Booster4324 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 AD pin this thread please, We can now identify several Rushbots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 No. But even by his low standards, that was a ridiculously weak argument. The usual suspects on the board will have no coherent response to replies #65, 72, 82 and dare I say #83. They will continue to try and bring it back to Limbaugh's poor wording and cliches about the GOP, rather than an over-reaching government. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 No. But even by his low standards, that was a ridiculously weak argument. What's worse is the bulk of his fellow libs don't understand why it's weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Gotta love coward Romney's lame comment on this. This sissy is afraid of Fat Rush Limbo and his viagra induced rants. Really Mitt, this disgusting hate speech was simply a poor choice of words? Boo, go hide under a rock, if you can't stand up to that pig, you don't deserve to be our president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 First. Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You're more than welcome to explain how the First Amendment doesn't apply to freely exercising the belief the contraception is a sin and the church should not be in the business of making parishioners sinners. You can follow that up by explaining how the Catholic doctrine of not providing communion to a parishoner who's an urepentant sinner (in this case, an open lesbian), is a civil rights violation that trumps the First Amendment. Then you can explain why the Catholic Church will be required to marry gay couples in...five or seven years. Welcome to the new America...where you can practice any religion you like, but treating sinners differently is a civil rights violation. (And never mind the fact that the Catholic Church is hypocritical and backwards in the extreme. We know. They only just pardoned Galileo. They have a First Amendment right to be hypocritical and backwards in the extreme.) 1. How would the church be making (Italics yours) anyone a sinner? Don't Catholics have free will? 2. It Isn't but thats a bright shiney new strawman you got there. 3. They won't and nobody can make them. But again, nice strawman. 4. I agree completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 he is expressing empathy for a historically common phenomenon: disparaging threatening women. remember the witch hunts? this is the 2021 equivalent. obama just said that's not ok anymore. So this is the only example of this or did he choose this particular event because it involved a famous Republican? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 So this is the only example of this or did he choose this particular event because it involved a famous Republican? Your angry Obama is taking an opportunity to score political points? Is that it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Your angry Obama is taking an opportunity to score political points? Is that it? Oh yeah I'm really angry. No, I laughing at him using this stupid situation to score political point. Really Barry this is the hill you want to climb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Oh yeah I'm really angry. No, I laughing at him using this stupid situation to score political point. Really Barry this is the hill you want to climb? Whatever, the gender gap is getting wider I hope Obama and my Democratic people get every last drop of political capital out of the anti- women party they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Whatever, the gender gap is getting wider I hope Obama and my Democratic people get every last drop of political capital out of the anti- women party they can. And there it is. What a dolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 And there it is. What a dolt. Slut! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Slut! So you belong to the anti-Chef party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share Posted March 3, 2012 Your angry Obama is taking an opportunity to score political points? Is that it? Obama is not Chef's. Haven't you figured this out yet? Chef doesn't like Obama and certainly doesn't own him. Well, maybe philosophically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Obama is not Chef's. Haven't you figured this out yet? Chef doesn't like Obama and certainly doesn't own him. Well, maybe philosophically. All your pres belong to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 And there it is. What a dolt. I told you he was a parroting DNC talking point obamabot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 So you belong to the anti-Chef party? Lol, seems so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) 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. Where are coming up with this schit? Total fabrication. You are intellectually dishonest. 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. This was a post by you. So that might be where I was coming up with this ****. Second I came of with the number of 3000 over the course of law school from her testimony before Congress. Seriously man you're really, really stupid. Because it keeps people from paying attention to the real problems in this country. That said, while it continues to make him look like a leaderless dolt, giving people something shiny to follow will help get him reelected, and we must remain focused on the prize. No, he did it for a photo op. "Look at me! I care so much about women's rights!! I'll protect you from big bad Rush." That's what his phone call was all about. Good God, man. No wonder you're a lib. You're reality is constructed of straw men and stereotypes from generations past. Good thing the frail little flowers of the female persuasion have outraged aging hippies to walk them through this male dominated patriarchal society. It's also funny how you hypocritical liberals (redundant, I know) fill your tampons over Rush calling some feminist activist a slut but don't bat an eye when Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a €unt. And as far as the male equivalent to slut, is that even a serious question? I thought you were a doctor; did you go to the Sensetive School of Politically Correct Medicine where biology is optional and a penis is just an inverted vagina? Yeah, there was no sexism in that quote. Thank God we have people like you to tell us stupid we are for inferring there is some sexism here. If you drop the hyper-compassionate feministic attitude towards female oppression, you might encounter one in a non-professional capacity. Really? Condescension!?!? Treating someone like a victim is the epitome of condescension. The hilarious part is you don't even know it. You probably put chicks on a pedestal when you were younger & eventually came to believe it. I'll share a secret your Dad failed to pass on which is women don't appreciate male feminists. Women like guys that are real and treat them like a regular person while taking the lead role so she feels protected and attracted. Kissing her ass isn't getting it done. That's why you don't do so well. Generalize much? Dude, you might want to rethink your stance that you aren't sexist. Since you seem to have your finger on the pulse of knowing what women want. Next you'll be telling us you know what's good for them. Edited March 3, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2012 Author Share 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. This was a post by you. So that might be where I was coming up with this ****. Second I came of with the number of 3000 over the course of law school from her testimony before Congress. Seriously man you're really, really stupid. No, he did it for a photo op. "Look at me! I care so much about women's rights!! I'll protect you from big bad Rush." That's what his phone call was all about. Yeah, there was no sexism in that quote. Thank God we have people like you to tell us stupid we are for inferring there is some sexism here. Really? She didn't testify before Congress. They wouldn't allow her to. Why do you perpetuate this schit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 She didn't testify before Congress. They wouldn't allow her to. Why do you perpetuate this schit? Here she is testifying before the house democratic steering and policy committee. Last I checked, these were members of congress. Watch this and maybe you'll stop making an ass out of yourself in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 Yeah, there was no sexism in that quote. Thank God we have people like you to tell us stupid we are for inferring there is some sexism here. Really? Generalize much? Dude, you might want to rethink your stance that you aren't sexist. Since you seem to have your finger on the pulse of knowing what women want. Next you'll be telling us you know what's good for them. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts