TIME Magazine "Person Of The Year"... what a joke.

she did a good thing, The_Last_Ride

If b*tching about your contraception not being fully taxpayer funded and overal just being a tool for the democratic party counts as a "doing a good thing" these days..........then.....argh.

I didn't know what to make of her but then:

Fluke responded in a Twitter post that she is "Honored 2 b listed", then accused the [selection] process of being sexist since "many govt officials listed-therefore few women."The Article

lol what an idiot.

If you've seen the people that they have given the title to before, you'd know not to take it seriously.

What's wrong with her winning it?

The fact that she is a women or the fact that she is in favor of contraception?

What's wrong with her winning it?

The fact that she is a women or the fact that she is in favor of contraception?

tenaka2

Limbaugh is going to have a field day with this.

It's a joke every year.......just like awards. When will people stop taking that crap seriously....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

What's wrong with her winning it?

The fact that she is a women or the fact that she is in favor of contraception?

DevilMightCry

lol as idiotic as your source?

I dunno about making her "person of the year", but it's pretty clear that the TC (one of the three stooges who made a "definite call" for Romney in the election and was forced to take a hiatus from this place to save face) knows fvck all about contraceptives. Women don't necessarily need to be screwing anybody to be on contraceptives, they're also used to treat all sorts of health conditions that a woman can get with her reproductive organs. I shouldn't be all that surprised, though, since I know that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk can't be bothered to do any kind of basic research before they open their mouths and spew out complete nonsense about people they disagree with.

I dunno about making her "person of the year", but it's pretty clear that the TC (one of the three stooges who made a "definite call" for Romney in the election and was forced to take a hiatus from this place to save face) knows fvck all about contraceptives. Women don't necessarily need to be screwing anybody to be on contraceptives, they're also used to treat all sorts of health conditions that a woman can get with her reproductive organs. I shouldn't be all that surprised, though, since I know that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk can't be bothered to do any kind of basic research before they open their mouths and spew out complete nonsense about people they disagree with.

Barbariser

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

What's wrong with her winning it?

The fact that she is a women or the fact that she is in favor of contraception?

tenaka2

lol as idiotic as your source?

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

I dunno about making her "person of the year", but it's pretty clear that the TC (one of the three stooges who made a "definite call" for Romney in the election and was forced to take a hiatus from this place to save face) knows fvck all about contraceptives. Women don't necessarily need to be screwing anybody to be on contraceptives, they're also used to treat all sorts of health conditions that a woman can get with her reproductive organs. I shouldn't be all that surprised, though, since I know that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk can't be bothered to do any kind of basic research before they open their mouths and spew out complete nonsense about people they disagree with.

LJS9502_basic

Yes, the difference is that nothing I said is complete nonsense.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

I dunno about making her "person of the year", but it's pretty clear that the TC (one of the three stooges who made a "definite call" for Romney in the election and was forced to take a hiatus from this place to save face) knows fvck all about contraceptives. Women don't necessarily need to be screwing anybody to be on contraceptives, they're also used to treat all sorts of health conditions that a woman can get with her reproductive organs. I shouldn't be all that surprised, though, since I know that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk can't be bothered to do any kind of basic research before they open their mouths and spew out complete nonsense about people they disagree with.

Barbariser

Yes, the difference is that nothing I said is complete nonsense.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Both of your points are idiotic, as neither is the reason why she won, or why I think she didn't deserve it. DevilMightCry

lol as idiotic as your source?

Well considering you actually gave no reasons and only mentioned the contraception and that she wasn't good looking, one is forced to base the opinion upon what you said.

Perhaps if you stated your reasons?

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

lol as idiotic as your source?

tenaka2

Well considering you actually gave no reasons and only mentioned the contraception and that she wasn't good looking, one is forced to base the opinion upon what you said.

Perhaps if you stated your reasons?

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

I dunno about making her "person of the year", but it's pretty clear that the TC (one of the three stooges who made a "definite call" for Romney in the election and was forced to take a hiatus from this place to save face) knows fvck all about contraceptives. Women don't necessarily need to be screwing anybody to be on contraceptives, they're also used to treat all sorts of health conditions that a woman can get with her reproductive organs. I shouldn't be all that surprised, though, since I know that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk can't be bothered to do any kind of basic research before they open their mouths and spew out complete nonsense about people they disagree with.

LJS9502_basic

Yes, the difference is that nothing I said is complete nonsense.

His OP basically says "lol Sandra Fluke uses lots of contraceptions, she must get around a lot". Now, either he knows nothing about contraceptives being applicable for health concerns and not just for "consequence-free sex" or he does know and made that comment anyway, which is actually worse. Not to mention that I can't seem to find any information about how much she spends on contraceptives, which means that that part of his comment was probably also pulled out of his ass.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I just grabbed the first link that I saw. But, my point still stands. So you think the reason one would oppose her is only because she is a woman or is for contraception? Ok.LJS9502_basic

Well considering you actually gave no reasons and only mentioned the contraception and that she wasn't good looking, one is forced to base the opinion upon what you said.

Perhaps if you stated your reasons?

You are currently involved in a 'So are you!' conversation with a barber!?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Yes, the difference is that nothing I said is complete nonsense.

Barbariser

His OP basically says "lol Sandra Fluke uses lots of contraceptions, she must get around a lot". Now, either he knows nothing about contraceptives being applicable for health concerns and not just for "consequence-free sex" or he does know and made that comment anyway, which is actually worse. Not to mention that I can't seem to find any information about how much she spends on contraceptives, which means that that part of his comment was probably also pulled out of his ass.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well considering you actually gave no reasons and only mentioned the contraception and that she wasn't good looking, one is forced to base the opinion upon what you said.

Perhaps if you stated your reasons?

tenaka2

You are currently involved in a 'So are you!' conversation with a barber!?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

I dunno about making her "person of the year", but it's pretty clear that the TC (one of the three stooges who made a "definite call" for Romney in the election and was forced to take a hiatus from this place to save face) knows fvck all about contraceptives. Women don't necessarily need to be screwing anybody to be on contraceptives, they're also used to treat all sorts of health conditions that a woman can get with her reproductive organs. I shouldn't be all that surprised, though, since I know that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk can't be bothered to do any kind of basic research before they open their mouths and spew out complete nonsense about people they disagree with.

Barbariser

Yes, the difference is that nothing I said is complete nonsense.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Aren't you spewing about someone you disagree with?DevilMightCry

Yes, the difference is that nothing I said is complete nonsense.

You mentioned contraception in your OP.

On the contrary, everything you said is nonsense. I didn't bring up contraception or any of those issues, but rather Time Magazines selection of POTY. Nothing really about Sandra Flukes positions other than a jab at her. As for the Romney election. Hey, I was wrong. 100% wrong. I thought he would win, and my side failed. As a badge of shame I am wearing an appropriate avatar. I know I am person of character, and if I am wrong, I gladly admit it. But your tiresome personal attacks whenever you disagree are getting old. Now, back to topic. DevilMightCry

I guess when you are this average looking, and manage to spend thousands of dollars on contraception a year, she must have something other woman are lacking.DevilMightCry

I guess implying that a woman is a slut doesn't count as a personal attack to you eh?

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]On the contrary, everything you said is nonsense. I didn't bring up contraception or any of those issues, but rather Time Magazines selection of POTY. Nothing really about Sandra Flukes positions other than a jab at her. As for the Romney election. Hey, I was wrong. 100% wrong. I thought he would win, and my side failed. As a badge of shame I am wearing an appropriate avatar. I know I am person of character, and if I am wrong, I gladly admit it. But your tiresome personal attacks whenever you disagree are getting old. Now, back to topic. Barbariser

I guess when you are this average looking, and manage to spend thousands of dollars on contraception a year, she must have something other woman are lacking.DevilMightCry

I guess implying that a woman is a slut doesn't count as a personal attack to you eh?

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="Barbariser"]

Yes, the difference is that nothing I said is complete nonsense.

tenaka2

You mentioned contraception in your OP.

Limbaugh is going to have a field day with this.

CycleOfViolence

given that he lost a lot of ad revenue the last time he made this molehill into a mountain of bs, I'm betting he won't touch it.

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]On the contrary, everything you said is nonsense. I didn't bring up contraception or any of those issues, but rather Time Magazines selection of POTY. Nothing really about Sandra Flukes positions other than a jab at her. As for the Romney election. Hey, I was wrong. 100% wrong. I thought he would win, and my side failed. As a badge of shame I am wearing an appropriate avatar. I know I am person of character, and if I am wrong, I gladly admit it. But your tiresome personal attacks whenever you disagree are getting old. Now, back to topic. Barbariser

I guess when you are this average looking, and manage to spend thousands of dollars on contraception a year, she must have something other woman are lacking.DevilMightCry

I guess implying that a woman is a slut doesn't count as a personal attack to you eh?

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"]she did a good thing, Storm_Marine

If b*tching about your contraception not being fully taxpayer funded and overal just being a tool for the democratic party counts as a "doing a good thing" these days..........then.....argh.

I guess implying that a woman is a slut doesn't count as a personal attack to you eh?

Barbariser

Relax, DMC is just trying to be funny. He's failing, but give the guy some credit.

It's a joke every year.......just like awards. When will people stop taking that crap seriously....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's a joke every year.......just like awards. When will people stop taking that crap seriously....Capitan_Kid

[QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"]she did a good thing, The_Last_Ride

If b*tching about your contraception not being fully taxpayer funded and overal just being a tool for the democratic party counts as a "doing a good thing" these days..........then.....argh.

These awards arent jokes. That's why people do and always will take them seriously.Capitan_Kid

Must've been an uninteresting year for people

I will say this about Sandra Fluke, I like how upset she has made some people. :P Sajo7

I kind of think that is exactly the point. I don't know about person of the year quality, but I think the fact that people do get so upset about this means she kind of has made an impact, even if it seems silly. Plus she was a talking point at both of the main parties conventions this year. I can definitely think of better choices in my opinion, but they aren't well known like her. How often does a random college student become a media sensation?

[QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"][QUOTE="Storm_Marine"]

If b*tching about your contraception not being fully taxpayer funded and overal just being a tool for the democratic party counts as a "doing a good thing" these days..........then.....argh.

DevilMightCry

Condoms should be, but Viagra should not

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="The_Last_Ride"] well, if it helps to save the mothers life in some cases, then yeah, it is worth it. People may disagree with me on this, i get that. But if this means it helps someone who would have died without it, then it's worth itThe_Last_Ride

Condoms should be, but Viagra should not

How much does Viagra cost? Is it expensive? I wouldn't know, but I could understand that sexuality and the expression fo said is an important part of any person. Can you imagine being unable to perform sexually? That could be psychologically damaging, I'm sure, to many people.

Regardless, instead of idiots with religious/politicla agendas, it should be a body of competent doctors and scientists who decide what should and should not eb covered as a baseline for those receiving healthcare help fromt he government.

Based on what's doable, ifnancially, and what's best for society at large. If it can be determined, statistically and through studies that having affordable/free contraceptives means less unwated babies, healthier people, etc, etc, I'm all for it.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] I just grabbed the first link that I saw. But, my point still stands. So you think the reason one would oppose her is only because she is a woman or is for contraception? Ok.LJS9502_basic

Well considering you actually gave no reasons and only mentioned the contraception and that she wasn't good looking, one is forced to base the opinion upon what you said.

Perhaps if you stated your reasons?

You're not exactly adding much to the thread; you're just critisizing other posters. Also, being "ashamed" for a "painful" discussion on OT seems like a bit much. It's not like the people on this thread are on the floors of Congress.

As for the topic, I don't think a mere nomination is outrageous. She was influential in the political discourse in her own way even if I wouldn't have nominated her if I was in charge of the nominations. If she actually won? It wouldn't be deserved, but I don't see the point of upsetting yourself over this, TC. It doesn't really matter.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well considering you actually gave no reasons and only mentioned the contraception and that she wasn't good looking, one is forced to base the opinion upon what you said.

Perhaps if you stated your reasons?

GreySeal9

You're not exactly adding much to the thread; you're just critisizing other posters. Also, being "ashamed" for a "painful" discussion on OT seems like a bit much. It's not like the people on this thread are on the floors of Congress.

As for the topic, I don't think a mere nomination is outrageous. She was influential in the political discourse in her own way even if I wouldn't have nominated her if I was in charge of the nominations. If she actually won? It wouldn't be deserved, but I don't see the point of upsetting yourself over this, TC. It doesn't really matter.

Meh..does anyone even care about TIME's person of the year anymore? Its always someone ridiclous. Last year was some random Occupy protester and I cant even remember who was before that. It's a big who gives a crap imho~