See. Here we go. WTF are you talking about? On 3/4/2012 10:36 PM, Sam wrote:
> I debate quite well. Problem is when you are set in your decisions > before hand and are shown the truth. What decision was I set in? > It seems to frustrate you. What, being shown "the truth"? Yes > you hate Limbaugh and many do. But the outrage you have is over a > false issue. I am not outraged. I just think the man is a dick and what he said was completely uncalled for. It's so bad you can't even argue your point. My nonexistent outrage? You haven't > made any points, I didn't feel I needed to point out most of the obvious. I guess I was wrong. you just asked questions and seemed surprise the > answers weren't what you expected. I don't think I have been surprised except by some of the loony interpretations you have come up with. I have clearly stated my position 3 times on two topics. Let me list them for you. 1. Rush was a bigger jerk than usual and some people have good cause to be upset with him. 2. No insurance for purely birth control. 3. The insurers seem to be using the "no birth control" clause to deny coverage in situations where it is needed for other medical conditions. It is apparently a wide spread problem. I think someone needs to jerk a knot in the insurance group's tail. No analysis of these opinions need suffer at the expense of another. I am more than capable of keeping track of 3 opinions on two different topics. So, your claim that some mystical outrage is messing with my judgement is flat out wrong. Frankly, I don't care beyond that I can understand where she is coming from and something probably does need to be done. Other places where you are wrong: She did not ask for coverage for birth control so she can go out and bone 5 guys a day. She gave speciffic examples of how some women were denied coverage even though they had a medical need, because someone insisted that they just wanted the pill. This led to some severe consequences. You have addressed none of this beyond saying that you read it. The fact that she is some kind of crusader and went looking for this fight is irrelevant. The problem still exists with or without her. You did hilight this, which is interesting, but ultimately a useless tangent. Stop with the numbers. The actual dollar amounts are not relevant to her testimony and any she gave were likely anecdotal anyway. This one you can't seem to let go of this one. Stop with the "you are only angry because the left told you to be" bullshit. What Rush said is wrong on any side of the fence. What some democrat did similarly 3 months ago is no longer relevant to THIS discussion. Now, what exactly are your arguments or problems with what she said, now that we are ignoring Rush and all of the other stupid tangents? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347970 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
