On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/sandra-flukes-appearance-is-no-fluke/ > > For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving coed.
"Co-ed" is an antiquated term. Referring to a female student as such is demeaning. It suggests that a special allowance was made for her to be attending the school because she is not of a privileged (read: male) set. > I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a > Georgetown law student. She *is* a law student. Got a link to an article that says she's not? > It was then revealed that prior to attending > Georgetown she was an active womens right advocate. So? Oh holy hell, Sam, you're not next going to suggest that she's uppity, too, are you? > In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed > Georgetowns insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and > seeing that it didnt cover contraceptive services, she decided to > attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. And? Being an active member of the Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ) I would imagine she might indeed have something to say on the subject. > During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. By whom? Media outlets? Herself? Whom? You provide no link to a source on what must be, surely by now, called "age-gate"... Because what else should we talk about but her age and her subjective attractiveness (as you do in a later post in this thread "You obviously haven't seen her photo :) Makes me wonder how she finds five victims a day")? From that statement I can derive that you don't find her attractive, and since you don't find her attractive, it must be inconceivable that anyone else does. Therefore, I gather, I your opinion, her message should be suspect. > Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of > contraception, she > appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, > in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed > that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all > along. Why, again, would her age matter? > In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist > all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to > play her. Oh bullshit, Sam. Really? Played? She's a woman, a law student an a member of an organization which focuses on reproductive justice. I'd say and that makes her a damn-sight better qualified to testify on women's reproductive issues than any of these clergymen: http://www.thenation.com/blog/166311/republican-hearing-contraception-no-women-allowed > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Eric Roberts > <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: >> >> LOL.. She lied...LOL...talk about tools. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347849 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
