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

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

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

Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/7/2012 2:21:04 AM)
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. Personally, I feel I've been showing admirable restraint. It's unnatural. Likely comes from deconstructing right-wing horseshit on FL. Identifying Rhetorical Fallacies and such. Which is something I think you'd be good at, once you've learned about them.

Edwynn -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/7/2012 2:28:44 AM)
If you actually took the post in question at face value, which other responses (or lack therefrom, from an otherwise historically opportunistic audience) indicate that most did not, and your latest response indicates that you actually did ... Then again I say; sorry you missed it.

BitaTruble -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/7/2012 3:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn If you actually took the post in question at face value, which other responses (or lack therefrom, from an otherwise historically opportunistic audience) indicate that most did not, and your latest response indicates that you actually did ... Then again I say; sorry you missed it. I don't know what you are sorry about. You are assigning motivations and making assumptions about and regarding Ms. Fluke, hence what you offer is simply your own opinion. I get your opinion. I have a different opinion. Your contention seems to be that what she did is sneaky and underhanded. I disagree. I think that the fact that you even know about such things comes about from her own disclosures on the subject which rather puts to bed the notion that she was sneaky or underhanded. She was forth coming and honest about her motivations. It's not like she pulled a Weiner or something. She wants to affect change. If she succeeds, kudo's to her for the effort. If she doesn't, kudos to her for trying. I didn't actually read the transcript of her testimoney because I watched it live but she seemed to be matter of fact and spoke about birth control for both prevention of reproduction and for medical reasons due to endometriosis etc. Endometriosis, regulating cycles are reason enough that the meds should be free. If we are talking cost, birth control is much more cost effective than either abortions or actually giving birth and raising a child to majority and birth control pills are an invaluable and oftentimes only medical resource that is cost effective to treat some of the ailments I've mentioned. The whole congressional session was a mock session in any event. I don't believe the young lady should have been barred from the original session in Congress. If they had let her speak, the only ones who would even known who she is would be people like me who have no life so watch that sort of thing on CSPAN. So, again.. I 'got' your opinion. I just disagree with your assessment. Sorry you don't, won't or can't 'get' that.

Edwynn -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/7/2012 5:59:04 AM)
You 'got' nothing. You missed by a mile. It was not my opinion that she was actually sneaky and underhanded. The intention was quite the opposite. The tone of the post was obvious to most, just not to yourself. It was blazing sarcasm, for those who took up on the intention, which you did not. The last sentence having begun with "the no-joking fact is ... " would have been the last ditch tip-off for sentient beings. Reading any single one of my (many) other posts on the matter would have been an indicator also. That's what others got that you didn't. I cannot state it more plainly, and will not take further trouble for such a dolt. Have fun with yourself.

BitaTruble -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/7/2012 11:41:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn That's what others got that you didn't. I cannot state it more plainly, and will not take further trouble for such a dolt. I don't believe I've ever read you before (at least not in that dress) and you aren't contributing anything of worth at this point. I don't think resorting to name calling is appropriate for adults and I'm not on here to converse with children.

SoftBonds -> RE: Transcript: Sandra Fluke testifies on why women should be allowed access to contraception and reprod (3/8/2012 6:18:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You 'got' nothing. You missed by a mile. It was not my opinion that she was actually sneaky and underhanded. The intention was quite the opposite. The tone of the post was obvious to most, just not to yourself. It was blazing sarcasm, for those who took up on the intention, which you did not. The last sentence having begun with "the no-joking fact is ... " would have been the last ditch tip-off for sentient beings. Reading any single one of my (many) other posts on the matter would have been an indicator also. That's what others got that you didn't. I cannot state it more plainly, and will not take further trouble for such a dolt. Have fun with yourself. You can't call a fellow poster names, it is in the TOS. I expect this response to you to be pulled for quoting your insult. (btw, I also expect your post to be pulled)

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125