Sandra Fluke Officially Working With Obama

[gallantwarrior]

To women that **** around, birth control is even more necessary than open heart surgery. After all without heart surgery someone might die. That's all. Without birth control women will not be able to have one night stands, their ability to party will be negatively affected and they will have to spend money on birth control better used to buy new thongs. Which is worse? A family that loses a breadwinner or a girl whose boyfriend dumps her because she got pregnant.

If birth control were put into its proper category is would be a cost that should be paid by men. Women complain that they might have to pay for contraceptives and it's unfair to them. In actuality why are women paying so that men can **** them and move on?

'Cause the Flukes in this country are not paying so that they can get fucked and the guy can move on to the next bimbo with "free" birth control.

 

[Too Tall]

The value of having Fluke in the campaign is that everywhere she goes, all the normal American people she talks to, all the normal American people who get to know her

get to be reminded that Rush Limbaugh, the spiritual/intellectual/philosophical leader of modern American conservatism,

called her a slut.

And the sanctimonious ***** should mention that she was not woman enough to accept Rush's apology. But she won't!

 

[gallantwarrior]

omg

Caleb Bonham Interviews Attendees of the Obama/Fluke Campaign Event- YouTube

comments at site

omg may be the understatement of the century. Just proves what I said before about women being too stupid to be allowed to vote.

 

[Pho_King]

Why do so many wingnuts hate women?

Why does everyone hate you redskins?

 

[AmyNation]

Neither do I. But I understand why millions of people do. Because it offends their beliefs. And, the thought of forcing, upon penalty of an extra tax, every American to purchase birth control coverage, is very offensive to me.

Ok, that is a diffrent argument, and one I can understand.

I am for employers being able to opt out of controceptive coverage because of religious reasons.

Actually, that is exactly what this thread has been about. Disrupting a previously enjoyed liberty interest. I do not believe I have read a single post arguing that birth control should not be covered. The argument is over removing the choice from the citizenry. That is exactly what Sandra flukes "testimony" before congress was about.

I don't think, average joe boss should be able to opt out of controceptive coverage because " those sluts should buy their own birth control". I support birth control being added to the list of other coverages that insurance companies are required to provide. However, if an employeer wants to opt out due to religious reasons, I have no objection to that.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I thought that whore wanted total control of her uterus? NO?

She wants total control of everything uterus except the cost of keeping it vacant. That's up to the taxpayer. After all, it's cheaper to pay for her birth control than to pay for her brat's upbringing...isn't that the liberal logic?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Or, conversely, we can take everyone out of the woman's bedroom except for herself and her sexual partner, and just tell Health Insurance companies that they need to stop treating women's health issues different than men's health issues.

Thanks for proving my point, dipshit!

Nice jump.. to where, we really don't know.. but nice jump

That has nothing to do with trying to force an employer being forced to provide and/or pay for a level of coverage for whatever reason they may have...

Apparently what Conservatives don't understand is the concept of "It's good for all involved."

As in: "It's good for all involved if women have free and easily available contraception."

Again, you can hop a flight to Africa if you want to see a continent without it. Have fun!

OK, it's good for the ***** getting laid, she might even get a free meal out of the transaction. It's probably pretty good for the john she's servicing. Personally, I'm not seeing the "good" I'm getting out of the deal. Hell, it's one less beer at the watering hole, or espresso on the way to work. Why would I want to trade my guilty little pleasures for her's?

 

[gallantwarrior]

How stupid can you get....

Who here does not pay a dime towards their own health insurance? If I hel;p pay for my health insurance then I should get a say in what coverage I get, and women should have health care coverage for reproductive services....

Why should us women have to pay for vasectomies for men? It's not my vasectomy....but I still have to help pay for it....

Why should women have to pay for Viagra for men....? I don't get to take it, I don't get the hardon, I don't get the pleasure for some other guy's viagra?

Why should I have to pay for someone else's Diabetics medicine? I don't have the disease.....? Why should I pay for another woman's baby....I've never had a baby, why should my insurance costs include these?

I don't have heart trouble, why should I have to pay for someone elses heart attack?


blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and blah....


What a bunch of bunk

Excellent questions, bimbo. And you do get a say in what services are covered under the insurance policy THAT YOU PURCHASE. Why should you not be allowed to buy a policy that does not cover vasectomies? My wife and I have no need for birth control. Why should we not be permitted to purchase coverage that does not include birth control?

If you don't need it, then don't ask for it. Do you REALLLLLLLLYYYYYYY think the cost of contraceptives is so high that it'll make your premiums skyrocket? Before you answer that, please know that any answer other than "No" means you're an idiot.

Question: Do YOU really think the cost of contraceptives is so high that an individual can't afford them herself?

 

[Pho_King]

Ok, that is a diffrent argument, and one I can understand.

I am for employers being able to opt out of controceptive coverage because of religious reasons.

Actually, that is exactly what this thread has been about. Disrupting a previously enjoyed liberty interest. I do not believe I have read a single post arguing that birth control should not be covered. The argument is over removing the choice from the citizenry. That is exactly what Sandra flukes "testimony" before congress was about.

I don't think, average joe boss should be able to opt out of controceptive coverage because " those sluts should buy their own birth control". I support birth control being added to the list of other coverages that insurance companies are required to provide. However, if an employeer wants to opt out due to religious reasons, I have no objection to that.

So, you would let an employer exercise his religious beliefs in this matter, but not an employee? Why should an employee not be permitted to do the very same thing?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I knew this would happen, but now it's official.

Sandra Fluke is working with the Obama campaign.

Say Anything Sandra Fluke To Campaign With Obama In Colorado » Say Anything

I'm sure Obama will hook her up with some brothers..
That will keep her busy....

I'm guessing he already hooked her up with a half-brother...just don't tell Mooshell.

 

[AmyNation]

Actually, that is exactly what this thread has been about. Disrupting a previously enjoyed liberty interest. I do not believe I have read a single post arguing that birth control should not be covered. The argument is over removing the choice from the citizenry. That is exactly what Sandra flukes "testimony" before congress was about.

I don't think, average joe boss should be able to opt out of controceptive coverage because " those sluts should buy their own birth control". I support birth control being added to the list of other coverages that insurance companies are required to provide. However, if an employeer wants to opt out due to religious reasons, I have no objection to that.

So, you would let an employer exercise his religious beliefs in this matter, but not an employee? Why should an employee not be permitted to do the very same thing?

Maybe we should have weekly meetings and we can all discuss our personal medical issues and whether the group believes you deserve coverage for each and every problem.

 

[Care4all]

Excellent questions, bimbo. And you do get a say in what services are covered under the insurance policy THAT YOU PURCHASE. Why should you not be allowed to buy a policy that does not cover vasectomies? My wife and I have no need for birth control. Why should we not be permitted to purchase coverage that does not include birth control?

If you don't need it, then don't ask for it. Do you REALLLLLLLLYYYYYYY think the cost of contraceptives is so high that it'll make your premiums skyrocket? Before you answer that, please know that any answer other than "No" means you're an idiot.

Question: Do YOU really think the cost of contraceptives is so high that an individual can't afford them herself?

she's already paying for her health insurance premium, why should she have to pay added costs when mr. viagra/ erectile dysfunction doesn't have to pay added costs, mr prostate cancer doesn't have to pay added costs, mr heart disease doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr vasectomy doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr veneral disease doesn't have to pay added costs or have to go buy those services somewhere else.

EDIT....even Mr AIDS doesn't have to pay added costs.

MOST women on birth control ARE MARRIED btw...

 

[Pho_King]

I don't think, average joe boss should be able to opt out of controceptive coverage because " those sluts should buy their own birth control". I support birth control being added to the list of other coverages that insurance companies are required to provide. However, if an employeer wants to opt out due to religious reasons, I have no objection to that.

So, you would let an employer exercise his religious beliefs in this matter, but not an employee? Why should an employee not be permitted to do the very same thing?

Maybe we should have weekly meetings and we can all discuss our personal medical issues and whether the group believes you deserve coverage for each and every problem.

Why would that be necessary? Simply allow individuals to purchase coverage that does not include birth control. That does not mean the employer has to provide such an odd policy. But why should I not be able to purchase such a policy if I can find one? You would permit it for an employer.

 

[Pho_King]

If you don't need it, then don't ask for it. Do you REALLLLLLLLYYYYYYY think the cost of contraceptives is so high that it'll make your premiums skyrocket? Before you answer that, please know that any answer other than "No" means you're an idiot.

Question: Do YOU really think the cost of contraceptives is so high that an individual can't afford them herself?

she's already paying for her health insurance premium, why should she have to pay added costs when mr. viagra doesn't have to pay added costs, mr prostate cancer doesn't have to pay added costs, mr heart disease doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr vasectomy doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr veneral disease doesn't have to pay added costs or have to go buy those services somewhere else.

MOST women on birth control ARE MARRIED btw...

Many men have to pay Viagra out of pocket, because it is not covered under their policy. Seems like women are just as capable.

 

[AmyNation]

So, you would let an employer exercise his religious beliefs in this matter, but not an employee? Why should an employee not be permitted to do the very same thing?

Maybe we should have weekly meetings and we can all discuss our personal medical issues and whether the group believes you deserve coverage for each and every problem.

Why would that be necessary? Simply allow individuals to purchase coverage that does not include birth control. That does not mean the employer has to provide such an odd policy. But why should I not be able to purchase such a policy if I can find one? You would permit it for an employer.

Why birth control and not any of the other mandated coverage?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Question: Do YOU really think the cost of contraceptives is so high that an individual can't afford them herself?

she's already paying for her health insurance premium, why should she have to pay added costs when mr. viagra doesn't have to pay added costs, mr prostate cancer doesn't have to pay added costs, mr heart disease doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr vasectomy doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr veneral disease doesn't have to pay added costs or have to go buy those services somewhere else.

MOST women on birth control ARE MARRIED btw...

Many men have to pay Viagra out of pocket, because it is not covered under their policy. Seems like women are just as capable.

Except those men are using it EXCLUSIVELY to ****, while most women take BC pills for something other than birth control.

Failing is what you do best.

 

[Pho_King]

Maybe we should have weekly meetings and we can all discuss our personal medical issues and whether the group believes you deserve coverage for each and every problem.

Why would that be necessary? Simply allow individuals to purchase coverage that does not include birth control. That does not mean the employer has to provide such an odd policy. But why should I not be able to purchase such a policy if I can find one? You would permit it for an employer.

Why birth control and not any of the other mandated coverage?

Excellent question. I think that would be a good idea. Now, why would you allow an employer to exempt such coverage, but you would not afford the same liberty to an employee?

 

[Pho_King]

she's already paying for her health insurance premium, why should she have to pay added costs when mr. viagra doesn't have to pay added costs, mr prostate cancer doesn't have to pay added costs, mr heart disease doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr vasectomy doesn't have to pay added costs, or mr veneral disease doesn't have to pay added costs or have to go buy those services somewhere else.

MOST women on birth control ARE MARRIED btw...

Many men have to pay Viagra out of pocket, because it is not covered under their policy. Seems like women are just as capable.

Except those men are using it EXCLUSIVELY to ****, while most women take BC pills for something other than birth control.

Failing is what you do best.

That is correct. Without the Viagra participation in one or more regular activity of daily life is hampered. Which is why it is generally covered.

 

[daveman]

Taking birth control is being absolved of your choices now? Better tell that to all the women out there who take it to regulate their periods.

Seriously, why does anyone give a **** about this issue? Of course women should have free access to contraceptives. I mean, unless you love all the awesome things that come with over-population?

Of course you do. You're Conservatives. You think this planet will sustain us forever, and if it doesn't WHO CARES! You'll be long dead before it goes kapow, so why try and minimize our impact on it?

...or people could just not have sex until they can pay for their own preventive measures or until they're ready to have children.

It's called "personal responsibility". I understand it's a foreign concept to you.

Oh, so you have no ******* clue what birth control pills are, or how they're used?

Here's a quick primer:

1. Many women take these pills REGARDLESS OF HOW OFTEN THE **** so they can regulate very painful, often often debilitating menstrual issues. I'm sure most of the women you meet at the Early Birds special at the singles bar are all dried up down there, but many, many women take these pills outside the auspices of sex.

2. People ****, Dave. I know you and your fellow Conservatives don't like to hear this, but regardless of all your hand-wringing and Jesus-fying, people still ****. And the **** a lot. They **** so much that without birth control methods readily available, our population will skyrocket, which leads to rampant poverty, which leads to crime, etc. Population control is a GOOD thing.

3. It's not "personal responsibility" that you're preaching. It's trying to curb natural biological impulses in a completely impossible way. My parents are two of the most devout born-again Conservatives you'll ever meet. And when they were 17 they had sex out of wedlock ON PURPOSE to create a baby so they could go live with each other. They're still together now, by the way 40 years in December. So if we know people are going to do this shit, regardless of their upbringing, why not make the good, healthy, and productive means of stemming population growth available?

I know why...because you're old and out of touch.

Yeah. None of that explains why I should have to pay for your choices.

Of course, you have no answer to that, and will instead blather on with mindless profanities and pretend you've won.

Good luck with that.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Many men have to pay Viagra out of pocket, because it is not covered under their policy. Seems like women are just as capable.

Except those men are using it EXCLUSIVELY to ****, while most women take BC pills for something other than birth control.

Failing is what you do best.

That is correct. Without the Viagra participation in one or more regular activity of daily life is hampered. Which is why it is generally covered.

But what if those men are taking viagara and having sex out of wedlock?! Then they could make babies! AND THAT IS WRONG UNLESS JESUS TOLD YOU TO DO IT!!!

I like that you just admitted to the hypocrisy.

So to sum up: In your view, it's fine to cover viagara for men so they can ****, but it's not okay to cover birth control for women so they don't get pregnant when they ****.

This concludes "Stupid ******* Shit Conservatives Say" for today.