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

[rightwinger]

They still get abortions. More women have sex, more birth control fails, more abortion. More women get abortions than got abortions before the pill.

Abstenance has failed once again

As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.

In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?

How many would there be with abstenance only and the rhythm method?

 

[RosieS]

This is one of the main pillars of liberalism: Proclaim there must a "separation of church and state" then have the state take over every aspect of our lives, which pushes religion out.

This is what has led to government seeping into health care, and now they are trying to force a religious institution that provides health care to do something against their own religion. Its trying to force religion out of health, to supplant it with government.

The end game is always have the government in charge, and no religion in sight.

To do something against their own religion? To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.

The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.

The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.

Regards from Rosie

If the Catholic Church is already doing it, then why was she there to testify at Capital Hill in order to get the Catholic Church's university to cover it? Can you seriously be this obtuse?

The liberals also want to force Catholic institutions to cover abortion. Case in point: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Radical NY abortion bill could close Catholic hospitals, Church warns

Again, the end game is to force religious institutions out of the health care biz in favor of government run.

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

 

[RosieS]

Want tax exempt status? No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.

The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.

Regards from Rosie

You're either a hypocrite or an unwitting dupe of the Jesuits. You can't have your cake and eat it too. How dare you imply that the state use it's taxing powers against your enemies but not against your friends is not unconstitutional.

My case rests. There is no "separation of Church and State," the state has become corrupt and evil with it's use of the 501c "law," to arbitrarily threaten it's revivals in the social-political sphere of society. Do you think the IRS should go after James Hal Cone's allies, and the POTUS' allies as well?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KF5p57WHE]Black Liberation Theology - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah. . . . some how I thought not.

You cannot argue the points on the merits, so you go off the deep end..

Whoever Cone is, Jeremiah Wright, whoever.....if they are politicking from the pulpit, tax them. If not, not. It is not a complicated concept.

Regards from Rosie

 

[RosieS]

They still get abortions. More women have sex, more birth control fails, more abortion. More women get abortions than got abortions before the pill.

Abstenance has failed once again

As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.

In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?

Abortion works best. It definitely ends an unwanted pregnancy. Prevention should occur before then. If prevention works, abortion is prevented.

Geez, you are confuzzled.

Regards from Rosie

 

[koshergrl]

Abstenance has failed once again

As has the lie that abortion and birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy.

In fact, line the two up...fewer unplanned pregnancies prior to the pill and abortion. Which works better?

Abortion works best. It definitely ends an unwanted pregnancy. Prevention should occur before then. If prevention works, abortion is prevented.

Geez, you are confuzzled.

Regards from Rosie

Apparently prevention doesn't work.

Back to abstinence. The great experiment failed.

 

[koshergrl]

Want tax exempt status? No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.

The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.

Regards from Rosie

You're either a hypocrite or an unwitting dupe of the Jesuits. You can't have your cake and eat it too. How dare you imply that the state use it's taxing powers against your enemies but not against your friends is not unconstitutional.

My case rests. There is no "separation of Church and State," the state has become corrupt and evil with it's use of the 501c "law," to arbitrarily threaten it's revivals in the social-political sphere of society. Do you think the IRS should go after James Hal Cone's allies, and the POTUS' allies as well?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KF5p57WHE"]Black Liberation Theology - YouTube[/ame]

Yeah. . . . some how I thought not.

You cannot argue the points on the merits, so you go off the deep end..

Whoever Cone is, Jeremiah Wright, whoever.....if they are politicking from the pulpit, tax them. If not, not. It is not a complicated concept.

Regards from Rosie

You wouldn't know a merit if it sat on your face and wiggled.

I assume you also intend to tax the crap out of planned parenthood?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are not God, the government is not God. Hence the separation of Church and State, they are two separate things.

That's a myth we are conditioned with in school as children. There was never meant to be a "separation of Church and State." The first amendment of the constitution states that the congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion. This Amendment has already been heinously violated numerous times, much to the corruption and defiling of our elected representatives in government.

The constitution and the republic of the United States was only meant for a spiritual and moral people. Once they lose their faith, the republic will devolve into a authoritarian hell and a police state.

There are not many faiths left that don't have a gag order on them. Most comply with 501c regulations. What does this mean? It means they will not talk about politics or engage in political activity amongst their flock out of fear. However, THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How can faith educate the populace about corruption and evil in government if they don't even talk about it and campaign against it? They can't. Find and read the book, "In Caesar's Grip," to fully understand this issue. But you won't find it in any public library or school library. Heaven forbid people with souls and a conscious should take back their nation.

It is not unconstitutional. Churches and church people at church can talk about politics all they want. If it is during religious services, the church property is subject to taxation.

Want tax exempt status? No politicking. Not a thing wrong with people separating campaign stops from church. Won't do it? Take back your nation while paying your fair share.

The IRS needs to enforce taxing those churches that had campaigning within in 2012.

Regards from Rosie

Let me make this simple for you.

The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

It does not say Congress shall make no law unless we are talking about taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Besides, women like Sandra Fluke are lesbian. Chances of accidentally getting pregnant are pretty slim.

But Rush said she is a slut.....Which is it?

You can't be a slutty lesbian?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Read this thread

It is quite interesting

I have, which is why I know no one opposed to the birth control mandate, even Rush, ever said that birth control is more expensive if you have more sex. Feel free to provide the quote to prove me wrong.

You're actually arguing the Limblob side without being aware of this??

"She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception." -- Limblob, 2/29

"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control." -- Limblob, 3/1

And in this thread, this was a classic -- I include the whole quote for the fuzzy linear time logic:

The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character. Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.

“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." -- Sandra Fluke

If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.

::urp:: I gotta get off this low-hanging fruit diet...

I was right then, he did not say contraception cost more if you have more sex, you just want to pretend he did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To do something against their own religion? To be competitive, the health insurance of lay employees includes birth control.

The students are not asking for anything the Catholic Church hasn't already been doing.

The "religious freedom" argument is a red herring.

Regards from Rosie

If the Catholic Church is already doing it, then why was she there to testify at Capital Hill in order to get the Catholic Church's university to cover it? Can you seriously be this obtuse?

The liberals also want to force Catholic institutions to cover abortion. Case in point: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Radical NY abortion bill could close Catholic hospitals, Church warns

Again, the end game is to force religious institutions out of the health care biz in favor of government run.

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.

 

[logical4u]

[

Again, where was the Catholic Church when it's priests were molesting altar boys?

They were trying to stop the molestation of alter boys. They were naive in believing homosexual pedophiles when they said they would stop. They have been working on correcting this problem for a very long time. They have one of the lowest incidents for child molestation among any predominant group..

That's simply not true. Frankly, I grew up Catholic, we all knew back then (like in the 1970's) the priests were a little weird and you didn't want to be alone with one of them.

The Catholic Church just didn't "believe" the pedophiles (some of whom molested girls as well as boys, not that that should make a difference). They actively paid off families, having them sign non-disclosure agreements. They moved priests to other parishes without warning those communities.

If you really care to be educated on this subject, I would suggest you rent a movie called Deliver us from Evil. It tells the story of Fr. O'Grady in CA, who was moved from Parish to Parish without any warning to families.

[Now, where are you critizing school teachers for molesting children? Gov't congressmen? State run institutions entrusted with the care of children? Other religious groups? Universities? What a sad little hypocrit you are.

Actually, I was very strongly critical of teacher's unions that protect teachers accused of molestation. Particularly the one who has been collecting a salary for 12 years because they don't dare put him back in a classroom, but the unions have made it impossible to fire him.

[If a group, a person is operating a business, they do not check their personal beliefs at the door (in many cases that is what makes the business successful). The gov't has no "right" to tell them what they "shall" provide. They can ensure safety, they can try to ensure that no discrimmination or abuse occurs, but they cannot tell the employer what to provide in the way of benefits. Each business that provides health insurance selects that insurance from what is on the market. The gov't has no "authority" to decide what those options are.

Actually,the government has every right under the interstate commerce clause.[/QUOTE]

The interstate commerce clause is the most abused "clause" in the Constitution. It was to prevent states from abusing citizens and businesses of other states, not to allow the gov't to decide how those businesses are run.

 

[logical4u]

Oh, SNAP! Reply perfection.

Pick your ass up, Logical. You aren't supposed to drop it when it is handed to you.

Regards from Rosie

Another biggoted and intolerant liberal?

No, jenius, just another observant and accurate liberal. We're EVERYWHERE.

Regards from Rosie

Yep, no apprehension about "shoving your beliefs" onto everyone else.

 

[koshergrl]

I notice that Rosie disappeared when faced with the fact that PP also publicly throws itself into politics.

Can't interfere with abortion money. That would violate our right to kill certain people, under certain circumstances!!! It's so much more important that religious freedom, after all.

 

[Pogo]

I have, which is why I know no one opposed to the birth control mandate, even Rush, ever said that birth control is more expensive if you have more sex. Feel free to provide the quote to prove me wrong.

You're actually arguing the Limblob side without being aware of this??

"She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception." -- Limblob, 2/29

"A Georgetown coed told Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke, so you and I should have to pay for their birth control." -- Limblob, 3/1

And in this thread, this was a classic -- I include the whole quote for the fuzzy linear time logic:

The only person that commited "character assassination" was Sandra Fluke, destroying her own character. Don't blame Rush for pointing that out.

“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." -- Sandra Fluke

If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute.

::urp:: I gotta get off this low-hanging fruit diet...

I was right then, he did not say contraception cost more if you have more sex, you just want to pretend he did.

Oh come off it, you're embarrassing yourself. All three of those statements are a comparison of degree: "so much that she can't afford" means what she can afford, and therefore how much it costs, depends on how much sex she has. "So much sex that they're going broke" -- exactly the same thing; "if they were having less sex, they wouldn't go broke". Both of these require a direct relationship between the cost of birth control and the amount of sex. I can't believe I have to actually explain this to anyone who's presumably attained the age of six who speaks English.

Then there's "If a woman is spending 3k a year on contraception then she must be a prostitute", a veritable Certs roll of logical fallacies, which like the two Limblob idiocies, lives ignorant of the fact that birth control is a fixed expense regardless whether the woman is having "much" sex or no sex at all, ergo how much sex a woman has changes the expense of BC not one iota.

I can't believe you're actually willing to play this dumb. You have no shame.

 

[logical4u]

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).

Will this be enough for you to "change your opinion" of the democrat party, or is this just more hype from another brainwashed liberal that thinks it is perfectly acceptable for the President to hang with people that use "ho", "bitch", and worse names for women, but want to pretend you are offended when Rush says that a woman in her late twenties asking the congress of the USA (there on taxpayers' dimes) to force the free market insurance to "give" her birth control, and that she cannot afford birth control, is a slut?

 

[Pogo]

If the Catholic Church is already doing it, then why was she there to testify at Capital Hill in order to get the Catholic Church's university to cover it? Can you seriously be this obtuse?

The liberals also want to force Catholic institutions to cover abortion. Case in point: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Radical NY abortion bill could close Catholic hospitals, Church warns

Again, the end game is to force religious institutions out of the health care biz in favor of government run.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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 --

 

[logical4u]

To distance yourself from the Republican party because of what Rush said is silly to me.
Just like the Libs blaming all the problems of the world on president Bush is just as silly.

On this issue, it's not just because of what Rush said, it's that no one in the Republican Party stood up on behalf of Sandra Fluke or defended her right to speak to the Committee. In fact, is they said anything at all, they defended Rush and his comments.

When you also consider that the only states putting impediments in the way of women obtaining abortions in the form of transvaginal ultrasounds, are all Republican states, and that all of the legitimate rape guys are Republicans. The same people who don't want to have businesses regulated, sure do want to have women regulated.

As long as Republicans talk about women's reproductive issues as something they have a right to control, women will not vote Republican. Not the smart ones anyway.

Please list the Republicans that want to "control" women's reproductive issues.
Are they suggesting women be forced into having abortions?
Are they suggesting women be kept in prison like enclosures for "birthing"?

People that do not want to "pay" for other peoples' reproductive issues are not trying to control those people. They are suggesting that those people should be responsible for their own actions.
If you don't want a child:
Don't have sex
Use birth control that is available for on the spot sex
Use a birth control that is medically received
Use an IUD
Have your tubes stapled
Use an inexpensive timing and temperature method (that requires personal responsibility).

If "you" choose not to do any of those and end up with a child in your womb, do not ask other people to pay for the murder of that child.

There is no "force" there. It is just your deception against others to "force" them to pay for something that is the resposibilty of the person engaging in the sexual act and the consequenses of said act.

 

[logical4u]

Didn't Sara Fluke testify that she wanted government mandated insurance to pay for her birth control? I'd call her a slut.

Every time a Republican supporter calls Fluke a slut, a bell rings, and another feminist is born angel gets his wings.

Yeah... the same "feminist"s that are speaking up against the muslims beating, raping, mutilating, and murdering women all over the world, including the USA. The same women that are speaking up against rappers that use worse language for women and "sing" about hurting women using sex. The silence is deafening......
Oh, that's right, you only do "imagined" outrage.

 

[PredFan]

I'll side with Rush on anything if it will make lefties piss their panties in anger. Always cracks me up.