3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 So Obama calls Sandra Fluke to console her and talks with her for several minutes. I wonder when he's going to call the family of Brian Terry to console them? Hell, he can't even get Eric Holder to call and apologize. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73549.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Maybe Obama would, but the real question is: would ya? http://www.thehoya.com/polopoly_fs/1.2805519!/image/1572656430.png_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/1572656430.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Maybe Obama would, but the real question is: would ya? http://www.thehoya.c.../1572656430.png 3 beers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I've been pretty tame since I came over, but this really is bull ****. The way that the dems and their ABCNBCCBSCNNNYTWAPO pals have been propagandizing this story, turning it completely on its head is amazing. Of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. It is not something I would do, but he was using insult and sarcasm to highlight the absurdity of Sandra Fluke and the left’s position, which in a nut shell is they think you, me, and every other American should pay for them to have sex. And while I understand people being offended, I am offended by many of these same people thinking I should be subsidizing what has, for years, been considered a consensual act. They call it “women’s health”, but the language associated with it involves pregnancy and sex. They have, in other words, turned “women’s health” into a euphemism for having sex. And Sandra Fluke, who spends over $50,000.00 on law school per year really believes that American tax payers should, because of her expensive law school, pay for her birth control pills so she can have sex. Not just that, she claims it costs $3000.00 over the course of law school to pay for the contraception. That’s an extraordinarily high price considering most common birth control pills can be purchased at WalMart or Target or elsewhere for vastly less. So of course Rush Limbaugh was being insulting. He was using it as a tool to highlight just how absurd the Democrats’ position is on this. It’s what he does and does quite well. And in the process he’s exposing a lot of media bias on the issue as people rush out (no pun intended) to make Sandra Fluke a victim of his insults and dance around precisely what is really insulting — her testimony before congress that American taxpayers should subsidize the sexual habits of Georgetown Law School students because, God forbid, they should stop having sex if they cannot afford the pills themselves Suddenly, an act Democrats have said for years was private and consensual, must despite that be paid for by the American taxpayers . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Condoms are cheaper, that's my thought on the subject. As for Fluke? Yes I would. I like that "plain Jane" type of look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Condoms are cheaper, that's my thought on the subject. Especially at college! Half the clubs doing advertising give away hundreds of free condoms while they're tabling. Usually the health services at the colleges give away entire bags of free condoms too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I thought the issue was having her insurance pay for birth control, not taxpayers? She pays for health coverage thru GU so how does is this involve taxpayers? Oh I forgot...it doesn't. It just sounds better when you lie. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 To compound the inanity of the Democrats’ idea that the profoundly confused Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke is some sort of “expert witness” on the HHS contraception mandate, I’ll point out that the HHS mandate on employers has NOTHING to do with the insurance coverage that universities provide TO THEIR STUDENTS. As the Department of Justice explains in responding to a “passing reference” in Belmont Abbey’s lawsuit against the HHS mandate. Neither the preventive services coverage regulations [including the HHS contraception mandate] nor any other federal law requires [a university] to provide health insurance to its students — much less health insurance that covers contraceptive services. Nothing in this point, I’ll emphasize, bears meaningfully on Belmont Abbey’s lawsuit, which principally concerns its obligations under the HHS mandate to provide coverage to its employees of contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization.BUT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO FOCUS ON THAT, they just keep repeating the phrase "war on women" and the media swallows it down. At bottom, Fluke’s testimony (even apart from her resort to unverifiable anecdotes about fellow students) doesn’t even have any connection to the HHS mandate. The fact that pro-HHS mandate propagandists are touting Fluke as their star witness is a stark sign of how empty their case is. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Maybe Obama would, but the real question is: would ya? http://www.thehoya.com/polopoly_fs/1.2805519!/image/1572656430.png_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/1572656430.png Absolutely Not. If she spends $3000 a year on birth control then she's doing a lot of screwing. That means there's a greater chance of picking something up from her and her kitty is probably loose enough to get lost in. Edited March 2, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Fluke is a fraud and a plant. She picked Georgetown ON PURPOSE becuase of their stance on birth control and she intended to fight it. But like any good leftard...got punched back (by Rush) in a fight SHE STARTED and then fell to the floor and cried "IM A VICTIM!!!!!" And, as usual...the media plays along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Hey, do you guys remember when Obama signed his health care bill into law, and be brought Gary Coleman with him to the signing? That was awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Maybe Obama would, but the real question is: would ya? http://www.thehoya.com/polopoly_fs/1.2805519!/image/1572656430.png_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/1572656430.png Dog Style Condoms are cheaper, that's my thought on the subject. As for Fluke? Yes I would. I like that "plain Jane" type of look. You don't even need those, just pull out really early Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 You really have to hand it to Obama. He has an incredible way of taking everyone and everything off topic. To paraphrase the Penguin, he's playin' this stinking country like a harp from hell. Oh, well. At least he doesn't believe in the devil, so that's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 I thought the issue was having her insurance pay for birth control, not taxpayers? She pays for health coverage thru GU so how does is this involve taxpayers? Oh I forgot...it doesn't. It just sounds better when you lie. PTR Who are you directing these comments to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 As conservatives have said from Day One, it represents an unconscionable assault on religious freedom. Similarly, sexual morality is a very serious issue. But this has become nothing more than a top-my-trauma contest, in which both sides attempt to make it sound as though they’ve been more seriously insulted than the other side. Let’s not forget who started all of this. Nobody ever threatened to take away anybody’s contraception. Nobody (except George Stephanopoulous) was even talking about contraception until the administration reiterated its mandate to religiously-affiliated employers to provide insurance coverage that covers contraception against their religious beliefs. The president knew what he was doing when he made the contraception mandate the first detail of Obamacare to be truly “felt.” He was willing to risk that it would rouse religious leaders because he knew it would rouse those who would perceive opposition to the mandate as a threat to consequence-free sex. It’s not — with or without the mandate, any two consenting adults are free to have sex and with contraception as much as they can afford – but don’t tell Sandra Fluke that. To her and to others like her, sex is apparently not consequence-free unless it’s also flat-out “free” for the folks having it. Tina Korbe . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) That's what y'all find hot? I mean don't get me wrong, I'm sure she's kind of cute after a 12 pack. And BTW, not that this story has any substance but Obama ought to be !@#$ing embarrassed. What a pathetic move. Edited March 2, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 3 beers. I might after 3 beers too......................... ...............if someone had smashed me over the head with the 3 bottles and dragged me away and tied me up and blindfolded me and had a gun to my head. Otherwise.....no. Hey, do you guys remember when Obama signed his health care bill into law, and be brought Gary Coleman with him to the signing? That was awesome! I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Look for this girl to be running for Congress from somewhere Dem-safe inside of 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2012 Author Share Posted March 2, 2012 Look for this girl to be running for Congress from somewhere Dem-safe inside of 5 years. With a little brood following her around? Highly unlikely with all those little children just because she couldn't get $3000 worth of free contraception a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 She's a 30 year old activist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts