Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

[koshergrl]

Yeah, I tried to make the point that there are different types of contraceptives but they didn't get it.

No wonder std incidence is out of control, and we're getting more and more virulent ones.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How dishonest of you to leave out the "lay employee" part. And Ms. Fluke was at the hearing to point out just that.....that the Church already covers employees, so it is discriminatory and not legal to exclude students.

I am not surprised that rightwingers would pretend not to understand the issue; or actually not understand the issue.

Issa's Committee could NOT let Fluke address it and have Fluke publically embarrass the Church by airing such dirty laundry. Laundry you dishonestly claim does not exist.

Regards from Rosie

Huh?

It is not discrimination to give employees something you do not offer students. The simplest proof of this is that every university in this country actually pays thei employees to come to school, and none of them offer the same compensation to students, even if they spend more time there than the employees. In fact, they actually charge students to come to school.

That makes you dumber than Fluke, which is quite a challenge. She at least knew she was misrepresenting the facts, you believe her.

Oh no - a double shot. This is like the worst false comparison ever.

They're paying the employees because they're employees facilitating the school's ability to provide a service, i.e. education. They're charging the students because they are the buyers of that service. Buyer; seller -- know the difference. Holy shit I'd hate to be your accountant...

I might take this quote in bold to put in my signature. It's hilarious.

That is interesting, you agree with me that there is a difference between a customer and an employee, yet you are not mocking the idiot that tired to argue that is is discrimination to treat them differently.

Your bias is showing again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yes, i found rush limbaugh's attack on sandra fluke so vile and disgusting as to change my opinion of the republican party. That none of the republican presidential candidates spoke so much as a word to distance themselves from this disgraceful display, was even worse.

Added to the repeated references to "legitimate rape", forced transvaginal ultrasounds in republican states, a party platform which supports banning all abortions, no exception for the life of the woman, and the refusal of republican senators to listen to women's points of view on birth control, these are the reasons why 60% of women voted democrat.

The only female demographic to vote for romney in large numbers was married white women. So by all means, continue to refer to ms. Fluke as a slut who wanted the government to pay her to have sex. Every time you do, it reminds women that republican lawmakers have no respect for women's rights and voting republican is voting against their economic best interests. Women vote with their pocket books too.

just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).

.
I think I know whose ass you're pulling this out of. That explains his expression --

​

Actually, it comes from Colorado, not Oz.

 

[logical4u]

I didn't watch it; heard some vague talk about it and didn't bother to look into it. Because it's irrelevant. A political convention isn't a church; whoever put God/the lord/the cosmic muffin in there was wrong and a panderer.

I do not live in a religiously dictated neighborhood, no. I can't imagine why one would want that. My neighbours' individual religious practices are no concern of mine, because I for one recognize that religion is personal, moreover I know how to mind my own bidness. Perhaps it's different in Riyadh.

You prefer Xianity, fine, whatever. Keep it in the church where it belongs and out the hell of politics. We founded this nation to get away from that dictatorial crap.

Again, the dodge. I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated". I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.

Christianity is about sharing the "good news". It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket". Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose. It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't). Just in case you are interested in "truth".

BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history. But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.

No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"

What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"? Or a "Christian neighbourhood" Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way? I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares? What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here. This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it. And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.

Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization. Or maybe the other way round. Either way, entirely irrelevant here.

(/offtopic)

You are the one that attacked Christians. I was pointing out that the very people that "cry" about Christianity "choose" to live in neighborhoods where there are many Christians (atheists will not set up their own neighborhoods, wonder why?). Those neighborhoods seem to be more stable, more safe, the homes better maintained than neighborhoods where non-Christians are the majority. Yet you never consider "why" you "choose" to live among Christians. Its okay, I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.

And the last paragraph was pointing out a historical fact: when religion is forcibly removed from a society, the murders are tremendous. Again, I expect no intellectual honesty from you on this matter, just superficial nonsense to justify your "choice" not to pay attention to the LORD.

 

[Pogo]

Again, the dodge. I did not ask you if your neighborhood was "religiously dictated". I asked you if your neighbors were Christians.

Christianity is about sharing the "good news". It is not about keeping the knowledge "under a basket". Check the reason people came to these shores way back when, and you will find it was so they "could" worship the LORD (Christian), as they chose. It was that particular belief, that required the first amendment (along with the other nine that made up the Bill of Rights, rights that were granted by the Creator, not the gov't). Just in case you are interested in "truth".

BTW, take a good look at countries where religion is "discouraged", the murders, the corruption is far worse than any "religious wars" in this world's history. But I suspect you are not interested in truth, just some wet dream of an intellectual elite that is tricking you into subjugation.

No, you said "do you live in a neighborhood with Christians, or do you live in an atheist neighborhood?"

What the hell's an "atheist neighbourhood"? Or a "Christian neighbourhood" Where do you come from that neighbourhoods are set up that way? I suspect there are both Christians and atheists (and others) in my neighbourhood -- who cares? What Christianism is "about" is irrelevant here. This is not a religion thread. Stop hijacking it. And in the same way, a political party convention (of any party) is a secular, not a religious exercise.

Your last paragraph is yet another strawman wrapped in a hasty generalization. Or maybe the other way round. Either way, entirely irrelevant here.

(/offtopic)

You are the one that attacked Christians. I was pointing out that the very people that "cry" about Christianity "choose" to live in neighborhoods where there are many Christians (atheists will not set up their own neighborhoods, wonder why?). Those neighborhoods seem to be more stable, more safe, the homes better maintained than neighborhoods where non-Christians are the majority. Yet you never consider "why" you "choose" to live among Christians. Its okay, I don't expect you to be intellectually honest.

And the last paragraph was pointing out a historical fact: when religion is forcibly removed from a society, the murders are tremendous. Again, I expect no intellectual honesty from you on this matter, just superficial nonsense to justify your "choice" not to pay attention to the LORD.

Oh horseshit.

This thread isn't about Christainism or religion; that's your tangent. And your imaginary fantasies of neighbourhoods with religious police are equally irrelevant. Neither Sandra Fluke nor Rash Rimjob said anything about Christianism or neighbourhoods or atheists... or murders or crime or stability etc etc. You're just hijacking a thread with a lot of irrelevant crap.

And FWIW I never "attacked Christianity"; I attacked your ideas that we should be a theocracy. When that happens, the ideals that founded this country cease to exist. If you don't like people defending the Constitution -- oh well.

 

[logical4u]

No, it makes one more strawman torched.

New at this?

The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed)."

And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.

This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.

My lack of god, you are new at this.

I didn't "ignore a legitimate question"; I highlighted an illegitimate one. Nobody said anything about women needing or not needing guns; you just made that up. That's what "strawman" means; something you just make up, then attribute it to some opponent (in this case a disembodied blanket) and then attack your own point.

Can't believe I have to explain this. Methinks you need a new name, because this one's way ironic.

Except I did not make it up:

Biden on Self-Defense: Fire a Shotgun in the Air
...."I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"....

Michelle Malkin » Colorado morons want to leave women defenseless: ?Vomiting or urinating? better than carrying a gun

....."1) The first via Jesse Byrnes here in Colorado…here’s what the University of Colorado- Colorado Springs advises innocent victims to do when they fall prey to attackers:...............Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone."........
"2) Via Dana Loesch and Revealing Politics, Colorado state rep. John Salazar doesn’t think women need a gun to protect them from rapists. Instead, they should be happy with rape whistles."



Cupp: Why Is it Okay for Men to Tell Women How to Defend Themselves? | TheBlaze.com


......"Colorado Democratic State Rep. Joe Salazar said on the floor of the House that I should, apparently, buy a rape whistle. Why? Because as a woman, I can’t be trusted to shoot a gun. I wouldn’t encourage any would-be attackers out there to test that theory with me.

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have whistles,” he said. Indeed, compelling points. So then why do we still have rape on college campuses? Why, according to the Department of Justice, will one in five college women be raped during their college years with all the call boxes and safe zones? Why are college aged women four times more likely to be sexually assaulted than the average female population if they are all effectively armed with whistles?


Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar (Youtube)

He went on to insist that we women shouldn’t own guns for self-defense because “you just don’t know who you’re going to be shooting at.” Yes, that does put us at a disadvantage with men, who always know the criminals they encounter. And we’ve all heard of thousands of instances where a woman mistakenly shoots her best friend instead of the knife-wielding predator straddling her on the ground with his hand over her mouth.

He continued: “And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop a round at somebody.”

How does that work? Men, you tell me – do you “know if you feel like you’re gonna be” robbed or murdered? The further we go down Salazar’s kooky rabbit hole, the more he starts sounding like Todd Akin. I’m pretty sure if you unpacked his meandering treatise on a woman’s inability to properly exert her trigger finger, you’d find a case for “legitimate rape.”

Elsewhere in Colorado, the state House passed a package of gun safety bills this week, one of which includes banning concealed carry on college campuses.

No problem there, because the University of Colorado has some awesome tips for women, posted as an updated advisory on their website. One recommendation? “Kick off your shoes” because, presumably, the stiletto’s we wear to class might be hard to run in.

Another? “Don’t take time to look back; just get away.” If only someone had told college rape victims to “just get away” earlier, think how many women could have been saved from sexual assault.

Ominously, they also warn us that “some actions on your part might lead to more harm” but don’t bother delineating what those are. Women are essentially told to roll the dice and see what happens.

And finally, the University of Colorado wants us to vomit or urinate on our attackers. Alright sir.

As silly and dangerous as these suggestions are, and as asinine as some of these Democratic male legislators sound, the idea that I can’t be trusted to defend myself with a weapon is offensive, paternalistic and even misogynistic. And where is the National Organization for Women or Planned Parenthood or any other liberal women’s group denouncing these boneheaded men and institutions for telling us how to protect our bodies? Silence." ......

 

[logical4u]

And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.

This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.

"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?

Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.

Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......

If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.

 

[Pogo]

And like a good little (small minded) lib, you chose to ignore a legitimate question and overlook what is said and done by liberals to pretend you are soooooo offended that Rush mocked Sandra Fluke by calling her a slut.

This is why libs cannot win. If you are faced with your own imorality and corruption, you run away, calling names, and covering your ears, refusing to consider that what you support is absolutely no better (and in many cases, worse) than those you criticize.

"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?

Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.

Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......

If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.

Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?

I haven't proffered "ideas" here. You have. Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic. You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.

This thread was about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant. I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible. Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.

Thread hijacked: check. The end.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

Because he told them to. Period.

 

[Pogo]

Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

Because he told them to. Period.

Voilà. How hard was that.

 

[edthecynic]

Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

Because he told them to. Period.

October 14, 2011
RUSH: I say it, you believe it, with no questions.

 

[RosieS]

Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

Because he told them to. Period.

You da man, Synth!

Regards from Rosie

 

[logical4u]

"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?

Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.

Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......

If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.

Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?

I haven't proffered "ideas" here. You have. Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic. You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.

This thread was about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant. I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible. Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.

Thread hijacked: check. The end.

Again, you wanted to bring Christianity into it. I was just following up on your comments to see how you really felt (it appears that you are just fine with using Christians, but you do not want them to be able to use the first ammendment).
Rush "mocked" Sandra Fluke. He was not as vile as many on the left (entertainers, politicians, political activists that called conservative women far worse than "slut" without them standing in front of congresss asking the gov't to ensure their contraceptives are paid for by "others"). You will not respond to the obvious condescending comments towards women made by the left (which implies that you support that insulting rhetoric).
It appears that "you" are the one that does not want to deal with reality or answer the hard questions. I have answered the questions about Sandra Fluke. Like a dutiful little zombie, you ignore the insults to women made by the left, and offer your undying loyalty to them, no matter that they do things far worse, than call women demanding that others pay for their contraceptives "slut".

Again, you have shown that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest. You have shown that obvious humor offends you when it targets your pet idealogy. I am amused.

 

[logical4u]

Why Did, And Why Do, So Many Self-Proclaimed Conservative Side w/Rush On Sandra Fluke

Because he told them to. Period.

October 14, 2011
RUSH: I say it, you believe it, with no questions.

Wow, I didn't know Sandra Fluke spoke before congress in 2011, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.

 

[Pogo]

Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......

If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.

Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?

I haven't proffered "ideas" here. You have. Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic. You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.

This thread was about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant. I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible. Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.

Thread hijacked: check. The end.

Again, you wanted to bring Christianity into it. I was just following up on your comments to see how you really felt (it appears that you are just fine with using Christians, but you do not want them to be able to use the first ammendment).
Rush "mocked" Sandra Fluke. He was not as vile as many on the left (entertainers, politicians, political activists that called conservative women far worse than "slut" without them standing in front of congresss asking the gov't to ensure their contraceptives are paid for by "others"). You will not respond to the obvious condescending comments towards women made by the left (which implies that you support that insulting rhetoric).
It appears that "you" are the one that does not want to deal with reality or answer the hard questions. I have answered the questions about Sandra Fluke. Like a dutiful little zombie, you ignore the insults to women made by the left, and offer your undying loyalty to them, no matter that they do things far worse, than call women demanding that others pay for their contraceptives "slut".

Again, you have shown that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest. You have shown that obvious humor offends you when it targets your pet idealogy. I am amused.

Lying again. You want to float this turd that I brought Christianity in here? Go find it. Quote it here. I'll come back in a week to see what you came up with. Which will be nothing.

Apart from outright fabrication, you seem fond of the tu quoque fallacy today. I guess the red herrings weren't flying?
And you want to talk "intellectual honesty". Pfft. Poster please.

Sorry but your "logic" is a joke. Not only making stuff up but bending over backward in every way you can think of to avoid the topic.
Courageous.

 

[Dragonlady]

The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).".

No woman needs to own a gun, nor does any man, unless they live on a farm and need to put down an animal from time to time, or they live in a remote area and hunt for their food.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The poster said that they could not vote for a republican based on Rush calling Sandra Fluke a "slut". I was "just curious, how do you feel about lib politicians telling women they don't need guns to protect themselves? the libs have suggested that women can't handle a gun/they are too emotional to know who to shoot/they should vomit or urinate all over themselves to prevent rape/they should use a pen to defend themselves/they should fire a shotgun into the air (a really bad idea, cause what goes up, comes down at a very fast speed).".

No woman needs to own a gun, nor does any man, unless they live on a farm and need to put down an animal from time to time, or they live in a remote area and hunt for their food.

Why do you oppose people making their own choices?

 

[Dragonlady]

Why do you oppose people making their own choices?

I don't oppose people making their own choices. I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.

I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world. Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping. I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.

Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell. The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.

Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.

 

[Pogo]

Why do you oppose people making their own choices?

I don't oppose people making their own choices. I simply said that no one needs to own a gun.

I have lived my most of my life in one of the largest cities in the world. Our door is unlocked and always is unless we're sleeping. I walk through my neighbour at all hours of the night and day, without fear.

Even the night some drug addict tried to climb in my living room window, I never felt the need for a gun, I just whacked the asshole over the head with the first thing I grabbed, yelled really loud and he ran like hell. The police were already at another neighbour's house because he tried to break in there first, so I just went out my front door and told them where he was.

Guns as a means of self-defense are way over-rated.

Well said.

We're saddled with a gun culture in this country which bizarrely reasons that the answer to violence is more violence. The most glaring example I can think of that demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking is a simple comparison of our two cities that meet at the Detroit River. But that's another topic.

 

[logical4u]

"Calling names" like "slut"?
Or like "ignoramus" and "moron" and "small minded" and "little chicken shit"?

Oh wait... that was all your side.
Never mind.

Still waiting for you to use some reasonable points.....
Waiting for you to use some historical instances where your ideas have been proven to work......

If you just want to use "emotions" then, you do not have a legitimate point.

Because yours just got owned in its blatant hypocrisy?

I haven't proffered "ideas" here. You have. Religious-policed neighbourhoods, murders, theocratic party conventions... none of them remotely on the topic. You want a theocracy, go start a theocracy thread.

This thread was about Lush Rimjob and his sycophants and why they choose to sycophant. I don't believe that question was ever answered, though we saw a whole lot of obfuscation, denial of realities and outright lying to defend the indefensible. Your tactic is different; you want to derail it into some Christian Caliphate fantasy comic book complete with crime-free neighbourhoods and a strawman in every back yard.

Thread hijacked: check. The end.

False Witness! Where did I suggest a theocracy? Where did I suggest "religious-policed neighborhoods? Where did I suggest murders? Where did I suggest theocratic party conventions? Please be specific.

Talk about hijacking a thread with a strawman...... If you can't defend your own position lie about what other people say.