DC Tom Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Very clearly stated Tom. As to the bolded statement, we have pointed this out several times in the thread..................but it is just ignored. For political gain, dems keep repeating the mantra of "mean old (always white) men want to prohibit birth control, and those who tend to just read (and believe) headlines, parrot it back as we see here. They managed to change the argument from the government impeding religious liberty (thanks for reposting the First Ammendment by the way) to the campaign, market-group tested "war on women" . I keep having the same argument with people: look, I don't support the Catholic church. I think their doctrine is a shining example of hypocrisy, I think they're ridiculously reactionary and stuck in the 1300's, I think they're irrational and impractical. That's why I left it...because it's a religious doctrine, not a !@#$ing dessert buffet that you can pick and choose from. If you don't like the doctrine, leave. Or work within the church to change the doctrine (fat chance of that, I know). But arguing the First Amendment is a civil rights violation? Because you can't have riskless sex (in point of fact, just without risk of pregnancy. You're using barrier contraception anyway, if you're not stupid and don't want an STD). Just !@#$ off. Or a lot of acne! Trojans prevent acne? Uh...hate to break it to you, pal...that's not acne. See a doctor, quick.
Rob's House Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 I have asked this before, in similar threads...and only one person even acknowledged it (thanks DC Tom)...do any of you guys have wives? Daughters? Sisters? Girlfriends? You do realize that contraception is not used solely for the prevention of pregnancy? From the continued ignorant comments, it is pretty clear that this is not common knowledge. I worked at a university health facility for almost 10 years, and there are many females who are not sexually active, who take contraception to regulate menstrual cycles, and cramps. Darryl Issa may have had a valid reason for excluding this woman from his little charade...err hearing, but it is ludicrous that his panel was made up exclusively of males... you can say this was an Obama distraction tactic, but these idiots ran with it, and ran with it hard. When Rush Limbaugh refers to this woman as a "slut" or "prostitute", it is a huge insult to a very large portion of American women. How many of you have wives, girlfriends, or daughters who take contraception, covered by their (your?) insurance? Are they "sluts" or "prostitutes". Does that make you guys johns? Pimps? I have a wife, mother, sister, & daughter. No sons & I'm not planning on having more kids so in a practical sense you could say I'm a feminist because I have no interest in favoring men. I'm all for birth control. I wish more people were on it. I don't even care for religion or Catholicism. And I think this mandate is outrageous and I don't use the term lightly. This really boils down to the imposition of one's will upon another. As ridiculous as I may find the Catholic stance on birth control I would no sooner force them to provide it to employees than I would force PETA to serve Meat at their social functions. And whereas my mom & sister are more sympathetic than I to snuffing out babies in the womb (and they're Christian; the irony) I can't even conceive of them using some bull **** term like "reproductive justice." I've known more than a few of that type & they either like to !@#$ a lot or they're man-hating dikes. There is very little in between with that crowd. Hearing them talk about women like they're this sisterhood that's on one team with men on the other just makes me roll my eyes. It's really juvenile. It also reminds me of people who identify strongly with some superficial aspect of their identity, be it race, nationality, region, etc. Doug Stanhope has a theory that if you lead with that it's because you've got nothing else. And people like this chick who like to think having a chip on their vagina is a strength rather than a weakness are getting played like a fiddle by politicians using them as a distraction. It's what I love & hate about the election season, all the useful idiots come out of the woodwork.
B-Man Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 I’ve not heard a single Republican politician stand up to the media narrative on this. Instead of projecting surrogate modesty towards Fluke, they project it towards Limbaugh, who is calling the truth for what it is. Fluke, a 30 year-old (presented as a 23 year-old college coed by the media) women’s activist/professional student, is likely not having monogamous sex with the same man approximately 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years (in order to satisfy the calculations about which she felt confident enough to present during a congressional testimony). If she is, kudos! But promiscuity is not the hallmark of a virtuous woman. Is it Limbaugh’s fault for pointing it out or Fluke’s fault for the behavior? It’s a rhetorical question and the answer proved Limbaugh’s entire point. The real war on women is being perpetuated upon us by our own sex; women who seek to place us under the control of a pimp-daddy government by demanding it cover all our needs, in exchange for control, or force private entities to do so in its stead. Dana Loesch .
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 I have a wife, mother, sister, & daughter. No sons & I'm not planning on having more kids so in a practical sense you could say I'm a feminist because I have no interest in favoring men. I'm all for birth control. I wish more people were on it. I don't even care for religion or Catholicism. And I think this mandate is outrageous and I don't use the term lightly. This really boils down to the imposition of one's will upon another. As ridiculous as I may find the Catholic stance on birth control I would no sooner force them to provide it to employees than I would force PETA to serve Meat at their social functions. And whereas my mom & sister are more sympathetic than I to snuffing out babies in the womb (and they're Christian; the irony) I can't even conceive of them using some bull **** term like "reproductive justice." I've known more than a few of that type & they either like to !@#$ a lot or they're man-hating dikes. There is very little in between with that crowd. Hearing them talk about women like they're this sisterhood that's on one team with men on the other just makes me roll my eyes. It's really juvenile. It also reminds me of people who identify strongly with some superficial aspect of their identity, be it race, nationality, region, etc. Doug Stanhope has a theory that if you lead with that it's because you've got nothing else. And people like this chick who like to think having a chip on their vagina is a strength rather than a weakness are getting played like a fiddle by politicians using them as a distraction. It's what I love & hate about the election season, all the useful idiots come out of the woodwork. I do believe you hit the nail on the head.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) Trojans prevent acne? Uh...hate to break it to you, pal...that's not acne. See a doctor, quick. I wasn't really following exactly what she said... Did she specifically mention condoms as her choice of contraception? If she did... Oops... My bad! I thought maybe she was talking about "the pill." Edited March 3, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 No, she was asking the government to pay for contraceptives that also have other uses for medical conditions. The government bill is specifically about providing free (which is another thing - how all other medications come with a co-pay? But birth control is free?) contraceptives, not any other "reproductive health services". Which brings up the obvious dodge that, if the church has their way, doctors will just start prescribing the pill for "PMS-related symptoms" or such. And again, that's beside the Catholic Church's backwardsness, who, if they had even a glimmer of a clue, would embrace birth control for the fewer abortions that would result. Morons. More like you have an employer choosing to not provide insurance coverage options counter to their doctrine. No one's telling anyone they "can't have a medication". They can have all they want. It just won't be provided to them... Except when her OBGYN says "Birth control...no, but let's give you a prophylactic against the risk of endomitriosis." You know that would happen...they'd gain the system. No one's talking about a lack of access to medicine...no one's even talking about a lack of access to contraception...it's a lack of access to free contraception. (And by the way...how my medication has a copay? When do I get free meds?) I'd rather live in a nation where people didn't just arbitrarily threw out the most basic founding principles of the nation because they were inconvenient. Or are you now arguing that was Bush right about establishing Gitmo and doing away with due process? 'Cause, y'know...same thing, a pesky Amendment guaranteeing rights is in the way of what "everyone" wants, so let's just ignore it and hope it goes away... Coming next to a theater near you: the First Amendment is a civil rights violation because the Catholic Church won't provide the sacrament of matrimony to homosexuals. I'm not going to say you don't make any good points here. This is a touchy, loaded subject. As far as they are not being denied the contraceptive pill only free ones. I don't think I'm on board totally with free. I wouldn't mind seeing that tweaked a bit so that they still have a copay.
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 I'd gladly give my taxpayer money to have every lib sterilized. i'll bet you wrote something similar on your med school applications "why you want to be a doctor" essays. that or your very good at being insincere.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 I wasn't really following exactly what she said... Did she specifically mention condoms as her choice of contraception? If she did... Oops... My bad! I thought maybe she was talking about "the pill." They also seem to think she was spending 3000 per year on condoms. She was saying it would cost upwards of 3000 dollars for her time in law school for the pill. And there are many different forms of the pill used for different problems other than just pregnancy. Some are more expensive than others.
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) you are exactly right. Honestly the fact that anyone is coming out in support of Limbaugh on this is straight up horrifying. In 2012 a woman can not cop to taking birth control pills without being called a slut? exactly. can't everyone see the hypocrisy of a man caught carrying unprescribed viagra into a country in which he has no known meaningful relationship with a female, on a golf trip, a slut? and he's been married how many times? he really is shameless and so many are willing to let him get away with it. perhaps they feel threatened by women as well. Edited March 3, 2012 by birdog1960
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 exactly. can't everyone see the hypocrisy of a man caught carrying unprescribed viagra into a country in which he has no known meaningful relationship with a female, on a golf trip, a slut? and he's been married how many times? he really is shameless and so many are willing to let him get away with it. perhaps they feel threatened by women as well. For arguments sake I will substitute a few words... If you really loved ham sandwiches everyday for lunch and thought they were nutritious, and you work for a Muslim university. Said university does not allow pork products in their facilities because it is one of their core doctrine beliefs. Why should the government force the Muslim.university to go against their core beliefs ? It's not the same example I know...but maybe by.removing the sex out of it people will pay attention to the intent of government intrusion and worry less about words like condom and barrier method and angry white guys depriving women.
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Posted March 3, 2012 They also seem to think she was spending 3000 per year on condoms. She was saying it would cost upwards of 3000 dollars for her time in law school for the pill. And there are many different forms of the pill used for different problems other than just pregnancy. Some are more expensive than others. Where are coming up with this schit? Total fabrication. You are intellectually dishonest.
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 For arguments sake I will substitute a few words... If you really loved ham sandwiches everyday for lunch and thought they were nutritious, and you work for a Muslim university. Said university does not allow pork products in their facilities because it is one of their core doctrine beliefs. Why should the government force the Muslim.university to go against their core beliefs ? It's not the same example I know...but maybe by.removing the sex out of it people will pay attention to the intent of government intrusion and worry less about words like condom and barrier method and angry white guys depriving women. i didn't mention anything about contrtaception insurance in my post. it was simply about Limbaugh calling a female grad student a slut for using birth control. argue that point.
ieatcrayonz Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Ok, question... Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard, granted. But does anybody (myself included, unfortunately) who has ever referred to a woman as a "slut" casually behind her back deserve the right to such indignation in light of his comments? I have a feeling there are plenty of hypocrites out there. Well did you ever say it to multiple millions of people at the same time?
Gary M Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 i didn't mention anything about contrtaception insurance in my post. it was simply about Limbaugh calling a female grad student a slut for using birth control. argue that point. He didn't call her a slut for using birth control, he called her a slut because she wants to get the birth control for free. Does becoming a liberal mean that you have to turn in your reading comprehension skills. Rush Limbaugh is a blow hard, a showman and a borderline hypocrite, but he is smart and chooses his words very carefully.
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) He didn't call her a slut for using birth control, he called her a slut because she wants to get the birth control for free. Does becoming a liberal mean that you have to turn in your reading comprehension skills. Rush Limbaugh is a blow hard, a showman and a borderline hypocrite, but he is smart and chooses his words very carefully. so it's the quest to get contraception covered that makes her a slut? what's your definition of slut? is it applicable to men? if not, why not? and yes he chooses his words very carefully which makes him more a hypocrite and more disgusting and despicable. a piture of him should be in the dictionary next to pos. Edited March 3, 2012 by birdog1960
Oxrock Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Who says as a taxpayer you are paying for it. Your money is going elsewhere. Follow closely: Insurance companies are mandated to provide this "free of charge". Nothing is ever free. Someone has to pay for it, so they spread the cost out to everyone who has insurance. Under Obamacare everyone will be required to have health insurance. Those who cannot afford it will be subsidized with taxpayer dollars. The Obama administration has said the the mandate is a tax. So, the administration is saying that as a taxpayer, I am, you are going to pay for it.
Gary M Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 so it's the quest to get contraception covered that makes her a slut? what's your definition of slut? is it applicable to men? if not, why not? and yes he chooses his words very carefully which makes him more a hypocrite and more disgusting and despicable. a piture of him should be in the dictionary next to pos. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut by here own admission she meets the definition.
birdog1960 Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut by here own admission she meets the definition. by her own admission? how? interesting, there's really no male equivalent for "slut"in the language..might that be due to men making all the rules for so long? this is really the essence to the argument in many women's eyes. it's ok with people like limbaugh to be promiscuous to the point of a high likelihood of contracting std's but it's not ok with the same people for women to prevent pregnancy under less sordid circumstances.
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Individual health is more precious than an absurd idology The problem with people like yourself is that because YOU think God and Jesus are absurd concepts, then people of faith must be wrong. And because these people are absurdly wrong, they must be forced to adhere to YOUR ideology of individual health. It's unfortunate your brain is unable to comprehend that very simple irony. But hey...maybe a day will come when you'll have enough common sense to realize that people of faith should not be forced to adhere to your absurd ideologies any more than they ask you, personally, to adhere to theirs. Or maybe I'm missing something. Are people of faith forcing you attend church? Pray to a god? Tithe your income? Help your neighbor? Abstain from using contraceptives? No? But...but...but...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2012 Posted March 3, 2012 Back to the original topic here. Why the hell did Obama feel it was necessary to call and console her???
Recommended Posts