Rush Limbaugh And Sandra Fluke

[DirtyJosé]

It may seem like I take this shit personally, but I don't, and I am reasonably sure they don't either. It's a wrestling forum, not life or death.

With the RageWordForts you post like this, you do a pretty bad job hiding it.

 

[Davi323]

So....because they do it, it's ok.

No, but because they also do it, complaining about it is stupid. There is a difference.

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite Simpsons quotes:

Nelson: Hah-hah! Your mom's a jailbird!
Bart: So's yours.
Nelson: Oh yeah.

 

[klunderbunker]

No, but because they also do it, complaining about it is stupid. There is a difference.

Reminds me of one of my all-time favorite Simpsons quotes:

Nelson: Hah-hah! Your mom's a jailbird!
Bart: So's yours.
Nelson: Oh yeah.

You could make threads about the Dems being stupid too. There's really nothing stopping you.

 

[DirtyJosé]

But you don't get it, KB. He's taking it personally! You're attacking him by making your opinion of a known right wing blowhard known. You must be some sort of filthy liberal because no one else could POSSIBLY have opinions that aren't mine.

 

[Davi323]

Only if you promise to respond, KB so I can write "typical BS liberal response" when you do...

I am sure I will think about it as we get closer to the elections and the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, but right now, you guys don't have a whole lot going on. No point to it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Only if you promise to respond, KB so I can write "typical BS liberal response" when you do...

I am sure I will think about it as we get closer to the elections and the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, but right now, you guys don't have a whole lot going on. No point to it.

Other than getting out of Iraq, the DOW hitting 13,000 again, the jobs reports being awesome month after month, 24 months of positive job growth, Obama pulling ahead in polls against all Republican presidential candidates, stuff like Limbaugh making the GOP look stupid, Romney and Santorum looking like the worse candidates in recent history, you're right. It SUCKS to be on the good side right now.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Silly. Republicans don't care about that. Women might be taking birth control, and dudes might be kissing. THAT'S what is important in the world.

 

[Slyfox696]

Silly. Republicans don't care about that. Women might be taking birth control, and dudes might be kissing. THAT'S what is important in the world.

It's what kind George W. Bush elected.

Well, that plus a cigar and a white stained dress.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Let me explain to you KBs stance, using a different drug.
KB thinks the government should pay for everyone to use Marijuana. He doesn't care that the vast majority of users use it for recreational use. There are some people who use it for medicinal purposes, so taxpayers should pay for everyone to use it.

I didn't read past the first 50 posts of this entire thread, but did someone explain to Stormy that the taxpayer wouldn't be paying for the pill?

Did anyone go into detail about how Fluke's stance is that it should be legally mandated to be covered in health insurance policies, just like how a lot of other things are, which is the opposite of the taxpayer paying for it?

Or are we just crying about how all women are ****s?

Edit: Okay, good. Slyfox got to it. Had me worried there for a second.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Sorry, but if you can afford 41k for undergraduate studies and 47k for Georgetown Law, I think you should be able to scrape together 9 bucks a month for birth control if you really need it. Skip Starbucks on your way to class twice, you already have the cash saved. To ask the US govenment to subsidize something you can get completely uninsured for 9 bucks a month is ridiculous.

Remember when I said I like you outside of political discussions?

Sigh.

This is $88,000 in student loans that get dispersed to them in sections, by semester, based on what the school thinks they need. You just made horrible, disgusting assumptions on how college students live, and you sound out-of-touch, and deluded as fuck because of it.

I know someone who got a full-ride scholarship to their school, but they're still scraping the bottom for pennies trying to survive without the constant help of mom and dad.

All that being said, if you think a monthly set of birth control pills costs 9 dollars, then you need to brush up on your reproductive medication knowledge.

It's more like $70 a month. I don't know where you're getting your information about it being 9 dollars, but birth control is a doctor prescription and costs an entire vagina a month without insurance.

Also, no self-respecting college kid goes anywhere near a Starbucks without a trust fund.

This is what you really meant, isn't it? That is what you claimed when you red repped me after all...even though to the best of my knowledge, Sandra Fluke is in fact, white herself.

I am simply doing what I always do. Point the hypocrisy of the selective outrage. KB is always creating threads mocking something a conservative does, and then when I point out just how hypocritical it is, he counters with what he always counters with: "typical conservative/Republican BS response". He deflects when his hypocrisy is pointed out. It's always the same. Rather than acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy, it's always I make fun of them, so you have to make fun of us...as if that somehow justifies the hypocrisy in the first place. If you are going to post a thread about stupid things Republicans do, you have to expect it to be thrown right back in your face. If I posted a thread about stupid things Democrats do, I would feel neglected if KB or Sly didn't come in and point out MY hypocrisy. As one of the few vocal conservatives on Wrestlezone, I simply can't let liberalism go unchecked. It's my solemn duty.

I think if you just admitted the fact that what Rush Limbaugh said makes him a morally reprehensible (let's be honest, downright despicable) human being instead of spending all your energy attacking straw men, this argument wouldn't be happening right now.

This could have been a debate about why both sides of the argument either agree or disagree, but it was thrown off topic, talking about bad things both republitards and demoshits say to each other, as if any of that shit even matters.

 

[Remix]

What we REALLY gathered out of this:
Women who use Birth Control to have promiscuous unprotected sex are ****es. Since, well, the definition of a ****e is just that.

Actually the definition of a ****e is someone who gets paid for sex. It's possible to be promiscuous without being a ****e.

Never once did I say that. I have stated every time that the PRIMARY reason for people taking it is that.

1 third of women of reproductive age in the UK take the pill. Are you implying that one in three women are ****e Stormtrooper?

People Take Birth Control pills because their side effects help.

No, Stormy they take the contraceptive pill for things like polycystic ovarian and acne syndrome because its method of action (screwing with hormone levels) is an effective treatment for what causes those conditions (hormonal imbalances).

1. I never once said that the government SHOULD pay for Viagra.

Good. Because the government almost certainly wouldn't for the average person. Unless there's a medical reason you can't get it up, (e.g. diabetes) you can pay for your own damn errection inducer. However, since pregnancy is kind of a big deal and significantly affects the health and wellbeing of the mother contraceptive pills don't quite fall into the same category.

2. Even then, Viagra has the primary function of allowing reproduction. Birth Control has the exact opposite function.

No. It has the primary function of dilating blood vessels. The fact that it allows for easy errections was literally a lucky side effect (it was intended to be used to treat heart conditions. true story). Also, birth control has multiple health benefits other than preventing pregnancy which Viagra doesn't.

When someone has a problem, we should give them a medication for said problem. We shouldn't give them a different product that happens to have a side effect.

There are two types of drug. Those that have side effects, and those that don't work. Also, it's not the side effect of the pill that makes them effective treatments for menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea and acne. That's just how they work. They also seem to be effective in reducing cervical cancer, and treating endometriosis.

And you want a very easy solution to this: here you go.
Women with painful periods want something to help them? Give them hormones that will lighten periods. Give them a 30 day prescription for the pill, with 5 pills (or whatever would be enough to curb the period, but not let them have unprotected promiscuous sex without reprocussions), which the government pays for. The result is less-painful periods, and you aren't paying for promiscuity.

What, you mean exactly the same hormones that are in contraceptive pills? Yeah, great thinking there Stormy.

KB doesn't know what he's talking about, nor does he know me.

I however do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand do not. As evidenced by your complete idiocy in the post I've been disecting. Word of advise, don't tell anyone that they don't know what they're talking about unless you know what you're talking about.

Let me explain to you KBs stance, using a different drug.
KB thinks the government should pay for everyone to use Marijuana. He doesn't care that the vast majority of users use it for recreational use. There are some people who use it for medicinal purposes, so taxpayers should pay for everyone to use it.

Oh where to begin. I'll go sentence by sentence.

1) The government wouldn't pay for everyone to use contraceptive pills. There are some who wouldn't take them for a variety of reasons, some who are too old to need them and then half the population has a penis.
2) I'd argue that prevention or pregnancy using the pill is a medical use, rather than recreational. Especially when you consider how it works. Condoms are recreational, but seeing as you have to take COC or POP well in advance of coitus, on a regular basis (i.e. even if you weren't planning on any "recreation" any time soon) and for at least a week before it becomes effective on its own that's not really recreational, is it? It's not "take one pill before having sex and you won't get pregnant".
3) And those medical reasons (even ignoring pregnancy) are certainly valid enough to warrent them being paid for like any other medicine that can be used recreationally (such as nitrates, which can be used treat or prevent angina attacks or relaxing the anal sphincter before anal sex).

Game.
Set.
Match

/thread

I quite agree. Except that you're the one who's been bageled in all three sets.

 

[Loveless]

Let me explain to you KBs stance, using a different drug.
KB thinks the government should pay for everyone to use Marijuana. He doesn't care that the vast majority of users use it for recreational use. There are some people who use it for medicinal purposes, so taxpayers should pay for everyone to use it.

Game.
Set.
Match

/thread

I must have missed this particular bit of stupidity in amongst the rest of it.
This theory that the contraceptive pill is for recreational purposes is nothing short of ******ed. It's the sex that may (or may not) be recreational but frankly that's irrelevant & none of your business. Whether you're fucking 1 person or 50 doesn't matter a single fuck.
The purpose of the pill is quite simple, to prevent an unwanted medical condition (and yes it is a medical condition, Davi ) that is an expensive, painful, life consuming occupation. It's preventative medicine, just like innoculations.
Finally to give you a metaphor that actually works. A guy goes for a recreational ride on a bike (let's call him Bret). He doesn't wear a helmet because it's fun, he wears it so that if he happens to hit a bump in the road, he doesn't end up completely fucked.

Your move, Genius.

 

[Moon Knight]

I'll make this short, mostly because I really don't care much about this. I don't give a damn about Limbuagh, Sandra or anything related to either of them. Limbaugh is a mostly ignorant troll looking for attention and she is boring bitch who is making his comments bigger than they need or should be taken. I saw her on The View and is trying to make this some sort of sweeping problem, it's not, it's one dude making a comment and nothing more. (I am talking about Limbaughs comment, nothing else)

 

[Moon Knight]

You could make threads about the Dems being stupid too. There's really nothing stopping you.

He could, but threads like that tend to end quickly and not very well. Depends on the poster and what evidence he is using.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I didn't read past the first 50 posts of this entire thread, but did someone explain to Stormy that the taxpayer wouldn't be paying for the pill?

Did anyone go into detail about how Fluke's stance is that it should be legally mandated to be covered in health insurance policies, just like how a lot of other things are, which is the opposite of the taxpayer paying for it?

Or are we just crying about how all women are ****s?

Edit: Okay, good. Slyfox got to it. Had me worried there for a second.

Yeah, thanks for bringing up a week old post way after the fact.

Fine, the "Taxpayers" won't pay for it. The POLICYHOLDERS will. As in all the policyholders, just so that women can have their promiscuous sex-pills.

Who are the Policyholders? Taxpayers.

Ergo, the Taxpayers are paying for it.

Actually the definition of a ****e is someone who gets paid for sex. It's possible to be promiscuous without being a ****e.

Actually, the definition of ****e includes someone who just has promiscuous sex. transfer of money or services not required. I already posted the very definition of the word ****e, but you obviously cannot read.

1 third of women of reproductive age in the UK take the pill. Are you implying that one in three women are ****e Stormtrooper?

I have always referred to the fact that they shouldn't be on Birth Control, rather they should be on a separate product marketed for, and designed for an actual medicinal purpose, not anti-preggo pills.

No, Stormy they take the contraceptive pill for things like polycystic ovarian and acne syndrome because its method of action (screwing with hormone levels) is an effective treatment for what causes those conditions (hormonal imbalances).

As I said, why are they on BIRTH CONTROL? They should be on polycystic ovarian and acne syndrome control.

Good. Because the government almost certainly wouldn't for the average person. Unless there's a medical reason you can't get it up, (e.g. diabetes) you can pay for your own damn errection inducer. However, since pregnancy is kind of a big deal and significantly affects the health and wellbeing of the mother contraceptive pills don't quite fall into the same category.

Again, the government seems to feel that reproduction is something that should be allowed, not prevented. Hence why they allow viagra, and not birth control.

No. It has the primary function of dilating blood vessels. The fact that it allows for easy errections was literally a lucky side effect (it was intended to be used to treat heart conditions. true story). Also, birth control has multiple health benefits other than preventing pregnancy which Viagra doesn't.

No, VIAGRA was designed for boner-giving. Maybe whatever the chemical composition that Viagra is was originally developed as a possible Blood Vessel Dialator, but Viagra is, was, and always has been marketed and approved as a boner-giver, and that's all. I do not ever recall seeing an ad for Viagra the Brood Vessel Dialator. And since there's a medical condition that Viagra was marketed and approved for, it is covered by insurance. Since BIRTH CONTROL isn't a medical condition, it isn't approved.

There are two types of drug. Those that have side effects, and those that don't work. Also, it's not the side effect of the pill that makes them effective treatments for menorrhagia, dysmenorrhea and acne. That's just how they work. They also seem to be effective in reducing cervical cancer, and treating endometriosis.

What, you mean exactly the same hormones that are in contraceptive pills? Yeah, great thinking there Stormy.

yes, as I have already mentioned. It actually is a damn good idea. Market it as HORMONES, USED TO REDUCE PERIODS AND WHATEVER ELSE IT DOES, and insurance pays for enough to help with whatever your health issue is. Be it a week to lighten a period, or more for cancer or whatever. Insurance should not ever pay for a contraceptive, since the contraceptive has one purpose.

I however do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand do not. As evidenced by your complete idiocy in the post I've been disecting. Word of advise, don't tell anyone that they don't know what they're talking about unless you know what you're talking about.

I however do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand do not. As evidenced by your complete idiocy in the post I've been disecting. Word of advise, don't tell anyone that they don't know what they're talking about unless you know what you're talking about.

Oh where to begin. I'll go sentence by sentence.

1) The government wouldn't pay for everyone to use contraceptive pills. There are some who wouldn't take them for a variety of reasons, some who are too old to need them and then half the population has a penis.

The government/insurance shouldn't pay for everyone to have risk-free sex. They should pay to fix a health issue. That's 2 separate issues.

2) I'd argue that prevention or pregnancy using the pill is a medical use, rather than recreational. Especially when you consider how it works. Condoms are recreational, but seeing as you have to take COC or POP well in advance of coitus, on a regular basis (i.e. even if you weren't planning on any "recreation" any time soon) and for at least a week before it becomes effective on its own that's not really recreational, is it? It's not "take one pill before having sex and you won't get pregnant".

Which is why my solution is perfect. It allows for the medicinal use, but not the contraceptive use.

3) And those medical reasons (even ignoring pregnancy) are certainly valid enough to warrent them being paid for like any other medicine that can be used recreationally (such as nitrates, which can be used treat or prevent angina attacks or relaxing the anal sphincter before anal sex).

As I've said every time I've posted. Again, I give a perfectly good solution, but not a single person is smart enough to understand it.

Damn shame.

I quite agree. Except that you're the one who's been bageled in all three sets.

Not really. In fact, you replying to this just proves how fucking stupid you are, and that I already won. I had said pretty much everything I said here, but you are too stupid and short-sighted to notice it.

Learn to read, jackass.

 

[Stormtrooper]

I must have missed this particular bit of stupidity in amongst the rest of it.
This theory that the contraceptive pill is for recreational purposes is nothing short of ******ed. It's the sex that may (or may not) be recreational but frankly that's irrelevant & none of your business. Whether you're fucking 1 person or 50 doesn't matter a single fuck.
The purpose of the pill is quite simple, to prevent an unwanted medical condition (and yes it is a medical condition, Davi ) that is an expensive, painful, life consuming occupation. It's preventative medicine, just like innoculations.

It's funny. Last I checked, pregnancy was an absolute necessity for human survival. Without pregnancy, the human race would be extinct.

And yes, sex is either recreational or criminal. And it doesn't matter how many people you fuck.

I shouldn't have to pay to allow you to be able to fuck 50 people risk free. You want me to. I think you're a dumbass for that.

Finally to give you a metaphor that actually works. A guy goes for a recreational ride on a bike (let's call him Bret). He doesn't wear a helmet because it's fun, he wears it so that if he happens to hit a bump in the road, he doesn't end up completely fucked.

Your move, Genius.

My metaphor worked perfectly. You guys think that the government/insurance companies/taxpayers should pay for a recreational drug. I have said every time that recreational use of a medication should be paid by the user. Medicinal use should be paid by the insurance companies.

You saying birth control is like a bike helmet is stupid. There is no recreational use for a helmet. It's only purpose is protection from life threatening injury/protection. Birth Control is recreational (just like Marijuana) that has a medicinal side effect. The fixing of the side effect should be paid for, not the recreational.





Here's the problem with all you people. Lets say that Birth Control is mandated to be covered by insurance companies. 3 months later, you all will complain that your insurance rates will go up. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Yeah, thanks for bringing up a week old post way after the fact.

Fine, the "Taxpayers" won't pay for it. The POLICYHOLDERS will. As in all the policyholders, just so that women can have their promiscuous sex-pills.

Who are the Policyholders? Taxpayers.

Ergo, the Taxpayers are paying for it.

Firstly, yeah, everyone is a taxpayer. But you brought up the term "taxpayer" as if tax dollars are relevant to anything. You're so wrong, even your semantics argument is shady.

Secondly, how many times is it going to be explained to you that birth control pills do far more than just prevent pregnancy?

Lastly, who gives a shit how old your post is? You're still in this thread, and you haven't changed your opinion. How does me responding to it make it any less correct?

 

[Davi323]

The purpose of the pill is quite simple, to prevent an unwanted medical condition (and yes it is a medical condition, Davi ) that is an expensive, painful, life consuming occupation. It's preventative medicine, just like innoculations.

Let's say for the sake of argument it is a medical condition, even though it isn't...it's a medical condition that is 100% preventable for free.

Finally to give you a metaphor that actually works. A guy goes for a recreational ride on a bike (let's call him Bret). He doesn't wear a helmet because it's fun, he wears it so that if he happens to hit a bump in the road, he doesn't end up completely fucked.

Your move, Genius.

Did the government provide Bret's bicycle helmet, or was Bret responsible to purchase his own?

YOUR MOVE, GENIUS.

 

[Davi323]

Define hypocrisy:

Calling Sandra Fluke because you want to set a good example for your two daughters who shouldn't have to be exposed to the degradation of women, then refusing to give back the $1,000,000 Super PAC donation from a guy that routinely calls women bitches, ****s, ****es, bimbos, ***** and *****.

Message is: calling someone a **** is a vile, despicable thing...but I will gladly accept their money for my re-election campaign. Good example to set.

 

[klunderbunker]

Let's say for the sake of argument it is a medical condition, even though it isn't...it's a medical condition that is 100% preventable for free.

For the sake of clarification, how would that be?

 

[Davi323]

For the sake of clarification, how would that be?

Abstinence, maybe? Not having vaginal intercourse? If you are that hard up for cash that you can't afford birth control, maybe you shouldn't be having sex. Pregnancy is one of the more well established potential consequences to having sex, after all. People have only been aware of that risk for what, 150 thousand years now? If you need to experience sexual gratification with your partner, there are other ways to get your rocks off without risking pregnancy too.

If I choose to, I can also protect my liver by not drinking and I can protect my lungs by not smoking too. Neither of those preventative measures costs me a damn thing either.

Either way, it should be up to those engaging in the sexual act to provide their own protection if needed. To use Loveless's foolishly chosen analogy, Bret has to buy his own helmet if he wants to protect his head while riding a bicycle.

 

[Stormtrooper]

This thread should be renamed:

FREE GOVERNMENT/INSURANCE COMPANY SPONSORED HEROIN FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean hell, that's what all you dumbasses want, anyway.

And I can't believe KB didn't know the only way to 100% guarantee pregnancy doesn't happen. Kinda sad.

 

[Davi323]

This thread should be renamed:

FREE GOVERNMENT/INSURANCE COMPANY SPONSORED HEROIN FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean hell, that's what all you dumbasses want, anyway.

And I can't believe KB didn't know the only way to 100% guarantee pregnancy doesn't happen. Kinda sad.

I am sure he did...he was just playing dumb to see how I would respond to it.

 

[klunderbunker]

Abstinence, maybe? Not having vaginal intercourse? If you are that hard up for cash that you can't afford birth control, maybe you shouldn't be having sex. Pregnancy is one of the more well established potential consequences to having sex, after all. People have only been aware of that risk for what, 150 thousand years now? If you need to experience sexual gratification with your partner, there are other ways to get your rocks off without risking pregnancy too.

If I choose to, I can also protect my liver by not drinking and I can protect my lungs by not smoking too. Neither of those preventative measures costs me a damn thing either.

So, to summarize:

Due to being born a certain gender, some people (as in men) can have sex when they like regardless of cash because they won't get pregnant. Women however need to have money to afford it because they might get pregnant. Even though there is a pill that can easily prevent this, is cheaply available and has other medical incentives, it should not be provided to women, meaning that the ability to have sex should be an advantage that men continue to have because they were born with it.

I think that summarizes this whole argument nicely: men can have sex because they were born men, but women have to earn the right to have sex because they were born women.

 

[Davi323]

So, to summarize:

Due to being born a certain gender, some people (as in men) can have sex when they like regardless of cash because they won't get pregnant. Women however need to have money to afford it because they might get pregnant. Even though there is a pill that can easily prevent this, is cheaply available and has other medical incentives, it should not be provided to women, meaning that the ability to have sex should be an advantage that men continue to have because they were born with it.

I think that summarizes this whole argument nicely: men can have sex because they were born men, but women have to earn the right to have sex because they were born women.

Were did I ever state that men should EVER be excused from their responsibility? Seriously? You have to resort to flat out lying about what I wrote in order to provide some defense of your position? Where did I ever state that the responsibility of COST for the birth control should rest squarely on the woman? Cash handed over to the pharmacist from a man's wallet pays for birth control just as well as cash coming out of a woman's purse. At no point did I EVER state men shouldn't have to share responsiblity.

Are you really that desperate, that you have to make shit up about what I said?