PDA

View Full Version : Ahhhh, tolerance



Adam Wood
03-05-2012, 10:34 AM
A "Fearful" Rush is down from a self-inflicted wound & it is time NOW to kick him (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002384442)


kpete (32,813 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

You could hear the fear…

by Dennis G.

............................

By Friday afternoon, Rush had already double down on his slander of Sandra Fluke and he was feeling the pressure of the blowback. Sponsors/advertisers—the real businesses and not the wingnut grifters—were pulling their ads. Republicans everywhere were under pressure to condemn Rush’s slander and their fear of Rush was beginning to be offset by fears of an angry electorate in November. Within 24 hours, Rush would be forced to issue a non-apology apology and look weak. It would not stop the storm of outrage, but even that lame-ass word string was a signal of weakness from the Leader of the Republican Party and the CONservative movement. When the commercials finally ended and the Master blowhard took to the mic, you could hear his fear.

It was in every phrase. Every word. He was pleading. Whinny. And full of self-pity. He verbally thrashed and sought a scapegoat. Naturally he decided that all of his actions were President Obama’s fault. Fear was in his voice as he tried to craft an alternate reality where President Obama’s support for women to be in control of their health care choices forced poor old Rushbo to call Sandra Fluke a slut and a whore.

..........................

Every bully goes too far one day. For Joe McCarthy it was the Army-McCarthy Hearings. For Bobby Knight it was choking a playing. Perhaps—if our Nation is lucky—this is the end of the line for Rush Limbaugh. He knows he stepped in it. You can hear the fear in his voice. There is no justification for his bullshit any longer and anybody who defends him is a coward, a fool or both.

I could hear the fear in his voice and I think we should all do what we can do to make that fear grow in the coming weeks.

.........

MORE, plus ideas for all of us to help with:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/03/04/you-could-hear-the-fear/ Remember, everyone: peaceful liberals only want tolerance and for everyone to have their voice heard.


Response to kpete (Original post)
Sun Mar 4, 2012, 11:46 PM
Marrah_G (16,858 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

1. He is a parasite on society

I wish he would disappear for good.
edbermac (10,588 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

3. We don't have to kick him, Obama will take care of El Rushbo.

Just like he knocked off Breitbart; he's on a mission to pass the Clinton-Arkansas body count. http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/sarcasm.gif
Response to kpete (Original post)
Mon Mar 5, 2012, 09:21 AM
Jester Messiah (1,563 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

9. Pour on the pressure!

Make that fat bastard squeal!Feeeeeelllllll the tolerance and acceptance for differing viewpoints.

Novaheart
03-05-2012, 10:54 AM
Feeeeeelllllll the tolerance and acceptance for differing viewpoints.

It was mere days ago that the DU were the worst people in the world for saying "Good riddance." to a dead man on a bulletin board that most people, as in 99.99% of people have no idea even exists. Rush called a real live woman a slut and said or implied she was a whore as well on his national program with millions of listeners.

We'll see how the free market reacts to Rush.

Apache
03-05-2012, 11:23 AM
It was mere days ago that the DU were the worst people in the world for saying "Good riddance." to a dead man on a bulletin board that most people, as in 99.99% of people have no idea even exists. Rush called a real live woman a slut and said or implied she was a whore as well on his national program with millions of listeners.

We'll see how the free market reacts to Rush.

yes princess. and unlike you, those who actually LISTEN to rush will take the CONTEXT into account. you lefties hear words, to hell with the context.....

as for the 'mere days ago' comment, b/w has been around for years. please, try and keep up

Bailey
03-05-2012, 11:25 AM
It was mere days ago that the DU were the worst people in the world for saying "Good riddance." to a dead man on a bulletin board that most people, as in 99.99% of people have no idea even exists. Rush called a real live woman a slut and said or implied she was a whore as well on his national program with millions of listeners.

We'll see how the free market reacts to Rush.



No worries whoever dropped him will be replaced quickly twinkle toes.

AmPat
03-05-2012, 11:49 AM
It was mere days ago that the DU were the worst people in the world for saying "Good riddance." to a dead man on a bulletin board that most people, as in 99.99% of people have no idea even exists. Rush called a real live woman a slut and said or implied she was a whore as well on his national program with millions of listeners.

We'll see how the free market reacts to Rush.
Apparently she is screwing so much that she cannot afford $25.00 a month for BC. If she cannot afford less than a dollar a day to keep from getting pregnant, she cannot afford to screw so much. She needs to keep her legs closed as that form of BC is free!

She is a liar pure and simple, and even a practiced and pathological liar like you know it. Worse, she wants to make this political. I thought you homosexuals wanted the government out of your bedrooms? Apparently when it suits your political interests, you swap your heartfelt opinions.:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
03-05-2012, 12:39 PM
It was mere days ago that the DU were the worst people in the world for saying "Good riddance." to a dead man on a bulletin board that most people, as in 99.99% of people have no idea even exists. Rush called a real live woman a slut and said or implied she was a whore as well on his national program with millions of listeners.

We'll see how the free market reacts to Rush.

What did Rush say that was wrong? The woman was saying she couldn't afford contraception, which isn't exactly the most expensive stuff in the world. She was telling congress she wanted money so she can have sex. Where I come from, that's called prostitution.

Novaheart
03-05-2012, 12:43 PM
She was telling congress she wanted money so she can have sex. Where I come from, that's called marriage.

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/news/110425/new-jersey-320.jpg

Apache
03-05-2012, 02:27 PM
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/news/110425/new-jersey-320.jpg

choosing a spring look princess? yet another institution you have to destroy to get yourself on 'more equal' footing

Odysseus
03-05-2012, 05:10 PM
It was mere days ago that the DU were the worst people in the world for saying "Good riddance." to a dead man on a bulletin board that most people, as in 99.99% of people have no idea even exists. Rush called a real live woman a slut and said or implied she was a whore as well on his national program with millions of listeners.

We'll see how the free market reacts to Rush.

I only pay for birth control that I'm going to use personally. If she expects everybody to pay for hers, then what does she think that everbody expects in return?


What did Rush say that was wrong? The woman was saying she couldn't afford contraception, which isn't exactly the most expensive stuff in the world. She was telling congress she wanted money so she can have sex. Where I come from, that's called prostitution.

Usually, a nice dinner and a bottle of wine does the trick. She didn't have to go to Congress.



http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/news/110425/new-jersey-320.jpg


Nova, if you believe that all wives are prostitutes, then you really don't understand marriage, which certainly explains why you advocate redefining it out of existence. However, I will recommend that you not make that point around any married women, as some of them aren't as tolerant as we are.

noonwitch
03-05-2012, 05:22 PM
I think what Rush said was inappropriate and rude, but he's free under the first amendment to say it. If sponsors don't like it, they are free to stop sponsoring his show.


As far as the argument about the insults to Breitbart and all-it's no wonder nothing ever gets accomplished in this country-we are all too busy justifying our bad behavior as responses to someone on the other side's behavior. So what if some dumbass insulted Breitbart? I'm a liberal and I didn't insult him. I'm not responsible for what the DUmbasses say. So what if Rush insulted Sandra Fluke-he doesn't speak for all conservatives.

AmPat
03-05-2012, 07:33 PM
I think what Rush said was inappropriate and rude, but he's free under the first amendment to say it. If sponsors don't like it, they are free to stop sponsoring his show.


As far as the argument about the insults to Breitbart and all-it's no wonder nothing ever gets accomplished in this country-we are all too busy justifying our bad behavior as responses to someone on the other side's behavior. So what if some dumbass insulted Breitbart? I'm a liberal and I didn't insult him. I'm not responsible for what the DUmbasses say. So what if Rush insulted Sandra Fluke-he doesn't speak for all conservatives.
That is not why the response to liberal gasbags. Liberal gasbags feign outrage over this stuff and get their gushing, adoring cheerleaders in the media to hype it like Carney hawkers. Conservatives are cataloging the hypocrisy and faux outrage using past liberal antics that were met with indifference and apathy. Where is O Blah Blah apologizing to Sarah Palin? Has Bill Sew- uh, Maher apologized or defended Rush? Why didn't the media close ranks and attack him? Maher routinely says vile, hateful things toward Conservatives yet where is the joke of a media with respect to his comments?

Dan D. Doty
03-05-2012, 08:25 PM
At $ 3,000 a year for BC, Ms.Fluke is spending $ 8.21 a day.
Max, Birth Control Pills cost $ 50 a month, which comes out to $ 1.66 a day.
So Ms.Fluke is get an extra $ 6.55 a day.
Now if she bought a 36 pk of Trojon condoms every month, it would cost Ms.Fluke 64 cents a day; still leaving Ms. Fluke, $ 5.91 a day. If Ms. Fluke were to also use an IUD ( at the cost of $650 and it lasted for seven years) that would cost $ 3 a day, leaving $ 2.91. Now if Ms. Fluke were to also use a spermicide, at $ 1.50 dollars a day it would still leave Ms. Fluke $ 1. 41.

This woman could buy four different kinds of birth control and still have $ 541 left over.

Either Ms. Fluke is really paranoid about getting pregant, or someone out there is not being totally truthful.

Novaheart
03-05-2012, 08:39 PM
Nova, if you believe that all wives are prostitutes, t......

Those are not garden variety housewives, appropriately they are "The Real Housewives of New Jersey.

Odysseus
03-05-2012, 10:56 PM
At $ 3,000 a year for BC, Ms.Fluke is spending $ 8.21 a day.
Max, Birth Control Pills cost $ 50 a month, which comes out to $ 1.66 a day.
So Ms.Fluke is get an extra $ 6.55 a day.
Now if she bought a 36 pk of Trojon condoms every month, it would cost Ms.Fluke 64 cents a day; still leaving Ms. Fluke, $ 5.91 a day. If Ms. Fluke were to also use an IUD ( at the cost of $650 and it lasted for seven years) that would cost $ 3 a day, leaving $ 2.91. Now if Ms. Fluke were to also use a spermicide, at $ 1.50 dollars a day it would still leave Ms. Fluke $ 1. 41.

This woman could buy four different kinds of birth control and still have $ 541 left over.

Either Ms. Fluke is really paranoid about getting pregant, or someone out there is not being totally truthful.

That last part is entirely understandable. The world would be a better place if shrill, hysterical radicals were afraid of reproducing.


Those are not garden variety housewives, appropriately they are "The Real Housewives of New Jersey.

Yes, but you have a habit of citing the extreme to attack the norm when it comes to marriage, while pretending that the exceptions in gay marriage, monogamous, stable relationships, are the norm.

noonwitch
03-06-2012, 10:11 AM
That is not why the response to liberal gasbags. Liberal gasbags feign outrage over this stuff and get their gushing, adoring cheerleaders in the media to hype it like Carney hawkers. Conservatives are cataloging the hypocrisy and faux outrage using past liberal antics that were met with indifference and apathy. Where is O Blah Blah apologizing to Sarah Palin? Has Bill Sew- uh, Maher apologized or defended Rush? Why didn't the media close ranks and attack him? Maher routinely says vile, hateful things toward Conservatives yet where is the joke of a media with respect to his comments?


Do you consider Bill Maher to be a legitimate political commentator? He's a comedian who makes political jokes on a network in which he isn't censored. I don't expect him to apologize to Rush or Rush to apologize to him for anything either one says. Except for Maher's profanity, he and Rush are really not so different in any way except their political leanings. They're both blowhards and druggies, they just have different drugs of choice.


God only knows why you think Obama owes Caribou Barbie an apology. There are some dumbasses in the media who probably owe her an apology for the nasty comments about her son who has Down's Syndrome, but the closest thing to an obnoxious comment I remember Obama making about her is the "lipstick on a pig" one, which is one of those turns of phrases that some of her supporters decided was a personal attack.

AmPat
03-06-2012, 10:32 AM
Do you consider Bill Maher to be a legitimate political commentator? He's a comedian who makes political jokes on a network in which he isn't censored. I don't expect him to apologize to Rush or Rush to apologize to him for anything either one says. Except for Maher's profanity, he and Rush are really not so different in any way except their political leanings. They're both blowhards and druggies, they just have different drugs of choice.

First, one must be funny to be a comedian, but that aside, you miss the point again. Maher makes his vile comments, passes them off as "jokes", and gets no faux outrage from the media or O Blah Blah. Rush makes a comment using absurd statements and hyperbole, and it takes over the news as though we had nothing else to worry about. Nice liberal deflection away from real problems, but hardly national news worthy material.


God only knows why you think Obama owes Caribou Barbie an apology. There are some dumbasses in the media who probably owe her an apology for the nasty comments about her son who has Down's Syndrome, but the closest thing to an obnoxious comment I remember Obama making about her is the "lipstick on a pig" one, which is one of those turns of phrases that some of her supporters decided was a personal attack.


Well let's just start with why the Idiot In Chief feels it necessary to comment on the liberal Fluke of a plant who got outed trying to pass herself off as a young poor student, who apparently screws so many men she can't afford a dollar condom. She never thought about telling her partner, "You want sum dis? You shell out for da rubber."

Your hero the zero can't contain his enthusiasm to rush into camera range to comment for a liberal and against a Conservative. Where is the moron when the shoe is on the other foot? Oh, I know----The golf course.:rolleyes:

DumbAss Tanker
03-06-2012, 11:36 AM
I think what Rush said was inappropriate and rude, but he's free under the first amendment to say it. If sponsors don't like it, they are free to stop sponsoring his show.


As far as the argument about the insults to Breitbart and all-it's no wonder nothing ever gets accomplished in this country-we are all too busy justifying our bad behavior as responses to someone on the other side's behavior. So what if some dumbass insulted Breitbart? I'm a liberal and I didn't insult him. I'm not responsible for what the DUmbasses say. So what if Rush insulted Sandra Fluke-he doesn't speak for all conservatives.

I pretty much agree with you. He was making a very strained and over-stretched analogy, and kept digging when he should have just gone on to another tack. BFD.

Novaheart
03-06-2012, 01:02 PM
Yes, but you have a habit of citing the extreme to attack the norm when it comes to marriage, while pretending that the exceptions in gay marriage, monogamous, stable relationships, are the norm.

What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum. All I have ever emphasized is that those who oppose marriage equality, in their attempt to do so without sounding like religious idiots generally promote a best (in their opinion) case scenario for heterosexual marriage against a worst case scenario for gay marriage. Of course what they can't do is demonstrate why it's any of their business if two people of the same sex get married and enjoy equal status in that marriage to heterosexuals. Instead, the bigots jump through hoops to try to justify their position which is simply and inarguably based in what has to be deliberate ignorance.

Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

AmPat
03-06-2012, 01:11 PM
Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

Projection? Thy name is Novaidiot.

Eupher
03-06-2012, 01:41 PM
What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum.

The rest snipped.

Far be it from me to intrude on yet another advocate for homosexual "marriage", but I'm intrigued by this statement.

You mean to say that there is no "normal" or statistical "average" when examining heterosexual marriage and monogamy?

BadCat
03-06-2012, 02:01 PM
What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum. All I have ever emphasized is that those who oppose marriage equality, in their attempt to do so without sounding like religious idiots generally promote a best (in their opinion) case scenario for heterosexual marriage against a worst case scenario for gay marriage. Of course what they can't do is demonstrate why it's any of their business if two people of the same sex get married and enjoy equal status in that marriage to heterosexuals. Instead, the bigots jump through hoops to try to justify their position which is simply and inarguably based in what has to be deliberate ignorance.

Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

Did you get a new thesaurus, princess?

DumbAss Tanker
03-06-2012, 03:41 PM
What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum. All I have ever emphasized is that those who oppose marriage equality, in their attempt to do so without sounding like religious idiots generally promote a best (in their opinion) case scenario for heterosexual marriage against a worst case scenario for gay marriage. Of course what they can't do is demonstrate why it's any of their business if two people of the same sex get married and enjoy equal status in that marriage to heterosexuals. Instead, the bigots jump through hoops to try to justify their position which is simply and inarguably based in what has to be deliberate ignorance.

Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

You're pretty free with the runaway generalizations, absolutisms, conclusory statements, and ad hominem attacks yourself. And that's in addition to the fundamental straw man flaw you constructed into your argument, which omits any economic policy or property rights considerations from your opponents' positions.

Apache
03-06-2012, 04:21 PM
Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

the man hag speaks of ignorance? that's rich!

Novaheart
03-06-2012, 07:11 PM
Far be it from me to intrude on yet another advocate for homosexual "marriage", but I'm intrigued by this statement.

You mean to say that there is no "normal" or statistical "average" when examining heterosexual marriage and monogamy?

As I said, in this case normal is a spectrum. A statistical average really wouldn't tell you anything useful as a chart showing the spectrum would. If your point is that a minority of heterosexual couples are monogamous but it's still more than gay couples, then you would need to explain the legal and practical relevance of that.

Novaheart
03-06-2012, 07:14 PM
Projection? Thy name is Novaidiot.


Did you get a new thesaurus, princess?


the man hag speaks of ignorance? that's rich!

See, Ody?

Elspeth
03-06-2012, 08:45 PM
Do you consider Bill Maher to be a legitimate political commentator? He's a comedian who makes political jokes on a network in which he isn't censored. I don't expect him to apologize to Rush or Rush to apologize to him for anything either one says. Except for Maher's profanity, he and Rush are really not so different in any way except their political leanings. They're both blowhards and druggies, they just have different drugs of choice.


You just made me think of Maher's comment (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/12/bill-maher-sparks-calls-for-hbo-boycott-following-tim-tebow-tweet.html) about Tim Tebow. Maher is definitely the left's Rush and yet no one on the left called him out on his anti-Tebow and anti-God comment.

Novaheart
03-07-2012, 11:04 AM
You just made me think of Maher's comment (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/12/bill-maher-sparks-calls-for-hbo-boycott-following-tim-tebow-tweet.html) about Tim Tebow. Maher is definitely the left's Rush and yet no one on the left called him out on his anti-Tebow and anti-God comment.

Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.

BadCat
03-07-2012, 11:18 AM
Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.

How would you know a real woman if you met one?

Eupher
03-07-2012, 11:25 AM
As I said, in this case normal is a spectrum. A statistical average really wouldn't tell you anything useful as a chart showing the spectrum would. If your point is that a minority of heterosexual couples are monogamous but it's still more than gay couples, then you would need to explain the legal and practical relevance of that.

Generally speaking, identifying a statistical average is a beginning point in determining trends and other statistical-related analyses. It can go much further than that and usually does.

The term "normal" as applied here, I believe, indicates an average. We could debate the term "average" all day long, but it is what it is -- unless you have some other kind of definition for it.

It's really not complicated. The term "spectrum" appears to inject complexity where none is needed.

As to conclusions regarding heterosexual/homosexual couples and what their monogamy rates are, I'm not discussing that whatsoever. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Let me get to the point -- on what basis do you make this claim:


I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum.

Do you have some sort of data that says that homo/hetero couples' monogamy rates achieve a statistical minority? In other words, that most people in a committed, legal marriage routinely have sex outside of their relationship?

That's a pretty definitive data point there, seems to me.

I'd like to see where what you're basing that statement on -- a link to a credible source would be appreciated.

Bailey
03-07-2012, 11:30 AM
Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.



Ok twinkly toes whatever you say. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
03-07-2012, 11:37 AM
What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual.

And yet, whenever the bad behavior of gays in public is pointed out, such as at Gay Pride parades, you immediately tell us that they are not the norm.


As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum. All I have ever emphasized is that those who oppose marriage equality, in their attempt to do so without sounding like religious idiots generally promote a best (in their opinion) case scenario for heterosexual marriage against a worst case scenario for gay marriage. Of course what they can't do is demonstrate why it's any of their business if two people of the same sex get married and enjoy equal status in that marriage to heterosexuals. Instead, the bigots jump through hoops to try to justify their position which is simply and inarguably based in what has to be deliberate ignorance.

We keep demonstrating why it's not a good idea, but you keep pretending otherwise. First, despite your claims to the contrary, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not simply alternatives of equal consequence. By every standard, the physical and mental longterm health of gays suffers from the effects of the lifestyle choices that they make, and the elimination of marital fidelity as a norm (and whether you admit it or not, is it the norm in marriages, but not in gay relationships) creates huge stresses on families. Second, by redefining marriage to mean whatever you happen to want it to mean when it is convenient for you, you establish that it can be further redefined. Just as in DADT repeal, other groups have decided to use the same rhetoric to advance their cases. The polygamists, both religious and secular, are beginning to file suits to permit recognition of their "marriages" (Britain already has de facto recognition of Islamic polygamy in their welfare and immigration policies).


Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

Seriously? That's your argument? That I'm seeking approval and therefore ignoring my own reason? That I'm more concerned with being liked than I am with thinking? What an imbecilic and pathetic attempt at an ad hominem attack. You've got it exactly backwards. I was raised in NYC, and saw the gay lifestyle up close. I don't particularly care what people do to themselves, but I don't have to support it or give it equal standing. A marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to have a relationship that doesn't meet that standard? Fine, but it's not a marriage. Deal with it.


You just made me think of Maher's comment (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/12/bill-maher-sparks-calls-for-hbo-boycott-following-tim-tebow-tweet.html) about Tim Tebow. Maher is definitely the left's Rush and yet no one on the left called him out on his anti-Tebow and anti-God comment.

Maher is insulated by several things. First, the MSM agrees with him. They won't take him to task. Second, there is no gain for the left by calling him out, because he is part of the left, and they almost never criticize their own. Finally, his show is on a subscription network that doesn't seek advertising. As long as HBO doesn't start losing subscribers because of Maher, he'll be guaranteed a slot.


Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.

Sandra Fluke is a fraud. She's not a student, she's a professional activist who went looking for this fight. Her argument, that Republicans want to deny her access to birth control, is a lie. Tim Tebow is real, and whether or not you agree with his faith, the treatment that he has received by the likes of Maher is vile. Fortunately for Maher, Tebow is too decent a guy to respond to him, and Maher isn't the kind of guy who can stand up to a professional football player in a one-on-one confrontation.

txradioguy
03-07-2012, 11:51 AM
Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.


Prove it.

Novaheart
03-07-2012, 12:18 PM
Let me get to the point -- on what basis do you make this claim:



Do you have some sort of data that says that homo/hetero couples' monogamy rates achieve a statistical minority? In other words, that most people in a committed, legal marriage routinely have sex outside of their relationship?

That's a pretty definitive data point there, seems to me.

I'd like to see where what you're basing that statement on -- a link to a credible source would be appreciated.

In the initial request you ask me to link to a credible source to confirm my statement that monogamous couples are a statistical minority, but in the bolded you have changed the terminology to "routinely have sex outside" which is not the definition of monogamy. Just pointing that out. Here is a link to a credible source pertinent to the first request.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html

It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart; also see, who is likely to cheat).

Rockntractor
03-07-2012, 12:35 PM
In the initial request you ask me to link to a credible source to confirm my statement that monogamous couples are a statistical minority, but in the bolded you have changed the terminology to "routinely have sex outside" which is not the definition of monogamy. Just pointing that out. Here is a link to a credible source pertinent to the first request.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html

It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart; also see, who is likely to cheat).

Your Tango an online dating service, I guess as reliable source as any, perhaps more accurate and honest than psychology or psychiatry.

Odysseus
03-07-2012, 12:36 PM
In the initial request you ask me to link to a credible source to confirm my statement that monogamous couples are a statistical minority, but in the bolded you have changed the terminology to "routinely have sex outside" which is not the definition of monogamy. Just pointing that out. Here is a link to a credible source pertinent to the first request.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html

It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart; also see, who is likely to cheat).

That's an absurdly broad statistic (I can still say "broad", can't I? I don't want to have to apologize to Sandra Fluke). It's literally a 30% margin of error, and could indicate an overwhelming majority or minority, or any number in between. Try again.

Rockntractor
03-07-2012, 12:40 PM
That's an absurdly broad statistic (I can still say "broad", can't I? I don't want to have to apologize to Sandra Fluke). It's literally a 30% margin of error, and could indicate an overwhelming majority or minority, or any number in between. Try again.

Kind of like "I heard it in a bar", which I still would trust more than modern psychology or psychiatry.

Rockntractor
03-07-2012, 12:42 PM
If you want to know all about marriage ask your resident rump ranger, whatever!http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0022.gif

Novaheart
03-07-2012, 12:44 PM
Your Tango an online dating service, I guess as reliable source as any, perhaps more accurate and honest than psychology or psychiatry.

The study was referenced. Here is the reference:


Although extramarital sex may be the marital activ-
ity most often cloaked in secrecy, empirical estimates of affairs over the
course of a marriage range from 30 to 60% for men and from 20 to 50% for
women (Glass & Wright, 1992; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey,
Pomoroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Hunt, 1974; Athanasiou, Shaver, &
Tavris, 1970; Levin, 1975; Petersen, 1983). Estimates of the combined prob-
ability that at least one member of a married couple will have an affair over
the course of a marriage range from 40 to 76% (Thompson, 1983). Estimates
of infidelity over the course of a single year of marriage, however, obviously
yield lower estimates such as 5% (e.g., Greeley, 1991). A conservative inter-
pretation of these figures suggests that although perhaps half of all married
couples remain monogamous, the other half will experience an infidelity over
the course of a marriage. Thus, a critical theoretical and practical issue is
what predicts who has affairs and who remains maritally faithful.
Gender is the most consistent previously established predictor of infidelity.
As the above statistics indicate, more men than women have affairs. Among
those men and women who do have affairs, men typically have affairs with
a greater number of partners than do women (Lawson, 1988). Men who have
affairs are more likely to do so without emotional involvement, whereas
women’s affairs are more often accompanied by emotional involvement
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Glass & Wright, 1985). Gender is also linked
with the sequelae of infidelity. A woman’s infidelity is more likely to lead
to divorce than is a man’s infidelity, across a variety of cultures (Betzig,
1989). Women whose husbands have affairs report that they are more willing
to forgive their partner than are men whose wives have affairs (Lawson,
1988). Finally, men are more likely than women to see their own extramarital
sex as justified and experience less guilt when they engage in it (Johnson,
1970; Athanasiou et al., 1970; Spanier & Margolis, 1983).

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/susceptibility%20to%20infidelity-jrp-1997.pdf

SPYDER
03-07-2012, 12:46 PM
The study was referenced. Here is the reference:


Although extramarital sex may be the marital activ-
ity most often cloaked in secrecy, empirical estimates of affairs over the
course of a marriage range from 30 to 60% for men and from 20 to 50% for
women (Glass & Wright, 1992; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey,
Pomoroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Hunt, 1974; Athanasiou, Shaver, &
Tavris, 1970; Levin, 1975; Petersen, 1983). Estimates of the combined prob-
ability that at least one member of a married couple will have an affair over
the course of a marriage range from 40 to 76% (Thompson, 1983). Estimates
of infidelity over the course of a single year of marriage, however, obviously
yield lower estimates such as 5% (e.g., Greeley, 1991). A conservative inter-
pretation of these figures suggests that although perhaps half of all married
couples remain monogamous, the other half will experience an infidelity over
the course of a marriage. Thus, a critical theoretical and practical issue is
what predicts who has affairs and who remains maritally faithful.
Gender is the most consistent previously established predictor of infidelity.
As the above statistics indicate, more men than women have affairs. Among
those men and women who do have affairs, men typically have affairs with
a greater number of partners than do women (Lawson, 1988). Men who have
affairs are more likely to do so without emotional involvement, whereas
women’s affairs are more often accompanied by emotional involvement
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Glass & Wright, 1985). Gender is also linked
with the sequelae of infidelity. A woman’s infidelity is more likely to lead
to divorce than is a man’s infidelity, across a variety of cultures (Betzig,
1989). Women whose husbands have affairs report that they are more willing
to forgive their partner than are men whose wives have affairs (Lawson,
1988). Finally, men are more likely than women to see their own extramarital
sex as justified and experience less guilt when they engage in it (Johnson,
1970; Athanasiou et al., 1970; Spanier & Margolis, 1983).

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/susceptibility%20to%20infidelity-jrp-1997.pdf

Best stop grasping at straws!! Ya bound to slip!

Eupher
03-07-2012, 12:47 PM
In the initial request you ask me to link to a credible source to confirm my statement that monogamous couples are a statistical minority, but in the bolded you have changed the terminology to "routinely have sex outside" which is not the definition of monogamy. Just pointing that out. Here is a link to a credible source pertinent to the first request.

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html

It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side, when you consider that close to half of all marriages end in divorce (people are more likely to stray as relationships fall apart; also see, who is likely to cheat).

The terminology change, as such, was not meant to provide or to cite the definition of the term "monogamy". I think we're all conversant enough to know what that word means -- unless you want to parse words, which is not an interest of mine.

In your link, which appears to be well-sourced, there is a sub-link to a WSJ article that states that for married persons under 30, the infidelity rate for men is at 19% and for women at 13% (2006 data). These rates are substantially higher than they were in 1991, so the article goes on to explain the researchers' conclusions as to why.

I find this interesting, only because since demographic data (loosely framed) suggest that since people are getting married later in life than perhaps 20-30 years ago, there shouldn't appear to be as large an impact on the entire married population as a subset that is numerically smaller, but nonetheless appears to be driving the overall infidelity rate higher.

How do you equate this to homosexual "married" couples? Or, perhaps better framed, how do you equate your earlier assertion that homosexual partners do not remain monogamous?

Also of interest is this list of Buss & Shackelford's references:


Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press.
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston : Allyn and Bacon.
Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (Second Edition). New York : Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 193-221.



How do you explain that the premise of the article quoted by you, i.e., 30% - 60% of married individuals in the U.S. are likely to cheat (based on 2006 data) is not supported by the Buss & Shackelford's references? Buss & Shackelford's list of references are not dated as recently as 2006 -- the most recent is 2003.

In fact, a quick scan of that extensive reference list shows only ONE entry from 2006. The rest are dated earlier. This may or may not be an issue, but it does cause me to dig a little deeper.

And finally, from the web site "Truth and Deception" itself, from the "About Us" page:


We are a group of scholars, scientists, and working professions (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/site-info-and-resources/about-us.html#) interested in sharing information about why people lie to, and cheat on, those they love. More importantly, all of the articles provided on our site are written by someone who has a PhD in one of the social sciences.
Personally, we have all been deeply hurt by a loved one who has betrayed our trust. http://c0001069.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/leaf.jpg

Professionally, our jobs (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/site-info-and-resources/about-us.html#) provide us with the opportunity to investigate deception in everyday life - we work as scholars or have served as consultants (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/site-info-and-resources/about-us.html#) to the security industry. Over the years we have had a unique opportunity (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/site-info-and-resources/about-us.html#) to think about why people are so willing to betray those they love.
We created this website to share with you what we have discovered - the "Truth about Deception (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/)"
We hope you find our website useful and informative. Please feel free to contact us (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/site-info-and-resources/contact-us.html) with any questions or comments or provide us some feedback (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/site-info-and-resources/comments-and-feedback.html).
For more information about us and what we are trying to do, please see a question from a viewer and our response (http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/community-features/ask-an-expert/questions-by-topic/about-website/379-i-find-this-website-offensive.html) to it.


Bolded emphasis mine. I'm not terribly convinced that the presenters of this information are wholly unbiased.

Novaheart
03-07-2012, 12:47 PM
If you want to know all about marriage ask your resident rump ranger, whatever!http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/indifferent/indifferent0022.gif

Grow up.

Novaheart
03-07-2012, 12:48 PM
At $ 3,000 a year for BC, Ms.Fluke is spending $ 8.21 a day. .

She didn't say $3000 a year.

Novaheart
03-07-2012, 01:00 PM
And yet, whenever the bad behavior of gays in public is pointed out, such as at Gay Pride parades, you immediately tell us that they are not the norm. .

Your lack of reading comprehension and retention is annoying. Because I always tell the truth, I don't have any trouble remembering what I have said. Gay people acting out at Pride is not average or even common behavior by any calculation relative to the number of people at Pride who are not acting out or being outrageous. It is present at almost every gay pride parade (and I have never denied that it is), but you have to look past thousands of people in khaki shorts and polo shirts for every guy in a silver plated jock strap. I have also pointed out that outrageous behavior is not limited to gay themed parades or street festivals.

Rockntractor
03-07-2012, 01:08 PM
Grow up.

I'm a realist, a pragmatist, relying on a homosexual for advise on procreation and marriage, is absurd to put it nicely.

Apache
03-07-2012, 02:04 PM
Your lack of reading comprehension and retention is annoying...

and yours is worse...
empirical estimates
Estimates of the combined prob-
ability
perhaps
theoretical

none of these words, which your article was full of, go anywhere close to proving squat.

while i'm at it, what the fuck is this crap about ody "so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe ", bullshit? he's pinned your ears back so many times you look like you're in a perpetual hurricane... the only one's seeking acceptance are you and hai. you two normaphobes take swipes at our beliefs, traditions and way of life so as to make yourselves appear bigger... clue princess, you lost.

BadCat
03-07-2012, 02:40 PM
Hey princess...why don't YOU write the slut a check for her birth control?

Post a copy of the cancelled check when you do.

AmPat
03-07-2012, 02:43 PM
She didn't say $3000 a year.
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.
http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=womensissues&cdn=newsissues&tm=56&f=00&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk
Sounds like she is including herself in this monumental lie to me!

Apache
03-07-2012, 02:53 PM
Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.

yet homos are 'normal'... whatever princess

AmPat
03-07-2012, 04:52 PM
yet homos are 'normal'... whatever princess
He's probably an expert on condoms and the annual cost.:vomit:

Odysseus
03-07-2012, 04:54 PM
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.
http://womensissues.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=womensissues&cdn=newsissues&tm=56&f=00&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//littlegreenfootballs.com/page/271051_Full_Transcript_of_Sandra_Fluk
Sounds like she is including herself in this monumental lie to me!

Having read that statement, I think that Rush shouldn't have apologized. Law school takes three years, so we're looking at about $1,000 per year for birth control. Wal-Mart advertises Trojan Ultra Thin Lubricated Condoms, 36 ct for $11.33, or roughly 31 cents apiece. Her $3,000 figure would buy 3,228 condoms per year over three years, or 8.8 condoms per day. Even if we round it down to eight sexual encounters per day, I'd be amazed that she had time for anything else, like studying. Clearly, she has a problem, and we need to see if Obamacare covers treatment for nymphomania or sex addiction, otherwise it's just enabling her issues.

Rockntractor
03-07-2012, 05:16 PM
Having read that statement, I think that Rush shouldn't have apologized. Law school takes three years, so we're looking at about $1,000 per year for birth control. Wal-Mart advertises Trojan Ultra Thin Lubricated Condoms, 36 ct for $11.33, or roughly 31 cents apiece. Her $3,000 figure would buy 3,228 condoms per year over three years, or 8.8 condoms per day. Even if we round it down to eight sexual encounters per day, I'd be amazed that she had time for anything else, like studying. Clearly, she has a problem, and we need to see if Obamacare covers treatment for nymphomania or sex addiction, otherwise it's just enabling her issues.

She is a lesbian, we should be looking at how many spit babies this prevented!

Odysseus
03-07-2012, 05:27 PM
She is a lesbian, we should be looking at how many spit babies this prevented!

She must be in high demand with that forked tongue of hers. Another lie has been exposed:


Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month
There is no birth control crisis.

John McCormack
February 28, 2012 3:29 PM


Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university's policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills--the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen--for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can't afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate's supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.


And, it turns out that she has a history of shutting down pro-life speech:


IN THE DAYS AFTER the death of Andrew Breitbart, perhaps the question can be phrased this way: "What would Andrew do?" Well, first, he would suggest you go to one of his sites to learn the facts -- and in this case a very interesting fact about Sandra Fluke's view of free speech. Here's the link (http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/02/29/hypocrisy-on-capitol-hill-deconstructing-a-dishonest-speech-about-birth-control/) at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government where you will find this opening in a story by Charles Johnson:

As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra Fluke, helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell's campus by counter protesting. She argued that a pro-life organization at Cornell was about "manipulating [students'] emotions" with misleading statistics about abortion. But when it is her turn to speak on Capitol Hill, the third-year Georgetown Law Student demands she gets her say in a hearing that has nothing to do with birth control.
Well, well, well. So Sandra Fluke has a record of denying free speech to others? In addition to giving a pass to Mr. Ed on the slut business? Free speech for Sandra Fluke but not Rush Limbaugh or those pro-lifers at Cornell? Interesting, yes? Hypocritical and thuggish, definitely. She also walked out in protest of the congressional hearing where supporters of religious liberty were allowed to speak. It turns out, as reported here (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/meet-law-student-and-contraception-advocate-sandra-fluke/), that Fluke is no struggling law student -- she's already a professional far-left genderist, long deeply into the leftist scam of judging others by skin color or gender.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/05/rally-for-rush

AmPat
03-07-2012, 06:44 PM
She must be in high demand with that forked tongue of hers. Another lie has been exposed:

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month
There is no birth control crisis.

John McCormack
February 28, 2012 3:29 PM


Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university's policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills--the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen--for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can't afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate's supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.


And, it turns out that she has a history of shutting down pro-life speech:

IN THE DAYS AFTER the death of Andrew Breitbart, perhaps the question can be phrased this way: "What would Andrew do?" Well, first, he would suggest you go to one of his sites to learn the facts -- and in this case a very interesting fact about Sandra Fluke's view of free speech. Here's the link (http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/02/29/hypocrisy-on-capitol-hill-deconstructing-a-dishonest-speech-about-birth-control/) at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government where you will find this opening in a story by Charles Johnson:

As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra Fluke, helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell's campus by counter protesting. She argued that a pro-life organization at Cornell was about "manipulating [students'] emotions" with misleading statistics about abortion. But when it is her turn to speak on Capitol Hill, the third-year Georgetown Law Student demands she gets her say in a hearing that has nothing to do with birth control.

Well, well, well. So Sandra Fluke has a record of denying free speech to others? In addition to giving a pass to Mr. Ed on the slut business? Free speech for Sandra Fluke but not Rush Limbaugh or those pro-lifers at Cornell? Interesting, yes? Hypocritical and thuggish, definitely. She also walked out in protest of the congressional hearing where supporters of religious liberty were allowed to speak. It turns out, as reported here (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/meet-law-student-and-contraception-advocate-sandra-fluke/), that Fluke is no struggling law student -- she's already a professional far-left genderist, long deeply into the leftist scam of judging others by skin color or gender.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/05/rally-for-rush
One could make a strong case that she is indeed a slut as Rush suggested based on her own words. A better case, and rock solid, is that she is a damn liar and a liberal tool. She should be labeled a liar and ignored. Any reference to her should be as "That Liar."

Apache
03-07-2012, 07:48 PM
...and the msm says....

CueSi
03-07-2012, 11:20 PM
Sandra Fluke is real. Women are real. God isn't real.

She's a real PERSON, but her story. . . not entirely. When I was in college, I paid about $15 a month for Orthotricyclin-Lo. Right now. . . I'm not as big of a fan of hormonal shifts that The Pill brings - - I pay about $10 for an 18 pack of contraceptive suppositories, and NOTHING for 10 Crown Brand condoms (I have a valid ID to my local uni and can get some that way, along with the fact that the local gay sports bar has a fucking bowl of 'em by the bathroom). Those last me about 2 months when I'm in a relationship, longer or shorter if I'm not. So, that's how I know she's a goddamn liar, if nothing else. The sponge is probably the only way I could see $3K being spent over 4/8 years. $17 for a pack of 3 from your local CVS. The Sponge is awesome, though. :p Wouldn't blame her for using them, but not with my money.

Women being real. I know your sister exists. I don't want to meet her as badly as I'd like to meet you.

And as to God. I've experienced Him. Not my fault if you haven't. :cool:

~QC

Odysseus
03-07-2012, 11:58 PM
She's a real PERSON, but her story. . . not entirely. When I was in college, I paid about $15 a month for Orthotricyclin-Lo. Right now. . . I'm not as big of a fan of hormonal shifts that The Pill brings - - I pay about $10 for an 18 pack of contraceptive suppositories, and NOTHING for 10 Crown Brand condoms (I have a valid ID to my local uni and can get some that way, along with the fact that the local gay sports bar has a fucking bowl of 'em by the bathroom). Those last me about 2 months when I'm in a relationship, longer or shorter if I'm not. So, that's how I know she's a goddamn liar, if nothing else. The sponge is probably the only way I could see $3K being spent over 4/8 years. $17 for a pack of 3 from your local CVS. The Sponge is awesome, though. :p Wouldn't blame her for using them, but not with my money.

Women being real. I know your sister exists. I don't want to meet her as badly as I'd like to meet you.

And as to God. I've experienced Him. Not my fault if you haven't. :cool:

~QC

Maybe she knows a lot of spongeworthy guys...? :biggrin-new:

Zathras
03-08-2012, 12:00 AM
Maybe she knows a lot of spongeworthy guys...? :biggrin-new:

Who live in a pineapple under the sea?

CueSi
03-08-2012, 12:17 AM
Maybe she knows a lot of spongeworthy guys...? :biggrin-new:

Dude, no guy under the age of 30 is worthy of a sponge. EVER.

~QC

txradioguy
03-08-2012, 04:38 AM
She didn't say $3000 a year.

Yes she did.


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.



And entire summer's salary = $3,000 a year...her words.

http://current.com/1mhv4kc

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071509/-What-Sandra-Fluke-said-

Bailey
03-08-2012, 07:25 AM
Someone once said that if a man can have a lot of sexual partners so can a woman but a wise man once said that if one key can open many locks they call it a master key. On the flip side that if one lock can be open by many keys we call that a shitty lock.

DumbAss Tanker
03-08-2012, 10:31 AM
Yes she did.



And entire summer's salary = $3,000 a year...her words.

http://current.com/1mhv4kc

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071509/-What-Sandra-Fluke-said-

Law school is three years for most, TRG.

txradioguy
03-08-2012, 10:34 AM
Law school is three years for most, TRG.

Understood...but to read the way Fluke is describing things...it's costing her an "entire summer's salary" for birth control. A number she seems to pin at $3,000

AmPat
03-08-2012, 10:55 AM
Law school is three years for most, TRG.


She must be in high demand with that forked tongue of hers. Another lie has been exposed:

Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month
There is no birth control crisis.



Yes she did.

And entire summer's salary = $3,000 a year...her words.

- (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071509/-What-Sandra-Fluke-said-)
I guess her tally for three years is $9,000. That's a lot of recreational sex. I bet you could park a truck ,,,,,uh, never mind.:redface:

Rockntractor
03-08-2012, 11:47 AM
[/INDENT]

I guess her tally for three years is $9,000. That's a lot of recreational sex. I bet you could park a truck ,,,,,uh, never mind.:redface:

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/IMG_1323-large.jpg

DumbAss Tanker
03-08-2012, 01:23 PM
Understood...but to read the way Fluke is describing things...it's costing her an "entire summer's salary" for birth control. A number she seems to pin at $3,000

I believe almost everyone else is taking that to mean the $3,000 dollars she claims birth control would cost over three years is equivalent to the entire amount she or her peers would earn as an intern in one Summer.

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 02:16 PM
I believe almost everyone else is taking that to mean the $3,000 dollars she claims birth control would cost over three years is equivalent to the entire amount she or her peers would earn as an intern in one Summer.

I don't see why she's complaining. She's getting three years of sex for a summer internship. Outside of the Clinton White House, interns don't ususally get anything like that. :biggrin-new:

Apache
03-08-2012, 02:46 PM
I don't see why she's complaining. She's getting three years of sex for a summer internship. Outside of the Clinton White House, interns don't ususally get anything like that. :biggrin-new:

crouching intern...hidden cigar :onthego:

Dan D. Doty
03-08-2012, 04:41 PM
She must be in high demand with that forked tongue of hers. Another lie has been exposed:


Georgetown Students Go Broke to Buy Birth Control? Target Sells Pills for $9 Per Month
There is no birth control crisis.

John McCormack
February 28, 2012 3:29 PM


Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing on Monday with a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for Obamacare to mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university's policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

But Fluke's testimony was very misleading. Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus. According to an employee at the pharmacy in Washington, D.C.'s Target store, the pharmacy sells birth control pills--the generic versions of Ortho Tri-Cyclen and Ortho-Cyclen--for $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the Target employee said. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar.

It strains credulity to believe that a single Georgetown student can't afford $9 per month for birth control. But this is the justification the mandate's supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions.


And, it turns out that she has a history of shutting down pro-life speech:


IN THE DAYS AFTER the death of Andrew Breitbart, perhaps the question can be phrased this way: "What would Andrew do?" Well, first, he would suggest you go to one of his sites to learn the facts -- and in this case a very interesting fact about Sandra Fluke's view of free speech. Here's the link (http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/02/29/hypocrisy-on-capitol-hill-deconstructing-a-dishonest-speech-about-birth-control/) at Andrew Breitbart's Big Government where you will find this opening in a story by Charles Johnson:

As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra Fluke, helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell's campus by counter protesting. She argued that a pro-life organization at Cornell was about "manipulating [students'] emotions" with misleading statistics about abortion. But when it is her turn to speak on Capitol Hill, the third-year Georgetown Law Student demands she gets her say in a hearing that has nothing to do with birth control.
Well, well, well. So Sandra Fluke has a record of denying free speech to others? In addition to giving a pass to Mr. Ed on the slut business? Free speech for Sandra Fluke but not Rush Limbaugh or those pro-lifers at Cornell? Interesting, yes? Hypocritical and thuggish, definitely. She also walked out in protest of the congressional hearing where supporters of religious liberty were allowed to speak. It turns out, as reported here (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/03/meet-law-student-and-contraception-advocate-sandra-fluke/), that Fluke is no struggling law student -- she's already a professional far-left genderist, long deeply into the leftist scam of judging others by skin color or gender.
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/05/rally-for-rush

Fantastic :biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

Gets things back on subject and takes the fight to the Moonbats :cool:

DumbAss Tanker
03-08-2012, 04:48 PM
I don't see why she's complaining. She's getting three years of sex for a summer internship. Outside of the Clinton White House, interns don't ususally get anything like that. :biggrin-new:

Well, it was incorrect to call her a prostitute or slut (Or, actually, leave the ultimate conclusion to the listener by posing a bit of a false premise), but he should have called her "Dangerously fertile" if she needed 10 times the normal amount of money BCPs would've cost her for her entire matriculation. Are we paying to prevent her nesting and laying the eggs of an alien army that would destroy us? If so, mayber 3 Grand isn't too much to ask!

:single_eye:

Odysseus
03-08-2012, 07:09 PM
Well, it was incorrect to call her a prostitute or slut (Or, actually, leave the ultimate conclusion to the listener by posing a bit of a false premise), but he should have called her "Dangerously fertile" if she needed 10 times the normal amount of money BCPs would've cost her for her entire matriculation. Are we paying to prevent her nesting and laying the eggs of an alien army that would destroy us? If so, mayber 3 Grand isn't too much to ask!

:single_eye:

Good point. Clearly, she's going to end up living in a shoe with so many children that she didn't know what to do.

Novaheart
03-09-2012, 01:32 AM
How do you equate this to homosexual "married" couples? Or, perhaps better framed, how do you equate your earlier assertion that homosexual partners do not remain monogamous?

Sorry, when people put married in quotation marks for gay couple who are actually married, the conversation stops. It's insulting.

Apache
03-09-2012, 02:57 AM
Sorry, when people put married in quotation marks for gay couple who are actually married, the conversation stops. It's insulting.

i agree... gay 'marriage' is insulting. but then you already know that.

Odysseus
03-09-2012, 10:24 AM
Sorry, when people put married in quotation marks for gay couple who are actually married, the conversation stops. It's insulting.

If a cat has kittens in an oven, using quotes when you call them "biscuits" isn't insulting. You want to pretend otherwise, but facts are stubborn things.

AmPat
03-09-2012, 10:33 AM
If a cat has kittens in an oven, using quotes when you call them "biscuits" isn't insulting. You want to pretend otherwise, but facts are stubborn things.
Isn't Bahney Fwanks "Mahweed" now?:apologetic:

Lanie
03-09-2012, 04:49 PM
yes princess. and unlike you, those who actually LISTEN to rush will take the CONTEXT into account. you lefties hear words, to hell with the context.....

as for the 'mere days ago' comment, b/w has been around for years. please, try and keep up

I heard the context. If you want to disagree with the idea of a woman's birth control being paid for by her Jesuit school, then fine. There are more classy, pro-woman ways to express that opinion. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

AmPat
03-09-2012, 05:06 PM
I heard the context. If you want to disagree with the idea of a woman's birth control being paid for by her Jesuit school, then fine. There are more classy, pro-woman ways to express that opinion. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
OK, I get it. The use of the word Slut to describe her was over the top because it was spoken by a Conservative. Check!
How do you feel about "Skank?":cool:

Apache
03-09-2012, 09:03 PM
I heard the context. If you want to disagree with the idea of a woman's birth control being paid for by her Jesuit school, then fine. There are more classy, pro-woman ways to express that opinion. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

maybe so lanie, maybe so. there are also more honest ways of presenting one's 'self' to a hearing....

parading around as a 23 year old 'co-ed' who can't afford birth control, instead of a feminist, leftist, anti-religious partisan hack with a big government solution (to which there is no problem) really worked didn't it?

Lanie
03-10-2012, 11:22 AM
OK, I get it. The use of the word Slut to describe her was over the top because it was spoken by a Conservative. Check!
How do you feel about "Skank?":cool:

Do you have an intelligence to you? No, that's not okay. That's also reserved for women.

The hilarious thing about this is that probably 99% of the conservative men here probably didn't wait until marriage to have sex, making you as much of a "skank" as her, but let's pretend that's not true.

I suppose having so much sex isn't the problem. If she was a conservative woman having sex before marriage, it wouldn't be a
problem at all. The problem is that she doesn't know her place.

Novaheart
03-10-2012, 11:22 AM
If a cat has kittens in an oven, using quotes when you call them "biscuits" isn't insulting. You want to pretend otherwise, but facts are stubborn things.

Kittens aren't biscuits. Gay couples married by the state in which they reside are as married as you are, and soon the federal government will have to recognize those marriages as it does yours.

Novaheart
03-10-2012, 11:23 AM
Do you have an intelligence to you? No, that's not okay. That's also reserved for women.

The hilarious thing about this is that probably 99% of the conservative men here probably didn't wait until marriage to have sex, making you as much of a "skank" as her, but let's pretend that's not true.



Good job.

Rockntractor
03-10-2012, 11:32 AM
Kittens aren't biscuits. Gay couples married by the state in which they reside are as married as you are, and soon the federal government will have to recognize those marriages as it does yours.

Most gay men are promiscuous sluts and have no interest in marriage anyway.

Adam Wood
03-10-2012, 12:10 PM
Do you have an intelligence to you? No, that's not okay. That's also reserved for women.

The hilarious thing about this is that probably 99% of the conservative men here probably didn't wait until marriage to have sex, making you as much of a "skank" as her, but let's pretend that's not true.

I suppose having so much sex isn't the problem. If she was a conservative woman having sex before marriage, it wouldn't be a
problem at all. The problem is that she doesn't know her place.The problem is that she expects other people to pay for her reckless behavior. I don't give a damn if she wants to sleep with the entirety of the Redskins team, including the cheerleaders and training staff, at the same time. That's her business. But she's expecting someone else to pay for her pregnancy prevention while she does this. And as soon as that happens, then it is my business. She needs to by her own damned Ortho tri Cycline if the purpose for it is to prevent pregnancy. She has an inalienable right to sleep with whomever she wants, so long as it does not run afoul of things like legal age statutes and such. She does not have some God-given right to sleep with people and have me pay for it. She has the legal right to buy all of the contraception that she wants, but she doesn't have any right to use the force of government to make other people give her that contraception.

AmPat
03-10-2012, 12:18 PM
Do you have an intelligence to you? No, that's not okay. That's also reserved for women.
You'll have to decide that on your own if you have the intelligence to do it. I don't believe you'd like the results of a CU poll as to which one of us is more inteligent.

The hilarious thing about this is that probably 99% of the conservative men here probably didn't wait until marriage to have sex, making you as much of a "skank" as her, but let's pretend that's not true.
You are correct and I'm not proud of it. I have suffered the shame, consequences and regrets for my promiscuity. The difference between me and the Skank in question is obvious to "intelligent" people. She went public with her skankiness and is merely a skanky political tool.

I suppose having so much sex isn't the problem. If she was a conservative woman having sex before marriage, it wouldn't be a problem at all. The problem is that she doesn't know her place.

Wrong again! A Skank is a Skank, pure and simple. She isn't an innocent victim that is being attacked for "not knowing her place." That is a lie and if you embrace that lie, what do you think that makes you? Hmmmm, Hurts huh? She is a tool of the liberal left. That too is simple logic. She attempted to pass herself off as something that she is not. That should have been contempt of Congress, and she should be prosecuted for perjury. Her "place" is at school and graduate. If she wants to be a political tool, she needs to be up front and not masquerade as an innocent little student who is too poor to afford birth control.

Novaheart
03-10-2012, 01:46 PM
Most gay men are promiscuous sluts and have no interest in marriage anyway.

To whatever degree that is true, it's 100% irrelevant.

Novaheart
03-10-2012, 01:49 PM
The problem is that she expects other people to pay for her reckless behavior. I don't give a damn if she wants to sleep with the entirety of the Redskins team, including the cheerleaders and training staff, at the same time. That's her business. But she's expecting someone else to pay for her pregnancy prevention while she does this. And as soon as that happens, then it is my business. She needs to by her own damned Ortho tri Cycline if the purpose for it is to prevent pregnancy. She has an inalienable right to sleep with whomever she wants, so long as it does not run afoul of things like legal age statutes and such. She does not have some God-given right to sleep with people and have me pay for it. She has the legal right to buy all of the contraception that she wants, but she doesn't have any right to use the force of government to make other people give her that contraception.

My position is that "the pill" and similar medications should be treated like any other medication. I understand the social imperative to making birth control available regardless of ability to pay, but we do that for food to some degree without making it "free" for everyone. I would imagine that this woman and her friends believe in means testing just about everything, so I'm surprised that they don't think that free-to-you medications ought to be means tested.

Novaheart
03-10-2012, 01:55 PM
Wrong again! A Skank is a Skank, pure and simple. She isn't an innocent victim that is being attacked for "not knowing her place." That is a lie and if you embrace that lie, what do you think that makes you? Hmmmm, Hurts huh? She is a tool of the liberal left. That too is simple logic. She attempted to pass herself off as something that she is not. That should have been contempt of Congress, and she should be prosecuted for perjury. Her "place" is at school and graduate. If she wants to be a political tool, she needs to be up front and not masquerade as an innocent little student who is too poor to afford birth control.

I'd be interested to know what your definition of a skank is. As for birth control, what precisely is the clinical difference between not getting pregnant by one man while you are in law school or ten men while you are in law school? If you fuck the same guy over and over in law school and then marry him four years later, are you still a skank?

Can someone be a skank by proxy? Like, if you are married to a man who goes with his buddies to whorehouses in Thailand, are you a skank by proxy? I mean, seriously, who would want to marry a woman who divorced a man who had fucked his way through the bordellos of the Philippines?

AmPat
03-10-2012, 02:11 PM
I'd be interested to know what your definition of a skank is.

Skank, See: Sandra Fluke


As for birth control, what precisely is the clinical difference between not getting pregnant by one man while you are in law school or ten men while you are in law school? If you f*** the same guy over and over in law school and then marry him four years later, are you still a skank? I do believe you meant "girl." Fluke is Fluking a girl.


Can someone be a skank by proxy? Like, if you are married to a man who goes with his buddies to whorehouses in Thailand, are you a skank by proxy? I mean, seriously, who would want to marry a woman who divorced a man who had fucked his way through the bordellos of the Philippines?



I don't know. Why don't you let us know when you return?

Apache
03-10-2012, 03:17 PM
My position is that "the pill" and similar medications should be treated like any other medication. I understand the social imperative to making birth control available regardless of ability to pay, but we do that for food to some degree without making it "free" for everyone. I would imagine that this woman and her friends believe in means testing just about everything, so I'm surprised that they don't think that free-to-you medications ought to be means tested.

surprise! your position is wrong. the majority use for the pill is birth control, not medicinal. birth control is not a life or death need, like food is. you know this, yet it doesn't matter to you. what matters to you is that institutions and people with moral qualms about contraception be brought to heel with the full force of the federal government. it's not about the availablity or accessability of birth control, nor is it about cost, it's about power. the constitution denies that power...

DumbAss Tanker
03-10-2012, 03:27 PM
My position is that "the pill" and similar medications should be treated like any other medication. I understand the social imperative to making birth control available regardless of ability to pay, but we do that for food to some degree without making it "free" for everyone. I would imagine that this woman and her friends believe in means testing just about everything, so I'm surprised that they don't think that free-to-you medications ought to be means tested.


Seriously? You're comparing it to food or actual medically-necessary medication? How does your mind work?

As far as 'What you would imagine,' I think your 'Imaginer' is broken. It's fairly clear that she thinks anything she and her peers believe they need for their lifestyle choices should be free, because dammit, they shouldn't have to suffer any financial hardship (More an imagined one than a real one in this case, given her ridiculous $3K figure) to sustain their lifestyles.

Adam Wood
03-10-2012, 08:34 PM
My position is that "the pill" and similar medications should be treated like any other medication. I understand the social imperative to making birth control available regardless of ability to pay, but we do that for food to some degree without making it "free" for everyone. I would imagine that this woman and her friends believe in means testing just about everything, so I'm surprised that they don't think that free-to-you medications ought to be means tested.Sorry, but The Pill is elective when it is used for contraception. Same with boob jobs, tummy tucks, whatever awful shit Nancy Pelosi has done to her face, and botox.

Just because it's in the realm of medicine doesn't mean that it's necessary medicine. People can elect not to fuck, therefore negating The Pill as necessary. People can't elect not to treat mumps or a broken arm or whatever.

AmPat
03-11-2012, 11:20 AM
surprise! your position is wrong. .
Almost always.

Seriously? You're comparing it to food or actual medically-necessary medication? How does your mind work?
It doesn't.
As far as 'What you would imagine,' I think your 'Imaginer' is broken. .
That is also located in the brain. He doesn't appear to have one that functions.
[QUOTE=Adam Wood;489593]Sorry, but The Pill is elective when it is used for contraception. Same with boob jobs, tummy tucks, whatever awful shit Nancy Pelosi has done to her face, and botox.
QUOTE]
Same weak argument as the abortion for rape lie.

Novaheart
03-11-2012, 11:46 AM
Seriously? You're comparing it to food or actual medically-necessary medication? How does your mind work?

As far as 'What you would imagine,' I think your 'Imaginer' is broken. It's fairly clear that she thinks anything she and her peers believe they need for their lifestyle choices should be free, because dammit, they shouldn't have to suffer any financial hardship (More an imagined one than a real one in this case, given her ridiculous $3K figure) to sustain their lifestyles.

No, DumbAss, the point was that we means test food stamps so it would be expected that anyone supporting drug coverage would think it should be means tested as well.

Odysseus
03-12-2012, 02:42 AM
Most gay men are promiscuous sluts and have no interest in marriage anyway.

Oh, now you've done it. Obama is going to call Nova any minute now and offer his sympathies. :biggrin-new:


To whatever degree that is true, it's 100% irrelevant.

It's very relevant if they are the new face of marriage. As every study has shown, gay men in "committed" relationships are far more promiscuous than straights. Gay marriage will radically transform what we consider marriage. It will eliminate fidelity as a virtue, and usher in even more self-absorbed hedonism as a substitute. It may feel good in the short term, but it's not good for anyone in the long term.


My position is that "the pill" and similar medications should be treated like any other medication. I understand the social imperative to making birth control available regardless of ability to pay, but we do that for food to some degree without making it "free" for everyone. I would imagine that this woman and her friends believe in means testing just about everything, so I'm surprised that they don't think that free-to-you medications ought to be means tested.

Considering that you believe that all medications ought to be free, this isn't saying much. However, if you really believe that we should treat the pill and all other birth control-related drugs or procedures like any other medical procedure or drug, then we can start with informed consent for abortions. Also, abortions are elective surgery, not medically necessary except for less than 7% of all cases, so obviously there should be no subsidies from government at any level for a medically unnecessary procedure. In fact, there are lots of exceptions that abortionists enjoy that other medical practitioners don't. For example, a minor can't request any surgery without parental consent. Not notification, mind you, but consent. The standards for consent, notification, safety and certification ought to be as stringent as they are for any other surgical procedure. You ready to go there?