obama calls woman limburger calls slut

Don Quixote said:
please provide links where it says that government money pays for contraceptives and pp provides one year of free contraceptives

impotence is a medical condition- sexual activity is not. -huh? - the only purpose of viagra is to allow sexual activity and what about the fact that at least two people benefit from contraception
Click to expand...

you idiots keep making that comparison......how many times do you have to be reminded that providing both is stupid?.......
 
Crashk said:
On Thursday, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said in a fund-raising appeal that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “women’s health rapid response fund” had raised $1.1 million
Click to expand...

one million of which was donated by pharmaceutical companies making birth control drugs, anxious to have the government require insurance companies to provide birth control......
 
Don Quixote said:
please provide links where it says that government money pays for contraceptives and pp provides one year of free contraceptives

impotence is a medical condition- sexual activity is not. -huh? - the only purpose of viagra is to allow sexual activity and what about the fact that at least two people benefit from contraception
Click to expand...

Is the government requiring contraceptives be included? How do you think the insurance companies and employers are going to pass along the cost?

Google the planned parenthood statement for any state.

Impotence IS a medical condition- saying "HUH" is not an argument against that statement. It's like breast augmentation being considered an option unless it is reconstructive due to cancer. Certainly you are just playing stupid.
 
Onceler said:
ODS

Only you could turn this whole story into anything that OBAMA needs apologies for. Absolutely no one is saying anything negative about Obama calling the student - well, except the board's most ardent Obama hater, that is. LOL
Click to expand...

All women should be outraged by that fat bloviater's comments. They are inexcusable, no matter what spin anyone tries to put on them. That moron must think connie women will approve of being called sluts and whores since they have sex just like lib women so. I wonder if the RW tools here considered why so many conservatives, politicians or otherwise, have criticized rush for his remarks. It's because he couldn't have done a better job of painting the right as mean-spirited and out of touch.

I read that the Michigan primary tipped Romney's way because of women voters, which suggests to me that they didn't support santorum's views on issues most important to them. And I believe contraception is pretty high up on the list.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Default

So, yes, referring to someone as a slut who is wanting to take money from one group (tax payers) to give to herself, so that she can engage in sex, is inflammatory language and bad analogy- But NO different then what was said about Meg Whitman and was defended as justified on this very board.

So, Limbaugh, the "private citizen", cannot infer a woman demanding free birth control, at tax payers expense, who, for all intents and purposes, is asking us to pay for her sex life. No way can he compare that with payment for sex!


Like I said, the faux outrage this is conjuring is pathetic in light of liberal double standards.
Click to expand...
You really are a simpleton aren't you? This was NEVER about taxpayers paying for birthcontrol. This was about insurance coverage of contraception. If the Republicans were truly concerned about some moral sex issue, they would have included language in the bill that would have allowed employers to opt out of coverage of viagra as well. Funny that was missing. The bill was just a blanket opt out of contraception coverage, without exceptions for medically necessary birth control, for things like cysts.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Darla View Post
First, as Onceler points out, rape is measurably more severe than name-calling. And I’m sure you wouldn’t argue differently.

As for Brown’s staff member referring to Whitman as a whore, I read the whole thing, and this is what I think. He didn’t just come out of nowhere and say “oh that f’ing Whitman, what a whore”. He is saying they should go after her for being a whore because of pandering to a faction who apparently gave her money. I have no way of knowing that he doesn’t routinely refer to men in the same circumstances as whores. This is a fine distinction, but it’s an important one to me. I use the word whore in a non-gendered way. I call male politicians whores all of the time. I shouldn’t though.
Click to expand...

Yes, the liberals justify an outrageous analogy- so long as it is liberals doing against conservatives...
 
icedancer2theend said:
Government money (the peoples taxes) paying birth control coverage is a taxpayer cost.
Justifying coverage by that kind of logic is equal to the government mandating the cost of protective gear for athletes- One cost of protective gear is cheaper then covering one major injury.
Planned parenthood provides every woman with 1 year of free contraceptives.
Not all insurers pay for viagra- but impotence is a medical condition- sexual activity is not.
No one is denying the benefits of contraceptive use.
Click to expand...
Wow you are on a simpleton roll. Did you really just say that impotence is a medical condition and then try to remove it from sex. The ONLY reason to cure impotence is so men can fuck (sexual activity).
 
Icedancer and PmP are the quintessential republican primary voters. More concern about social issues like sex than with the economy. It is why Santorum is picking up steam. The simpletons in the party on the far right are the ones that come out in droves to vote in primaries, so the candidate that plays to their obsessions about other peoples sex lives are the ones that get the votes.
 
Socrtease said:
You really are a simpleton aren't you? This was NEVER about taxpayers paying for birthcontrol. This was about insurance coverage of contraception. If the Republicans were truly concerned about some moral sex issue, they would have included language in the bill that would have allowed employers to opt out of coverage of viagra as well. Funny that was missing. The bill was just a blanket opt out of contraception coverage, without exceptions for medically necessary birth control, for things like cysts.
Click to expand...

First of all, most insurance companies already provide contraception care. THIS is about the federal government forcing religious organizations such as hospitals; thrift stores etc. to purchase insurance that provides contraception. This is a direct assault on their first amendment protection against such action!

Viagra is not covered in every policy and the argument you present is a canard.

Viagra is specific to impotence, which unlike sex IS a medical condition. In the same way that a woman who just wants a breast augmentation must pay for it herself UNLESS she needs it for reconstructive purposes after having undergone cancer treatment.
 
Socrtease said:
Icedancer and PmP are the quintessential republican primary voters. More concern about social issues like sex than with the economy. It is why Santorum is picking up steam. The simpletons in the party on the far right are the ones that come out in droves to vote in primaries, so the candidate that plays to their obsessions about other peoples sex lives are the ones that get the votes.
Click to expand...

You are the one who is willing to toss the 1st amendment to the wind. A woman can have all the sex she wants- she does not have the right to demand others pay for her to do so. Sex is not a medical condition.
 
icedancer2theend said:
First of all, most insurance companies already provide contraception care. THIS is about the federal government forcing religious organizations such as hospitals; thrift stores etc. to purchase insurance that provides contraception. This is a direct assault on their first amendment protection against such action!

Viagra is not covered in every policy and the argument you present is a canard.

Viagra is specific to impotence, which unlike sex IS a medical condition. In the same way that a woman who just wants a breast augmentation must pay for it herself UNLESS she needs it for reconstructive purposes after having undergone cancer treatment.
Click to expand...
Impotence is a medical condition that only relates to sexual activity. You are splitting hairs. Men want viagra so they can get hard enough to penetrate a woman's vagina. Viagra= sexual activity. Now you are playing dumb.
 
Quakers are pacifists. They do not believe in war. Yet they pay taxes that go to funding our national defense. How are we NOT violating their first amendment rights, but not allowing religious organizations to opt of of contraceptive health care violates the first amendment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top