Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Yes please explain what is wrong with being an activist?
The Dems record of positive accomplishments dwarfs the pathetic attempts of the Repubs.
Where have you had your head buried for all these years? Lift a cheek and speak.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Here are the 52 smears by Rush Limbaugh.'
Feb. 29, 2012:
1) “she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills”
2) “they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills!”
3) “essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”
4) “Sandra Fluke. So much sex going on, they can't afford birth control pills.”
March 1, 2012:
5) “You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute”
6) “she's having so much sex”
7) “are having so much sex that they’re going broke”
8) “they want to have sex any time, as many times and as often as they want, with as many partners as they want”
9) “the sexual habits of female law students at Georgetown”
10) “are having so much sex that they’re going broke”
11) “having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet”
12) “four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet”
13) “Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex.”
14) “to pay for these co-eds to have sex”
15) “she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day”
16) “Therefore we are paying her to have sex. Therefore we are paying her for having sex.”
17) “Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?”
18) “Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. And I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”
19) “we want something in return, Ms. Fluke: And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money.”
20) “'If we're paying for this, it makes these women sluts, prostitutes.' And what else could it be?”
21) “essentially says that she must be paid to have sex. What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right?”
22) “I'm having sex so damn much, I'm going broke.”
23) “She's having so much sex that she's going broke! There's no question about her virtue.”
24) “having so much sex she's going broke at Georgetown Law.”
25) “Here's a woman exercising no self-control. The fact that she wants to have repeated, never-ending, as often as she wants it sex -- given.”
26) “She's having so much sex it's amazing she can still walk, but she made it up there.”
27) “Maybe they're sex addicts.”
28) “to pay for her to have sex all the time.”
29) “she wants the rest of us to pay for her sex.”
30) “She wants all the sex that she wants all the time paid for by the rest of us.”
31) “Here this babe goes before Congress and wants thousands of dollars to pay for her sex.”
32) “a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her-life woman.”
33) “She wants all the sex in the world, whenever she wants it, all the time.”
34) “If this woman wants to have sex ten times a day for three years, fine and dandy.”
35) “to provide women from Georgetown Law unlimited, no-consequences sex.”
36) “so she can have unlimited, no-consequences sex.”
37) “You want to have all the sex you want all day long, no consequences, no responsibility for your behavior”
38) “The woman wants unlimited, no-responsibility, no-consequences sex, and she wants it with contraceptives paid for by us.”
March 2, 2012:
39) "she's having so much sex, she can't afford her birth control pills anymore.”
40) “she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it -- and we should.”
41) “She's having so much sex, she can't afford it.”
42) “this, frankly hilarious claim that she's having so much sex (and her buddies with her) that she can't afford it.”
43) “And not one person says, 'Well, did you ever think about maybe backing off the amount of sex that you have?'”
44) “Does she have more boyfriends? Ha! They're lined up around the block.”
45) "It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex, she can't afford it.”
46) “By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can't afford it.”
47) “they're having a lot of sex for which they need a lot of contraception.”
48) “Her sex life is active and she's having sex so frequently that she can't afford all the birth control pills that she needs.”
49) “who admits to having so much sex that she can't afford it anymore.”
50) “she's having so much sex, she can't pay for it.”
51) “As frequently as she has sex and to not be pregnant, she's obviously succeeding in contraception.”
52) “Ms. Fluke, asserts her right to free contraceptive, to handle her sex life -- and it's, by her own admission, quite active.”
UPDATE: added thanks to your comments,
53) "Ms. Fluke, who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade, or your contraception?"
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
A political conundrum for the repubs. They can't confirm nor deny RL support!
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
Law school is generally a three year endeavor.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Democrats can't run on their record.
Yeah, they can't run on economic recovery.
Or killing Bin Laden.
Or pulling out of Iraq.
Or health care reform.
|
|
slayton
Trad climber
Here and There
|
|
Democrats can't run on their record.
They have to gin up something.
Running on rubbers?
Really?
I'll second that. .. .. .. Really?? That's what you got? Democrats "running on rubbers?" You're in great league with all the other sound-bite fear mongers.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
I'd give you kudos for that list, but it's so eaaasssyyy to cite the many reasons Repugs are repugnant, isn't it?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
conservatives have joe the plumber and libs have sandra the fornicator
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html
ok, i agree that "slut" and "prostitute" were the "wrong words" because we can't prove the first and the second isn't exactly accurate; however, consider:
ms. fluke (btw, rhymes with what appears to be her favorite extracurricular activity) claims contraception is too expensive despite the fact that the local target store (just two blocks from gu) sells two types of pill for just $9/month AND there are DOZENS of locations around dc that provide FREE comdoms (you can even have them delivered to your residence)
ms. fluke does not claim any medical need for contraception (like her lesbian friend who was not seeking contraception but medical treatment)
therefore, we can conclude fluke does not "need" contraception but simply wants it for sexual purposes; that doesn't make her a slut, but it does invalidate the libs' claim that this is a "women's health" issue
let's assume the cheap target pills are not suitable (for medical reasons) for ms. fluke; i wonder why she doesn't ask her boyfriend to share (or even cover in its entirety) the cost of her particular contraception (if she doesn't have a boyfriend but apparently still wants contraception, then, perhaps, limbaugh was correct on the first count); but perhaps, he, like her, is also too poor; so, why don't the two of them take advantage of the FREE condoms easily available around dc? why does she insist that other people pay for her contraception?
i remember when women complained that, because of the pill, men expected them to take full responsibility for birth control--is ms. fluke proof that women like her are willing to submit to men on this issue?
finally, is it really too much to ask that people control their sexual urges? i mean, libs demand that people control other equally strong urges and even insist that the government should play a central role in protecting people from these urges:
What if government treated eating the way it treats sex?
It’s a useful distinction to consider. A particular moral idea governs left-wing views on social and health matters, and the left’s purpose with political advocacy is to put the power of government behind that view. By examining the left’s very different policy approaches to eating and sex, we can discern the features of the morality at work.
The left’s governmental approach to sex today involves, among other things, the following:
1. Advertising it to children through the public schools and encouraging them to explore and participate in it.
2. Basing policy on the assumption that no solution to any problem lies in individuals restraining or channeling their sexual urges, and therefore even the intractable facts of nature should not be left, with their powerful incentives, to encourage that posture. It is important, instead, to create an environment conducive to sex unfettered by its natural consequences.
3. Providing, at public expense, the means to have sex on one’s own terms, but avoid procreation and sexually transmitted diseases.
4. Providing, at public expense, the means to support children who are born nevertheless.
5. To adjust the balance between 3 and 4, encouraging and advocating the use of contraception and the resort to abortion.
The suite of policies advocated by the left is designed to encourage sex but limit procreation and STDs. The social “good,” therefore, is deemed to be unfettered sex, while the social “ills” are the birth of children and the suffering (and infectiousness) incident to STDs.
Let’s compare this moral view and its program construct to the left’s policy attitude toward eating. In this latter realm, the social “ills” are thought to be obesity and the medical problems that come with it. But what is the social “good”? Is there one? It’s hard to say, because eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex – is not, in the left’s moral view, considered a “good” to be promoted on whatever terms the individual prefers.
The left’s governmental treatment of eating is very different from its treatment of sex. It runs on these lines:
1. Advertising to children (as well as adults) the evils of certain kinds of food.
2. Basing policy on the assumption that the people must be nudged or even coerced to eat according to whatever principle is suggested by the most recent studies. It is important to create an environment in which eaters have to go well out of their way to avoid the choices made for them by government authorities. The ideal, in fact, is an environment in which eaters can’t avoid the dictates of the government.
3. Ensuring that the expenses of obesity are, increasingly, born by the public, while fanning political resentment of those expenses, and of the condition of the obese.
4. Proclaiming that the solution in every case is controlling what people eat, rather than providing for the obese the same publicly-funded relief offered to the sexually promiscuous.
It is hard to make the case that eating a lot is worse than having a lot of sex outside of commitment and marriage. At the very most, the two practices are a moral wash, one no worse than the other. Both involve doing discretionary things with one’s body. Both involve courting well-known consequences. Both involve the strong potential for inconvenience to oneself and the larger community. It is making an arbitrary moral judgment, to insist that what causes obesity should be dealt with through coercion and the limiting of options, while what causes unwanted pregnancies and STDs should be the object of solicitude, and public programs based not on denial but on mitigation.
We know that eating in moderation and limiting certain foods generally results in better health than eating, indiscriminately, lots and lots of things we enjoy for only a brief moment.
But we also know that not having sex prevents pregnancy and STDs with unparalleled effectiveness. We know, moreover, that disciplining our sex drives, keeping sex within marriage, welcoming the children that come from it, and raising them with a father and mother are substantially more effective in preventing STDs, “unwanted” children, poverty, delinquency, addiction, and hopelessness than are government programs to distribute condoms and subsidize abortion providers.
If government treated obesity the way it treats sex, it would encourage schoolchildren to explore their enjoyment of Twinkies, Oreos, and moon pies; it would employ professionals to devise ways of suiting government policies to the principle that our bodies belong to us and we can put whatever we want in our stomachs; it would hold legislative hearings on the overriding importance of the freedom to eat what we want; it would resist the very idea of remedies that involve the individual eating less, or eating different things; it would pay for liposuction, cholesterol drugs, heart surgery, and diabetes-mitigation measures but not for programs of diet and exercise; it would encourage the development of drugs that could prevent fat formation regardless of what one eats; and it would make it a basic human right to be able to eat whatever one wants and have the consequences mitigated by the public.
There really is no case to be made that government should not do this. If, that is, we accept that government’s current approach to sex and its consequences is appropriate and warranted.
Ultimately, no discussion of these issues would be complete without the observation that if government – and the federal government in particular – wasn’t involved in them in the first place, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much when the people’s opinions and our moral perspectives on them differed.
J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.
|
|
Risk
Mountain climber
Olympia, WA
|
|
Let’s not get diverted from the facts of what Limbaugh said and what he meant. This is about Limbaugh, not Ms. Fluke. Any defense of Limbaugh or blame to Ms. Fluke is deplorable.
|
|
Gary
climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
|
|
Rush is highly influential. People pay attention to El Rushbo. After all, he spent 3 hours per day, 5 days per week attacking Bill Clinton. Look how effective that was!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
TGT Democrats can't run on their record.
They have to gin up something.
Running on rubbers?
Really?
What are you talking about. The administration was just doing it's job regulating insurance companies, asking them to cover what they all actually want to cover, because nothing costs real money like having a baby, and the GOP made a big sex deal out of.
And the fools commenting on it act like the legislation covered government money to contraception but it was all about insurance companies
Fools and shame
And a big SUCK IT to all those Abortion opponents who also oppose contraception to prevent abortion. Big hypocrisy and those who just say "keep it in your pants" are either too old, limp, or confused to avoid the hyprocrisy of getting caught with Hookers like Jimmy Swaggart.
Peace
Karl
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Flush Dimflaw is a paragon of conservative Republican values.
Which is why the Democrats will crush the GOP this election.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You guys have said the same thing over and over for 300 posts now.
Have you guys evolved into parrots?
The evolution of the political junkies ......
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Brrrrrrawwkk....Polly wants a condom....!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
Ryhmes with PUKE. Which is what I do every time those flatearthers post up.
Brrrrrrawwkk....Polly wants a condom....! Damn funny RJ. But now how am I going to get mucus laden mocha out of my keyboard? lol
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
It took a "Fluke" to expose the moron to his advetisers- what planet have they been on?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You guys need a guy like Vladimir Putin.
If he was an American.
The guy is one tough m'fuker.
Not like these pansy ass politicians in this country ......
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
I don't know what planet Jim but clearly they all live in the state of Confusion.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!