Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44
  1. #31  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member Arroyo_Doble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ft Worth
    Posts
    3,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member Eupher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mizz-uhr-ah
    Posts
    531
    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.
    U.S. Army, Retired
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    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!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    6,994
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    As far as Rush, I don't think it is smart to call women sluts for taking contraceptives.
    where did he do that?
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    6,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble View Post
    You make a good argument. I retract. Be sure to get your favored candidate to run on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    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

    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 Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of 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.

    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, 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. 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...lth-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.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member Apache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tree rats are watching you
    Posts
    6,994
    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
    Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
    Ronald Reagan

    We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
    Ronald Reagan

    R.I.P. Crockspot
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    If she is successful getting us to fund her sexual habits, I'm going to demand the gubmint fund my skiing and motorcycling habits.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •