Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 44

Thread: Oh Look, it's Sandra Fluke. (Opinion Editorial/Obama Re-Election Advert. on CNN)

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4491606]100% agree; she is fair game to be criticized, or praised, since she has taken the step into being a paid political contributor and offering her political opinions.

    But there is no ethical excuse for personally attacking her. If you don't agree with her politics for supporting Obama then have at it! But freedom of speech does not offer the license to say [B]anything[/B] you want about anyone.

    So if CNN's paid advertisement for Obama is interfering with Fox News' paid advertisements then stand up and be heard! You have every right to voice your disagreement with her politics. But please don't be a caveman and attack her on a personal level; (women only use birth control to have a lot of sex and be slutty :rolleyes:)

    [IMG]http://www.topcartoonimage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Captain-Caveman-and-the-Teen-Angels-Anime-Cartoon.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    An IJF Post is alot like a drinking game.

    You just know you're going to get at least one mention of "FOX" per post.

    P.S. If someone claims to use "thousands of dollars of contraceptives" in a short period of time, and proclaims that as a normal run-of-the-mill scenario, I think it's fair game to ask for supporting information on what, exactly makes up that "thousands fo dollars" and to what purpose so much contraceptive expense is required, at the very least. If it's medical, then we can have a rational discussion on the medical need. If it's just to **** for the lols, well, there is no moral problem telling someone their lol****s are not the responsabillity of the American Taxpayer.
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-14-2012 at 03:01 PM.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4491609]An IJF Post is alot like a drinking game.

    [B]You just know you're going to get at least one mention of "FOX" per post.[/B]

    P.S. If someone claims to use "thousands of dollars of contraceptives" in a short period of time, and proclaims that as a normal run-of-the-mill scenario, I think it's fair game to ask for supporting information on what, exactly makes up that "thousands fo dollars" and to what purpose so much contraceptive expense is required, at the very least. If it's medical, then we can have a rational discussion on the medical need. If it's just to **** for the lols, well, there is no moral problem telling someone their lol****s are not the responsabillity of the American Taxpayer.[/QUOTE]

    It is absolutely reasonable to have a [I]general [/I]conversation about contraceptives and medical need. But that does not give anyone the right to publicly call her a slut or whore and make personal attacks. That may not be covered under freedom of speech and could open yourself to this;

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation[/url]

    PS: you didn't expect a Captain Caveman reference ;)

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=quantum;4491604]WORST by far is the whole thought police thing. :shakehead[/QUOTE]

    Ahh yes the Fairness Doctrine:
    [I]he Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, [B]that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.[/B] The FCC decided to eliminate the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1][/I]


    So Democrats now want government to control what radio broadcasters say to promote "fairness". Sound familiar? Who decides what is fair? The Gobamint. Why do Democrats hate our freedoms so damn much? Please can one of the liberals here clear this up?

    [I][I]In February 2005, U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (Democrat of New York) and 23 co-sponsors introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act (H.R. 501)[20] in the 1st Session of the 109th Congress of 2005-7 (when Republicans held a majority of both Houses). The bill would have shortened a station's license term from eight years to four, with the requirement that a license-holder cover important issues fairly, hold local public hearings about its coverage twice a year, and document to the FCC how it was meeting its obligations.[21] The bill was referred to committee, but progressed no further.[22]
    In the same Congress, Representative Maurice Hinchey (another Democrat from New York) introduced legislation "to restore the Fairness Doctrine". H.R. 3302, also known as the "Media Ownership Reform Act of 2005" or MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in Congress.[23]
    In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,"[24] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.[25] However, according to Marin Cogan of The New Republic in late 2008:
    “ Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has 'no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view' — that the American people were served well under the doctrine — 'and it's all been blown out of proportion.'[26] ”
    On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California (who had been elected Speaker of the House in January 2007) told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."[27] On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:
    “ I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since.[28] ”
    On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (Democrat of California) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.
    “ I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone.[29] ”
    On February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (Democrat of Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair — that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."[30] Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:
    “ Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows. ”
    Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn't reflect [[/I]/I]

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4491620]It is absolutely reasonable to have a [I]general [/I]conversation about contraceptives and medical need. But that does not give anyone the right to publicly call her a slut or whore and make personal attacks. That may not be covered under freedom of speech and could open yourself to this;

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation[/url]

    PS: you didn't expect a Captain Caveman reference ;)[/QUOTE]

    Captain Caveman IS an excellent reference, I will give you that.:yes:

    [IMG]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9mETLgdjzUj70DM81DfPhk_5lhLP0AVEZixc2YbuLn1gHL6XqSw[/IMG]

    With that said, it's not defamation till she sues, and wins. As a public figure (which I believe she was well before she testified, as an advocate/activist), who made a rather specific claim, an argument can be made that if you go through "thousands fo dollars of contraceptives", and the we the txpayer OWE that to her, that questions regarding the activity/medical need that requires thousands of dollars of contraceptives is appropriate. She might be a slut, who knows, or just a nypho....or just an outright liar. Who knows if it's not asked. When she made the testimony, clearly as an issue-advocate pushing an agenda on an issue (Religious Insitutions being forced by Law to cover things their faith bars) almost totally unrelated to "birth control" itself, she opened up herself to counter-questioning in the court of public opinion.

    In any event, she looks pretty good in that CNN mini-pic. For a mid-30 something. Alittle like a Wynonna Rider, quite fetching.
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-14-2012 at 03:42 PM.

  5. #25
    I would say its fair to disagree with her.

    But I would say all the "ugly, whore, slut, etc." comments are a bit much.

    You wouldn't comment like that on the looks or sexuality of a man who held the same beliefs.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4491724]I would say its fair to disagree with her.

    But I would say all the "ugly, whore, slut, etc." comments are a bit much.

    You wouldn't comment like that on the looks or sexuality of a man who held the same beliefs.[/QUOTE]

    So I'm a sexist, eh?

    With respect FF, I'd ask anyone who demanded I cover thousands of dollars of contraceptives per month why they need it, and why they think I (taxpayers) owe it to them as a human right. Man, women, shim, makes no difference to me.

  7. #27
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,517
    [QUOTE=quantum;4491491]Editor's note: Sandra Fluke graduated [I]cum dumpsteratus[/I] from Georgetown University Law Center...


    new Latin phrase :yes:[/QUOTE]

    I thought it was [I]cum louder[/I]...or [I]cum often and stay to make breakfast...[/I]

  8. #28
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,224
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4491724]I would say its fair to disagree with her.

    But I would say all the "ugly, whore, slut, etc." comments are a bit much.

    You wouldn't comment like that on the looks or sexuality[B] of a man who held the same beliefs.[[/B]/QUOTE]

    Barney Frank?

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4491727]So I'm a sexist, eh?

    With respect FF, I'd ask anyone who demanded[B] I cover[/B] thousands of dollars of contraceptives per month why they need it, and why they think[B] I[/B] (taxpayers) owe it to them as a human right. Man, women, shim, makes no difference to me.[/QUOTE]

    Your post ignores the fact that Ms. Fluke, and people of like mind, are also paying for those contraceptives as well through taxes.

    Also, since it has been medically proven that contraceptives are indeed used for medical concerns, in my estimation it is very much a human right.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,224
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4492132]Your post ignores the fact that Ms. Fluke, and people of like mind, are also paying for those contraceptives as well through taxes.

    Also, since it has been medically proven that contraceptives are indeed used for medical concerns, in my estimation it is very much a human right.[/QUOTE]


    Free contraceptives are a human right? You have to be freaking joking. :eek:

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4492136]Free contraceptives are a human right? You have to be freaking joking. :eek:[/QUOTE]

    There should be a planned parenthood every 5 blocks.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4491727]So I'm a sexist, eh?

    With respect FF, I'd ask anyone who demanded I cover thousands of dollars of contraceptives per month why they need it, and why they think I (taxpayers) owe it to them as a human right. Man, women, shim, makes no difference to me.[/QUOTE]

    if you call her a slut or ugly (I don't know if you did) I wouldnt say you are sexist, I'd say your not a gentleman.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4492136]Free contraceptives are a human right? You have to be freaking joking. :eek:[/QUOTE]

    [B]Why are oral contraceptives sometimes prescribed for medical problems?[/B]

    Oral contraceptives (the "birth control pill") have many health benefits beyond just preventing pregnancy. Medical researchers have been studying the pill for more than 40 years. They have discovered a number of ways oral contraceptives can be used to treat health problems. Because the pill contains hormones that affect your menstrual cycle (making your periods more regular and making you bleed less), it can be used to treat many conditions related to your period.

    [url]http://www.nyu.edu/shc/medservices/oral.contraceptives.html[/url]


    The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, via the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment, some rights are so fundamental that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.
    "The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality under the Due Process Clause is that the putative right must be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, or deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." at 267
    While the recognition of such rights has changed over time, they generally mirror those listed in the Bill of Rights. Although some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are currently recognized as fundamental, others were included to restrict the government's authority with respect to the privileges granted to American citizens, or to explain more clearly one of the many rights each Citizen was born with, declared in the preamble of the United States Bill of Rights. There are exceptions to these amendments. For example, states are not required to obey the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury. Many states choose to have preliminary hearings instead of grand juries. While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:
    The right to interstate travel
    The right to intrastate travel
    The right to vote
    The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
    a. The right to marriage
    b. The right to procreation
    c. The right to an abortion during the first trimester
    d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
    [B]e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)[/B]
    f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights[/url]
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 06-14-2012 at 10:07 PM.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,224
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4492171][B]Why are oral contraceptives sometimes prescribed for medical problems?[/B]

    Oral contraceptives (the "birth control pill") have many health benefits beyond just preventing pregnancy. Medical researchers have been studying the pill for more than 40 years. They have discovered a number of ways oral contraceptives can be used to treat health problems. Because the pill contains hormones that affect your menstrual cycle (making your periods more regular and making you bleed less), it can be used to treat many conditions related to your period.

    [url]http://www.nyu.edu/shc/medservices/oral.contraceptives.html[/url]


    The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, via the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment, some rights are so fundamental that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.
    "The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality under the Due Process Clause is that the putative right must be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, or deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." at 267
    While the recognition of such rights has changed over time, they generally mirror those listed in the Bill of Rights. Although some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are currently recognized as fundamental, others were included to restrict the government's authority with respect to the privileges granted to American citizens, or to explain more clearly one of the many rights each Citizen was born with, declared in the preamble of the United States Bill of Rights. There are exceptions to these amendments. For example, states are not required to obey the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury. Many states choose to have preliminary hearings instead of grand juries. While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:
    The right to interstate travel
    The right to intrastate travel
    The right to vote
    The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
    a. The right to marriage
    b. The right to procreation
    c. The right to an abortion during the first trimester
    d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
    [B]e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)[/B]
    f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights[/url][/QUOTE]


    No you're talking about two different things. The right TO USE them, sure. Who is trying to stop anyone from using them (well besides the Catholic Church)?

    That's a lot different than saying they should be provided free of charge to everyone, as a human right. Yeah, I'n sure poor chicks who have 5 kids with 4 guys by the time they're 22 only do so because their human rights are being trampled on. :rolleyes:

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4492171][B]Why are oral contraceptives sometimes prescribed for medical problems?[/B]

    Oral contraceptives (the "birth control pill") have many health benefits beyond just preventing pregnancy. Medical researchers have been studying the pill for more than 40 years. They have discovered a number of ways oral contraceptives can be used to treat health problems. Because the pill contains hormones that affect your menstrual cycle (making your periods more regular and making you bleed less), it can be used to treat many conditions related to your period.

    [url]http://www.nyu.edu/shc/medservices/oral.contraceptives.html[/url]


    The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, via the due process and equal protection clauses of that amendment, some rights are so fundamental that any law restricting such a right must both serve a compelling state purpose and be narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose.
    "The test usually articulated for determining fundamentality under the Due Process Clause is that the putative right must be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, or deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." at 267
    While the recognition of such rights has changed over time, they generally mirror those listed in the Bill of Rights. Although some of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are currently recognized as fundamental, others were included to restrict the government's authority with respect to the privileges granted to American citizens, or to explain more clearly one of the many rights each Citizen was born with, declared in the preamble of the United States Bill of Rights. There are exceptions to these amendments. For example, states are not required to obey the Fifth Amendment requirement of indictment by grand jury. Many states choose to have preliminary hearings instead of grand juries. While having power to neither grant nor remove an individual right, the Supreme Court has legally recognized several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:
    The right to interstate travel
    The right to intrastate travel
    The right to vote
    The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
    a. The right to marriage
    b. The right to procreation
    c. The right to an abortion during the first trimester
    d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
    [B]e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)[/B]
    f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights[/url][/QUOTE]

    And who is this person that is trying to ban contraception? It could only be a democrat because as I have shown earlier in this thread it is mainly Democrats that try to take away people freedoms. Freedom of speech via the fairness doctrine, Freedom to work free of unions via their forced unionizations in many states, Freedom to choose a healthcare plan suited to their needs via Obamacare. Now you say someone tried to ban contraception? That could only be a liberal.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4492132]Your post ignores the fact that Ms. Fluke, and people of like mind, are also paying for those contraceptives as well through taxes.[/quote]

    It doesn't ignore it, it's simply a bad argument with no meaning of it's own. If thats all it takes, anything I want and desire should be covered, because I pay taxes too, a rediculous assertion.

    [quote]Also, since it has been medically proven that contraceptives are indeed used for medical concerns, in my estimation it is very much a human right.[/QUOTE]

    Well, as you know we disagree that healthcare is a human right. More so on choice-healthcare or preventative (non-emergent) healthcare.

    Even then, I've already said, if it's for a specific medical condition, I could be flexable. But if it's "Preventative" then sorry, no, not "thousands of dollars of contraceptives per month".

  17. #37
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,515
    [QUOTE=FF2®;4491724]I would say its fair to disagree with her.

    But I would say all the "ugly, whore, slut, etc." comments are a bit much.

    [B]You wouldn't comment like that on the looks or sexuality of a man who held the same beliefs.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Henry Waxman is an ugly son of a *****.

    [IMG]http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/henry-waxman.jpg[/IMG]

  18. #38
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,787
    If your method of attacking a person’s point of view or the public policy that they are promoting is by calling that person names you should not be surprised when there is the occasional public backlash.

  19. #39
    More like:

    [quote=Typical Collectivist Liberal Democrat]If you dare attack our policies, we'll call you racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, and Fascist. Continue to deny us what we demand and we'll then threaten violence and unrest while claiming we're peaceful, and denounce you as violent when you are, in fact, peaceful.

    All your tax are belong to us.[/QUOTE]

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=Buster;4492246]If your method of attacking a person’s point of view or the public policy that they are promoting is by calling that person names you should not be surprised when there is the occasional public backlash.[/QUOTE]

    This is what I meant to say.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us