…milk it for all it is worth.
Seriously, when Georgetown Law Student whined and lied to a Congressional committee about the injustice being done to female students who willingly and voluntarily applied to and enrolled in the Catholic Church affiliated law school dealing with the prohibitive costs of the contraceptives that the school doesn’t provide, she was lauded as a “hero”, and a spokesperson for the plight of women and the “war” that the right is waging on them everywhere.
However, there are a large amount of people in the country who haven’t yet undergone the brainectomies mandated by Obamacare who immediately set themselves upon the testimony and started to draw reasonable conclusions based on it.
First was the easiest to attack…the funny math. Math is a process where leftists often find themselves at a competitive disadvantage, and this testimony was no exception.
“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. 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.
Now there is a lot in this paragraph, so we should probably break it down.
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.
Well, no, I know no such thing. And she would know it to not be true as well, if she bothered to look into it herself. The average student goes to law school for a 3 year span, so let’s use her numbers to come to a total of $1000.00 per year. Let’s start the analysis something easy: condoms.
Condoms might not be the favored form of birth control among those who use it, but they do have the advantage of preventing some STDs, which the pill and IUDs will not. Walgreens sells them, many in boxes of 36 at a cost of less than a dollar apiece. Wal Mart sells them at even lower prices. And if you are embarrassed to buy them in person, Amazon sells one brand in a 12 pack for $4. That is pretty economical, and by my reckoning, means that to spend $1000 a year, you have to be having sex at least three times a day, every day for a year. Unless you are a pro, or a REALLY popular “adult” film star, that’s a lot of action.
But let’s say you are in a stable relationship where both partners are disease free, and condoms “aren’t really your thing”. Or you just wanna be able to get your freak on whenever the mood hits you, and you just won’t wait for your partner to get a condom on. No problem. Both Target and Wal Mart offer generic birth control pills at the budget busting price of…$9 A MONTH, which on my planet, means $108 a year. Now even if you have to add an exam on top of that, we are constantly being told that our taxpayer dollar goes to Klanned Parenthood to help provide low-cost exams and birth control to the public. Even if “low-cost” translates to $150, you are still only talking about $258 a year, which isn’t even close to $1000 a year. And if you’re one of these numerous women who would need the pill for “medical” reasons and not as birth control, you aren’t necessarily paying any more.
For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary.
Seriously? A summer associate from Georgetown Law is only going to make $3000 in a summer? Yes, I’m saying that I do not believe it. And you shouldn’t either.
40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
I’m not really buying this one either. Yes, law school is expensive. Yes, a prestigious law school is MORE expensive. But they are on scholarships…and student loans, which cover at least in part, living expenses. And when birth control doesn’t really cost as much as she just said it does, this becomes more problematic, and I have to think that she and her fellow students have more pressing needs than the cost of keeping a leisure activity consequence-free. But it also begs the question, what are you doing at a school that doesn’t provide birth control as part of its insurance services? I can only conclude that the only “choice” that matters to her and her fellow students is their own.
But it gets better.
“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription.”
This really doesn’t commend this lawyer to be to her future clients. She made a contract and had no idea what benefits it did and did not provide? While I might not mind having someone like that as opposing counsel, I’m afraid that she would diminish the reputation of my profession, and the profession doesn’t need help with this. I’d like to think that she was actually rightfully embarrassed because she never bothered to read the terms of the contract.
“Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.”
Because she couldn’t come up with $9 a month. Again, if you are really that destitute, given the potential consequences of sex even with birth control, you really need to address some other issues in your life before you make sex a priority.
Now there is another element which the media and their loyal following of hand-wringers have overlooked. This woman is a law student at Georgetown. She is the 1% in training. And without any shred of shame, she appears before Congress and offers testimony that implies that the school’s First and Ninth Amendment rights are subject to her sense of entitlement to having it subsidize her sex life. Now if any of her champions have stopped to consider this, they give no indication of having done so.
Enter Rush Limbaugh, a public figure who wields enormous influence and enjoys the envy and jealousy that comes with it. He sizes up her testimony, and states the following:
What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.
Now while I wouldn’t have taken that approach, I can’t fault the analysis. And he correctly nails the aspect that everyone else so conveniently ignores:
Can you imagine if you’re her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.
Exactly. No shame, and the sense of entitlement that ate Cleveland.
But it doesn’t matter. The Left ginned up its selective moral outrage machine, and the Shameless Ms. Fluke is feted as the darling of the cause celebre of the moment, as the media, which must act collectively to have the influence Limbaugh commands individually swung into action against the talk show host, first trumpeting the OUTRAGE!!! of the woman who would violate the rights of others for the sake of funding her sex life (probably for him seeing it for what it is, and having the temerity to do so), and then relaying the denouncements of politicians and a President who will apologize to a foreign country for the proper disposal of a holy book that their citizens desecrated, but think nothing of violating the conscience rights of countless Catholic organizations here which are supposed to enjoy the protections of the First and Ninth Amendments.
This moral indignation is selective, and unpersuausive. Perhaps if this same choir was singing at all, let alone singing as loudly when the world’s unfunniest comedian, Bill Maher, was calling Sarah Palin a “cunt“, and a “twat” maybe, just maybe I might not be so outraged at their OUTRAGE!!!11!!!. At least NOW had the forethought to give themselves some cover for future expressions of outrage by registering a less than enthusiastic protest, but by and large, the women of power in the House and Senate couldn’t have been bothered to condemn Maher’s attack on a fellow female politician, and the power brokers in the Democratic Party didn’t have much to say either. But then Mrs. Palin was married, and had actually given birth to children rather than preventing them or killing them in the womb, so I can see where her family, especially her husband and father needed to hear that, while Ms. Fluke’s family needed to be spared when she went to Washington to demand that the government force someone else to yield their rights to her desires, because that’s the only reason I can see for the disparate results of these two stories.
First, kudos on the stock photo. A great 50′s throwback.
Second, BiW you really puzzle the sh*t out of me. I followed your analysis and I said OK, you might have a point on the economics. Perhaps birth control isn’t going to break the bank for a young woman. I haven’t bothered to verify your figures. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, you make a good case that Ms. Fluke’s complaint is overblown.
But then you toss the whole thing in the toilet defending Rush Limbaugh. WTF is wrong with you? This is not about Sarah Palin. How can you, an attorney well trained in logic, defend the bizarre notion that if tax payers pay for Ms. Fluke’s birth control, they are therefore paying for her to have sex, and she is therefore a “slut” and a prostitute. You also seem to give lip service to the notion that we need to subsidize her having lots of sex. You know full well birth control doesn’t work that way, It ain’t Viagra. You don’t pop a pill per f*ck.
You seem so angry at liberals and the perceived slights that your political wing has received from them that you can’t see vile for vile. You suggest in your piece that you would be embarrassed to have a daughter like Ms. Fluke testifying to Congress about her birth control needs. Would it then help your embarrassment to hear Rush Limbaugh call your daughter a whore?
Why is your line in the sand based on liberals’ line in the sand? Where the f*ck are your standards? So Sarah was called a c*nt. So now you move your line to call a woman a whore who clearly doesn’t deserve the epithet?
You can write some damn good stuff backed up with all sorts of history and book-learnin’. That’s you at your best. The second half of this post is not you at your best.
Raise your game, man!
But then you toss the whole thing in the toilet defending Rush Limbaugh. WTF is wrong with you? This is not about Sarah Palin. How can you, an attorney well trained in logic, defend the bizarre notion that if tax payers pay for Ms. Fluke’s birth control, they are therefore paying for her to have sex, and she is therefore a “slut” and a prostitute. You also seem to give lip service to the notion that we need to subsidize her having lots of sex. You know full well birth control doesn’t work that way, It ain’t Viagra. You don’t pop a pill per f*ck.
Rutherford, I know that you’ve been sipping the Kool-Aid, but the people for whom birth control is truly “medically necessary” (not merely for those whom it might be “medically beneficial”) are not anywhere near as high as the haranging harpie brigades would have us believe. And in for the average college co-ed, that number would be smaller still, so yes, we are talking about a recreational activity for a large number of them. An activity that she wants someone else to pay for. What would you call it? Whether its once a month or five times a day, it isn’t anything someone else needs to be paying for, whether it is that taxpayer, or a Catholic University, which if you read the transcript of her remarks, is clearly her intent. And yes, depending on the type of birth control you are referring to, it IS a per episode proposition. Secondly, if you are attending law school and you have very much time for it at all, you’re likely either a MENSA member (which she isn’t), or you’ve pretty much given up sleep.
?You seem so angry at liberals and the perceived slights that your political wing has received from them that you can’t see vile for vile.
No, I’m simply pointing out that there is a blatant double standard at work here, and the fact that it doesn’t even give those on your side of the aisle a moment of pause whenever Bill Maher opens his sewer and maligns a wife and mother for no other reason than he can, but the OUTRAGE!!11!!! mill cranks up to full speed the minute someone with an audience seizes on a cogent point and calls something what it is.
You suggest in your piece that you would be embarrassed to have a daughter like Ms. Fluke testifying to Congress about her birth control needs.
No, I’d be ashamed of having a daughter who saw nothing wrong with going before Congress to talk about her desire to have someone else pay for birth control for both her and her friends and classmates as if they were entitled to do so. The fact that she clearly was less than honest in doing so makes it even worse. And the fact that there was NO SHAME in this for her, or her cheerleaders doesn’t say good things about a lot of people in this country.
Would it then help your embarrassment to hear Rush Limbaugh call your daughter a whore?
It wouldn’t make it better or worse if I was honest with myself. It was self-serving, displayed disgusting sense of entitlement, and no sense of shame whatsoever.
Why is your line in the sand based on liberals’ line in the sand?
Because I’m tired of the cricket chirp whenever they do it. Because I’m tired of them getting away with defining a very different standard for anyone who sees it differently than they do. Because I’m tired of THEM deciding for the rest of us what is acceptable, and what should be the end of someone else’s career. Because I’m tired of phoney moral outrage from people who do their best to avoid or flout morals at any other time. Because they destroy people for personal gain, and never bat an eye at the failings of those who support all the right morally questionable causes. Because I’m tired of hearing calls for “civility” issuing forth from the same mouths calling people they don’t like every nasty name in the book, and ascribing every evil motive possible without a shred of supporting evidence to people they don’t agree with.
Where the f*ck are your standards?
Who the HELL are you to ask? Serously. I seem to remember someone’s breathless post accusing the evil right wingers of murdering a census worker in Kentucky because their speech “created a dangerous climate for federal employees”.
I remember some accusing Sarah Palin of being complicit in the shooting of Gabby Giffords because the nutbar shooter MUST have seen her PAC campaign poster in the previous election, despite the Democratic Congressional Campaign Commitee using crosshairs in its campaign literature. I honestly think you don’t have anywhere to stand on this. Really.
So Sarah was called a c*nt. So now you move your line to call a woman a whore who clearly doesn’t deserve the epithet?
I’m sorry. I don’t recall Sarah Palin using her soapbox to advocate to make a Catholic school pay for contraceptives while knowing their objection to it. I don’t recall Sarah Palin using preposterous figures to bolster such an argument. And even with Andrew Sullivan spelunking in her womb, I don’t recall her telling people that they have to stay out of it and her bedroom, but they have to pay for what goes on there.
What you have chosen to ignore is that one is calling the Devil by his name, and the other is being reprehensible for the sake of satisfying a personal and irrational hatred. And in typical fashion, those on Left have confused the two.
If there is a person on earth short of your Pfesser clown, you’re the last person on earth that should be preaching to anyone in their inability to distinguish “vile.”
You, the man who questioned how Trig Palin got his name from his disability? And now we are to respect your opinions of decency in dialogue?
It’s so tragic and so ludicrous, I must.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ROFLMAO ** GUFFAW **
You keep leveling this charge so let’s clarify what really happened. I read a supposition that in hospital Sarah Palin overheard her newborn being referred to as a “trig baby”. The supposition suggested that Palin was just stupid enough to not understand what was being said, found the name cute, and named the child Trig. For the record, I wasn’t aware of any family members named Trig. I asked you, in the comments section of my blog, based on your short time in medical school, to pipe in on whether you had ever heard of Downs babies being called “trig babies” based on the official disease type. Rather than answer the question, you went into hysterics. (No real surprise there.)
The entire premise had nothing to do with demeaning the child. It had to do with suggesting that Sarah Palin was enough of an idiot to accidentally name her child the abbreviated name of the child’s handicap. The entire matter could have been laid to rest by your saying “Down’s is called trig in some circles but Sarah’s great uncle (or whatever) was named Trig so that is where the name comes from. Case closed.” Instead, you’ve made it a cause célèbre for the past two years.
Give it a f*cking rest.
More on the point that went whistling past you on this, R:
http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2012/03/02/republicans-fall-for-manufactured-story/
Your financial analysis misses the same crucial point as Limbaugh’s: oral contraceptives serve purposes other than preventing pregnancy. And if you read Fluke’s testimony at all, you’d see that the bulk of what she spoke of were the students who were using oral contraceptives to treat gynecological diseases and menstrual disorders. While condoms may or may not be more cost efficient, they cannot treat PCOS, endometriosis, dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, menstrual migraine or other problems. Millions of women use birth control pills to address these ailments, limit their impact upon their lives, and keep them upright, walking, working, attending school and able to function healthily. The majority of women who choose birth control pills over other forms of contraceptives do so because they also offer relief of an ongoing health concern.
This isn’t about a “leisure activity.” We have to treat these ailments, and treat them with daily medication, whether we’re having sex or not, whether we have sex with men or not, even if we’re virgins. And that $9 a month generic pill at various big box stores (not many of those in the center of DC where Georgetown is located, btw) is not appropriate for all women. There are dozens of different formulations of birth control pills. It’s not like ibuprofen, where it doesn’t matter if you pick the brand name or the store copy because it’s all the same. My annual cost for my pills in 2011 was $959.88. The price is rising, and if it crests $1k this year, I won’t be surprised.
Should students pore over the booklet that comes with their student insurance plan? Probably. Most people don’t. And they assume that when a doctor prescribes a common-as-dirt form of medication to treat a medical need, their insurance is going to cover it, because most insurance plans aren’t managed by organizations with a “moral objection” to providing medication that people need to avoid debilitating pain, extreme blood loss, growth of painful cysts or endometrial lesions, anemia and weakness or the loss of a bodily organ.
You — and Limbaugh and now his acolytes Malkin and O’Reilly — suggest that Fluke asked for someone to “subsidize” her “sex life.” I defy you to point to Fluke ever once mentioning her sex life anywhere in her testimony. There is not a single word to substantiate that assertion. Talk about whining and lying.
You, Limbaugh and people who cannot be bothered to try to understand this issue keep wanting to make it about sex. It’s about health. Even if it’s about contraception, it’s about health. Pregnancies need to be planned to be healthy, for mother and baby. Pregnancies need to be spaced for the health of mother and baby. Half of American pregnancies aren’t planned, which is the primary reason for our dismal maternal and neonatal death and complication rates, as well as our abortion rate. Somehow we’re supposed to capitulate to a “moral objection” to dealing with any of that. I can’t for the life of me fathom why.
Your argument is a a classic bait and switch of trying to deflect from the real issue, which you apparently missed. If it not about her “sex life”, then I make the same challenge to you. I defy you to show me where this Ms. Fluke (a perfectly named parasite) spoke of her endometriosis?
And your medical “expertise” is woefully wrong, but a great marketing line of the Guttmacher Institute for Planned Parenthood. Our neonatal death and complication rates aren’t dismal in the least, and in fact, people who can afford to do so, come from all over the world come to receive high risk pregnancy care in U.S. hospitals.
The dismal maternal “death rate” is far more a function of the irresponsibility of the birth mother, drug and alcohol abuse for starters, than a lack of funding. I haven’t heard of any spontaneous pregnancies recently, but I’m sure the words “personal responsibility” seldom cross your lips from the context of your post. So if you doubt me, I challenge you to go to any suburban hospital where rampant drug and alcohol use not prevalent, and you will see the survival rates of birthing, both mother and child, some of the highest in the world. Americans pay out the wazoo for neonatal health care.
Your sense of entitlement is nauseating and your tone one of misandry on display by millions of liberal females and their lackeys in the media. That capitulation of your moral objection is detailed in the very First Amendment under the guidelines of something called Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
It is you demanding the Catholic Church to “capitulate” to its guaranteed right.
You can go to your local Planned Parenthood and receive a variety of birth control brands, some of which are use to treat endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, or whatever else ails you for $15 a month. Please do so at your earliest convenience.
I’m sorry, I think YOU only read the portions of the transcript that you believe support this, and even then, I don’t think you fully grokked it.
Starting at the begining, she stressed her membership and activities with the Law Students for Reproductive Justice. Not Hormonal Treatment of Gynocological Conditions Justice. Reproductive. The very nature and definition of the word itself implicates sex. Then there is the language that both you and she rely on in making your respective arguments. “Contraceptives” “Contraception” “Birth Control”. Your arguments rely on the alternate uses of the pill, and conveniently ignore the inconvenient fact that the pill’s purpose is contraception. To prevent conception, which is otherwise the natural consequence of sex. It was the purpose for developing the pill in the first place. It is still the purpose in developing the pill, regardless of whatever beneficial side effect it may or may not have for certain women. It is not developed, marketed and sold as a targeted treatment for any one of these conditions with the side effect of contraception and because of this, it is facetious to claim that it is in fact a medication. Then one of her examples is of her married friend who decided she could no longer afford contraception. Old bad jokes aside, sex is an integral part of any healthy marriage. It wasn’t until about half way through her testimony that she even got to her friend who wanted it for the beneficial side effects on her gynocological condition, and even in her testimony, she recognized that the freind didn’t represent “the bulk” of women when she stated “For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation…”
You complain that Rush, and others who make their living with words fail to comprehend what she was saying when in fact they almost certainly applied the same analysis that I just did, and in fact understood very well the implication and meaning of Ms. Fluke’s words, which brings me to my next point.
If Ms. Fluke’s intention was solely to make the point that you just argued, or even to make it the bulk of her point, she failed. And she did so in a way that poorly advocates for the argument that she attempts to make, because she also is aspiring to a career that relies on her proficiency with words, and seizing the opportunity to clearly and cogently make a competent argument when you have the audience to do so. With her own words, she didn’t merely botch this opportunity, she sabotaged it. She also did so in contravention of established law and legal principles by casting her desire to make someone else pay for contraceptives for her and her freinds as a right when it is no such thing, and then by elevating this imagined “right” above the obvious Constitutional rights of the Catholic School vested in it by the First and Eighth Amendments. I know that you can’t fathom why this is a losing, and frankly insulting argument, but as a 3L at Georgetown Law, Ms. Fluke doesn’t have the luxury of that ignorance.
Bravo, BiW. Excellently well done.
The sideshow claims that oral contraceptives are sometimes prescribed for menstrual maladies rather than for their on-label effects is a laughable distractor, easily dismissed. We merely need remember that there’s no defensible right to insurance coverage of any sort.
Apropos of which, I wonder how the Left would react if fertility-treatment coverage were mandated by a conservative president and Congress? After all, there are off-label uses for that, too.
First to R, ‘preciate the apology on the other thread. It wasn’t necessary but it I do appreciate it.
Now for the business at hand.
What the hell did this woman expect when she signed up for this cavalcade of asshattery?
She made the conscious decision to help advance this faux issue in a partisan dog and pony show with her tendentious and risible testimony. The asininity of her testimony merited every piece of scorn and derision.
The NDSWP has a habit of putting “innocents” in the line of fire so they can make the claim of bullying and intimidation. This is the intellectual equivalent of putting anti-aircraft batteries in residential areas and claiming civilian deaths. They drew the fire and this woman was a willing accomplice in what can only be categorized as willful dishonesty by all who promoted it.
This whole “issue” is a testimony to the brazen dishonesty with which the left has engaged in vis a vis the egregious imposition of the state religion(I cleaned that up just for you R) at the expense of other religions. They will use whatever convoluted sob story and misrepresentation they have to to achieve their objective.
As has been stated ad nauseum ad infinitum, the rights being violated are those of the religious by requiring them to provide a commodity that is inimical tho their professed belief. The desire to be provided a commodity at no or even reduced cost does not even rise to the level of a “right” let alone a right that trumps someones right of conscience. And even beyond that if government does compel the provision of said commodity this may( maybe BisW can comment on the merit of this.) even constitute a taking under the 5th amendment (Kelo on a micro scale?)
The purpose is wholly irrelevant to the issue at hand. There is no legitimate reason here that trumps the right of conscience. There is no legitimate reason here to confiscate property for the benefit of another.
There is no denial of access by anyone. Only in the liberal world view does lack of subsidy equal denial of access and this is what this disingenuous woman is agitating for. She is already going to school using OPM you would think she would have some reticence about asking for another handout but shame is a dead issue when it comes to this woman’s preternatural sense of entitlement.
Now I don’t really know if she is a promiscuous as Rush makes her out to be and thus I don’t know that she is actual whore but what I do know is that by engaging in this bacchanal of deceit she certainly is an intellectual whore.
Honestly, I don’t believe I’ve ever read the 5th Amendment argued that way, where as I think the Eighth Amendment argument classifying the Right of Conscience as an unenumerated right separate and distinct from the First Amendment Right of Free Exercise is a winner.
But then the current trends that I’m aware of in takings jusrisprudence have more to do with government trying to narrowly tailor their prohibtions on certain uses so as to avoid it being considered to be a taking by reviewing courts.
Our esteemed host says:
I don’t doubt that you haven’t. This just may be a hair brained notion of mine. Actually now that I look at it again I may be arguing a case that I don’t intend to make.
Not to be a smart ass but aren’t unenumerated rights under the ninth amendment. The eighth being predominantly about admonitions against cruel and unusual punishment.
You are correct. For whatever reason, I have two reversed in my head.
I claim a lack of sleep which had me reading into the wee hours of the morning.
Actually, I think Rush Limbaugh’s approach was lazy, though his conclusion right.
What has America come to when we pose a loose woman, at a Jesuit School mind you, able to afford a private three year degree at one of the most expensive universities in America, and still she is made example as victim because she can’t afford her birth control pills? And what does it say of the administration of the school, when they come out in full support of the woman?
The Catholic Church has been irresponsible in its own right. They should either break every tie they have with Georgetown University, claiming all property, or the Jesuits should immediately fire the administration that came out in public support of this wretched and inane woman. They have that right.
Honestly. This is comic book material. Something out the movie Airplane.
What else does the Left feel they are entitled to?
I agree it was easy perhaps not as easy as Ms Fluke…Ba.. dum.. dum
This whole issue has been dishonestly portrayed as many false equivalencies and blood libels have been promulgated by the left. That whole show trial for, of and by some of the most vicious partisan hacks the country was deserving of mockery and derision.
She was a willing participant. A propagandist sock puppet mouthing the words of the illiberals who lie about the issue and then try and convince the populace that their efforts to confiscate money for the secular equivalent of the communion wafer is a matter of “right” and right which trumps a basic human right to boot. Just as with all schemes of this sort it is a rationalization of their own immoral behavior. They have no claim on anyone’s property that they haven’t performed services for.
This woman is craven, mendacious and selfish as she demands her desire for free stuff at the expense of her fellow citizens. The NDSWP are cowardly and dishonest as they invent an issue out of whole cloth only the most blind partisan hack can buy into this bait and switch where the desire for freebies trumps constitutional rights.
I’ve Googled it and can’t for the life of me decipher NDSWP. Can someone help a brotha out?
NDSWP means National Democrat Socialist Worker’s Party.
If I did it the right way I would calling them NAZI’s and I’m not quite there…yet.
As further explanation it is my pet acronym for the (un) Democratic Party.
Just one more thing. Rush may have been a little over the top on this but I would never say he shouldn’t have said it in the way he he said it.
Way too many on our side have engaged in unilateral rhetorical disarmament to the point where some are reticent to call a regime that is clearly of Marxist/Totalitarian bent just that. Too many accept the false premises and are still arguing this issue as if the abrogation of our constitutional rights is somehow a distraction and that demanding someone else foot the bill for what the claim is “private behavior” is an unalienable right.
The idea that this is about women’s health is arrant nonsense.
The only people who believe that are the ignorant and the partisan. This is all about the promotion of the state as religion i.e. secular sharia and the curtailment of the influence of the moral teachings of the church that conflict with the monopoly claim on morality that the state now asserts which combined with the monopoly of force creates a situation that is demonstrably inimical to liberty and a as matter of historical fact has led to suffering and death.
What has America come to when we pose a loose woman, at a Jesuit School mind you, able to afford a private three year degree at one of the most expensive universities in America, and still she is made example as victim because she can’t afford her birth control pills?
An icon of feminism loudly proclaiming that she can’t take care of herself.
Awwwww, damn!
Does anyone have an icepack for Ms. Fluke? Because I do believe that is gonna leave a mark.
Correct. That makes female birth control even more affordable. If you want to donate, I suggest you run over to the many Planned Parenthood centers and make a small donation.
But if it makes you feel better and you think me unfair, I never thought Viagra should be covered either.
Believe it or not, the lack of nooky is not life threatening.
BiW, I have read your post forwards, backwards, sideways, upside down and clicked on all your links. I still cannot fathom how a man of your intelligence, education and religious beliefs can allow himself to defend in any manner a person such as Rush Limbaugh regardless of the ISSUE being discussed.
Raji, it’s called the First Amendment. I don’t have to like what he said, or the manner in which he said it in order to defend it, or recognize it for being part of a healthy and robust dialogue on a topic that the Left wants to make an issue, based on their recent provocations.
No need to defend him at all as he apparently does not have the courage of his convictions
BiW, I understand your position but please do not insult us by hiding behind the First Amendment. This whole issue of the “war on women” is in my opinion a “red herring” to detract from discussing the current State of the Nation and most of the blogsphere has fallen into the trap.
There is nothing healthy or robust in the dialogue being discussed by either the left or the right on this subject. I fear the hatred of Obama and his administration is overshadowing reality that is needed to make an educated decision in November.
Raji, that presupposes that we will have a decision in November that is anything less a choice between the train to ruin and the express train to ruin.
The only choice I can see is how quickly we get to the destination.
Wow! I wholeheartedly agree with you here BiW, though likely we are advocating opposing rails.
To me, the billionaire Romney is the bullet train, while the millionaire Obama is just a chug, chug, chuggin’ along.
First stop: NWO
Destination: Armageddon, baby! Hang on!
Um, didn’t Fluke say she was on a public scholarship, which makes her whining worse, AND that she was speaking for 40% of the female student body whining they can’t afford it.
Forty percent of any student body is too high a percentage to make the excuse for needing the pill for ‘medical reasons’. And like pointed out above, even for such a problem the pill does not cost that much.
Uh huh.
Anybody else here believe that besides Rutherford? Sarah Palin always did make a convenient excuse for Rutherford’s bad behavior. Sarah Palin made him do it, and if Palin mentioned in any capacity, there were no limited, Downs child included. Rutherford was kin to that loon that moved up beside the Palins. Absolutely fixated on the woman. :twisted:
You’re right Raji about the parade to deflect Obama’s gross incompetence, but let’s not forget this entire argument began with Obama, Kathleen Sebilius, and Valarie Jarrett clearly infringing on the Catholic Church’s right to freely practice their faith, Caesar Obama interceding to become the national conscience.
Don’t kid yourself. This bastard isn’t simply a failed leader and dismal failure. He’s an Alinsky radical and a product of black theology that hates America. and its foundations. Obama is attempting to transform America into a completely secular, socialist nation, where a few officials dictate to the masses and the Constitution ignored. And there’s a tinge of racism to it, Eric Holder, a clear black racist, being the most obvious example.
ROTFLMAO! :lol: :lol:
Oh yes Newt Gingrich please DO go on!!! Tex old man, when you talk like this you come off as nutty as a fruitcake. Even Newt Gingrich doesn’t really believe this crap … he just knows it’s red meat for guys like you. My favorite quote about Newt is “Gingrich is what dumb people think smart people sound like.”
I know you think you sound in-the-know with your Alinsky foolishness but truth be told, you just sound like a drama queen. If for no other reason, I want to see Obama reelected just so I can sit back and call you Chicken Little for the next four years. :-D
Well Rutherford. I can understand your confusion. It’s humorous when you call anybody drama queen with your raging case of BDS, PDS, *DS.
Your repetitious pat answers (I’ve almost gotten to where I can cut and paste your gibberish for your responses) are not surprising. I think you’re cut from the same Alinsky cloth – a lifetime indoctrination of irreligious, pinky hatin’, mixed in with a huge dose of entitlement – kind of a combo Owebama/Michelle Antoinette. Your M.O. to personalize, then demonize it when it falls short of perfection.
But you’re much too gullible, naive, and yes even stupid to recognize the sky literally is falling. After all, your personal finances are completely in line with Obama’s management of the fiscal economy. :smile:
You two are peas in a pod, minus the shit eatin grin and shanks on the golf course.
If that isn’t self-reflection I don’t know what is. If I wanted to, Tex, I could post as you on my blog and no one would know it wasn’t you. Your rehearsed “Alinksky-socialist-black liberation theology-jug eared Kenyan with big booty skank wife” spiel is not at all difficult to learn and mimic. I just wouldn’t want to embarrass myself doing so. :neutral:
I’ll say it here and now, I like Rush. He is not perfect, and has a very high regard of himself, but at the end of the day, he is not a political figure, king maker, or even a power behind the thrown…. he is an entertainer. Yes, he falls more often than not, on the conservative side of things, but make you yell, laugh, scream, cry, shake your head at the information he tosses out…he is providing entreatment. Rush is “everyman” on the airwaves.
Having said that, his remarks, I believe this last Friday, IRT Ms. Fluke, were right on the money. (At least the ones I heard, while on brake) , and I paraphrase here; “This woman wants someone to pay for her contraception, in this case birth control pills, so she can have sex with whomever, whenever she wants. She is petitioning Congress to do this, or enact legislation to provide for free contraception. But the monies to do so, will come from us, the taxpayers. So in a sense, she is asking “us” to pay for her to have sex. Is that not the definition of what is required of a prostitute, demanding payment from someone in order to have sex?”
Personally Shaw said it better… “”We have already established what you are,” Now we are merely haggling over the price.”
A few thoughts:
1. Raji is right. BiW you can’t hide behind the First Amendment. Your piece here doesn’t defend Rush’s right to say what he said. Your piece defends what he said. Big difference.
2. For the record, I never said Rush should be fired for what he said. Inflammatory pigs like Rush are a cottage industry. Sponsors have the prerogative to support him or not. As I said over in the comments section of my blog, I don’t think Pat Buchanan should have gotten canned. Free expression of garbage is the best disinfectant as decent people condemn the garbage.
3. While it might have been true at one time, I seriously doubt any responsible doctor (or the AMA for that matter) would call contraceptive use for gynecological reparative reasons “off label”. Using the pill to control dangerously heavy periods and other “female” problems is not some sort of voodoo or exotic experimental treatment. Calling this usage “off label” is just another way of dismissing women’s legitimate concerns about coverage.
4. I DO believe that contraceptives used as birth control falls in a grey area as far as health insurance coverage is concerned. We can only call this a necessary treatment if we conclude that sexual intercourse is unavoidable. On this however, I think we have to acknowledge that we live in 2012. Times have changed. Sex before (or outside of) marriage is far more accepted today than in days past. That being the case, unintended pregnancy clearly effects the health of the woman. And that being the case, contraception should be covered by insurance.
5. Anyone who introduces condoms into the discussion is being coy. Everyone here knows condoms do not provide the same level of protection as birth control pills.
6. Finally, it amazes me that most of the folks on this blog think it is a logical leap to say that a woman who advocates for birth control being insured is ipso facto promiscuous. Deep down you all know that is ridiculous.
1. Raji is right. BiW you can’t hide behind the First Amendment. Your piece here doesn’t defend Rush’s right to say what he said. Your piece defends what he said. Big difference.
You once again have failed to discern nuance.
Yes, I still find it difficult to find fault with his analysis. I’ve already explained that. But maybe it will help for you to read an analogy of a friend of mine:
Would I have said it the way he did? No, and I said that in the body of the post. But he had far more to support his remarks than Bill Maher on Palin, “Special” Ed Schultz on Laura Ingraham…
And just in case the analogy still doesn’t help you, I supported him because the First Amendment exists to protect calling something what it is as much as it protects your friends at MSNBC calling it what they wish it is.
It is a “bad choice” to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage? Last time I looked society has moved significantly away from such a prohibition. So your friend’s thesis fails on that alone. After that, to agree with your friend’s analogy I would have to concede that having sex is doing harm to oneself (as is hitting oneself with a hammer).
Your friend’s analogy is steeped in a very judgmental attitude toward sex. Not surprising. That is the underpinning fault of this entire piece and thread. We don’t want to facilitate that nasty sex act now do we?
Rutherford, tell me what in society has been improved or made better by promiscuity?
Have STD infections gotten fewer since the sexual revolution?
Are they as easy to treat, or do we have more that have gotten antibiotic resistant?
How about fidelity within marriage? Up or down?
Divorce? Up or down? What are the very real finacial effects of that? Has that been healthy for society?
What about the number of children who are born out of wedlock?
And this says nothing of the real and often denied emotional consequences.
Has any of that been good for society?
Now I see the fallout of this every time I go to Court. I promise you, if you were ever in this area, I’d take you to court with me, and we could spend the day in two or three court rooms, and I’d let you witness it firsthand.
That said, it is the society that we live in, and while it is incredibly depressing, I’d let it go…until I see this young lady’s testimony, and here cloying plea for (in this case), the university to be made to be a participant in those bad choices. It is one thing for adults to made bad decisions, but when they want to avoid the costs by compelling someone else to pay for it? NO. I’m not staying silent. A widespread blindness is no reason to stand by quietly when the salt of society is being pressured to not be a seasoning and preservative, but an accelerant of its decay, anyone paying attention and seeing it for what it is would say “NO.”
Quite frankly R the only thing Mr Limbaughs comments have done is take attention away from the obscene farce of a grown woman already taking a scholarship demanding more of other OPM so she can enjoy herself without consequence at the expense of other peoples God given rights
That whole dog and pony show was an insult to any thinking person as this woman was a rabble rousing fake to begin with. And admit it R even if Limbaugh hadn’t gone “over the line” they would have attacked him, and by extension us, with exactly the same venom and vitriol. Except for the bomb belts and murders tell me again how those on the left don’t act like the mobs you see in Afghanistan when one of their shibboleths is violated. The firestorm of calumny and slander brought to bear by disingenuous thugs on the left was just a high tech reaction analogous to the riots in Kabul.
This woman was a political actor. As with all political actors employed by the left they try and cloak her with some sort of moral superiority so that any criticism is deemed out of bounds. She claims need and then the left in, it’s infinite duplicity put any questioning of that need immediately beyond debate. Any questioning of her information is met with blood libel and ad hominem attacks. Do you think that these bimbos in the NDSWP and the media don’t go over the line when they make the claim we “hate” this or that because we assert our rights and the rule of law.
She was proclaimed a victim in a star chamber of partisan hackery and deceit. She may not be a whore in the biblical sense but she sure as hell is one in an intellectual sense and so are all her allies who act in such an insulting dishonest and bad faith manner.
Funny how all the hypocrites in congress and the media are busting a gut to condemn Limbaugh, a private citizen criticizing another private for her engaging in a political show trial, while giving a pass to the President who is openly and brazenly demonizing private citizens by name for engaging in a much more honest debate.
The President and his surrogates are using the intimidation factor of his office to try and silence his political enemies and not a word is said by those altruistic defenders of justice and rights in the NDSWP and their media butt boys. The same can be said of this reaction to Limbaugh. Their duplicity and bad faith were laid bare as they continue with this false narrative that subsidization= access and that the principle of religious conscience is negotiable. By asserting that this whole fiasco is anything other to do than we have a lawless President and an openly criminal regime trying to impose the religion of the state of upon us they engage in a complete lack of honesty that can’t be forgotten of forgiven.
It is the left that set down the rules of engagement and they are the first “foul” when they’re they get called on their mendacity.
Kinda reminds me of Clarence Thomas claiming to be the victim of a “high tech lynching”. A bit over the top if you ask me.
I will grant you one thing. Fluke is either knowingly or unknowingly a pawn in a political chess game. I tend to argue the merits of a case but I don’t deny that some players have a far more political agenda than I do.
By the way, Limbaugh’s apology seemed about as genuine as Mitt Romney’s conservatism. But Rush had sponsors to salvage.
R as far as I can tell with his apology the only thing he has apologized for is his choice of words regarding Sandra Fake.
The rest of case is valid as it stands. This was political agitprop performed by dishonest interlocutors and shes deserves every bit scorn and derision for participating in such dishonest proceeding.
Oh and by the way if later we find out shes having sex with six guys and German Shepard named Klaus “slut” would be appropriate as well.
@ Rutherford:
Anyone who introduces condoms into the discussion is being coy. Everyone here knows condoms do not provide the same level of protection as birth control pills.
Actually condoms offer superior protection since they also protect against disease and empowers a level of “choice” that some should be far more willing to embrace than they are.
I want to pick up on some of the other themes in this post and thread. I apologize for not directly crediting others where I fail to do so.
There are a whole lot of sluts on this issue and by that I mean people feverishly pursuing agendas but not truth.
For Flake, I too am saddened that this woman will someday be an officer of the court sworn to truth justice and ethics.
Rush, never a fave of mine he needs to remember what society he lives in.Now he has issued an apology so he can get his $ponsors back.
Obama, what a grandstanding false prophet hump this guy is. Couple this bullshit play and add it to his un presidential and un Constitutional call out on the Kochs and scratch your head. I’ve reasoned out a lot of things BHO has done but really?! He quite simply needs to be removed.
@ Raji yes this whole false storm is intended to herd the sheep and avoid hard truths.
Birth control should be an optional coverage,the other uses for the Pill should be covered.The former should be allowed refusal under conscience clauses. the latter NO! These meds should not be FREE though until the important life saving/sustaining Rx are and since that isn’t gonna happen…
There is no war on women going on here. If women feel that way they should be ashamed. Many especially on the Left want to preach equality but when it is convenient to their agendas they do like the labels and division. this is the case here.
This recent event is merely the latest entry into the continuing saga that is the Lefts elitist worldview which continues to embrace eugenics.
Holy cow! Eugenics? Alfie now it seems you have gone off the reservation. What is wrong with a woman (or couple) deciding when in her life it is best to have a baby? I don’t call that eugenics.
Actually if you research the higher end of the elitists birth control argument it reeks of eugenics. From race relations,natural resources ,public health and climate change there are those who advocate the Pill as the cure all.
The average woman doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the “higher end of the elitists birth control argument.” They just want coverage for their birth control. Simple as that.
“There is no war on women going on here. If women feel that way they should be ashamed.” – Alfie
I correct my statement. I should have said the “alleged” war on women “concept” which is being used to deviate the masses from the real political issues.
“there are those who advocate the Pill as the cure all.” – Alfie
I don’t know who those are that you refer to but if that is what they advocate then they have no medical knowledge as the Pill has dangerous side effects and really should not be the contraceptive of choice.
The sheeple are being herded and the reason they can be is the dumbing down of America. In the past two decades the education system has removed reading comprehension from the list of required subjects. Without comprehension one cannot analyze the media feed fed them. We now have a whole generation of people who were taught to memorize “facts”. MSM states a fact, therefore it must be true.
HHS should never have broached the issue of contraceptives. The issue should have been if an insurance company provides comprehensive coverage of Rx drugs then all drugs should be covered.
Back to my point of the lack of analytical thought in our country.
Alfie, as usual, Rutherford is the ultimate disingenuous tool in his argument. He’s a tedious bore, with the same dimwitted arguments now for the four, long years I’ve known him – completely deceitful in his argument.
Have you read the history behind this parasite, Ms. Fluke? This is straight out of the liberal dogma play that the Rutherfords of the world reside. Get this:
…Fluke as a feminist activist. According to a bio on Georgetown’s website, Fluke’s professional background is in domestic violence and human trafficking advocacy. At Georgetown law, she is the former president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, an editor for the Journal of Gender and the Law, and vice president of the Women’s Legal Alliance. She has a bachelor’s degree in Feminist, Gender & Sexuality studies from Cornell.
Obviously, this Fluke is not qualfied for social work, much less a prestigious law school. But here’s my bigger concern. What would a Reproductive Justice cabal even be allowed to have standing on a Jesuit campus. For too many years, these so called “religious institutions” like Georgetown, and let’s not forget Georgetown is run by the Catholic Church, has let liberal dogma seep in to their university – a dogma completely opposed to the very heart of their mission statement.
If they had any balls and any sense, what the Jesuits would do is immediately fire any staff that came out in support of this man hating flake, reimburse Ms. Parasite her tuition, and kick her out of the school.
It’s foolish to try and debate with these completely irrational, hate mongering useful idiots. You don’t reason with lunatics and the mentally ill that compose the Left, or compromise with an enemy.
You eliminate the problem – in this case, ban them from the university.
Kudos to Georgetown! It’s called providing a liberal arts education, not a seminary.
Heaven forbid we send kids to college and they learn stuff not taught in Sunday School!
Tex, first you channel Gingrich. Then you channel Santorum. You’re too much!
Great post, BiW, Kinda made me laugh and cry at the same time.
I can just imagine you reading it and muttering about how this WILL NOT be occurring during the coming LUTHERN MILLENIUM.
If they had any balls and any sense, what the Jesuits would do is immediately fire any staff that came out in support of this man hating flake
Actually, if the Jesuits had balls they would burn them at the stake, like in the good old days of their Spanish Inquisition.
*queue Monty Python video*
Here’s a sample. The Jesuits used to kick ass.
I’ve actually seen museum exhibits in Europe about the torture that was commonplace during the Middle Ages. It’s pretty horrific just to look at the implements that were used, and read about the rather skilled science of causing pain.
I volunteer Rutherford for the initial trial. :smile: Small, frail, and won’t put up much of fight, but will scream loudly enough for those next to notice – probably mumbling about what a bitch Sarah Palin is as we put the hood over his head.
What do you think of my proposal, Brother “R?” Would like my smiling face at your inquisition? Judge, jury and executioner? :twisted: You can go out laughing, at least.
Rutherford does not need a traditional inquisition. We just need to tie him down and make him listen to country music for a few days. That should teach him not to sass us.
Plug in NASCAR with it? Rutherford is a strange duck. A black man with a preference of Green Day. Heck, he might like Country if the girls were pretty enough. I’ll bet as a kid, he flogged it during Hee Haw.
I was just thinking, if I wore one of those red robes and accompanying red bonnet, it would be like executing Rutherford as the proverbial frog in hot water. He’d be much too entertained to know what was happening.
Though I’d like to strangle the bastard, Rutheford does have one redeeming quality not often found in liberal circles. especially the ones he darkens.
A good sense of humor.
Michael and Tex, I’ve already had my dose of torture for 2012. Confined to a hospital with pneumonia for four days, my only real option for political TV was Fox News Channel.
I’d wake up screaming in the middle of the night begging the nurse to give me a football I could throw back at Hannity. ;-)
A good sense of humor.
Yeah, that’s his redeeming quality, and rare amongst liberals
Does he actually listen to Green Day? Jeebers. That kinda kills his cred as a black person. I may be more of a Negro than he is, and my family comes from Sweden and Germany.
Odds are you are more Negro. I’ve been mourning the loss of Davy Jones of the Monkees this past week. ;-)
I was watching the Godfather Saga last night for the 114th time, and it occurred to me who Obama reminds me of.
Fredo Corleone.
If Obama has got America’s back, and he is infamous for leading from behind after all, it’s for the sole reason of shoving the knife in America’s back.
Rutherford @ 3:49
What?
I thought it read pretty clearly. Can you elaborate on “what”?
Sickening, isn’t it? That Rutherford could be so blind, he’s actually proud of the fact that society has “progressed” where boys are girls, and girls are boys, our public school system’s war zones, one of out six people now deemed with mental illness (he’s one in my opinion), children disrespectful, gang warfare, illicit drug use rampant, illegitimacy now the norm, the black culture chaotic, the white culture close behind, STDs now pandemic with a few incurable, societal norm now crass and vulgar?
In Rutherford’s world, that is progress. The ultimate example of the reprobate mind.
To Tex and BiW … why am I naive to assume Ms. Fluke engages in monogamous sex? Why does birth control use equate to promiscuity?
Tex, in my experience, Catholics get into more trouble resisting the strict dogma of their religion than just about anyone else. And of course Catholicism comes with that great free pass known as “confession”.
It’s no coincidence that this has been framed as religious freedom vs women’s rights. Religion has had a problem with sex from the very beginning. Now we’re just seeing it play out on the national stage.
Do you have any idea how naive you are and how gullible you sound? Religion has a problem with sex? Worshiping the God whose very first commandment was “be fruitful and multiply?”
No, I think you have confused monogamous sex with homosexual perversion and bath houses. God has a problem with perversion, the church has a problem with perversion, nature has a problem with perversion, and anybody of sound mind has a problem with perversion – its innate from a young age.
But Rutherford doesn’t have a problem with perversion, because in his twisted logic, he in fact believes it has made us better, even laughs and makes jokes about it.
Unfortunately, the results say otherwise.
Confession is no free pass, by the way, Rubetherford.
Worshiping the God whose very first commandment was “be fruitful and multiply?”
Ahhhh so God supports promiscuity! Thanks for clarifying that. Now could you let the Bishops in on it? ;-)
Ahhhh so God supports promiscuity!
Yeah. You got us. That whole “Thou shalt not committ adultery” thing? Yeah, that was a joke. He didn’t really mean that.
BiW .. yet another biblical contradiction. Do you teach Sunday School? Must be a bitch to give the kids a consistent story. ;-)
BiW .. yet another biblical contradiction.
Once again, the contradiction exists only in your head, because I’m pretty sure that no one need be promiscuous to be fruitful.
But the maybe your dictionary is compiled by the same editor that put together Obama’s Bible.
You don’t think “be fruitful and multiply” doesn’t have some wiggle room in it?
Sex good. Adultery bad. Incest, not so much. :grin:
Heh!
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Maherpalin.png
Regarding Palin = c*nt; Ingraham = slut; and Fluke = prostitute I will stipulate the following. As sick and twisted as Limbo’s logic was, he at least offered up his epithet in the context of an argument. Maher and Schultz on the other hand simply spewed an ad hominem attack. If memory serves, Maher has never apologized. Ed did.
FWIW, I am growing increasingly tired of Bill Maher. He is a comedian who somewhere along the line got the idea he was politically savvy and should be taken seriously as a pundit. Friday night he mocked American’s knowledge of history and in the very next breath made a reference to our electing Millard Fillmore President. As any fifth grader knows, Fillmore was never elected POTUS, He ascended to the Presidency upon the death of Zachary Taylor.
This is typical Maher … an arrogant prick with an inconsistent value system (smokes dope but whines about preservatives in our food). I watch his show primarily now for the panel discussions which I enjoy.
On a more trivial note, I am equally conflicted about watching Celebrity Apprentice. I’ve followed the show for years and I love the “boardroom” confrontations but with each new season I hate Trump more and more. And now that he has gone full birther, he makes my stomach turn. Still I haven’t given up Apprentice. I’m a TV addict. I need an intervention.
Kind of late to the party, but I’d like to point something out. If birth control pills are being used for correction of menstrual problems, they are covered under insurance already. Depends on the insurance, I’m sure, but so is Viagra.
So, we’re back to the voluntary usage of said product.
I can’t help but to notice that you employed a canard but then didn’t address the heart of the response, Rutherford.
You make it sound like the Church and believers are all closeted on the issue of sex, but when asked if that “liberation” that we were given in the sexual revolution has made society better, you dodge and weave.
How about it, hoss? Can you at least be honest enough to admit that the consequences of “freedom” without responsibility haven’t turned the world into a better place to live, and that maybe, just maybe the Church’s “unenlightened” attitude about sex just might reflect a greater degree of wisdom on the subject than you’ll find that society in general possesses?
I don’t dodge and weave at all. When did I say promiscuity is a good thing? Society has not been harmed one iota by people participating in monogamous relationships that don’t include marriage. I happen to be old fashioned. I think couples should get married and then have kids. But I do recognize that one size does not fit all.
What is puzzling is why Ms. Fluke’s testimony reminds you of the sexual revolution with promiscuity and spread of STD’s. She’s speaking for women who want to control their own fertility and have financial assistance for medically necessary contraception. How that equates to the sexual revolution is beyond me.
Society has not been harmed one iota by people participating in monogamous relationships that don’t include marriage.
I’m pretty sure that would come as a surprise to the illegitimate children born of those relationships who don’t grow up with both parents because one of them decided to be monogamous with someone else.
But hey, as long as they could avoid doing it again with their second, or third, or fourth “monogamous” partner, without the icky consequences, its groovy, right?..
You’re deliberately twisting the definition of monogamy. I’m not talking serial monogamy that winds you up with ten partners in 2 years. I was referring to long term monogamous relationships that don’t include marriage. The “illegitimate” offspring of those relationships still have the constant presence of a mother and a father in their life.
The “illegitimate” offspring of those relationships still have the constant presence of a mother and a father in their life.
No, not always. In many cases, it just means that the parent who leaves participates by contributing child support.
Heh! :lol:
http://conservativedailynews.com/2012/02/another-apology/
LOL I actually enjoyed that cartoon.
Yeah, show me the priest who tells his parishioner, “You did that sh*t again??!! Forget the hail Mary’s. Either stop that sh*t or don’t tell me you did it again cos I’ll cross over to your side of the confessional and beat the crap out of you.”
The day that scenario takes place, you can tell me confession is not a free pass. :neutral:
Why would you assume it’s the priest that grants forgiveness? What do you think is the purpose of confession? Personally being a Protestant, I don’t believe in the idea of an intercessor to forgiveness or salvation, but I think you’ve once again missed The One that grants forgiveness.
And it’s not Obama. :wink:
Actually anyone who claims to be a Christian has an intercessor. Jesus IS that intercessor. Just one way Catholics have been misled. Jesus IS our high priest. And yes, the price of redemption is free for us who believe.
The day that scenario takes place, you can tell me confession is not a free pass.
You would be mistaken to think that because you weren’t presented with a bill, that there is no price to pay.
If we’re talking about a price to pay in the hereafter, that does nothing for me in the here-and-now.
That’s only one element of it, but I fear the other portion would be like trying to explain the colors of a sunset to a person who is blind and never had sight.
Give it your best shot. I might learn something.
I would be curious just how you intend to prove that statement, being the results are clear that children are being harmed by the completely free leniency from commitment that you seem hell bent on wishing to grant.
:lol:
How have I missed this blog? I have linked to you here, and in seconds you will be on my blogroll: http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2012/03/black-is-white-and-three-sure-things-of.html
[…] Remember when Rush Limbaugh had forever tainted the reputation of professional activist and rabble-rouser Sandra Fluke when he called her an unflattering name when she demanded that a nominally catholic institution, Georgetown University, supply THOUSANDS of dollars to individual female students annually? This was another major engagement in the “War on Women”, which forever proved that those eeeeeeeevvvvviiiiiillllll conservatives really hate women because they aren’t willing to accept the idea that a religious-based institution should be compelled to go against its conscience and guiding principles to supply contraceptives to students who voluntarily chose to attend the institution, knowing that this “demand” would be controversial, and frankly reveal those making the demand to be unreasonable, sniveling ingrates. And when Rush happened to suggest that a law student at a top-tier law school who is obsessed with extorting THOUSANDS of dollars worth of contraceptives for individual students annually might be working toward a career in the wrong profession, an entire segment of society that would not recognize shame if it walked up to them, beat them up, and stole their money suddenly rediscovered the concept and, with all the outrage they could muster, rushed to her defense, claiming it was he who had sullied her reputation, while breathing fire, and sipping on kitten and puppy shakes. It never once occurred to these stalwart defenders of Ms. Fluke’s virtue that perhaps it was she who had accomplished that with her dubious, attention-grabbing demands. […]