Gop Obsession With Ladyparts

I don't agree with you. And Ms. Fluke is not a stupid woman, do you honestly believe she is going to present an outlandish dollar amount knowing that it will be fact-checked?

My wife thought it was an outlandish amount and she's been brainwashed to be a socialist by me (so says her cousin.)

y

Were you born stupid or did you just have to work, really, really hard at it? The average person doesn't have to pay $3,000 a year or even over 3 years to have contraception. You're lying and using misleading arguments to build you case on that stance. Art gave you an article showing you that. Numerous other pundits have as well. 20$ a month for contraception is $240 a year or $720 over 3 since you obviously can't do the numbers for yourself. That there may exists outliers who need unique medication that may come to the $3000 figure you love to cite, doesn't mean that the 3k figure should be used as the standard or example of average cost. But being honest and using real numbers puts your talking points in a pile of horse dung. Saying my arguments are strawmen and other name calling doesn't change the fact you're wrong. You cite yourself on crooks and liars for christ sake. Do you really think anything you say should be taken as an objective source?

I get it. You support free access (or better worded, access funded by others) to contraception. Cool, great, got it. That doesn't change the fact that the whole reason she was brought to tesify was to claim that contraception is inaffordable. That premis is a lie. Your consistent support of that lie makes you either a liar or a loud mouth spreading false information. I'll let you decide what category you fall into.

Listen up you dumbass cuck-for-brains. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the cost of female contraception goes beyond the price of pills alone. Women are required by law to see their doctor Every. Fucking. Time. They. Need. A. Prescription. In. This. Country.

That means you have to factor in the doctor's visits in addition to the cost of whatever form of contraception the woman is prescribed.

And in addition to that you keep intentionally ignoring the fact that hormonal birth control is not only prescribed for pregnancy protection, but for many other medical needs, many of which can require frequent monitoring and follow-up with one's doctor.

WITHOUT THESE VISITS AND THE CONTRACEPTIVES THEMSELVES BEING COVERED BY INSURANCE, IT CAN, AND OFTEN DOES, COST UPWARDS OF $1,200 A YEAR.

You don't get to whittle the numbers down to the tiniest of the possibilities within the scope of possibilities and call people stupid or liars for providing the full cost of coverage.

Until you're a woman with a vagina, uterus & ovaries, who's had to lay on a table with her legs splayed, feet in stirrups and a device shoved up her hoo-ha that spreads it all wide open while a doctor scrapes around in there, you cannot possibly have the vaguest fucking idea what bullshit the male majority in our government force us to go through to maintain our basic health, so SHUT THE FUCK UP.

y

"Her claim that it costs many of her fellow law students up to $1,000 a year for birth control is either blatantly false, or outlandishly ridiculous. As Jimmie Bise tweeted, “either her argument is crap or she’s having sex with anything that can’t outrun her.” Condoms are $7 a box, pills can be bought for $20 a month. The amount of sex that Sandra Fluke must be having to necessitate $1,000 a year in contraception makes one wonder how she manages to actually attend law school. Either Fluke and her fellow students are, er, indulging themselves five times a day every day of the year, or she’s lying. The smart money is on the latter."

The price of oral contraceptives vary greatly depending on which one is prescibed by her physician.

And again a dumbfuck who has no idea regarding human biology, or how oral contraceptives work. A woman takes one pill a day, just one. It doesn't matter if she sleeps with one thousand men, 13 women, and a donkey, she still only takes ONE FUCKING PILL A DAY!

Zimbo, you can't fight w/stupid. These people are fucking stupid, plain & simple. And guess what? THEY BREED!!!!!

3 reasons the Rush Limbaugh ad boycott is ineffective

http://news.yahoo.co...-180000216.html

After fiery conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh leveled "vitriolic and misogynistic" comments at Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, dozens of companies pulled their ads from his show. Rush controversially claimed that Fluke was a "slut" and a "prostitute" for arguing that health-care coverage of contraception should be mandatory, and ThinkProgress reports that at least 34 advertisers have ditched Rush amid the public outcry. But is an advertiser exodus really the right response? Here, three reasons it's not:
1. This hurts advertisers more than Rush
The old maxim "principle above profit" is nice in theory, says John S. Wilson at Mediaite. But the companies abandoning Limbaugh's show are losing a platform that connects them to 15 million to 20 million listeners each day. These companies didn't do anything wrong — instead, they're losing out because of something Limbaugh stupidly said. Research shows that consumers eventually abandon their boycotts, while a company's decision to yank ads does little to impress actual customers. Once the dust settles, companies may realize that pulling ads was a mistake.
SEE MORE: Glitter bombing the GOP candidates: A video history
2. It could have a chilling effect on speech
One company that pulled ads from Limbaugh's show, Tax Resolution Services, said it encountered a similar backlash 14 years ago when it advertised on The Howard Stern Show, but that the backlash wasn't nearly as bad because "social media was nowhere near where it is today," says Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast. The "speed and immediacy" with which Americans have turned on Limbaugh is alarming, and takes us to dangerous, uncharted territory. "It's a free country, but I get queasy with boycotts" that target free speech. Remember: Revolting speech is still free speech.
3. An ad boycott isn't nearly enough
When Don Imus called Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy headed hos" in 2009, CBS fired him — despite the $15 million in annual revenue his program netted, says Alyssa Rosenberg at Think Progress. Limbaugh should be held to the same standard and fired by Clear Channel. Only then will his critics be satisfied.

Blah, fucking blah.

Everyone is free to spew whatever filthy garbage they want, and advertisers are free NOT TO SUPPORT IT IF THEY WANT.

Again you ignore data to try to prove the other side is somehow stupid.

BEING ASSOCIATED WITH A VILE, FILTHY PIG LIKE LIMBAUGH CAN HAVE A NEGATIVE AFFECT ON AN ADVERTISER'S SALES, as much as NOT advertising can have on an advertiser's exposure.

And since it's still a free country (since mysoginistic asshole Republicans haven't yet figured out a way to fully take it over (THANK G-D!)), businesses can still decide what pays and what costs when it comes to their own image.

y

FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE.

Have you the VAGUEST IDEA what INSURANCE even MEANS?

It means people have PAID FOR IT.

PAID.

As in NOT FREE.

But it is fucking TYPICAL of the right wing to INTENTIONALLY LIE about what's being discussed.

We're talking about what's included as coverage WITHIN A PAID INSURANCE PLAN.


In the case of an EMPLOYEE, they have EARNED those insurance benefits by their LABOR. They accept a compensation package upon hiring that includes cash given directly to them and cash given on their behalf to an INSURANCE company for coverage of their health care needs. In the majority of companies today, the employee themselves must ALSO make a cash contribution to the premium on that insurance policy.

And in the case of a STUDENT, they are THEMSELVES PAYING THE MONTHLY PREMIUMS at whatever discounted rate their university was able to negotiate for them. And if there is ANY portion of the policy that is paid by the school, that is covered by the student's TUITION.

So no, you jackass, no one is expecting anything for FREE.

You really are dumber than a rock, aren't you?

Jill,

I'll agree to never comment on birth control again since I am a man, if you agree that you can never talk about national security and governing our country since you are neither a male or have served in the military. Obviously because no woman has been elected President, all women are unable to participate in the discussion. Granted, I thought truth and reason were seperate from gender, but you have proven me wrong. As I have never has someone stick three fingers inside me and spackel and paint my interior in my yearly checkup, I can't comment on that. As you have never served in uniform and been deployed, you can no loner talk about anything related to national security. If you can agree to these terms as resulted by your own logic, I will oblige your humble request that I remain silent to how matters that may reference females in reproduction. That may be kind of hard as you still need a man to create a child, but I'm sure people like you and the rest of the crooks and liars crew are fast at work developing artificial semen!

So as long as we're on the same page, and gender and personal experience trump all other contributors to knowledge, I will refrain from commenting on birth control. But I have a hunch, and is just a small one so I may be wrong, that you won't accept your own logical reasoning. I think your latest outbursts helps prove that your floating in a sea of bullshit and are about to have your ass flushed. But I am just a stupid male who never had to take oral contraceptives and god forbid, never had to seek medical help for any ailment related to my reproductive organs (I'll pretend this is true to help your argument).

Anyway, I'll leave this to the experts who have vaginas and go back to clubbing baby seals to make sure there is fresh meat and fur for the tribe.

Are you fucking insane as well as stupid. Women serve in the military and you have no clue what my background is. What the ever loving bloody fuck a woman having never been PRESIDENT has to do with a discussion about what women should expect to have covered in their INSURANCE POLICIES is beyond the comprehension of anyone with a goddamn BRAIN.

This still comes down to the question of whether an employer should be able to control the sexuality of their employee. A special kind of insurance that doesn't cover things like the contraceptive pill places an additional financial burden on individuals as a means of forcing them to conform to the non-work related, moralistic choices of the employer.

Zimbo, you can't fight w/stupid. These people are fucking stupid, plain & simple. And guess what? THEY BREED!!!!!

And that is the scariest part of this whole thing.

Woman, we are going to have to FIGHT HARD this election cycle to kick as many of these cretins out of office as we can. I hope you're up for the fight of your life. It LITERALLY means life or death, given the direction they've been taking this country in state after state over the past 4 years.

Clearly my last comment was made without knowledge that this had suddenly turned into a fucking shitstorm. Apologies for my civility.

y

I don't care if you choose to disbelieve my correction of your argument. She was clearly refering to a three year period. She used her personal experience where she was at Georgretown for 3 years. There is no other way to interpret her argument. If you think she meant 7, you're wrong. And yes, I think she was intentionally dishonest. She was hauled in via Pelosi in an unofficial hearing to draw publicity. Nothing she said was for a formal congressional hearing. It was a dog and pony show meant to make people feel good and was all about emotion and not reality and fact. So they bring in this intelligent woman, who says contraception can cost 3k over law school. She doesn't claiim that the average person or anyone will really pay that much, but truth be told, it may be possible in extreme situations. One of those situations would be if the person was fornicating multiple times a day - as Limbaugh said - that would be one way to come to her quoted dollar amount through need of contraception. One could be some special pill I'm not aware of, but I'm sure it exists somewhere and has a need - though the need isn't for contraception and probably for other medical ailments and considerations.

And even knowing it would be fact checked, plenty of people like you are willing to intentionally misinterpret what she said to make it fit. She meant 3 years. Not 7. And even if we extended it out to 7 for your math, her claim would still be false because the average person isn't paying 35$ a month for contraception. It's still an exageration meant to invoke outrage even if we more than double the time committment she personally referenced to fit your argument. I don't think you're unable to see this. I think you're so committed to this particular cause, you're willing to use your intelligence to justify something you know is wrong. Christians do the same thing when they're arguments are found wrong. I think Maher said something to this effect in Religulous "Really smart people have a way of coming up with really smart ideas to trick themself into believing something they know to be false." I think you trying to argue she meant 7 years falls into that category.

I'll freely admint I was wrong in my initial assumption she claimed 3k for one year. I had heard that from a source that obviously was full of shit. But that doesn't change that her numbers are still wrong, and she really had no business being there in the first place. She certainly isn't worthy of the postion of an expert on the matter. As I said earlier, Pelosi dragged her in because some people thought having a bunch of experts on the real panel who were predominatly men some how cheapened the validity of their replies. I guess gender plays a factor now in objective truth. Fluke uses ancedotal evidence that when generalized is bunk. It's the same as if I lived in one area where gas cost me personally 8$ a gallon because of a unique situation, so I went out and said it cost me 400$ a week to fill up and this is too much for people to handle. Meanwhile it's because I have a 50 gallon tank, drive like an idiot and have a special need or limitation to 8$ a gallon gas. Everyone else can get it for 2$ a gallon so when it's all average the average price is $2.25 for every American, but I contine to pedal my 8$ a gallon quote as if it is the standard that all must bare.

You didn't "correct" my argument, I just don't happen to agree with you.

y