The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Home Base (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   You Dirty Sluts (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26995)

lookout123 03-06-2012 09:13 PM

Yes Ibram, I did hear it. Thanks for pasting it in for me though. I see nothing in there that causes me to feel differently about compelling private organizations to provide coverage for any specific medication or procedure. Ooh, a prescription costs a lot. Some people can't afford to have it. Shit happens. I've been on the shitty end of things not being covered an awful lot in the last few years. That still doesn't make me believe anyone or any organization should be compelled to pay for my expenses.

classicman 03-06-2012 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster (Post 800043)
Dick vs Bitch. Not here (SE Mich) at least. I suspect more of the US too. Being a dick requires no intelligence whatsoever. And often doesn't need a third party. Bitchery requires a third party and is often based on intelligent/insightful observations. Not always. neither are specific to the gender exhibiting the behaviour, although it is possible that one gender is better at one and the other at the other. or not.

I get that slut is a bad, bad word here. It just isn't to me. but then, as I said, I don't really have problems with any words. If they're used appropriately, I'm all good.

Fair enough. Diff'rent strokes and all that.

footfootfoot 03-06-2012 09:45 PM

the subtle difference between a "dick" and a "prick."

I'd say a dick was more passive and apt to allow douchebaggery to occur on his watch, where a prick is more active and deliberate.

monster 03-06-2012 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by footfootfoot (Post 800052)
the subtle difference between a "dick" and a "prick."

I'd say a dick was more passive and apt to allow douchebaggery to occur on his watch, where a prick is more active and deliberate.

yup could go for that. prick is definitely more intentional assholedness than dick.

:lol:

Sheldon?

Flint

classicman 03-06-2012 10:21 PM

Totally agree f3.

Ibby 03-06-2012 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 800044)
Yes Ibram, I did hear it. Thanks for pasting it in for me though. I see nothing in there that causes me to feel differently about compelling private organizations to provide coverage for any specific medication or procedure. Ooh, a prescription costs a lot. Some people can't afford to have it. Shit happens. I've been on the shitty end of things not being covered an awful lot in the last few years. That still doesn't make me believe anyone or any organization should be compelled to pay for my expenses.

Then, i assume, you believe that argument applies equally to ALL medical procedures.

Then it's Obamacare, not contraception coverage, you have a problem with.
Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?

sexobon 03-07-2012 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 800044)
... I see nothing in there that causes me to feel differently about compelling private organizations to provide coverage for any specific medication or procedure. ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 800078)
Then, i assume, you believe that argument applies equally to ALL medical procedures

What pomposity it is to declare that you assume something about another, through vocabulary substitution, that they have already blatantly stated about themselves.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 800078)
... Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?

Because ALL Medicine is NOT Preventive Medicine which is a fact of life that is lost on you. It's ALWAYS a matter of degree whether discussing immunizations, contraception; or, limiting medical intervention to prayer.

Your continuing approach, like the sensationalized title you ascribed to this thread, reflects attention whoring at the expense of a valid issue. You are respectfully requested to cease and desist confrontational methods of engagement and pursue synergistic intellectual discussion.

Clodfobble 03-07-2012 07:34 AM

I think Ibram has a valid point, personally. If you're against all medical socialization, that's one position. But singling out one procedure/medication over others reeks of alterior motives.

sexobon 03-07-2012 07:48 AM

That's what all the sluts say.

(I saw that.)

Spexxvet 03-07-2012 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram (Post 800078)
Then, i assume, you believe that argument applies equally to ALL medical procedures.

Then it's Obamacare, not contraception coverage, you have a problem with.
Why, then, should you or anybody else single out contraception as an issue?

And what about Viagra?

Personally, I think there should be no contraception. Women should get pregnant, and have abortions, or the fathers can pay support, or the mothers can become welfare queens, and the kids can grow up to become criminals. That'll teach 'em and save us money.

footfootfoot 03-07-2012 09:32 AM

Come out and take it you dirty slut, or I'll give it to you through the door!


Lamplighter 03-07-2012 10:06 AM

It's being reported that Limbaugh has lost 36 sponsors in the fall out of all this, along with 2 radio stations.

piercehawkeye45 03-07-2012 10:44 AM

Doesn't matter Lamplighter. Other advertisers would be more than happy to fill the vacuum. Look at this:

Quote:

Now that over a dozen companies have bailed on Rush Limbaugh after he called Sandra Fluke a "slut" on air, a couple of new companies are swooping in to buy up that abandoned air time. AshleyMadison.com, the dating site that helps people cheat on their significant others, has offered to buy up all of Limbaugh's existing ad inventory. The company's founder and C.E.O. Noel Biderman, who's already shown himself to be a deft grabber of publicity, said in a press release, "Rush has always been a controversial figure and we have always been a controversial service so we can relate."

Another dating site, SeekingArrangements.com is also looking to buy some ads on Limbaugh's show. Described in a separate press release as "the world's largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website," SeekingArrangements is taking a different approach: "When a woman seeks out a Sugar Daddy to help pay for college, many in mainstream media have no problem likening her to being a prostitute," the company's founder and C.E.O. Brandon Wade said. "Such is the hypocrisy of the society we live in."

Sure, both of these companies are seizing the Limbaugh scandal for publicity, but they're being pretty amusing as they go about it. That's more than can we say about Limbaugh's original comments about Sandra Fluke.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...imbaugh/49561/

That would be hilarious. hahaha

Lamplighter 03-07-2012 10:56 AM

:D

Irony and hypocrisy - the best forms of entertainment, sprinkled with occasional puns

Clodfobble 03-07-2012 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sexobon
That's what all the sluts say.

Actually, it's true. Just like Sandra Fluke's case example, I was on birth control pills from the age of 15 for medical non-contraceptive reasons. I am the very definition of a slut, here.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.