House of Fusion
Search over 2,500 ColdFusion resources here
  
Home of the ColdFusion Community

Mailing Lists
Home /  Groups /  ColdFusion Community (CF-Community)

Limbaugh is voice of GOP majority?

  << Previous Post |  RSS |  Sort Oldest First |  Sort Latest First |  Subscribe to this Group Next >> 
no... it is.
** Private **
03/02/12 09:22 P
Is that what he's doing?
** Private **
03/02/12 12:28 P
I think she's a tool used by Pelosi.
** Private **
03/02/12 01:39 P
> That's cool.
** Private **
03/02/12 07:02 P
Wow, parroting Sebelius now?
** Private **
03/02/12 03:22 P
Its called logic and reason.
** Private **
03/02/12 06:26 P
LOL.. She lied...LOL...talk about tools...
** Private **
03/02/12 03:50 P
None of them show she is 30...
** Private **
03/02/12 06:46 P
She told Matt Laur she was 30.
** Private **
03/02/12 08:40 P
You obviously haven't seen her photo :)
** Private **
03/02/12 06:11 P
Triplets?
** Private **
03/04/12 01:40 P
I was being nice...
** Private **
03/04/12 09:56 P
On 3/4/2012 12:08 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 12:24 P
> On 3/4/2012 12:08 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 12:36 P
On 3/4/2012 12:36 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 12:53 P
On 3/4/2012 1:19 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 01:44 P
yeah, exactly. I thought we were past this.
** Private **
03/04/12 03:49 P
None of that was true
** Private **
03/04/12 09:23 P
On 3/4/2012 7:42 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 08:21 P
Acting as a tool?
** Private **
03/04/12 09:07 P
1. Well said.
** Private **
03/04/12 03:10 P
Terms of coverage part way down the faq
** Private **
03/04/12 09:12 P
How did you get that from this:
** Private **
03/04/12 09:27 P
On 3/4/2012 9:50 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 10:26 P
On 3/4/2012 9:11 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 10:21 P
> On 3/4/2012 9:11 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 10:36 P
See. Here we go. WTF are you talking about?
** Private **
03/04/12 11:38 P
On 3/5/2012 11:29 AM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/05/12 06:24 P
Ah. Thanks!
** Private **
03/05/12 09:37 P
Sam,
** Private **
03/06/12 10:39 A
Sam,
** Private **
03/06/12 12:22 P
Nope, thanks.
** Private **
03/06/12 12:55 P
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Camer
** Private **
03/06/12 07:10 P
Sorted
** Private **
03/06/12 07:22 P
Look Squirrel!
** Private **
03/06/12 12:23 P
nice
** Private **
03/06/12 07:28 P
you are sick.
** Private **
03/06/12 11:09 A
Laura Ingraham:
** Private **
03/06/12 12:48 P
On 3/5/2012 10:02 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/06/12 02:46 P
"Free speech be damned!"
** Private **
03/06/12 06:33 P
Pictures, or it didn't happen.
** Private **
03/06/12 06:59 P
Not comparable.
** Private **
03/08/12 05:27 A
Bill Maher: Accept Rush Limbaugh's apology
** Private **
03/08/12 07:15 A
I know conservative vs Liberal.
** Private **
03/08/12 08:39 A
A little more information on advertising:
** Private **
03/09/12 12:11 P
That's just truly nasty. But expected.
** Private **
03/11/12 01:49 A
You are delusional.
** Private **
03/13/12 02:08 P
Jerry,
** Private **
03/15/12 09:08 P
"Jerry, She's flustered again."
** Private **
03/19/12 12:42 P
"Better than what? "
** Private **
03/19/12 12:53 P
> "Better than what? "
** Private **
03/19/12 05:55 P
Man....+1000000.
** Private **
03/20/12 01:40 P
More like George Michael dunking on Pee-Wee
** Private **
03/20/12 01:43 P
I knew it...lol
** Private **
03/22/12 08:45 A
ROFL...you got me there G lol
** Private **
03/21/12 06:23 P
Did you see the committees he was on?
** Private **
03/22/12 03:47 A
Who is writing that anyway?
** Private **
03/06/12 07:34 P
From Rush's (the band) lawyers...
** Private **
03/07/12 12:14 A
>>> Irrelevant.
** Private **
03/06/12 04:42 P
On 3/6/2012 4:42 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/06/12 06:54 P
Look Squirrel!
** Private **
03/05/12 08:37 A
Are you series?
** Private **
03/04/12 07:49 P
On 3/4/2012 7:49 PM, Sam wrote:
** Private **
03/04/12 08:23 P
???
** Private **
03/04/12 09:04 P
So it's actually 3000...not 1000...
** Private **
03/04/12 10:03 P
> er, might not be
** Private **
03/04/12 03:48 P
And that is relevant how?
** Private **
03/02/12 10:36 P
> And that is relevant how?
** Private **
03/02/12 11:03 P
3000 condoms in 3 years is a lot.
** Private **
03/02/12 09:35 P
for you maybe.
** Private **
03/02/12 10:38 P
You are correct since I don't use any.
** Private **
03/02/12 11:04 P
Sam...
** Private **
03/03/12 07:23 P
I thought it was funny too.
** Private **
03/03/12 08:23 P
On 3/3/2012 7:22 PM, Vivec wrote:
** Private **
03/03/12 09:17 P
I'm going to boycott Carbonite
** Private **
03/04/12 10:44 A
Amazon:
** Private **
03/04/12 11:48 A
Because ideological purity requires it.
** Private **
03/03/12 06:21 P
Are you guys twins?
** Private **
03/03/12 08:13 P
WTF? Really? Again.
** Private **
03/03/12 08:12 P
Flustered are you?
** Private **
03/04/12 10:46 A
So?
** Private **
03/02/12 01:14 P
> So?
** Private **
03/02/12 01:16 P
Top  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 10:29 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/rush-limbaugh-sleep-train-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1315900.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 "Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute,"<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1311640.html?ref=media>; saying that she was having "so much sex" that she wanted the government to pay for her contraception. Then, he went further<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1313891.html?ref=college&ir=College>;, saying, " if we're going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."" I cannot believe women's contraception is a pillar of the 2012 US Election campaign within the republican party. It's just...totally fricking ridiculous.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 10:32 AM

> I cannot believe women's contraception is a pillar of the 2012 US Election > campaign within the republican party. It's just...totally fricking > ridiculous. > That's because it's not...but you keep on listening to Rush. -- All will be well You can ask me how But only time will tell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 11:27 AM

Its not just limbaugh. Many other conservative opinion leaders are of the same opinion as limbaugh. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 11:29 AM

It's not unless you read the Huffington Post. They want ti to be but it's just a stupid story and Rush is pointing out how ridiculous it is. . > > I cannot believe women's contraception is a pillar of the 2012 US Election > campaign within the republican party. It's just...totally fricking > ridiculous.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 12:28 PM

Is that what he's doing? On 2 March 2012 12:28, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's not unless you read the Huffington Post. They want ti to be but > it's just a stupid story and Rush is pointing out how ridiculous it > is. > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 12:45 PM

Of course he would say that. Unless its coming from one of the official sources, Sam thinks anything in the media is a lie. But the story is all over the media right now, including more conservative sources like Politico.com. Mind you unless its Fox, worldnet or briebart Sam thinks its a biased liberal media outlet. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73487.html Rush blasted for 'slut' comment By: MJ Lee March 1, 2012 06:46 AM EST Rush Limbaugh is under fire for calling a Georgetown University law student who testified on Capitol Hill about contraception a ?prostitute? and a ?slut.? ?What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her?? Limbaugh said on his radio show on Wednesday. ?It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She?s having so much sex she can?t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We?re the pimps.? The conservative radio host continued on to joke, ?Okay, so she?s not a slut. She?s ?round heeled.?? Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law School, was a witness at an unofficial hearing of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last week, convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as a response to an earlier all-male panel hearing held by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. (The committee?s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), had not allowed Fluke to testify at the original hearing, saying she was not qualified to do so.) Fluke explained at the hearing that as a student at a Jesuit campus that does not provide contraception, birth control costs can be as high as $3,000 during the time that she is in law school. She expressed opposition to a bill sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), which would allow employers to avoid providing contraception for religious reasons. ?These exceptions don?t accomplish their well-intended goals, because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren?t, a woman?s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body,? Fluke had said. On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh suggested that the reason Fluke cannot afford birth control methods is because she is having too much sex. ?Can you imagine if you?re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she?s having so much sex she can?t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope,? he said, according to a transcript of his show. ?Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley,? he continued. ?All the sex going on at Georgetown. Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can?t afford birth control pills.? Pelosi, along with a half-dozen other members of Congress, blasted the ?vicious attacks? made against Fluke on Wednesday. ?She courageously spoke truth to power. As a result, today, she has been subject to attacks that are outside the circle of civilized discussion and that unmask the strong disrespect for women held by some in this country,? read a joint statement, which did not name Limbaugh by name. ?We call upon the Republican leaders in the House to condemn these vicious attacks on Ms. Fluke ? Democrats will always stand up for women?s health and women?s voices.? The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also blasted Limbaugh for his comments in an email to supporters. ?Standing up for women?s health care does not make you a ?slut? or a ?prostitute,?? the note said. ?Rush and the right-wing Republicans in Congress who promote their radical War on Women must be held accountable for this.? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 12:46 PM

To continue, even Boehner thinks Limbaugh went much too far http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73546.html Boehner: Limbaugh 'slut' remark 'inappropriate' By: Seung Min Kim March 2, 2012 11:03 AM EST Speaker John Boehner on Friday denounced radio host Rush Limbaugh?s ?slut? remarks aimed at Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke, but the Ohio Republican also jabbed at Democrats who have been fundraising off the fracas. ?The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation,? Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in an e-mail Friday morning. Fluke is a law student who wasn?t allowed to testify at a congressional hearing in February that centered on the Obama administration?s contraception rule. Democrats convened a hearing last week specifically so Fluke could testify the need for easier access to birth control. On his radio show this week, Limbaugh used ?slut? and ?prostitute? to refer to Fluke and equated her advocating for contraception access to demanding to be ?paid to have sex.? House Democrats sent a letter to Boehner Thursday asking House Republican leaders to condemn the remarks. Limbaugh?s comments, as well the controversy over a Senate amendment killed Thursday that would have allowed employers to opt out of covering certain health care services due to moral objections, has been a financial boon to Democrats. The Huffington Post reported Thursday that Democrats raised at least $1.1 million this week as part of their ?War on

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 12:47 PM

The woman attacked by Limbaugh is saying that the blob was out of bounds: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73530.html Student: Limbaugh 'out of bounds' By: MJ Lee March 1, 2012 10:18 PM EST The Georgetown University law student who was called a ?slut? by Rush Limbaugh for testifying on Capitol Hill about women?s access to contraception condemned the conservative radio host Thursday night for remarks ?outside the bounds of civil discourse.? ?I?m not the first woman to be treated this way by numerous conservative media outlets, and hopefully I?ll be the last,? Sandra Fluke said on MSNBC?s ?The Ed Show.? ?This is really inappropriate. This is outside the bounds of civil discourse.? Fluke described to Schultz the experience of receiving a barrage of public attacks from Limbaugh on Wednesday and Thursday. ?My reaction is what the reaction that a lot of women have when they?ve been called these names. Initially you?re stunned, but then very quickly you?re outraged,? she said. ?Because this is historically the kind of language that is used to silence women especially when women stand up and say that these are their reproductive health care needs and this is what they need.? Fluke repeatedly expressed her gratitude to members of Congress and others in her community for the outpouring of support. ?I think it?s clear from what they?ve said that they?re not going to be silenced today,? she said. The third-year law student quickly became a symbol for women?s reproductive rights in Washington after Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) prohibited her from testifying at the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee?s all-male panel hearing on the issue earlier this month. Fluke was asked to testify at an unofficial hearing of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee convened by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), during which she described her experience of being a student at a religious-affiliated campus whose insurance coverage does not provide contraceptives for women. Limbaugh infuriated Democrats for calling Fluke a ?prostitute? and a ?slut? on his show Wednesday, but despite the criticism, showed no signs of apologizing or scaling back his remarks on the air Thursday. Asked if the Republican Party should denounce Limbaugh?s comments as many Democrats have demanded, Fluke told Schultz, ?I don?t really see why anyone would not condemn this type of language.? She also suggested that being thrown in the middle of a national controversy would not deter her from continuing to share her views. ?I would always be willing to speak out in favor of women?s health and the type of accessible affordable health care that they need,? Fluke said, when asked if she would testify again. ?You?re very brave. And it?s unfortunate that a college student has to put up with this,? Schultz said at the conclusion of the interview. ?It?s rather an amazing story. I feel like I have to apologize to you tonight and I want to say that you?re very brave to stand i

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:19 PM

Meh, this is exactly what Rush is for. He says really horrible, cruel things that appeal to the worst of humanity and then the so-called "adults" like Boehner get to say, "well, we love Rush but we think he went a little too far this time". So Rush gets ratings and press coverage, Republican leaders get to appear "moderate" when they suggest something just slightly to the left of the troll and everyone else gets to have a frothy good time being either offended by the backlash or getting to be righteously indignant about the offense. Wash, rinse, repeat. Rush is a useful tool. Horrible human being, but useful tool. Judah

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:33 PM

you almost have it write in your last statement, he's a tool, but useful? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:39 PM

I think she's a tool used by Pelosi. Please explain why we should pay $1000 a year for her condoms. . > > you almost have it write in your last statement, he's a tool, but useful?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 02:06 PM

If it were not for your absolute ignorance I'd pity you. what would we rather pay a few dollars a year (not the $1000 you blather about) or upwards of $25,000 in terms of maternity costs, then thousands of more a year in welfare, then over $60,000 - $100,000 a year for housing the kid, now an adult in prison. Your choice, cost spread out and paid for by the cost savings or in the long run millions. I can anticipate your anwer. A fiscal conservative - right. As spendthrift as your hero the shrubbery. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 02:19 PM

"Rush is a useful tool. Horrible human being, but useful tool." Completely unlike Rachel Maddow Or Keith Olbermann. Glad I don't listen to any of them. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 02:43 PM

> "Rush is a useful tool. Horrible human being, but useful tool." > > Completely unlike Rachel Maddow Or Keith Olbermann. From what I've seen? Yes, completely unlike either of the two folks you mentioned. I've never seen either of those two say anything in the same league of horrible and hateful as Mr. Limbaugh. > Glad I don't listen to any of them. Nor do I, just read about them. So, given that, I may be wrong about Maddow and Olbermann. Perhaps they are in the same league of bile, vitriol and hate as Limbaugh but I suspect I would have seen that by now, so I'm rather doubtful. Cheers, Judah

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:39 PM

"Yes, completely unlike either of the two folks you mentioned. I've never seen either of those two say anything in the same league of horrible and hateful as Mr. Limbaugh." That's cool. In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist,reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against womanand against politicians with whom he disagrees - Keith Olbermann And as for Maddow, she's a blatant liar. One of many examples: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/ "Nor do I, just read about them. So, given that, I may be wrong about Maddow and Olbermann. Perhaps they are in the same league of bile, vitriol and hate as Limbaugh but I suspect I would have seen that by now, so I'm rather doubtful." Huffington Post is not going to slam these guys. These guys are just as bad as Limbaugh.  Olbermann is probably worse.  It explains why he can't keep a job. J - The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.. - Mark Twain

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 07:02 PM

> That's cool. > > In Scott Brown we have > an irresponsible, homophobic, racist,reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging > supporter of violence against womanand against politicians with whom he > disagrees - Keith Olbermann For one, that's a set of charges leveled against a sitting Senator, not a college student. I think that Scott Brown is in a much better position to defend himself against charges in the media than a grad student being smeared without facts by a nationally syndicated radio host. Two, those charges against Scott Brown are largely supported. Strong comments? Certainly true. Categorically different than smearing a college student for being a "slut"? Quite. > And as for Maddow, she's a blatant liar. One of many examples: > > http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/ Yup, looks like they properly nailed her for that one. She definitely took the numbers out of context and used it for a partisan argument. No debate there. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I don't read Huffiington Post, so I have no clue what they do. Still a hell of a long ways to go to convince me that even Olbermann is anywhere near the category of slime that Rush is. I see nothing but a false equivalence here from you, but I'll keep a critical eye out. We shall see, I'm sure that there will be plenty of opportunities for political commentators to drag themselves deeper into the muck, being an election year and all. Cheers, Jud

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 08:43 PM

Stuff you say is much worse than anything Limbaugh's ever said but we know you hate him because he doesn't agree with you. Since that's how you roll. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 09:05 PM

" For one, that's a set of charges leveled against a sitting Senator, not a college student " No.  He was running for office. Yes, she was a college student who willing put herself in the public spot light.  If you can't stand the heat . . .  don't go in the kitchen. "I don't read Huffiington Post, so I have no clue what they do. " My respect for you just increased. "Still a hell of a long ways to go to convince me that even Olbermann is anywhere near the category of slime that Rush is." I'd say they are opposite sides of the same coin. Olbermann just doesn't have the national exposure that Limbaugh has. J - Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is - the strong horse that pulls the whole cart. - Winston Churchill

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 10:06 PM

On Mar 2, 2012 6:05 PM, "Jerry Barnes" <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: > > > " For one, that's a set of charges leveled against a sitting Senator, not a > college student " > > No.  He was running for office. My bad. Major party candidate then. I didn't look up the date of the quote. Same thing though. Rich, established candidate for major office. Just a tad different than college student. > Yes, she was a college student who willing put herself in the public spot > light.  If you can't stand the heat . . .  don't go in the kitchen. Sorry, critiquing the positions of a major public figure does not equate with calling a college student who testifies in Congress a slut and a whore. You're going to have to come up with a much better example to convince me it isn't false equivalence. Maybe Ollberman has called college republicans Nazi sympathizers our something? > "I don't read Huffiington Post, so I have no clue what they do. " > > My respect for you just increased. I started a thread the other day about Putin blogging for them and how I never read that site and was confused. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Possible, I suppose, but I've still seem nothing to suggest that equivalence. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 10:39 PM

Actually wasn't Brown already a major politician in the state? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 01:16 PM

"Sorry, critiquing the positions of a major public figure does not equate with calling a college student who testifies in Congress a slut and a whore. You're going to have to come up with a much better example to convince me it isn't false equivalence." By testifying in such a controversial matter, she became a major public figure.  According to Sam, she is not a student (I don't care one way or another so I am not going to look it up). "Maybe Ollberman has called college republicans Nazi sympathizers our something?" Like this: http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-college-republicans-at-uc-berkeley-an-obama-heckler-and-joe-arpaio "I started a thread the other day about Putin blogging for them and how I never read that site and was confused." I didn't read that thread. I bypass a lot of threads that don't interest me. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 02:32 PM

She is a post graduate student according to all reports... "Sorry, critiquing the positions of a major public figure does not equate with calling a college student who testifies in Congress a slut and a whore. You're going to have to come up with a much better example to convince me it isn't false equivalence." By testifying in such a controversial matter, she became a major public figure.  According to Sam, she is not a student (I don't care one way or another so I am not going to look it up). "Maybe Ollberman has called college republicans Nazi sympathizers our something?" Like this: http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-college-republicans- at-uc-berkeley-an-obama-heckler-and-joe-arpaio "I started a thread the other day about Putin blogging for them and how I never read that site and was confused." I didn't read that thread. I bypass a lot of threads that don't interest me. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- quote. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 03:22 PM

Last I looked a post graduate student is still a student. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 03:22 PM

Wow, parroting Sebelius now? So if I don't pay them to have sex they will punish me with unwanted babies that will become felons? Rush isn't saying they shouldn't use condoms, he's saying we shouldn't have to pay for five a day everyday for three years so she can make it through law school. Who paid for these condoms before now? Suddenly life can't go on unless the government pays for the rubbers? It doesn't even apply to schools so it was a hoax to begin with. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:26 PM

Its called logic and reason. Logic and Reason meet Sam, Sam Logic and Reason. I know you've never met before so the experience should be interesting to say the least. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 03:44 PM

Even Boehner criticized Limbaugh for his comments and said they were inappropriate. Of course he would say that. Unless its coming from one of the official sources, Sam thinks anything in the media is a lie. But the story is all over the media right now, including more conservative sources like Politico.com. Mind you unless its Fox, worldnet or briebart Sam thinks its a biased liberal media outlet. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73487.html Rush blasted for 'slut' comment By: MJ Lee March 1, 2012 06:46 AM EST Rush Limbaugh is under fire for calling a Georgetown University law student who testified on Capitol Hill about contraception a "prostitute" and a "slut." "What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her?" Limbaugh said on his radio show on Wednesday. "It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps." The conservative radio host continued on to joke, "Okay, so she's not a slut. She's 'round heeled.'" Fluke, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law School, was a witness at an unofficial hearing of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last week, convened by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), as a response to an earlier all-male panel hearing held by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. (The committee's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), had not allowed Fluke to testify at the original hearing, saying she was not qualified to do so.) Fluke explained at the hearing that as a student at a Jesuit campus that does not provide contraception, birth control costs can be as high as $3,000 during the time that she is in law school. She expressed opposition to a bill sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), which would allow employers to avoid providing contraception for religious reasons. "These exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals, because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren't, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body," Fluke had said. On his show Wednesday, Limbaugh suggested that the reason Fluke cannot afford birth control methods is because she is having too much sex. "Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope," he said, according to a transcript of his show. "Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley," he continued. "All the sex going on at Georgetown. Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can't afford birth control pills." Pelosi, along with a half-dozen other members of Congress, blasted the "vicious attacks" made against Fluke on Wednesday. "She courageously spoke truth to power. As a result, today, she has been subject to attacks that are outside the circle of civilized discussion and that unmask the strong disrespect for women held by some in this country," read a joint statement, which did not name Limbaugh by name. "We call upon the Republican leaders in the House to condemn these vicious attacks on Ms. Fluke . Democrats will always stand up for women's health and women's voices." The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee also blasted Limbaugh for his comments in an email to supporters. "Standing up for women's health care does not make you a 'slut' or a 'prostitute,'" the note said. "Rush and the right-wing Republicans in Congress who promote their radical War on Women must be held accountable for this." ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 12:48 PM

For starters, the Dems expert witness doesn't even apply "Neither the preventive services coverage regulations [including the HHS contraception mandate] nor any other federal law requires [a university] to provide health insurance to its students ? much less health insurance that covers contraceptive services. Then, miss-gets-around claims law students need $1000 worth of contraception in a year. Rush says that amounts to five condoms a day. And then there's this new saying: ?If you don?t want Uncle Sam in your bedroom, don?t ask Uncle Sam to pay for what goes down in your bedroom.? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:59 PM

Isn't what he is doing actually slander?  Calling someone you don't like a slut, face to face is one thing, but using your position of power to target a private citizen and demean their character to such a degree ..... yeah. And, no, Rush is not pointing out how ridiculous it is.  He is doing what he does, being an asshole to stir up crap for ratings and press. To suggest that he is doing anything more useful than that is beyond ridiculous. I don't hate Rush for his politics.  I hate him because he is an insufferable, smug, judgmental prick. On 3/2/2012 12:27 PM, Vivec wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 03:17 PM

> Isn't what he is doing actually slander?  Calling someone you don't like > a slut, face to face is one thing, but using your position of power to > target a private citizen and demean their character to such a degree > ..... yeah. Not really. He's actually spot on. Sex five times a day and we have to pay for it? He never said he didn't like her, on the contrary, he want's to watch her having sex. She used her position as a student to lie in front of Congress as a witness for a totally unrelated case. That should be the real outrage. > And, no, Rush is not pointing out how ridiculous it is.  He is doing > what he does, being an asshole to stir up crap for ratings and press. > To suggest that he is doing anything more useful than that is beyond > ridiculous. You would never know about this BS Pelosi pulled if it weren't for him poking fun of them. > I don't hate Rush for his politics.  I hate him because he is an > insufferable, smug, judgmental prick. You just described most of the talking heads.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 03:50 PM

LOL.. She lied...LOL...talk about tools... > > Isn't what he is doing actually slander?  Calling someone you don't > like a slut, face to face is one thing, but using your position of > power to target a private citizen and demean their character to such a > degree ..... yeah. Not really. He's actually spot on. Sex five times a day and we have to pay for it? He never said he didn't like her, on the contrary, he want's to watch her having sex. She used her position as a student to lie in front of Congress as a witness for a totally unrelated case. That should be the real outrage. > And, no, Rush is not pointing out how ridiculous it is.  He is doing > what he does, being an asshole to stir up crap for ratings and press. > To suggest that he is doing anything more useful than that is beyond > ridiculous. You would never know about this BS Pelosi pulled if it weren't for him poking fun of them. > I don't hate Rush for his politics.  I hate him because he is an > insufferable, smug, judgmental prick. You just described most of the talking heads.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 04:14 PM

http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/ For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving ?coed?. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women?s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown?s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn?t cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along. In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her. . > > LOL.. She lied...LOL...talk about tools.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:06 PM

I think you have been has Sam...other than another site that references this site...i can't find a word of this anywhere.  Even in articles about the interview with Lauer.  Great way to post a lie Sam.  You do know that spreading a lie is just as bad as being the one who lied in the first place...good job at not bearing false witness there... http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/ For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving "coed". I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women's right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown's insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn't cover contraceptive services,  she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all along. In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her. . > > LOL.. She lied...LOL...talk about tools.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:17 PM

You know about the blue text with the underlined words? They are called links. Click on one. . > > I think you have been has Sam...other than another site that references this > site...i can't find a word of this anywhere.  Even in articles about the > interview with Lauer.  Great way to post a lie Sam.  You do know that > spreading a lie is just as bad as being the one who lied in the first > place...good job at not bearing false witness there...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:46 PM

None of them show she is 30... You know about the blue text with the underlined words? They are called links. Click on one. . > > I think you have been has Sam...other than another site that > references this site...i can't find a word of this anywhere.  Even in > articles about the interview with Lauer.  Great way to post a lie Sam.   > You do know that spreading a lie is just as bad as being the one who > lied in the first place...good job at not bearing false witness there...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 08:40 PM

She told Matt Laur she was 30. . > > None of them show she is 30...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 07:02 PM

> http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/ > > For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving ?coed?. "Co-ed" is an antiquated term. Referring to a female student as such is demeaning. It suggests that a special allowance was made for her to be attending the school because she is not of a privileged (read: male) set. > I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a > Georgetown law student. She *is* a law student. Got a link to an article that says she's not? > It was then revealed that prior to attending > Georgetown she was an active women?s right advocate. So? Oh holy hell, Sam, you're not next going to suggest that she's uppity, too, are you? > In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed > Georgetown?s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and > seeing that it didn?t cover contraceptive services,  she decided to > attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. And? Being an active member of the Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ) I would imagine she might indeed have something to say on the subject. > During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. By whom? Media outlets? Herself? Whom? You provide no link to a source on what must be, surely by now, called "age-gate"... Because what else should we talk about but her age and her subjective attractiveness (as you do in a later post in this thread "You obviously haven't seen her photo :) Makes me wonder how she finds five victims a day")? From that statement I can derive that you don't find her attractive, and since you don't find her attractive, it must be inconceivable that anyone else does. Therefore, I gather, I your opinion, her message should be suspect. > Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she > appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, > in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed > that she is 30 years old,  NOT the 23 that had been reported all > along. Why, again, would her age matter? > In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist > all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to > play her. Oh bullshit, Sam. Really? Played? She's a woman, a law student an a member of an organization which focuses on reproductive justice. I'd say and that makes her a damn-sight better qualified to testify on women's reproductive issues than any of these clergymen: http://www.thenation.com/blog/166311/republican-hearing-contraception-no-women-allowed ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 08:39 PM

> "Co-ed" is an antiquated term. Referring to a female student as such > is demeaning. It suggests that a special allowance was made for her to > be attending the school because she is not of a privileged (read: > male) set. That's what the media calls her, it makes her sound like she's just out of high school. > She *is* a law student. Got a link to an article that says she's not? She's also a Lawyer, has been for a while. She said she signed up as a student because the didn't offer contraception with their insurance. > So? Oh holy hell, Sam, you're not next going to suggest that she's > uppity, too, are you? So is she a co-ed student that can't afford condoms or birth control for $10 a month at Walmart or is she an activist lawyer looking for a cause? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- That's fine if you feel she's a legitimate witness. But remember, school health plans are not group plans and are not affected by any laws so it's a totally moot point. Not a very good lawyer I'd say. Plus, if she was an employee of Georgetown she would be eligible for free condoms even though that law has kicked in yet. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- No, my opinion is she's not attractive, that doesn't mean she won't get some. Just sounds like the need for five condoms a day "might" have been exaggerated. But that's just me speculating. > Why, again, would her age matter? Because it's hard to believe a 30-year-old lawyer paying $60,000 a year to go back to law school can't afford condoms. > Oh bullshit, Sam. Really? Played? She's a woman, a law student an a > member of an organization which focuses on reproductive justice. I'd > say and that makes her a damn-sight better qualified to testify on > women's reproductive issues than any of these clergymen: > http://www.thenation.com/blog/166311/republican-hearing-contraception-no-women-allowed Actually the panel was about religion not about reproductive rights. The second panel had woman on it as you're updated article states. And, as I keep stating, it doesn't apply to this. The law does not apply to Universities offering health care.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 05:19 PM

You do realize that whether a woman has sex 5 times a day or once a month, the birth control pills cost the same, right? On Mar 2, 2012 3:17 PM, "Sam" <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 05:25 PM

That only comes to $600 a year. Fluke testified they need $1000 a year. . > > You do realize that whether a woman has sex 5 times a day or once a month, > the birth control pills cost the same, right?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:06 PM

I'm impressed that she is having sex 5 times a day and doing well in grad school. Makes me look like a slacker. We should be supporting the best and brightest and sexiest. Good job! Judah > > You do realize that whether a woman has sex 5 times a day or once a month, > the birth control pills cost the same, right?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:11 PM

You obviously haven't seen her photo :) Makes me wonder how she finds five victims a day . > > I'm impressed that she is having sex 5 times a day and doing well in > grad school. Makes me look like a slacker. We should be supporting the > best and brightest and sexiest. Good job!

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 06:14 PM

Who said it was 5 different men a day? Jump to conclusions much? Its just as likely (more likely in my opinion) she is in a monogamous relationship. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 03:38 AM

Sam, the only thing I know of that I have in common with you is that we both have daughters. I believe that yours is older than mine, perhaps 11 or 12 if I recall correctly. Now back away from the partisan blinders for a moment, look at the words that that Limbaugh used toward this young woman and tell me: How would you feel if he did that to your daughter? What message are you sending to your daughter if she reads through this thread and sees what you write? What do you want your daughter to gain from this incident? Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:43 AM

between this and the state ultrasound initiatives, I am starting to wonder if the GOP platform isn't best summarized as "Girls having sex! ZOMG!" I realize that this sounds to most of us like it could be a lot of fun, so let's emphasize: to them this is a *problem*. In this particular instance the sexual angle is sheer sensationalism and unnecessary in any discussion of whether contraceptive insurance coverage is good public policy. The staying out of bedrooms argument is superficially persuasive, but fallacious in context. Where the government actually enters the bedroom is when it singles out a drug and says oh but this involves sex so we won't cover it. The burden is then on the patient and provider to demonstrate that the use is for one of the other legitimate medical uses in women's health, and that's where the invasion of privacy comes in. Would you *really* want a committee reviewing records about your sexual organs? Nor is the "it's sexual behavior" argument legitimate, as insurance companies have uncomplainingly been covering Viagra. Their issue is not that a behavior is sexual. The *real* problem is that some insured institutions fundamentally believe that the place of women is to be barefoot and pregnant, and object to contributing to anything that works against that state of affairs. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 11:00 AM

> between this and the state ultrasound initiatives, I am starting to wonder > if the GOP platform isn't best summarized as "Girls having sex! ZOMG!" I > realize that this sounds to most of us like it could be a lot of fun, so > let's emphasize: to them this is a *problem*. Is that the one where planned parenthood, who performs internal ultrasound before every abortion, testified that being required to perform an internal ultrasound before an abortion is equivalent to rape? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- See this is so fuuuuukin stupid. The argument is why a university needs to provide $1000 a year for contraception. It has nothing to do with the real argument of health issues and birth control pills. After all doesn't PP already dish out free taypayer funded condoms? > Nor is the "it's sexual behavior" argument legitimate, as insurance > companies have uncomplainingly been covering Viagra. Their issue is not > that a behavior is sexual. The *real* problem is that some insured > institutions fundamentally believe that the place of women is to be > barefoot and pregnant, and object to contributing to anything that works > against that state of affairs. Does the government mandate that insurance companies cover Viagra? No. Then why are we even discussing this? .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:17 PM

Dumbass...she isn't talking about condoms...she is referring to the pill...sheesh... > > between this and the state ultrasound initiatives, I am starting to > wonder if the GOP platform isn't best summarized as "Girls having sex! > ZOMG!" I realize that this sounds to most of us like it could be a lot > of fun, so let's emphasize: to them this is a *problem*. Is that the one where planned parenthood, who performs internal ultrasound before every abortion, testified that being required to perform an internal ultrasound before an abortion is equivalent to rape? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- See this is so fuuuuukin stupid. The argument is why a university needs to provide $1000 a year for contraception. It has nothing to do with the real argument of health issues and birth control pills. After all doesn't PP already dish out free taypayer funded condoms? > Nor is the "it's sexual behavior" argument legitimate, as insurance > companies have uncomplainingly been covering Viagra. Their issue is > not that a behavior is sexual. The *real* problem is that some insured > institutions fundamentally believe that the place of women is to be > barefoot and pregnant, and object to contributing to anything that > works against that state of affairs. Does the government mandate that insurance companies cover Viagra? No. Then why are we even discussing this? .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:23 PM

dumbass? ya think. That's like calling water wet. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:56 PM

I was being nice... dumbass? ya think. That's like calling water wet. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:58 AM

> Sam, the only thing I know of that I have in common with you is that > we both have daughters. I believe that yours is older than mine, > perhaps 11 or 12 if I recall correctly. Now back away from the > partisan blinders for a moment, look at the words that that Limbaugh > used toward this young woman and tell me: > > How would you feel if he did that to your daughter? If my daughter perjured herself in front of congress and stated she and her friends needed someone to pay that much for contraception, lets just say I wouldn't be proud. > What message are you sending to your daughter if she reads through > this thread and sees what you write? Luckily my daughter is extremely intelligent so she will dot be blinded by ridiculous sidetracking spin. > What do you want your daughter to gain from this incident? Absolutely nothing. Shouldn't have happened and should have been ignored. Not news at all, just away for the left to re-frame a loosing issue .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 11:53 AM

Did you actually hear Ms. Fluke's testimony? She never asked for taxpayer funded contraceptives. Her testimony centered on the medical use of birth control pills to treat ovarian cysts. She never mentioned sex--that part was Limbaugh's fantasy. She was advocating for the inclusion of contraceptives in a health insurance policy that she is paying for. Neither Georgetown University nor the federal government provide her free health care. Ignorance is one thing, but your deliberate willful ignorance is something else. By defending this "person" the way you are its exactly like you were calling her Ms. Fluke those foul names. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 12:04 PM

It's probably time to ignore Sam.  This isn't a left or right issue, as he seems to see everything as, but a right and wrong issue.  Rush was wrong.  He got called on it.  He backpedaled because he knows he screwed up.  The apology is a formality.  He doesn't mean it. Now, I have not heard the testimony.  Did any of that "$1000" include doctor's visits and such?  That could easily bump the cost way up. On 3/4/2012 11:53 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 12:08 PM

In an interview with Alter on November 30, Obama offered that Republican opposition to the stimulus "helped create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans." Where's your outrage? Her insurance covers doctors visits. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 12:24 PM

On 3/4/2012 12:08 PM, Sam wrote: > > In an interview with Alter on November 30, Obama offered that > Republican opposition to the stimulus "helped create the tea-baggers > and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party where it now > controls the agenda for the Republicans." > > Where's your outrage? I am not sure I follow you here. > Her insurance covers doctors visits. All of them?  Specialist visits?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 12:36 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I think being called a tea-bagger by the President simply for not supporting him is a bit worse than a comedian calling a woman demanding $1000 a year for contraception a slut. It's to do with context. >> Her insurance covers doctors visits. > > All of them?  Specialist visits? Here's what she said, you decide: Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire summer?s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 12:53 PM

On 3/4/2012 12:36 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Eh.  People identify themselves as tea-baggers, and don't do it out of irony, so it can't be all that much of an insult.  I don't think slut and prostitute are on the same relatively benign level, no matter the context. Now, if the president called someone a Nazi or something, that would be a little different. Speaking of presidents, the media tried that same thing with Andrew Jackson's wife and I think he ended up shooting one or two of them ;) > Here's what she said, you decide: > > Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a > woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like > me, are on public interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire > summer?s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported > to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy. OK.  She says "without insurance coverage" .. which means paying for the doctors visits, etc.  She wasn't clear from that bit of text whether she meant birth control for birth control, or birth control as medication. If it purely for birth control, then no.  There are other options.  If it is for medication .... I am on the fence about whether that kind of thing can be forced. Regardless, calling her a slut and a prostitute for that was way out of line.  I don't care how you try to spin it.  Rush was attacking the person and not the argument.  I thought people constantly bitched about that type of thing on here, you include

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:19 PM

> Eh.  People identify themselves as tea-baggers, and don't do it out of > irony, so it can't be all that much of an insult.  I don't think slut > and prostitute are on the same relatively benign level, no matter the > context. You mean people in the Tea-Party? I'm pretty sure most don't like to be called tea-baggers. But of course they don't cry about it and try to change the story line. > Now, if the president called someone a Nazi or something, that would be > a little different. You mean like Larry often does? You should have seen all the Bush-with-Hitler mustache photos from this list a few years back. > Speaking of presidents, the media tried that same thing with Andrew > Jackson's wife and I think he ended up shooting one or two of them ;) Did she ask for money for condoms? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- She means when the insurance doesn't cover contraception. remember, that's why she chose to go to Georgetown. As I already posted, Georgetown offers medical coverage for birth control when used as a medicine. They also provide birth control coverage for employees so it's not even an issue of being a religious university. Also, she has an option to choose many other insurance plans for around the same rate in that area. So it's a fake issue altogether. > Regardless, calling her a slut and a prostitute for that was way out of > line.  I don't care how you try to spin it.  Rush was attacking the > person and not the argument.  I thought people constantly bitched about > that type of thing on here, you include I do and I agree. But to pretend it's an issue only when it comes from the right is

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:44 PM

On 3/4/2012 1:19 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- haha I misread your original post and managed to type out the wrong word too.  OK.  Had I heard about that, I would have said shame on him, but it would have been back in November, so that is no longer relevant. > You mean like Larry often does? You should have seen all the > Bush-with-Hitler mustache photos from this list a few years back. I was here. > Did she ask for money for condoms? Worse.  People didn't like the timing of her marriage or something. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I gave my opinion on this, so I don't think I need to comment further. > I do and I agree. But to pretend it's an issue only when it comes from > the right is I think you are the only one doing that at the moment.  At least, I certainly am not.  I dislike both sides equally.  Well, OK, maybe the Republicans a little more. Besides, Rush is to blame for this.  He chose his words beforehand, then opened his mouth and let them fly.  He could have brought up valid arguments and discussed the issues, but he was more interested in stirring up shit.  He knew his comments were inflammatory.  He knew what the reaction would be, in general.  You can't blame the media for doing what he wanted.  He chose to turn the issue into promiscuous sex and demean every single woman who uses birth control for its intended purpose.  He chose to cloud the issue with this meaningless BS.  He created what you are complaining about.  Ah, the product of a right wing, obnoxious prick with an arrogant attitude and a big mouth.  You can start your finger pointing right there. And, yes, if it were one of the left wing talking heads that did this, I would be saying unflattering things about them too.  I just do myself a favor and never listen to either side.  Nothing they have to say is news.  Nothing they say is relevant.  Nothing they say is useful to me.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 03:24 PM

It's a kick in the face to any woman who ever tried to make a serious statement in public is what it is. For me, a total flashback to Anita Hill on Congress trying to explain to a bunch of fat white MALE fuckheads why it might hard to work in an environment where your boss acts like a pig, and listening to them oink in incomprehension. F: Health insurance should cover oral contraceptives because this is good public policy. M: Hey! You're a woman! F: No shit. I am here to testify on house bill blabla, which would prevent me from getting the coverage I wish from my employer-sponsored health insurance. M: I bet you are. Tell me, honey, do you swallow? It's really not that big an exaggeration. The only difference is, the people holding the hearing did not include Rush, and *they* didn't even bother to listen at all. Wasn't this some sort of second hearing held by Democrats because the first one didn't invite any women to testify at all? Besides, Rush is to blame for this.  He chose his words beforehand, then ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 03:33 PM

It's actually more egregious than that since the first time around they didn't include any women at all. People had to raise a big stink about the fact that no women were even allowed to present on an issue of fundamental importance to women and only then was a woman allowed up to say something to then be ridiculed and demeaned. Judah > > It's a kick in the face to any woman who ever tried to make a serious > statement in public is what it is. For me, a total flashback to Anita Hill > on Congress trying to explain to a bunch of fat white MALE fuckheads why it > might hard to work in an environment where your boss acts like a pig, and > listening to them oink in incomprehension.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 03:59 PM

Of course we aren't past this. Nothing more fun than patronizing women, punching hippies and putting uppity niggers in their place. Well, and queer bashing of course. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 08:00 PM

Speaking of patronizing people you don't agree with... . > > Of course we aren't past this. Nothing more fun than patronizing > women, punching hippies and putting uppity niggers in their place. > Well, and queer bashing of course.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 07:52 PM

No they didn't. Pelosi did by pretending it was something that it wasn't. Then she got a fake expert witness that researched the school to find they didn't cover contraception and signed up for the sole purpose of fighting it. Then pretended she was an unfortunate student that can't survive with the high cost of having sex. What a tool. . > > It's actually more egregious than that since the first time around > they didn't include any women at all. People had to raise a big stink > about the fact that no women were even allowed to present on an issue > of fundamental importance to women and only then was a woman allowed > up to say something to then be ridiculed and demeaned.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 07:46 PM

Now you're going to pull the Anita Hill crap? Have you no honor? Trying to ruin a mans career with lies. This proves you show outrage only when the left tells you to. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- She was not qualified and it was about religion not women's health. .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:09 PM

dropping pubic hairs in her face and dumping porn on her lap?  And you talk of honour? twisted very twisted. I've met member of WAR who have more honour than you. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:23 PM

None of that was true . > > dropping pubic hairs in her face and dumping porn on her lap?  And you > talk of honour? twisted very twisted. I've met member of WAR who have > more honour than you.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:02 PM

Not only didn't invite, but refuses to allow her to testify when requested by Dems... It's a kick in the face to any woman who ever tried to make a serious statement in public is what it is. For me, a total flashback to Anita Hill on Congress trying to explain to a bunch of fat white MALE fuckheads why it might hard to work in an environment where your boss acts like a pig, and listening to them oink in incomprehension. F: Health insurance should cover oral contraceptives because this is good public policy. M: Hey! You're a woman! F: No shit. I am here to testify on house bill blabla, which would prevent me from getting the coverage I wish from my employer-sponsored health insurance. M: I bet you are. Tell me, honey, do you swallow? It's really not that big an exaggeration. The only difference is, the people holding the hearing did not include Rush, and *they* didn't even bother to listen at all. Wasn't this some sort of second hearing held by Democrats because the first one didn't invite any women to testify at all? Besides, Rush is to blame for this.  He chose his words beforehand, then ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- me. > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 07:42 PM

Yes he said something funny about a girl acting as a tool. It was crude, but in every other instance it would be funny. I find it amusing that people are so easily offended and make this out to be so much worse than what even Obama himself says. I think everyone is pretending it's much worse than it is. Remember the outrage over the things said about Plain and her family? And she did nothing to invite that. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 08:21 PM

On 3/4/2012 7:42 PM, Sam wrote: > > Yes he said something funny about a girl acting as a tool. It was > crude, but in every other instance it would be funny. I highly doubt that.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:07 PM

Acting as a tool? Sam you haven't just jumped the shark you've pole vaulted it. I originally thought it was just an act. But rarely have I known someone as hateful as you. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:23 PM

You do realize that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers long before comedians did?  Comedians just ran with it because they realized the other meaning behind it before the tea baggers did. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I think being called a tea-bagger by the President simply for not supporting him is a bit worse than a comedian calling a woman demanding $1000 a year for contraception a slut. It's to do with context. >> Her insurance covers doctors visits. > > All of them?  Specialist visits? Here's what she said, you decide: Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire summer?s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:39 PM

You mean the sign held by a woman that states "tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you" implied she was going to dangle her scrotum in their mouths? Sounds like she was calling the dems tea-baggers. . > > You do realize that tea baggers called themselves tea baggers long before > comedians did?  Comedians just ran with it because they realized the other > meaning behind it before the tea baggers did.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:21 PM

Why would we have outrage?  That is a factual statement. In an interview with Alter on November 30, Obama offered that Republican opposition to the stimulus "helped create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans." Where's your outrage? Her insurance covers doctors visits. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 03:10 PM

1. Well said. 2. I am not sure. My best guess, if her testimony indeed uses the number, is that this is the cost of treating endometriosis for that patient. It does seem a bit high for oral contraceptives alone. More likely it's a different but related number, like a couple of specialist visits and possibly a minor procedure or an ultrasound. Most likely Fluke did say exactly that, and Rush conflated -- as in, if it cost $1000 to treat endometriosis, and oral contraceptives are being used to treat endometriosis, then the cost of the oral contraceptives must be $1000. I mean... isn't it always something like that, when Sam is channeling Rush? 3. I am seeing $5 to $30 as a co-pay when I Google "cost of oral contraceptives". I suggest that anyone who actually needs to know what it is give a call to Walgreen's. But a $30 copay suggests a retail price in the 70s so that $1000 be that high after all. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 03:27 PM

For the record here is the transcript of Ms. Fluke's testimony before Pelosi's hearing: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women?s health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.  My name is Sandra Fluke, and I?m a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school.  I?m also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ.  I?d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today. Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we?re so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.  I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions. When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories.  .  On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman  from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage.  And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard. Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire summer?s salary.   Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy.  One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn?t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn?t afford it.  Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.  Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn?t afford it any longer.  Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice. You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that?s not true.  Women?s health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services.  Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without.  How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics? These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people.  In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences.  A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it?s not intended to prevent pregnancy.  Under many religious institutions? insurance plans, it wouldn?t be, and under Senator Blunt?s amendment, Senator Rubio?s bill, or Representative Fortenberry?s bill, there?s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs.  When they do exist, these exceptions don?t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren?t, a woman?s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body. In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms.  For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy.  She?s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy.  After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn?t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it.  I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she?d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain.  She wrote, ?It was so painful, I woke up thinking I?d been shot.?  Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary.  She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary.  On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor?s office. Since last year?s surgery, she?s been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary.  She?s 32 years old.  As she put it: ?If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children.  I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn?t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.? Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child. Perhaps you think my friend?s tragic story is rare.  It?s not.  One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can?t be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn?t been willing to cover her medication.  Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome.  She?s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.  Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown?s policy, she hasn?t been reimbursed for her medication since last August.  I sincerely pray that we don?t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously. This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends.  A woman?s reproductive healthcare isn?t a necessity, isn?t a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn?t covered, and she assumed that?s how Georgetown?s insurance handled all of women?s sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn?t go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn?t going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman?s reproductive health. As one student put it, ?this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn?t understand our needs.?  These are not feelings that male fellow students experience.  And they?re not burdens that male students must shoulder. In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school?  We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.  We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs.  We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university.  We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and weresent that, in the 21 st century, anyone thinks it?s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women. Many of the women whose stories I?ve shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church.  It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need.  The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on.  Thank you. ----------------------- So where is the demand for free contraceptive services? Where is the claim she needs thousands for condoms? In both cases they are lies. And shame on you Sam for promoting those lies. -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ig

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 03:45 PM

ok so we're getting it from that $3000? Divided by three. That's cost of contraception, notice. Nothing there about oral contraceptives. So an average, across many students, some of whom may get injections, implants or IUDs.  Maybe some of the implants need to be removed on an emergency basis. Other patients may get bleeding episodes from the hormones, or some other expensive side effects. It is *not* just oral contraceptives, it's cost of contraception, in other words also including lab tests, doctor visits, well woman exams.... they don't just hand you the pills. More to the point, focusing on that number is just an attempt to deflect the actual meaning of her statement, which is that her friend's insurance isn't paying for medical care because they suspect that sex might be involved. And that the school does not subsidize this insurance at all. If both of those statements are true then the situation is wrong no matter how you construe it. I don't see how you can construe a First Amendment right to dictate health care you aren't paying for. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 07:59 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- A doctors visit will cost you a co-pay. Done. If you want the Cadillac contraception plan than you pay for it or use any of the other providers in the area that offer it. None issue pretending to be one. > More to the point, focusing on that number is just an attempt to deflect > the actual meaning of her statement, which is that her friend's insurance > isn't paying for medical care because they suspect that sex might be > involved. And that the school does not subsidize this insurance at all. If > both of those statements are true then the situation is wrong no matter how > you construe it. The insurance plan offered by the school includes contraception for medical purposes. If they aren't paying that's a totally unrelated issue and should be dealt with in a different venue. > I don't see how you can construe a First Amendment right to dictate health > care you aren't paying for. wa?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 08:35 PM

You obviously didn't read the transcript and just want to stir up shit like Rush.  So once again, I am going to label you as trolling. You keep repeating the same stupid statements that were addressed in the testimony.  You have no clear argument.  you have been all over the place and nothing matches up or ties together.  You have run the gamut from "Well, the left does it too!" to "It's no big deal.  It's actually kinda funny!" You aren't interested in addressing the actual content of the testimony, which you were bitching about earlier because people were paying more attention to Rush than the facts, and only interested in putting your fingers on autopilot, or just spewing out whatever new fallacy has popped into your head at the time.  When someone does try to talk about the facts, you only respond with hyperbole that you actually expect someone to take seriously, if you respond to the subject at all and not resort to a distraction tactic or a statement that makes absolutely no sense and has nothing to do with anything. On 3/4/2012 7:59 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 08:54 PM

or, to phrase it in more constitutional terms, privacy vs free speech. And freedom of religion -- they sort of overlap here if spending money is speech these days. The right not to be compelled to spend my money in ways prohibited by my religion, vs. the right not to be compelled to do jump through pointless gender-specific hoops to get medical care. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:23 PM

so it's a matter of how obnoxious that process is, I guess, if anyone wants to make something of it. It looks like a gender-specific requirement to me, though. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:27 PM

How did you get that from this: Q. Are pre-existing conditions covered? A. Pre-existing conditions are covered if the condition or treatment is not specifically excluded or limited per the Exclusions and Limitations in Description of Benefits Booklet. (Note: Although birth control is not covered, medications used for birth control that are required to treat other medical conditions are covered. Your provider may submit requests for such coverage in the form of a "Prescription Override" by faxing the details of the diagnosis and treatment to Gallagher Koster, fax #: 617-479-0860.) . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:50 PM

It can get worse than that according to Ms. Fluke's testimony. I trolled a few other forums etc and got the impression that  this is very common with Georgetown students. Even with a specific medical diagnosis the student health care denies oral contraceptives, even with specific medial orders and copies of all the diagnostics. Its not done by medical personnel but Georgetown administrators. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:58 PM

yeah, I think it's them and Catholic University claiming the constitutional issue. There was another large non-academic employer also, whose name escapes me. Anyway, so -- the really interesting questions. Would this insurance policy cover vasectomy? Viagra? Testosterone? On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:26 PM

On 3/4/2012 9:50 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > It can get worse than that according to Ms. Fluke's testimony. I > trolled a few other forums etc and got the impression that  this is > very common with Georgetown students. Even with a specific medical > diagnosis the student health care denies oral contraceptives, even > with specific medial orders and copies of all the diagnostics. Its not > done by medical personnel but Georgetown administrators. That's the job of an insurance company.  Deny a claim using any excuse or technicality you can for as long as you can and when that runs out, dare them to take you to court.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:17 PM

Georgetown offers employees contraception coverage. Students using the non-group plan offered through the school does not. It does cover contraception for medical reasons. Wrong argument, wrong place. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:22 PM

probably, but it's the only one you had. I think contraception should be covered for reasons of equity and economics, remember. You're the one arguing... something. That Rush Limbaugh is a good guy maybe? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:24 PM

Sandra's argument doesn't apply and you're supporting it. . > > probably, but it's the only one you had. I think contraception should be > covered for reasons of equity and economics, remember. You're the one > arguing... something. That Rush Limbaugh is a good guy maybe?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:11 PM

> You obviously didn't read the transcript and just want to stir up shit > like Rush.  So once again, I am going to label you as trolling. I did read the transcript and I pointed out repeatedly why none of it applies to the hearings. That is why it was not accepted as a valid argument. You on the other hand have not addressed any of the issues I've discussed and throw your hands up in frustration because you lack a valid point. I've addressed all the statements in the testimony and will gladly address others. I thought maybe I could take a discussion with you seriously but I see when you see you run out of logic you turn to insults. That makes you no better than Larry or Dana. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:21 PM

On 3/4/2012 9:11 PM, Sam wrote: > I did read the transcript and I pointed out repeatedly why none of it > applies to the hearings. That is why it was not accepted as a valid > argument. Then you didn't understand what you read. > > You on the other hand have not addressed any of the issues I've > discussed and throw your hands up in frustration because you lack a > valid point. That's because I don't know what you are talking about half the time and the other half is you making statements full of so much hyperbole that there isn't any real foundation for a logical argument. > > I've addressed all the statements in the testimony and will gladly > address others. Not in a sensible way or not without inflammatory coloring. > I thought maybe I could take a discussion with you seriously but I see > when you see you run out of logic you turn to insults. I am not insulting.  I am telling you how I see things and how it is impossible to debate anything with you.  There is no logic to run out of when the entire argument is illogical.  You ability to mentally twist things is astounding though.  I do have to give you credit for that.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:36 PM

> On 3/4/2012 9:11 PM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I did. > That's because I don't know what you are talking about half the time and > the other half is you making statements full of so much hyperbole that > there isn't any real foundation for a logical argument. Then you didn't understand what you read. >> I've addressed all the statements in the testimony and will gladly >> address others. > > Not in a sensible way or not without inflammatory coloring. BS ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I debate quite well. Problem is when you are set in your decisions before hand and are shown the truth. It seems to frustrate you. Yes you hate Limbaugh and many do. But the outrage you have is over a false issue. It's so bad you can't even argue your point. You haven't made any points, you just asked questions and seemed surprise the answers weren't what you expected.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 11:38 PM

See.  Here we go.  WTF are you talking about? On 3/4/2012 10:36 PM, Sam wrote: > I debate quite well. Problem is when you are set in your decisions > before hand and are shown the truth. What decision was I set in? > It seems to frustrate you. What, being shown "the truth"?   Yes > you hate Limbaugh and many do. But the outrage you have is over a > false issue. I am not outraged.  I just think the man is a dick and what he said was completely uncalled for.   It's so bad you can't even argue your point. My nonexistent outrage?   You haven't > made any points, I didn't feel I needed to point out most of the obvious.  I guess I was wrong. you just asked questions and seemed surprise the > answers weren't what you expected. I don't think I have been surprised except by some of the loony interpretations you have come up with. I have clearly stated my position 3 times on two topics.  Let me list them for you. 1.  Rush was a bigger jerk than usual and some people have good cause to be upset with him. 2.  No insurance for purely birth control. 3.  The insurers seem to be using the "no birth control" clause to deny coverage in situations where it is needed for other medical conditions.   It is apparently a wide spread problem.  I think someone needs to jerk a knot in the insurance group's tail. No analysis of these opinions need suffer at the expense of another.  I am more than capable of keeping track of 3 opinions on two different topics.  So, your claim that some mystical outrage is messing with my judgement is flat out wrong.  Frankly, I don't care beyond that I can understand where she is coming from and something probably does need to be done. Other places where you are wrong: She did not ask for coverage for birth control so she can go out and bone 5 guys a day.  She gave speciffic examples of how some women were denied coverage even though they had a medical need, because someone insisted that they just wanted the pill.  This led to some severe consequences. You have addressed none of this beyond saying that you read it. The fact that she is some kind of crusader and went looking for this fight is irrelevant.  The problem still exists with or without her. You did hilight this, which is interesting, but ultimately a useless tangent. Stop with the numbers.  The actual dollar amounts are not relevant to her testimony and any she gave were likely anecdotal anyway. This one you can't seem to let go of this one. Stop with the "you are only angry because the left told you to be" bullshit.  What Rush said is wrong on any side of the fence.  What some democrat did similarly 3 months ago is no longer relevant to THIS discussion. Now, what exactly are your arguments or problems with what she said, now that we are ignoring Rush and all of the other stupid tangents?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 11:29 AM

>> I debate quite well. Problem is when you are set in your decisions >> before hand and are shown the truth. > > What decision was I set in? You don't like Rush and that's fine. No matter what I say won't change that and that's understood. But in your dislike in Rush you can not and never will accept his comments as anything but offensive. I'll add that they are offensive but only slightly. >> It seems to frustrate you. > > What, being shown "the truth"? That it's not an issue to be upset about or even give a crap about but you want to be mad. >  You haven't >> made any points, > > I didn't feel I needed to point out most of the obvious.  I guess I was > wrong. So you find it extremely offensive, no matter what I say you will not budge on that. I do not agree with you and I've explained why. You're arguments is "I should have to state the obvious"  No offense but are you angry you can't change my opinion? I know I won't change your opinion so I'm not upset either way. > you just asked questions and seemed surprise the >> answers weren't what you expected. > > I don't think I have been surprised except by some of the loony > interpretations you have come up with. Loony? Not at all. > I have clearly stated my position 3 times on two topics.  Let me list > them for you. > > 1.  Rush was a bigger jerk than usual and some people have good cause to > be upset with him. My question is are they upset with him because he exists or because of what he said? Where the same people upset with the things said about the Tea-partiers, Palin and family, Bush etc. If they weren't, and that's my point, it's fake outrage. Either your offended whenever it happens or your carrying the water the left. > 2.  No insurance for purely birth control. What does that even mean? You don't support insurance for bc? That's what you are defending. That's what Fluke wants. > 3.  The insurers seem to be using the "no birth control" clause to deny > coverage in situations where it is needed for other medical conditions. >  It is apparently a wide spread problem.  I think someone needs to jerk > a knot in the insurance group's tail. And that will not change. If they are forced to give everyone condoms and your doctor prescribes an $80-a-month pill the insurance will likely cover the $9 version which will be useless. Georgetown University provides contraception coverage for it's employees on their medical plan. That means it's not a religious issue. It's a money issue. It's the cheap plan offered for kids in school and the plan doesn't cover it. If you want a plan that does you can get one for about the same price but different things are covered. See your argument is the insurance isn't honoring it's promise and maybe changing an unrelated law would fix that. It won't. We need to force insurance co's to pay when thy are supposed to. Totally unrelated issue. She was using a couple of girls with cancer that weren't getting covered as a reason to give away free condoms. What she described is criminal and unrelated. > She did not ask for coverage for birth control so she can go out and > bone 5 guys a day.  She gave speciffic examples of how some women were > denied coverage even though they had a medical need, because someone > insisted that they just wanted the pill.  This led to some severe > consequences. "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire summer?s salary." If she's implying she can't afford the $3000 for contraception why can't others assume she's a slut? Her examples were of two or three girls but she's see's it in the faces "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected" does that means she's pre-judging all the girls at that school. Do they all have cancer or are they just very active sexually. > You have addressed none of this beyond saying that you read it. I repeatedly addressed them. > The fact that she is some kind of crusader and went looking for this > fight is irrelevant.  The problem still exists with or without her. The problem is she's using two or three people as examples as to why all students need free birth control. Since her example is already covered by the insurance her argument is wrong. The false framing of an argument by an activist rather than the honest testimony of a student in need. If she left out the ridiculous exaggeration and focused more on the reality of how nice it would be to save money towards food ect she wouldn't have been made fun of. > You did hilight this, which is interesting, but ultimately a useless > tangent. I think it's very relevant. It's smoke and mirrors. > Stop with the numbers.  The actual dollar amounts are not relevant to > her testimony and any she gave were likely anecdotal anyway. Exactly. > This one you can't seem to let go of this one. > > Stop with the "you are only angry because the left told you to be" > bullshit.  What Rush said is wrong on any side of the fence.  What some > democrat did similarly 3 months ago is no longer relevant to THIS > discussion. Again we disagree. The term slut is so watered down that any girl that watched Sex in the City,  Two and a half men or probably most prime time shows these days would consider it a badge of honor. Times are a changing, blow-jobs aren't even considered sex anymore. Yet calling someone a C*&% is still offensive unless you're from Ireland. And those words were used not so long ago. And as far as her being a poor little school girl that just wanted to be heard, she walked into the fury. Joe the plumber on the other hand just asked a question on the fly. I know, that was so long ago and yet this incident has already way past it's expiration date yet here we are. > Now, what exactly are your arguments or problems with what she said, now > that we are ignoring Rush and all of the other stupid tangents? Anecdotal and you seem to agree. She uses two or three extreme cases that don't even apply because they are covered by insurance. She uses them to distort the bulk of the students at her school as at risk of dying because the school won't give them whatever they want for free. She was bait and Rush bit. Now we have a total distraction from the real topic and advertisers afraid to support Rush. The best kind of distracti

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 06:24 PM

On 3/5/2012 11:29 AM, Sam wrote: > You don't like Rush and that's fine. No matter what I say won't change > that and that's understood. But in your dislike in Rush you can not > and never will accept his comments as anything but offensive. I will accept the ones that aren't offensive as not offensive.  If he makes a valid argument without being a pompous ass, I will give him credit and acknowledge he has a point.  You still seem to think it is either all or nothing, which is not the case. > That it's not an issue to be upset about or even give a crap about but > you want to be mad. I don't want to be mad.  who wants to be mad?  I am not angry.  I have no personal stake in this, so it doesn't affect me.  Just because I think the comments were inappropriate does not mean that I am automatically foaming at the mouth like some batshit crazy liberal moron making it my new life mission to take the man down, erm, I believe the phrase you used earlier was "at all costs". > So you find it extremely offensive, no matter what I say you will not > budge on that. Right. > I do not agree with you and I've explained why. And you won't budge on that.  Fair enough. > You're > arguments is "I should have to state the obvious"  No offense but are > you angry you can't change my opinion? I know I won't change your > opinion so I'm not upset either way. I meant I shouldn't have to state the obvious to most people who understand what the woman was saying, or at least the spirit of it. > My question is are they upset with him because he exists or because of > what he said? I can't answer this one.  For me, it's what he says and the way he says it. > Where the same people upset with the things said about > the Tea-partiers, Palin and family, Bush etc. If they weren't, and > that's my point, it's fake outrage. I don't know and I don't care.  Like I said, it is a non-issue for me as far as this discussion is concerned.  If some on air personality had called Palin's daughter a slut and a whore, I probably would have taken exception to that.  I stopped paying attention to the Palin thing when it became the train wreck it turned into.   Either your offended whenever it > happens or your carrying the water the left. What? >> 2.  No insurance for purely birth control. > > What does that even mean? You don't support insurance for bc? That's > what you are defending. That's what Fluke wants. I don't support insurance for prescriptions used solely for birth control.  It isn't hard to understand.  I don't see where Fluke said that's what she wants anywhere.  Feel free to point it out to me. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- What the hell are you talking about?  Where did you get that "condoms" thing anyway?  I never saw the word mentioned in any links to her testimony.  Rush was the first one to mention them.   Georgetown > University provides contraception coverage for it's employees on their > medical plan. Irrelevant. > If you want a plan that does you can get one for > about the same price but different things are covered. If such plans are in fact available.  Insurance companies are always looking for ways to deny new applicants.  A BC/BS rep told me the company was trying to get away from individual policies and that they would reject applications at the drop of a hat.  This is a specific example, so you can ignore it as being based on lies because I obviously want free stuff too, which is the only reason I spoke up. See your > argument is the insurance isn't honoring it's promise and maybe > changing an unrelated law would fix that. My argument is that is HER argument, not free birth control for everyone wheeeeeee.  I am not arguing the validity of her claims, nor what should be done about them.  It is my personal belief that she is mostly telling the trust because that's exactly how insurance companies operate, but I am not trying to convince anyone of that. > It won't. We need to force > insurance co's to pay when thy are supposed to. Totally unrelated > issue. It is not unrelated to her testimony.  Now, if her testimony is unrelated to the problem, well that's different and the lawmakers can sort that out. > She was using a couple of girls with cancer that weren't getting > covered as a reason to give away free condoms. What she described is > criminal and unrelated. Again with the condoms thing.  Show me where it says anywhere that is what she asked for.  Show me.  In writing.  From a reliable source.  I dare ya.  And the reason that one girl has cancer is because she was denied coverage to begin with for birth control as a treatment for a medical condition, an example of basis of Fluke's beef with the insurance plan. > "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during > law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public > interest scholarships, that?s practically an entire summer?s salary." > > If she's implying she can't afford the $3000 for contraception why > can't others assume she's a slut? God damn, Sam.  Are you that dense?  She was using the term contraception as an all encompassing term.  Contraception includes condoms, but does not preclude them.  she was asking about female contraceptives for treating medical conditions.  Just because you choose to apply a meaning to a word different than its usage in context doesn't make it so. It's like someone saying that they are going to buy a quality car and someone assuming that they are an America hating piece of filth because they probably mean a Japanese car.  It's ridiculous.  You are jumping to the same sorts of conclusions.  And that's all they are.  Your judgmental opinion based on the particular mass media you depend on. Forget about condoms and change the word contraceptives to "the pill and all of the expenses that go along with being able to get it". > > Her examples were of two or three girls but she's see's it in the faces > "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected" > does that means she's pre-judging all the girls at that school. Do > they all have cancer or are they just very active sexually. I am pretty sure she means the ones she knows are affected.  She was part of a group of them for a while. > The problem is she's using two or three people as examples as to why > all students need free birth control. No, she isn't.  You are simply wrong. > Since her example is already > covered by the insurance her argument is wrong. The insurance denied the coverage claim.   The false framing of > an argument by an activist rather than the honest testimony of a > student in need. If she left out the ridiculous exaggeration and > focused more on the reality of how nice it would be to save money > towards food ect she wouldn't have been made fun of. If the people making fun of her weren't petty dickheads then she wouldn't have been made fun of.  And, you mean ridiculous exaggeration like you going on and on about condoms for no reason?  I am pretty sure that whole food thing is understood by default.  They need to eat and they only have so much money, so no birth control in lieu of not starving. > Again we disagree. The term slut is so watered down that any girl that > watched Sex in the City,  Two and a half men or probably most prime > time shows these days would consider it a badge of honor. I doubt this.  It doesn't matter.  It was MEANT as offensive and to be taken in the worst possible light when applied to her. > Anecdotal and you seem to agree. She uses two or three extreme cases > that don't even apply because they are covered by insurance. Apparently, they aren't.  The fact that they weren't covered is why they are now extreme. > She was bait and Rush bit. Now we have a total distraction from the > real topic and advertisers afraid to support Rush. Ha.  Blaming her for Rush losing his sponsors?  That was all him.  He has to walk a fine line as part of his job and he crossed it this time. *shrug*  It's his fault. I still want you to prove to me that she is only in this because she wants a free box of condoms and that actually comes from somewhere other than Rush's inane rantin

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 07:06 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Sam claims that people don't get outraged when folks on the left behave is similar fashions. As you probably already know, he's wrong about that. An interesting case was brought up by a friend of mine who obviously has a much better memory than I do because a similar situation arose last May with Ed Schultz. Schultz is a liberal talk show host on MSNBC and on one of his shows, he called Laura Ingraham (Dr. Laura) a slut. Feminist groups were outraged and called for his suspension. Yes, Sam, in spite of the fact that Ed is a liberal and Laura is a conservative, groups on the left still raised an outcry. Of course the big difference is how Ed handled the situation versus how Rush is handling it. The very next day, Ed issued an on air apology that directly explained all the reasons his actions were wrong and he directly apologized to Laura. He then voluntarily took an unpaid suspension. MSNBC accepted his suspension and stated that his behavior was totally unacceptable and that remarks of that nature would not be tolerated.  Contrast that with Rush and Clear Channel. The MSNBC site has an article up about it. Look over Ed's apology and compare and contrast with Rush's "apology". http://ed.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/05/10584510-flashback-ed-apologizes-to-laura-ingraham-takes-one-week-suspension I think you'll see some clear distinctions. Sam probably won't but then again, he doesn't think that what Rush did was inappropriate. Can't be helped, I suppose. Cheers, Ju

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 09:37 PM

Ah.  Thanks! I would not have approved of that either.  So, I guess it is not-fake not-rage? On 3/5/2012 7:06 PM, Judah McAuley wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 09:40 PM

And it wasn't just one day. I pulled these from the show's transcripts on limpblob's website: . Wednesday : 1) Can you imagine, if you?re her parents, how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she?s having so much sex she can?t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope. 2) Sandra Fluke, one of the Butt Sisters, is being dragged out of law school by the hair. Wait ?til Rick Santorum hears about this. Wait ?til Gingrich hears about this! What do you think they?ll do? They?ll put a stop to this right away! They?ll head over that university and they?ll stop it! They?ll spy on Sandra Fluke and interrupt her in mid-coitus, and then they?ll make ?em get married. 3) What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She?s having so much sex she can?t afford the contraception. 4) Okay, so she?s not a slut. She?s ?round heeled.? I take it back. Thursday : 5) The reaction that they are having to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke ? or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is ? the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she?s having so much sex, she?s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. 6) I said, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex ? what would you call that woman? You?d call them a slut, a prostitute. 7) The headline: ?Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate ? A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi?s hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they?re going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control.? Cybercast News Service. So what would you call that? So I called it what it is. 8) Why go before a congressional committee and demand that all of us ? because they want to have sex any time, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want ? should pay for it? Whatever, no limits on this. I mean, they?re going broke having to buy contraception! 9) Sandra Fluke reported to Pelosi: ?It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations. ?Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,? Fluke told the hearing. . . . That?s a thousand dollars a year of sex ? and, she wants us to pay for it.? Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex. She wants us to pay for her sex, and she went to a congressional committee to close the sale. 10) At $1 a condom, if she shops at CVS pharmacy?s Web site, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms, or a thousand of them a year. We?ve done all kinds of research on this. And what about these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day? While in law school. 11) Okay, so this is a law student at a congressional committee asking for us to pay for the things that make it possible for her to have sex. Therefore we are paying her to have sex. Therefore we are paying her for having sex. We are getting screwed even though we don?t meet her personally! 12) Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? 13) So, if we?re gonna sit here, and if we?re gonna have a part in this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money. 14) Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high? 15) Stop the tape. Courageous. Recue that to the top. Courageous, having so much sex she?s going broke at Georgetown Law. (laughing) Gosh, I love this. 16) Folks, for all the hilarity that?s contained in what?s going on here . . . here?s a woman exercising no self-control. The fact that she wants to have repeated, never-ending, as often as she wants it sex ? given. 17) Did you notice in that sound bite Sheila Jackson Lee or Maria Cantwell or one of them talked about the strength that Sandra Fluke had to go before Congress, which is amazing. She?s having so much sex it?s amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there. 18) Do you realize at the end of the day what?s happening here? The Democrats are putting on parade a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman. She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time. No consequences. No responsibility for her behavior. Friday 19) Obama just called Sandra Fluke to make sure she was all right? Awwww. (kissing sound) That is so compassionate! What a great guy. The president called her to make sure she?s okay. What is she, 30 years old? Thirty years old, a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to having so much sex that she can?t afford it anymore. 20) 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. 21) So Pelosi arranges her own press conference for the woman, and the woman makes it clear (her name is Sandra Fluke) that she?s having so much sex, she can?t pay for it ? and we should. She?s having so much sex, she can?t afford it. -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 10:12 PM

That's good stuff, I should start listening again. Thanks . > > And it wasn't just one day. I pulled these from the show's transcripts on > limpblob's website: > .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 10:39 AM

Sam, The examples in this article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/the-lefts-respect-for-women-a-look-back/ do not count.  The women are conservative.  It makes all of the difference. Get with the program. J - In Bristol?s new memoir "Not Afraid of Life" - working title, "Whoops, There's a D**k in Me? - Bristol claims that the night she lost her virginity she had accidentally gotten drunk on wine coolers that she didn't know contained alcohol and then blacked out and didn't remember a thing. Oh, the Palins. I tell you, the s**t doesn't fall far from the bat. -  Bill Maher Bristol, just admit it. You were horny, and while we're at it stop claiming that you were on birth control pills that didn't work when you got pregnant. Here's a tip, hon: they're not birth control pills if they're shaped like Fred Flintstone. - Bill Maher You know, it's ? we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see. - Michelle Obama ..

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 11:04 AM

what a hateful screed that is. I don't know how you two can stand yourselves if you read that thing all the time. Bottom line, you're whining because you don't think anyone cared whether Bristol Palin got her feelings hurt. That was a long while ago, assuming it even happened; I am learning not to trust Sam's facts. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 11:10 AM

"what a hateful screed that is. I don't know how you two can stand yourselves if you read that thing all the time. " Read what? "Bottom line, you're whining because you don't think anyone cared whether Bristol Palin got her feelings hurt." Whining?  Really?  I don't give a rat's ass about Bristol Palin.  Just using her as a counter point.  The dumb asses on the left who keep degrading her are actually keeping her in the spot light.  That is, she has benefitted from their negative rhetoric. "That was a long while ago, assuming it even happened" Last summer was such a long time ago.  Even if it was a longer time period, you really think it was okay? "I am learning not to trust Sam's facts." You shouldn't trust anyone's.  Verify, verify, verify. J - Listen, he?s a nice person, but he couldn?t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down traffic. - Dan Rather on Barack Obama

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 11:18 AM

there doesn't have to be a counterpoint. Women who testify before congress deserve to be listened to without speculation about their sex lives cluttering up the issue. Period end of statement. Anything anyone says to or about Bristol Palin is a separate issue, but feel free to notify us if anyone calls her a slut or a prostitute. I'm kind of tired of "everybody does it" as an excuse. Bush pretty much wore that one out. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 11:21 AM

> there doesn't have to be a counterpoint. Women who testify before > congress deserve to be listened to without speculation about their sex > lives cluttering up the issue. > You want men to listen to a woman for an extended period of of time, and not think about sex? OK...good luck with that. She better be Janet-Reno-ugly. Signed, Chauvinist Pig

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 11:28 AM

What  people think is a matter of what's in their own heads.  What they say is definitely within their control though. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 11:43 AM

> there doesn't have to be a counterpoint. Women who testify before > congress deserve to be listened to without speculation about their sex > lives cluttering up the issue. What about if they are testifying to congress about there sex lives? > Anything anyone says to or about Bristol Palin is a separate issue, > but feel free to notify us if anyone calls her a slut or a prostitute. > I'm kind of tired of "everybody does it" as an excuse. Bush pretty > much wore that one out. We're back to conservatives are fair game liberals are off limits. .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:22 PM

Sam, All obnoxiousness and hostility aside, where in her testimony before congress does Ms. Fluke talk about her personal sex life? Again for the nth time here is the link: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf What paragraph, what page does she talk about her sex life? Is it on page 1? No? What about Page 2? Not there either, how about the third page. Not there either. What about the last paragraph? Nope no personal sex accounts there. Bluntly put its time to cough up where she talks about her sex life in the testimony or admit you lied. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:35 PM

Page one she talks about how people like her can't afford the cost of contraception and on page three shes says we, we, we, we, we ... I'm thinking of the Geico commercial now . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:37 PM

> Page one she talks about how people like her can't afford the cost of > contraception and on page three shes says we, we, we, we, we ... > > I'm thinking of the Geico commercial now > Did you not see the earlier posts that talk about the alternate usage for birth control pills? You ASSUMED she was talking about her sex life...but she could have needed those pills for another reason. Not that the reason should even matter.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:43 PM

She goes on to mention "In the worst cases", referring to medical issues, and I was assuming that wasn't her. Hell, we don't even know if she uses any form of contraception, we only know she picked that school because they different offer any. That doesn't mean she can talk about sex and then claim sex is off limits. How's that saying go? If you don't want government in the bedroom, don't force government to pay for what goes on in the bedroom. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:46 PM

> How's that saying go? If you don't want government in the bedroom, > don't force government to pay for what goes on in the bedroom. > For the third time, birth control pills are often prescribed to aid women who have excessive menstrual pain.....which can goes on EVERYWHERE, not just the bedroom.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:50 PM

For the tenth time, it's covered as a medical issue. By Georgetown. Want the link again? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:55 PM

Nope, thanks. Question for you: Does the reason really matter to you, and if so, why? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:59 PM

What reason? Why she wants free contraception? Why they should have free contraception? I thought a little about it. And I kinda feel birth control should be considered medical and in most plans it is. So that's fine. I also kinda think it's wrong to force a religion to do something against there teachings. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 01:40 PM

It's apparently not that much against their religion as they offer it to their employees...just not students. What reason? Why she wants free contraception? Why they should have free contraception? I thought a little about it. And I kinda feel birth control should be considered medical and in most plans it is. So that's fine. I also kinda think it's wrong to force a religion to do something against there teachings. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:29 PM

"What reason? Why she wants free contraception? Why they should have free contraception?" They are entitled. J - In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. - Alexis de Tocqueville A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. - Unknown

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:40 PM

> "What reason? Why she wants free contraception? Why they should have free > contraception?" > > They are entitled. > I hate entitlements more than anyone but entitlements be damned.  Free birth control for anyone who wants it may be the single best thing this nation can do to battle the cycle of poverty. -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:47 PM

ya it's not actually clear to me that a health insurance policy that covers pregnancy but not contraception would be cheaper. It might not be. In any event, I suppose there's an argument to be made about religious freedom but if it were *me* deciding I'd say that the person whose body will be affected should be the one whose wishes should override in this sort of conflict. If Fluke is accurate in saying that Georgetown doesn't subsidize student insurance, I don't think they should be able to dictate its coverage. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:57 PM

> ya it's not actually clear to me that a health insurance policy that > covers pregnancy but not contraception would be cheaper. It might not > be. > The insurance question is totally eclipsed by the cost of poverty to our society as a whole. The cost for a lifetime of contraception is WAY less than the cost to society that the cycle of poverty inflicts on this country. Anyone seen Freakonomics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect You can be totally against abortion, and the principles of this study would still apply to contraception (assuming you buy it). -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:01 PM

oh I agree with you on the big picture. I'm just saying that the "my money is paying for this" argument may not be valid either if reflecting the true cost of the decision would lead to the insurance costing more. I personally feel like prescriptions should either be covered, or not. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 08:13 PM

Especially when birth control is covered by the employee policy, claiming the religious freedom bullshit is rather disingenuous.   ya it's not actually clear to me that a health insurance policy that covers pregnancy but not contraception would be cheaper. It might not be. In any event, I suppose there's an argument to be made about religious freedom but if it were *me* deciding I'd say that the person whose body will be affected should be the one whose wishes should override in this sort of conflict. If Fluke is accurate in saying that Georgetown doesn't subsidize student insurance, I don't think they should be able to dictate its coverage. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:54 PM

The testimony was not about free birth control. Ms. Fluke was talking about oral contraceptives being provided as part of the student paid for health insurance. Not free, paid for. What do those on the right wing need to understand this simple concept. Provided as part as the insurance package. Where is the difficulty in understanding this simple concept? Is it some sort of weird cognitive deficit that prevents them  from seeing such? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:03 PM

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > The testimony was not about free birth control. Ms. Fluke was talking about > oral contraceptives being provided as part of the student paid for health > insurance. Not free, paid for. What do those on the right wing need to > understand this simple concept. Provided as part as the insurance package. > Where is the difficulty in understanding this simple concept? Is it some > sort of weird cognitive deficit that prevents them  from seeing such? Yeah, I haven't totally been paying attention to the thread.  But it SHOULD be free to everyone who wants it. Where do I donate my money so that some girl doesn't get knocked up and have a kid at 16?  At 20, at 24, at 30? Seriously. This is a stupid easy thing to help break poverty in the USA. Plus (and this is WAAAAY less significant IMHO), some people need it for health reasons. -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:10 PM

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I keep having this dream where we invest in research to produce really good, easily reversible sterilization techniques. Then we make a rule: mandatory reversible sterilization at age 12. Then once you are 18, you can get it reversed at any point for free. There are all sorts of problems with this approach, obviously, and it trounces on personal liberty grounds so I couldn't really support the idea if it were actually possible. I just can't help but think what a nice change it would be for our society if we simply turned the standard situation on its head and had pregnancy be something that you had to actively seek out rather than it be something you had to actively avoid. Cheers, Jud

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:49 PM

My rant was not directed against you Cam, you can be quire reasonable and actually use logic regularly. I am sure the guilty parties can identfiy themselves. But the freakonomics study you refer to is quite intersting, equating the drop in crime ove the last 15-20 years to the liberalization of abortion laws. That's the cool thing about behavioral economics in general what it find out quite frequently totally shoots down myths treasured by the left and right. Classic examples are behavioral traps (where short term gains have very negative long term consequences). > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com >wrote: > >> The testimony was not about free birth control. Ms. Fluke was talking about >> oral contraceptives being provided as part of the student paid for health >> insurance. Not free, paid for. What do those on the right wing need to >> understand this simple concept. Provided as part as the insurance package. >> Where is the difficulty in understanding this simple concept? Is it some >> sort of weird cognitive deficit that prevents them  from seeing such? > > > Yeah, I haven't totally been paying attention to the thread.  But it SHOULD ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:15 PM

Obviously the insurance they have does not include any form of contraceptive for birth control so they didn't PAY for it. And if the insurance is forced to supply it with no co-pay then someone has to pay for it in raised premiums. . > > The testimony was not about free birth control. Ms. Fluke was talking about > oral contraceptives being provided as part of the student paid for health > insurance. Not free, paid for. What do those on the right wing need to > understand this simple concept. Provided as part as the insurance package. > Where is the difficulty in understanding this simple concept? Is it some > sort of weird cognitive deficit that prevents them  from seeing such?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 06:36 AM

" I hate entitlements more than anyone but entitlements be damned.  Free birth control for anyone who wants it may be the single best thing this nation can do to battle the cycle of poverty." That's a different argument.  One I might consider more valid. J - I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. ? I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Benjamin Franklin

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 09:17 AM

> "I hate entitlements more than anyone but entitlements be damned.  Free > birth > control for anyone who wants it may be the single best thing this nation > can do to battle the cycle of poverty." > > That's a different argument.  One I might consider more valid. > Yeah, I kinda jumped in at the middle here. -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 01:10 PM

G, dude, you are talking down a well. If reason was going to do anything for Sam, that would have happened long long ago. Remember the rules of addiction: the person needs to want to change. Cheers, Judah > > Nope, thanks. > > Question for you: Does the reason really matter to you, and if so, why?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 01:11 PM

I think the government is in the bedroom once it starts asking whether something will be used in the bedroom. I'm no fan of oral contraceptives and can't take them, myself, but there are many gyn disorders that can be corrected with hormones. There's a line somewhere between Georgetown's right to sign up for the coverage they want to offer and the rights of Georgetown students to be able to obtain the coverage they want. It does not apply imho if Georgetown isn't subsidizing the policy at all. Either way, Rush' testimony was harmful. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 01:37 PM

Its the context liar. She was talking about medical uses of contraception. Where does she talk about recreational sex that you seem so obsessed with. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:26 PM

"What about if they are testifying to congress about there sex lives?" No Sam, she's on the left side of the spectrum.  Completely off limits. "We're back to conservatives are fair game liberals are off limits." Same old shit.  The hypocrisy is so deep and thick you can cut with a knife J - If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions. - Thomas Jefferson

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:41 PM

you sir clearly haven't seen the original as you are like another order of magnitude further from the point than Sam is. Believe what you want but don't expect me to have any respect for your opinion if it doesn't have at least *some* relationship to what actually happened. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 06:39 AM

"you sir clearly haven't seen the original as you are like another order of magnitude further from the point than Sam is." Whatever. "Believe what you want . . ." I will "...but don't expect me to have any respect for your opinion if it doesn't have at least *some* relationship to what actually happened. " I won't expect you to respect it regardless of its relationship to what happened, at least based on what I have seen from you in the past. J - The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 06:48 AM

"And pure democracy.  I wonder if something like that could one day replace representatives, or change their function.  That would be interesting to see. " And be completely against what our founding fathers wanted and designed. ". . . [D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions." - The Federalist Papers Basically, minority and indivicual rights will be destroyed under a democracy. J - Mrs. Powel:"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it." - Benjamin Franklin

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 08:11 PM

The only thing here thick enough to cut is your bullshit... "What about if they are testifying to congress about there sex lives?" No Sam, she's on the left side of the spectrum.  Completely off limits. "We're back to conservatives are fair game liberals are off limits." Same old shit.  The hypocrisy is so deep and thick you can cut with a knife J - If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions. - Thomas Jefferson

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:19 PM

> We're back to conservatives are fair game liberals are off limits. > This is why... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dX9GTUMh490

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:28 PM

nice On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions < casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 10:05 PM

That's cute. So four girls from the left said the were upset and he's now your hero? Did you notice Laura Ingram accepted his apology while college girl didn't? http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/the-lefts-respect-for-women-a-look-back/ BTW, you realize Maher gave Obama over  $million. Should he give that money back? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 02:57 AM

May she (Laura Ingrahm) really is a slut as Ed suggested and wasn't offended by that? He gave the million to make a point... That's cute. So four girls from the left said the were upset and he's now your hero? Did you notice Laura Ingram accepted his apology while college girl didn't? http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/05/the-lefts-respect-for-women-a-look-back/ BTW, you realize Maher gave Obama over  $million. Should he give that money back? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 12:48 PM

Laura Ingraham: ?When it was brought up on The View ? I go on there every now and then and they?re always really nice to me when I go ? when it was brought up on The View, Barbara Walters kind of laughed it off, like, ?Joy, you call me that word all the time,? and they just laughed. But when Fluke goes on yesterday, it?s ?Oh, isn?t this a tragedy?? and ?Oh isn?t this horrible? Rush Limbaugh should be driven off the air.?? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 10:02 PM

> I meant I shouldn't have to state the obvious to most people who > understand what the woman was saying, or at least the spirit of it. We're hearing what we want to hear I guess. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.  Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn?t afford it any longer.  Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice. ... In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. ... I could be wrong but I read this as birth control and the occasional worst case scenario when they actually use it for medical reasons. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- If she gets her way the condoms are included with the plan. You realize she's asking for any form of birth control at the asking. You are focusing on the medical use and that is already covered. >  Georgetown >> University provides contraception coverage for it's employees on their >> medical plan. > > Irrelevant. So was her testimony > Again with the condoms thing.  Show me where it says anywhere that is > what she asked for.  Show me.  In writing.  From a reliable source.  I > dare ya.  And the reason that one girl has cancer is because she was > denied coverage to begin with for birth control as a treatment for a > medical condition, an example of basis of Fluke's beef with the > insurance plan. Condoms are contraceptives and she's asking for contraceptives. Why do you assume she wants them excluded? Her beef will not change. It' a legal issue and there are ways to deal with them. This forum was not one of them. > It's like someone saying that they are going to buy a quality car and > someone assuming that they are an America hating piece of filth because > they probably mean a Japanese car.  It's ridiculous.  You are jumping to > the same sorts of conclusions.  And that's all they are.  Your > judgmental opinion based on the particular mass media you depend on. Really? Your going down that low road? > Forget about condoms and change the word contraceptives to "the pill and > all of the expenses that go along with being able to get it". What's your hangup with condoms? They will be included. > I am pretty sure she means the ones she knows are affected.  She was > part of a group of them for a while. She didn't claim she needed them for medical reasons, she did say the costs were prohibitive for her. > The insurance denied the coverage claim. As they like to do. You call them three or for times and they cover it. If not it's to court. It's a shitty system but what she's asking for won't change that part. > I doubt this.  It doesn't matter.  It was MEANT as offensive and to be > taken in the worst possible light when applied to her. It was not. Ed Shultz meant it in the worst possible way. Rush was mocking her for claiming such a high price tag was needed by law students at prestigious universities. > Apparently, they aren't.  The fact that they weren't covered is why they > are now extreme. Again, the fact that they were denied coverage is a lawsuit. > Ha.  Blaming her for Rush losing his sponsors?  That was all him.  He > has to walk a fine line as part of his job and he crossed it this time. > *shrug*  It's his fault. I'm pretty sure he's not sweating the sponsors as much as they're going to dread leaving him. I think he told his audience the advertisers decided to leave the audience. That's going to hurt their bottom line. > I still want you to prove to me that she is only in this because she > wants a free box of condoms and that actually comes from somewhere other > than Rush's inane rantin She doesn't want the box of condoms, she want's you to pay for all the students to have free condoms. And she wan

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/05/2012 10:09 PM

We're talking about the welfare of women in general nothing else. If you are pro flue shot or something else covered by insurance then you should vote or this.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 02:56 AM

Sam:  We're hearing what we want to hear I guess. There is the first piece of honesty I think we have seen from him... Eric

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 02:46 PM

On 3/5/2012 10:02 PM, Sam wrote: > We're hearing what we want to hear I guess. I guess we are.  Thank you for finally getting down to the heart of the matter without all of the other pointless asides and distractions. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- This seems to be open for interpretation and I can see how you think what you do, so I am willing to acknowledge you have a point. >> Irrelevant. > > So was her testimony I am not arguing that it was relevant. > Her beef will not change. It' a legal issue and there are ways to deal > with them. This forum was not one of them. Don't care.  Not what I am talking about. > Really? Your going down that low road? What low road is that? > What's your hangup with condoms? They will be included. It isn't my hangup.  You are the one who keeps parroting Rush concerning them. > She didn't claim she needed them for medical reasons, she did say the > costs were prohibitive for her. I thought that's what she was implying.  It's that interpretation thing.   Next time, instead of defending Rush and yelling about liberals this and liberals that, just say that in your opinion, that's what Fluke is asking for and someone is right in questioning her dollar amounts, if that is the case.  That will reduce the number of people hating on you, I'm sure.  Unless you just like the attention. I think that is the case, since you almost always open a political discussing from a highly aggressive position, or one that is insultingly dismissive of those who don't agree with you.  You don't participate in the discussion initially as much as you confuse the issues and intentionally stir everyone up, and try to polarize people (actually, that's what Rush does too.  Huh.).  Contrary to your opinion, that does not make you a good debater.  If you are intentionally doing that, it only makes you a schmuck. > As they like to do. You call them three or for times and they cover > it. If not it's to court. It's a shitty system but what she's asking > for won't change that part. Don't care.  Not what I am talking about. > It was not. Ed Shultz meant it in the worst possible way. Rush was > mocking her for claiming such a high price tag was needed by law > students at prestigious universities. Mocking her in the worst possible way.  Shultz and Rush are both asses.   Your point is.......It's OK because Rush supposedly didn't mean it as hard as Schultz did?  Rush didn't mean Fluke is a slut in the traditional, unflattering sense of the word?  Rush was correct in assuming all of what he said and his word choice was wholly appropriate?   You agree with Rush that she is a sex starved whore and that's why it costs so much?  I am unsure of your exact position. > I'm pretty sure he's not sweating the sponsors as much as they're > going to dread leaving him. You mentioned it like it was an issue, but since it doesn't matter to him or you, what his sponsors do it is now irrelevant. Again, I will agree with you that what Fluke said can be interpreted in a way that supports some of your arguments and assumptions.  Arguing anything beyond that in the context of this particular discussion is asinine. Huh.  Look at that.  I can be reasonable and admit I may be wrong. Whodathunkit

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 02:59 PM

FWIW the count for advertisers who have withdrawn from the Rush Limbaugh Show is now up to 21 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73675.html 21 companies yank ads from Rush By: MJ Lee March 6, 2012 02:25 PM EST At least 21 companies have pulled their ads from the ?The Rush Limbaugh Show? since the conservative talk show host called a law student a ?slut? on the air last week, as the social media blitz against the popular radio program showed no signs of slowing down Tuesday. Companies are continuing to join the rapidly growing list of businesses that have ceased advertising on Limbaugh?s show, responding to the flood of grievances that are pouring in from disgruntled customers. The list of companies that officially announced on Twitter or Facebook that they would stop advertising on the radio show include: AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, AOL, Bare Escentuals, Bonobos, Carbonite, Citrix, Hadeed Carpet, Legal Zoom, PolyCom, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St. Vincent?s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows and Vitacost. ?AccuQuote has instructed our media agency to immediately pull all our advertising campaigns that support Rush Limbaugh. His recent comments do not reflect the values of AccuQuote,? AccuQuote Life Insurance announced late Monday on its Facebook page. Polycom, a telecommunications company based in California, said early Tuesday that it had ?no intention to run ads on the Rush Limbaugh Show? through its syndicated radio advertising. ?The recent comments by Mr. Limbaugh go against our core values, and we have taken action to discontinue advertising on this program,? a statement read on Polycom?s Facebook page. Limbaugh was condemned by members of the public and the media as well as elected officials after calling third-year Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a ?slut? and a ?prostitute? last week. But in the immediate days following Wednesday?s remarks, the radio personality had shown no signs of apologizing to Fluke as he continued his barrage against her on Thursday and Friday. By the end of the week, President Barack Obama had personally called the law student to check if she was ok, and advertisers had started to pull their ads from the radio show as the public launched a social media blitz against the program. On Saturday, Limbaugh issued a written statement apologizing for calling the Fluke offensive words, and explained the reasoning for his apology on his show Monday. He also addressed the withdrawal of advertisers from his program, saying, ?Now they?ve chosen to deny themselves that access. That?s a business decision and it?s theirs alone to make. They?ve decided they don?t want you or your business anymore. So be it.? On his show Tuesday, Limbaugh made no mention of the Fluke incident during the first segment of his show as he ranted about the ?war on women? made up by the liberal media. ?What there is, is a war on freedom. There?s a war on freedom being raged daily from the White House, it?s being orchestrated by Obama,? he said. ?And not just religious freedom. Freedom of everybody, including women.? Rachel Nelson, public relations director of Premiere Networks, which syndicates Limbaugh?s show and has ignored repeated phone calls since Friday, emailed POLITICO this statement early Tuesday: ?Premiere Networks is committed to providing its listeners with access to a broad range of opinion and commentary without condoning or agreeing with the opinions, comments or attempts at humor expressed by on-air talent. We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions.? The statement continued, ?The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue. Last week, in an attempt at absurdist humor to illustrate his political point, Mr. Limbaugh used words that unfortunately distracted from the message he was trying to convey. We believe he did the right thing on Saturday, and again on his radio show on Monday, by expressing regret for his choice of words and offering his sincere

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 04:47 PM

This makes you proud? You can't beat him in the ratings so find some way to shut him up? This is like fascism. Did you know the White House has a website to ban Rush'd show form the military? Free speech be damned! . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:33 PM

"Free speech be damned!" Dude.  Progressives are totally for free speech. As long as they agree with it. J - Human freedom is the first wish of our heart, freedom is the first blessing of our nature, yet when people shirk individual responsibility and expect more from the government, they fall prey to tyranny. - Edward Gibbon

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:59 PM

Pictures, or it didn't happen. If that is true, our government overlords are even worse than I thought. On 3/6/2012 4:47 PM, Sam wrote: > > This makes you proud? You can't beat him in the ratings so find some > way to shut him up? This is like fascism. > > Did you know the White House has a website to ban Rush'd show form the military? > > Free speech be damned!

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:02 PM

hehe you're asking Sam to substantiate one of his assertions ;) good luck with that. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:18 PM

You know I always back up what I say and you always ignore it with a stupid comment like "I'm too busy" . > > hehe you're asking Sam to substantiate one of his assertions ;) good > luck with that.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:27 PM

White house hosted petition to stop free speech. Stop slapping yourself in the face and maybe you'll be able to keep up. . > > that's a* petition*, Sam. Facepalm. I dunno which is worse, feeling dumb > because I clicked one of your links, or knowing that you don't see the dumb > in sending it.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 03:32 PM

White house sponsored petition to stop using taxpayer money to spread hate. > > White house hosted petition to stop free speech.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 09:46 PM

Totally unrelated but entertaining nonetheless enjoy: http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/07/the-war-on-conservative-women/ I’m sorry Rush Limbaugh called 30-year-old Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut.” She’s really just another professional femme-a-gogue helping to manufacture a false narrative about the GOP “war on women.” I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment — because it’s the progressive left in this country that has viciously and systematically slimed female conservatives for their beliefs. We have the well-worn battle scars to prove it. And no, we don’t need coddling phone calls from the pandering president of the United States to convince us to stand up and fight. At his first press conference of the year on Tuesday, the Nation’s Concern Troll explained that he phoned Fluke to send a message to his daughters and all women that they shouldn’t be “attacked or called horrible names because they are being good citizens.” After inserting himself into the fray and dragging Sasha and Malia into the debate, Obama then told a reporter he “didn’t want to get into the business of arbitrating” language and civility. Too late, pal. The fact is, “slut” is one of the nicer things I’ve been called over 20 years of public life. In college during the late 1980s, it was “race traitor,” “coconut” (brown on the outside white on the inside) and “white man’s puppet.” After my first book, “Invasion,” came out in 2001, it was “immigrant-hater,” the “Radical Right’s Asian Pitbull,” “Tokyo Rose” and “Aunt Tomasina.” In my third book, 2005?s “Unhinged,” I published entire chapters of hate mail rife with degrading, unprintable sexual epithets and mockery of my Filipino heritage. If I had a dollar for every time libs have called me a “Manila whore” and “Subic Bay bar girl,” I’d be able to pay for a ticket to a Hollywood-for-Obama fundraiser. To the HuffPo left, whore is my middle name. Self-serving opponents argue that such attacks do not represent “respectable,” “mainstream” liberal opinion about their conservative female counterparts. But it was feminist godmother Gloria Steinem who called Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison a “female impersonator.” It was NOW leader Patricia Ireland who commanded her flock to only vote for “authentic” female political candidates. It was Al Gore consultant Naomi Wolf who accused the late Jeane Kirkpatrick of being “uninflected by the experiences of the female body.” It was Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked my early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.” It was Keith Olbermann, then at MSNBC and now at Al Gore’s Current TV, who wrote on Twitter that columnist S.E. Cupp was “a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does” and who called me a “mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” He stands by those remarks. Olbermann has been a special guest at the White House. Some of us have not forgotten when liberal Wisconsin radio host John “Sly” Sylvester outrageously accused GOP Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch of performing “fellatio on all the talk-show hosts in Milwaukee” and sneered that she had “pulled a train” (a crude phrase for gang sex). (Earlier, he called former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a “black trophy” and “Aunt Jemima.”) Or when MSNBC misogynist Ed Schultz called talk show host Laura Ingraham a “talk slut” for criticizing Obama’s petty beer summit. Or when Playboy published a list of the top 10 conservative women who deserved to be “hate-f**ked.” The article, which was promoted by Anne Schroeder Mullins at Politico.com, included Ingraham, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, former Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann and others. Yours truly topped the list with the following description: a “highly f**kable Filipina” and “a regular on Fox News, where her tight body and get-off-my-lawn stare just scream, ‘Do me!’” And then there’s the left’s war on Sarah Palin, which would require an entire national forest of trees to publish. A reporter asked Obama to comment on examples of liberal hate speech at Tuesday’s press conference. He whiffed, of course. This is, after all, the brave leader who sat on his hands while his street thugs attacked tea party mothers and grandmothers as “Koch whores” during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin. (As I reported last week, his re-election campaign is now targeting the Koch brothers’ private foundation donors in a parallel effort to chill conservative speech and activism.) He’s leading by example. So no, we won’t get any phone calls from Mr. Civility. Acknowledging the war on conservative women would obliterate The Narrative. Enjoy the silence. /

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 10:24 PM

" Contraception has always been a party issue.  At least, at many of the parties I've been to..." Zing! J - Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 05:27 AM

Not comparable. None of these women were speaking about women's rights at the time, and called a slut and a prostitute in return. You are right that it is unrelated, because the context is completely different. On 7 March 2012 22:46, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 07:15 AM

Bill Maher: Accept Rush Limbaugh's apology Bill Maher supporting Rush Limbaugh? It doesn't sound very likely, but on Tuesday, the left-leaning "Real Time" host took to Twitter to call out liberals for their continuous criticism of Limbaugh, who recently apologized for calling Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57392383-10391698/bill-maher-accept-rush-limbaughs-apology/ Personally, I don't get it.  Limbaugh is on the ropes.  I think there must be some kind of tie in between Clear Channel and HBO. J - When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it. - Frederic Bastiat

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 08:11 AM

It wouldn't surprise me.  I don't know what they own as far as TV/Cable goes, but they own a majority of radio stations in this country.  I'll have to go look that up. Bill Maher: Accept Rush Limbaugh's apology Bill Maher supporting Rush Limbaugh? It doesn't sound very likely, but on Tuesday, the left-leaning "Real Time" host took to Twitter to call out liberals for their continuous criticism of Limbaugh, who recently apologized for calling Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-57392383-10391698/bill-maher-accept-ru sh-limbaughs-apology/ Personally, I don't get it.  Limbaugh is on the ropes.  I think there must be some kind of tie in between Clear Channel and HBO. J - When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it. - Frederic Bastiat

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 09:01 AM

Maher may be realizing that one day he will probably be in the same position Limbaugh is in..... On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 08:39 AM

I know conservative vs Liberal. . On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Vivec <gel214th@gmail.com> wrote: > > Not comparable. > None of these women were speaking about women's rights at the time, and > called a slut and a prostitute in return. > You are right that it is unrelated, because the context is completely > different.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 09:31 AM

Moreover there are very different rules for those in the public eye, such as Coulter or Malkin than for a private citizen exercising her constitutional rights. On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Vivec <gel214th@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 09:38 AM

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > Moreover there are very different rules for those in the public eye, > such as Coulter or Malkin than for a private citizen exercising her > constitutional rights. > Happy International Women's Day

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 09:43 AM

Yes it called slander and libel laws. look them up. On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions <casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 10:08 AM

"Maher may be realizing that one day he will probably be in the same position Limbaugh is in....." He already has been.  Several times (most recently, it was about Tebo). Probably expects it to happen again though... J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 10:26 AM

She's an activist that mock testified at a press conference put on by congress. That put her in the public eye . On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: > > Moreover there are very different rules for those in the public eye, > such as Coulter or Malkin than for a private citizen exercising her > constitutional rights.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 10:30 AM

I would agree with that to an extent, but calling someone a slut or a whore/prostitute or similar degrading monikers still crosses the line...even for people that are in the public eye.  At least when Ed did that and everyone...including liberals castigated him for...he apologized immediately and placed himself on suspension as a result of the complaints.   Moreover there are very different rules for those in the public eye, such as Coulter or Malkin than for a private citizen exercising her constitutional rights. On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Vivec <gel214th@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 10:35 AM

I think Jane Fonda was the only one on the left that even mentioned it. Barbara Wawa thought it was funny . On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > I would agree with that to an extent, but calling someone a slut or a whore/prostitute or similar degrading monikers still crosses the line...even for people that are in the public eye.  At least when Ed did that and everyone...including liberals castigated him for...he apologized immediately and placed himself on suspension as a result of the complaints.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/08/2012 08:29 PM

Rush Limbaugh has rejected an advertiser?s apparent attempt to reunite with his show after the company initially dropped its ads from the program following his remarks about contraception advocate Sandra Fluke. got to love this comment: "Sleep Train derails their own business?. They?re Fluked."

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/09/2012 12:11 PM

A little more information on advertising: NB Publisher Bozell Addresses Hypocrisy In Letters to Quicken Loans, Carbonite Chiefs This morning, NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell sent letters to Jay Farner and David Friend, the presidents of Quicken Loans and Carbonite, respectively, addressing the hypocrisy of how their companies pulled out of the Rush Limbaugh program over comments for which the conservative talker has since apologized, even as they continue to advertise on the programs of hateful left-wing radio hosts. For example, Carbonite continues to advertise on Ed Schultz's radio program, although he maliciously slammed conservative author Laura Ingraham in May 2011 as a "right-wing slut" and "a talk slut." Schultz, you may recall, was briefly suspended from his radio and MSNBC programs, and offered on-air apologies to Ingraham. In the case of Quicken Loans, the hypocrisy is arguably much, much worse. The company advertises on the Mike Malloy program, the host of which has a long track record of vicious and vile comments not just about conservatives but even ordinary citizens. For example, on Malloy's March 2 program, he seemed to revel in the deaths of tornado victims in the South and Midwest, typically Republican states in presidential contests: ?Their God, if this is the way they want to look at it, keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement, in Alabama, in Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia and Oklahoma ? you know, the Bible Belt...where they ain?t gonna let no g*dd*mn science get in the way, it says in the bible, blah blah blah, so according to their way of thinking, y?know, God with his omnipotent thumb, and so far tonight, has smashed so far 20 people on Highway 12, or whatever the hell highway they live next to.? After the March 1 death of Andrew Breitbart, Malloy seethed with malicious rage, "Roast in hell you son of a bitch Breitbart -- I mean seriously, you thug punk!" "Breitbart was 43 at his passing and is survived by a wife and four children," Bozell noted in his letter to Farner. "Perhaps you did not know about Malloy?s comments or even your sponsorship of his show. That is entirely possible. But you do now," Bozell noted, adding: If you continue to exercise an obvious double standard of condoning left-wing hate speech, while caving in to partisan pressure to discontinue sponsoring the Rush Limbaugh Show, we will expose Quicken Loans for hypocrisy. Mr. Farner, the MRC is committed to defending free speech. You have the constitutional right to sponsor or not sponsor anyone you like. But, if you drop a conservative radio host under the pretense that he made an uncivil comment about a political activist, yet continue to sponsor a leftwing host who relishes in the death of innocent children, we will hold you accountable for that decision. I really don't care who advertises where, but I did find this interesting. Looks like these companies jump on the rush to abandon Rush without considering the ramifications of looking like a hypocrite.  Should be interesting to see what they do.  I'd really like to see what holding the companies accountable means. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/03/08/war-rush-update-nb-publisher-bozell-addresses-hypocrisy-letters-quicke J - "I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America. It's time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals." - Hillary Cli

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/09/2012 04:22 PM

they can do whatever they want. That's the beauty of America. But that doesn't mean I have to take it seriously. Breitbart was a liar and a punk. My heart goes out to his children, but they actually may be better off. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/11/2012 01:49 AM

That's just truly nasty. But expected. . > > they can do whatever they want. That's the beauty of America. But that > doesn't mean I have to take it seriously. Breitbart was a liar and a punk. > My heart goes out to his children, but they actually may be better off.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/11/2012 04:25 AM

"they can do whatever they want. That's the beauty of America. But that doesn't mean I have to take it seriously. " Amen. "Breitbart was a liar . . ." Proof? "...and a punk." Because you disagree with him? "My heart goes out to his children, but they actually may be better off." I can see how much your heart goes out to them with a comment like that. J - One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain - Thomas Sowell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/11/2012 05:25 AM

ACORN. Shirley Shirone (sp?). PBS apparently too, although I did not go look at the details of that one. If you even question that he misrepresented the truth in the other two cases, then you are either determined to defend him no matter what or you have not compared the edited versions to what was actually said. He was a punk because there are many issues that could benefit from discussion and even controversy, and he made stuff up. Sorry, but in my book making stuff up doesn't make him much of a parent either. Dana ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/11/2012 05:23 PM

"ACORN. Shirley Shirone (sp?). PBS apparently too, although I did not go look at the details of that one." So, where's the lie?  He released videos of these people or organizations that aren't flattering.  Where's the lie? "If you even question that he misrepresented the truth in the other two cases, then you are either determined to defend him no matter what or you have not compared the edited versions to what was actually said." Just curious.  I want to know the specific lies. "He was a punk because there are many issues that could benefit from discussion and even controversy, and he made stuff up. " Proof? "Sorry, but in my book making stuff up doesn't make him much of a parent either." Like saying a journalist lied without proving it? J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/11/2012 06:07 PM

he was not a journalist. The word implies some attempt to portray a truth and Breitbart qualifies somewhat less for the title than Hunter Thompson. We went through the ACORN videos in  excruciating  detail here at the time and I have stuff to do so I am not going to look the specifics up for you. Check the archives if you missed it. Shirone happened while I wasn't participating much myself so I don't know what got said here. Here's a quick summary:    - She makes a speech talking about having racial resentment and    overcoming that to achieve a win-win, and how everybody benefited from that.    - Years later Breitbart edits out everything but the intro where she was    talking about the racial resentment, and says ooo look reverse    discrimination by the feds. The woman gets fired over this. Go read the transcript if you want proof. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 12:24 PM

"he was not a journalist. The word implies some attempt to portray a truth and Breitbart qualifies somewhat less for the title than Hunter Thompson." Again, you say he wasn't telling the truth, yet give no proof. "We went through the ACORN videos in  excruciating  detail here at the time and I have stuff to do so I am not going to look the specifics up for you. Check the archives if you missed it". Meaning, I can't find the lies so I put the burden on you.  No thank you. "Shirone happened while I wasn't participating much myself so I don't know what got said here. Here's a quick summary:" He didn't lie.  She did say those things.  You can accuse of him of being misleading but not lying. I'm still waiting for proof. Remember that nice link to politifact proving Rachel Maddow is a liar. Something like that would be great. By the way, I am reading Steve Jobs biography.  He was a first class asshole.  Are his kids and wife better off now that he's gone? J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 12:54 PM

I told you why I said it. I don't think I can go any further down the road of proving it to you short of tying you to a chair and taping your eyelids open. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=shirley+sherrod ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 01:39 PM

The LA district attorney went through the ACORN video looking for anything they could prosecute and he even said the unedited version paints an entirely different picture than the Breitbart pimp-daddy one.  He found no fraudulent activity other then Brietbart trying to say there was fraud. Notice also the film maker is in jail...real high class characters you are defending Jerry... "he was not a journalist. The word implies some attempt to portray a truth and Breitbart qualifies somewhat less for the title than Hunter Thompson." Again, you say he wasn't telling the truth, yet give no proof. "We went through the ACORN videos in  excruciating  detail here at the time and I have stuff to do so I am not going to look the specifics up for you. Check the archives if you missed it". Meaning, I can't find the lies so I put the burden on you.  No thank you. "Shirone happened while I wasn't participating much myself so I don't know what got said here. Here's a quick summary:" He didn't lie.  She did say those things.  You can accuse of him of being misleading but not lying. I'm still waiting for proof. Remember that nice link to politifact proving Rachel Maddow is a liar. Something like that would be great. By the way, I am reading Steve Jobs biography.  He was a first class asshole.  Are his kids and wife better off now that he's gone? J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 02:00 PM

I went through the transcripts almost line by line right here on this list at the time, trying to get Sam and someone else to read them. Probably Jerry, for all I know. Sigh. I have stuff to do. On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 02:03 PM

I know I posted the transcripts, as well as links to them, multiple times. Facts just seem to get in the way of their ideology. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 02:08 PM

You are delusional. You never seem win a discussion but always come back six months or a year later with your own version of how the convo went. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 02:18 PM

Here seems to be the problem.  I believe the definition of lying is unclear to some. Tell me you aren't serious, Jerry. From Merriam-Webster: lie 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2: to create a false or misleading impression If we can accuse him of #2, by your own admission, then we can accuse him of lying.  You are just quibbling over words. On 3/13/2012 12:24 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote: > He didn't lie.  She did say those things.  You can accuse of him of being > misleading but not lying.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 02:45 PM

it depends on how far you can stretch your definition I guess. At some point its stretched beyond all recognition. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 09:46 PM

"If we can accuse him of #2, by your own admission, then we can accuse him of lying.  " By that definition, everyone in DC is a liar, including King Obama.  And I had no "admission".  I told Dana that she may have an argument for misleading.  I didn't say he was misleading. You seen the new headline? Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs Gee, what did the "liar" in chief say?  Maybe it was:  Now, add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years . That's a little misleading don't you think? So, I'd rather go with definition number 1.  Definition number 2 is way to broad.  I would rather call that "misleading". If you choose definition number 2, then so be it.  If Dana chooses definition number 2, does she feel the same way about the other reporters and politicians who do the same. If you don't like that example about Obama, I can give you dozens more. I can even give you some outright lies like this: ?I?ve pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform ? as badly as I think it?s necessary, I won?t sign it if that reform adds even one dime to our deficit.? - Barrack Obama Of course, he can tell the truth: The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and * inefficiencies* to our health care system. - Barack Obama J - 08-11-2009: I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter, because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country, with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that, I believe would be too disruptive. 06-30-2003: A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I?d like to see.  - Barack Obama 03-24-2007: My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal healthcare for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can't go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out. - Barack

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 09:56 PM

A "headline"?  From where?  And since when does a "headline" constitute fact or proof of anything other than the headline writer's opinion? > You seen the new headline? > > Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs > > > Gee, what did the "liar" in chief say?  Maybe it was:  Now, add it all up, > and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/15/2012 11:02 AM

"A 'headline'?  From where?  And since when does a "headline" constitute fact or proof of anything other than the headline writer's opinion?" Maureen, I thought you were better than this. It was a headline to an article describing the CBO's new calculation of cost. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/15/2012 11:05 AM

Breitbart was not a reporter any more than Limbaugh is. As for the rest of it, have you compared the edited and unedited versions? If \you have and you don't think the result was a lie, I really don't know what to say to you. Except Ciao. "No point in prolonging this." Amen. You hated Breitbart because he "lied" or "misled", yet can not provide proof of lies.  Yet for some reason have no problems with other journalist and public figure who mislead or lie (as long as they are affiliated with the correct party). We get it. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/15/2012 08:43 PM

no you don't but you're clearly determined not to. I sent you what she said, and what he said she said. If you can't see the rather stunning difference, there's no point in talking to you at all. In fact, lemme send you to join Sam in the land of email filters. D On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/15/2012 09:08 PM

Jerry, She's flustered again. FYI, she doesn't like that and will never admit to it. . On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Dana <dana.tierney@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/19/2012 12:42 PM

"Jerry, She's flustered again." Of couse she is.  There are no lies and the reason for the hate is obvious. Anyway, she wants me to spend my time digging around looking for something that doesn't exists. I don't think so. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/15/2012 08:28 PM

Better than what?  Headlines aren't proof of anything.  They are usually the opinion of the headline writer.  Even an article "describing" the CBO calculation isn't proof, and the CBO calculations change with the wind. On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: > > "A 'headline'?  From where?  And since when does a "headline" constitute > fact or proof of anything other than the headline writer's opinion?" > > Maureen, I thought you were better than this. It was a headline to an > article describing the CBO's new calculation of cos

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/19/2012 12:53 PM

"Better than what? " I thought you were a little more reasoned than some of the less than conservative readers.  Apparently not.  My mistake. "Even an article "describing" the CBO calculation isn't proof, and the CBO calculations change with the wind." Amazing how CBO numbers are proof when Obamason needs them but not proof when they contradict him. J - It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses, and according to the Congressional Budget Office -? the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress ?- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.  - Barack Obama

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/19/2012 05:55 PM

> "Better than what? " > > I thought you were a little more reasoned than some of the less than > conservative readers.  Apparently not.  My mistake. My argument is perfectly reasoned, and your comment below proves my point exactly.  You called the president a liar based on the headline of an opinion piece about numbers purportedly released by the CBO None of those sources: the headline, the opinion, or the CBO numbers are proof of anything, regardless of who is using them. > > "Even an article "describing" the CBO calculation isn't proof, and the CBO > calculations change with the wind." > > Amazing how CBO numbers are proof when Obamason needs them but not proof > when they contradict hi

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 10:04 AM

"My argument is perfectly reasoned, and your comment below proves my point exactly.  " If you say so. "You called the president a liar based on the headline of an opinion piece about numbers purportedly released by the CBO" He is a liar based on the numbers released by the CBO. "None of those sources: the headline, the opinion, or the CBO numbers are proof of anything, regardless of who is using them." Doesn't change the nature of truth.  You can tell me 2 + 2 = 5 all day long, yet it still equals 4. He lied. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 12:49 PM

Of course Jerry is wrong about the CBO numbers. Given that he gets them from Republican press releases, quell surprise! Here is the actual CBO piece: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf What Republicans said: They claimed that the original 10 year cost estimate provided by Democrats was $940 billion. Now the 10 year cost is estimated at $1.76 trillion. How Republicans are (predictably) trying to distort reality: In 2010 the estimate for ten years out was $940 billion. That would be the cost through 2020. However, most provisions in the law don't take effect until 2014, so most of the costs (and savings) were in the last 6 years of that prediction range. It is now 2012. The 10 year forecast now stretches through 2022. The provisions still mostly kick in in 2014 meaning that most of the costs (and savings) occur during 8 years of the 10 year forecast cycle. Anyone who is surprised that 8 years of costs is going to be a bigger number than 6 years of costs, raise their hands! Now, the actual question that should be asked (and which Republicans don't want to find out) is: what about the savings? This report was requested by House Republicans so it tends to be tailored to what they want, so of course it is mostly about the costs. Yet, even within that framework, you only have to read the first god damn page of the report to realize that it says: "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012?2021 period?about $50 billion less than the agencies? March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period" Huh...$50 billion dollars lower than previously estimated. That sounds like savings! Or what about page 2, where it says: "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012?2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated." Huh, sounds like it might still reduce budget deficits. House Republicans, however, weren't interested in finding out about deficit reductions. So, to summarize: 8 years costs more than 6 years. Estimates have actually gone down, not up. The overall financial impact on deficits hasn't been recalculated. Now, to be fair, it very well might be that previous deficit reduction estimates aren't born up with the new numbers. I don't know. The CBO has said that the non-insurance provisions of the ACA (this report only dealt with the insurance portion of the law, per House request) can be difficult to wrangle. Obviously they've done it before and I'd love to see an updated view. If it is found that the overall law isn't going to perform as expected then it might be worth seeing what we can tweak. I doubt that it will really be that worthwhile, however, until we actually get into the time period where the main provisions of the law actually kick in, ie, 2014 and later. None the less, this is a case of Republicans commissioning a study that selectively looks at only part of the ACA and then they cherry pick and distort numbers even from that. I'm not surprised, mind you, but still...it would just be nice, for once, to see numbers approached with a bit of intellectual honesty. I'm dreaming, I know. Just the mathematician in me. Ah well. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 01:00 PM

It might also be worth mentioning the further cherry picking of the numbers: Gross costs (of just the insurance provisions) have gone up from 940 billion (10 years from 2010) to 1,760 billion (10 years from 2012) but Net costs (of just the insurance provisions) have gone up from 790 billion to 1,250 billion. So even while the gross costs in the forecast have gone up by 820 billion, the net has only gone up by 460 billion. (I rounded to the nearest 10 billion as did Republicans, presumably for easier math). That's some serious cherry picking by Republicans. If people are interested in the original CBO estimate from 2010 (where I got the above numbers): http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf Cheers, Judah

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 01:40 PM

Only you could find good news in a $460 billion increase Still makes it a lie doesn't it? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 01:17 PM

That's not the mathematician in you, that is the honest person in you that is tired of the BS, lies, and mistruths coming from Republicans to distort and subvert the political process.  Since they can't win on facts, they try to distort and deceive.  Herman Goering would be so proud of Republicans. Of course Jerry is wrong about the CBO numbers. Given that he gets them from Republican press releases, quell surprise! Here is the actual CBO piece: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Est imates.pdf What Republicans said: They claimed that the original 10 year cost estimate provided by Democrats was $940 billion. Now the 10 year cost is estimated at $1.76 trillion. How Republicans are (predictably) trying to distort reality: In 2010 the estimate for ten years out was $940 billion. That would be the cost through 2020. However, most provisions in the law don't take effect until 2014, so most of the costs (and savings) were in the last 6 years of that prediction range. It is now 2012. The 10 year forecast now stretches through 2022. The provisions still mostly kick in in 2014 meaning that most of the costs (and savings) occur during 8 years of the 10 year forecast cycle. Anyone who is surprised that 8 years of costs is going to be a bigger number than 6 years of costs, raise their hands! Now, the actual question that should be asked (and which Republicans don't want to find out) is: what about the savings? This report was requested by House Republicans so it tends to be tailored to what they want, so of course it is mostly about the costs. Yet, even within that framework, you only have to read the first god damn page of the report to realize that it says: "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012?2021 period?about $50 billion less than the agencies? March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period" Huh...$50 billion dollars lower than previously estimated. That sounds like savings! Or what about page 2, where it says: "CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012?2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated." Huh, sounds like it might still reduce budget deficits. House Republicans, however, weren't interested in finding out about deficit reductions. So, to summarize: 8 years costs more than 6 years. Estimates have actually gone down, not up. The overall financial impact on deficits hasn't been recalculated. Now, to be fair, it very well might be that previous deficit reduction estimates aren't born up with the new numbers. I don't know. The CBO has said that the non-insurance provisions of the ACA (this report only dealt with the insurance portion of the law, per House request) can be difficult to wrangle. Obviously they've done it before and I'd love to see an updated view. If it is found that the overall law isn't going to perform as expected then it might be worth seeing what we can tweak. I doubt that it will really be that worthwhile, however, until we actually get into the time period where the main provisions of the law actually kick in, ie, 2014 and later. None the less, this is a case of Republicans commissioning a study that selectively looks at only part of the ACA and then they cherry pick and distort numbers even from that. I'm not surprised, mind you, but still...it would just be nice, for once, to see numbers approached with a bit of intellectual honesty. I'm dreaming, I know. Just the mathematician in me. Ah well. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 01:32 PM

Can we please stop with the Nazi references? Politically-motivated economic studies are pretty common, as is picking and choosing the numbers you publicize. Lies, damned lies and Statistics and all that. Propaganda was not invented in Nazi Germany. And next time you get the urge to compare Republicans to Nazis, Eric, remember this: the people who are indefinitely holding people in prison camps right now are Democrats. Judah > > That's not the mathematician in you, that is the honest person in you that > is tired of the BS, lies, and mistruths coming from Republicans to distort > and subvert the political process.  Since they can't win on facts, they try > to distort and deceive.  Herman Goering would be so proud of Republican

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 01:40 PM

Man....+1000000. Can't put enough zeroes on there. Course, Judah punking Eric is kind of like Michael Jordan dunking on Pee-wee Herman. On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 01:43 PM

More like George Michael dunking on Pee-Wee . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 09:34 AM

"Only you could find good news in a $460 billion increase Still makes it a lie doesn't it?" Of course not.  Lies can only come from Republicans. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 01:53 PM

Jerry, I know that you, unlike Sam, have at least rudiments of logic and math training. Please go back through the numbers I posted and explain where the logic is incorrect if you disagree with my conclusions. As for the "Lies can only come Republicans" line..what bullshit. Come on, I'd like to think you are better than that. I've called out people on all parts of the political spectrum for lies and garbage. Those ad hominem attacks just make you look weak and pathetic. Judah > > "Only you could find good news in a $460 billion increase Still makes it a > lie doesn't it?" > > Of course not.  Lies can only come from Republicans.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 03:04 PM

I think what genius is trying to say is agree with me no matter how stupid it sounds or I will insult you! It works to some extent, not many dare to dispute lunacy on this list anymore. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 05:00 PM

Eh. I frequently agree with Eric and think that his core beliefs are good. He wants truth, justice and the American way ;)  He probably should exercise a little impulse control about hitting reply and spouting off on things he "knows" to be true is all. I think one of the reasons that Judah's opinions are often respected is that they include a lot of the shades of grey and conflicting details that get lost when people get a lot of their information from partisan sources. I don't know that Eric does, but I suspect so. Sometimes reading alternate media can lead to stories that aren't being covered in the larger media sources, but usually there's another side to things you aren't getting if you read only read about it in the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Shrug. Or not. Maybe Eric just needs a little impulse control when it comes to forming opinions. But I feel a need to say he isn't quite the intellectual lightweight you seem to think. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 05:05 PM

And there you have it folks. Peas in a pod. Dana, Eric and Judah all think the same. You left out Larry. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 06:27 PM

I usually google stuff when I see them on Kos or HuffPo to make sure I am getting to the real meat and trim the fat.  I usually use them as my springboard, but that is about it.   Though I do have to say that at least 85% of the time, they do have it completely right. Eh. I frequently agree with Eric and think that his core beliefs are good. He wants truth, justice and the American way ;)  He probably should exercise a little impulse control about hitting reply and spouting off on things he "knows" to be true is all. I think one of the reasons that Judah's opinions are often respected is that they include a lot of the shades of grey and conflicting details that get lost when people get a lot of their information from partisan sources. I don't know that Eric does, but I suspect so. Sometimes reading alternate media can lead to stories that aren't being covered in the larger media sources, but usually there's another side to things you aren't getting if you read only read about it in the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Shrug. Or not. Maybe Eric just needs a little impulse control when it comes to forming opinions. But I feel a need to say he isn't quite the intellectual lightweight you seem to think. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 07:59 PM

my apologies then, I guess. Maybe I just think that because your opinions tend to correlate with stuff I see there. More than mine, anyway. So I will shut up now and let G tell you what the hell he's talking about then. If he so chooses. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 08:44 AM

> my apologies then, I guess. Maybe I just think that because your opinions > tend to correlate with stuff I see there. More than mine, anyway. So I will > shut up now and let G tell you what the hell he's talking about then. If he > so chooses. > Ok, i'll come clean....i have a man crush on Judah.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 08:45 AM

I knew it...lol On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:44 AM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/20/2012 04:09 PM

I never claimed to be a democrat.  I think most of them are no different than republicans. Can we please stop with the Nazi references? Politically-motivated economic studies are pretty common, as is picking and choosing the numbers you publicize. Lies, damned lies and Statistics and all that. Propaganda was not invented in Nazi Germany. And next time you get the urge to compare Republicans to Nazis, Eric, remember this: the people who are indefinitely holding people in prison camps right now are Democrats. Judah > > That's not the mathematician in you, that is the honest person in you > that is tired of the BS, lies, and mistruths coming from Republicans > to distort and subvert the political process.  Since they can't win on > facts, they try to distort and deceive.  Herman Goering would be so > proud of Republican

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 03:42 PM

I have to agree with you there. It was one of the reasons I was tempted to make the comparison in the last administration. I realize that there was significant (stupid) opposition to closing it but if Obama can institute martial law by decree, I'm not quite sure why he can't just say you know what this is the right thing to do and we're doing it. In general that seems like a dangerous practice, so I can't quite believe that came out of my mouth, but if it's already possible to govern by edict, why not issue an edit on this too? On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:00 PM

> I have to agree with you there. It was one of the reasons I was tempted to > make the comparison in the last administration. I realize that there was > significant (stupid) opposition to closing it but if Obama can institute > martial law by decree, I'm not quite sure why he can't just say you know > what this is the right thing to do and we're doing it. he easily could, and I think he would LOVE to do just that...since, you know, he promised to do it. So why didn't he? I can think of only one logical reason that makes sense: President Obama became privy to information that Candidate Obama was not privy too, that convinced him, same as Bush before him, that simply closing Gitmo would present a clear and present danger to the country. Now we can scream that this is wrong and not the American way....and well....we'd be right. But if my assumption is right, then we've had two completely different presidents from two different parties come to the same conclusion re: Gitmo. Which is compelling.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:08 PM

Obama started the process of looking for options on where to move the prisoners in the federal judicial system. The hue and cry raised by members of Congress was so close to universal that they realized that there is no way in hell that they would be allowed to do it. Bills were being drafted disallowing it and it would have set up a big fight on separation of powers between Congress and the Executive that Obama didn't want to have. So, in the end, he gave in to political expediency. No knew "secret" information. Just politics. He, presumably, figured that save his political capital for battles where he stood a better chance of winning. He's probably right on the political side of things, I'm almost certain he is, but I would have preferred to see him attempt to do the right thing even if he lost in the process. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:13 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Candidate Obama knew all of those political hurdles...so why did he still promise to do it? Did he underestimate it? Or perhaps never really intend on going through with it? I guess i'm giving him a little bit more credit than that...but you could be right.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:27 PM

> Candidate Obama knew all of those political hurdles...so why did he still > promise to do it? Did he underestimate it? Or perhaps never really intend > on going through with it? He wanted to win > I guess i'm giving him a little bit more credit than that...but you could > be right. He can't be right. The probability of him getting one right is way too low. Obama couldn't return the prisoners of war because no countries would accept them. So he tried to give them trials in criminal courts on US soil and realized you can't win against war prisoners using our constitution. Total security breach. But we all knew that way before Obama was elected. Sounds like just another lie. .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:34 PM

Wouldn't candidate Obama, who was also a US Senator, have also been privy to most, if not all, of the information that he is privy to as the President?   From his wiki entry: Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs through December 2006.[85] In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.[86] He also became Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs.[87] As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before Abbas became President of the Palestinian National Authority, and gave a speech at the University of Nairobi condemning corruption within the Kenyan government.[88] ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Candidate Obama knew all of those political hurdles...so why did he still promise to do it? Did he underestimate it? Or perhaps never really intend on going through with it? I guess i'm giving him a little bit more credit than that...but you could be right.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:36 PM

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Wouldn't candidate Obama, who was also a US Senator, have also been privy > to > most, if not all, of the information that he is privy to as the President? > > No. He doesn't learn the truth about Roswell and Area 51 until he becomes president, for instance. (Source: Will Smith)

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 06:23 PM

ROFL...you got me there G lol On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > Wouldn't candidate Obama, who was also a US Senator, have also been > privy to most, if not all, of the information that he is privy to as > the President? > > No. He doesn't learn the truth about Roswell and Area 51 until he becomes president, for instance. (Source: Will Smith)

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 10:30 PM

"I think what genius is trying to say is agree with me no matter how stupid it sounds or I will insult you!" That seems to be a running theme, especially with those with a progressive tilt. J - One of the surprising privileges of intellectuals is that they are free to be scandalously asinine without harming their reputation. - Eric Hoffer Not only have intellectuals been insulated from material consequences, they have often enjoyed immunity from even a loss of reputation after having been demonstrably wrong - Thomas Sowell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 10:35 PM

Yeah, cause the conservatives on this list are such sweet, polite little boys that never insult anyone. > > "I think what genius is trying to say is agree with me no matter how stupid > it sounds or I will insult you!" > > That seems to be a running theme, especially with those with a progressive > tilt.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 11:31 PM

Gah. The polarization drives me nuts. Why do we justify everything with a "you do it too" mentality. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 12:01 AM

Because I get weary of a few people who insist that they are always right and the other side is always wrong. I don't really like either side.  I am tired of the spin, disinformation, distorted opinions and outright lies on both sides. So how is that polarizing? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 09:12 AM

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: > > Because I get weary of a few people who insist that they are always > right and the other side is always wrong. FYI, you are one of those people. > I don't really like either side.  I am tired of the spin, > disinformation, distorted opinions and outright lies on both sides. > So how is that polarizing? You always seem to defend the same side even though you don't like it.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 09:32 AM

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- No. I'm not.  But you think I am because when I point out an error you often jump to the conclusion that doing so means I support the opposition. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- And which side would that be

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 09:11 AM

I know you're not talking about me, because that would make me paranoid. I do wonder who though. Doesn't matter, but it does appear that you are defending progressives...again. I'm not passing judgement, just tell you how things look from here. Because I know how much you hate the label thingy. . > > Yeah, cause the conservatives on this list are such sweet, polite > little boys that never insult anyone.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/23/2012 09:19 AM

"Yeah, cause the conservatives on this list are such sweet, polite little boys that never insult anyone." Please point out an example of me insulting anyone. Unless you mean disagreeing with someone, which is often seen as an insult in progressive circles. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 12:39 PM

> "I think what genius is trying to say is agree with me no matter how stupid > it sounds or I will insult you!" > > That seems to be a running theme, especially with those with a progressive > tilt. > *shrug*...whatever helps you sleep at night, Jerry. Take care. Cheers, Judah

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/23/2012 09:20 AM

"*shrug*...whatever helps you sleep at night, Jerry. Take care." Amen.  And same to you. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 09:41 PM

Not even close.  There is so much stuff that the President deals with that a junior senator would never be privy to, especially since Obama was senator when an opposition party controlled the White House.  I doubt they even let him visit the West Wing. > > Wouldn't candidate Obama, who was also a US Senator, have also been privy to > most, if not all, of the information that he is privy to as the President?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 03:47 AM

Did you see the committees he was on? Not even close.  There is so much stuff that the President deals with that a junior senator would never be privy to, especially since Obama was senator when an opposition party controlled the White House.  I doubt they even let him visit the West Wing. > > Wouldn't candidate Obama, who was also a US Senator, have also been > privy to most, if not all, of the information that he is privy to as the President?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 04:04 AM

Congressional committees.  Strictly "need to know" level stuff and very little of it from the White House. On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:40 AM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/22/2012 09:34 AM

Given the attitudes of many of that occupant's party, I am sure that if Obama, as a senator, had been invited, they would have preferred it to be the back door. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:30 PM

There is that too.  There was a prison here in IL that is sitting empty and republicans led a campaign against it.  That would have added about 100 to the small community in rural IL and would have made a big difference there. Obama started the process of looking for options on where to move the prisoners in the federal judicial system. The hue and cry raised by members of Congress was so close to universal that they realized that there is no way in hell that they would be allowed to do it. Bills were being drafted disallowing it and it would have set up a big fight on separation of powers between Congress and the Executive that Obama didn't want to have. So, in the end, he gave in to political expediency. No knew "secret" information. Just politics. He, presumably, figured that save his political capital for battles where he stood a better chance of winning. He's probably right on the political side of things, I'm almost certain he is, but I would have preferred to see him attempt to do the right thing even if he lost in the process. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- doing it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- country. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:35 PM

I remember when that was being floated...an awful lot of NIMBY popped up: Bleeding heart: "Give these poor people a fair trial.......just uh...in some other state, please." On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:28 PM

If I remember correctly, Republicans defunded any efforts to close Gitmo... > > I have to agree with you there. It was one of the reasons I was > tempted to make the comparison in the last administration. I realize > that there was significant (stupid) opposition to closing it but if > Obama can institute martial law by decree, I'm not quite sure why he > can't just say you know what this is the right thing to do and we're doing it. he easily could, and I think he would LOVE to do just that...since, you know, he promised to do it. So why didn't he? I can think of only one logical reason that makes sense: President Obama became privy to information that Candidate Obama was not privy too, that convinced him, same as Bush before him, that simply closing Gitmo would present a clear and present danger to the country. Now we can scream that this is wrong and not the American way....and well....we'd be right. But if my assumption is right, then we've had two completely different presidents from two different parties come to the same conclusion re: Gitmo. Which is compelling.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/21/2012 04:51 PM

I'd like to think you are right. But I don't, though. I think he decided that the people who are locked up there are not worth the political fallout. But we all lose when people are locked up due to ignorance and can't be released lest the ignorance be exposed. I think the US military has gotten much better at understanding Afghanistan, but most of the people who are in Guantanamo never needed to be there and definitely aren't in any position to be planning harm to the United States now, if they ever were. On a side note, I am pretty sure this is not the first time I've expressed profound disappointment on this issue, nor is it the first time you've said something of this kind. But I notice that the lists' right-wing apologists are still claiming that anyone who criticizes a Reoublican is seeing things in black and white. Sigh. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/13/2012 09:57 PM

Breitbart was not a reporter any more than Limbaugh is. As for the rest of it, have you compared the edited and unedited versions? If \you have and you don't think the result was a lie, I really don't know what to say to you. Except Ciao. No point in prolonging this. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:29 PM

But...but...it says whitehouse.gov right there in the url! And, no, Sam really doesn't understand that petitioning the government for redress is any different than the government coming to suppress your free speech. He's really that fucked up. Cheers, Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:33 PM

Gee and here I was going to start a petition over there to see if we can force-feed him some reading skills or something... ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:34 PM

Who is writing that anyway? haha if you click on the How and Why menu button, you are presented with this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Then again, I guess as long as it isn't a law .... On 3/6/2012 7:16 PM, Sam wrote: > > https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/sec-panetta-get-rush-limbaugh-armed-forces-radio-now-no-tax-money-abusive-divisive-insulting/p439GWMm?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl > > > The shorturl at the end is kinda funny

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:38 PM

Apparently anyone can make any kind of petition they want, so I will accept the one about Rush for what it is .. pointless and dumb. I do like the petition that simply says  "Resign" On 3/6/2012 7:16 PM, Sam wrote: > > https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/sec-panetta-get-rush-limbaugh-armed-forces-radio-now-no-tax-money-abusive-divisive-insulting/p439GWMm?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl > > > The shorturl at the end is kinda funny > > .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:40 PM

yeah, I found that amusing as well. People are signing it! ;) ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:41 PM

It was an initiative launched awhile back by the Whitehouse. Basic idea is that anyone can start a petition and, if it reaches a certain threshold, the Whitehouse will respond to it. Basically an attempt to allow for ye old "redress of grievances" and allow for direct communication access with the government. Direct democracy, if you will. Cheers, Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:46 PM

And pure democracy.  I wonder if something like that could one day replace representatives, or change their function.  That would be interesting to see. On 3/6/2012 7:41 PM, Judah McAuley wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:49 PM

My rant was not directed against you Cam, you can be quire reasonable and actually use logic regularly. I am sure the guilty parties can identfiy themselves. But the freakonomics study you refer to is quite intersting, equating the drop in crime ove the last 15-20 years to the liberalization of abortion laws. That's the cool thing about behavioral economics in general what it find out quite frequently totally shoots down myths treasured by the left and right. Classic examples are behavioral traps (where short term gains have very negative long term consequen > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com >wrote: > >> The testimony was not about free birth control. Ms. Fluke was talking about >> oral contraceptives being provided as part of the student paid for health >> insurance. Not free, paid for. What do those on the right wing need to >> understand this simple concept. Provided as part as the insurance package. >> Where is the difficulty in understanding this simple concept? Is it some >> sort of weird cognitive deficit that prevents them  from seeing such? > > > Yeah, I haven't totally been paying attention to the thread.  But it SHOULD ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 09:21 AM

Yeah, I think that even though the Freakonomics study is about abortion, it definitely supports free birth control across the board.  Actually, I would think that it would totally support the anti-abortion crowd getting behind contraception.  Contraception would not only reduce poverty, but reduce abortions as well.  Win-win. -Cameron On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 09:22 AM

Yes but birth control is an ideological purity issue for the various wings right now. Logic and reason has little or nothing to do with it, as we have seen. On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Camer ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 09:34 AM

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > Yes but birth control is an ideological purity issue for the various > wings right now. Logic and reason has little or nothing to do with it, > as we have seen. Contraception has always been a party issue.  At least, at many of the parties I've been to... -Cameron ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 07:54 PM

It's moderated by the White House and can not violate someone's freedoms. This so called petition is trying to take away Rush's freedom of speech and his right to make a living. . > > Apparently anyone can make any kind of petition they want, so I will > accept the one about Rush for what it is .. pointless and dumb. > > I do like the petition that simply says  "Resign"

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 08:04 PM

Wait isn't he the one who's always saying that the world doesn't owe anyone a living? He wasn't born entitled to be on Armed Forces Radio, Sam, and the people who signed this petition aren't the government and don't have any special power to make it happen. The only real connection to the White House is that somebody may read them. It looks like they answered one or two. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 12:14 AM

From Rush's (the band) lawyers...     The Rush Limbaugh Show     1270 Avenue of the Americas     New York, NY 10020     RushLimbaugh.com Premiere Radio Networks.     Ladies & Gentlemen:     I am the attorney for Rush, their management company, S.R.O. Management Inc., their music publishing company, Core Music Publishing and their record company, The Anthem Entertainment Group Inc.     According to media reports, Rush Limbaugh, Premiere Radio Networks and The Rush Limbaugh Show have been using Rush's recorded music as part of what is essentially a political broadcast.     The use of Rush's music in this way is an infringement of Rush's copyrights and trademarks. The public performance of Rush's music is not licensed for political purposes and any such use is in breach of public performance licenses and constitutes copyright infringement. There are civil and criminal remedies for copyright infringement, including statutory damages and fines.     (see sections 501-513 of Title 17 of the United States Code http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)     In addition, the use of Rush's music in this manner implies an endorsement of the views expressed and products advertised on the show, and is in breach of not only copyright and trademark rights, but also, of section 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law (excerpt attached).     Accordingly, we hereby demand that you immediately stop all use of Rush's music and confirm that you will do so.     Yours very truly,     Robert A. Farmer     Director of Legal Affairs     S.R.O. Management Inc.,     Core Music Publishing     The Anthem Entertainment Group Inc.     cc: Rush, Ray Danniels, Pegi Cecconi http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2012/03/exclusive-rush-pulls-music-from-li mbaugh-show.html Wait isn't he the one who's always saying that the world doesn't owe anyone a living? He wasn't born entitled to be on Armed Forces Radio, Sam, and the people who signed this petition aren't the government and don't have any special power to make it happen. The only real connection to the White House is that somebody may read them. It looks like they answered one or two. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 01:49 AM

ok and he's a copyright cheat, not surprising. I am just surprised they haven't noticed he does this before now. Surely they must have? If so, apparently they aren't indifferent on the subject any more. On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 08:26 PM

I guess that answered my question...he really is that fraking stupid... It's moderated by the White House and can not violate someone's freedoms. This so called petition is trying to take away Rush's freedom of speech and his right to make a living. . > > Apparently anyone can make any kind of petition they want, so I will > accept the one about Rush for what it is .. pointless and dumb. > > I do like the petition that simply says  "Resign"

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/07/2012 09:57 AM

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/06/pentagon-to-keep-rush-limbaugh-on-the-air/ Pentagon said they will keep Rush on air no matter what the WH propaganda page suggests. OK, I added the propaganda part for those that will read the article thinking they admitted it. :) .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 08:20 PM

You do realize that it is a petition site that the whitehouse put up for people to address the government with petitions, right?  Or are you really that fraking stupid to believe the white house put up the petition? https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/sec-panetta-get-rush-limb augh-armed-forces-radio-now-no-tax-money-abusive-divisive-insulting/p439GWMm ?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl The shorturl at the end is kinda funny . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- military? >> >> Free speech be damned! > >

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 04:42 PM

>>> Irrelevant. >> So was her testimony > I am not arguing that it was relevant. I thought you were. What are you arguing? >> Her beef will not change. It' a legal issue and there are ways to deal >> with them. This forum was not one of them. > > Don't care.  Not what I am talking about. You said you don't support free birth control. > I thought that's what she was implying.  It's that interpretation thing. >  Next time, instead of defending Rush and yelling about liberals this > and liberals that, just say that in your opinion, that's what Fluke is > asking for and someone is right in questioning her dollar amounts, if > that is the case.  That will reduce the number of people hating on you, > I'm sure.  Unless you just like the attention. I didn't realize I had to explain my opinion is an opinion in a forum like this. My opinion is after all the shit I heard from the left the last couple of years what Rush said was not offensive and I thought it was actually funny to throw it back at them. I don't know why you got your panties in a wad over it but I was trying to get you to realize it really wasn't a big thing. Apparently I was wrong, you seem gutted over it. Hate away if you must, I'm not the one with issues. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I almost never "open" a political discussion. I usually jump in around the point that everyone that's ever voted R is the scum of the earth knuckle dragging neanderthal. And when I enter I still try to stay above the fray except for the cute couple that guarantee a childish idiot reference whenever they see my name. Also, I do not polarize people. We have lefties and righties on the list, those that straddle the line are neutral to me. > Mocking her in the worst possible way.  Shultz and Rush are both asses. >  Your point is.......It's OK because Rush supposedly didn't mean it as > hard as Schultz did?  Rush didn't mean Fluke is a slut in the > traditional, unflattering sense of the word?  Rush was correct in > assuming all of what he said and his word choice was wholly appropriate? >  You agree with Rush that she is a sex starved whore and that's why it > costs so much?  I am unsure of your exact position. You need to learn about humor and context. You are to invested in your original opinion that you'll never change it. Rush used the insult in context of her not being able to afford contraception. Shultz just said it because he hates her. Surely you can see the difference. > You mentioned it like it was an issue, but since it doesn't matter to > him or you, what his sponsors do it is now irrelevant. You mentioned it like it was an issue and yes it's irrelevant. > Again, I will agree with you that what Fluke said can be interpreted in > a way that supports some of your arguments and assumptions.  Arguing > anything beyond that in the context of this particular discussion is > asinine. So why are you doing it? What is your point of being in this discussion? Do I have to agree with you to get you to stop arguing a point you don't have. You don't like Rush. I agree, you don't like Rush. I don't want you to like him. I do like him. Do you want me not to like him? > Huh.  Look at that.  I can be reasonable and admit I may be wrong. > Whodathunkit Did I ever say you were unreasonable? I do

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/06/2012 06:54 PM

On 3/6/2012 4:42 PM, Sam wrote: > I thought you were. What are you arguing? About what she was saying, not whether it was valid or had any merit. >> Don't care.  Not what I am talking about. > > You said you don't support free birth control. I don't.  Well, I mean not for adults who know better.  Those teens and their hormones are a different story.  I was not arguing whether she should get it or not, just arguing what I believe she was arguing. > I didn't realize I had to explain my opinion is an opinion in a forum like this. > My opinion is after all the shit I heard from the left the last couple > of years what Rush said was not offensive  > and I thought it was > actually funny to throw it back at them. Just because the left does it doesn't make it any less offensive when the right does it.  See?  Confrontational.   I don't know why you got your > panties in a wad over it but I was trying to get you to realize it > really wasn't a big thing. Apparently I was wrong, you seem gutted > over it. Hate away if you must, I'm not the one with issues. I am hardly gutted over it.  I voiced my opinion that Rush was a dickhead and wrong in this instance, and then I somehow got drawn into this tit for tat with you.  I have issues, sure, but I don't believe you don't.  My issues are not wrapped up in which side said what.  I am pretty middle of the road.  I agree with some things the Republicans supposedly believe and also some that the Democrats do.  Maybe even a libertarian idea or two.  THAT is what pisses me off.  Drawing a line in the sand and then fighting over which side is right, no pun intended. > I almost never "open" a political discussion. I usually jump in around > the point that everyone that's ever voted R is the scum of the earth > knuckle dragging neanderthal. And when I enter I still try to stay > above the fray except for the cute couple that guarantee a childish > idiot reference whenever they see my name. I need to explain things better.  I mean the first few comments you make when you do jump in.  Your opening words, more or less. > Also, I do not polarize people. We have lefties and righties on the > list, those that > straddle the line are neutral to me. You are definitely far to the right and you like to antagonize the left, so ... > You need to learn about humor and context. You are to invested in your > original opinion that you'll never change it. Rush used the insult in > context of her not being able to afford contraception. Shultz just > said it because he hates her. > Surely you can see the difference. The only difference is why they said it.  It doesn't change the fact that they both used it as a vulgar insult.  One was being mean.  One was being pedantic and condescending while using extreme exaggeration to the point of stupid. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- I was simply arguing my interpretation of what Fluke was saying in her testimony.  It is my position she was mostly talking about medical birth control.  I do see how someone could take it the way you do.  That's all. > Did I ever say you were unreasonable? I do I am pretty sure you did once or twice, equating my ability to have a reasonable discussion as being on the level of Larry and Dana, and we know what you think of their arguments. :)

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:42 PM

This kind of sums up what I've been thinking all along. http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/04/a-quick-note-to-everyone-who-howled-at-me-for-criticizing-david-lettermans-comments-on-sarah-palin-and-her-daughters-and-who-are-now-scolding-rush-limbaugh/ . > > You obviously didn't read the transcript and just want to stir up shit > like Rush.  So once again, I am going to label you as trolling.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 07:49 PM

Are you series? "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." Did you really not read your own post or did you just not understand it. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 08:23 PM

On 3/4/2012 7:49 PM, Sam wrote: > > Are you series? > > "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during > law school." > > Did you really not read your own post or did you just not understand it. Don't be a dumbass, Sam.  When taken in context with the entire post, it is easy to see she is not talking about birth control.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:04 PM

??? Of course she's talking about birth control. That's why she's testifying. That's what contraception means. What did I miss? . > > > Don't be a dumbass, Sam.  When taken in context with the entire post, it > is easy to see she is not talking about birth control.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 09:08 PM

there is no reasoning with this slime who disguises himself has a human. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:03 PM

So it's actually 3000...not 1000... For the record here is the transcript of Ms. Fluke's testimony before Pelosi's hearing: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20he aring.pdf Leader Pelosi, Members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.  My name is Sandra Fluke, and I'm a third year student at Georgetown Law, a Jesuit school.  I'm also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ.  I'd like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them for being here today. Georgetown LSRJ is here today because we're so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan, medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.  I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraception coverage in its student health plan. Just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions. When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories.  .  On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman  from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage.  And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard. Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.  For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary.   Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn't covered, and had to walk away because she couldn't afford it.  Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.  Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn't afford it any longer.  Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice. You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's not true.  Women's health clinics provide vital medical services, but as the Guttmacher Institute has documented, clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services.  Clinics are closing and women are being forced to go without.  How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio, and Blunt legislation that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics? These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people.  In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences.  A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy.  Under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be, and under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill, or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs.  When they do exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren't, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body. In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms.  For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy.  She's gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy.  After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it.  I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she'd been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain.  She wrote, "It was so painful, I woke up thinking I'd been shot." Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary.  She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary.  On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she sat in a doctor's office. Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats, weight gain, and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary.  She's 32 years old.  As she put it: "If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children.  I will have no chance at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy that I paid for totally unsubsidized by my school wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it." Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at an early age-- increased risk of cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis, she may never be able to conceive a child. Perhaps you think my friend's tragic story is rare.  It's not.  One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but it can't be proven without surgery, so the insurance hasn't been willing to cover her medication.  Recently, another friend of mine told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome.  She's struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.  Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown's policy, she hasn't been reimbursed for her medication since last August.  I sincerely pray that we don't have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously. This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends.  A woman's reproductive healthcare isn't a necessity, isn't a priority. One student told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered, and she assumed that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's sexual healthcare, so when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health. As one student put it, "this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs."  These are not feelings that male fellow students experience.  And they're not burdens that male students must shoulder. In the media lately, conservative Catholic organizations have been asking: what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school?  We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.  We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of cura personalis, to care for the whole person, by meeting all of our medical needs.  We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for students, they would help us. We expected that when 94% of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university.  We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that if we wanted comprehensive insurance that met our needs, not just those of men, we should have gone to school elsewhere, even if that meant a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and weresent that, in the 21 st century, anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women. Many of the women whose stories I've shared are Catholic women, so ours is not a war against the church.  It is a struggle for access to the healthcare we need.  The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced last week. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the healthcare they need. That is something we can all agree on.  Thank you. ----------------------- So where is the demand for free contraceptive services? Where is the claim she needs thousands for condoms? In both cases they are lies. And shame on you Sam for promoting those lies. -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ig

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:33 PM

divided by three years in law school. But that's the cost of contraception, not oral contraceptives. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Eric Roberts < owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 10:36 PM

And that is relevant how? And where did you get the number of sex five times a day. Or did you just blow it out of your behind. Personally I'd find only 5 times a day a bit slow. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 11:03 PM

> And that is relevant how? It's not. > And where did you get the number of sex five times a day. Or did you > just blow it out of your behind. $1000 a year / price of condoms on Amazon > Personally I'd find only 5 times a day a bit slow. How many ferrets do you have? .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 11:38 AM

Sam - how far are you willing to take this argument? If a federal employee uses part of their income to buy condoms, isn't that technically using tax dollars to pay for contraception? If an employee of a federal government contractor uses part of their income to pay for an abortion, isn't that technically using tax dollars to pay for an abortion? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 08:02 PM

> Sam - how far are you willing to take this argument? Not far at all. > If a federal employee uses part of their income to buy condoms, isn't > that technically using tax dollars to pay for contraception? No. It's using your wages. Are you for real? > If an employee of a federal government contractor uses part of their > income to pay for an abortion, isn't that technically using tax > dollars to pay for an abortion? Same again.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 09:27 PM

I'm aghast that in this day and age people still exist who equate contraceptive users with slut. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 09:35 PM

3000 condoms in 3 years is a lot. . > > I'm aghast that in this day and age people still exist who equate > contraceptive users with slut.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 11:04 PM

You are correct since I don't use any. Saves me a bundle. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 06:22 PM

probably because you're not getting any with that attitude towards women. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 07:23 PM

Sam... Rush has apologised. He apparently thought he was being funny. Which is kinda what you were implying... :) "For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke. I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where<http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/where>; do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level. My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sandra-fluke-for-calling-her-a-slut-2012-3?utm_source=sailthrusuggest&utm_medium=rightrail&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=recirc#ixzz1o6RcBMB9 " On 3 March 2012 19:22, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 07:37 PM

I read the non apology on the Washington Post site. Inside of an hour over 800 comments. The dittoheads were at least as foul as the original viagra and oxycontin addled blob. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 08:23 PM

I thought it was funny too. Some folks mentioned here thought they were funny too but they missed the mark. http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/ . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 09:17 PM

On 3/3/2012 7:22 PM, Vivec wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- BS.  He meant every word of it.  If there hadn't been such a backlash, he would still be meaning it. > I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political > times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before > members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens > should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal > responsibility and accountability? Indeed.  He is feeling some of that accountability now. > Where do > we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will > we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students > that are interested in running to keep fit? Stupid analogy. In my monologue, I posited that > it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's > bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level. Fair enough.  I am with him there.  That's all he had to say instead of being a massive dick.  Then again, being a massive dick gets you attention, so ... > > My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I > created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the > insulting word choices. No.  The choice of words was the worst.  He meant them, too.  He is only now saying "ha ha just kidding you guys" now that even conservatives are going "whoa.  A little too far there."

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 09:25 PM

Actually, I have to say -- in this context "slut" is every bit as devastating as the worst n-word-using insult. It essentially says you're a whore if you have sex and ugly if you don't, and whether you do or not is the most important thing about you or that anyone could comment on when you speak up on a matter that intrinsically affects your dignity and value as a human being. It's offensive that someone thought maybe a woman might have something to say about women's health and that the part the Rush cared about was a prurient interest in the sexual details. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 09:57 PM

I liked what one of the show's biggest sponsors said well after the limpblob gave his Faux apology: http://www.carbonite.com/en/blog/A-Message-from-Carbonite-CEO-David-Friend-Regarding-Ads-on-Limbaugh A Message from Carbonite CEO, David Friend Regarding Ads on Limbaugh March 02, 2012 UPDATE A Statement from David Friend, CEO of Carbonite as of 6:45pm ET, March 3: ?No one with daughters the age of Sandra Fluke, and I have two, could possibly abide the insult and abuse heaped upon this courageous and well-intentioned young lady. Mr. Limbaugh, with his highly personal attacks on Miss Fluke, overstepped any reasonable bounds of decency. Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show. We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.? ?? Original post: 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. Sincerely, David Friend ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:44 AM

I'm going to boycott Carbonite . > > I liked what one of the show's biggest sponsors said well after the > limpblob gave his Faux apology: > > http://www.carbonite.com/en/blog/A-Message-from-Carbonite-CEO-David-Friend-Regarding-Ads-on-Limbaugh

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:42 AM

Nothing you just said makes any sense. Rethink it and try again. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:45 AM

I know, one of those sentences was kind of long. I'll try to hit closer to your reading level next time. But meanwhile, if you follow it with your finger, you may find it easier to follow. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 11:09 AM

What I meant was I do not have access to someone with a 70-80 IQ to follow along with your logic. I'll pretend. A black man testifies that he is black. Someone calls him the n-word. WTF? Someone testifies she needs $1000 a year for contraception when we know Walmart or Target provide the pill for $120 a year and $1000 worth of condoms amounts to 5-a-day for a year. Either explain why your contraception cost so much more than all others or let us assume as a single woman you have lots of need for contraception. Why is that offensive. You state your sexually active what do you expect? How you got to whore or ugly is just baffling. Do you think this is about a high school girl with a reputation? . > > I know, one of those sentences was kind of long. I'll try to hit closer to > your reading level next time. But meanwhile, if you follow it with your > finger, you may find it easier to follow.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 11:17 AM

hey, what happened to my happy filter? Sam, I am sure that if I ran this down I'd find out this number is some distortion of yours or Rush's so, no thanks. I have real problems to think about so I'll leave you to ponder where Ms Fluke's friend gets her prescriptions filled. I personally don't think it's my business or yours. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 11:48 AM

Amazon: Durex Pleasure Pack Condom Tin, 48 Count by Durex Buy new: $15.79 ($0.33/count) http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/6747.aspx More medicines covering more categories ? Important prescription medicines have been added to the $4 program covering glaucoma, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), fungal infections and acne. Fertility and prescription birth control will also be included at $9, compared to national average prices ranging from $24 to $30 per month and saving women an estimated $15 to $21 per month ? $180 to $250 annually. Rush Limbaugh Isn?t the Only Media Misogynist http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html . > > hey, what happened to my happy filter? Sam, I am sure that if I ran this > down I'd find out this number is some distortion of yours or Rush's so, no > thanks. I have real problems to think about so I'll leave you to ponder > where Ms Fluke's friend gets her prescriptions filled. I personally don't > think it's my business or yours.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:19 PM

dumbass...she isn't talking about condoms...she is talking about the pill...get a fucking clue Sam...sheesh Amazon: Durex Pleasure Pack Condom Tin, 48 Count by Durex Buy new: $15.79 ($0.33/count) http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/6747.aspx More medicines covering more categories - Important prescription medicines have been added to the $4 program covering glaucoma, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), fungal infections and acne. Fertility and prescription birth control will also be included at $9, compared to national average prices ranging from $24 to $30 per month and saving women an estimated $15 to $21 per month - $180 to $250 annually. Rush Limbaugh Isn't the Only Media Misogynist http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-lib eral-men-need-to-follow-suit.html . > > hey, what happened to my happy filter? Sam, I am sure that if I ran > this down I'd find out this number is some distortion of yours or > Rush's so, no thanks. I have real problems to think about so I'll > leave you to ponder where Ms Fluke's friend gets her prescriptions > filled. I personally don't think it's my business or yours.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 01:23 PM

Fertility and prescription birth control must mean condoms. My bad. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 11:58 AM

Sam is deliberately offensive. He forgets or more likely deliberately ignores the fact that Ms. Fluke was testifying about the lack of coverage for student purchased health insurance for certain medical conditions. Better to lie to support is point in other words. He is like someone from the realm of the immoderate flatterers of Dante's hell with the appropriately adjusted anatomy. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 12:31 PM

http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/faqs.html Q. Are pre-existing conditions covered? A. Pre-existing conditions are covered if the condition or treatment is not specifically excluded or limited per the Exclusions and Limitations in Description of Benefits Booklet. (Note: Although birth control is not covered, medications used for birth control that are required to treat other medical conditions are covered. Your provider may submit requests for such coverage in the form of a "Prescription Override" by faxing the details of the diagnosis and treatment to Gallagher Koster, fax #: 617-479-0860.) If her testimony is that they are not honoring their commitment than fight for that. Disguising it as "we need a $ thousand a year to have sex" is just stupid. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:40 AM

> BS.  He meant every word of it.  If there hadn't been such a backlash, > he would still be meaning it. I agree he still means it. If he was a left winger he's be a hero. He's not so he has to repent for using the common word for what she described. > Indeed.  He is feeling some of that accountability now. Leave it to the press to turn it around and instead of focus on why this girl needs $1000 a years for contraception redirect and attack. > Stupid analogy. I though it was a great analogy. > No.  The choice of words was the worst.  He meant them, too.  He is only > now saying "ha ha just kidding you guys" now that even conservatives are > going "whoa.  A little too far there." Nope, he could have used some of the words directed at Palin while running for VP or any republican Woman that are far worse. Don't forget, this girl testified that they need that amount of money, what would you call that kind of girl? Personally I'd call her a liar but I know many will call her a her

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 08:15 PM

I only have sex with my wife and she knows I'm the one that really cares about them. . > > probably because you're not getting any with that attitude towards women.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 10:01 PM

who's betting that she hands him an aspirin and tells him where to shove it. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 09:59 PM

well when you're not getting any even one is a lot. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 11:58 AM

Did she say the money was for condoms or contraception? It seems to me she's likely choosing a number that would cover whatever form of contraception was chosen. Pill/patch/condoms/IUD. $1000/yr might be completely reasonable for the pill in America ( I don't know if it is or not.) And that needs to be taken daily regardless of sexual activity to be effective. Condoms aren't particularly reliable so many women choose other means, and rightly so as it's their choice to make. It seems to me Rush is the only one who's said condoms and then set up a straw man to make silly claims about how much sex this person must be having. I really am shocked that this is even a talking point for anyone. Hey insurance companies: Cover birth control. Cover Viagra and Cialis. The more sex you're clients have the less health problems they will have. Happy horny people have less stress and better health. Hell, consider also paying for a baby sitter and dinner so mom's and dad's can find time to make the double-backed beast too. Give them all $1000 worth of pr0n while you're at it. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than a hospital visit. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 12:09 PM

What Sam and the others seem to forget is that oral contraception is also used for a number of other medical conditions, for a short list, try this link http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/thepill/a/otherbenorcontr.htm Moreover Ms Fluke was not describing herself, but a friend who had Endometriosis, a very debilitating medical condition. Really try reading what actually happened instead of getting your information from an obese drug addict who was caught smuggling viagra from Central America. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 02:11 PM

even assuming it had been used to prevent pregnancy, it would be a cost-effective use of health dollars. Pregnancy is expensive. Unintended pregnancy is especially expensive. Why is this even an issue? On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 06:11 PM

I think the answer to that goes back to the conservatives and lack of education thread earlier... even assuming it had been used to prevent pregnancy, it would be a cost-effective use of health dollars. Pregnancy is expensive. Unintended pregnancy is especially expensive. Why is this even an issue? On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 08:13 PM

Are you guys twins? . > > Because ideological purity requires it.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 08:12 PM

WTF? Really? Again. Taxpayers need to supply 5 condoms a day to law students that can afford over aNn $50k a year education or they'll fill our jails with felons? . > > even assuming it had been used to prevent pregnancy, it would be a > cost-effective use of health dollars. Pregnancy is expensive. Unintended > pregnancy is especially expensive. Why is this even an issue?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 08:09 PM

> What Sam and the others seem to forget is that oral contraception is > also used for a number of other medical conditions, for a short list, > try this link > http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/thepill/a/otherbenorcontr.htm But in the next line you say she's talking about  a very debilitating medical condition. So which is it? > Moreover Ms Fluke was not describing herself, but a friend who had > Endometriosis, a very debilitating medical condition. Which is a medical condition that is covered. Why is she talking about that? > Really try reading what actually happened instead of getting your > information from an obese drug addict who was caught smuggling viagra > from Central America. Who tells you who to love and who to hate? .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 10:00 PM

you really did not read or listen to her testimony did you. Professional ignorance so it would seem. No wonder you're a fan of Limpdick. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 10:46 AM

Flustered are you? . > > you really did not read or listen to her testimony did you. > Professional ignorance so it would seem. No wonder you're a fan of > Limpdick.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 05:15 PM

Its obvious you did not read it. And as usual you try distraction and prevarication as a response. Pathetic and tiresome. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/04/2012 08:02 PM

Actually I did. I get a kick out of you when you hit the wall in a discussion. Makes me laugh every time. And it's so predictable. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/03/2012 08:06 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- The bill is $10 a month at Walmart What's the other $70 for? > I really am shocked that this is even a talking point for anyone. It's to deflect from the real topic. > Hey insurance companies: Cover birth control. Cover Viagra and Cialis. The > more sex you're clients have the less health problems they will have. Happy > horny people have less stress and better health. Hell, consider also paying > for a baby sitter and dinner so mom's and dad's can find time to make the > double-backed beast too. Give them all $1000 worth of pr0n while you're at > it. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than a hospital visit. Then why are they making new laws? .

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:11 PM

Its not just the students who are pissed at Limbaugh. The president of Georgetown University (A conservative Catholic school BTW) just ripped into the man: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/georgetown-president-john-degioia-on-rush-limbaugh-misogynistic-and-vitriolic-73301.html Georgetown President John DeGioia on Rush Limbaugh: Misogynistic and vitriolic By Justin Karp March 2, 2012 - 12:38 pm Rush Limbaugh's comments about Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke were called "misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student" in a statement released by the school's president on Friday. In a statement, President DeGioia called Limbaugh's comments 'vitriolic.' (Photo: World Economic Forum/Wikimedia Commons) In a letter to the campus community, Georgetown President John DeGioia said that in the wake of the conservative talk show hosts comments about Fluke and contraception, a time had come to restore civility in communication and engagement. "The values that hold us together as a people require nothing less than eternal vigilance," DeGioia said. "This is our moment to stand for the values of civility in our engagement with one another." DeGioia's statement comes after Limbaugh's two-day crusade against Fluke and her testimony at a Congressional hearing on religious freedom and contraception. On his nationally syndicated radio show on Wednesday and Thursday, Limbaugh called Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" after testifying that Georgetown students were paying thousands of dollars out of pocket to cover contraception and birth control. DeGioia did not take away from Limbaugh's right to speak his mind, but he did appeal for civility in his discourse. We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate," he said. You can read the full statement here: http://www.georgetown.edu/message-civility-public-discourse.html

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:14 PM

So? Do you really thing it's a big issue? Stick and stones ... . > > Its not just the students who are pissed at Limbaugh. The president of > Georgetown University (A conservative Catholic school BTW) just ripped > into the man:

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:16 PM

> So? > > Do you really thing it's a big issue? > > Stick and stones ... > Yes, it is a bit issue. You don't use nigger, you don't use cunt, and slut would be just as hurtful. The wrong word at the wrong time can get your hurt or killed.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
03/02/2012 01:17 PM

Also limpblob's advertisers aren't exactly thrilled as well: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73545.html Advertiser bails from Limbaugh show By: MJ Lee March 2, 2012 10:35 AM EST One of the advertisers on Rush Limbaugh?s popular conservative radio show Friday announced that it is pulling its ads in the wake of the host?s controversial ?slut? comments this week. ?We don?t condone negative comments directed toward any group. In response, we are currently pulling our ads from Rush with Rush Limbaugh,? the company Sleep Train Mattress Centers announced on its Twitter account early Friday. An examination of @theSleepTrain?s latest tweets shows that the company began tweeting at some of its followers starting around midnight, telling multiple Twitter users, ?Thank you for your concern. We are currently pulling all of our ads with Rush Limbaugh.? All of the company?s tweets announcing its decision were met grateful responses from the Twitter world. ?I have to buy a frame this weekend. Now I know where to go. Thank you for refusing to support Rush?s hatred,? @djimenez9 tweeted in response to the company?s latest tweet. ?Thank you @theSleepTrain for not supporting misogyny. You?re a good egg,? said @FlightyWendy. One user that goes by the Twitter handle @facialmerkin said, ?Thank you for taking a stand against @rushlimbaugh and his despotic ideas.? Sleep Train?s decision comes on the heels of Limbaugh calling a Georgetown University law student a ?prostitute? and ?slut? on his show Wednesday for testifying on Capitol Hill about women?s access to contraception. Limbaugh continued his barrage on Thursday despite the outrage of Democrats. Michael Soifer, listed on the website of ?The Rush Limbaugh Show?as the advertising contact for the program, did not immediately respon


<< Previous Thread Today's Threads Next Thread >>

Search cf-community

October 21, 2014

<<   <   Today   >   >>
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
       1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   

Designer, Developer and mobile workflow conference