GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/03/03/my-two-cents-on-slut-gaterush-was-wrong-the-presidents-priorities-are-misplaced/trackback/

  1. Brian, from your post on GayPatriot on 1/12/12, under the tag “Civil Discourse”.

    I have had enough.
    Dan has a lot more stomach for insulting comments on our blog, but I do not. I appreciate his attempt to politely suggest that the conversation around here has been degrading and trying to rein it in. It didn’t work.
    So, I’m stepping in.
    This policy is STILL in effect:
    Remember that the people under discussion are human beings. Comments that contain personal attacks about the post author or other commenters will be deleted. Repeated violators will be banned. Challenge the ideas of those with whom you disagree, not their patriotism, decency, or integrity.

    Then you Tweeted: WHERE DO I SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING RUSH LIMBAUGH!!!! NO TAX MONEY FOR SLUTS! NO TAX MONEY FOR SLUTS! NO TAX MONEY FOR SLUTS! http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/03/message-from-goproud.html

    And followed by…SHE (ed. Ms. Fluke) was the one who testified that she needed contraception due to her self-reported sexcapades. End of story.

    Which is not only insulting, but a lie. I linked to the transcript of Ms. Fluke’s testimony in my email to Dan and if he read it, he will tell you that her personal sex life was not discussed. At all. Even once.

    Two days earlier, on 1/10/12, Dan, you wrote on Gay Patriot:

    If you met some of the people (whom you disparage online), you might find they are good folks. Indeed, I have met most of those who have contacted me in recent days. I don’t always agree with what they say (indeed, one of them has criticized my points more often than not). But, they are all good people.

    In conclusion, let me offer this suggestion. Each time you find fault with someone’s argument, as your prepare to take him (or her) on, imagine that you are going to have to sit down next to him at dinner the next day.

    Do you like having dinner next to a woman you’ve called a slut, as Bruce just did? How about if you agreed with someone who called them a prostitute and said that they should put up a sex tape online in exchange for access to birth control? Would you defame a “good person” by saying she talked about her “sexcapades” in front of Congress, when she didn’t?

    In other words, Bruce – are you drunk Tweeting tonight? When you wrote back in January, “I have had enough.” did you mean Jack Daniels? Having a bad day? Got a flat tire? Because your memory on the issue of civil discourse seems to be very, very compromised.

    I sometimes sign off “Cheers”, but I’m afraid it may get worse,

    And I still plan to let any entity that chooses to advertise on either site that you support hatred of women, silencing political discussion, and that they might not want their corporate name associated with people of such… limited vocabulary.

    So, peace,
    Thomas

    *Full disclosure – I had an email discussion with Dan which was very civil, but the best refutation he could muster of the remarks by Rush Limbaugh and Bruce regarding Sandra Fluke was: that he thought they words were “intemperate” and “overboard”, after duly noting “You Democrats do the same thing!” Copies available on request.

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 7:20 am - March 3, 2012

  2. Thomas, I am wondering if you meant Bruce, instead of Brian. Could have been tgat evil auto-spell feature

    Comment by rusty — March 3, 2012 @ 8:24 am - March 3, 2012

  3. Dan, excellent point. Once you start lacing any point with name calling, even when the “justification” is the other side does it too, you lost your point, and made it about name calling. Sure, you may get nodding agreement from those who normally agree with you, but you’re not going to convince others who disagree, or even those who are undecided.

    Comment by Pat — March 3, 2012 @ 9:33 am - March 3, 2012

  4. @ Rusty – I did mean Brian, and t’was no one’s fault my my own tiredness that I typed Bruce in there.

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 9:56 am - March 3, 2012

  5. @ Rusty – AAAND I reversed the names again. Mea culpa.

    See? Saying “I did something wrong.” does not cause death. It does, however, increase humility and a sense of personal responsibility, which for some of us is a fate worse than that.

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 9:59 am - March 3, 2012

  6. Your outrage (and coherence) are most impressive Thomas… And yet the fact remains, that taxpayers should not have to pay for anyone’s contraception choices but their own.

    It’s telling that this particular female (I won’t say either “slut” or “lady”) and/or those whom she claims to speak for:

    (1) cannot think of any cheaper ways to prevent their pregnancies than $1600 a year (or whatever it is) contraception – Georgetown, and our whole nation, should be embarrassed by that fact alone – and
    (2) apparently cannot get their boyfriend(s) to pay, nor to take any responsibility for contraception.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 10:14 am - March 3, 2012

  7. I hope you’ll like my fact checking, too:

    1) The HHS bill doesn’t apply to student insurance.
    2) Georgetown already covers contraception for faculty and staff, so, you know, hypocrite much?
    3) The Georgetown Law School student government unanimously passed a resolution encouraging that this coverage be extended to grad students.
    4) Ms. Fluke never spoke about her sex life. Her testimony is available at ABC.com in .pdf format, and I would encourage people commenting here to actually read it.
    5) Calling the people opposed to CPAC attendance by GOProud “nasty bigots” earned one of your members a sharp rebuke. I would argue that “slut”, “prostitute” and “show me your sex tape” deserve a stronger response.
    6) “But the other guy does it too!” is the weakest defense, ever, and should only be used by children, who should them be told that it’s wrong and why.

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 10:26 am - March 3, 2012

  8. I love how Thomas comes in here to lecture people on “civil discourse” and then proceeds to call Bruce and Dan drunks, liars, and hypocrites.

    Which shows the entire point. Those who shriek the loudest about “civil discourse” are the last to practice it, as we see from liberal Obama supporters like Thomas and Little Kiwi who want gay and lesbian conservatives to hang themselves.

    One thing you’re doing which is great, Thomas, is showing Dan the utter futility of trying to reason with hardcore Obama liberals. Dan still clings to the belief that you are misguided, while the vast majority of us have come to the realization that you simply are the type of person who could go tell people to hang themselves without an iota of concern or reason simply because you disagree with them politically.

    Meanwhile, ILC hit exactly the point; this lazy rich white liberal who can afford fancy clothes, DC housing, top-tier law school tuition, and clearly sufficient food won’t let DC parents have tuition vouchers to get their children out of the hellholes that pass for public schools in Washington…..but will demand that said parents pay her and her sex partners’ thousands of dollars a year in contraception bills.

    That only plays among two kinds of people: those who don’t know how much contraception costs because they’ve spent their entire lives not paying for it, and those who think it’s cool to use government to force other people to pay their bills.

    You won’t find either here.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 10:28 am - March 3, 2012

  9. 6) “But the other guy does it too!” is the weakest defense, ever, and should only be used by children, who should them be told that it’s wrong and why.

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 10:26 am – March 3, 2012

    Then you are a child, since all you’ve done is insist that Bruce and Dan’s behavior somehow justifies yours.

    Meanwhile, when you can provide examples of your publicly calling out and repudiating every single one of these statements, then you might actually have some credibility as principled opposition.

    Which again is the point. Bruce and Dan have a track record of being able to call out people regardless of political affiliation and based on principle.

    Both you and Fluke have a track record of utter blind unprincipled partisanship.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 10:34 am - March 3, 2012

  10. Agree with Dan. Rush was wrong in his choice of words. Slut became the story, not the fact that Americans increasingly demand that others pay their way in life.
    ,
    Fluke’s sex life, indeed her medical issues or even her choice of toothpaste, are none of my business. I don’t care. I don’t want to know.

    But when people demand that I pay for their choices in life then it becomes my business whether I like it or not.

    I’ve stated before that I am dumbfounded that given the economy, that we are at war, that we are likely to be at war with Iran in the near future, and looming collapse under public and private debt, the fact that contraception, widely available and cheap, is even being discussed.

    Bread and circuses.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 3, 2012 @ 11:05 am - March 3, 2012

  11. I agree with EVERYTHING SAID BY SoCalRobert

    Comment by Geena — March 3, 2012 @ 11:15 am - March 3, 2012

  12. first this:

    Given Rick Santorum’s views on sex as being only for procreation and within the confines of marriage, and his condemnation of contraception, surely he must be equally opposed to erectile dysfunction medications. At a bare minimum, he should call for their restriction to married men with wives of child-bearing age and for requiring some sort of affidavit that they will not be used simply for carnal pleasure. Anything less would be rank hypocrisy.

    Martin Eagle, Ph.D.

    Durham

    Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/02/1897375/ed-drugs-too.html#storylink=cpy

    then this:

    ED prevalence exceeds the rate of treatment seeking for ED. In addition, health plans that cover ED drugs have developed successful approaches to control budgetary impact. Among health plans covering ED drugs, spending for this coverage is significantly lower than predictions of a decade ago. Coverage for ED drugs may encourage physicians to proactively communicate with patients about sexual functioning. Because ED is correlated with several comorbidities and can serve as a marker for previously undetected health conditions,5,6 such discussions can result in screening for undiagnosed hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. Early diagnosis and treatment of these problems can increase life expectancy and HRQOL and can also reduce health-care expenditures. Coverage of specific indication(s) to restore normal erectile functioning can limit “enhancement and lifestyle” demand, ensure safe use of PDE5 inhibitors, and improve HRQOL for men and their partners.

    http://www.nature.com/clpt/journal/v89/n1/full/clpt2010265a.html

    And then finally this:

    Viagra was initially studied for use in hypertension (high blood pressure) and angina pectoris (a symptom of ischaemic heart disease). Phase I clinical trials under the direction of Ian Osterloh suggested that the drug had little effect on angina, but that it could induce marked penile erections.
    After Phase II testing of sildenafil for angina failed to show promising results, Pfizer decided to pursue its use for erectile dysfunction rather than for angina. The drug was patented in 1996 and approved for use in erectile dysfunction by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on March 27, 1998. Viagra became the first oral treatment approved to treat erectile dysfunction in the United States, and it was offered for sale in the United States later that year. Sales of Viagra continue to exceed well over $1 billion per year.
    Dr. Simon Campbell, who was the Senior Vice President of Medicinal Discovery at Pfizer and oversaw Viagra’s development, was also a key player in the discovery of Viagra. He retired from Pfizer in 1998 and according to a Pfizer press release on June 8 of that year, Campbell was “a key member of the Pfizer teams that discovered three of the company’s important new medicines (including)… Viagra, the first oral medication for erectile dysfunction…”
    Even though sildenafil is available only by prescription from a doctor, many have argued that Viagra has been marketed by Pfizer as a recreational drug.
    Many famous celebrities and politicians have appeared in TV, radio and print ads to help sell the product, including former United States Senator Bob Dole and soccer star Pelé, in Latin America and Europe. Political analyst Rush Limbaugh, former baseball player Rafael Palmeiro and former NASCAR driver Mark Martin have also served as spokesmen.

    just to make sure. . . Political analyst Rush Limbaugh

    Now, it is my understanding that Flake is just making the point that insurance companies provide coverage for hormonal therapy including birth control and other related health isuues. I really don’t understand how she is asking others to pay for birth control.

    Comment by rusty — March 3, 2012 @ 11:17 am - March 3, 2012

  13. “[Michelle Malkin] doesn’t just criticize Rush; she also takes the Georgetown student to task as well.”

    She doesn’t criticize Rush at all, except to later say he should have lobbed a different insult (moocher) instead of the specific insult he lodged. In other words, she basically said it is A-O-K for the right to engage in the very same vile conduct she routinely (and, but for her own hypocrisy, rightly) excoriates the left over. It would have been nice if for once, the right could have simply stood up and said out loud that wrong is wrong, and left it at that rather than trying to score a cheap tu quoque.

    Comment by Xrlq — March 3, 2012 @ 11:32 am - March 3, 2012

  14. I’ve stated before that I am dumbfounded that given the economy, that we are at war, that we are likely to be at war with Iran in the near future, and looming collapse under public and private debt, the fact that contraception, widely available and cheap, is even being discussed.

    Bread and circuses.

    SCR: The point is right there, staring at you. You just hit on it. We are talking about contraception, *precisely because* “we are likely to be at war with Iran in the near future, and looming collapse under public and private debt”…. left-liberals desperately need to change the subject.

    That puts me in 2 minds, about what Rush did. I actually don’t think it’s wrong to call a spade a spade. But Malkin’s point is good… that the relevant epithet is “moocher” rather than “slut”… and Dan’s point is good, that all this plays into the very distractions that Obama wants to distract us with.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2012 @ 11:52 am - March 3, 2012

  15. [...] wrong as it was for Limbaugh to sink to the level of leftists in his crass name-calling of a 30-year-old activist and law student who wants free birth control [...]

    Pingback by Pres. Obama Calls 30-Year-Old Law Student Sandra Fluke after Limbaugh Called Her Crass Names « Frugal Café Blog Zone — March 3, 2012 @ 12:43 pm - March 3, 2012

  16. Whoa!

    The “evil Republicans against contraception” issue started with a non-sequitur question asked by Stephanopoulos at the Jan. 7, 2012 debate.

    Here is Rush in the third hour on March 2, 2012:

    RUSH: We had the sound bite yesterday on this program. Kathleen Sebelius was testifying on Capitol Hill. She actually said, quote: “The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.” She was suggesting that fewer babies born would make the cost of contraception not be as much, and it would reduce health care costs overall as well. Now, what’s happening here politically with the elevation of contraception here to such prominence in the national debate? To me, it is evidence that the Democrats and the left have encountered utter political and moral failure on their decades-long abortion push.

    It just isn’t the winning issue for them it used to be.

    It is not the issue. If it were, this wouldn’t be about contraception. This would be about abortion. Follow me on this. This is key politically. The Democrats need these planks to scare voters about the Republican Party. If abortion were still the winning issue that the Democrats think that it used to be, Sandra Fluke would be testifying about that. Sandra Fluke would be upset that abortion is not being paid for at Georgetown, a Catholic Jesuit university. But she’s not, is she? She’s testifying about contraception. “Contraception” is the replacement plank for “abortion” in the Democrat Party platform. That’s what’s happening here, in a political sense.

    Now, it isn’t going to work. Not only because of the failure of logic and broad persuasive power, but because the whole ginned-up thing is so phony! Free and cheap contraception is available everywhere. Nobody’s been denied contraception. It’s free. As mentioned yesterday: In Washington, DC, just call the Board of Health, call the Department of Health, and they’ll send you as many condoms as you want. But the thing is, voters know this. Voters know that contraception is not being denied to anyone. Voters know that contraception is cheap! It is available anywhere, any time, in abundance.

    There is no army of whipped-up, angry female voters ready to mobilize on this issue no matter what the Democrats and the media are pretending here. Sandra Fluke is “an army of one.” They may be able to get five or six stragglers but this is not representative in a political sense now of any mass movement. And if they create one, that will be exactly what they’ve done: Create it. Because it doesn’t exist. For this to be genuine, contraception would be difficult to find. Birth control pills would be priced out of site, it would be difficult to get them, and therefore the demand would be genuine. But it’s not! Contraception’s everywhere. It’s cheap.

    It’s five bucks at Walmart we heard yesterday! So what I’m doing and what I’m saying and how I’m reacting is “reprehensible.” But it’s not reprehensible for Obama to violate the Constitution. It’s not reprehensible for Obama to impose his own morality on the Catholic Church and all of its schools and all of its hospitals. No, that’s not reprehensible? To me it is. To me it’s insulting and reprehensible. It’s also very frightening. The president of the United States is behaving outside the bounds of the Constitution. This is something Henry VIII would do. They find me reprehensible. I can’t do anything. I can’t deny you anything. I can’t provide you anything. I can’t mandate that you get anything. I can’t do one thing to you.

    Obama can — wants to, in fact!

    Now, what’s the central element here that’s in all of the Drive-By stories is missing? It’s very simple. What’s missing in this… Let me explain it in a different way. Let me illustrate it as a lot of people see it. In fact, if you’re new to the program today, this is probably what you think. We have this struggling co-ed at Georgetown, and when she got there she found out that they’ve got this very discriminatory restrictive policy on contraception. She can’t get any. And the Republican Party hates women and doesn’t want this student, this co-ed, to have her birth control pills. So she has courageously and bravely sacrificed her anonymity and her privacy to step forward and lead a cause against a highly discriminating, repressive Georgetown University denying her a birth control pill here or there.

    The truth is… And if this were reported as part of the story, all the rest of this would make sense. If everything she has said were part of the story, it would all make sense. It was Sandra Fluke who said that she was having so much sex, she can’t afford it. See, it’s a different thing for people to hear. People may be sympathetic. Here’s a 30-year-old woman. She might not have a lot of money despite how much Georgetown costs. (But I’m talking about perception.) She wants to have sex now and then but just can’t. She’s a very responsible woman but she can’t because people are denying her contraception. The truth is, she’s spending a thousand dollars a year on pills, and she’s going broke and wants us to buy it.

    Now, if that were part of this story… That’s central to this! That is the foundation of this story. That’s why she’s there. By her own admission, in her own words, Sandra Fluke is having so much sex that she can’t afford it. She’s going broke, I believe she said. And then she said she’d run the numbers and that the circumstances are the same for 40% of the co-eds at Georgetown, that they will spend $3,000 on contraception — and that’s somehow just not fair. She claimed that 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported that they “struggle financially” as a result of the policy at Georgetown. They “struggle financially.” Why are they struggling financially? They are struggling financially because they’re having a lot of sex for which they need a lot of contraception.

    Now, they’re laughing on the other side of the glass. I happen to think this is fundamental to the story. Is it not… (interruption) Dawn, are you worried here I’m just stepping in it deeper? Yes, you are. But this is the truth. (interruption) Oh. Does she have more boyfriends? Ha! They’re lined up around the block. They would have been in my day. Anyway, without that being part of the story, it’s quite understandable that people who hear this on the periphery, might say, “What the heck? I don’t understand.” But by her own admission… Maybe they’re not having a lot of sex and want to; I don’t know. But she’s saying that they are struggling financially as a result of the policy at Georgetown.

    Struggling financially.

    That’s $1,000 a year for contraception that she can’t afford and wants us to pay for it. You put that, Brian Williams, in your report tonight. All the rest of you on cable news, you put that in there. Use her own words! I’m not making any of it up. You put all the details that she brought forth. She’s struggling financially. Why? Just quote her. 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. Is what she’s saying. You put that in the story and it changes for everybody. But politically, what this really means is that abortion doesn’t carry the weight politically that it used to, and this whole contraception thing is a replacement plank for what’s failing on the abortion side.

    Now here is P. J. O’Rourke:

    Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us.

    Nancy Pelosi called a sham hearing which starred Fluke as the sole and star witness. Fluke brought her asinine “data” and claimed “victim” status in need of federal government mandated relief.

    Rush examined this theater of the absurd and branded the players by the roles they were playing. Ms Fluke wants specific entertainment expenses paid by others. This specific entrainment is having sex without the consequence of pregnancy. Apparently, the democrats consider pregnancy to be a woman’s health issue that is negative and must be prevented. Clearly, Ms. Fluke is of the same mind.

    No matter how thick or thin you slice this baloney, it boils down to the cost of what Ms. Fluke and her fellow data women do with their vaginas.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 3, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - March 3, 2012

  17. So right heliotrope and BDB, been a great diversion from the topics at hand.

    But let us recall that Rush hasn’t been the kindest person toward Prez Obama.

    Limbaugh has called Obama a ‘halfrican American’ has said that Obama was not Black but Arab because Kenya is an Arab region, even though Arabs are less than one percent of Kenya. Since mainstream America has become more accepting of African-Americans, Limbaugh has decided to play against its new racial fears, Arabs and Muslims. Despite the fact Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law school, Limbaugh has called him an ‘affirmative action candidate.’ Limbaugh even has repeatedly played a song on his radio show ‘Barack the Magic Negro’ using an antiquated Jim Crow era term for Black a man who many Americans are supporting for president. Way to go Rush.

    But with Breitbart gone, (may he rest in peace), and with Rush in extremely hot water right now, whether staged or planned, Obama has a couple of key critics off the field right now. And don’t think that come October that this little whoo haa won’t be part of a ‘refresh’ button on the political campaign computer.

    And yes Obama is skirting key issues, but so are the rest of the pols seeking election or re-election.

    Comment by rusty — March 3, 2012 @ 1:31 pm - March 3, 2012

  18. Rusty,

    Link to the Rush racism you report. I am on the verge of challenging your veracity.

    Obama as “halfrican” American is all ablaze since yesterday when media matters put out the talking point.

    Come back here with the transcript and the context. We don’t need your interpretation.

    If you think Obama has got Limbaugh hog-tied, you have no concept of how weak political correctness plays away from the choir.

    Man, oh, man I would love to school you on how silly it is to morph the words to fit your chosen stereotype. But, you may be so deep in the talking points memo machine gun staccato that you are deaf to reason.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 3, 2012 @ 1:51 pm - March 3, 2012

  19. It’s been a long time since I’ve posted.. hi guys! I hope I don’t come off as a concern troll here but wanted to speak to this as I’ve watched it unfold over the last few weeks. I seriously can’t help but feel this is a lose/lose for the GOP. Irrespective of issues relating to religious freedom and healthcare, and media twists on the issue, there is still a strain of this debate that remains anti birth control. Women aren’t stupid. Joe Scarborough spoke to this briefly on his morning show last week, before the Limbaugh comments, he said his wife and her friends who are more conservative than he were talking of not voting republican for the first time in their lives due to this issue. They were appalled at the attitudes around this issue. Birth control doesn’t affect my life at all, as a lesbian and a person without migraines, ovarian cysts, or endometriosis, I’ve managed to escape having to take it. Now add the Limbaugh comments and again the GOP can’t catch a break, even Santorum is distancing himself from Limbaugh’s statements. The democrats and the media don’t even have to do anything Limbaugh just kept the issue in front and center whilst saying SLUT.. denigrating women in the process regardless of why they take it. (not like he is a huge fan of female equality or at least I’ve never thought so as a lesbian or a woman). My partner is from Butler Pa a very republican town and what we are seeing on FB is how many who aren’t overtly political commenting on this issue and considering voting for the other ticket. Sure that is highly selective but this is not helping the GOP at all is my point.

    Comment by cmh — March 3, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - March 3, 2012

  20. “But the other guy does it too!” is the weakest defense, ever, and should only be used by children, who should them be told that it’s wrong and why.
    That defense only works if the other guy openly gets away with it.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 3, 2012 @ 2:37 pm - March 3, 2012

  21. It is only anti-birth control due to dishonest media and political hacks. The issue is whether insurance companies should be required to cover birth control in their default policies.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 3, 2012 @ 2:45 pm - March 3, 2012

  22. There’s no “war on women’s health”. However, there does seem to be a war on women’s intelligence being waged by a failed president and his propaganda machine.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 2:50 pm - March 3, 2012

  23. Heliotrope, this is where Rusty lifted his comment:

    http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

    Unfortunately, Rusty got his comment from an article loaded with fake quotes. Pretty damn pathetic if you ask me.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 3:04 pm - March 3, 2012

  24. Or perhaps Rusty got it here.

    Comment by Pat — March 3, 2012 @ 3:14 pm - March 3, 2012

  25. Helio, if you can get your hands on the 24. January 2007 broadcast, you can hear it for yourself.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 3:19 pm - March 3, 2012

  26. Thank you, Pat, for providing the audio.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 3:20 pm - March 3, 2012

  27. Xrlq, the difference between Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and Michelle Malkin calling her a “moocher” is that she is a moocher, and that term isn’t misogynistic.

    Now, given that Sandra Fluke apparently thinks contraception costs $3000 a year (and assuming that how often one has sex affects how often the birth control is taken, which I’m not sure about but I don’t think is the case), it is sort of understandable to think that Sandra Fluke is a slut. Or, at least, I can see why he might have thought so. It wasn’t thought out well, and he should apologize if he hasn’t already (in my opinion).

    However, while this doesn’t excuse Rush’s actions, it is quite hypocritical to become so outraged at Rush’s words, but not Bill Maher’s.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 3, 2012 @ 3:21 pm - March 3, 2012

  28. First, I can’t find another written transcript to provide context. However, context really is irrelevant in this case. The term “Halfrican American” was coined over a decade ago in a poem by Wayde Compton, is used as a self-description by bi-racial persons, and has no derogatory connotation whatsoever (unless one wants to make the absurd claim that Urban Dictionary is racist against black people).

    “Halfrican” and “Halfrican-American” are simply not considered to be racially derogatory by those to whom the term applies (and there certainly exist many such derogatory terms for biracial persons).

    http://www.redstate.com/chipbennett/#a2

    Time to change the subject again, Cinesnatch.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 3:47 pm - March 3, 2012

  29. Again:

    First, I can’t find another written transcript to provide context. However, context really is irrelevant in this case. The term “Halfrican American” was coined over a decade ago in a poem by Wayde Compton, is used as a self-description by bi-racial persons, and has no derogatory connotation whatsoever (unless one wants to make the absurd claim that Urban Dictionary is racist against black people).

    “Halfrican” and “Halfrican-American” are simply not considered to be racially derogatory by those to whom the term applies (and there certainly exist many such derogatory terms for biracial persons).

    Time for Rusty and Snatch to change the subject.

    With the bankruptcy of the liberals on full display, it won’t be too much longer before this kerfuffle dies out.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 4:32 pm - March 3, 2012

  30. http://www.redstate.com/chipbennett/#a2

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 4:33 pm - March 3, 2012

  31. Time for Snatch to change the subject?

    I don’t believe I weighed in on the matter, only provided information.

    Time for TGC to stop making assumptions.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 4:53 pm - March 3, 2012

  32. You all have to admit – Obama’s tactics of taking our eyes off the bouncing balls of the economy, Iranian nukes, and a host of other domestic, economic, and his creating the means of destroying the Constitution is incredibly successful.

    Folks forget that Elijah Cummings and his fellow Dems tried to shoehorn Ms. Fluke into the hearing on whether our government has the right to undermine religious liberty. They stormed out, using the usual hypocritical statement of the Republicans acting in bad faith and against contraception. The feigned outrage got Fluke her resume-filler in front of a Congressional committee.

    FWIW, Rush turned into Andrew Breitbart and attacked. While we’re all being lectured by, of all people Boehner, on manners and civility, there are many incredibly vile statements and actions being taken by the left that are aimed at destroying religious liberty. Fluke presented the argument that the Jesuits of Georgetown, a sub-component of the Roman Catholic Church, must pay for her contraception and when necessary, abortion(s). That is against the church’s teachings. Which is entirely the point, and Fluke’s goal. Once the state can force a church to act against itself, the church becomes an agency of the state. This creates a state-established church.

    Once one part of the First Amendment is undermined successfully, the rest of it goes.

    Civility is only achieved with mutual respect. Today, the left has no respect for the right. When the left knows the right will hit back, harder, and not stop until the left is bruised and bloody, then we will have civility. Until then, allow Rush to Breitbart and attack Fluke until she surrenders.

    Comment by DaveO — March 3, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - March 3, 2012

  33. HOMO YOU DIDN’T!

    MY NEW FUN MANTRA

    SMOOCHES

    Comment by rusty — March 3, 2012 @ 5:34 pm - March 3, 2012

  34. I don’t believe I weighed in on the matter, only provided information.

    TRANSLATION: I can’t respond to that. I’ll use a smart ass comment instead.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 5:35 pm - March 3, 2012

  35. TGC Time to change the subject TRANSLATION: I like to make assumptions.

    OR when asked to back those assumptions up, I fail to provide evidence.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 5:42 pm - March 3, 2012

  36. Sorry, Snatch. I have this belief that folks are able to scroll up and read your words. It doesn’t occur to me that they’re as stupid as you hope like Hell that we are.

    But the fact remains that your lawless regime is in violation of the First Amendment AND the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. However, you sluts want to distract from that and change the subject to Rush. It’s sad and pathetic.

    Sadder still, your next response will be some assholish version of “nu-uh!” like before.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 6:03 pm - March 3, 2012

  37. Rush has issued an apology. Whew!

    Comment by rusty — March 3, 2012 @ 6:11 pm - March 3, 2012

  38. Sorry, TGC, I have this nasty habit of backing up my words when I’m right OR just admitting when I’m wrong.

    Apparently, you don’t. (on either account)

    I also have this nasty habit of being civil, though I do lapse every now and again where ND30 is concerned. But, I’m learning. :)

    Please Note:

    folks are able to scroll up and read your words.

    And what words would those be?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 6:13 pm - March 3, 2012

  39. Irrespective of issues relating to religious freedom and healthcare, and media twists on the issue, there is still a strain of this debate that remains anti birth control. Women aren’t stupid. Joe Scarborough spoke to this briefly on his morning show last week, before the Limbaugh comments, he said his wife and her friends who are more conservative than he were talking of not voting republican for the first time in their lives due to this issue.

    Comment by cmh — March 3, 2012 @ 1:52 pm – March 3, 2012

    Actually, if you are going to vote for the SCOAMF Obama based on wanting someone else to pay for your birth control, you ARE stupid.

    And if someone whines about this, simply point out, “Really? You believe that you should be forced to pay the bills for other peoples’ condoms because they are too lazy and irresponsible to pay it themselves?”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 6:28 pm - March 3, 2012

  40. Rush was wrong to single her out. What I’m most annoyed about is that he helped the left divert the conversation from freedom to contraception.

    Comment by Sara — March 3, 2012 @ 6:53 pm - March 3, 2012

  41. So now it’s coming to light that Fluke already graduated from Cornell and is only going to Georgetown because she knew of their policy.

    http://tinyurl.com/728t8vd

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 6:57 pm - March 3, 2012

  42. And what words would those be?

    Your words above wherein you engage in distraction. Jesus H! You mean despite all your hifalutiness, you’re really that stupid?

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 6:59 pm - March 3, 2012

  43. <blockquote cite="And if someone whines about this, simply point out, “Really? You believe that you should be forced to pay the bills for other peoples’ condoms because they are too lazy and irresponsible to pay it themselves?”

    More like: "Really? You think that the only people who should have contraception are those who can afford it, and sex is only for the well-off?"

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 7:06 pm - March 3, 2012

  44. @ Rattlesnake: Now, given that Sandra Fluke apparently thinks contraception costs $3000 a year (and assuming that how often one has sex affects how often the birth control is taken, which I’m not sure about but I don’t think is the case), it is sort of understandable to think that Sandra Fluke is a slut.

    Except, she didn’t say that. Her testimony is available online. Would you like to read what she actually did say?

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - March 3, 2012

  45. TGC,

    Rusty made Post #17. Helio asked for proof of what Rusty purported in Post #18. I provided information in Post #25 that could help Helio get to that proof.

    Perhaps I misunderstood Helio. In that case, my apologies for getting involved.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:26 pm - March 3, 2012

  46. And all of the personal remarks you’ve made towards me TGC are really unnecessary. Can we keep things civil?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 7:33 pm - March 3, 2012

  47. More like: “Really? You think that the only people who should have contraception are those who can afford it, and sex is only for the well-off?”

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 7:06 pm – March 3, 2012

    Well, fortunately for you, Thomas, there’s no price tag for having sex, as anyone who has actually had it can tell you. The price tag comes from the consequences and outcomes of sex, not from the act itself.

    Meanwhile, the answer is yes. If you want contraception, go buy it yourself and go buy as much of it as you like. However, in no way am I obligated to pay for it. I may choose to do so through donation, but am in no other way required to buy it for you.

    You are stating that poor black working-class families should be required to pay higher taxes and health insurance premiums so that rich white liberal women don’t have to pay for birth control.

    You are stating that black families should have their bills raised by thousands of dollars a year so that a rich white liberal who can afford law school tuition that costs many times theirs does not have to buy the thousands of condoms she requires annually.

    What gives you the right to take from them or me? What gives HER the right to take from them?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 7:48 pm - March 3, 2012

  48. Would you like to read what she actually did say?

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 7:09 pm – March 3, 2012

    I’ll save him the effort. She said that rich white liberal females like herself who choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on law school tuition, designer clothes, and DC townhouses should be able to send her thousands of dollars in contraception bills to, not her, not the men with whom she has sex, but to poor, working-class, and other taxpayers.

    It’s pretty simple. The rich white liberal doesn’t want to pay her bills, so she goes to Congress and orders them to force the poor families down the street from her to pay them for her or be jailed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 7:50 pm - March 3, 2012

  49. … there’s no price tag for having sex …

    Is that why we don’t have/need prostitutes? I don’t know, ND30, I think there are those that would beg to differ with you.

    Namely, if you’re:
    1) Ugly
    2) Old
    3) Deformed
    4) Obese
    5) Disproportionate

    and/or

    6) Despicable (?)

    And that’s just for starters.

    (am I forgetting any?)

    Then, yes, ND30, there is a high likelihood that there is a price tag for having sex. Unless, of course, you’re one of those who define masturbation in solitude as sex, which, technically, it is. But, in the social realm, when we generally talking about “sex,” we’re talking about “sex” that involves more than just one person with their hands.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - March 3, 2012

  50. Then, yes, ND30, there is a high likelihood that there is a price tag for having sex.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:02 pm – March 3, 2012

    And now we come to the next logical turn in the shrubbery maze: liberals insisting that sex is a right, sex has a price tag, and therefore other taxpayers should pay the prostitution bills for people who need them.

    Why not? After all, both Cinesnatch and Thomas have argued that the government should fund and pay for every aspect of sex. Prostitution is next.

    That’s why Fluke was arguing. She’s actually a high-class madam who wants the Federal government to give her checks for whoring.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 8:06 pm - March 3, 2012

  51. ??? Um … ??? … LOL!

    No, ND30, I believe I said sex has a price tag for some. Or is it free for all? I mean, I know I could go out and get some right now (if I wanted). But, others are not so fortunate. Namely the aforementioned listed in Post #49. Or, am I mistaken ND30? Is sex free for all? Even if you’re old, obese, ugly, deformed, disproportionate and despicable?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:12 pm - March 3, 2012

  52. No, ND30, I believe I said sex has a price tag for some.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:12 pm – March 3, 2012

    Well, you see, Cinesnatch, what you and Thomas have established is that it doesn’t matter whether it’s free or not; poor black and working-class families need to pay for what you want whether you can afford it or not.

    Sandra Fluke, you see, could have done what other people do, which is go get the free condoms distributed at the student health center, or go to Target for generic birth control pills, or to Planned Parenthood, which claims to hand out cheap birth control, but she didn’t want to do that. She wanted the thousands of condoms, gold-plated pills, etc. that cost her the many thousands that she claims she and all of her friends are paying — and she insisted that the government force poor black and working-class families to pay for them for her.

    So the precedent is set. It doesn’t matter if you can get sex for free; what matters is that poor black and working-class families must foot the bill for whatever sex you want, regardless of cost. Sandra Fluke and Barack Obama say so.

    Do you think your parents should be forced to pay the bill for your having an expensive prostitute, Cinesnatch? Why?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - March 3, 2012

  53. ND30, you’re the one who said sex was free for all. Otherwise, what did you mean when you said:

    … there’s no price tag for having sex …

    Please explain how this works.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - March 3, 2012

  54. Please explain how this works.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:24 pm – March 3, 2012

    Oh, that’s easy, Cinesnatch. No one is going to come by and read some sort of meter or charge you for having sex.

    Now you see, what you threw in was that some people want better-quality or -quantity sex than they can get for free. Just like Fluke wanted more birth control than she could get for free or cheap.

    Her solution was to go to Congress and demand that poor and working-class families pay her desired contraceptive bill for her. Even though she could have chosen cheaper or free contraception very easily, that wasn’t good enough; she demanded that Congress pass a law requiring poor and working-class families to pay for the thousands of dollars in contraception she wanted or go to jail.

    As I pointed out, you and Thomas both seem insistent that it is a “right” that you not only be able to have sex, but sex with whomever you want, whenever you want, without having to pay any of the costs yourself. Hence I asked you why you thought your parents, as well as other working-class and poor families, should be required to pay the prostitution bill required to have the kind of sex that you want to have — rather than you paying it yourself.

    And we should add the condom bill. Why do you think poor and working-class families should be required to pay for your condoms, Cinesnatch?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 8:39 pm - March 3, 2012

  55. ND30, there are people on this planet who the only time(s) they have had sex was when they had to pay for it.

    there’s no price tag for having sex, as anyone who has actually had it can tell you

    You were wrong in the quoted statement.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:58 pm - March 3, 2012

  56. #44

    You’re right, and I apologize for getting it wrong. This is what she did say:

    Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3000 during law school.

    Law school normally takes 3 years to complete, so that is $1000 a year for contraception. Which is still an overstatement. And, as NDT points out, there are other means of aquiring birth control for an even lesser expense. There is really no justification for forcing anyone to pay for contraception. Whatever the case, I’m glad Rush has apologized for his inappropriate remark.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — March 3, 2012 @ 8:59 pm - March 3, 2012

  57. ND30, there are people on this planet who the only time(s) they have had sex was when they had to pay for it.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 8:58 pm – March 3, 2012

    Then you should be able to provide complete names, addresses, photos, video links, and absolute proof that at no point in their lives have these people been ever able to have sex without paying for it.

    I want full details, including absolute proof of every single moment in these peoples’ lives, proving that they have NEVER been able to have sex by any definition without paying for it.

    And if you miss a single moment, or have even the slightest bit of doubt, your statement is not valid.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - March 3, 2012

  58. I wish I could harness ND30′s inchoate rage for productive purposes, but I think the illogic, straw men, and red herrings which have had him made… unwelcome… in many places would make the filtration process too expensive.

    Have a tasty cup of rageahol, ND30, and try to feel better. I’ve got dinner plans with friends and I’m sure you do too.

    Well, dinner plans, anyway. ;)

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 9:20 pm - March 3, 2012

  59. Projection, Thomas.

    After all, liberals like yourself who want gay conservatives, even teenagers, to hang themselves are making it clear that they have some serious unresolved anger issues.

    And as a nice thought, ask yourself this: how many of the friends with which you are dining would still be your friends if you were to criticize Obama or state that Fluke ought to pay her own bills rather than forcing others to do it?

    Then consider why you associate with people who would tell you to kill yourself if you disagreed with them politically.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:28 pm - March 3, 2012

  60. Thomas >> Technology always has a way of catching up. But, I’m an optimist.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:35 pm - March 3, 2012

  61. Oh, and one last thing before I check out, ND30:

    You said, referring to Ms. Fluke: She said that rich white liberal females like herself who choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on law school tuition, designer clothes, and DC townhouses should be able to send her thousands of dollars in contraception…

    Then you should be able to quote exactly where and how she said that, verbatim, with more than one source. And you should be able to provide complete details of her wealth, including tax returns, and her designer clothing receipts, and the address of her DC townhouse, and names of the designers of her clothing, addresses of the townhouse(s) – plural, photos, video links, and absolute proof that she paid her own tuition without any assistance at all. Finally, I want a detailed dissertation on her liberalism

    After all, m’dear… you did demand a similar standard of proof from Cinesnatch.

    Tit / tat. Goose / Gander.

    And enjoy that sweet, sweet anger. Andy Breitbart is in a better place now because of it and has eternal peace.

    And, since you haven’t posted anything on your own blog except for an overwrought piece about the birth of Christ in 2010, I might call attention to the idea that one of Mary’s issues was that she and Joseph were not married when she concieved. Not that big a deal at the time – they were engaged. But Joseph was told to “divorce her quietly”, since he knew he wasn’t the father.

    It’s a good thing he didn’t do that and run around calling her a slut and a prostitute and asking to see her sex scroll.

    Just a little lemon for your Ragetini, NorthDallas30. Have a nice life.

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 9:37 pm - March 3, 2012

  62. And actually, it’s kind of ironic that Thomas brings up dinner; to use the Fluke example, Thomas and his fellow liberals are the kind of people who will invite you out to dinner, order a fancy bottle of wine, get the priciest cut or dish of everything on the menu — and then insist that you hate women, gays, and black people unless you pay the bill.

    Moochers, in other words. More precisely, gluttons when they overeat, sluts when they oversex.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:37 pm - March 3, 2012

  63. Oh my, I wish I could make people laugh like you just got me to, Thomas. Too rich, too rich.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 9:43 pm - March 3, 2012

  64. Then you should be able to quote exactly where and how she said that, verbatim, with more than one source. And you should be able to provide complete details of her wealth, including tax returns, and her designer clothing receipts, and the address of her DC townhouse, and names of the designers of her clothing, addresses of the townhouse(s) – plural, photos, video links, and absolute proof that she paid her own tuition without any assistance at all. Finally, I want a detailed dissertation on her liberalism.

    After all, m’dear… you did demand a similar standard of proof from Cinesnatch.

    Tit / tat. Goose / Gander.

    Yup. After he did elsewhere.

    So what we have here is a case in which both Cinesnatch and you are demanding a standard of proof from others than you scream and whine is patently unfair and meaningless when applied to yourself.

    Educate yourself, Thomas. Perhaps the reason you and yours see “homophobia” everywhere has less to do with your sexual orientation than it does with your laziness and incompetence.

    Which is, I suppose, why you detest gay conservatives. After all, people who can succeed where you cannot make you look like even more of a fool than usual.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:44 pm - March 3, 2012

  65. And, since you haven’t posted anything on your own blog except for an overwrought piece about the birth of Christ in 2010, I might call attention to the idea that one of Mary’s issues was that she and Joseph were not married when she concieved. Not that big a deal at the time – they were engaged. But Joseph was told to “divorce her quietly”, since he knew he wasn’t the father.

    It’s a good thing he didn’t do that and run around calling her a slut and a prostitute and asking to see her sex scroll.

    Comment by Thomas — March 3, 2012 @ 9:37 pm – March 3, 2012

    That’s OK, Thomas. We know you can’t answer why a rich white liberal like Fluke who choose to spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on law school tuition, designer clothes, and DC townhouses should be able to send her thousands of dollars in contraception bills to poor and working-class families.

    It’s sort of like why you can’t explain your support for calling women you don’t like whores and other names.

    Perhaps someday you’ll discover a way of judging by principle rather than by partisanship, and then you won’t have this desire for those who already do to hang themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:51 pm - March 3, 2012

  66. Also, I would bring up an excellent point that was made elsewhere.

    Several servicemen lost their lives this week in Afghanistan, making the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

    Obama did not call their families.

    A rich white liberal woman who bragged about how much she could afford to pay for tuition, housing, and designer clothes demanded that the government send her massive bill for contraception to poor and working-class families rather than her taking responsibility and paying it herself.

    Obama called her, congratulated her, and told her her parents should be proud.

    Those who give are ignored, those who take are glorified.

    Those who serve are spat upon and vilified; those who mooch are worshiped.

    Those who gave their lives are called dogs and Obama applauds; those who are promiscuous and irresponsible are called sluts, and Obama recoils.

    Truly, these are the values of the left. Those who ask not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country are mocked and cast aside; those who ask only what their country can do for them and wish to do nothing themselves are lionized and elevated.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 3, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - March 3, 2012

  67. More, more, more!

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 3, 2012 @ 10:01 pm - March 3, 2012

  68. And all of the personal remarks you’ve made towards me TGC are really unnecessary. Can we keep things civil?

    And it’s not necessary for your being a dick, and yet there you are.

    Comment by TGC — March 3, 2012 @ 11:29 pm - March 3, 2012

  69. ND30, TGC – I really don’t see why you bother.

    The bottom line as far as the left is concerned is this:

    If you want to retain the fruits of your labors, your are greedy.

    If you want the government to use force to grant you access to the fruits of someone else’s labor, you are virtuous.

    Fluke is virtuous. See?

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 3, 2012 @ 11:35 pm - March 3, 2012

  70. TGC >> Projecting much? LOL!

    As Rusty says,

    Smooches

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 12:03 am - March 4, 2012

  71. Heh

    http://www.quickmeme.com/Slut-Sandra-Fluke/popular/1/?upcoming

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 12:21 am - March 4, 2012

  72. [...] My two cents on “Slut-gate”Rush was wrong & the president’s priorities are misplaced [...]

    Pingback by The Morning Links Special Edition: The 30 Year Old Occupier | Lady Liberty 1885 — March 4, 2012 @ 8:55 am - March 4, 2012

  73. Time for Snatch to change the subject?

    I don’t believe I weighed in on the matter, only provided information.

    Time for TGC to stop making assumptions.

    And so it begins. Phase 1 of the Cinesnatch drive to change the subject to: himself. (Watch, a respond to this comment is guaranteed. And in it, we’ll see Cinesnatch change the subject yet a little further to his favorite subject, Cinesnatch.)

    Please Note:

    folks are able to scroll up and read your words.

    And what words would those be?

    Oh wait! The slide is already happening!

    And all of the personal remarks you’ve made towards me TGC…

    And a little more! LOL :-)

    Cinesnatch, in a spirit of civility and never ever name-calling, let me just say: You are a narcissistic jackass, after all.

    There was an earlier thread where you asked if you were a troll. I said no. I take it back. Either I did not comprehend your trolling strategy yet, or you had not yet rolled out your trolling strategy in its full glory. But now it’s clear. For the record, Cinesnatch: Yes, you are a troll.

    there are people on this planet who the only time(s) they have had sex was when they had to pay for it.

    LOL… What a pathetic line of argument. Just pathetic.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 10:39 am - March 4, 2012

  74. So, from here on, let the thread be Cinesnatch talking Cinesnatch… how persecuted he is… how innocent and misunderstood… how he only did X, or didn’t do Y (which of course is false)… After all, if Cinesnatch can jack a dead man’s thread to make it about him, why not a live slut’s thread? Hehe :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 10:52 am - March 4, 2012

  75. P.S. On the (tiny) off chance you might just be confused, Cinesnatch – you want to know how to not make it about you? Try to learn from rusty. rusty is awesome. I don’t agree with all of his opinions; I don’t even think his points always make sense. (And he would say the same about me, heh.) But you know what? He says his bit and almost never makes it about himself. Which makes him easier to get along with… and less boring.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 11:15 am - March 4, 2012

  76. The troll leftists on this thread have really bought into state provided/mandated “free” contraceptives. Furthermore, they will throw any mud at hand in defense of their Fluke reasoning.

    #43

    More like: “Really? You think that the only people who should have contraception are those who can afford it, and sex is only for the well-off?”

    #51

    No, ND30, I believe I said sex has a price tag for some. Or is it free for all? I mean, I know I could go out and get some right now (if I wanted). But, others are not so fortunate. Namely the aforementioned listed in Post #49. Or, am I mistaken ND30? Is sex free for all? Even if you’re old, obese, ugly, deformed, disproportionate and despicable?

    #61

    And, since you haven’t posted anything on your own blog except for an overwrought piece about the birth of Christ in 2010, I might call attention to the idea that one of Mary’s issues was that she and Joseph were not married when she concieved. Not that big a deal at the time – they were engaged. But Joseph was told to “divorce her quietly”, since he knew he wasn’t the father.

    It’s a good thing he didn’t do that and run around calling her a slut and a prostitute and asking to see her sex scroll.

    When one looks at these three “lines of reasoning” as a composite of the opposition argument, it is giraffe-neck obvious that the trolls have no tools in their tool boxes.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 4, 2012 @ 11:24 am - March 4, 2012

  77. I think SoCalRobert phrased it beautifully and succintly above, Heliotrope:

    The bottom line as far as the left is concerned is this:

    If you want to retain the fruits of your labors, your are greedy.

    If you want the government to use force to grant you access to the fruits of someone else’s labor, you are virtuous.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 3, 2012 @ 11:35 pm – March 3, 2012

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 11:33 am - March 4, 2012

  78. Ah ILC, what a nice way to set up a smile for the rest of my Sunday.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 11:37 am - March 4, 2012

  79. Another favorite mantra: your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 11:46 am - March 4, 2012

  80. rusty, I hope you are smiling. Coming from me, “less boring” or “not boring” is praise :-) Whoops, sorry, shouldn’t make it about me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 11:52 am - March 4, 2012

  81. Rush apologized to Fluke. A lot of conservative voices advised him that he had “gone too far” and that certain of his words had caused a distraction and become the focus of attention to the detriment of the on-going debate.

    The facts remain the same. Instead of being a slut, let us just say that Fluke is a Gloria Allred willing to litigate any straw she can grasp for fame and fortune. And, she will use her own vagina as a “victim” and an income stream.

    This poor, smart law student graduated from Cornell University in 2003 with two degrees, including one in feminist, gender and sexuality studies.

    Perhaps she learned in sexuality studies that there are many forms of birth control. To name a few: IUD’s, male condoms, female condoms, shields, diaphragms, spermicides, morning after pills, implants, oral contraceptives, tubal ligation, abortion, later-term abortion, withdrawal, chastity belts, the rhythm method, and abstinence. (As a side argument, Kathleen Sebelius and others are throwing STD’s into this silly argument. Which of the contraceptive methods prevent STD’s?)

    Graduating from Cornell, makes it fairly clear that Fluke has the mental synapses to understand the basics of contraception.

    Putting aside that she uses contraception only as a preventative to pregnancy in the event of rape, it is fair to assume that Fluke uses her vagina for swapping fluids for pleasure with males who might impregnate her.

    Her claim that contraception adds $3000 to the cost of a law degree at Georgetown for women who use their vaginas for pleasure with men who might impregnate them calls her calculations of the costs of entertaining one’s vagina into question.

    Therefore, even though Rush has backed off of how to label Fluke’s use of her vagina, her vagina monologue is still on the table in full public view.

    Fluke made absurd claims and opened her crotch to examination by her own free will. Whether she is some sort of Joan of Arc or just a libertine out for getting other people to pay for her orgasms is the unresolved issue.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 4, 2012 @ 12:01 pm - March 4, 2012

  82. Really? You think that the only people who should have contraception are those who can afford it?

    Thomas: Just in the sense that I am against stealing and mooching, and in favor of personal responsibility: Yes.

    In reality, everyone can “afford” condoms. As someone point out, just go down to your County health dept. and get them for free. So, no normal adult who wants sex need be deprived of it. To suggest otherwise, is bullcrap.

    But as a basic point of morality and life: If YOU are not in a position to get needed contraception for yourself and/or you don’t use it properly… then YOU should not be having sex. Personal Responsibility 101. Suck on it.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 12:08 pm - March 4, 2012

  83. well, gonna put my hands on my hips. . .

    Adolescent girls and young women are frequently prescribed birth control pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, and for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Girls who are diagnosed with PCOS are often prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels and regulate their menstrual periods.

    Birth control pills (sometimes called “the Pill”, oral contraceptive pills-OCP’s, or hormonal pills) contain one or two types of synthetic (man-made) female hormones, estrogen and/or progestin. Similar hormones are normally made by the ovaries. There are many different types of oral contraceptive pills.

    Do oral contraceptives prevent STD’s . . . .NO.

    The only way to prevent STD’s and unintended pregancy. ABSTINENCE.

    But many doctors encourage condom use even when women are using oral contraceptives. There are more reliable devices.

    Now back to the use of birth control pills as hormonal therapy to treat other women’s health issues. Young women are prescribed birth control to aid in reducing, alleviating and correcting many conditions. (sidenote: some folk are alarmed at the ever decreasing age that young girls are starting their ovulation and menstrual cycle some as young as 12).

    Some young women are encouraged to start hormonal therapy during athletic training and performance and even in other areas of performance where the menstrual cycle could affect the outcome of a performance or presentation.

    now with the cost thing. . .if a woman cannot get a physician to code her
    ‘female exam’ and there is no insurance coverage. . .we are looking at a office visit charge, plus paying out of pocket for the prescription. Yes there are range of BC(and costs) out there, but the reason for the range is that not every pill is set up for every woman and her particular needs.

    yes, condoms are often free at county health and sexual health clinics and even at needle exchanges and some community centers.

    But some of the uproar is that people are looking at hormonal therapy as an opening to be critical of folk when in reality, it is a personal medical situation and often times medically necessary.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 12:39 pm - March 4, 2012

  84. oh and please, Rush was doing Viagra commercials a long time ago. and even my health plan covers viagra. . .at a very low rate of $5 a pill. but am limited to a specific number of pills a month.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - March 4, 2012

  85. If you don’t have enough personal responsibility to secure your own contraception, you don’t have enough personal responsibility to be having sex.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 12:47 pm - March 4, 2012

  86. birth control pills as hormonal therapy to treat other women’s health issues

    OK, and there you go. *other* women’s health issues… now we’re talking treatments for health problems, not contraception. I have a hard time believing that most insurance doesn’t cover that. Of course, if woman-and-doctor are faking it i.e. it is just contraception and not a real health issue, then it’s fraud and should not be covered.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 12:48 pm - March 4, 2012

  87. my health plan covers viagra

    From what I understand, that could also be a blood pressure drug. For sexual use, my health plans have never covered. (not that I care, heh)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 4, 2012 @ 12:51 pm - March 4, 2012

  88. The issue is ILC is if some folk can get a prescription and insurance coverage to defray the cost of hormonal therapy, then no folk should be denied coverage. Whether a woman, Catholic or not, uses prescribed hormonal therapy is not an issue for the clergy, any religious institution or anyone else. A

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 12:54 pm - March 4, 2012

  89. And since I have started using a cpap machine to help with my sleep apnea, I am seeing the return of my old friend in the morning. Sorry for the overshare.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 12:56 pm - March 4, 2012

  90. To listen to the hysteria, you would think that coverage for birth control is divisive. It’s not. Most plans already cover it, and a majority of states – 28, to be precise – require it be covered by insurance. Virtually all women – 99% – have used birth control, and religious adherents, even Catholics and Evangelicals, use birth control at the same rate as the general population. (Ninety-eight percent of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control; the rate is even higher among Evangelicals.) In addition, government insurance plans currently cover contraception, albeit with copays.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/29/scitech/main20085488.shtml

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - March 4, 2012

  91. Rusty,

    No cigar.

    You can not shift Fluke and her testimony over to contraceptives as a collateral drug to treat a female’s health problems. She never touched that line of reasoning.

    Furthermore, a woman could get such necessary, collateral prescription treatment through myriad public health facilities or even medicaid.

    Georgetown University has a premier medical school. If Fluke and her pals go over there with female hormone problems they will receive treatment covered by student health which just may be, coincidentally, a form of contraceptive.

    The Catholic hospital would prescribe any legitimate appropriate drug for the treatment of a diagnosed, legitimate problem. Even if its “secondary” side effect was contraception.

    You liberals are desperate to spin this issue your way. You want the government to control the Catholic Church. You are trying desperately to start a phony war over the “right” to contraception. Your skirmishes and rebuttals show a remarkable lack of comprehension and logic.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 4, 2012 @ 1:07 pm - March 4, 2012

  92. How nice of rusty to put the two most common fallacies together for us.

    The issue is ILC is if some folk can get a prescription and insurance coverage to defray the cost of hormonal therapy, then no folk should be denied coverage.

    And since people can get treatment for mental health, no one should be denied coverage for reparative therapy.

    And since people can get prescription painkillers to treat a legitimate medical condition, people should be able to get prescription painkillers for recreational use.

    And since car insurance covers the cost of replacing your windshield, it should be forced to cover the cost of your gasoline.

    And if you in any way oppose this, you hate people and want them to die.

    But what is funny about this is that rusty and his fellow Obamacare supporters were all about denial of care and coverage when it’s the government doing it.

    And that leads us to this.

    Whether a woman, Catholic or not, uses prescribed hormonal therapy is not an issue for the clergy, any religious institution or anyone else.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 12:54 pm – March 4, 2012

    Indeed. Which is why any woman is free to walk down to the corner store, the local clinic, the Target, or wherever and buy whatever birth control she wants at whatever price she can negotiate.

    What you are arguing, rusty, is that not paying for something means you are discriminating against and hate the person in question.

    So since you didn’t buy the gasoline for the black person who pulled up at the next pump yesterday, you are a racist who wants to deny black people their rights

    What this all boils down to again is that rusty is displaying the typical attitude of the left; if you think people should pay their own bills, you are greedy, and if you think people should use government to compel other people to pay their bills for them, you are virtuous.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:18 pm - March 4, 2012

  93. if woman-and-doctor are faking it i.e. it is just contraception and not a real health issue, then it’s fraud and should not be covered.

    There is no way to gauge this as some women use contraception to regulate their cycle. Are you suggesting that contraception not be covered for such purposes? It’s very easy for a woman in this position to game the system and no way to provide “proof.” And, if there was, it’s very easy for a woman to mess with the timing of her cycle. Ask any female.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:18 pm - March 4, 2012

  94. And since people can get treatment for mental health, no one should be denied coverage for reparative therapy.

    Unfortunately, you can’t force anyone in mental health services unless they become a physical threat to themselves or society.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:20 pm - March 4, 2012

  95. Heliotrope been forgetting to give you a heads up on a great film, even got some recognition lately and has the wonderful Christoher Plummer in it. Hope you have a chance to see it. It is called The Beginners. Look for it as it may have been re-released or will be soon be available through Netflix or ondemand. Seems it would just hit your fancy.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - March 4, 2012

  96. SoCal Robert’s concise summation of liberal values deserved the Meme Treatment, so I makeded one:

    http://www.vthek.net/2012/03/teh-truth.html

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - March 4, 2012

  97. Virtually all women – 99% – have used birth control, and religious adherents, even Catholics and Evangelicals, use birth control at the same rate as the general population. (Ninety-eight percent of sexually active Catholic women have used birth control; the rate is even higher among Evangelicals.)

    Which is funny, because, despite their claims that “99% of women use birth control”, the abortion rate, babies being born out of wedlock rate, and STD rates have all skyrocketed since they began using “birth control” at such a high rate.

    The explanation is pretty straightforward. “Birth control” = abortion. Which nicely links out to the fact that the groups with the highest abortion rates, i.e. black women and women age 20 – 29, are also the ones with the highest STD and HIV incidences. Abortion gets rid of the baby, but doesn’t deal with the unprotected sex.

    And I forgot this one.

    Whether a woman, Catholic or not, uses prescribed hormonal therapy is not an issue for the clergy, any religious institution or anyone else.

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 12:54 pm – March 4, 2012

    Unless, of course, they belong to critical Obama voting blocs, in which case it’s perfectly OK to restrict them.

    So let’s see; Obama and the Obama Party wrote into the Obamacare law that certain religions were to be favored and given exceptional status over others.

    And now they’re attacking the Catholic Church, using the power of government to punish their beliefs and force them to do as the government says or shut down.

    How can you defend that, rusty?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:30 pm - March 4, 2012

  98. There is no way to gauge this as some women use contraception to regulate their cycle. Are you suggesting that contraception not be covered for such purposes? It’s very easy for a woman in this position to game the system and no way to provide “proof.” And, if there was, it’s very easy for a woman to mess with the timing of her cycle. Ask any female.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:18 pm – March 4, 2012

    So, Cinesnatch, if we were following the Obama model, we should block coverage of birth control because it can be used for fraudulent purposes and drive up costs.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:32 pm - March 4, 2012

  99. TGC >> Projecting much? LOL!

    As Rusty says,

    Smooches

    You can take your smooches and your faux civility and cram it in your box sideways.

    Comment by TGC — March 4, 2012 @ 1:34 pm - March 4, 2012

  100. Unfortunately, you can’t force anyone in mental health services unless they become a physical threat to themselves or society.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:20 pm – March 4, 2012

    Ah, but you see, Cinesnatch, we’re not talking about forcing; we’re talking about people wanting it and thus the insurance plan is required to pay for it.

    Those are the rules you have set up. Since you can get painkillers for legitimate medical use, the insurance company has to cover painkillers for recreational use. Since you can have any other mental-health treatment you want covered, you must have reparative therapy covered as well.

    You have stated that denying people care for ANY reason means you hate them and want them to die.

    Hilariously, you also support the government denying people care because it doesn’t want to pay for it — which means, once again, you are acting in a completely contradictory fashion.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - March 4, 2012

  101. Here is the transcript. fluke

    http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/statement-Congress-letterhead-2nd%20hearing.pdf

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - March 4, 2012

  102. I also saw Beginners a year ago. Plummer won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor last month for his performance. He was quite good. The movie is very touching and boasts a series of enjoyable characters. I highly recommend it, Helio.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - March 4, 2012

  103. Here’s a crazy idea: Everybody takes care of their own health care needs. I don’t pay for doctors to care for Sandra Fluke’s well-used ladyparts, she doesn’t pay for my prostate exams. I don’t pay for Cinesnatch’s rectal trauma, he doesn’t pay for the sprained wrist I got four-wheeling.

    Yeah, I know, personal responsibility is a crazy concept, but it might be just crazy enough to work.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 1:40 pm - March 4, 2012

  104. I also note Levi thinks the Government should mandate contraception for women because “reproductive freedom is a basic human right.” Strangely, he does not favor the Government forcing my employer to provide me with Firearm, even though that is a basic human right.

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - March 4, 2012

  105. You can take your smooches and your faux civility and cram it in your box sideways.

    Will you cram it in for me, because you sound like you know what you’re doing.

    I imagine my “faux civility” will feel … MIIIIGH-hiiiigh-Tea real.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:41 pm - March 4, 2012

  106. Ah, but you see, Cinesnatch, we’re not talking about forcing; we’re talking about people wanting it and thus the insurance plan is required to pay for it.

    I can’t wait for our America to fall into a communist’s dream, as many have predicted, so those who really need it are forced to get it (and pay for it). Can’t wait.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - March 4, 2012

  107. NDT
    The Blunt amendment, which was narrowly defeated, opened the door to an effective counter-spin by Democrats. Political consultant Doug Schoen lays it out in Forbes: Republicans weren’t just trying to free churches from having to provide coverage for the morning-after pill; they were giving every boss the opportunity to drop coverage for contraception. One can imagine the 30-second spots now, played during daytime TV and on female-leaning cable channels: “Republicans want employers to deny coverage for birth control pills, but they have no qualms about insurers covering Viagra!”

    http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/03/spin-battle-an-attack-on-faith-or-women.html

    Comment by rusty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:50 pm - March 4, 2012

  108. Actually, Snatchy, studies have shown that the uninsured use less care, less expensive care, and less unnecessary care than those on government insurance.

    And they pay a higher amount of their bills for care than health care providers receive for goverment-insured patients.

    What a surprise. Those who actually have to pay are more careful, less wasteful, and more likely to pay then those on free government insurance who freeload and send the bill to others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - March 4, 2012

  109. Of course, rusty.

    Just like insurers and employers can choose whether or not to cover Viagra now.

    Furthermore, rusty, Viagra is not contraception. Your continually saying that it is only demonstrates your lack of knowledge. Perhaps the reason liberals like yourself can’t seem to stop spreading STDs and needing abortions; you seem to believe that Viagra is male birth control.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - March 4, 2012

  110. Meanwhile, rusty, the simple fact is this: the Obama Party wants to force churches to pay for abortions and to dictate what are and aren’t government-approved legal beliefs.

    If you were in the least but intelligent, you would recognize that your advocacy for the government forcing churches to act against their beliefs does wonders for gay marriage opponents.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 2:04 pm - March 4, 2012

  111. It’s been swell, ladies. I need to go spread a few STD’s (free of charge, of course) and get my daily abortion (don’t ask; it’s a liberal condition).

    Comment by Cinesnatch — March 4, 2012 @ 2:09 pm - March 4, 2012

  112. This sidetracking of the core issue of contraception to Viagra, hormones and regulating menstrual cycles is absurd.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    We are now seriously intending to rule that Catholic doctrine must accept contraception. That the State can step in and establish religious doctrine by specifically and tacitly prohibiting the free exercise of the Catholic religion.

    This wink and nod stuff about mandating insurance companies to provide “free” contraception is laughable. Only idiots think there is any such thing as a “free lunch” or free contraceptives.

    Obama must fight this war. Obamacare is designed to morph into full-blown national health care and the health insurance industry is scheduled to be choked out of business. Obama has to “grandfather” contraception for Catholics and employees of Catholic institutions into the health insurance system so that the liberals don’t have that battle to fight when the government takes over the whole health care economy.

    So far, the liberal pawns in this chess game are dropping lie flies in the strategy department.

    Comment by Heliotrope — March 4, 2012 @ 2:36 pm - March 4, 2012

  113. But some of the uproar is that people are looking at hormonal therapy as an opening to be critical of folk when in reality, it is a personal medical situation and often times medically necessary.

    The “uproar” has to do with the fact that ObaMarx was sucking hard in the polls with the women voters. Nobody was talking about contraception at all until ObaMarx flunkie and agitprop artist George Snuffalupagus brought it up in a debate. Now we have an ObaMarx crafted (alleged) “GOP War on Women”. The regime believes that women are stupid and gullible and are counting on them to run the propaganda for them.

    As I said, there’s no “War on Women” there’s only the war on women’s intelligence.

    Comment by TGC — March 4, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - March 4, 2012

  114. Here is the transcript. fluke

    And none of that strikes you as odd, disingenous, or outright false? None whatever?

    Comment by TGC — March 4, 2012 @ 3:50 pm - March 4, 2012

  115. Republicans want employers to deny coverage for birth control pills, but they have no qualms about insurers covering Viagra!

    How about letting employers decide whether to cover contraception, Viagra, conversion therapy, any of the two, or all three? Is that not pro-choice?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 4, 2012 @ 3:58 pm - March 4, 2012

  116. How about letting employers decide whether to cover contraception, Viagra, conversion therapy, any of the two, or all three? Is that not pro-choice?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — March 4, 2012 @ 3:58 pm – March 4, 2012

    And then letting people decide where to work based on what their employer pays them, including benefits?

    Shocking! :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 4, 2012 @ 4:58 pm - March 4, 2012

  117. Oh, Michael and NDT, you are so naive. If a thirty year woman attending a $50,000 a year law school is incapable of providing for her own contraceptive needs, what hope does the average worker have?

    Comment by V the K — March 4, 2012 @ 6:02 pm - March 4, 2012

  118. VtheK – I am honored.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — March 4, 2012 @ 7:44 pm - March 4, 2012

  119. I’m curious as to how liberals are the only ones allowed to have a “choice” and to hell with what everybody else would choose. Where’s the equality in that?

    Comment by TGC — March 4, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - March 4, 2012

  120. [...] to prohibit it.  And with a generous assist from the legacy media, Rick Santorum and, briefly, Rush Limbaugh, they’ve been pushing that dishonest notion — and raising money from it.  As William [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Contraception kerfuffle to distract us from higher grocery bills? — March 5, 2012 @ 4:48 am - March 5, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.351 Powered by Wordpress