RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 10:41:47 AM)

While your link uses the words condemn and denounce, this is all I can find of Boehner's actual words:

"The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

Hardly condemning or denouncing.



MDomCouple -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 10:47:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

While your link uses the words condemn and denounce, this is all I can find of Boehner's actual words:

"The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

Hardly condemning or denouncing.

Now we are just in to semantic debates about what does or does not qualify as a "denouncement." Evidence was asked for and I provided some. If someone wants to accept it, that's fine. If someone wants to reject it, that's fine.



Lucylastic -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 10:54:58 AM)

yeah semantics is a very often argued point on this board. He didnt "denounce" him, akin to the difference between tweaking someones ear and bitch slapping them with a concrete block.
Definitions matter, over exaggeration, will be debated.
Alluding, and putting words in peoples mouths is often tried and vigorously disliked.
So , just a word to the wise.
It can be the difference between, being taken seriously and passed of as another drama llama



Owner59 -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 10:55:43 AM)

"If someone wants to accept it, that's fine. If someone wants to reject it, that's fine."


Yup yup yup we know how debate works.....


Still,"the I believe what I want to believe and you believe what you want to believe" is a poor excuse for an argument.


Here,...... at least.....we expect to be convinced by arguments......not just hear stale position statements.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 11:05:08 AM)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/

Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives.

So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance.

Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it?



kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 11:09:28 AM)

She's in her THIRD year of law school. Hellova commitment for a plant, dontcha think?



Lucylastic -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 11:12:06 AM)

the blaze? Ill wait till something more "reliable" comes up
seeing as half these "rags" cant even get the fact that she was talking about a friend rather than her need for free sex, Its like believing brietbart was killed by obama.



SternSkipper -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 11:24:27 AM)

quote:

Someone asked for evidence that an elected Republican stood up to Limbaugh's comments. I provided said evidence. If you don't like that...well, that speaks more to your political bias than anything.


I'll let George Will sum it up for ya and just say that I've got a scout troop to get home... I gotta shut down the laptop and the MiFi and get them home.... But here's what George had to say about Boner's empty remarks:

"“[House Speaker John] Boehner comes out and says Rush’s language was inappropriate. Using the salad fork for your entrée, that’s inappropriate. Not this stuff,” Will said. “And it was depressing because what it indicates is that the Republican leaders are afraid of Rush Limbaugh. They want to bomb Iran, but they’re afraid of Rush Limbaugh.”"

There's a thread dedicated to the article this was taken from if you wish to read the rest look in the forum index.



SternSkipper -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 11:36:07 AM)

quote:

Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives.


What's it say about this in the latest Spiderman comic?

quote:

So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance.


Maybe she grew up in DC? OR Maybeeeeeeeee.... Georgetown has a better law school than most of the Universities in the southern half of the US. And maybe she chose to go to Georgetown Law a long time before this controversy. You don't think she ran over there smelling a good fight, do you?
BTW - the place I first saw this 23 year old shit was in fatso's remarks, so find a listener to apologize for his error, if it even matters.


quote:

Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it?


Could the right wing 'shit for journalism' outlets be pulling your chain?





kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 11:56:32 AM)

quote:

BTW - the place I first saw this 23 year old shit was in fatso's remarks, so find a listener to apologize for his error, if it even matters.


When I google "sandra fluke 23 years old" all I find is quotes from the piece saying "This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along."

I couldn't find anything on WHO reported that, except for this:

quote:

MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman


But couldn't find an Ann Williams on MSNBC.com or any mention of Sandra Fluke being 23.

For what it's worth, here's Yahoo Answers:

When, exactly, was Sandra Fluke described as a 23 year old?
Conservatives, in their desperate attempt to save face, are now saying Ms. Fluke is a liar because she's actually 30 years old and not 23.

From everything I've seen in the news she's only been described as a 3rd year law student. With no mention of her age.

I guess conservatives got confused since she was supposed to testify on February 23rd

Not to mention, how does any of this justify Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut"?



angelikaJ -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 12:05:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

And then he doubled-down:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1313891.html

But instead of apologizing for his offensive comments on his show Thursday, he geared up for round two.

Channeling Foster Friess, a main financial backer of former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), Limbaugh said that he would "happily buy [Sandra Fluke] all the aspirin she wants" to put between her knees in lieu of contraception.

He then expanded his offer to the whole university:

"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that? I called it what it is," he said. "So, I'm offering a compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want."

Limbaugh, of course, was referencing the controversial comment Friess made in February, when he referenced the "gals" in "his day" who put aspirin between their knees in lieu of using contraception.

Fluke's testimony in the hearing was not, as Limbaugh claimed, about the fact that she's "having so much sex she's going broke buying contraceptives." She told the story of her friend who had an ovary removed because the insurance company wouldn't cover the prescription birth control she needed to stop the growth of ovarian cysts.

Limbaugh concluded his sexist rant by insisting that if women want their contraception covered, they should post pornographic videos of themselves online. "So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal," he said. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."


I wanted to address this in part because some people who post here are entirely comfortable in using the term "feminazis" and in my opinion this piece is an example of why that word is wrong.
You can't define people by a word that has such a pejorative definition; most people find the N-word to be extremely offensive and even seen as hate speech and now some of you are calling women a word that has the same weight as that. I do believe in freedom of speech so if people want to use it, that is fine but they should realise that they come across as misogynist jerks and the use of that word is verbal assault. It is hate speech.

My second thought is I haven't seen any talk in the media about Viagra and drugs such as that?
I didn't see men discussing how insurance companies shouldn't be treating men who have ED with drugs. Of course since fucking is solely for procreation I guess they could claim it is necessary for religious reasons.

The demonization of sexuality is obviously wrong: college women can't have sex but men can? Or has Rush kept it in his pants all these years except for when he has been married? We all know that until very recently monogamy hasn't been something Newt has adhered to.

Of course the idea of Rush or Newt putting out a sex video isn't nearly as titillating.

Oh and let's not forget that Rush has apologised. He explained it was all just a joke.
Um.... yeah. [8|]



Lucylastic -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 12:06:48 PM)

cos if shes really 30, shes a plant by the government, and a whore, not a slut
Obviously!!!![image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/sarcasm.gif[/image]
oh, in all seriousness, it has as much to do with rush calling her a slut as I do



farglebargle -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 12:19:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/

Apparently, our "23-year old coed" was really a 30-year old women's rights activist who chose to go to Georgetown because of their policy on contraceptives.

So, an activist researches a university's stance on contraception and disagrees with it. So, instead of finding an institution that agrees with her stance (or has a stance she agrees with), she attends Georgetown with the fighting against their stance.

Not exactly the same picture as painted by the media and the liberal rags, now is it?


And exactly why would you think that a law school ( or any other entity) has any right to an opinion in the private contract between an insurer and their customer, and a patient and their doctor?




kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 12:46:44 PM)

quote:

I wanted to address this in part because some people who post here are entirely comfortable in using the term "feminazis" and in my opinion this piece is an example of why that word is wrong.


Did VAA ever give the promised rationale of why that term is no longer permitted here?



MDomCouple -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 12:55:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"If someone wants to accept it, that's fine. If someone wants to reject it, that's fine."


Yup yup yup we know how debate works.....


Still,"the I believe what I want to believe and you believe what you want to believe" is a poor excuse for an argument.


Here,...... at least.....we expect to be convinced by arguments......not just hear stale position statements.


So, let me get this straight. Someone claims that Republicans aren't standing up to Limbaugh after his comments about Fluke. I posted a link that shows that John Boehner is denouncing Limbaugh, and that link is brushed aside as worthless because Boehner isn't using strong enough words. But, somehow, I am the one who is using poor excuses for arguments?

Fine, if Boehner isn't good enough for you, how about Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who said "“Rush Limbaugh’s comments are reprehensible. He should apologize." Is "reprehensible" enough of a denouncement for you? (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/limbaugh-should-apologize-says-scott-brown-first-goper-to-denounce/politics/2012/03/02/35655)

If not, how about Carly Fiorina, who (though not an elected official) is a prominent member of the Republican party? She called Limbaugh's comments "incendiary" and a "distraction from what are very real and important issues." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57389434-503544/fiorina-rush-limbaughs-comments-about-student-insulting-incendiary/)

It is disingenuous, at best, for a person to claim that Republicans aren't standing up to Limbaugh out of one side of their mouth and then dismiss any Republicans who DO out of the others side. That simply shows blind party loyalty ahead of logic and reason.

Now, are there are a lot of Republicans running to distance themselves from Limbaugh? No, and I don't really think they should have to. It is part and parcel of the political landscape today, sadly, that people want to hold other people responsible for one person's comments. Limbaugh is little more than a popular political commentator. The left gets all riled up every time he opens his mouth, and he knows it...and milks it. But, no matter what Limbaugh says, Boehner, Brown, Fiorina, and others are NOT responsible for his words or actions. They are under no obligation - legal, moral or otherwise - to even acknowledge his comments. One of the biggest problems in politics today, in my estimation, is the idiotic notion that ever political personality should be responsible for what comes out of the mouths of every other political personality.

Limbaugh is responsible for Limbaugh. His comments were horrible, insulting, and showed a tremendous lack of understanding of how birth control works. But, guess what? That is HIS problem. No one else is under obligation to come to his defense or to denounce him.



Owner59 -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 1:00:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

BTW - the place I first saw this 23 year old shit was in fatso's remarks, so find a listener to apologize for his error, if it even matters.


When I google "sandra fluke 23 years old" all I find is quotes from the piece saying "This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along."

I couldn't find anything on WHO reported that, except for this:

quote:

MSNBC reporter Anne Williams called Fluke “the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited from testifying.” Yet Fluke’s own Linkedin profile reveals a more mature woman


But couldn't find an Ann Williams on MSNBC.com or any mention of Sandra Fluke being 23.

For what it's worth, here's Yahoo Answers:

When, exactly, was Sandra Fluke described as a 23 year old?
Conservatives, in their desperate attempt to save face, are now saying Ms. Fluke is a liar because she's actually 30 years old and not 23.

From everything I've seen in the news she's only been described as a 3rd year law student. With no mention of her age.

I guess conservatives got confused since she was supposed to testify on February 23rd

Not to mention, how does any of this justify Rush Limbaugh calling her a "slut"?

I knew that guy and his link were bullshitting.........

Again........when republicans run out of issues,.......they go for plan 'b'.......call woman whores........

This extremism shows no sign of letting up.....as soon as cons get stung.....and lose.....they double down like degenerate gamblers......

Do you think kalikshama,that when the republicans lose the election,that they`ll blame themselves and this kind of conduct or will they fall back on the old standard "liberal media bias" cop-out?



Moonhead -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 1:06:15 PM)

The problem with that otherwise reasonable assertion is that it doesn't cut both ways. This forum is forever having threads started about "why don't these alleged tolerant mooslims denounce the jihadists" and claiming that the latest witless drivel some left leaning wingnut has come out with is the true voice of the American liberal. (Hell, you even get that about the lhistrionic scaremongering from British redtops that don't even name sources for the quotations they've invented or distorted from time to time. The Daily Fail speaks for the left?)
Either bullshit spouted by media loudmouths is speaking for the group they claim to represent as a whole or it isn't, and if it is, then Limbaugh speaks for the whole of the right. That's the problem with reducing arguments to the biggest brush you can imagine to lump disparate elements together.
(It's also worth remembering that there's no question that Limbaugh has a lot more influence over the Republican party than Michael Moore or Barbara Ehrenreich do over the Democrats.)



angelikaJ -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/4/2012 1:08:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

I wanted to address this in part because some people who post here are entirely comfortable in using the term "feminazis" and in my opinion this piece is an example of why that word is wrong.


Did VAA ever give the promised rationale of why that term is no longer permitted here?


Oops; I did not know it was disallowed.

I am not online as much as I used to be.



kalikshama -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 1:15:19 PM)

quote:

how about Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who said "“Rush Limbaugh’s comments are reprehensible. He should apologize." Is "reprehensible" enough of a denouncement for you? (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/limbaugh-should-apologize-says-scott-brown-first-goper-to-denounce/politics/2012/03/02/35655)

If not, how about Carly Fiorina, who (though not an elected official) is a prominent member of the Republican party? She called Limbaugh's comments "incendiary" and a "distraction from what are very real and important issues." (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57389434-503544/fiorina-rush-limbaughs-comments-about-student-insulting-incendiary/)


Much better examples, thanks.

There is a backstory to Scott Brown's statement:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/limbaugh-should-apologize-says-scott-brown-first-goper-to-denounce/politics/2012/03/02/35655

Republican Senator Scott Brown, ensconced in a tight erase against a national hero, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, became the first sitting Republican politician to denounce Rush Limbaugh‘s remarks and attacks against Sandra Fluke, the 24-year old college student whom the GOP refused to allow to testify two weeks ago in a House contraception hearing.

“Rush Limbaugh’s comments are reprehensible. He should apologize,” the Massachusetts senator stated, via Twitter late this afternoon.

Limbaugh called Fluke, a 24-year old female college student, a “slut” and a “prostitute” on Wednesday, and followed up after immense outrage from the Left by demanding that Fluke, post online for him to see videos of her having sex, “so we can all watch.”

Last week, Brown and Warren “dueled” over the contraception debate. Brown faces an increasingly challenging race against Warren.



MDomCouple -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and re (3/4/2012 1:15:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

The problem with that otherwise reasonable assertion is that it doesn't cut both ways. This forum is forever having threads started about "why don't these alleged rational mooslims denounce" the jihadists and claiming that the latest witless drivel some left leaning wingnut has come out with is the true voice of the American liberal. (Hell, you even get that about the latest histrionic scaremongering from British redtops that don't even name sources for the quotations they've invented or distorted...)
Either it is speaking for a whole group as a whole or it isn't, and if it is, then Limbaugh speaks for the whole of the right. That's the problem with reducing arguments to the biggest brush you can imagine to lump disparate elements together. There's no question that Limbaugh has a lot more influence over the Republican party than Michael Moore or Barbara Ehrenreich do over the Democrats, put it that way.

You're right, the assertion that people should only be held accountable for their own actions and words, and not the actions or words of others, is that it isn't applied consistently. There are some on the right who say they aren't responsible for Limbaugh, but denounce the whole Left because of Pelosi (just hypothetical example). There are some on the left who say they aren't responsible for Pelosi, but denounce the whole right because of Limbaugh.

One thing I learned early, hypocrisy doesn't adhere to political leanings. As far as I am concerned, no one is responsible for anyone's statements or actions but their own. If I slip up on that at anytime, feel free to call me out.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625