On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:38 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> 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?
You don't like Rush and that's fine. No matter what I say won't change that and that's understood. But in your dislike in Rush you can not and never will accept his comments as anything but offensive. I'll add that they are offensive but only slightly. >> It seems to frustrate you. > > What, being shown "the truth"? That it's not an issue to be upset about or even give a crap about but you want to be mad. > You haven't >> made any points, > > I didn't feel I needed to point out most of the obvious. I guess I was > wrong. So you find it extremely offensive, no matter what I say you will not budge on that. I do not agree with you and I've explained why. You're arguments is "I should have to state the obvious" No offense but are you angry you can't change my opinion? I know I won't change your opinion so I'm not upset either way. > 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. Loony? Not at all. > 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. My question is are they upset with him because he exists or because of what he said? Where the same people upset with the things said about the Tea-partiers, Palin and family, Bush etc. If they weren't, and that's my point, it's fake outrage. Either your offended whenever it happens or your carrying the water the left. > 2. No insurance for purely birth control. What does that even mean? You don't support insurance for bc? That's what you are defending. That's what Fluke wants. > 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. And that will not change. If they are forced to give everyone condoms and your doctor prescribes an $80-a-month pill the insurance will likely cover the $9 version which will be useless. Georgetown University provides contraception coverage for it's employees on their medical plan. That means it's not a religious issue. It's a money issue. It's the cheap plan offered for kids in school and the plan doesn't cover it. If you want a plan that does you can get one for about the same price but different things are covered. See your argument is the insurance isn't honoring it's promise and maybe changing an unrelated law would fix that. It won't. We need to force insurance co's to pay when thy are supposed to. Totally unrelated issue. She was using a couple of girls with cancer that weren't getting covered as a reason to give away free condoms. What she described is criminal and unrelated. > 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. "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, thats practically an entire summers salary." If she's implying she can't afford the $3000 for contraception why can't others assume she's a slut? Her examples were of two or three girls but she's see's it in the faces "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected" does that means she's pre-judging all the girls at that school. Do they all have cancer or are they just very active sexually. > You have addressed none of this beyond saying that you read it. I repeatedly addressed them. > 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. The problem is she's using two or three people as examples as to why all students need free birth control. Since her example is already covered by the insurance her argument is wrong. The false framing of an argument by an activist rather than the honest testimony of a student in need. If she left out the ridiculous exaggeration and focused more on the reality of how nice it would be to save money towards food ect she wouldn't have been made fun of. > You did hilight this, which is interesting, but ultimately a useless > tangent. I think it's very relevant. It's smoke and mirrors. > Stop with the numbers. The actual dollar amounts are not relevant to > her testimony and any she gave were likely anecdotal anyway. Exactly. > 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. Again we disagree. The term slut is so watered down that any girl that watched Sex in the City, Two and a half men or probably most prime time shows these days would consider it a badge of honor. Times are a changing, blow-jobs aren't even considered sex anymore. Yet calling someone a C*&% is still offensive unless you're from Ireland. And those words were used not so long ago. And as far as her being a poor little school girl that just wanted to be heard, she walked into the fury. Joe the plumber on the other hand just asked a question on the fly. I know, that was so long ago and yet this incident has already way past it's expiration date yet here we are. > 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? Anecdotal and you seem to agree. She uses two or three extreme cases that don't even apply because they are covered by insurance. She uses them to distort the bulk of the students at her school as at risk of dying because the school won't give them whatever they want for free. She was bait and Rush bit. Now we have a total distraction from the real topic and advertisers afraid to support Rush. The best kind of distracti ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347975 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
