Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What makes women experts on consitutional law?
^My point exactly. Please run with that inquiry.
Let's try this on for size: What makes men experts on constitutional law?
Is there some kind of a rule that there has to be an equal number of men and women at a congressional hearing discussing constitutional law that we all missed or something? Is that the same for all political 'groups'? Why aren't you complaining that blacks weren't equally shown in number? Or are you going to keep trying to stick to the inaccurate point that this was about contraception and not constitutionality?
^My point exactly. Please run with that inquiry.
Let's try this on for size: What makes men experts on constitutional law?
Is there some kind of a rule that there has to be an equal number of men and women at a congressional hearing discussing constitutional law that we all missed or something? Is that the same for all political 'groups'? Why aren't you complaining that blacks weren't equally shown in number? Or are you going to keep trying to stick to the inaccurate point that this was about contraception and not constitutionality?
No, there's no such rule. However, one would think on such a panel that an honest search would turn up an honest mix of men and women. By random sampling you'd have to work hard to avoid a woman, in fact.
By the way - it was about the constitutionality of requiring the provision of...female contraception! Females know a thing or two about that. But Congress doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the courts do.
I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.Is there some kind of a rule that there has to be an equal number of men and women at a congressional hearing discussing constitutional law that we all missed or something? Is that the same for all political 'groups'? Why aren't you complaining that blacks weren't equally shown in number? Or are you going to keep trying to stick to the inaccurate point that this was about contraception and not constitutionality?
No, there's no such rule. However, one would think on such a panel that an honest search would turn up an honest mix of men and women. By random sampling you'd have to work hard to avoid a woman, in fact.
By the way - it was about the constitutionality of requiring the provision of...female contraception! Females know a thing or two about that. But Congress doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the courts do.
No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.No, there's no such rule. However, one would think on such a panel that an honest search would turn up an honest mix of men and women. By random sampling you'd have to work hard to avoid a woman, in fact.
By the way - it was about the constitutionality of requiring the provision of...female contraception! Females know a thing or two about that. But Congress doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the courts do.
No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
Your'e a lost cause.
Video at same link:
Bill O'Reilly investigates to find out who is really behind the Sandra Fluke controversy. 'The Factor' discovers the Georgetown law student is being represented by an organization where Anita Dunn, the former Obama communications director, is the managing editor.
Factor Investigation: Ex-Obama Official Running Sandra Fluke - Bill O'Reilly - Fox Nation
Sandra Fluke is a 100% tin phony. We know now she's a way left liberal activist who once fought to make "gender reassignment" covered by insurance. We know she's for abortion and signed up to George Town SPECIALLY BECAUSE the college is Catholic and thus their insurance won't cover birth control.
This is libralism 101 people. Every time you see a "victim" they hide behind (like Cindy Sheehan before her) know they are phonies that were picked out to look sympathetic while some one from the DNC writes their script.
Then they scream that Republicans are "meanspirited" if they point out the OBVIOUS phoniness of the whole charade.
BUSTED LIBS!
I know this has been replied to death, but I just had to say thanks for the laugh. Although I don't think the conservatives here will appreciate your over-the-top sarcasm and mockery. Still, you did the crazy conservative nutjob thing really well!
I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.
Your'e a lost cause.
Iknowright? I mean, how could I possibly believe my lying ears over the infallible opinions of of a bunch of rightwing messageboarders?
Not too bright, I see.I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.No, there's no such rule. However, one would think on such a panel that an honest search would turn up an honest mix of men and women. By random sampling you'd have to work hard to avoid a woman, in fact.
By the way - it was about the constitutionality of requiring the provision of...female contraception! Females know a thing or two about that. But Congress doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the courts do.
No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
Not too bright, I see.I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
It was about the constitutionality of mandating a religious organization to do something that is against their beliefs.
You've been told that before numerous times but you have quite a bit of difficulty grasping it. Or, you're just a dishonest spammer.
I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.No, there's no such rule. However, one would think on such a panel that an honest search would turn up an honest mix of men and women. By random sampling you'd have to work hard to avoid a woman, in fact.
By the way - it was about the constitutionality of requiring the provision of...female contraception! Females know a thing or two about that. But Congress doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the courts do.
No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
Again - title of Hearing - Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State.
Naw, let them continue screaming their hatred of intelligent women. Offending 50% of the voters can't be a bad thing, now, can it?
Typical liberal meme that 50% of the US is LIBERAL women. Sorry but that just isn't true.
There are conservative women out here too, and trust me. Sandra Fluke does NOT represent us.
Naw, let them continue screaming their hatred of intelligent women. Offending 50% of the voters can't be a bad thing, now, can it?
Typical liberal meme that 50% of the US is LIBERAL women. Sorry but that just isn't true.
There are conservative women out here too, and trust me. Sandra Fluke does NOT represent us.
Hiya, stupid.
No, Sandra Fluke doesn't represent wingnut fems such as yourself, but guess what:
You guys pretty much lost this contraception argument, anyway, because a lot MORE women agree with her.
But like the others said, please tell your local wingnut Teahadist representative to keep harping on this. PLEEEEAAAASE!
I'm not concerned without how many people are in denial. I've heard the hearing. It was about the constitutionality of providing birth control.No, there's no such rule. However, one would think on such a panel that an honest search would turn up an honest mix of men and women. By random sampling you'd have to work hard to avoid a woman, in fact.
By the way - it was about the constitutionality of requiring the provision of...female contraception! Females know a thing or two about that. But Congress doesn't get to decide what's constitutional. the courts do.
No, it wasn't. How many people have told you that now? But, if you admit that, your argument falls to pieces, so I understand.
Typical liberal meme that 50% of the US is LIBERAL women. Sorry but that just isn't true.
There are conservative women out here too, and trust me. Sandra Fluke does NOT represent us.
Hiya, stupid.
No, Sandra Fluke doesn't represent wingnut fems such as yourself, but guess what:
You guys pretty much lost this contraception argument, anyway, because a lot MORE women agree with her.
But like the others said, please tell your local wingnut Teahadist representative to keep harping on this. PLEEEEAAAASE!
you won the contraception argument?
Really?
And what argument are yuou refrerring to?
I seem to recall no one wanted to deny woman the right to use contraception.....but those on the left seemed to think that was the argument.
Good. You won an argument that never existed.
And the ones harping onj it? Seems it is the left. The right doesnt give a fuck if a woman wants to use contraception.
Hiya, stupid.
No, Sandra Fluke doesn't represent wingnut fems such as yourself, but guess what:
You guys pretty much lost this contraception argument, anyway, because a lot MORE women agree with her.
But like the others said, please tell your local wingnut Teahadist representative to keep harping on this. PLEEEEAAAASE!
you won the contraception argument?
Really?
And what argument are yuou refrerring to?
I seem to recall no one wanted to deny woman the right to use contraception.....but those on the left seemed to think that was the argument.
Good. You won an argument that never existed.
And the ones harping onj it? Seems it is the left. The right doesnt give a fuck if a woman wants to use contraception.
Credit the Porker (aka Limbaugh) for losing the argument when he made it about women wanting contraception just so they can be bed-hopping bimbos.
Even without that, though, you still would have lost. Know why?
Because for all this talk of "religious freedom", all most people could see is what the net result of Republicans having their way would be: decreased access to birth control. Didn't matter how many would actually be affected or even how much more it would cost for those who were.
In the name of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM something a good many working women had gotten used to having covered for them wouldn't be there anymore just because some guys wearing black collars and funny hats didn't think it was appropriate for them to use it. The very possibility of that happening is what caused this to be a surefire loser for your side.
you won the contraception argument?
Really?
And what argument are yuou refrerring to?
I seem to recall no one wanted to deny woman the right to use contraception.....but those on the left seemed to think that was the argument.
Good. You won an argument that never existed.
And the ones harping onj it? Seems it is the left. The right doesnt give a fuck if a woman wants to use contraception.
Credit the Porker (aka Limbaugh) for losing the argument when he made it about women wanting contraception just so they can be bed-hopping bimbos.
Even without that, though, you still would have lost. Know why?
Because for all this talk of "religious freedom", all most people could see is what the net result of Republicans having their way would be: decreased access to birth control. Didn't matter how many would actually be affected or even how much more it would cost for those who were.
In the name of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM something a good many working women had gotten used to having covered for them wouldn't be there anymore just because some guys wearing black collars and funny hats didn't think it was appropriate for them to use it. The very possibility of that happening is what caused this to be a surefire loser for your side.
It is not about taking away contraception. It's about forcing religious Insurers who never had the coverage in the first place, to force them to cover contraceptives.
Women have plenty of free contraception without forcing the church to do so.
