it, other than the possibility that I associate you with an Alzheimer's patient, which might make one more deserving of compassion.
But you have clearly outlived your purposefulness, and need to stop trying to pursue meaningful conversation. This strange, new world must frighten and confuse you, Tex. But don't worry. Think about the wonderful afterlife that awaits. No complicated libertine behaviors to have to regulate there.
More than anything the topic reveals the divisions within the GOP and their inability to so far overcome them. They just took another devastating lead right to the head. Shaking off the grogginess isn't enough, they've shown they still don't know how to defend themselves.
Actually Ritmo, you ignorant fuckwit, I could give a shit what she does in the bedroom. I just think its hysterical a 30 year old Georgetown law student can't afford birth control that she needs it paid by a third party.
Then again if you had an ounce of intelligence or half as much intellectual integrity you would have understood my comment.
Then again you have proved time and again what a dishonest hack you are. The more I think about it, if paying for birth control would prevent polluting our planet with more losers like you, I could get behind that.
Now shoo.
Canuck wrote: And I also know that conservatives in Canada know how to avoid the culture war and actually, you know, talk about economics and WIN. Anytime you want to learn how to win, Harper can give a tutorial.
Good point. But Republicans are not conservative and they are the stupid party.
Why does anyone think Limbaugh cares if the GOP prevails? Conservatives may be like the Phoenix after the conflagration caused by liberalism.
Synova says:No one cares what anyone else does in their own bedrooms. No. One.
Bullshit. Just ask the defendants in Lawrence v. Texas and look at the comments on this thread about the supposedly promiscuous sex life of Ms. Fluke (and as I've mentioned repeatedly - her testimony didn't discuss her personal sex life). I know you like to play the "conservatives are awesome and never do the things those eeleetist liberals say they do", but go buy yourself a clue.
Cubanbob said:
Crack two things to know about Ritmo:
1-he has never uttered an intelligent statement.
2-the honest Brazilian has yet to be born.
However Brazil is a lovely country and the woman often times are amazingly hot and the food is good.
I just thought that was worth posting again. In case you want to engage cubanbob in discussion.
Somefeller, I didn't see anything in the link you gave where the blogger said that she went to that school specifically to change their policies; just that she had a history in this area of activism (which I don't find very relevant, either, but whatev). (I'm not going to go back and read all of edutcher's comments). Regardless, I have no idea what that has to do with whether or not others should be forced to pay for her birth control.
Fill in the blanks:
"I would be proud of my 30-year-old child who offered Congressional testimony stating that he or she enjoyed more ___ than he or she could afford, and demanding that therefore a health insurance company had incurred a duty to provide ___."
Actually Ritmo, you ignorant fuckwit, I could give a shit what she does in the bedroom. I just think its hysterical a 30 year old Georgetown law student can't afford birth control that she needs it paid by a third party.
Then again if you had an ounce of intelligence or half as much intellectual integrity you would have understood my comment.
Then again you have proved time and again what a dishonest hack you are. The more I think about it, if paying for birth control would prevent polluting our planet with more losers like you, I could get behind that.
Jeez you gonna cry there, big guy?
Actually Ritmo,
No "actually" needed. You proved what you care about with the "three times a day" comment.
Then again if you had an ounce of intelligence or half as much intellectual integrity you would have understood my comment.
This is what's called "Feeling butthurt after having been pantsed in public".
YOU made reference to three times a day. Did someone force you to do it?
No. You did it because you couldn't help yourself, and now feel embarrassed for making the point that everyone else is saying.
Then again you have proved time and again what a dishonest hack you are.
As you tell me to not believe my lying eyes and pretend that you wrote something other than what you really did write.
Like flies to shit, so are Republicans drawn to scrutinizing the sex lives of others.
Conservative aren't necessarily Republicans.
Here's a tip. if you don't want your genitals discussed in public don't whip em out in public. I daresay even a Democrat would agree.
And then there's the control factor.
Honest to g*d nobody gives a shit what you do. Just don't ask me to subsidize it. And that goes for my insurance premiums.
They simply can't help themselves.
Well. I can, but apparently Ms. Fluke has a problem. Or not. Depending on your perspective.
This post attracted a lot of action!
Yes, Rush did not do his homework on this one and went off half-cocked, so to speak.
But it has been reported that Ms. Fluke (could she have a better name?) is not your average third year law student. She is 30 years old, and has been a "reproductive activist" (so maybe Rush is right) for years. She grossly overstated the cost of contraception - if one decides to forgo free birth control services available at Planned Parenthood (they provide birth control services in addition to abortion, though they prefer the latter)and elsewhere.
Penultimately, Ms. Fluke claims she chose Georgetown because it is a Catholic law school as she wanted to challenge the university's policy on not providing insured contraceptive care. That strains credulity, but, if true, she has been lying in wait for the opportunity to attack the university.
Finally, she was Nancy Pelosi's witness at a bogus hearing. Pelosi is now in the minority and no longer has the authority to call official hearings.
Enough said.
I fail to see what is the difference between a man getting Viagra as heart medication and a woman on BC pill for PCOS. Can some neanderthal explain that one to me, other then they hate sexually active women?
Ok somefeller, then explain to me why any health insurance plan should provide coverage for anyone to engage in consequence free recreational sex?
I mean for fucks sake I was buying my own condoms when I was sixteen and now I'm expected to believe a 30 year old law student can't afford her own?
Again, are you people fucking serious?
Is there anything health insurance should not cover? How about cosmetic surgery to remove any self esteem issues? About massage therapy to remove stress because we all know how stress can kill.
Jeez you gonna cry there, big guy?
Lol.
Yes, he got pretty emotional.
Google is fucking incompetent. They deserve to have their asses handed to them by Microsoft.
If it were 1995, sure, maybe.
In all of the above, has anyone asked Althouse to explain her idee association between the Mencken quote and this issue?
It strikes me it is the Democrats of the day that are insistent on everyone being included in their collective; preferably voluntary, but if persuasion won't do, force must be used. After all, it' for the Common Good!
Will Fluke sue Limbaugh for defamation?
Meanwhile the repercussions for anal cyst Limbaugh are getting damn serious:
Carbonite CEO David Friend intends to confront Limbaugh directly. He posted this open letter to his customers:
“Over the past two days we have received a tremendous amount of feedback on Rush Limbaugh’s recent comments. I too am offended and very concerned about his comments. Limbaugh’s remarks have us rethinking our future use of talk radio.
“We use more than 40 talk show hosts to help get the Carbonite message out to the public. The nature of talk radio is that from time to time listeners are offended by a host and ask that we pull our advertising. This goes for conservatives like Limbaugh and progressives like Stephanie Miller and Ed Shultz. We even get customers who demand that we pull the plug on NPR. As an advertiser, we do not have control over a show’s editorial content or what they say on air. Carbonite does not endorse the opinions of the shows or their hosts.
“However, the outcry over Limbaugh is the worst we’ve ever seen. I have scheduled a face-to-face meeting next week with Limbaugh during which I will impress upon him that his comments were offensive to many of our customers and employees alike. Please know your voice has been heard and that we are taking this matter very seriously.”
Thanks for saying most of these words, Ann Althouse.
These words are not accurate, however:
"Yes, yes, no one is currently proposing taking away birth control."
Pilgrim Santorum has said he supports governnment action to roll back contraceptives. You can look it up. And he has a ready audience among the other pilgrims who agree with this agenda and have said as much out loud for years, if not as loudly as they talk about other reproductive rights.
Why should anyone's religion but the patient's be of any relevance to a medical decision?
This is really backwards thinking and centered around one faith getting more power from the government to impose their faith on others. Which is, BTW, contrary to the whole idea of religious freedom and is, therefore, unAmerican. These religious types have no rightful claim to force their religion on others, "even employees".
If it were 1995, sure, maybe.
Market cap as of March 3, 2012:
MSFT - $270 billion
GOOG - $202 billion
so which companies is more relevant right now?
Hoosier's frustration is so great that he now seems to be confusing low cost of preventive care with whether or not it does any good.
Man, is he really working himself up, today.
Let me quote myself:
"No one cares what anyone else does in their own bedrooms. No. One.
They care that people or organizations are forced to participate in what someone does in their bedroom. And in particular, participate in something they have religious convictions over.
Without that forced participation, no one would care."
So, yes, people do care about what goes on in someone's bedroom. They wouldn't care, they *prefer* not to care, but they are forced to participate, so they care.
Is that more clear?
I love sluts. I love them so much that I provide the condoms for our mutual pursuit-of-happiness activities.
I also love to see them go away. That's why I pay their cab fare home.
It never occurred to me to demand that my expenses be covered by my health-insurance plan. Good to know that's a Human Right.
"Meanwhile the repercussions for... Limbaugh are getting damn serious"
Good, good. I'll sign a boycott petition. Words have meanings, they have consequences. Isn't that what Rush says?
somefeller said...
cubanbob says:And as a law student she should know the school has no contractual obligation to accommodate. You may have missed that concept.
I didn't say the school had a contractual obligation to accommodate. I simply said she has a right to try and lobby to change the policy, which she is doing, and the claim that she went to Georgetown for the primary purpose of changing their policy is absurd. You may have missed that concept. And thanks for playing internet lawyer.
3/3/12 1:22 PM
To lobby a bunch of dimwitted democrats to trash the constitution and over turn centuries of contract law? Is this what you are arguing for? Hey she is the one who brought the attention to herself you may have missed that. But thanks for recognizing the school has no reason to accommodate her and she is free to go elsewhere if the school chooses not to.
Piss off Ritmo. Im tired of dealing with dishonest hacks like yourself. You're incapable of ever engaging in an honest discussion.
As for being rude to Ms. Fluke over things she didn't say...
What is her qualification to testify such that anyone should listen to her?
She's got lady-parts.
She uses birth control.
She'd like not to have to pay for it out of her pocket.
Anything else?
In which case, isn't talking about her lady-parts and the activity surrounding her lady-parts actually speaking *directly* to the expertise that led her to be asked to give testimony?
it is fundamental to women's freedom that we have the ability to decide for ourselves when our bodies will go through pregnancy and bear children
Suppose a woman can't manage to get herself impregnated by a man that meets her standards. Have the community of unattainable men violated her rights?
Leave him alone Ritmo. He might hurt himself.
Honestly Rush's expiration date was 1995. He accomplished his objective bringing the GOP to House/Senate control in 1994. He left his little dent in the universe. Honestly what has been he point of Rush the last 15 years except rehashing past glories? Time to cede the golden EIB microphone to new blood. Maybe Matt Drudge?
I suspect this "issue" will be forgotten after super tuesday--tempest in a teapot
I mean fuck Rush. He used to due homeless updates, animal rights updates, Ted Kennedy updates. He ended all that like a decade ago. He's gotten all serious and it's not fun anymore.
Roger J yeah but they'll bring it up again in October.
So, yes, people do care about what goes on in someone's bedroom. They wouldn't care, they *prefer* not to care, but they are forced to participate, so they care.
But only if it's "three times a day" or more, right?
Given that stubborn reminder we get throughout the thread, I'd like to ask you, Dear Synova, who strives for reason and compassion like no other conservative in this alternate universe, how many instances of sex per day crosses that all-important threshold at which you would suddenly, you know, "care"?
Ok somefeller, then explain to me why any health insurance plan should provide coverage for anyone to engage in consequence free recreational sex?
First of all, as pointed out in her testimony (which people seem to like to avoid reading), the plan didn't cover birth control pills in any circumstance, including matters like treating ovarian cysts. But on the topic of birth control pills for contraception, that is a legitimate medical purpose and as such can and should be included in a health insurance plan, just like Viagra or any number of other medications that I don't take but others do as part of their lives. One can debate on the margin as to whether a particular drug should be covered but the claim here is that birth control shouldn't be covered at all and that Fluke was a slut and prostitute for asking for it to be covered. Also, the opponents of this seem to be unable to make their comments without making crass comments about promiscuity. That says it all. And one last thing - if you have a problem with birth control being included in health insurance plans and it is included in the plan you have, you already are paying for the birth control of others. Take it up with your insurance company if you don't like that. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
Ritmo said: Conservatism: The overwhelming feeling that happiness, despite who else it bothers, inconveniences, or robs, depends on exerting arbitrary control over others.
Because if organizations won't pay for what I tell them to pay for, they are the ones that are controlling. Wait, what?
I don't want anyone controlling Ms. Fluke's sex life or what private organizations pay for. Simple as that.
Alex said...
I fail to see what is the difference between a man getting Viagra as heart medication and a woman on BC pill for PCOS. Can some neanderthal explain that one to me, other then they hate sexually active women?
3/3/12 1:34 PM
Alex apples and oranges. There is a difference between a medically indicated condition in which birth control pills or viagra are a medically indicated treatment and using either for recreational sex. You do understand the distinction? And no, men should not have ED medications subsidized by others either if the intended use is for recreational sex either. In both instances the parties getting laid should pay for their pleasure.
Also, Hoosier Dominatrix went on about "consequence free" sex.
I'm curious, what consequences should sex have?
It sounds like a normative appeal. Are we dealing with objective realities or defining, for our own selfish purposes, what the act of sex should realistically entail - given the existence of all those funky "technological advances" that conservatives like to constantly tell us they have no opposition to.
I wasn't making it up when I said I saw this coming.
Pelosi was complaining that there were no lady-parts asked to testify, only old men (I'm sure they were white, too.) Are there female theologians? I have an acquaintance who got her doctorate of theology and is Catholic, though she's Canadian. Can't find some old woman with degrees in law and theology?
So the lady-parts got asked to testify.
It's embarrassing to be female some times.
Men have to actually have qualifications. I've got lady-parts.
Ann said'
"The woman is required to buy the health insurance, and she's making the argument that her health care needs should be covered."
Then why is she talking to congress instead of her insurance company? Why are you in such a hurry to get the state to force people to do what they don't want to do?
Unbeknownst to the Georgetown law student who testified on the issue of her Catholic College to cover contraception, over at the Georgetown Institute of Reproductive Health they been doing a lot of medical research on women's health all without contraception.
Georgetown University's Institute for Reproductive Health (IRH) was awarded the 5-year Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAM) Project in September 2007 by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The goal of the FAM Project is to increase access to and use of FAM - in particular the Standard Days Method® (SDM), the TwoDay Method®, and the Lactational Amenorrhea Method® (LAM) - within the framework of informed choice.
The FAM Project builds upon the experience of previous USAID-funded projects in which IRH developed, tested and introduced FAM in diverse family planning programs in over 20 countries worldwide. With continued emphasis on research-to-practice, the FAM Project engages with partners at the community, national, and international levels to create a supportive policy environment for FAM, build capacity and develop tools to offer high-quality FAM services, and generate and apply best practices.
------------
Did you notice Georgetown is working with the US states government to share, non-contraceptive family planning?
You do understand the distinction? And no, men should not have ED medications subsidized by others either if the intended use is for recreational sex either. In both instances the parties getting laid should pay for their pleasure.
So what this is really about is hating people for having "recreational sex" as though such a thing exists.
Just when I thought it was safe to come out, a whole new Fluke-thread! And I think Crack has it covered.
AJ Lynch said...
Thanks Don't Tread- but I meant when it goes over 200, it seems I have to comment to see the comments over 200.
Leave the comments page, go back to the main thread-page - then scroll to the bottom and click on "Newest" (assuming there's less than 400 posts, but more than 200).
Notes: Clicking the upper "Older/Newer/Newest" is a false link; it won't work at the top of the page, only at the bottom. Also, Ann normally opens a 2nd thread so as to avoid hitting the 400 comment mark.
Bookmarking individual comments (by right-clicking your comment's time/date stamp - only works in the first 200 page. Beyond 200 the bookmark defaults to the top. Which means, for example, that I'll have to "find" this comment.
Oh Lyssa, it's so cute to see you keep pursuing a miniscule little objective point as if that's what this whole stupid thing is going to end up being about.
I've got to admire the way you think there's a noble truth or political principle to be uncovered here - at least from the the way Mr Dominican Sex Tourism Aficionado (and his fellow travelers) approaches it.
Synova - why do you hate your own gender? you're a fucking disgrace to all women siding with Flush Limpballs.
Ritmo - remember how Rush was busted with a gallon of Viagra coming back from DR sexual tourism? My god, can you imagine his bloated carcass attempting to screw some pretty young DR prostitute?
See dim bulbs like Ritmo just don't understand the concept of preventative care in health insurance. That concept means things like annual checkups, getting a flu shot, the types of things one does to prevent illness and disease.
Thinking that birth control as preventative care would then imply that pregancy is an illness or disease. Then again Ritmo and his kind are liberals....
I do find it very amusing that dim bulbs like Ritmo consider birth control low cost yet needs to he paid for by insurance because its too expeinsive for 30 year old law students.
It's like he's incoherent or something.
Ann Althouse,
"Whatever happened to individual personal responsibility? People should be responsible for arranging their own birth control. This is what most conservatives are saying."
They need to get their message out in persuasive terms, then. And they can't be heard over Rush Limbaugh's big voice.
And good ol' common sense doesn't work on it's own in this country, for some dang reason,...
Synova says: Is that more clear?
Yes, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about. But that's nothing new.
What is her qualification to testify such that anyone should listen to her?
Her qualification is that she was called to testify legitimately. There aren't minimum credentials requirements for testifying (and if there were, those credentials would probably be something someone like you would consider to be really eeleetist) and I suspect the reason she was called was because she has studied this issue and certain committee members thought she had something worthwhile to say. Her statement (which I've linked to) is a pretty good discussion of the issues from her perspective and certainly better than anything I've seen mentioned by Rush Limbaugh or you on this or any other topic.
Hoosier Daddy why don't you just say you hate Ritmo and get it over with?
Synova,
The Republicans got rolled on who got to testify before the committee on that day.
And two women (with credentials, unlike Ms. Fluke) got to testify at the second session, but by then the Dems had taken over the show.
The Republicans are getting rolled a lot. Their leadership doesn't seem to be very good.
Ritmo - remember how Rush was busted with a gallon of Viagra coming back from DR sexual tourism? My god, can you imagine his bloated carcass attempting to screw some pretty young DR prostitute?
Unfortunately I can imagine a lot of things. But my mind, somehow, mercifully, provides a visual blockade when it comes to the otherwise hilarious vignette that you describe.
It would be sad if it involved anyone else. But given how arrogant that fatass is, it's downright hilarious!
Now, if only he could be as open about it as the Georgetown student is about her sex life. Because ultimately, that's what we're dealing with here. Everyone's got to resent something about which they believe they deserve to feel superior about. And we now know, in the case of Fat Fuck Limbaugh, just what that "something" is.
Now everyone else go ahead and bloviate away.
cubanbob says:To lobby a bunch of dimwitted democrats to trash the constitution and over turn centuries of contract law?
You are aware that health insurance is a regulated industry and has been for many years, right? So having hearings about what should or shouldn't be part of health insurance regulations isn't trashing the constitution or turning over centuries (Centuries, I tell you! Back to Magna Carta!) of contract law. And once again, thanks for playing internet lawyer.
I just don't agree again. His point was that Fluke is a Planned Parenthood operative who's working at getting abortion free for everyone. She IS, after all, a former president of Center for Reproductive Justice, whose goal is to get everybody free stuff especially abortions. We've spent quite some time blogging about the details of this.
This issue is far greater than "women's health" and would suggest that the estimable Althouse is distracted by that issue. When there's nearly free or free contraception available in numerous places, such as PP and Walmart, there's no reason to ask the government to mandate the ridiculous sum of $3000 for contraception, unless, of course, you're going for the big "contraceptive device" of abortion.
The point Rush was making is that the figure of $3000 is ridiculous. Her arguments were ridiculous. Her justifications were ridiculous.
And free abortions are next on the list. Sorry I'm out of tune with y'all on this one.
the claim that she went to Georgetown for the primary purpose of changing their policy is absurd
How about the claim that sexually active students of a Catholic school are having their rights violated unless the government forces the school to force students who adhere to Catholic doctrine to subsidize birth control for their classmates?
Suppose this woman did choose Georgetown for the primary purpose of being a leftist culture warrior. She's managed an appearance with Nancy Pelosi, derision from Rush Limbaugh, and a phone call from Barack Obama. How many politically active law students in the country can say that?
Phx why don't you just piss off as well? I don't recall discussing anything with you and if you have a problem with my comments just scroll past.
Sure Alex.
What are Ms. Fluke's areas of expert testimony?
What is she an expert in? Why should I listen to her? Why should anyone listen to her?
It's because she's a "she". She's young and pretty and fertile... or she'd rather not be fertile... but we're supposed to put weight on her testimony for no reason other than she's female.
I'm surprised that Althouse hasn't been on about that, since she's usually particularly annoyed by the idea that anything a woman does is automatically good, simply because it's something a woman is doing.
Suppose her *precise* male counterpart was asked to give testimony... A young man at the height of his physical vitality, handsome, still a student. Studying law.
No one would give him the time of day and everyone who didn't like his opinion would be talking about frat parties, drinking and whoring. He'd have no credibility. But he'd have no credibility on the side he was testifying *for* either. Because men have to have qualifications, and he'd have none.
Ms. Fluke has no qualifications. She has lady-parts.
Sorry HD. You're right.
Take some advice though. Lighten up.
The point is Georgetown does not have a right to dictate women's reproductive choices.
Synova - do what I do and ignore Some Commenters. Your blood pressure will thank you.
Thinking that birth control as preventative care would then imply that pregancy is an illness or disease. Then again Ritmo and his kind are liberals....
I'm not a fan of unwanted events. Sometimes they can be good things in disguise, but not the way your buddy Sanitorium talks about rape-babies being a blessing, if only we'd acknowledge them as such. There's a lot of gray in between, but I'm free to let him define his own position as the more extreme one.
Now go crawl back into your sterile bunker of non-reality. The battle is over. Your whimpering is a pity, but you won't listen to why you're losing this. Just keep coming and taking a beating, instead then, I guess.
It's because she's a "she". She's young and pretty and fertile... or she'd rather not be fertile... but we're supposed to put weight on her testimony for no reason other than she's female.
It's the duality of women like Ms. Fluke that enrage you so. They are out and proud about their healthy, active sex lives and at the same time they are responsible enough to prevent pregnancy. That enrages you so - that young women can have it all, unconstrained by your Christian morality.
It boils down to what is in the mind of voters:
GOP = women are sluts -- unless controlled by the government and the church
It's not more complicated than that. You can vote for it or against it.
just look at the optics alone.
Young, pretty, fertile law student vs the old, bloated, Liimpballs. Pretty bad optics for GOP right there. I predict a 48 state sweep for Obama as even redneck women need the pill.
GOP = women are sluts -- unless controlled by the government and the church
Exactly and it really isn't more nuanced or complex then that when you have Santorum bloviating about how the Church needs to control everyone.
Why thank you, Alex, for confirming that her SEX LIFE is what qualifies her.
It was, after all, my point.
And Rush's.
When I was in college, everyone I knew was able to get the pill (or Depo, which was really "in" at the time) for free through the health department (in TN, aka, the buckle of the bible belt). Every time we went, they insisted on giving out a paper bag full of condoms (little old nurse: "Now, let me get you some condoms."), too. My roomies and I would blow them up like water balloons; were were so drowning in extras. The student health center and various off-beat shops downtown had them in fishbowls at the counter, with a sign inviting us to take as many as we wished.
Have things changed? Has there suddenly been a massive tightening of the birth control market in the past 10 years or so?
It boils down to what is in the mind of voters:
GOP = women are sluts -- unless controlled by the government and the church
It's not more complicated than that. You can vote for it or against it.
That's on point. And if I'm a Democrat strategist, even if I know the equation isn't really completely true, why should I feel bad about spinning it this way, especially when there are so many Republicans and conservatives who are longing to help me?
You guys who think the issue should be about "personal responsibility" and health mandates, take it up with the folks on your own side!
Um, Alex.
Read my latest comment, as a Catholic Institution on campus it can hold policies that upholds Catholic teachings.
Ms. Fluke is a free woman, who made a choice to go to a Catholic Institution out of her own free will. No one forced her against her will to go to Georgetown. Ms. Fluke doesn't have the right to undermine the mission and work of reproductive health at Georgetown, which is pretty amazing in what they have accomplished all without the need of contraception.
Contraception makes us dependent consumers of a product, all sold to us as a reproductive choice. Fertility Awareness Methods, make us independent in our decision making. We are not dependent on a product that must be sold to us.
Contraception is a business, even if half of all women switch to a non-contraception method to avoid or achieve pregnancy it would be putting Pharmaceuticals to lose significant profits.
Pregnancy is also a choice! It's a natural state for women. Why should it be covered in insurance policies?
Who says it has to be?
I had my first daughter in 1979 and at that time, only a small portion of a normal pregnancy was covered. Husband and I paid about $1500 out-of-pocket to cover prenatal and regular delivery (plus 2 day stay in hospital).
We didn't go around screaming that our "rights" had been VIOLATED by BABYH8TRS!!!
The Left has infantalized Americans.
Women are real humans... unless someone wants to treat them like real humans and assume that they are capable of being responsible adults.
Those people hate women and want to control them.
Logic!
Meanwhile the repercussions for anal cyst Limbaugh are getting damn serious:
Carbonite CEO David Friend intends to confront Limbaugh directly. He posted this open letter to his customers:
Dood. Puh-leeeze. Limbaugh can buy and sell Carbonite Inc. in toto with the pocket change he keeps in his left front pocket.
Ms. Fluke has no qualifications. She has lady-parts.
But I'm still wondering if she's using her "lady" parts as designed, that is, heterosexually.
And it's nice to know that in all his frustration, Hoosier Dominatrix glosses over the fact that pregnancy ISN'T an ideal state of affairs, from a health perspective. There are healthy pregnancies. Wonderful pregnancies. Hunky dory beautiful pregnancies. And then there are all the pregnancies that carry with them the risk of hypertension, diabetes, and much, much worse.
I mean, I know the guy hates VAGINA, but you think he could like reality enough to understand that it's not for no reason that obstetricians exist. It's not for no reason that childbirth carried (and still can carry) a high risk of mortality. It's not for no reason that facts and knowledge (and REAL history) exist to remind us of this.
But hey, ladies. Hoosier's got his idealized vision of a social order - complete with uterine assembly lines - to protect. Now go make him happy.
Synova says:Why thank you, Alex, for confirming that her SEX LIFE is what qualifies her. It was, after all, my point. And Rush's.
Thanks for clarifying the point you were trying to make. Pity for you there's a bit more to the issue than that. And thanks for confirming your stupidity as well as the company you like to keep. Bravo!
Synova - continue whistling past the graveyard while Limpballs loses every last sponsor. I predict Flush will go on "hiatus/vacation" for a month in the vain hope that it will all die down by the time he gets back, but it won't. If were a Dem strategist I'd be in hog heaven right now. The GOP just handed me the election.
GOP = women are sluts -- unless controlled by the government and the church
Exactly and it really isn't more nuanced or complex then that when you have Santorum bloviating about how the Church needs to control everyone
Either Alex is stoooopid or vicious. Isn't more nuanced than that.
Have things changed? Has there suddenly been a massive tightening of the birth control market in the past 10 years or so?
Geez. Let's not wonder what impact all your abstinence-ONLY advocates (and those who sympathize with them here) would have had all these years.
RIP Flush 1988-2012. Over/under on how many months until his current wife divorces him and gets the $20 million settlement?
That massive tightening sound you just heard is the GOP sphincter closing. Amazing is all it took was one nobody activist brought in the limelight by botox Pelosi to finish Rush off, just like that.
Flawless victory... Fatality
So the only remaining question is just how shattering the Dem victory this fall is going to be. It goes without saying Walker will be recalled, the GOP will lose the House, all close governor races in blue/purple states will go Dem, Obama will win 500+ EV and 60% popular vote. Get ready for the new, permanent progressive/socialist majority all thanks to Flush Limpballs who couldn't keep his damn mouth shut.
Let's not wonder what impact all your abstinence-ONLY advocates (and those who sympathize with them here) would have had all these years.
Not an answer.
But hey, facts tend not to support Leftists.
Post a Comment