PDA

View Full Version : Breaking: Sandra Fluke Exposed As Fraud, Activist, Possible White House Operative



bijou
03-03-2012, 01:01 PM
This broad went to the school strictly to challenge its insurance’s contraceptive policy, not even as a real student…and all magically timed to coincide with Obama’s big contraceptive push…
Excerpted from Jammie Wearing Fool (http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/):
Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke
Posted by Just a Grunt on Mar 02, 2012 at 10:49 am
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.
Keep reading…


(http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/)link (http://patdollard.com/2012/03/breaking-sandra-fluke-exposed-as-fraud-activist-possible-white-house-operative-with-video/)

Starbuck
03-03-2012, 01:40 PM
Limbaugh and company are losing.

The dialogue has now shifted from meaningful items like the economy to less meaningful items like, "they want to take women's rights away", and Limbaugh fell into it. He has made her name a household item and Lauer has helped her along.

If he had not "spoken out" in such a nasty manner he would not have delivered this battle to the Democrats' win column.

txradioguy
03-03-2012, 02:22 PM
Spoken out in "such a nasty manner"? LOL oh please. That's mild compared to the selected mysoginistic (sp?) rants of the likes of Mile Malloy or Randi Rhoades or everyone's favorite woman hater Special Keith.

My 16 y/o daughter was with me today and the minute she heard what Fluke said before Congress she said "that girl is a slut".

This isn't Conservatives losing focus...this is the Dems creating something from nothing to deflect from the fact that their "plant" inside Georgetown University went on the record claiming she's banging every eligible swinging Johnson north and west of the Key Bridge and thinks you and I need to subsidize her bedroom activity.

Starbuck
03-03-2012, 02:24 PM
I guess another way of making my point is to say that the Democrats DID create something from nothing. They succeeded.

SaintLouieWoman
03-03-2012, 02:41 PM
I guess another way of making my point is to say that the Democrats DID create something from nothing. They succeeded.

Sadly, you're right. The MSM won't concentrate on her being 30 vs 23 or her being a plant. They just want to put a face with the cause.

The Republicans need to learn to think like a cat, not a dog. The Dems lie and cheat and twist to achieve their objectives, using what Bubba Clinton called the "Big Lie".

The Republicans think more like a dog---trusting foolishly, being direct and straight forward. I remember when I thought surely the American public wouldn't reelect Bubba after his playing around with a young intern. The Repubs came after him directly. He was more crafty. It's discouraging. :blue:

Apache
03-03-2012, 03:03 PM
Limbaugh and company are losing.

The dialogue has now shifted from meaningful items like the economy to less meaningful items like, "they want to take women's rights away", and Limbaugh fell into it. He has made her name a household item and Lauer has helped her along.

If he had not "spoken out" in such a nasty manner he would not have delivered this battle to the Democrats' win column.

i disagree, and here's why, is this the only thing that rush is talking about? is this the only thing everybody is talking about? i still see energy concerns, unemployment and the economy being discussed, at length. this, while a distraction, will quickly fade and be mostly forgotten come november....

Rockntractor
03-03-2012, 03:17 PM
The democrats shifted the dialog, not Republicans, Republicans need to suck it up grow a pair and start fighting back like Rush is doing. I don't think our current conservatives have the guts to run this country anymore.

Starbuck
03-03-2012, 08:07 PM
I just got an email from a Democrat friend who follows the news from a distance, and she is outraged that the Republicans would try to withhold contraceptive care from anyone.

And that's what the Dems have done. They have shifted the rhetoric and now only those who have followed closely can tell which cup hides the pea. And relatively few people follow that closely.

txradioguy
03-03-2012, 08:10 PM
I just got an email from a Democrat friend who follows the news from a distance, and she is outraged that the Republicans would try to withhold contraceptive care from anyone.

And that's what the Dems have done. They have shifted the rhetoric and now only those who have followed closely can tell which cup hides the pea. And relatively few people follow that closely.

Ask your friend to point out which specific Repiblican is trying to with hold contraception from anyone.

Starbuck
03-03-2012, 08:17 PM
Ask your friend to point out which specific Repiblican is trying to with hold contraception from anyone.

Well, I would if I thought she was an isolated case.

Point is, I don't think she is an isolated case. She believes, because she only grasps headlines and snippets, that someone has testified that she needs birth control, and Rush called her a slut. That's it. That's what she and many, many others believe.

"Some college coed got called a slut by the Republicans because she needed birth control and couldn't afford it."

Apache
03-03-2012, 08:18 PM
I just got an email from a Democrat friend who follows the news from a distance, and she is outraged that the Republicans would try to withhold contraceptive care from anyone.

And that's what the Dems have done. They have shifted the rhetoric and now only those who have followed closely can tell which cup hides the pea. And relatively few people follow that closely.

yet these people are allowed to vote....


unreal

Apache
03-03-2012, 08:21 PM
. She believes, because she only grasps headlines and snippets, that someone has testified that she needs birth control, and Rush called her a slut. That's it. That's what she and many, many others believe.

"Some college coed got called a slut by the Republicans because she needed birth control and couldn't afford it." is this for real?

Starbuck
03-03-2012, 08:33 PM
is this for real?

Yeah. The above mentioned friend, who has retired from The State Department as a nurse practitioner, and my own 61 year old chronically unemployed sister. They both believe that. And they are not alone.

SaintLouieWoman
03-03-2012, 08:38 PM
Well, I would if I thought she was an isolated case.

Point is, I don't think she is an isolated case. She believes, because she only grasps headlines and snippets, that someone has testified that she needs birth control, and Rush called her a slut. That's it. That's what she and many, many others believe.

"Some college coed got called a slut by the Republicans because she needed birth control and couldn't afford it."
You're so right about this. I have a relative who I rarely have conversations with anymore. She was raised Republican, but listens only to the MSM and reads only her local lib rag. It's impossible to talk with her, but she probably thinks that I'm a foaming at the mouth conservative. She says that she isn't interested in politics. I asked if she feels any sense of responsibility for her kid and her grandkids. Apparently she doesn't, prefers to keep her head in the sand and sing la la la as things go crashing down around our collective heads.

Apache
03-03-2012, 08:41 PM
Yeah. The above mentioned friend, who has retired from The State Department as a nurse practitioner, and my own 61 year old chronically unemployed sister. They both believe that. And they are not alone.

no offense meant starbuck, so please, don't take any.....



baaaaaahhhhhhhbaaaaaahhhhhhhh baaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

i may not have the education of some here.... but damn that is stupid!

Apache
03-03-2012, 08:45 PM
You're so right about this. I have a relative who I rarely have conversations with anymore. She was raised Republican, but listens only to the MSM and reads only her local lib rag. It's impossible to talk with her, but she probably thinks that I'm a foaming at the mouth conservative. She says that she isn't interested in politics. I asked if she feels any sense of responsibility for her kid and her grandkids. Apparently she doesn't, prefers to keep her head in the sand and sing la la la as things go crashing down around our collective heads.

i can now see why you guys are worried. i however, still hold out hope in the american electorate...

AmPat
03-03-2012, 09:18 PM
i can now see why you guys are worried. i however, still hold out hope in the american electorate...
I don't. That same electorate gave us 8 years of Bubba and an O Blah Blah. The American electorate is as stupid and lazy as they get. The realization that after 3 years of disastrous Marxist/progressive/liberal failures, a minimum of 47% will still vote for the idiot.

Zeus
03-03-2012, 11:20 PM
no offense meant starbuck, so please, don't take any.....



baaaaaahhhhhhhbaaaaaahhhhhhhh baaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

i may not have the education of some here.... but damn that is stupid!

I hear ya. Sometimes when I hear some folks I think "No one can be that stupid so I must be pretty damn smart for an uneducated simple man".:star:

Adam Wood
03-03-2012, 11:35 PM
no offense meant starbuck, so please, don't take any.....



baaaaaahhhhhhhbaaaaaahhhhhhhh baaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.

i may not have the education of some here.... but damn that is stupid!I can confirm what Starbuck has said. It is the meme out there in Leftyland. They have been building this since that dumb-assed question to Santorum during one of the debates. The railroad track of "conservatives want to take away your birth control" has been carefully-laid for months, and this little tramp was the operative in place to ice the cake. They really do believe this BS, mostly because it's an easy soundbite to toss out there. After all, you've heard Santorum saying something about birth control, right? Well, he must have said that he wants to ban it, because he's a religious nutjob. Yeah, that must be it: Republicans want to ban birth control. It's a plank in the party platform.



It's going to take a lot of work to undo what they have done.

Starbuck
03-04-2012, 12:08 AM
AmPat is right. Obama will get about 47% of the vote. But I am afraid if they get away with this scare tactic (Republicans are going to take away your birth control stuff!) they will gather the women vote again.

Women usually vote Democratic. They did last time, 56% to 43%, and young voters went that way 66 to 32. But that was back when Obama was cool and hip. He is no longer quite as cool and hip. We can do real damage to him if we speak out every time we get a chance. Rip into him good and perhaps we can discourage some of these voters. But the best we can hope for, I think, is that they will stay home and not vote.

I expect a lot of black people will sit this one out. They haven't made the economic gains they thought they would. But that's only 12% of the population.
Here's a web site to use to gather an understanding of what has happened in terms of who voted this guy in:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

txradioguy
03-04-2012, 05:54 AM
Actually the MSM isn't even being that honest in their reporting. Theyre claiming...and so are the Congressional mouth breathers with their faux outrage...that Rush said that about all women who have used or currently use birth control.

RedGrouse
03-04-2012, 08:51 PM
Current Public Interest Law Scholars
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/pils/scholars.htm

Sandra Fluke

Sandra Fluke’s professional background in domestic violence and human trafficking began with Sanctuary for Families in New York City. There, she launched the agency’s pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. While at Sanctuary, she co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Sandra was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President’s Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence.

As the 2010 recipient of the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant, she researched, wrote, and produced an instructional film on how to apply for a domestic violence restraining order in pro per. She has also interned with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Polaris Project; Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County; Break the Cycle; the Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project; NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund; Crime Victim and Sexual Assault Services; and the Human Services Coalition of Tompkins County.

Through Georgetown’s clinic programs, Sandra has conducted proposed legislation based on fact-finding in Kenya regarding child trafficking for domestic work, and has represented victims of domestic violence in protection order cases. Sandra is the Development Editor of the Journal of Gender and the Law, and served as the President of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, and the Vice President of the Women’s Legal Alliance. In her first year, she also co-founded a campus committee addressing human trafficking. Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.

RedGrouse
03-04-2012, 08:52 PM
I just got an email from a Democrat friend who follows the news from a distance, and she is outraged that the Republicans would try to withhold contraceptive care from anyone.

And that's what the Dems have done. They have shifted the rhetoric and now only those who have followed closely can tell which cup hides the pea. And relatively few people follow that closely.

The left always needs a strawmans and enemies.

Apache
03-04-2012, 09:07 PM
Cornell University awarded her a B. S. in Policy Analysis & Management, as well as Feminist, Gender, & Sexuality Studies in 2003.[/i]

so, she has a degree in lying....?

Adam Wood
03-04-2012, 10:06 PM
so, she has a degree in lying....?She's got a BS in BS.

RedGrouse
03-05-2012, 01:05 AM
so, she has a degree in lying....?

Yup. She does have a BS in Lying and Victimhood. The left is so obsessed with victimhood.

AmPat
03-05-2012, 11:29 AM
so, she has a degree in lying....?


She's got a BS in BS.


Yup. She does have a BS in Lying and Victimhood. The left is so obsessed with victimhood.
Common guys, give the slut a break.

Rockntractor
03-05-2012, 11:34 AM
Yup. She does have a BS in Lying and Victimhood. The left is so obsessed with victimhood.

It is also rumored that she had sex with a sodomite bunny!http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/rabbits/smileys-rabbits-413855.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

linda22003
03-05-2012, 11:48 AM
I just got an email from a Democrat friend who follows the news from a distance, and she is outraged that the Republicans would try to withhold contraceptive care from anyone.

And that's what the Dems have done. They have shifted the rhetoric and now only those who have followed closely can tell which cup hides the pea. And relatively few people follow that closely.

It's true - whether they should or not, the Dems are winning this issue, because the GOP is suspect to a lot of women not only on abortion, but women's rights in general. And Limbaugh's remarks were about as inflammatory as Don Imus' a few years ago. He helped hand the issue to the Dems by being so nasty. George Will said, "John Boehner said Limbaugh's remarks were 'inappropriate'. No, using your salad fork for the entree is 'inappropriate'." Now there's an analogy we can all easily understand! :smile-new:

AmPat
03-05-2012, 12:15 PM
It's true - whether they should or not, the Dems are winning this issue, because the GOP is suspect to a lot of women not only on abortion, but women's rights in general. And Limbaugh's remarks were about as inflammatory as Don Imus' a few years ago. He helped hand the issue to the Dems by being so nasty. George Will said, "John Boehner said Limbaugh's remarks were 'inappropriate'. No, using your salad fork for the entree is 'inappropriate'." Now there's an analogy we can all easily understand! :smile-new:
If the Dems are winning, it is only the DIMS they are winning.
Logical, reasonable people, which excludes 99.99% of liberals, aren't swallowing this liberal media Koolaid. Only weak minded people (liberals), and political hacks (liberals), are buying and pushing this garbage.
Limbaugh apologized, nuff said.

Arroyo_Doble
03-05-2012, 12:53 PM
I just got an email from a Democrat friend who follows the news from a distance, and she is outraged that the Republicans would try to withhold contraceptive care from anyone.

And that's what the Dems have done. They have shifted the rhetoric and now only those who have followed closely can tell which cup hides the pea. And relatively few people follow that closely.

I don't think that is limited. It has taken on "Death Panel" proportions in terms of scaring people (in this case, women). It was damaging.

As far as Rush, I don't think it is smart to call women sluts for taking contraceptives.

Bailey
03-05-2012, 12:58 PM
I don't think that is limited. It has taken on "Death Panel" proportions in terms of scaring people (in this case, women). It was damaging.

As far as Rush, I don't think it is smart to call women sluts for taking contraceptives.

Well if you use 3k dollars worth of contraceptives you pretty much tell the world you are a slut.

Arroyo_Doble
03-05-2012, 01:01 PM
Well if you use 3k dollars worth of contraceptives you pretty much tell the world you are a slut.

You make a good argument. I retract. Be sure to get your favored candidate to run on that.

Eupher
03-05-2012, 01:15 PM
Rush caved in to the advertiser dollar. Surprising in one sense because he's a "damn the torpedos" kinda guy, but he's withstood negativity and setbacks during his entire career and he'll withstand this one too.

I'm not convinced that Fluke is a "White House Operative", though there's no doubt she's a screaming moonbat lib with the requisite agenda. By definition, Barry loves that and took time out from his winter greens golfing to tell Fluke that, no matter what, she'll have a place to roost. (Sluts need that, yunno. Sorta makes Barry look like the pimp now. Lincoln bedroom, anybody?)

The real tragedy is, any attack on Fluke will be interpreted by the MSM as sour grapes by the Right, in light of Rush's comments for which he's apologized. The slut will be made to look as if she's the victim when, in point of fact, she's the overall antagonist.

Starbuck
03-05-2012, 01:17 PM
Well if you use 3k dollars worth of contraceptives you pretty much tell the world you are a slut.

I checked. You can get a case of 1000 condoms for 325 bucks. 3,000 dollars worth.....lemmee see, that'd be 9 cases would be 2,925 and that, of course would be 9,000 condoms. Divide that by 365 - well 366 because this is a leap year - that's....uh....24.6, and you'd have to round that down cause you can't get laid 6/10 of a time, so let's call it 24 times a day she gets laid.

Now, THAT girl is going to the prom for sure!:biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

Apache
03-05-2012, 01:57 PM
As far as Rush, I don't think it is smart to call women sluts for taking contraceptives.

where did he do that?

Bailey
03-05-2012, 02:07 PM
You make a good argument. I retract. Be sure to get your favored candidate to run on that.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b10/lars1701c/419499_335282089842360_110392088998029_856829_1394 551272_n.jpg

Odysseus
03-06-2012, 02:41 PM
More on Ms. Fluke's background. It seems that she holds a rather unusual view of gender politics:
Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance (http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance/)

Sandra Fluke is being sold by the left as something she’s not. Namely a random co-ed from Georgetown law who found herself mixed up in the latest front of the culture war who was simply looking to make sure needy women had access to birth control. That, of course, is not the case.

As many have already uncovered (http://www.alexashrugged.com/2012/03/call-them-out-by-name-sandra-fluke.html) Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist (http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/) who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/) fighting for the school to pay for students’ birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html).

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if “gender reassignment” surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here (https://articleworks.cadmus.com/geolaw/zsw00311.html), is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here (http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance-transcript/). In a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits” starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:


Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.

Their “prime example” of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:


A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.


This so called “prime example” of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services” starting on page 636:


Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.


To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their “heterosexist” health insurance policies don’t believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these “heterosexist” insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:


In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff’s mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court’s ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination.


You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on “ignorance and bias against transgender persons”.

The section on discrimination against those seeking gender reassignment ends with Sandra Fluke and her co-editor wondering why more lawsuits aren’t filed against private employers on these grounds. Especially in comparison to the frequency with which these types of cases are filed against Medicare, Medicaid, and even the prison system:


The reason for this lack of cases is unclear. Private employee insurance plans do not more frequently cover this need, so it may be a sign that transgender employees do not see the courts as likely to provide any assistance against private employers.


The argument made in this article edited by Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu is quite clear. “Gender reassignment” is a medically necessary set of procedures that must be covered under employee provided health insurance policies. If it is not covered by those policies that is tantamount to discrimination and legal action should be taken against the employer.

So, as you can see, Sandra Fluke is not what she is being sold as. Instead she is a liberal activist pushing some rather radical ideas. Keep that in mind as the left holds her up in the spotlight.
http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance/

Seems like Ms. Fluke believes that we have an obligation to fund all manner of sexual oddities. She has that right, of course, but I'd really love to see her called out on it.

Apache
03-06-2012, 03:15 PM
never fails to amaze me how generous they are... with other people's money. why don't these leftist tools form their own medical/health insurance company and those premiums come from those who support that kind of illness?

we all know, as with other leftist ventures, it would fail...hindenberg fail. guess why that's why they push obamacare

AmPat
03-07-2012, 05:34 PM
If she is successful getting us to fund her sexual habits, I'm going to demand the gubmint fund my skiing and motorcycling habits.

SaintLouieWoman
03-07-2012, 06:07 PM
If she is successful getting us to fund her sexual habits, I'm going to demand the gubmint fund my skiing and motorcycling habits.

If we the taxpayers must fund their sex change surgeries, I want my share, too! I want them to pay our veterinary bills. Bella ran up almost a $500 bill when she ran into the orange tree.

Hey, I think my doggie deserves rights, too and should have her vet insurance paid by the government. :biggrin-new:

This is going way too far. And I hate when women play that victim role.

AmPat
03-08-2012, 10:34 AM
If we the taxpayers must fund their sex change surgeries, I want my share, too! I want them to pay our veterinary bills. Bella ran up almost a $500 bill when she ran into the orange tree.

Hey, I think my doggie deserves rights, too and should have her vet insurance paid by the government. :biggrin-new:

This is going way too far. And I hate when women play that victim role.
Sorry, we're not there quite yet. You'll have to settle for a Free pony for now.

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 11:48 AM
Ask Sandra: In the spirit of opening ourselves to the ideas of our ideological opponents, I have engaged Ms. Sandra Fluke to respond to a few comments in this thread. Comments in red are hers. *


If we the taxpayers must fund their sex change surgeries, I want my share, too! I want them to pay our veterinary bills. Bella ran up almost a $500 bill when she ran into the orange tree.

Hey, I think my doggie deserves rights, too and should have her vet insurance paid by the government. :biggrin-new:

This is going way too far. And I hate when women play that victim role.

I'm afraid that the specieist and heterosexist policies of insurers do not cover regular veterinary bills for your Canine-American Animal Companion, but I would certainly support gender-reassignment surgery for Bella, assuming that she felt trapped by the gender constructs of our patriarchal society and wanted to become a male Canine-American. :biggrin-new:


If she is successful getting us to fund her sexual habits, I'm going to demand the gubmint fund my skiing and motorcycling habits.

As well you should. Sex is purely for recreation, and has no standing over other forms of recreation, so the same argument for subsidized birth control should apply to any other pleasurable activity. No matter who or what you ride, your pleasure is the government's business.


Sorry, we're not there quite yet. You'll have to settle for a Free pony for now.

That's just the kind of patriarchal crap that makes life so difficult for us enlightened sophisticates. It's Equine-American, darn it!

*Sandra Fluke impersonator, not the actual Sandra Fluke. No Womyn were harmed in the posting of this thread, despite the best efforts of the patriarchy. :biggrin-new:

AmPat
03-12-2012, 11:10 PM
At first, we all pronounced the latest leftist Skank's name as though it rhymed with Puke when all the time it should have rhymed with fu, uh, su, uh, ahem, luck.
Our bad!:cool: