Good on her for using the high profile of this event to shed light on the larger problem (and the hypocrisy from the left). Tammy Bruce found the same a decade and a half ago while working in California NOW leadership; leftist politics trumps the righteous cause.

It's as if she has been reading the enlightened comments from the those in the LR that have already pointed this fact out.

I give her kudos for treating this with the seriousness it deserves, and for that fact that she is smoking ass hot and...

I was just trying to figure out which part you were addresing.

I agree it wasnt the best place to voice the fact. I would hope you agree that with the loads of evidence that it is far beyond just his opinion.

From the Limbaugh link I posted earlier:



They wanted to change the whole subject. So how did they do it? Well, the Democrats have their own little subcommittee called the steering committee. This subsets inside the larger oversight and reform committee that Issa chairs. And they wanted their sympathetic witness on the record, Sandra Fluke. So they called her to testify before them, not Issa's committee. The subcommittee. They staged what was essentially a conference to look like a committee hearing. She gave the testimony that she was going to give to the full committee. It was taped and released and made to look like a committee hearing. And Darrell Issa had been right all along. Her testimony was not that of an expert.

It was just another non-expert person in this case, in Sandra's case: A 30-year-old, longtime birth control activist who went back to law school after a career of years of championing birth-control issues. In fact, she told stories less about birth control as a social tool (which was, of course, the left's true agenda) and more about birth control as a medication for treating other conditions, such as pregnancy. To the left, pregnancy is a disease. If you're listening to me for the first time, you may say, "Well, that's crazy." It's not. They treat pregnancy as a disease for political purposes. All of this, folks, is political.

Sandra Fluke gave vague examples based on unnamed friends who she says couldn't afford birth control to treat medical conditions they had, since Georgetown University wouldn't pay for them. Georgetown paid for all of their other medical treatment, but it wouldn't pay for the birth control pills that these doctors prescribed should they be necessary -- or so she says. We still don't know who any of these friends of hers are, these other women, and we don't know what happened to them. Her testimony was hearsay, and it was unprovable. And Issa was right not to let her give the testimony, particularly when the Democrats foisted her on the committee at the very last minute for the express purpose of pulling this fast one, this trick.

Wilson did alright, though, on the fundraising front. I know I sent him 25 bucks after the thing blew up, but that was to make sure the Left didn't capitalize too much on the issue and rake in big bucks for his opponent that year. To this day, I still get a weekly email from the Joe Wilson folks. 'Course, I get 'em from Scott Brown, from Ken Cuccinelli (The Cuccinelli Compass thing), from Alan West, from Marco Rubio, from Rob Portman...you name 'em! ;-)

YaHey wrote:

You realize that she was never arguing for promiscous sex, don't you? She was arguing for contraception for health reasons - like cancer. It is only that fat fuk Limbaugh that has taken it upon himself to call this private woman every vulgar name in the book. What is wrong with that person?

Dude birth control is like $10 a month.

She says she drained her savings to pay for birth control, some $3,000 worth over 3 years (she's a sex addict and a financial idiot.)

What the hell did she buy a gold and diamond encrusted chastity belt?

She's a sex addict that needs help--hopeful she gets treatment for her affliction.

Maybe if she wasn't getting laid so much she would read up on the latest and most cost effective contraception choices: including birth control pills, patches, caps, rings, shots, diaphragms, implants, spermicides (foam, jelly, cream, film), male condoms, female condoms, morning-after pills, Depo-Provera, IUDs, pulling out, tubal ligation etc.

I'm sorry, I don't make the habit of confusing more spending or liberal utopian policies that have done little to pull us out of this mess we are in with success. And if you want to start quoting politifact, how about you include both sides of the coin.

http://www.politifact.com/...ings/promise-broken/

But here are a few of my own that I guage presidential success with.

1. That he would end the recession, are you better off than you were when he was elected.
- 2. Unemployment went up under his watch and went passed the benchmark he promised it wouldn't.
3. Most jobs created under his watch were gov't ones.
4. Wouldn't have lobbyist working in his admin.

I can keep going. But your look a little to bloodied to continue.

It's as if she has been reading the enlightened comments from the those in the LR that have already pointed this fact out.

I give her kudos for treating this with the seriousness it deserves, and for that fact that she is smoking ass hot and...

That is a different argument with infinite possibilities. And is a debate well beyond a one sentence question. They deserve tax benefits because they also provide charitable service which I would argue is the business of a religous organization. In fact, I think they are a better provider than our gov't for such welfare. But if you want to really expand the scope of the discussion by all means. Why should my tax dollars provide food stamps that can be used to buy junkfood contributing to obesity and more health cost, when a charity can do so cheaper, with better controls to prevent fraud? Why should my tax dollars go to fund advocacy groups that steer public policy, in many cases with junk science? Why does my taxpayers dollars go to subsidize alternative fuels that absent subsidies would never pass a cost benefit analysis? On the same note, why are my taxpayers going to oil subsidies that make oil artificially cheap so we do not seek alternative sources of energy? In other words, each issue is complex and goes beyond a simple question. While we are at it, why am I paying income taxes, when for 200 years our federal gov't was funded solely on tariffs and taxes on foreign goods?

So if you want to really discuss this, why don't you give me more details to support your question?

I didn't express a desire to expand the discussion beyond what I questioned. And, IMO, you invalidate the power of your argument for purpose of religious charities when in a post above you write "I'm pretty sure a 10 minute metro ride would get you in close proximity to a public health clinic which would provide all she sought at affordable prices or even free of charge."

This isn't an issue of religious freedom or tyranny. Nobody is mandating that anyone use birth control. It's an issue between employer and employee and the way that Americans have tied health insurance to jobs.

The legislation proposed simply expanded the level of coverage for people to decide for themselves what is right for them rather than an employer dictating for them what they can and can't choose for health care.

Finally, I can say that there are many things I could point to in defense of this president, but I'll choose one that you might consider valid and that is that he got bin Laden...so that's one thing.

Maybe you should lay off the Absolut (es) :-) ....I'm kidding :-)

That is the essence of the whole argument. If you don't think the catholic church or its entities will have to pay for the insurance company providing contraception, than you don't understand economics and how it applies in the market place. There is NO such thing as a free lunch. Insurance companies do not provide any service free of charge. Here in Florida, all health insurance policies must provide hair transplant (in special cases) you don't think that has an added cost to those of us who don't want this coverage. So by mandating they or the insurance company make this a mandatory provision, the church is paying for it. Now I don't agree with them not supporting it, but that is irrellevant. Ultimately the problem lies in how the system is set up, employers being in the insurance business.

The church will still be doing business with insurers adding to their profits enabling them to expand their products provide abortion and birth control to MORE people. And that's just the tip of the hypocrisy of their argument.

In addition, I don't think you understand the economics of the situation. I'm not an expert in insurance but It's my understanding that the cost of providing contraception across an average risk pool is actually cheaper than not so the cost to the church really is really a moot point.

I agree with you on the bolded.

Quote:

chainpin wrote: Yeah I know, she and I along with Meagan Kelly got into a deep discussion over this one night before we turned the lights out.