Sandra Fuxalot to introduce Ubama in Colorado

[Goldie Locks]

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/o-fluke-550x438.jpg

President Barack Obama is pictured with Sandra Fluke during an election campaign rally at the Auraria Event Center in Denver, Colorado, August 8, 2012. Fluke is an attorney and women’s rights activist who became a national figure during the debate over the administration’s contraception mandate. (REUTERS/Jason Reed)
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/08/pic-of-the-day-26/#disqus_thread


Professional student (attorney?) who wants free birth control so she can Fluke as much as she wants.

Political Whores of the day.

[Mainecoons]

I'm all for birth control, abortion and genocide for liberals.

:rofl:

[Goldie Locks]

I'm all for birth control, abortion and genocide for liberals.

:rofl:

Ditto that!!!!

[URF8]

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/o-fluke-550x438.jpg

President Barack Obama is pictured with Sandra Fluke during an election campaign rally at the Auraria Event Center in Denver, Colorado, August 8, 2012. Fluke is an attorney and women’s rights activist who became a national figure during the debate over the administration’s contraception mandate. (REUTERS/Jason Reed)
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/08/pic-of-the-day-26/#disqus_thread


Professional student (attorney?) who wants free birth control so she can Fluke as much as she wants.

Political Whores of the day.

I wonder what Barack Obama is grooming Ms. Flux for? A political future or the corn crib?

[Goldie Locks]

I wonder what Barack Obama is grooming Ms. Flux for? A political future or the corn crib?


Prolly in charge of the student loans.

[URF8]

http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/o-fluke-550x438.jpg

President Barack Obama is pictured with Sandra Fluke during an election campaign rally at the Auraria Event Center in Denver, Colorado, August 8, 2012. Fluke is an attorney and women’s rights activist who became a national figure during the debate over the administration’s contraception mandate. (REUTERS/Jason Reed)
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/08/pic-of-the-day-26/#disqus_thread


Professional student (attorney?) who wants free birth control so she can Fluke as much as she wants.

Political Whores of the day.

Did you ever see the Disney movie Lady and the Tramp?

[Goldie Locks]

Did you ever see the Disney movie Lady and the Tramp?

Yeah, but she ain't no lady. How about Slut and the Tramp?

[hanger4]

Saw some of Ms Fluke's speech on the tube.

See lied much as she did to that Congressional committee.

[Aristophanes]

Fuxalot

That's hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shoot the Goose]

"Sandra Fuxalot" ............... that is funny ! Wish I had thought of it ;)

But I wouldn't fux her even with your dick. What a tramp slut typical liberal ****.

[Trinnity]

She was presented as just an average woman, but she has a long history of activism and she's a pro~

[Aristophanes]

Goldie, did you come up with Fuxalot? Damn, that is great. I want to steal it.

[Goldie Locks]

Goldie, did you come up with Fuxalot? Damn, that is great. I want to steal it.

Yuuup, you can steal it.

[Captain Obvious]

She looks doable in that pic.

The other pics I've seen of her, she had a face like a frying pan.

[WalterSobchak]

Awwwwww, such good Limbaugh minions you all are. El RushBo would be proud.

[Conley]

She looks doable in that pic.

The other pics I've seen of her, she had a face like a frying pan.

Well if she wasn't doable then we probably never would have heard of her, right? :laugh:

[MMC]

Well if she wasn't doable then we probably never would have heard of her, right? :laugh:


http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4688073444099592&pid=1.7&w=180&h=141&c=7&rs=1 http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4682661775410082&pid=1.7&w=228&h=155&c=7&rs=1

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I5050010294486280&pid=1.7&w=226&h=149&c=7&rs=1 http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/maxine-waters-keeping-it-classy.jpg
Well everyones heard of Maxine.....but now as to that theory ya sportin. NAH, I'll Pass! :evil:

[wingrider]

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4688073444099592&pid=1.7&w=180&h=141&c=7&rs=1 http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4682661775410082&pid=1.7&w=228&h=155&c=7&rs=1

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I5050010294486280&pid=1.7&w=226&h=149&c=7&rs=1 http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/maxine-waters-keeping-it-classy.jpg
Well everyones heard of Maxine.....but now as to that theory ya sportin. NAH, I'll Pass! :evil:


ohhhhhh my eyes .. my eyes,,, damn that hurt

[hanger4]

Awwwwww, such good Limbaugh minions you all are. El RushBo would be proud.

So as far as you're concerned it's OK to lie to Congress as long as you're not a Limbaugh minion ??

[Cigar]

She was presented as just an average woman, but she has a long history of activism and she's a pro~



Yea God knows Woman are not allow a history of activism ... without permission from The Men

[Cigar]

ohhhhhh my eyes .. my eyes,,, damn that hurt



What .. that's it?

No Tar-Baby comments ... ?

[Captain Obvious]

Yea God knows Woman are not allow a history of activism ... without permission from The Men


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM

[WalterSobchak]

So as far as you're concerned it's OK to lie to Congress as long as you're not a Limbaugh minion ??


So, as far as I'm concerned, your ok with misogyny, as long as it's only liberal women that have to take it?

[Trinnity]

Geez, MMC, you could warn people before posting Maxine pics....eye bleach, please.

[Goldie Locks]

Geez, MMC, you could warn people before posting Maxine pics....eye bleach, please.

Hot Poker!!!!!!!!!!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/70008640_bfec0873a1.jpg

[IMPress Polly]

This has been a very educational thread.

[Jack Fate]

A very reliable source told me that she gives the best BJs in town, and she cleans up after herself, not messy like that bimbo Monica.

[hanger4]

So, as far as I'm concerned, your ok with misogyny, as long as it's only liberal women that have to take it?

Just because I believe, nay, I know Sandra Fluke perjured herself before Congress I'm a hater of women ??

Why are you stupid ??

[Jack Fate]

So, as far as I'm concerned, your ok with misogyny, as long as it's only liberal women that have to take it?

LOL. I'll take you seriously on misogyny when you condemn the acts of Bill Clinton. Well?

[Mainecoons]

Bottom line: It is not the taxpayers' role or the role of those who buy insurance to purchase birth control for women or viagra for men. Buy your own.

[PT Again]

311


LOL. I'll take you seriously on misogyny when you condemn the acts of Bill Clinton. Well?



Sorry dude.............couldnt help myslef :grin:

[WalterSobchak]

Just because I believe, nay, I know Sandra Fluke perjured herself before Congress I'm a hater of women ??

Why are you stupid ??


So your ok with your fellow cons calling a woman, they never met, a slut?

Why are you an ass?

[Goldie Locks]

So your ok with your fellow cons calling a woman, they never met, a slut?

Why are you an ass?

What fellow con?

[Goldie Locks]

BTW is Sarah Palin a slut?

[WalterSobchak]

LOL. I'll take you seriously on misogyny when you condemn the acts of Bill Clinton. Well?


I condemn the acts of Bill Clinton, even though he has been the best POTUS we have had in the last 20 years. Which just screams volumes for just how fucked we are as a Nation that keeps voting in asshats.

[WalterSobchak]

BTW is Sarah Palin a slut?


No, just not saavy enough to run our Country or hold a high political office. But she knows that, and the entire Country realised that the moment she started being interviewed. Only hardcore cons actually support her.

But I would still hit that! She's a Cougar!

[WalterSobchak]

Yeah, but she ain't no lady. How about Slut and the Tramp?


What fellow con?


You, for one.

[Goldie Locks]

You, for one.

You, for one??? She's not a slut, she's just your average professional student progressive who wants free stuff and everyone else to pay for it. That does not make her special, it makes her pathetic.

[WalterSobchak]

You, for one??? She's not a slut, she's just your average professional student progressive who wants free stuff and everyone else to pay for it. That does not make her special, it makes her pathetic.


Is she a slut?

[Goldie Locks]

Is she a slut?

Whatever you say she is, labels don't make her any better or worse than what we already know.

[WalterSobchak]

Whatever you say she is, labels don't make her any better or worse than what we already know.


So why would you call her a slut? Are you a misogynist?

[Goldie Locks]

So why would you call her a slut? Are you a misogynist?

I didn't call her a slut.

[WalterSobchak]

Yeah, but she ain't no lady. How about Slut and the Tramp?


I didn't call her a slut.


Yes, you did.

[Goldie Locks]

Yes, you did.

It twas a joke...know what that is??? But does it matter? What does the word slut mean to you?

[Goldie Locks]

But according to Walter...LOL a misogynist means you don't agree with every single woman on the planet...LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

[roadmaster]

Yes, you did.

There is a difference between having a opinion on someone not on these boards than calling a person here a name.

[WalterSobchak]

It twas a joke...know what that is??? But does it matter? What does the word slut mean to you?


Was Bill Maher, a comedian, joking when he called Sarah Palin a slut? If you say no, you are also a hypocrite.

[WalterSobchak]

But according to Walter...LOL a misogynist means you don't agree with every single woman on the planet...LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!


You are incorrect Golders. Calling a woman a slut, or calling her a name that insuates she is a cow, makes you a misogynist.

[WalterSobchak]

There is a difference between having a opinion on someone not on these boards than calling a person here a name.


Show me where I called any woman on these boards, any of the words the ones you are defending here called the women in the topic of their OP's.

I'll give you a hint. Moochelle, Sandra Fuxalot.

[Goldie Locks]

Was Bill Maher, a comedian, joking when he called Sarah Palin a slut? If you say no, you are also a hypocrite.

I have no idea what Bill Maher said and don't really care, you see his opinion means nothing to me.

[Goldie Locks]

You are incorrect Golders. Calling a woman a slut, or calling her a name that insuates she is a cow, makes you a misogynist.

No it does not, maybe you should look up what that means.

[WalterSobchak]

I have no idea what Bill Maher said and don't really care, you see his opinion means nothing to me.

My mistake, he called her a **** and a twat. Do you believe he is a misogynist with these comments?

[Goldie Locks]

My mistake, he called her a **** and a twat. Do you believe he is a misogynist with these comments?

No, I do not. He's just a con hater.

[WalterSobchak]

No, I do not. He's just a con hater.


And you are a liberal woman hater?

[intelligence]

No, I do not. He's just a con hater.


What could possibly be wrong with hating neo con's?

[Goldie Locks]

And you are a liberal woman hater?

Nope, some of my best friends are liberal women.

I should add though they are actually liberal women, not commies.

[WalterSobchak]

Nope, some of my best friends are liberal women.

I should add though they are actually liberal women, not commies.


Fair enough.

So who's a commie?

[roadmaster]

Fair enough.

So who's a commie?

It's a known fact Obamas Grandparents were.

[WalterSobchak]

It's a known fact Obamas Grandparents were.


If that's true, why the fuck should I care?

[roadmaster]

If that's true, why the fuck should I care?

If that is true?????? You had no idea did you?

[hanger4]

So your ok with your fellow cons calling a woman, they never met, a slut?


Why are you an ass?


Never met is irrelevant.


If she/they buys a $1000 of birth control (her #'s) a year for personal use ehat pretty much moves her/they into the slutty zone.


See how easy that was ?? and we've never met her.

[Trinnity]

Never met is irrelevant.


If she/they buys a $1000 of birth control (her #'s) a year for personal use ehat pretty much moves her/they into the slutty zone.


See how easy that was ?? and we've never met her.Yeah, no kidding. BCPs are about $10/month. What was the rest of it for???

[patrickt]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by WalterSobchak http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=110786#post110786)
"So your ok with your fellow cons calling a woman, they never met, a slut?
Why are you an ass?"

I wonder if Bill Maher ever met Gov. Palin. Of curse, he didn't call her a slut. He preferred **** and twat.

Why are you an ass?

I am constantly amazed at how this average, normal college student who spends $1,000 a year on birth control keeps turning up involved with the socialist administration.

For the record, I don't approve of those who feel compelled to make cutesy names for political figures and others whom they dislike. Goldielocks, that makes you equivalent in that respect to Cargygrant. You're not in good company. It's not that difficult to refer to President Obama and Gov. Romney and it doesn't detract from your message like the cutesy nonsense does.

[IMPress Polly]

Jack Fate wrote:
A very reliable source told me that she gives the best BJs in town, and she cleans up after herself, not messy like that bimbo Monica.

Actually, I prefer to wipe my mouth off and then slap my partner with it. Only one of us gets cleaned. But that wouldn't be a problem for you since, after all, the whole scenario requires that one be capable of putting out enough to make a mess in the first place. ;)

(Oh no, wait, you were talking about Sandra Fluke. And actually thought you were funny. Where do you learn your jokes, RNC HQ?)


LOL. I'll take you seriously on misogyny when you condemn the acts of Bill Clinton. Well?

Sexism is often an annoyingly bi-partisan thing. The fact that many American leftists do, in fact, reduce the historical case of Monica Lewinsky -- a case of the president sexually exploiting a subordinant -- to a mere "affair" and a "personal matter" in the way they talk about it does indeed reveal something of a double-standard on women's issues that is all too common place. But that doesn't mean that both parties are equally misogynist in an overall sense and it doesn't excuse your personal case of sexism either.

Look, it's obvious that this is a sexist thread. (And no, the fact that a wannabe-guy authored it doesn't change that fact.) The fact that heavily gendered terms like "****" and "bimbo" are in circulation here makes that abundantly clear. The use of such terms is no less discriminatory than it would be to call an African American a "nigger" or a gay guy a "fag". The proclamation that "I was only referring to this type of African American or that type of gay guy" makes no difference when using such language. The terms in question are objectively discrimatory against the entire group. Similarly, terms like "****" and "bimbo" are objectively discrimatory against all women (much like blonde jokes are) because they only apply to women. Both referenced terms refer to a woman who is only useful as a recepticle for a penis, i.e. as a one-dimension object rather than a multi-dimensional subject (a human being). There is no such thing as such a woman. Women are fully human and the equals of men in every respect whether you like their politics or not.


Aristophanes wrote:
Goldie, did you come up with Fuxalot? Damn, that is great. I want to steal it.

I hate to have to educate you all on the art of word play, but "Romney Hood" was clever. It sounded a lot like "Robin Hood" and thus got his point across in an effective, memorable way. "Sandra Fuxalot", by contrast, is about as clever as "Obamaloney." "Fluke" has one syllable. "Fuxalot" has three, none of which sound remotely like "Fluke". It must have taken all of 15 seconds to come up with that. What I'm saying is that only the most ideologically steeped would actually find it an intelligent play on words.


Goldie Locks wrote:
It twas a joke...know what that is??? But does it matter? What does the word slut mean to you?

You're not very good at those. (See above and below.)


But according to Walter...LOL a misogynist means you don't agree with every single woman on the planet...LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!

See? You actually thought that was funny. Pitiful.


WalterSobchack wrote:
So who's a commie?

Hi! *waves* :grin:

[MMC]

None of the Specific Vulgar terms are acceptable. About a Woman. Nor about a man.

Course while women are concerned about sexist remarks and what they find offensive by men. The same goes for women when, making jokes about a man's manhood. Remarks, and running around talking about kicking some guys azz. Talking shit out their mouths etc etc.

Another factor women should face reality with......Not all men are created equal. Same shit applies to the Female gender. Something they should keep prevalent in that intelligence they carry.....AT ALL TIMES! :wink:

[Cigar]

And That's The Truth :)

[Shoot the Goose]

.. I hate to have to educate you all on the art of word play, but "Romney Hood" was clever. It sounded a lot like "Robin Hood" and thus got his point across in an effective, memorable way. "Sandra Fuxalot", by contrast, is about as clever as "Obamaloney." "Fluke" has one syllable. "Fuxalot" has three, none of which sound remotely like "Fluke". It must have taken all of 15 seconds to come up with that. What I'm saying is that only the most ideologically steeped would actually find it an intelligent play on words.


Can we get a liberal here who can post without always going full retard ?

"Obamaloney" and "Fuxalot" are a hoot ! Right up there with Obamabots !

:)

[Cigar]

Can we get a liberal here who can post without always going full retard ?

"Obamaloney" and "Fuxalot" are a hoot ! Right up there with Obamabots !

:)



Does FEAR drive everything Cons do?

[Peter1469]

Can we get a liberal here who can post without always going full retard ?

"Obamaloney" and "Fuxalot" are a hoot ! Right up there with Obamabots !

:)

She at least takes time to support her position, unlike "intelligence."

[Shoot the Goose]

She at least takes time to support her position, unlike "intelligence."

It is a massive pile of retarded strawmen BS.

A turd, is a turd, is a turd.

[Peter1469]

It is a massive pile of retarded strawmen BS.

A turd, is a turd, is a turd.

At least she is putting thought into it. And there remains stuff to talk about. "intelligence" just provides a fragment of a sentence or two that is largely unrelated to the topic. I see a difference.

[Shoot the Goose]

At least she is putting thought into it. And there remains stuff to talk about. "intelligence" just provides a fragment of a sentence or two that is largely unrelated to the topic. I see a difference.

I am not debating the difference between sniping, and strawmen, which is how I would characterize the two posting styles. I do see both as equally full of the same liberal stupidity. Its the same crap we see from liberals all over. Can't debate the topic, so they either snipe it, or create these diatribes to strawmen.

[Goldie Locks]

Actually, I prefer to wipe my mouth off and then slap my partner with it. Only one of us gets cleaned. But that wouldn't be a problem for you since, after all, the whole scenario requires that one be capable of putting out enough to make a mess in the first place. ;)

(Oh no, wait, you were talking about Sandra Fluke. And actually thought you were funny. Where do you learn your jokes, RNC HQ?)



Sexism is often an annoyingly bi-partisan thing. The fact that many American leftists do, in fact, reduce the historical case of Monica Lewinsky -- a case of the president sexually exploiting a subordinant -- to a mere "affair" and a "personal matter" in the way they talk about it does indeed reveal something of a double-standard on women's issues that is all too common place. But that doesn't mean that both parties are equally misogynist in an overall sense and it doesn't excuse your personal case of sexism either.

Look, it's obvious that this is a sexist thread. (And no, the fact that a wannabe-guy authored it doesn't change that fact.) The fact that heavily gendered terms like "****" and "bimbo" are in circulation here makes that abundantly clear. The use of such terms is no less discriminatory than it would be to call an African American a "nigger" or a gay guy a "fag". The proclamation that "I was only referring to this type of African American or that type of gay guy" makes no difference when using such language. The terms in question are objectively discrimatory against the entire group. Similarly, terms like "****" and "bimbo" are objectively discrimatory against all women (much like blonde jokes are) because they only apply to women. Both referenced terms refer to a woman who is only useful as a recepticle for a penis, i.e. as a one-dimension object rather than a multi-dimensional subject (a human being). There is no such thing as such a woman. Women are fully human and the equals of men in every respect whether you like their politics or not.



I hate to have to educate you all on the art of word play, but "Romney Hood" was clever. It sounded a lot like "Robin Hood" and thus got his point across in an effective, memorable way. "Sandra Fuxalot", by contrast, is about as clever as "Obamaloney." "Fluke" has one syllable. "Fuxalot" has three, none of which sound remotely like "Fluke". It must have taken all of 15 seconds to come up with that. What I'm saying is that only the most ideologically steeped would actually find it an intelligent play on words.



You're not very good at those. (See above and below.)



See? You actually thought that was funny. Pitiful.



Hi! *waves* :grin:



Her name is pronounced Fluck not Fluke BTW...so Fux and Fluck is a great play on words. Do you have a great sense of humor when it comes to Bill Mahar and his tirade on conservative women or is it only when a conservative does it?

Misogynist means hatred of women...not some women, all women. Of course one could broaden the interpretation to include Rush Limbaugh and pretend it is anyone who says anything the least bit dis concerning about women, but that would not really be the real meaning of the word...You could say that Rush mistreated her but that would not be true, he called her a name just like Bill Mahar did to so many conservative women. BTW, did you ever speak out about that???...Bet not, this is why we only hear from you now, because it was said about a progressive woman....so yes, I thought it was kind of funny because it really is a strawman.

To say that such words are discriminatory to all women is not surprising since we all know that progressives such as yourself are all about the collective, not individualism.

It bothers me not that men, women, whoever wish to call a woman a name, that doesn't mean it includes all women or most women. It means the woman they are talking about.

Wonder if this thread was started by a progressive say against Sarah Palin or Backmann if we would be hearing from you at all.

[Jack Fate]

So your ok with your fellow cons calling a woman, they never met, a slut?

Why are you an ass?

We learned it from your pals. http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-lefts-selective-amnesia-rush-called-some-lefty-a-slut

[Goldie Locks]

We learned it from your pals. http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-lefts-selective-amnesia-rush-called-some-lefty-a-slut

But it's OK when progressives do it.

[Jack Fate]

But it's OK when progressives do it.

Of course. I love it when they feign outrage. Just laugh and post one of their hateful moments. We have much more ammunition than they do.

[WalterSobchak]

Her name is pronounced Fluck not Fluke BTW...so Fux and Fluck is a great play on words. Do you have a great sense of humor when it comes to Bill Mahar and his tirade on conservative women or is it only when a conservative does it?

Misogynist means hatred of women...not some women, all women. Of course one could broaden the interpretation to include Rush Limbaugh and pretend it is anyone who says anything the least bit dis concerning about women, but that would not really be the real meaning of the word...You could say that Rush mistreated her but that would not be true, he called her a name just like Bill Mahar did to so many conservative women. BTW, did you ever speak out about that???...Bet not, this is why we only hear from you now, because it was said about a progressive woman....so yes, I thought it was kind of funny because it really is a strawman.

To say that such words are discriminatory to all women is not surprising since we all know that progressives such as yourself are all about the collective, not individualism.

It bothers me not that men, women, whoever wish to call a woman a name, that doesn't mean it includes all women or most women. It means the woman they are talking about.

Wonder if this thread was started by a progressive say against Sarah Palin or Backmann if we would be hearing from you at all.





So now you know of all the dirty things Maher has said about conservative women? Did you just go out and find out about them recently?

[WalterSobchak]

Of course. I love it when they feign outrage. Just laugh and post one of their hateful moments. We have much more ammunition than they do.


And I just love it when I call out folks for calling women NOBODY ever met, a slut or fat or other words that I am sure their Mothers taught them was rude. And their only answer is................."your side does it too"


Such a lame attempt to deflect from the fact that they were called out for saying horrible things about women the NEVER met.


How very Christian of all of you. You should be ashamed.

[Jack Fate]

I condemn the acts of Bill Clinton, even though he has been the best POTUS we have had in the last 20 years. Which just screams volumes for just how fucked we are as a Nation that keeps voting in asshats.

LOL. An impeached President is the best President we have had in the last 20 years. Oh my God.

[WalterSobchak]

LOL. An impeached President is the best President we have had in the last 20 years. Oh my God.


Yes. Quite sad isn't it?

Anything else?

[IMPress Polly]

Shoot the Goose wrote:
It is a massive pile of retarded strawmen BS.

A turd, is a turd, is a turd.

Oh quit posturing. This whole thread is a strawman and we all know it. The wording of the thread title makes it clear that there was never supposed to be anything serious about it. The purpose isn't to engage in an intelligent conversation on anything, but rather simply to offend and alienate leftists and feminists (such as yours truly). Congratulations on accomplishing said objective, as you noticed on page 7. Anyhow, thereafter (after the OP), it became simply a contest as to who could one-up the essence the most; a question of who could be the most vulgar and disgusting about it. And thus people (myself included) were predictably offended and now you're offended that people were offended. Get over it.

This is just another one of those stupid, woman-bashing, "male bonding" threads that inevitably proliferate when the gender balance of a given place is not so balanced. Don't pretend like it's something more noble. It just makes you look silly.

RIGHTIST/ANTI-FEMINIST SUPERMAJORITY:

Okay, we're just getting into gang-up mode now: all against me. As fair as that is, I don't have the time or energy to respond to each person's latest gripes about me individually since they're fast piling up beyond my ability. Either you slow down and control yourselves or I'll just walk away.

I do apologize for having briefly stooped to the level of the majority here though. That was not tasteful.

[Jack Fate]

And I just love it when I call out folks for calling women NOBODY ever met, a slut or fat or other words that I am sure their Mothers taught them was rude. And their only answer is................."your side does it too"


Such a lame attempt to deflect from the fact that they were called out for saying horrible things about women the NEVER met.


How very Christian of all of you. You should be ashamed.

And of course you were just as outraged when Maher called Sarah Palin a C_ _ T. How very Christian of all of you. You should be ashamed.

[Jack Fate]

Yes. Quite sad isn't it?

Anything else?

It is very sad. The Democrat before Clinton lasted one term and then Clinton got impeached, and now this bozo is about to be removed because of his glittering failure.

[WalterSobchak]

And of course you were just as outraged when Maher called Sarah Palin a C_ _ T. How very Christian of all of you. You should be ashamed.

Actually, yes, I was. Maher is a moron. I think Palin is a joke, but I would NEVER call her a slut or a whore or fat.

I guess you don't care if they are on the other side, huh?

[WalterSobchak]

It is very sad. The Democrat before Clinton lasted one term and then Clinton got impeached, and now this bozo is about to be removed because of his glittering failure.

And how sad that this bozo may be removed because he was out voted by a bigger douche then him?

[hanger4]

Oh quit posturing. This whole thread is a strawman and we all know it. The wording of the thread title makes it clear that there was never supposed to be anything serious about it. The purpose isn't to engage in an intelligent conversation on anything, but rather simply to offend and alienate leftists and feminists (such as yours truly). Congratulations on accomplishing said objective, as you noticed on page 7. Anyhow, thereafter (after the OP), it became simply a contest as to who could one-up the essence the most; a question of who could be the most vulgar and disgusting about it. And thus people (myself included) were predictably offended and now you're offended that people were offended. Get over it.

This is just another one of those stupid, woman-bashing, "male bonding" threads that inevitably proliferate when the gender balance of a given place is not so balanced. Don't pretend like it's something more noble. It just makes you look silly.

RIGHTIST/ANTI-FEMINIST SUPERMAJORITY:

Okay, we're just getting into gang-up mode now: all against me. As fair as that is, I don't have the time or energy to respond to each person's latest gripes about me individually since they're fast piling up beyond my ability. Either you slow down and control yourselves or I'll just walk away.

I do apologize for having briefly stooped to the level of the majority here though. That was not tasteful.

Small question, do you believe it's was appropriate for Sandra Fluke to perjure herself before Congress ??

[Trinnity]

Small question, do you believe it's was appropriate for Sandra Fluke to perjure herself before Congress ?? I'm not recalling exactly what that was. Could you post that text with a cite for me? I'd sure appreciate it.

[MMC]

Oh quit posturing. This whole thread is a strawman and we all know it. The wording of the thread title makes it clear that there was never supposed to be anything serious about it. The purpose isn't to engage in an intelligent conversation on anything, but rather simply to offend and alienate leftists and feminists (such as yours truly). Congratulations on accomplishing said objective, as you noticed on page 7. Anyhow, thereafter (after the OP), it became simply a contest as to who could one-up the essence the most; a question of who could be the most vulgar and disgusting about it. And thus people (myself included) were predictably offended and now you're offended that people were offended. Get over it.

This is just another one of those stupid, woman-bashing, "male bonding" threads that inevitably proliferate when the gender balance of a given place is not so balanced. Don't pretend like it's something more noble. It just makes you look silly.

RIGHTIST/ANTI-FEMINIST SUPERMAJORITY:

Okay, we're just getting into gang-up mode now: all against me. As fair as that is, I don't have the time or energy to respond to each person's latest gripes about me individually since they're fast piling up beyond my ability. Either you slow down and control yourselves or I'll just walk away.

I do apologize for having briefly stooped to the level of the majority here though. That was not tasteful.


So now that the thread was created by a woman.....how's that working with your theory about male bonding? Or as a feminist did you just want to throw out a couple more diggs at men? :rollseyes:

[roadmaster]

I appreciate the difference between men and women. I know if my husband checks the oil and fluids in my car that's his way of saying " I care if you get broken down". Men do little things that some women don't notice. I think good men are great to have around.

[Jack Fate]

Actually, yes, I was. Maher is a moron. I think Palin is a joke, but I would NEVER call her a slut or a whore or fat.

I guess you don't care if they are on the other side, huh?

If I do or don't care isn't my point. My point is if you're going to complain about hate from the right then let's talk about all of the insulting words going down lately. Taking a stand against insults and lies in our political rhetoric has to be bipartisan or it isn't going to work.

Lanny Davis is a Democrat I admire, although I don't agree with him on anything. He came out against the hateful lies from Obama's campaign.

[WalterSobchak]

If I do or don't care isn't my point. My point is if you're going to complain about hate from the right then let's talk about all of the insulting words going down lately. Taking a stand against insults and lies in our political rhetoric has to be bipartisan or it isn't going to work.

Lanny Davis is a Democrat I admire, although I don't agree with him on anything. He came out against the hateful lies from Obama's campaign.


So then you must be against Super PAC's as I am?

You do realize, Romney ads are awful as well?

[Jack Fate]

So then you must be against Super PAC's as I am?

You do realize, Romney ads are awful as well?

Show me deliberate lies like the one accusing Romney of killing the guy's wife. Even Lanny Davis said it was disgusting and needs to be pulled. When your own party and MSNBC is telling you it needs to go, then you should listen. Bill Burton and Stephanie Cutter need to be fired and probably will be, although I wish they would stay and continue their self-defeating hateful lies.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/09/Democrats-infight-over-superpac-ad

[MMC]

I think there should have to be a News Show or Some Documentary Type Show that puts up the material and goes thru those Ads. Debunking them and proving those that are straight up lies. Kinda like Educating Most of the youth of the Country. Especially with these younger generations.

Maybe it will even force the News Media to get outta of that bed with those politicans.

[Jack Fate]

The death spiral continues.........http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/10/Obama-Spokeswoman-Contradicts-Deupty-Campaign-Manager-On-Soptic-Ad

[WalterSobchak]

Show me deliberate lies like the one accusing Romney of killing the guy's wife. Even Lanny Davis said it was disgusting and needs to be pulled. When your own party and MSNBC is telling you it needs to go, then you should listen. Bill Burton and Stephanie Cutter need to be fired and probably will be, although I wish they would stay and continue their self-defeating hateful lies.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/09/Democrats-infight-over-superpac-ad


Why is it whenever someone doesn't agree with a con in lock step, they are a dirty liberal? LOL

I don't care if one ad is worse then the other ad. Since the SCOTUS has allowed Super PAC's to keep this shit up, it will never stop. On BOTH sides.


And LOL at your source being breitbart.douche

[Goldie Locks]

The death spiral continues.........http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/10/Obama-Spokeswoman-Contradicts-Deupty-Campaign-Manager-On-Soptic-Ad

These people have absolutely no integrity.

[WalterSobchak]

These people have absolutely no integrity.


This is politics. Neither side does.

[Goldie Locks]

This is politics. Neither side does.

And that is suppose to make me happy?

[WalterSobchak]

And that is suppose to make me happy?


Of course not. I'm not a fan either.

I'm just simply saying it is what it is. The game has changed.

[Jack Fate]

Why is it whenever someone doesn't agree with a con in lock step, they are a dirty liberal? LOL

I don't care if one ad is worse then the other ad. Since the SCOTUS has allowed Super PAC's to keep this shit up, it will never stop. On BOTH sides.


And LOL at your source being breitbart.douche

What's your problem with Breitbart?

[Goldie Locks]

Of course not. I'm not a fan either.

I'm just simply saying it is what it is. The game has changed.

For the worst. Our whole government is corrupt and right now in charge of that corruption is Ubama. He has bettered nothing. Everything has been made worse under his imperial presidency.

[Jack Fate]

This is politics. Neither side does.

C'mon, get real. CNN and even MSNBC are saying the ad is over the top and disgusting. The argument of "both sides do it" isn't gonna work because this is common sense.

[WalterSobchak]

For the worst. Our whole government is corrupt and right now in charge of that corruption is Ubama. He has bettered nothing. Everything has been made worse under his imperial presidency.



And you really think things are gonna get better under Romney??

Wow, just wow.

[WalterSobchak]

C'mon, get real. CNN and even MSNBC are saying the ad is over the top and disgusting. The argument of "both sides do it" isn't gonna work because this is common sense.


Oh get off it dude, the GOP went full assualt on Gore & Kerry in those elections. To say that one side does it more then the other just makes you look like a partisan joke.

[Goldie Locks]

C'mon, get real. CNN and even MSNBC are saying the ad is over the top and disgusting. The argument of "both sides do it" isn't gonna work because this is common sense.

He's voting for Ubama, there is no common sense.

[Goldie Locks]

Oh get off it dude, the GOP went full assualt on Gore & Kerry in those elections. To say that one side does it more then the other just makes you look like a partisan joke.

They accused them of tax evasion for 10 years or being a felon or murderer???

[Mainecoons]

I think there would be less corruption. It is coming from the top of the agencies in this administration. Surely you don't think Justice hasn't been corrupted by Holder.

But the incompetence will remain. The only way to get rid of that is to go after the entrenched, overpaid, underworked Civil Service. And deep six a lot of the BS like the Department of MalEducation. But that isn't going to happen under a Romney. He's a government guy all the way.

[WalterSobchak]

He's voting for Ubama, there is no common sense.


I am? Have you not read my posts where I have said he will NOT receive my vote?


Oh I see, you are like Jack. If I don't agree in lock step with you, I am a dirty evil Liberal that MUST love Obama.

My god you partisans are a fuckin joke.

[WalterSobchak]

They accused them of tax evasion for 10 years or being a felon or murderer???


Are those the ONLY evil things one can say about another?

Listen, I agree that add was over the top and awful. But it will NEVER end as long as we have Super PAC's able to continue doing what they do.

[WalterSobchak]

i think there would be less corruption. It is coming from the top of the agencies in this administration. Surely you don't think justice hasn't been corrupted by holder.

But the incompetence will remain. The only way to get rid of that is to go after the entrenched, overpaid, underworked civil service. And deep six a lot of the bs like the department of maleducation. But that isn't going to happen under a romney. He's a government guy all the way.


bingo

[Goldie Locks]

I am? Have you not read my posts where I have said he will NOT receive my vote?


Oh I see, you are like Jack. If I don't agree in lock step with you, I am a dirty evil Liberal that MUST love Obama.

My god you partisans are a fuckin joke.


You're not a liberal??? How would you describe yourself? I'm open...

[Goldie Locks]

Are those the ONLY evil things one can say about another?

Listen, I agree that add was over the top and awful. But it will NEVER end as long as we have Super PAC's able to continue doing what they do.


But this is Ubama Super PAC's, not Romney's...right???

[WalterSobchak]

You're not a liberal??? How would you describe yourself? I'm open...


I lean more liberal on social issues, no doubt. But I do NOT vote in lock step with them. LOL


Do you always vote for every GOP running on the ticket?

[Goldie Locks]

Guess Super PAC's always mean dirty, rotten, lying, over the top ad's???

[WalterSobchak]

But this is Ubama Super PAC's, not Romney's...right???


Yes. But this isn't the first, nor the last time you will see this kind of over the top bullshit passed over the air waves an a political add.

[WalterSobchak]

Guess Super PAC's always mean dirty, rotten, lying, over the top ad's???


The majority of them......................you betcha.

[Goldie Locks]

I lean more liberal on social issues, no doubt. But I do NOT vote in lock step with them. LOL


Do you always vote for every GOP running on the ticket?


Yep...I sure do. Tell me what democrat would have anything I would vote for...especially now days?

[Goldie Locks]

The majority of them......................you betcha.

What lying ad's has Romney put out about Ubama???

[WalterSobchak]

Yep...I sure do. Tell me what democrat would have anything I would vote for...especially now days?


It's not my job to research who YOU are going to vote for.

[Jack Fate]

Oh get off it dude, the GOP went full assualt on Gore & Kerry in those elections. To say that one side does it more then the other just makes you look like a partisan joke.

Did conservatives accuse Gore or Kerry of deliberately killing someone's wife?

[Jack Fate]

It's not my job to research who YOU are going to vote for.

What's the problem with Breitbart?

[Goldie Locks]

It's not my job to research who YOU are going to vote for.

So, you have nothing...got it.

[Shoot the Goose]

Yes. But this isn't the first, nor the last time you will see this kind of over the top bullshit passed over the air waves an a political add.

I do not believe that is the issue. It is that this Obama Super-Pac is run by ex-Obama campaign staffers. Meanwhie, current Obama campaign staffers have participated in conference calls with the subjects of Super-Pac slime ads. Where they were made fully aware of the claims and facts ......... and now they deny what is on tape. And Obama has not denounced the ad. He has not said "take it down", as Romney and other GOP did in the primaries with ads they felt went too far.


It is Obama's corruption now that is different.

OBTW, 6 years ago I voted for Bill Nelson for Senate here in FL (look up his opponent). This Tuesday, I will vote in the GOP Primary for Connie Mack, the guy who I will be voting for to throw Nelson out of office in November. At this stage of caring for my country, and in full spirit of my sig line, I am more likely to try to cause permanent physical harm to a Democrat than ever vote for one again.

[hanger4]

I'm not recalling exactly what that was. Could you post that text with a cite for me? I'd sure appreciate it.
Sure thing;



“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school (3 years). For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
.........
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.


“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.


http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

Contraception doesn't cost near her numbers. The pill and 2 condoms a day don't total $1000 a year.

She lied or she's not real smart and being a law student I discount the later.

[Goldie Locks]

Sure thing;


http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

Contraception doesn't cost near her numbers. The pill and 2 condoms a day don't total $1000 a year.

She lied or she's not real smart and being a law student I discount the later.


Birth control pills = $10 a month...man supplies the condoms....Liar, liar...pants on fire.

[Shoot the Goose]

Sure thing;


http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz/transcript-of-testimony-by-sandra-fluke-48z2

Contraception doesn't cost near her numbers. The pill and 2 condoms a day don't total $1000 a year.

She lied or she's not real smart and being a law student I discount the later.

The bitch is a slut and a liar. And a Democrat.

Should have said the latter first, would have saved myself some typing.

[Mainecoons]

The bitch is a slut and a liar. And a Democrat.

Should have said the latter first, would have saved myself some typing.

LOL, will have to remember that bit of labor saving advice! :rofl:

[Goldie Locks]

DemocRAT!!!!!!!!!

[Deadwood]

I'm all for birth control, abortion and genocide for liberals.

:rofl:


Why can't we have abortion after the fact? It would take care of a lot of problems

[Peter1469]

What's the problem with Breitbart?

He's dead.

[Goldie Locks]

He's dead.

That he is.

[Peter1469]

Birth control pills = $10 a month...man supplies the condoms....Liar, liar...pants on fire.

Birth control is $10 per month with a prescription. I have no idea how much the doc visit(s) cost to get the prescription.

[Goldie Locks]

Birth control is $10 per month with a prescription. I have no idea how much the doc visit(s) cost to get the prescription.

PP...goes on income. Trust me...about 10 bucks a month.

[Peter1469]

Birth control pills are a lot cheaper than condoms. Over the long haul, that is.

[Goldie Locks]

Birth control pills are a lot cheaper than condoms. Over the long haul, that is.

You can get free condom's on the internet.

[roadmaster]

Birth control pills are a lot cheaper than condoms. Over the long haul, that is.

Yes, but I got pregnant and no I didn't miss any when I was almost 25. Nothing is full proof. Not that I regret but I had not planned on getting pregnant yet. But then again I was married and not sleeping around.

[Peter1469]

Yes, but I got pregnant and no I didn't miss any when I was almost 25. Nothing is full proof. Not that I regret but I had not planned on getting pregnant yet. But then again I was married and not sleeping around.

Condoms aren't full proof either. I tore many of them to shreds.

Or I should say we.

[Goldie Locks]

Yes, but I got pregnant and no I didn't miss any when I was almost 25. Nothing is full proof. Not that I regret but I had not planned on getting pregnant yet. But then again I was married and not sleeping around.

Only abstinence is full proof...shhhhh...don't tell the libs, they would never understand...;)

[WalterSobchak]

I do not believe that is the issue. It is that this Obama Super-Pac is run by ex-Obama campaign staffers. Meanwhie, current Obama campaign staffers have participated in conference calls with the subjects of Super-Pac slime ads. Where they were made fully aware of the claims and facts ......... and now they deny what is on tape. And Obama has not denounced the ad. He has not said "take it down", as Romney and other GOP did in the primaries with ads they felt went too far.


It is Obama's corruption now that is different.

OBTW, 6 years ago I voted for Bill Nelson for Senate here in FL (look up his opponent). This Tuesday, I will vote in the GOP Primary for Connie Mack, the guy who I will be voting for to throw Nelson out of office in November. At this stage of caring for my country, and in full spirit of my sig line, I am more likely to try to cause permanent physical harm to a Democrat than ever vote for one again.


How bi-partisan of you 82. LOL

[WalterSobchak]

The bitch is a slut and a liar. And a Democrat.

Should have said the latter first, would have saved myself some typing.


And how Christian of you. LMAO

[roadmaster]

And how Christian of you. LMAO

You are not a Christian so how can you judge any?

[roadmaster]

Only abstinence is full proof...shhhhh...don't tell the libs, they would never understand...;)

Yep that's about it. :laugh:

[Conley]

I haven't read this thread so if I'm repeating someone else's argument feel free to blast me

but bear with me...and these are questions i pose to everyone

1. do you agree that there are a ton of people who shouldnt be parents who are having kids?

2. if yes, how best to stop that? abstinence has been proven not to work, we have generation after generation which shows it

3. if you oppose publicly funded birth control, which is more effective than abstinence programs and way less disturbing than abortion, what's your solution?

4. if your proposed method fails, are you ready to pay for social programs that will support these kids who have done no wrong and at the least deserve a chance in life (food, shelter, clothing?)

It looks to me like a person can be against birth control or against benefits for kids, but you sure as chit can't be against both because if you believe all life is precious then you better be willing to give up a few pennies to make sure that life has a chance.

[roadmaster]

Condoms aren't full proof either. I tore many of them to shreds.

Or I should say we.

No they are not but can help not to catch anything unlike the pill.

[roadmaster]

I haven't read this thread so if I'm repeating someone else's argument feel free to blast me

but bear with me...and these are questions i pose to everyone

1. do you agree that there are a ton of people who shouldnt be parents who are having kids?

2. if yes, how best to stop that? abstinence has been proven not to work, we have generation after generation which shows it

3. if you oppose publicly funded birth control, which is more effective than abstinence programs and way less disturbing than abortion, what's your solution?

4. if your proposed method fails, are you ready to pay for social programs that will support these kids who have done no wrong and at the least deserve a chance in life (food, shelter, clothing?)

It looks to me like a person can be against birth control or against benefits for kids, but you sure as chit can't be against both because if you believe all life is precious then you better be willing to give up a few pennies to make sure that life has a chance.

I am not against birth control. Lets be honest, most of the ones having a lot of kids with different dads are not using anything. You are correct some are not responsible to be parents but I think they should be accountable for their actions. They should have to pay for the kids they have if with them or not. Maybe they would think twice beforehand.

[Conley]

I am not against birth control. Lets be honest, most of the ones having a lot of kids with different dads are not using anything. You are correct some are not responsible to be parents but I think they should be accountable for their actions. They should have to pay for the kids they have if with them or not. Maybe they would think twice beforehand.

I agree 100% they should be accountable but how do we do that without hurting the kids? You can take wages of absentee parents (and equal for both male and female) I guess -- which should be done any time it can be.

[roadmaster]

I agree 100% they should be accountable but how do we do that without hurting the kids? You can take wages of absentee parents (and equal for both male and female) I guess -- which should be done any time it can be.

If they don't work then do what dads now do, go to court and if they can't pay lock them up. I assure you they will find a job and yes it should be equal if the child is not with either parent.

[WalterSobchak]

You are not a Christian so how can you judge any?


How do you know? Have we met?

[roadmaster]

How do you know? Have we met?

By your fruits.

[WalterSobchak]

By your fruits.


LOL, if you say so.

[IMPress Polly]

hanger4 wrote:
Small question, do you believe it's was appropriate for Sandra Fluke to perjure herself before Congress ??

As far as I'm concerned, Sandra Fluke is simply an ordinary women's health activist whom one Mr. Rush Limbaugh arbitrarily decided to attack one day (then for multiple days and even weeks) on his radio program in the most obscene, elaborate, and totally off-the-wall way in order to appeal to hostile, male chauvinist sentiments on the subject, given that people of such a mentality compose the vast majority of his listeners. I don't know where it is that she may have perjured herself and I don't think that's your motive for hating her even if she did. You hate her for the same reason Rush does: because she is a women's health activist. Were it not for Rush Limbaugh, neither you nor I would probably even know who Sandra Fluke was.


MMC wrote:
So now that the thread was created by a woman.....how's that working with your theory about male bonding? Or as a feminist did you just want to throw out a couple more diggs at men?

You act as if women are automatically feminists. That is, of course, not the case. I will say though that most women are less hostile toward their own sex than Goldie Locks. Much less hostile.


roadmaster wrote:
I appreciate the difference between men and women. I know if my husband checks the oil and fluids in my car that's his way of saying " I care if you get broken down". Men do little things that some women don't notice. I think good men are great to have around.

This may shock readers here, but I don't hate men either. Not at all. In fact, the majority of my friends are men! What I hate is discrimination, exploitation, and other forms of oppression.

[MMC]

Well truthfully I should have said by your feministic statement as I wouldn't want to label you as a Feminist. One can also understand the point of what you hate. Yet nothing has changed in man and woman's nature since the beginning of time. Especially with the exploitation of one's own self. :f_zen:
Doesnt shock me that you don't hate men. This is a good thing! :highfive:

Also I hope you are not against Comedians that like to talk smack about women and make fun of them either. :burp:

[Goldie Locks]

As far as I'm concerned, Sandra Fluke is simply an ordinary women's health activist whom one Mr. Rush Limbaugh arbitrarily decided to attack one day (then for multiple days and even weeks) on his radio program in the most obscene, elaborate, and totally off-the-wall way in order to appeal to hostile, male chauvinist sentiments on the subject, given that people of such a mentality compose the vast majority of his listeners. I don't know where it is that she may have perjured herself and I don't think that's your motive for hating her even if she did. You hate her for the same reason Rush does: because she is a women's health activist. Were it not for Rush Limbaugh, neither you nor I would probably even know who Sandra Fluke was.



You act as if women are automatically feminists. That is, of course, not the case. I will say though that most women are less hostile toward their own sex than Goldie Locks. Much less hostile.



This may shock readers here, but I don't hate men either. Not at all. In fact, the majority of my friends are men! What I hate is discrimination, exploitation, and other forms of oppression.


I'm not hostile towards women in general. I am hostile against feminists who think that any time something is said about A woman it means they feel that way about ALL women. I am hostile toward women who demand that the taxpayer pay for her birth control. I am hostile toward women and their faux outrage if what is said is about a progressive woman, but you never hear that outrage when it is said about a conservative woman. What I despise is this crap about the supposed "War on Women" when there is none.

[hanger4]

As far as I'm concerned, Sandra Fluke is simply an ordinary women's health activist whom one Mr. Rush Limbaugh arbitrarily decided to attack one day (then for multiple days and even weeks) on his radio program in the most obscene, elaborate, and totally off-the-wall way in order to appeal to hostile, male chauvinist sentiments on the subject, given that people of such a mentality compose the vast majority of his listeners. I don't know where it is that she may have perjured herself and I don't think that's your motive for hating her even if she did. You hate her for the same reason Rush does: because she is a women's health activist. Were it not for Rush Limbaugh, neither you nor I would probably even know who Sandra Fluke was.

Wasn't arbitrary, read her words;


“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school (3 years). For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
.........
“For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
“After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.




“Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.




http://www.buzzfeed.com/boxofficebuz...dra-fluke-48z2

Contraception doesn't cost near her numbers. The pill and 2 condoms a day don't total $1000 a year. Somebody that spends that much money a year on contraception is either lying a slut or a prostitute.

And stop with this hating women meme, it's unbecoming of you to paint with such a broad brush.

[Jack Fate]

There isn't a war on women. There IS a war on conservative Christian women.

[IMPress Polly]

MMC wrote:
Well truthfully I should have said by your feministic statement as I wouldn't want to label you as a Feminist. One can also understand the point of what you hate. Yet nothing has changed in man and woman's nature since the beginning of time. Especially with the exploitation of one's own self. :f_zen:

I am actually a feminist. A feminist is simply someone who believes that men and women should be considered equals in every respect and presently are treated otherwise. I wasn't complaining about being called a feminist. Rather, it seemed to me that you were implying that all women (e.g. Goldie Locks) have a feminist consciousness by virtue of being female. You were suggesting that the mere fact that this thread was started by a woman automatically renders its contents gender-neutral.

Doesnt shock me that you don't hate men. This is a good thing! :highfive:

Of course!

I'd high five you back, but don't see the emoticon for that in my options. In fact, you seem to have more than one pretty cool emoticon that I don't. :huh:


Also I hope you are not against Comedians that like to talk smack about women and make fun of them either. :burp:

It may not be same as yours, but I do have a sense of humor! I enjoy laughing at discrimination, not with discrimination. My favorite comedian is Sarah Silverman. (http://sarahsilvermanonline.com/) I had the opportunity to check out Live From Niggerhead (some info (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/live-from-nhead-sarah-silverman-visits-rachel-maddow-for-her-take-on-rick-perry/), including a Rachel Maddow interview with her), which was great! :grin:


Goldie Locks wrote:
I'm not hostile towards women in general. I am hostile against feminists who think that any time something is said about A woman it means they feel that way about ALL women. I am hostile toward women who demand that the taxpayer pay for her birth control. I am hostile toward women and their faux outrage if what is said is about a progressive woman, but you never hear that outrage when it is said about a conservative woman. What I despise is this crap about the supposed "War on Women" when there is none.

You may be surprised to learn that I am rather non-partisan in my critiques on women's issues. Whatever other people do, I have, in fact, for instance, offered defenses of the likes of Michele Bachmann in the past because I did think that even leftists tended to focus their hostility disproportionately against women. I can link you up to the corresponding thread on the regular Political Forum from last year if you'd like to see. Hell, I've even offered plain agreement with people here on the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal in connection to sexual exploitation. You will find that I do not apply such partisan double-standards, but rather am a pretty damn honest person.

However, there are real reasons why most feminists (myself included) do, in fact, ultimately tend to side with the Democratic Party in an overall sense in connection to the advancement of women. It's because the Democratic Party has had a tendency for some time now to be a great deal more supportive of women's rights and interests, be it in the area of reproductive rights (and yes that includes ensuring that women can actually financially afford to use them IMO), in the area of equal pay (the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act are both fairly recent examples of such initiatives that the Democratic Party has supported and which the Republican Party has opposed), in the area of securing opportunities for women to have parenting as a viable career option (see the Work Act), or in the area of domestic violence issues such as concentrated in the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act. In all of these areas, Democrats (as a party anyway) always prove more vigilant and serious proponents of women's advancement. What's more, quite frankly, like it or not, women benefit overall from the Democratic Party's support for social welfare policies, being that women, after all, are disproportionately dependent on them, being still generally poorer than men in this allegedly post-patriarchal society we live in. These are substantive points. Republicans, including Republican women, are far more likely to oppose all of those things. You can tell by their voting records. There is no getting around that. Democrats are also more able to nominate women for office and to actually get them elected, furthermore. If the entire current Republican Party slate for Congress won election this year, for instance, the total number of women in Congress would actually decline. Thus a victory for the GOP will tend to overlap with a defeat, rather than an advance, for female representation in the government, realistically speaking. Am I making any sense here?

[Peter1469]

I am actually a feminist. A feminist is simply someone who believes that men and women should be considered equals in every respect and presently are treated otherwise. I wasn't complaining about being called a feminist. Rather, it seemed to me that you were implying that all women (e.g. Goldie Locks) have a feminist consciousness by virtue of being female. You were suggesting that the mere fact that this thread was started by a woman automatically renders its contents gender-neutral.


Of course!

I'd high five you back, but don't see the emoticon for that in my options. In fact, you seem to have more than one pretty cool emoticon that I don't. :huh:



It may not be same as yours, but I do have a sense of humor! I enjoy laughing at discrimination, not with discrimination. My favorite comedian is Sarah Silverman. (http://sarahsilvermanonline.com/) I had the opportunity to check out Live From Niggerhead (some info (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/live-from-nhead-sarah-silverman-visits-rachel-maddow-for-her-take-on-rick-perry/), including a Rachel Maddow interview with her), which was great! :grin:



You may be surprised to learn that I am rather non-partisan in my critiques on women's issues. Whatever other people do, I have, in fact, for instance, offered defenses of the likes of Michele Bachmann in the past because I did think that even leftists tended to focus their hostility disproportionately against women. I can link you up to the corresponding thread on the regular Political Forum from last year if you'd like to see. Hell, I've even offered plain agreement with people here on the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal in connection to sexual exploitation. You will find that I do not apply such partisan double-standards, but rather am a pretty damn honest person.

However, there are real reasons why most feminists (myself included) do, in fact, ultimately tend to side with the Democratic Party in an overall sense in connection to the advancement of women. It's because the Democratic Party has had a tendency for some time now to be a great deal more supportive of women's rights and interests, be it in the area of reproductive rights (and yes that includes ensuring that women can actually financially afford to use them IMO), in the area of equal pay (the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act are both fairly recent examples of such initiatives that the Democratic Party has supported and which the Republican Party has opposed), in the area of securing opportunities for women to have parenting as a viable career option (see the Work Act), or in the area of domestic violence issues such as concentrated in the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act. In all of these areas, Democrats (as a party anyway) always prove more vigilant and serious proponents of women's advancement. What's more, quite frankly, like it or not, women benefit overall from the Democratic Party's support for social welfare policies, being that women, after all, are disproportionately dependent on them, being still generally poorer than men in this allegedly post-patriarchal society we live in. These are substantive points. Republicans, including Republican women, are far more likely to oppose all of those things. You can tell by their voting records. There is no getting around that. Democrats are also more able to nominate women for office and to actually get them elected, furthermore. If the entire current Republican Party slate for Congress won election this year, for instance, the total number of women in Congress would actually decline. Thus a victory for the GOP will tend to overlap with a defeat, rather than an advance, for female representation in the government, realistically speaking. Am I making any sense here?

Sure you are making sense. I would question the basic assumption of your argument that men and women are equal in all things.

I would say that they are not equal in all things. Speaking in generalities of course. In some areas women are superior to men. In other areas men are superior to women. But these strengths and weaknesses compliment each other and make society work. I think that the idea that the sexes are equal in all things is dangerous.

I spent 9 years in the infantry and during my primary non-commissioned officer course training they put two infantry guys in each squad of 10 people. And two females in each squad. Our two females were into the opening of combat arms to women. So when we went to the field I decided to run an experiment. Each soldier was supposed to take turns in leadership positions for various missions. I ended up being the squad leader for most people's grades, but I didn't mind, because it helped my experiment. In a light infantry squad there are two really heavy pieces of gear. One is the M60 machine gun. It is 18.75 pounds before ammo. The other is the (I should say was) the PRC-77 tactical radio. It is 25 pounds. And of course you have your standard issue crap that adds weight too. In this course we really didn't carry a lot. In my infantry unit I would routinely carry 145lbs (and I weighed 135 at that time....)

Guess who got to carry those tools? :evil:

Well after a bit, those two female soldiers told me that women should not be in the infantry. Hey, isn't that what I said a couple of days ago, I thought to myself.

Now this was in 1989 and I was 19. I am a much better person now. I have grown- (about 60 pounds that is). :grin:

One of the events was land navigation and they teamed me with one of our female soldiers- a radio announcer. We had 4 points to find in 2 hours. She hadn't seen a tree since basic so after it took us 45 minutes to find one point, I set her down, and did the last 3 myself. And I had to use geometry because there was an f'ing cliff in the way. Then I came back and got her and we ran back to the start point. We were one of the few teams to get all four points. BUT after we passed, I took her back out and taught her to find the points on her own.

[Goldie Locks]

I am actually a feminist. A feminist is simply someone who believes that men and women should be considered equals in every respect and presently are treated otherwise. I wasn't complaining about being called a feminist. Rather, it seemed to me that you were implying that all women (e.g. Goldie Locks) have a feminist consciousness by virtue of being female. You were suggesting that the mere fact that this thread was started by a woman automatically renders its contents gender-neutral.


Of course!

I'd high five you back, but don't see the emoticon for that in my options. In fact, you seem to have more than one pretty cool emoticon that I don't. :huh:



It may not be same as yours, but I do have a sense of humor! I enjoy laughing at discrimination, not with discrimination. My favorite comedian is Sarah Silverman. (http://sarahsilvermanonline.com/) I had the opportunity to check out Live From Niggerhead (some info (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/live-from-nhead-sarah-silverman-visits-rachel-maddow-for-her-take-on-rick-perry/), including a Rachel Maddow interview with her), which was great! :grin:



You may be surprised to learn that I am rather non-partisan in my critiques on women's issues. Whatever other people do, I have, in fact, for instance, offered defenses of the likes of Michele Bachmann in the past because I did think that even leftists tended to focus their hostility disproportionately against women. I can link you up to the corresponding thread on the regular Political Forum from last year if you'd like to see. Hell, I've even offered plain agreement with people here on the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal in connection to sexual exploitation. You will find that I do not apply such partisan double-standards, but rather am a pretty damn honest person.

However, there are real reasons why most feminists (myself included) do, in fact, ultimately tend to side with the Democratic Party in an overall sense in connection to the advancement of women. It's because the Democratic Party has had a tendency for some time now to be a great deal more supportive of women's rights and interests, be it in the area of reproductive rights (and yes that includes ensuring that women can actually financially afford to use them IMO), in the area of equal pay (the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act are both fairly recent examples of such initiatives that the Democratic Party has supported and which the Republican Party has opposed), in the area of securing opportunities for women to have parenting as a viable career option (see the Work Act), or in the area of domestic violence issues such as concentrated in the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act. In all of these areas, Democrats (as a party anyway) always prove more vigilant and serious proponents of women's advancement. What's more, quite frankly, like it or not, women benefit overall from the Democratic Party's support for social welfare policies, being that women, after all, are disproportionately dependent on them, being still generally poorer than men in this allegedly post-patriarchal society we live in. These are substantive points. Republicans, including Republican women, are far more likely to oppose all of those things. You can tell by their voting records. There is no getting around that. Democrats are also more able to nominate women for office and to actually get them elected, furthermore. If the entire current Republican Party slate for Congress won election this year, for instance, the total number of women in Congress would actually decline. Thus a victory for the GOP will tend to overlap with a defeat, rather than an advance, for female representation in the government, realistically speaking. Am I making any sense here?

Men and women are not equal, that's why God made us different. Somethings they do equally well, some women do better in and some men do better in.

As far as voting for Ubama, you do know that women in his administration make less than men.
Average White House salary for women is 60K, for men 71K, This goes on throughout the democratic senators, even the Congressional women, so your argument does not hold water.

Women's right to vote amendment was proposed by a republican and voted down by a democratic congress. It was passed four years later by a republican congress.

Sure the democrats get support for women's rights because they are willing to give it all away at taxpayers expense, Free birth control, free sterilization, free abortions, etc. There are a lot of republicans who are for the killing of babies and birth control, they just don't believe taxpayers should have to pay for it.

[MMC]

I am in agreement with Peter and Goldie. Like I stated before Not all men are created equal. So it is the same for women. Then when trying to equalize both genders. :rollseyes: Well then it's like Peter stated. A very dangerous and blinding concept for society.

As for the Smilie.....did you click on More? That should open up the whole page of them. :smiley:

With the Comedians we shall see. As I tend to go with a few of the brutha's when they get to cracking on Women. :wink:

[IMPress Polly]

Goldie Locks wrote:
As far as voting for Ubama, you do know that women in his administration make less than men.
Average White House salary for women is 60K, for men 71K, This goes on throughout the democratic senators, even the Congressional women, so your argument does not hold water.

I never said either party was consistently egalitarian. (In fact, I seem to recall expressly saying that "Sexism can be an annoyingly bi-partisan thing" or something to that affect earlier on this very thread.) I simply suggested that one was more so than the other and substantiated it with a whole lot of points. To rehearse them:

...there are real reasons why most feminists (myself included) do, in fact, ultimately tend to side with the Democratic Party in an overall sense in connection to the advancement of women. It's because the Democratic Party has had a tendency for some time now to be a great deal more supportive of women's rights and interests, be it in the area of reproductive rights (and yes that includes ensuring that women can actually financially afford to use them IMO), in the area of equal pay (the Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act are both fairly recent examples of such initiatives that the Democratic Party has supported and which the Republican Party has opposed), in the area of securing opportunities for women to have parenting as a viable career option (see the Work Act), or in the area of domestic violence issues such as concentrated in the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act. In all of these areas, Democrats (as a party anyway) always prove more vigilant and serious proponents of women's advancement. What's more, quite frankly, like it or not, women benefit overall from the Democratic Party's support for social welfare policies, being that women, after all, are disproportionately dependent on them, being still generally poorer than men in this allegedly post-patriarchal society we live in. These are substantive points. Republicans, including Republican women, are far more likely to oppose all of those things. You can tell by their voting records. There is no getting around that. Democrats are also more able to nominate women for office and to actually get them elected, furthermore. If the entire current Republican Party slate for Congress won election this year, for instance, the total number of women in Congress would actually decline. Thus a victory for the GOP will tend to overlap with a defeat, rather than an advance, for female representation in the government, realistically speaking. Am I making any sense here?


Women's right to vote amendment was proposed by a republican and voted down by a democratic congress. It was passed four years later by a republican congress.

I do believe that I qualified my argument (re-posted just above) with the expression "for some time now", as in to say that the Democrats have tended to be distinctly more supportive of women's rights and interests since 1980ish. I was not going back to the 1910s and '20s with that statement. Back in the 1910s and '20s organized labor was a multi-partisan cause for that matter, so, by your reasoning, that must imply that such is still the case today, roughly a century later...right? Time changes politics.


Peter wrote:
Sure you are making sense. I would question the basic assumption of your argument that men and women are equal in all things.

I would say that they are not equal in all things. Speaking in generalities of course. In some areas women are superior to men. In other areas men are superior to women. But these strengths and weaknesses compliment each other and make society work. I think that the idea that the sexes are equal in all things is dangerous.

Can't say that I honestly know the first thing about how military service life goes. However, I did notice that the sample size in the case you provided was two. And you don't see any possible shortcomings in your logic?

ARE WE EQUAL IN ALL THINGS?

The essence of what people are questioning here is this. The answer is...maybe not QUITE literally (biologically), but for all intents and purposes, yes, we are equals. I was reading a recent issue of Scientific American Mind that was in no small part dedicated to this very question not too long ago. What scientists are finding is that there are some behavioral differences between the sexes that do boil down to the innate psychological level. However, these are very miniscule. In reality, our culture accentuates our biological differences greatly. There is no biological reason why we should prescribe gender roles. Women are perfectly capable of playing a perfectly good game of hockey. And men are perfectly capable of being great full-time parents. Those who say otherwise are either ill-informed or lying because that's what the data shows. These are scientific facts, not matters of opinion. Men and women should be treated as equals for all legal purposes is what all this means in the practical.

[Goldie Locks]

kids haveing a mom and dad is the optimal and if you say otherwise you are either ill-informed or lying, because that's what the data shows.

[roadmaster]

kids haveing a mom and dad is the optimal and if you say otherwise you are either ill-informed or lying, because that's what the data shows.

Exactly! As long as they are good teachers and parents. A strong Dad is very important to a young girl and moms are to sons. I always told my daughter to watch how the young man treats his mom and I told my sons if you can't give the young woman a better life than leave her alone. Too many parents want to be friends instead of parents. You can be both to some degree but stand your ground and pick your fights.

[bladimz]

For what it's worth, i think that men and women should be treated as equals in the workplace, and paid accordingly. I'm not talking about grunt jobs where the major requirement is physical strength and stamina. ALTHOUGH, i have seen some women compete pretty well with other men as UPS delivery persons. And most of us have some idea of how physically demanding that job is.

During my years as a "job creator", i had the responsibility of hiring and firing. Job applicants many times were the subject of hours of laughs between my partner and i. Some of them were the dumbest people i've ever seen. Maybe some of them thought the same of me, but i was Boss and they weren't. lol. Men and women. Mostly men, at first glance, at least. On the other end of it, firing was many times the result of pure incompetence, but mainly an unwillingness to make the effort to improve their performance. Anyway, the point is, each competent employee deserved the equal compensation whether man or woman. And it worked out pretty well for me.

[IMPress Polly]

Goldie Locks wrote:
kids haveing a mom and dad is the optimal and if you say otherwise you are either ill-informed or lying, because that's what the data shows.

No question there. I never meant to suggest otherwise. However, if you honestly believe that such has ever been or ever will be a universal reality then I'd say you're living in a different one. The real world is not perfect and making it more patriarchal again won't help matters. The stability of the family unit is being challenged by modern, unstable capitalist economics. One must accept the reality that, particularly under such conditions, cultural tolerance of non-traditional types of family structures needs to and will increase because a rise in their usage is inevitable. Salvaging the two-parent family unit is not a matter of going back to a more intensive patriarchy, complete with the according gender roles. It is a matter of restoring more economic security for the general population.

[Peter1469]

No question there. I never meant to suggest otherwise. However, if you honestly believe that such has ever been or ever will be a universal reality then I'd say you're living in a different one. The real world is not perfect and making it more patriarchal again won't help matters. The stability of the family unit is being challenged by modern, unstable capitalist economics. One must accept the reality that, particularly under such conditions, cultural tolerance of non-traditional types of family structures needs to and will increase because a rise in their usage is inevitable. Salvaging the two-parent family unit is not a matter of going back to a more intensive patriarchy, complete with the according gender roles. It is a matter of restoring more economic security for the general population.

There is no modern capitalism. We are living under corporatism where mega corporations distort the free market to their own ends. I would end the concept of corporate person-hood and bust up and "too big to fail business."

[Goldie Locks]

No question there. I never meant to suggest otherwise. However, if you honestly believe that such has ever been or ever will be a universal reality then I'd say you're living in a different one. The real world is not perfect and making it more patriarchal again won't help matters. The stability of the family unit is being challenged by modern, unstable capitalist economics. One must accept the reality that, particularly under such conditions, cultural tolerance of non-traditional types of family structures needs to and will increase because a rise in their usage is inevitable. Salvaging the two-parent family unit is not a matter of going back to a more intensive patriarchy, complete with the according gender roles. It is a matter of restoring more economic security for the general population.


It's an unstable capitalist economy because the government will not let the free markets work...not for decades.