1. #1541
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    1. The US States are not equally prone to disasters that require Federal Aid. There are significant differences.
    So some states require a million each year and others require a billion every 10 years.

    2. Using Federal Money for disaster aid in a disporportionate manner leads to "safer" States subsidising the States that are prone to such disasters that may require Federal help.
    Welcome to being part of a nation. Counties subsidize states, states subsidize the nation, it all balances out. You want society? You gotta pay for it.

    3. Under normal circumstances, the disaster prone States would have to answer for themselves for preparing for reoccurring disasters such as floods or tornadoes. This would require the individual States to raise taxation to provide for this.
    Most already do. But "normal circumstances" is everyone working for the betterment of the nation, if that means rebuilding your friend's house more often than you rebuild yours, that's what you do.

    4. Right now they can keep the taxes lower as the same funding is gained from Federal Taxation which applies across the country.
    But they don't so your point is meaningless.

    5. This means that Federal Aid causes State taxes to be lower in disaster prone areas, which encourages migration to the disaster prone areas above what would happen in normal circumstances.
    Rarely have I known anyone but the super-wealthy who moves based on how much they're taxed.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  2. #1542
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    I think this is a fantastic question for those that would rather shift focus from Rush on the shitty things he said, and move to "someone else did it".

    I'm going to post Ed Schultz' apology for effect, which was done on air, the day after he made the comment. Perhaps the outright legitimacy of his apology, and the fact that it was done swiftly, without the need for advertisers to pull sponsorship, was what made this a non-issue.



    Callace's question deserves an answer, IMO. If the left's stupid comments were "pushed under the rug", by whom? Because logically, think about how Rush's comments became mainstream. Hint - I didn't hear about it on the news first. Through facebook, forums, blogs, etc.

    We gotta stop letting people make shitty comments get away with shifting the blame to someone else. It's harming the country, especially with someone as influential as Rush. Maher's in that category, so is Schultz, Maddow, Hannity, whoever.
    You can't simply push comments under the rug. I didn't understand what Callace was asking, but now I think I do. It isn't about pushing anything under the rug. It's about the people who get fired up enough to start social networking campaigns and advertiser boycotts. These same people who are fired up today about Rush were decidedly not fired up about a liberal counterpart making identical insults just 1 year ago. Why is that? Because somehow Ed Schultz's apology was deemed satisfactory? No, it was because the same people who are fueling the rage against Rush, and are the same people who let it slide when a liberal counterpart made the same slurs, are angry at Rush as a political mouthpiece for conservatism far, far more than they are about any name-calling.

  3. #1543
    Stood in the Fire TechnoKronic's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    He did apologize for his language. "Those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her." - Rush Limbaugh

    Apparently Ms. Fluke refused the apology? I'm not sure about that.
    Alright lets think of it this way:

    you have a daughter going to school. she is defending a fellow student who is being teased because she (for example) because she asked about birth control.
    Now, the bully has zeroed in on your daughter, he is calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute", going on a tirade for 3 days calling her names in front of the student body. Now the other students who hear this, will also start to think "maybe she is a whore?" and go along with the bullying. After a few days you, some teachers, and the principle have began to notice the actions of the bully. Of course any parent will want this to stop and you see the principle demand that the child stops teasing your daughter. So the principle finally grabs the bully to have him apologize, but having to force it out of him all you get is a reluctant "Im sorry i didn't mean to use the specific words "slut" and "prostitute" I should have used more appropriate words to describe her as a "slut" and "prostitute"... although its not my fault, I was just trying to be funny", gets a slap on the wrist and "dont do it again" from the principle, a lolly pop, and sent back to class..

    he's trying to be funny at your daughter's expense, would you find that funny?
    or would you shove his "apology" up his ass and demand he be properly punished for the verbal harassment your daughter just received?
    Last edited by TechnoKronic; 2012-03-07 at 04:27 AM.

  4. #1544
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoKronic View Post
    Alright lets think of it this way:

    you have a daughter going to school. she is defending a fellow student who is being teased because she (for example) because she asked about birth control.
    Now, the bully has zeroed in on your daughter, he is calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute", going on a tirade for 3 days calling her names in front of the student body. Now the other students who hear this, will also start to think "maybe she is a whore?" and go along with the bullying. After a few days you, some teachers, and the principle have began to notice the actions of the bully. Of course any parent will want this to stop and you see the principle demand that the child stops teasing your daughter. So the principle finally grabs the bully to have him apologize, but having to force it out of him all you get is a reluctant "Im sorry i didn't mean to use the specific words "slut" and "prostitute" I should have used more appropriate words to describe her as a "slut" and "prostitute"... although its not my fault, I was just trying to be funny", gets a slap on the wrist and "dont do it again" from the principle, a lolly pop, and sent back to class..

    he's trying to be funny at your daughter's expense, would you find that funny?
    or would you shove his "apology" up his ass and demand he be properly punished for the verbal harassment your daughter just received?
    Many people don't see the situation through this lens. At all.

  5. #1545
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    He did apologize for his language. "Those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her." - Rush Limbaugh

    Apparently Ms. Fluke refused the apology? I'm not sure about that.
    That's quite possibly the worst apology I've ever heard, especially when you include the full context of him insisting that what he did wrong was stooping to the level of liberals. If the man's honestly so stupid that he believes that what people are bad about is word choice, than I've greatly overestimated him. Since I don't think he's that stupid, the only other option is that he's blatantly lying - a couple bad words isn't what people are mad about (maybe some people are, but that'd be incredibly shallow reasoning). What we're mad about is blatantly demeaning someone who didn't do anything wrong. We're mad that he made a completely incoherent argument (birth control costs being related to how much sex you have is lolwut), stood by it, and insulted women collectively. We're mad that he takes an incredibly hypocritical position, critiquing anyone's morals, we're mad that he blatantly lied about Fluke (who didn't state anything about her own sex life), and mad that he thinks he can weasel his way out of it with a pathetic notpology. Because Limbaugh is essentially a child, he instead disingenuously focuses on "bad words", which is not what this has ever been about. Fortunate for him, most media members are sufficiently stupid that they'll be happily led into the narrative that the issue is a couple words, and not substance.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 11:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Many people don't see the situation through this lens. At all.
    Well, we're not all blitzed out of our minds on illegally obtained prescription painkillers.

  6. #1546
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    In the end I don't really care. Rush is a douche, it didn't surprise me at all.

    What surprised me was rational people making irrational arguments("they did it, too!!!one!1!")
    It's just telling is all, Chonogo. Same people couldn't have cared any less about a liberal calling a lady a slut. But Rush does it, and it's the most horrible thing anyone's ever seen. Obvious attack is obvious.

  7. #1547
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    You can't simply push comments under the rug. I didn't understand what Callace was asking, but now I think I do. It isn't about pushing anything under the rug. It's about the people who get fired up enough to start social networking campaigns and advertiser boycotts. These same people who are fired up today about Rush were decidedly not fired up about a liberal counterpart making identical insults just 1 year ago. Why is that? Because somehow Ed Schultz's apology was deemed satisfactory? No, it was because the same people who are fueling the rage against Rush, and are the same people who let it slide when a liberal counterpart made the same slurs, are angry at Rush as a political mouthpiece for conservatism far, far more than they are about any name-calling.
    Basically, yes. I'm actually pretty anti-right wing, but I have a strong disdain for the liberal mindset, as well. These days it's hard not to notice that it's the cool thing to bash on Republicans.*

    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoKronic View Post
    Alright lets think of it this way:

    you have a daughter going to school. she is defending a fellow student who is being teased because she (for example) because she asked about birth control.
    Now, the bully has zeroed in on your daughter, he is calling her a "slut" and a "prostitute", going on a tirade for 3 days calling her names in front of the student body. Now the other students who hear this, will also start to think "maybe she is a whore?" and go along with the bullying. After a few days you, some teachers, and the principle have began to notice the actions of the bully. Of course any parent will want this to stop and you see the principle demand that the child stops teasing your daughter. So the principle finally grabs the bully to have him apologize, but having to force it out of him all you get is a reluctant "Im sorry i didn't mean to use the specific words "slut" and "prostitute" I should have used more appropriate words to describe her as a "slut" and "prostitute"... although its not my fault, I was just trying to be funny", gets a slap on the wrist and "dont do it again" from the principle, a lolly pop, and sent back to class..

    he's trying to be funny at your daughter's expense, would you find that funny?
    or would you shove his "apology" up his ass and demand he be properly punished for the verbal harassment your daughter just received?
    That's quite a situation you've concocted there. Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with Ms. Fluke. Rush was definitely out of line in his comments, but Fluke's "testimony" was laughably absurd, at best. But Fluke is not just some poor law student caught in the crossfire, she is a long time women's*reproductive*rights activist that went to Georgetown for the express purpose of changing their rules governing contraceptives being covered by the university provided healthcare. *

  8. #1548
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    That's quite possibly the worst apology I've ever heard, especially when you include the full context of him insisting that what he did wrong was stooping to the level of liberals. If the man's honestly so stupid that he believes that what people are bad about is word choice, than I've greatly overestimated him. Since I don't think he's that stupid, the only other option is that he's blatantly lying - a couple bad words isn't what people are mad about (maybe some people are, but that'd be incredibly shallow reasoning). What we're mad about is blatantly demeaning someone who didn't do anything wrong. We're mad that he made a completely incoherent argument (birth control costs being related to how much sex you have is lolwut), stood by it, and insulted women collectively. We're mad that he takes an incredibly hypocritical position, critiquing anyone's morals, we're mad that he blatantly lied about Fluke (who didn't state anything about her own sex life), and mad that he thinks he can weasel his way out of it with a pathetic notpology. Because Limbaugh is essentially a child, he instead disingenuously focuses on "bad words", which is not what this has ever been about. Fortunate for him, most media members are sufficiently stupid that they'll be happily led into the narrative that the issue is a couple words, and not substance.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 11:50 PM ----------



    Well, we're not all blitzed out of our minds on illegally obtained prescription painkillers.
    Your hate for Rush is obvious, particularly in your personal attack against him in your second post. Lots of people fall prey to pain killer addiction after hospitalization. It's actually pretty common. And that hate is what is driving the fervor, not the name-calling. The name-calling is purely a fig leaf, nothing more.

    Edit: Got a complaint about this post, so let me clarify. You called Rush stupid, a liar, a child, incoherent (completely untrue), claimed he attacked all women (when in fact he did not), and inferred his apology was disingenuous. The totality of these attacks and false claims led me to post the way I did.
    Last edited by Dacien; 2012-03-07 at 05:10 AM.

  9. #1549
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    That's quite possibly the worst apology I've ever heard, especially when you include the full context of him insisting that what he did wrong was stooping to the level of liberals. If the man's honestly so stupid that he believes that what people are bad about is word choice, than I've greatly overestimated him. Since I don't think he's that stupid, the only other option is that he's blatantly lying - a couple bad words isn't what people are mad about (maybe some people are, but that'd be incredibly shallow reasoning). What we're mad about is blatantly demeaning someone who didn't do anything wrong. We're mad that he made a completely incoherent argument (birth control costs being related to how much sex you have is lolwut), stood by it, and insulted women collectively. We're mad that he takes an incredibly hypocritical position, critiquing anyone's morals, we're mad that he blatantly lied about Fluke (who didn't state anything about her own sex life), and mad that he thinks he can weasel his way out of it with a pathetic notpology. Because Limbaugh is essentially a child, he instead disingenuously focuses on "bad words", which is not what this has ever been about. Fortunate for him, most media members are sufficiently stupid that they'll be happily led into the narrative that the issue is a couple words, and not substance.
    No, not really. You're mad because he's a right-wing nutjob who called a white girl a slut.

  10. #1550
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    It's just telling is all, Chonogo. Same people couldn't have cared any less about a liberal calling a lady a slut. But Rush does it, and it's the most horrible thing anyone's ever seen. Obvious attack is obvious.
    I've never met a single self-identified liberal that thinks calling women "sluts" is acceptable. Can you find me any examples of liberals defending the use of the word "slut" to describe anyone?

    It's also worth noting that a slur tossed in rage is not quite equivalent to explaining that someone's a total slut for using birth control. That shouldn't be read as a defense of the pejorative in any context, as I think it's a blatantly vile and misogynist insult that doesn't belong in public discourse; it is, however, different to use a word you shouldn't in anger, than to actually believe what you're saying.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-07 at 12:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Your hate for Rush is obvious, particularly in your personal attack against him in your second post. Lots of people fall prey to pain killer addiction after hospitalization. It's actually pretty common. And that hate is what is driving the fervor, not the name-calling. The name-calling is purely a fig leaf, nothing more.
    I explained myself in brief above, and this isn't a refutation of anything I said. Neither is senshu's reply below.

    Yeah, I don't like the man - I think he's a complete scumbag and a complete hypocrite. I think his influence on politics is poisonous, particularly his transparently misogynistic and racist statements. That doesn't, in any way, imply that I'm wrong.

  11. #1551
    Stood in the Fire TechnoKronic's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    That's quite possibly the worst apology I've ever heard, especially when you include the full context of him insisting that what he did wrong was stooping to the level of liberals. If the man's honestly so stupid that he believes that what people are bad about is word choice, than I've greatly overestimated him. Since I don't think he's that stupid, the only other option is that he's blatantly lying - a couple bad words isn't what people are mad about (maybe some people are, but that'd be incredibly shallow reasoning). What we're mad about is blatantly demeaning someone who didn't do anything wrong. We're mad that he made a completely incoherent argument (birth control costs being related to how much sex you have is lolwut), stood by it, and insulted women collectively. We're mad that he takes an incredibly hypocritical position, critiquing anyone's morals, we're mad that he blatantly lied about Fluke (who didn't state anything about her own sex life), and mad that he thinks he can weasel his way out of it with a pathetic notpology. Because Limbaugh is essentially a child, he instead disingenuously focuses on "bad words", which is not what this has ever been about. Fortunate for him, most media members are sufficiently stupid that they'll be happily led into the narrative that the issue is a couple words, and not substance.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-06 at 11:50 PM ----------



    Well, we're not all blitzed out of our minds on illegally obtained prescription painkillers.
    this exactly. it's not the words, it's the context and who he was aiming it at.
    I never paid Rush any mind before now, I already knew he was an asshole, but the fact that he thinks he can just slide this under the table with a half-ass apology and "Im only doing it because someone else did it" is what's causing so much backlash. he didnt even directly address the woman or the rest of the students he continuously referred to. He's being a total hypocrite of demanding liberals to take responsibility for their actions and he wont do it himself? he treats minorities, women and Americans who do not think with the same chauvinistic 1950's ideology as if theyre scum. his record proves this.. I think it's about time he remove his rose colored shades and realize, this isnt your Daddy's America anymore.

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-07 at 12:03 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by senshu View Post

    That's quite a situation you've concocted there. Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with Ms. Fluke. Rush was definitely out of line in his comments, but Fluke's "testimony" was laughably absurd, at best. But Fluke is not just some poor law student caught in the crossfire, she is a long time women's*reproductive*rights activist that went to Georgetown for the express purpose of changing their rules governing contraceptives being covered by the university provided healthcare. *
    then you missed the entire point i was making. Anyone who makes such accusations and publicly defaces a person whom disagree with should be reprimanded for their actions. same as a bully would be punished if it were in a school yard.

  12. #1552
    High Overlord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    107
    I'm really amazed at the length people will go to to defend Rush. Ever since the talking point memo went out on Monday to attack Schultz that's all I've heard, and it's amazing that people cannot parse the two events and see how drastically different they are. Are we really telling people that they are blinded by hatred of Rush, all the while posting schizophrenic wingnut conspiracies about the media?

  13. #1553
    Quote Originally Posted by senshu View Post
    That's quite a situation you've concocted there. Unfortunately, it has nothing at all to do with Ms. Fluke. Rush was definitely out of line in his comments, but Fluke's "testimony" was laughably absurd, at best. But Fluke is not just some poor law student caught in the crossfire, she is a long time women's*reproductive*rights activist that went to Georgetown for the express purpose of changing their rules governing contraceptives being covered by the university provided healthcare. *
    Here's the full testimony -

    http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/...e-health-care/

    What part, specifically, is laughably absurd? What justifies the scare quotes around "testimony"?

    ---------- Post added 2012-03-07 at 12:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by senshu View Post
    No, not really. You're mad because he's a right-wing nutjob who called a white girl a slut.
    That's quite possibly the strongest refutation I've ever seen. I bet you clean up at debates with the famous "no, not really" retort!

    What in the world does race have to do with anything?

  14. #1554
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoKronic View Post
    then you missed the entire point i was making. Anyone who makes such accusations and publicly defaces a person whom disagree with should be reprimanded for their actions. same as a bully would be punished if it were in a school yard.
    Right, so long as they are a right-wing asshole. *Rush is a jerk and I can't stand him. I never listen to his show and just hearing him talk bothers me. But the CONTENT of this particular message about Fluke didn't bother me one bit, he was just way out of line with the particular way he chose to phrase it. To me the comment about taping sex and showing it to us was worse than calling her a slut.

  15. #1555
    Stood in the Fire TechnoKronic's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Here's the full testimony -

    http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/...e-health-care/

    What part, specifically, is laughably absurd? What justifies the scare quotes around "testimony"?
    yea, she totally sounds like a whore!
    Especially since women have to take birth control every time they have sex. She needs her uterus protected for multiple partners, of course at the tax payers expense.

    /sarcams

  16. #1556
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I've never met a single self-identified liberal that thinks calling women "sluts" is acceptable. Can you find me any examples of liberals defending the use of the word "slut" to describe anyone?
    Wasn't much defending to be seen. Sure as hell wasn't the outright destructive campaign to be seen like we're seeing with Rush.

  17. #1557
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Wasn't much defending to be seen. Sure as hell wasn't the outright destructive campaign to be seen like we're seeing with Rush.
    Right, and I explained why. A circumstance where someone says something they shouldn't, even if it's stupid and misogynist, in a fit of anger, isn't the same thing as the fashion in which Limbaugh conducted himself. Limbaugh's notpology makes quite clear that he stands by his viewpoint that she's a slut, but just shouldn't have used a "bad word". I'll grant that there's plenty of people shallow enough to think it's about language, but every serious commentator I've heard and every intelligent person I know is well aware that the issue is the misogyny of the Limbaugh's argument, not just a couple words.

    But, back to the question I asked and the obvious implication of your answer - you grant that liberals didn't defend Schultz, that there was no one saying that his actions were actually fine. Yet, here we are with tons of conservatives excusing Limbaugh's behavior. Why do you suppose that is?

  18. #1558
    Stood in the Fire TechnoKronic's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    379
    Quote Originally Posted by senshu View Post
    Right, so long as they are a right-wing asshole.
    Nice assumption. you do this often?
    read words between the lines that have nothing to do with the subject.
    instead of missing the point, you are blatantly ignoring it.

    *Rush is a jerk and I can't stand him. I never listen to his show and just hearing him talk bothers me. But the CONTENT of this particular message about Fluke didn't bother me one bit, he was just way out of line with the particular way he chose to phrase it. To me the comment about taping sex and showing it to us was worse than calling her a slut.
    http://womensissues.about.com/od/rep...Vs-Fiction.htm
    Rush Limbaugh (2/29): A Georgetown co-ed told Rep. Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex that they're going broke, so you and I should pay for their birth control....Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke said that it's too expensive to have sex in law school without mandated insurance coverage. Apparently, four out of every ten co-eds are having so much sex that it's hard to make ends meet if they have to pay for their own contraception, Fluke's research shows."

    Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope. "'Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception), Fluke reported. It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

    "'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,' Fluke told the hearing. $3,000 for birth control in three years? That's a thousand dollars a year of sex -- and, she wants us to pay for it."...You guys who are thinking you're not gonna go to college? Let me just say one thing to you: Georgetown. They're admitting before congressional committee that they're having so much sex they can't afford the birth control pills!
    Rush Limbaugh (3/1): The left has been thrown into an outright conniption fit.... to what I said yesterday about Susan Fluke -- or Sandra Fluke, whatever her name is -- the Georgetown student who went before a congressional committee and said she's having so much sex, she's going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, "Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever."...

    Look, at least I didn't call her "a woman driver," and I'll tell you this, you people on the left: I'll happily buy her all the aspirin she wants....We would happily buy Sandra Fluke all the aspirin she wants. What could that possibly cost. But contraceptives? So much sex at Georgetown?...

    I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want.
    ush Limbaugh (3/1): Where are the guys here? Do they not have a role here? We assume they're having sex with guys....

    According to Planned Parenthood -- and they should know -- birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month. So, at most, that would be $600 a year. What is Sandra Fluke buying? We then -- I didn't do this, but a member of the staff well-versed in these matters went to Amazon to check the purchase of condoms. And essentially what we found is that you could buy the equivalent of using five condoms a day for $953, and if you paid for it at once you could get free shipping. And everybody's in a hurry here. So free shipping would matter. Nine hundred fifty-three dollars. So Planned Parenthood, $600 bucks a year. Condoms, $953 a year....

    Sandra Fluke reported to Pelosi: "It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations. 'Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,' Fluke told the hearing. ... That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex -- and, she wants us to pay for it." Now, what does that make her? She wants us to buy her sex. She wants us to pay for her sex, and she went to a congressional committee to close the sale....

    "'For a lot of students, like me, who are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary,' she complains." A thousand dollars, $3,000, practically an entire summer salary that they now have to spend on sex. So she earns enough money in just one summer to pay for three full years of sex, and they're full years because she and her co-ed classmates are having sex nearly three times a day for three years straight, apparently.

    Well, that's what the numbers add up to! We've run 'em here: $953 for condoms on Amazon. That's a year. That's close to a thousand bucks. Why aren't condoms provided free by this stupid policy? Why only birth control pills? No, I'm not advocating. I'm just asking the question. At $1 a condom, if she shops at CVS pharmacy's website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms or a thousand of them a year. We've done all kinds of research on this. And what about these deadbeat boyfriends or random hookups that these babes are encountering here, having sex with nearly three times a day? While in law school.

    If Fluke is gonna ask the government to force anybody to foot the bill for her friends' birth control, shouldn't it be these guys? Who pays for the abortions? Oops! We already know that, too. So that's where this all started, that story. That's where it all started. A woman who goes to law school at Georgetown goes to a congressional hearing where Pelosi is (crying), "I'm going broke having sex! I need... I need the government to provide me condoms and contraception. It's not fair." Okay, so this is a law student at a congressional committee asking for us ... to ... pay ... for ... the ... things ... that ... make ... it ... possible ... for ... her ... to ... have ... sex.

    Therefore we are paying her to have sex.

    Therefore we are paying her for having sex.

    We are getting screwed even though we don't meet her personally!...

    Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often? What next that you can't afford are you gonna go to Pelosi and say we need to buy? Mink? A Volt? A Prius? What next are you going to want, Ms. Fluke, that you see etched in misery on the faces of fellow students at Georgetown because they don't have? "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected..."

    Prove it! What is "on their faces"? Acne? What is it, acne? Zits? What's on their faces that tells you? Seriously! You know, I'm the mayor of Realville. I live in Literalville. This is hilarious. It's absolutely skyrocketing hilarious to have this portrayed as the latest killer disease (brought to you by the Republicans, of course).

    Folks, if you ask 'em -- if you ask 'em -- the Washington, DC, Department of Health will send you free condoms and lube. The DC Department of Health free condoms and lube if you just ask 'em for it! So, 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....

    if you are defending this, I really think you have some serious mental issues.

    I know I'm all up in here with the discussion, but we really have to avoid personal attacks like "you have mental issues". Just avoid those kinds of things. - Dacien
    Last edited by Dacien; 2012-03-07 at 05:24 AM.

  19. #1559
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Here's the full testimony -

    http://www.whatthefolly.com/2012/02/...e-health-care/

    What part, specifically, is laughably absurd? What justifies the scare quotes around "testimony"?[COLOR="red"]
    Actually, almost all of it. The made-up cost she gives: $3000 over the entire length of law school? *Try $1000 if you insist on brand only. Her married friend who couldn't afford to get it filled when she learned it wasn't covered on insurance: laughable. Is that family existing completely on welfare and eating ramen every night, that they can't afford between $15 and $30 a month for the ability to have (relatively) worry-free sex? All while paying for tuition at Georgetown? *Her entire speech was a load of bull.

    And, ironically, I'm in favor of all healthcare providers giving free birth control. I somewhat see where the*Republicans*are coming from in their protest of it, though I have to stretch to do as and I don't agree with it. *If it wasn't an election year, it wouldn't be an issue.


    That's quite possibly the strongest refutation I've ever seen. I bet you clean up at debates with the famous "no, not really" retort!

    What in the world does race have to do with anything?
    Yes, that's all I said. "No, not really.", and that was the end of it. Don't think race is a factor? Can you explain how Rush has gotten away with 20 years of saying outrageous and insulting things, but this is the first time there's been THIS much backlash over any of them?*

  20. #1560
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    But, back to the question I asked and the obvious implication of your answer - you grant that liberals didn't defend Schultz, that there was no one saying that his actions were actually fine. Yet, here we are with tons of conservatives excusing Limbaugh's behavior. Why do you suppose that is?
    I think because we're seeing a tidal wave of anger that doesn't reconcile itself with comparable liberal incidents, and we're calling shenanigans on it.

Posting Permissions

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