On 3/5/2012 11:29 AM, Sam wrote: > 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 will accept the ones that aren't offensive as not offensive. If he makes a valid argument without being a pompous ass, I will give him credit and acknowledge he has a point. You still seem to think it is either all or nothing, which is not the case. > That it's not an issue to be upset about or even give a crap about but > you want to be mad. I don't want to be mad. who wants to be mad? I am not angry. I have no personal stake in this, so it doesn't affect me. Just because I think the comments were inappropriate does not mean that I am automatically foaming at the mouth like some batshit crazy liberal moron making it my new life mission to take the man down, erm, I believe the phrase you used earlier was "at all costs". > So you find it extremely offensive, no matter what I say you will not > budge on that. Right. > I do not agree with you and I've explained why. And you won't budge on that. Fair enough. > 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. I meant I shouldn't have to state the obvious to most people who understand what the woman was saying, or at least the spirit of it. > My question is are they upset with him because he exists or because of > what he said? I can't answer this one. For me, it's what he says and the way he says it. > 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. I don't know and I don't care. Like I said, it is a non-issue for me as far as this discussion is concerned. If some on air personality had called Palin's daughter a slut and a whore, I probably would have taken exception to that. I stopped paying attention to the Palin thing when it became the train wreck it turned into. Either your offended whenever it > happens or your carrying the water the left. What? >> 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. I don't support insurance for prescriptions used solely for birth control. It isn't hard to understand. I don't see where Fluke said that's what she wants anywhere. Feel free to point it out to me. > >> 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. What the hell are you talking about? Where did you get that "condoms" thing anyway? I never saw the word mentioned in any links to her testimony. Rush was the first one to mention them. Georgetown > University provides contraception coverage for it's employees on their > medical plan. Irrelevant. > If you want a plan that does you can get one for > about the same price but different things are covered. If such plans are in fact available. Insurance companies are always looking for ways to deny new applicants. A BC/BS rep told me the company was trying to get away from individual policies and that they would reject applications at the drop of a hat. This is a specific example, so you can ignore it as being based on lies because I obviously want free stuff too, which is the only reason I spoke up. See your > argument is the insurance isn't honoring it's promise and maybe > changing an unrelated law would fix that. My argument is that is HER argument, not free birth control for everyone wheeeeeee. I am not arguing the validity of her claims, nor what should be done about them. It is my personal belief that she is mostly telling the trust because that's exactly how insurance companies operate, but I am not trying to convince anyone of that. > It won't. We need to force > insurance co's to pay when thy are supposed to. Totally unrelated > issue. It is not unrelated to her testimony. Now, if her testimony is unrelated to the problem, well that's different and the lawmakers can sort that out. > 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. Again with the condoms thing. Show me where it says anywhere that is what she asked for. Show me. In writing. From a reliable source. I dare ya. And the reason that one girl has cancer is because she was denied coverage to begin with for birth control as a treatment for a medical condition, an example of basis of Fluke's beef with the insurance plan. > "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? God damn, Sam. Are you that dense? She was using the term contraception as an all encompassing term. Contraception includes condoms, but does not preclude them. she was asking about female contraceptives for treating medical conditions. Just because you choose to apply a meaning to a word different than its usage in context doesn't make it so. It's like someone saying that they are going to buy a quality car and someone assuming that they are an America hating piece of filth because they probably mean a Japanese car. It's ridiculous. You are jumping to the same sorts of conclusions. And that's all they are. Your judgmental opinion based on the particular mass media you depend on. Forget about condoms and change the word contraceptives to "the pill and all of the expenses that go along with being able to get it". > > 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. I am pretty sure she means the ones she knows are affected. She was part of a group of them for a while. > The problem is she's using two or three people as examples as to why > all students need free birth control. No, she isn't. You are simply wrong. > Since her example is already > covered by the insurance her argument is wrong. The insurance denied the coverage claim. 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. If the people making fun of her weren't petty dickheads then she wouldn't have been made fun of. And, you mean ridiculous exaggeration like you going on and on about condoms for no reason? I am pretty sure that whole food thing is understood by default. They need to eat and they only have so much money, so no birth control in lieu of not starving. > 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. I doubt this. It doesn't matter. It was MEANT as offensive and to be taken in the worst possible light when applied to her. > Anecdotal and you seem to agree. She uses two or three extreme cases > that don't even apply because they are covered by insurance. Apparently, they aren't. The fact that they weren't covered is why they are now extreme. > She was bait and Rush bit. Now we have a total distraction from the > real topic and advertisers afraid to support Rush. Ha. Blaming her for Rush losing his sponsors? That was all him. He has to walk a fine line as part of his job and he crossed it this time. *shrug* It's his fault. I still want you to prove to me that she is only in this because she wants a free box of condoms and that actually comes from somewhere other than Rush's inane rantin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:348023 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
