Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 1:17:34 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


We actually do agree on this, farglebargle. However, I think you made a mistake in it's application.

The agreement is between the insurer and the one paying the insurance. That is the customer. Georgetown is the customer. The University said it isn't going to cover what it isn't going to cover. I'm sure that's part of their private contract. Along comes a woman who doesn't agree with it, so she decides to attend there and challenge it.

Georgetown didn't get between a patient and doctor, either. Georgetown didn't tell the woman she couldn't get the pill, just that they weren't going to pay for it. See? G-town wasn't doing anything wrong.

Looks like you might want to find another tree to bark up.


That's how change happens. Someone sees something is wrong so they take the steps to fix it. I mean, the little slut should have just gone into the kitchen to make her dude a sandwich after hours of sweaty sex but some people just can't seem to get their priorities right. I mean, really.. I don't need a law degree to learn how to suck cock or slather mayo on bread so what's the point of even getting an education? Bitches need to stay stupid .. stay home and take care of their men.

Oh, and don't go playing the lezbo card on me either. Lezbo's don't need birth control for anything EVER. The ONLY reason to take birth control is for straight, unmarried, college age women who are daring to seek an education.. perhaps to better themselves, perhaps to seek to change things so that they are better for a future generation.. who knows, but, you know fuck em anyway. They're just women. Only a little more than half the voting block.. unimportant, unevolved women.

God.. don't ya just love the smell of the 15th century in the morning! I know I do!

Well, gotta run. It's time to get out the old bucket and brush and get to scrubbing the floors. I'm wet just thinking about it.

::the preceding was brought to you by a slut.. an actual slut unlike a certain young lady who has way more morals than the author of this post and is, most certainly, not a slut.::

Oh, sorry, dude. Did you have some sort of point to make about a woman with an agenda to change things or was that just some sort of fly-by thing. Maybe George and company should have just paid that damn tea tax? Not sure where you're going here.. help a slut out, will ya?

eta: Oh crap! I forgot.. I don't actually take birth control pills or use any form of birth control. I am NOT a slut! ACK!!! ::thuds::

< Message edited by BitaTruble -- 3/5/2012 1:21:09 PM >

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 4:09:40 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

She's getting an education. She's getting a law degree. If she was to push this out 2 years ago, would it have mattered much? No, at this point we were still being told that we have to pass it [PPACA] to find out what's in it.


Reconciliation, look it up.


PPACA was passed in the House of Representatives on March 21st, 2010. President Obama signed it into law after his promised 5 days for us Citizens to review, on March 23rd, 2010.

Thus, it was not yet passed 2 years ago. And, if you take into account that this is the second half of the school year, she could have brought it up in the first half, which would have been before the Senate passed PPACA in December of 2009.

But, I'll look up reconciliation, for shits and giggles.


Your history is a little bit muddy.

Legislative history
Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009

Committee consideration by: Ways and Means

Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)

Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment

House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)

Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Tell me, the PPACA was passed by both before 2010.

Pelosi comment... March 2010.

What did you think she meant if not the reconciliation act?

I suggest you look it up to learn, rather than giggling inanely over things you do not comprehend.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 4:33:11 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Along comes a woman who doesn't agree with it, so she decides to attend there and challenge it.


That's how change happens. Someone sees something is wrong so they take the steps to fix it. ...


Oh, sorry, dude. Did you have some sort of point to make about a woman with an agenda to change things or was that just some sort of fly-by thing.


The answer to your last question is: Yes. and ... Yes.

The point, such as in its own fatuous way, was that someone who had designs all along to get a law degree, at one of the better schools for that, for purpose of pursing her future vocation of righting some of the wrongs of society (as her prior experience indicates) might have chosen as he did with the added inducement of the university itself being a participant in something she perceived as needing change. So then ... yes, in this manner, pursuing her cause makes her a sneaky underhanded hit-from-the-blind-side hypocrite.

There, that works for me, hope it does for everybody else too.


The no-joking fact is, what I recognize is great efficiency here.




< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/5/2012 5:10:21 PM >

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 4:50:17 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
I hope she graduates, does a couple years of low paid NGO work, then makes a bundle for 6-10 years in private practice, enough to make friends and especially the right enemies, then goes on tour terrorizing the f*ckwits that hounded Elizabeth Warren out of that consumer protection job before she ever got it.

I hope she sues Rep. Issa for discrimination and violation of the Constitution, and gets a permanent injunction barring any religious functionary from ever entering the Capitol building.

I hope she pisses off a lot more people than Rush and his cattle audience. I hope she makes miserable the pathetic asswipes that have been making this country miserable for way too long.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 3/5/2012 4:55:21 PM >

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 4:53:15 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline 		~

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 5:42:04 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

She's getting an education. She's getting a law degree. If she was to push this out 2 years ago, would it have mattered much? No, at this point we were still being told that we have to pass it [PPACA] to find out what's in it.


Reconciliation, look it up.


PPACA was passed in the House of Representatives on March 21st, 2010. President Obama signed it into law after his promised 5 days for us Citizens to review, on March 23rd, 2010.

Thus, it was not yet passed 2 years ago. And, if you take into account that this is the second half of the school year, she could have brought it up in the first half, which would have been before the Senate passed PPACA in December of 2009.

But, I'll look up reconciliation, for shits and giggles.


Your history is a little bit muddy.

Legislative history
Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009

Committee consideration by: Ways and Means

Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)

Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment

House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)

Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Tell me, the PPACA was passed by both before 2010.

Pelosi comment... March 2010.

What did you think she meant if not the reconciliation act?

I suggest you look it up to learn, rather than giggling inanely over things you do not comprehend.

His history "is a little bit muddy"...really,that's all you got.
Come on tazzy theres a whole lot more muddy than just his history.
Have you gone soft on me ?

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 5:57:58 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

She's getting an education. She's getting a law degree. If she was to push this out 2 years ago, would it have mattered much? No, at this point we were still being told that we have to pass it [PPACA] to find out what's in it.

Reconciliation, look it up.

PPACA was passed in the House of Representatives on March 21st, 2010. President Obama signed it into law after his promised 5 days for us Citizens to review, on March 23rd, 2010.
Thus, it was not yet passed 2 years ago. And, if you take into account that this is the second half of the school year, she could have brought it up in the first half, which would have been before the Senate passed PPACA in December of 2009.
But, I'll look up reconciliation, for shits and giggles.

Your history is a little bit muddy.
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment

House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
Tell me, the PPACA was passed by both before 2010.
Pelosi comment... March 2010.
What did you think she meant if not the reconciliation act?
I suggest you look it up to learn, rather than giggling inanely over things you do not comprehend.


Actually, since the Senate added an amendment, the House's vote wasn't complete. The House had to pass the Amendment. When they passed the amendment, they were voting on the whole bill. Had the Senate not amended it, and passed the House version, you would be completely correct. I would have also been completely correct because there would not have been a Pelosi truth to bring up.

I'm so glad you have a clue about what I do and do not comprehend. I do believe you should be careful what you say to people you don't know. As an aside, how is it that you resort to personal attacks and digs when stood up to?

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 6:04:18 PM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Along comes a woman who doesn't agree with it, so she decides to attend there and challenge it.


That's how change happens. Someone sees something is wrong so they take the steps to fix it. ...


Oh, sorry, dude. Did you have some sort of point to make about a woman with an agenda to change things or was that just some sort of fly-by thing.


The answer to your last question is: Yes. and ... Yes.

The point, such as in its own fatuous way, was that someone who had designs all along to get a law degree, at one of the better schools for that, for purpose of pursing her future vocation of righting some of the wrongs of society (as her prior experience indicates) might have chosen as he did with the added inducement of the university itself being a participant in something she perceived as needing change. So then ... yes, in this manner, pursuing her cause makes her a sneaky underhanded hit-from-the-blind-side hypocrite.

There, that works for me, hope it does for everybody else too.


The no-joking fact is, what I recognize is great efficiency here.





And who says liberals don't support efficiency?


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 7:21:01 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Actually, since the Senate added an amendment, the House's vote wasn't complete. The House had to pass the Amendment. When they passed the amendment, they were voting on the whole bill. Had the Senate not amended it, and passed the House version, you would be completely correct. I would have also been completely correct because there would not have been a Pelosi truth to bring up.

I'm so glad you have a clue about what I do and do not comprehend. I do believe you should be careful what you say to people you don't know. As an aside, how is it that you resort to personal attacks and digs when stood up to?


To address the first part...

3 months later, a house vote that was only partially voted upon (quite a new invention, I have to admit)???

The House and Senate passed PPACA by December 2009.

In 2010, they passed HRC.

That had to be reconciled.

But I do understand your inability to admit when you are wrong.

I have to admit to quite a laugh at the notion of a House bill ...

Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)

And thats considered only partially passed.

As to the second, honey, you are in no position to attenpt to call anyone out on attacks. You have been making them right and left through the various boards.

quote:

I suggest you look it up to learn, rather than giggling inanely over things you do not comprehend.


Is this what you consider a personal attack? Were you not the one who said you would look it up for giggles? Any time I picture a man giggling, I get the image of him giggling hysterically. Dont blame me for putting that image out there.

But, feel free to report me.

Now, beyond that, I am really curious how a unanimous vote is a partial vote. Can you cite sources for that interpretation?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 7:26:38 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

His history "is a little bit muddy"...really,that's all you got.
Come on tazzy theres a whole lot more muddy than just his history.
Have you gone soft on me ?


Mike, baby, you know I got more. But I feel its wasted on an unarmed individual.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to slvemike4u)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/5/2012 8:27:44 PM   
slvemike4u


Posts: 17896
Joined: 1/15/2008
From: United States
Status: offline 		Always knew you were a better person than me
Oh well,at least you give me something to shoot for

_____________________________

If we want things to stay as they are,things will have to change...Tancredi from "the Leopard"

Forget Guns-----Ban the pools

Funny stuff....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNwFf991d-4


(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/6/2012 2:11:51 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
To address the first part...
3 months later, a house vote that was only partially voted upon (quite a new invention, I have to admit)???
The House and Senate passed PPACA by December 2009.
In 2010, they passed HRC.
That had to be reconciled.
But I do understand your inability to admit when you are wrong.
I have to admit to quite a laugh at the notion of a House bill ...
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
And thats considered only partially passed.


At no point did I ever state that anything was "partially passed." Since the bill they originally pass in October had been changed, the vote on the bill was no longer complete.

I have absolutely no problem admitting my errors. I just have to be in error.

quote:

As to the second, honey, you are in no position to attenpt to call anyone out on attacks. You have been making them right and left through the various boards.


Rright and left, you say? I would appreciate your proving that statement.

quote:

quote:

I suggest you look it up to learn, rather than giggling inanely over things you do not comprehend.


Is this what you consider a personal attack? Were you not the one who said you would look it up for giggles? Any time I picture a man giggling, I get the image of him giggling hysterically. Dont blame me for putting that image out there.
But, feel free to report me.
Now, beyond that, I am really curious how a unanimous vote is a partial vote. Can you cite sources for that interpretation?


You implied that I don't know or comprehend the content matter. It wasn't the "giggling" part, but the "inanely" part.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/6/2012 2:12:58 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

His history "is a little bit muddy"...really,that's all you got.
Come on tazzy theres a whole lot more muddy than just his history.
Have you gone soft on me ?

Mike, baby, you know I got more. But I feel its wasted on an unarmed individual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

His history "is a little bit muddy"...really,that's all you got.
Come on tazzy theres a whole lot more muddy than just his history.
Have you gone soft on me ?

Mike, baby, you know I got more. But I feel its wasted on an unarmed individual.


Should I also not interpret that as a personal attack?

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/6/2012 5:38:59 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Actually, since the Senate added an amendment, the House's vote wasn't complete.


Both were complete on the old one. The vote was to add the amendment or not. It wasnt to revote on the whole Issue. The House and the Senate had to reconcile the two parts into one. There is no more simpler explanation than that.

THAT is what Pelosi said had to be passed. The HRC, not the PPACA

quote:

No, at this point we were still being told that we have to pass it [PPACA] to find out what's in it.


The PPCAC was already passed. It was the HRC that was up for vote.

quote:

You implied that I don't know or comprehend the content matter. It wasn't the "giggling" part, but the "inanely" part.


You dont know the content. Nor do you comprehend it. The proof is in your posts. Thats not an attack.

Definition of INANE

1
: empty, insubstantial
2
: lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly <inane comments>

Covers "shits and giggles" perfectly.

quote:

Rright and left, you say? I would appreciate your proving that statement.



Based upon your definition of an insult, which is discounting someone's post, which around here, you can attack the post, you cannot attack the poster...

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4052758

Stating someone's opinion was bullshit.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4052766

Implying I do not have the ability to read and comprehend the "whole thing"

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4052081

Discounting anothers opinion.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4051754

Ended with "/sarcasm"

Shall I go on? You have been doing the same exact thing you claim is a personal attack against you.

You will need to develop a tougher skin around here.

quote:

Should I also not interpret that as a personal attack?


You can certainly interpret it any way you wish. I have before, and again will, encourage you to utilize the Report feature available to you at the bottom of each post to the right.

My post to mike was in reference to the change in my overall posting style.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/6/2012 6:19:32 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

This has nothing to do with the legal system. She went up the hierarchy within the university and they decided to not change their policy. Instead of accepting that Georgetown has the right to negotiate the health insurance they are paying for, she continues to push for them to cover what she wants them to cover. According to farglebargle, she does not have that right. She is not the insurance company's customer, Georgetown is. She is more than welcome to purchase her own insurance policy that covers everything she wants covered.


Of course she will push.. she is allowed to. Just as Aids Patients pushed to be covered. Schools offer a package to students. Many times the cost is just part of tuition. Why shouldnt she say "I want more" and go after it?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/6/2012 6:55:32 PM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
His history "is a little bit muddy"...really,that's all you got.
Come on tazzy theres a whole lot more muddy than just his history.
Have you gone soft on me ?
Mike, baby, you know I got more. But I feel its wasted on an unarmed individual.



Should I also not interpret that as a personal attack?


Ya know, I remember getting my ears boxed when I first came here and trying to have fun with it.

Hey buddy, any interest a USED Thousand Points Of Light?


_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/7/2012 12:10:37 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		LOL

Am I the "it"?

I blame it on the late hour for not getting what you are saying.

~kisses

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/7/2012 12:29:27 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



There, that works for me, hope it does for everybody else too.




Nah, not so much. If she was so sneaky and underhanded how is it that everyone knows about it?

Oh yeah.. she told us so I'm not buying today. I'll wait till the coupons come out on Wednesday and see what else is available for sale. Maybe I can save a few pennies and help contribute to the young lady's college fund or something.. or maybe I'll just buy crayons. Who knows.. it's a wacky war already and just getting wackier by the day.

so CARB pulls their ads from Uncle Rusty.. rich dudes pull their investment outta CARB. CARB stock goes down. Rich dudes aren't stupid. They buy CARB low which they just sold high and make a killing. CARB's cred goes up in the eyes of those who complained about Uncle Rusty so the co will see a larger customer base, sell more of their service, profits go up, stockholders are happier, rich dudes who will buy the stock back at the lower price, enjoy the bump of the new CARB lovers as the stocks begin to rise again and they make another killing.

Gotta love the free market system. Rich dudes really know how to win/win no matter what. I love this country!!

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/7/2012 1:42:28 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
Sorry you missed it.

(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women sho... - 3/7/2012 1:48:25 AM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn


Sorry you missed it.


I didn't miss it. I just disagree with your perception.

_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.187