You Dirty Sluts

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by lookout123

...so long as they are not discriminating by race, religion, or sex then they can do just about anything they want in my opinion.

no, THIS is the real problem for most people. Your right to free religion doesn't mean you can discriminate based on sex, which contraception coverage does. We as a nation decided that we needed health care reform, and even if you dont want it, it's the LAW. why, then, should an insurance company be able to arbitrarily break the law just because they don't agree with birth control? Why does birth control not deserve to be just as legally protected as any other basic prescription coverage that we've also collectively coded into law that they must provide?

[footfootfoot]

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]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

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.



Sheldon?

Flint

[fargon]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

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.

Dicks are the the way they are, 'cuz they are born that way. Pricks are that way 'cuz they get off on it. I am an insufferable prick.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

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.

God that's apt. Apt!

[Trilby]

Also has everyone forgotten their Classics?

Lysistrata, ladies!

No birth control you say? Ok, no sex for you.

[classicman]

Totally agree f3.

[Clodfobble]

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]

That's what all the sluts say.

(I saw that.)

[footfootfoot]

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

[piercehawkeye45]

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

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]

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

[Clodfobble]

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.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Ibram

But again - Obamacare is clear in that it takes the stand that preventative coverage is included in Obamacare - that is to say, health insurance plans meeting the minimum standard of coverage are required to cover preventative services, including birth control.
Why, then, is birth control being singled out as a problem? Why not checkups or immunizations or whatever?

I appreciate that you're asking a question; however, when you have to repeat it after there's been ample time for a response, it's always a good idea to reexamine your question [I've done written test question validations including proctoring target audience pretests and post pretest statistical analysis]. Your question presupposes that checkups or immunizations or whatever have not previously been singled out as problems.

Checkups are covered. A thorough checkup would include a DNA analysis for predisposing factors of disease and other conditions. That information, whether it turns out to be an accurate prognosticator or not, could be used to segregate people and have dramatic consequences in their everyday lives. Checkups are covered to a degree; or, it becomes a problem. It's always a matter of degree.

Immunizations are covered. There have always been implied associations between immunizations and side effects whether they were accurate correlations or not (e.g. MMR or MMR plus thiomersol containing vaccines and Autism). The degree to which immunizations are covered rely on their statistical safety. Even though statistically safe, they are still held suspect via the media necessitating reassuring ad campaigns for vaccinations. It's always a matter of degree.

Contraceptives are covered. They can be used to treat other conditions in addition to preventing pregnancy. They are statistically safe. The degree to which they are covered depends on political influence. It's always a matter of degree.

The applications for insurance covered contraceptives are subject to scrutiny just as many other drugs (e.g. recreational marijuana VS medical marijuana) and procedures are for various reasons whether for prevention or treatment. The people affected would be better served if you presented arguments in support of the degree of application you desire rather than false analogies.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

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.

I'm delighted to see that you're taking responsibility for your actions.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I love every one of you. ...

I luv U 2.
(even though I've seen Codfobble's brain before morning coffee in a first draft reply)

[glatt]

On a hunch, I did a Google image search for Sandra Fluke. I figured there might be some "motivational posters" about her.

Here's a bit of what I found. The Freepers and dittoheads have been having fun. Rush tells them what to think, and they fall over themselves to follow his lead.






This is just a small sample of what's out there.