[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/11/28/time-nominates-condom-rights-activist-sandra-fluke-person-year 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. I can thiink of many people I even disagree on, better suited for this nomination. Pathetic, and undeserving. How nice. Talk bad about her appearance and then imply that she's a whore. Keeping it classy, I see.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Everyone in the thread seems to think she won it.
If she was just nominated, why is it a big deal
GreySeal9
Because Fluke sucks and is nigh irrelevent.
You're entitled to your opinion about her, but to say she's irrelevant is a pretty difficult argument to make. She was pretty much a symbol of a big issue in this year's political discourse.
Yeah she's a tool. Or a useful idiot as Comrade Lenin would say.
You're entitled to your opinion about her, but to say she's irrelevant is a pretty difficult argument to make. She was pretty much a symbol of a big issue in this year's political discourse.
Yeah she's a tool. Or a useful idiot as Comrade Lenin would say.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Everyone in the thread seems to think she won it.
If she was just nominated, why is it a big deal
GreySeal9
Because Fluke sucks and is nigh irrelevent.
You're entitled to your opinion about her, but to say she's irrelevant is a pretty difficult argument to make. She was pretty much a symbol of a big issue in this year's political discourse.
I really do not understand the U.S and Americans. If such a person has this much weight and significance to the average American, that says a lot of things I'm not going to mention. The hilarious part is that she called the nomination process sexist. I really do not understand feminism and feminists. I believe in gender equality, more or less compared to the western definition of it, but why now we have to maintain a gender balance in everything? I mean should Time magazine have maintained 50-50 balance of male-female nominees regardless of their actual significance to the whole contest?
You're entitled to your opinion about her, but to say she's irrelevant is a pretty difficult argument to make. She was pretty much a symbol of a big issue in this year's political discourse.
GreySeal9
Yeah she's a tool. Or a useful idiot as Comrade Lenin would say.
Tool/=/irrelevant tho.
In and of herself she's irrelevent. If Limbaugh hadn't wasted breath on her and she wasn't able to go around the media telling everyone what sexist bigots Limbaugh and republicans are then no one would give a f uck.
[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/11/28/time-nominates-condom-rights-activist-sandra-fluke-person-year 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. I can thiink of many people I even disagree on, better suited for this nomination. Pathetic, and undeserving.MrGeezer
How nice. Talk bad about her appearance and then imply that she's a whore. Keeping it classy, I see. She's not bad looking. Could be a lesbian tho.
You're entitled to your opinion about her, but to say she's irrelevant is a pretty difficult argument to make. She was pretty much a symbol of a big issue in this year's political discourse.
I really do not understand the U.S and Americans. If such a person has this much weight and significance to the average American, that says a lot of things I'm not going to mention. The hilarious part is that she called the nomination process sexist. I really do not understand feminism and feminists. I believe in gender equality, more or less compared to the western definition of it, but why now we have to maintain a gender balance in everything? I mean should Time magazine have maintained 50-50 balance of male-female nominees regardless of their actual significance to the whole contest?
It's not neccesarily so much about her as it is about the issue she was embroiled in. She just became something of national figurehead for the left side of the argument. What I think is ridiculous is that we're even having a national argument on contraception.
As for her comments are the nomination process, I think she's just trying to milk her 15 minutes for all it's worth.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="DevilMightCry"]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/11/28/time-nominates-condom-rights-activist-sandra-fluke-person-year 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. I can thiink of many people I even disagree on, better suited for this nomination. Pathetic, and undeserving.PWSteal_Ldpinch
How nice. Talk bad about her appearance and then imply that she's a whore. Keeping it classy, I see. She's not bad looking. Could be a lesbian tho.
I didn't think lesbians had a specific appearance, but I'm ready to be enlightened.
Yeah she's a tool. Or a useful idiot as Comrade Lenin would say.
Storm_Marine
Tool/=/irrelevant tho.
In and of herself she's irrelevent. If Limbaugh hadn't wasted breath on her and she wasn't able to go around the media telling everyone what sexist bigots Limbaugh and republicans are then no one would give a f uck.
But, for whatever reason you want to ascribe to it, people do give a fvck, so she's relevant.
You're entitled to your opinion about her, but to say she's irrelevant is a pretty difficult argument to make. She was pretty much a symbol of a big issue in this year's political discourse.
GreySeal9
I really do not understand the U.S and Americans. If such a person has this much weight and significance to the average American, that says a lot of things I'm not going to mention. The hilarious part is that she called the nomination process sexist. I really do not understand feminism and feminists. I believe in gender equality, more or less compared to the western definition of it, but why now we have to maintain a gender balance in everything? I mean should Time magazine have maintained 50-50 balance of male-female nominees regardless of their actual significance to the whole contest?
It's not neccesarily so much about her as it is about the issue she was embroiled in. She just became something of national figurehead for the left side of the argument. What I think is ridiculous is that we're even having a national argument on contraception.
As for her comments are the nomination process, I think she's just trying to milk her 15 minutes for all it's worth.
[QUOTE="GazaAli"] I really do not understand the U.S and Americans. If such a person has this much weight and significance to the average American, that says a lot of things I'm not going to mention. The hilarious part is that she called the nomination process sexist. I really do not understand feminism and feminists. I believe in gender equality, more or less compared to the western definition of it, but why now we have to maintain a gender balance in everything? I mean should Time magazine have maintained 50-50 balance of male-female nominees regardless of their actual significance to the whole contest?Storm_Marine
It's not neccesarily so much about her as it is about the issue she was embroiled in. She just became something of national figurehead for the left side of the argument. What I think is ridiculous is that we're even having a national argument on contraception.
As for her comments are the nomination process, I think she's just trying to milk her 15 minutes for all it's worth.
elaborate
I think the issue should be settled. Why should we be having an argument about such a useful thing? I undertand having discourse about abortion because, while I'm pro-choice, I see the morality gravity of the issue. But contraception? Come oooon.
It's not neccesarily so much about her as it is about the issue she was embroiled in. She just became something of national figurehead for the left side of the argument. What I think is ridiculous is that we're even having a national argument on contraception.
As for her comments are the nomination process, I think she's just trying to milk her 15 minutes for all it's worth.
GreySeal9
elaborate
I think the issue should be settled. Why should we be having an argument about such a useful thing? I undertand having discourse about abortion because, while I'm pro-choice, I see the morality gravity of the issue. But contraception? Come oooon.
We're not debating the merits of it. But rather whether or not insurance companies should be forced to cover it.
Which, in a free country, you'd think they wouldn't be....but oh no.
I think the issue should be settled. Why should we be having an argument about such a useful thing? I undertand having discourse about abortion because, while I'm pro-choice, I see the morality gravity of the issue. But contraception? Come oooon.
We're not debating the merits of it. But rather whether or not insurance companies should be forced to cover it.
Which, in a free country, you'd think they wouldn't be....but oh no.
Why shouldn't they and what does that have to do with being a free country?
I think the issue should be settled. Why should we be having an argument about such a useful thing? I undertand having discourse about abortion because, while I'm pro-choice, I see the morality gravity of the issue. But contraception? Come oooon.
We're not debating the merits of it. But rather whether or not insurance companies should be forced to cover it.
Which, in a free country, you'd think they wouldn't be....but oh no.
Why shouldn't contraception be an intergral part of health coverage? What's the rationale for excluding it?
I think the issue should be settled. Why should we be having an argument about such a useful thing? I undertand having discourse about abortion because, while I'm pro-choice, I see the morality gravity of the issue. But contraception? Come oooon.
worlock77
We're not debating the merits of it. But rather whether or not insurance companies should be forced to cover it.
Which, in a free country, you'd think they wouldn't be....but oh no.
Why shouldn't they and what does that have to do with being a free country?
You're entitled to your opinion about her, but to say she's irrelevant is a pretty difficult argument to make. She was pretty much a symbol of a big issue in this year's political discourse.
I really do not understand the U.S and Americans. If such a person has this much weight and significance to the average American, that says a lot of things I'm not going to mention. The hilarious part is that she called the nomination process sexist. I really do not understand feminism and feminists. I believe in gender equality, more or less compared to the western definition of it, but why now we have to maintain a gender balance in everything? I mean should Time magazine have maintained 50-50 balance of male-female nominees regardless of their actual significance to the whole contest? She doesn't have that much significance. It's part of the liberal media to latch onto some unsung hero and co-opt her message as their own. A certain smaller segment of that crowd memorizes her name so that they have something to talk to each other about on Facebook and at work. Her only significance in general public is that a group of the media is talking about her. Most common people would agree that it's dumb and don't care who she is. Now, the conservative media will start talking about her too and portraying the whole thing as silly, saying a few sexist remarks and generally attracting an equally small crowd of conservative people who want something to be mad about. That's not to say that conservative media don't latch onto their heroes too like "Joe the plumber," but we're talking about this one case.
I think the issue should be settled. Why should we be having an argument about such a useful thing? I undertand having discourse about abortion because, while I'm pro-choice, I see the morality gravity of the issue. But contraception? Come oooon.
GreySeal9
We're not debating the merits of it. But rather whether or not insurance companies should be forced to cover it.
Which, in a free country, you'd think they wouldn't be....but oh no.
Why shouldn't contraception be an intergral part of health coverage?
Ask insurance companies not me.
At least now you understand what the debate is about. I hope....
We're not debating the merits of it. But rather whether or not insurance companies should be forced to cover it.
Which, in a free country, you'd think they wouldn't be....but oh no.
Storm_Marine
Why shouldn't they and what does that have to do with being a free country?
yawn.........worlock, think about it, please
Or you could actually address the question rather than trying to duck it. But I'm guessing that you don't really have an answer, because if you did you would say it.
We're not debating the merits of it. But rather whether or not insurance companies should be forced to cover it.
Which, in a free country, you'd think they wouldn't be....but oh no.
Storm_Marine
Why shouldn't contraception be an intergral part of health coverage?
Ask insurance companies not me.
At least now you understand what the debate is about. I hope....
I all ready understood.The debate is indeed about the merits of it and the merits of it is not in any way mutually exclusive from the debate about coverage. If people didn't have some kind moral opposition to contraception, the issue would not be contested on the political stage. It would be taken for granted.
Why shouldn't contraception be an intergral part of health coverage?
GreySeal9
Ask insurance companies not me.
At least now you understand what the debate is about. I hope....
I all ready understood.The debate is indeed about the merits of it and the merits of it is not in any way mutually exclusive from the debate about coverage. If people didn't have some kind moral opposition to contraception, the issue would not be contested on the political stage.
Why shouldn't they and what does that have to do with being a free country?
worlock77
yawn.........worlock, think about it, please
Or you could actually address the question rather than trying to duck it. But I'm guessing that you don't really have an answer, because if you did you would say it.
I know lost causes when I seem them. You're beyond hope.
At least now you understand what the debate is about. I hope....
Storm_Marine
I all ready understood.The debate is indeed about the merits of it and the merits of it is not in any way mutually exclusive from the debate about coverage. If people didn't have some kind moral opposition to contraception, the issue would not be contested on the political stage.
No, you don't understand.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutely no doubt that moral opposition is a component of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
I all ready understood.The debate is indeed about the merits of it and the merits of it is not in any way mutually exclusive from the debate about coverage. If people didn't have some kind moral opposition to contraception, the issue would not be contested on the political stage.
GreySeal9
No, you don't understand.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
Or you could actually address the question rather than trying to duck it. But I'm guessing that you don't really have an answer, because if you did you would say it.
I know lost causes when I seem them. You're beyond hope.
Or you could actually address the question rather than trying to duck it. But I'm guessing that you don't really have an answer, because if you did you would say it.
worlock77
I know lost causes when I seem them. You're beyond hope.
Chicken-sh*t cop out.
Not my fault you can neither comprhend or appreciate freedom.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
And if someone has a moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's Viagra? Or cancer treatment? Or insulin?
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
worlock77
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
And if someone has a moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's Viagra? Or cancer treatment? Or insulin?
I'm highly sympathetic to that opposition. Though I'm not hugely bothered in the last two cases.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
GreySeal9
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
And why did they not want to cover it?
Ask the insurance companies. Maybe they're all run by fundamentalists, but I doubt it.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
Storm_Marine
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
You really need to pay attention to the debate going on in the political world. There is absolutel no doubt that moral opposition is a conponent of it. Why do you think so much of the debate hinged on the Catholic Church?
Storm_Marine
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
You're a lost cause too. Why do i even bother?
It's pretty easy to stop replying to someone's posts if you think it's not worth your while.
Moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's contraception. Yes.
Storm_Marine
And if someone has a moral opposition to forcing people to pay for other people's Viagra? Or cancer treatment? Or insulin?
I'm highly sympathetic to that opposition. Though I'm not hugely bothered in the last two cases.
So someone is irresponsible and eats their way to diabetes and you have to pay for their insulin (nevermind that they've paid into the insurance just as you have), and that doesn't bother you?
The Catholic Church can have their own religious reasons for oppossing it. Cool for them. But the world isn't split into Anti-contraception Catholics and Contraception Mandate non-Catholics. Alot of people have religious reasons for wanting a social welfare state. That doesn't make it a fundamentally religious issue though.
Log in to comment