Check out some similar questions!

excon · Mar 4, 2012, 09:53 AM

Hello:

Sandra Fluke is a prostitute who is having so much sex she can't pay for contraceptives.

It's clear that Limprod knows NOTHING about a woman's reproductive organs.. He thinks that the more sex a woman has, the more birth control she needs.. He's confused. Maybe he was absent that day in biology when the birds and the bees were discussed.. Or maybe his right wing parents kept him home that day.

Does HIS ignorance represent the right wing? I always figured ALL adults knew how babies were made. No, huh? Maybe that's because I went to a LIBERAL school where I actually GOT an education..

So, given the evidence that right wingers are CLUELESS about a women's reproductive system, should they be making laws about it?

Excon

tomder55 · Mar 4, 2012, 10:26 AM

Does HIS ignorance represent the right wing?

Let me ask Bill Maher and get back to you.

DoulaLC · Mar 4, 2012, 11:33 AM

The comment was based on her statement of many students not being able to afford contraceptives; of what the costs would be over the duration of their education at Georgetown. I'm not seeing where his comment shows a lack of knowledge regarding reproduction. In the event of purchasing condoms, for example, the more sex she engaged in, the more contraceptives she would indeed need to purchase. Of course with the use of something like the pill, that would not be the case. If she is going to engage in sex on a regular basis, she would need to purchase and use contraception on a regular basis.

I suppose you may be thinking his comment to mean that simply the act of frequent sex requires more birth control to be used regardless of what sort of birth control method... such as needing more pills than usual simply because she has frequent sex. That would make it appear that he is misinformed.

This was one man's attempt to voice his opinion and make a point, that many in both parties felt was handled terribly wrong. As with many who deal in politics, they don't always think before they speak, and certainly not everyone will agree with individual opinions or how they are expressed. Most definitely there are plenty who feel this way about Limbaugh on a regular basis.

His point being that taxpayers should not have to pay for contraceptives; that because it is a personal decision to engage in sex, it should be a personal responsibility to take proper precautions and accept the consequences.

Others feel that by providing contraception, unplanned pregnancies would decrease even more than they already have, and that it is proactive in decreasing costs for the health care that would be associated with such pregnancies.

Wondergirl · Mar 4, 2012, 12:16 PM

Aw, c'mon. He was just trying to be funny: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir."

tomder55 · Mar 4, 2012, 01:11 PM

Bill Maher told me to ask Ed Schultz.

BTW ;your typical law degree from Georgetown is $45,000 annually . Can someone again tell us why she should have her contraception paid for ?

talaniman · Mar 4, 2012, 04:27 PM

What was lost on Limprod and the right, the testimony of Ms Fluke was not about having sex, but a medical need, and saying she is paying 45 G's and can afford her own contraceptives is ingenuous, as I doubt she is paying for it.

For sure you ain't paying for her pills, that's what insurance premiums are for. Bad enough the right supports all the extractions of loot from us through for profit institutions, but you also coddle the fools with the insult that add to the injury.

But he apologized after his bosses boss told him to cool it. That's right, the Mitt guy and Bain own the company Limprod works at and we all know it ain't PC, its money that makes those calls, and they ain't about to lose a dime because of the loose lips of a fat winger.

Somebody explain to me how you have no children to show for 4 marriages?

tomder55 · Mar 4, 2012, 04:40 PM

That is really not your concern is it ? Why is it that the left doesn't want the government in the bedrooms but wants the government to pay for what goes on in the bedroom ?

Look ;y' all keep calling it a women's health issue ;and the testimony of Ms Fluke indicated she thought it was . Well by all means ;if a medical condition is diagnosed to justify the prescription then by all means let it be covered . If not ;then you can't convince me that her expenses were anything but for recreation.

tomder55 · Mar 4, 2012, 04:46 PM

but you also coddle the fools with the insult that add to the injury.

Would that be like the insults that Chris Matthews made during the last campaign about Evita saying that her success was because Bubba is a womanizer [She may have gotten The Des Moines Register's endorsement the other day, thanks to her husband's lobbying with its female editors and publisher ]? Or perhaps you are speaking of the men of MSNBC ;a cesspool of misogeny .

talaniman · Mar 4, 2012, 06:51 PM

There is no comparison between the rantings of Limprod, and the editorial comments of MSNBC!

You guys would love there to be a comparison. Ask Mitt. He knows there ain't.

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 03:09 AM

Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a Right Wing Slut. What's the difference ? Oh except that Schultz has no ratings. David Schuster said that the Clintoons were pimping their daughter .

excon · Mar 5, 2012, 03:25 AM

Hello again,

Look, both side call names.. Is it even? No. So what?

What I want to know is, do right wingers know how babies are made? You think I'm kidding.. I wish I was, but I actually DON'T think they do.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 03:35 AM

Won't bother to replying to the question . The real point is that Ms Fluke used examples to address specific medical conditions . For that usage I have no problem with prescriptions being covered . That is not what the President's plan entails so her testimony was irrelevant to the issue of the discussion.
I will not defend Rush since his show is pretty much in line with the stuff Bill Mahrer routinely spews .

excon · Mar 5, 2012, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Won't bother to replying to the question .

Hello tom:

Look. You can tell me. We're old friends... I come from a LIBERAL family. My mother sat me down and talked to me... I live in a LIBERAL city where they taught sex ed in school. I thought what happened to ME, happened to everybody...

Now, I'm not sure. I don't believe Limbaugh was misspeaking. I think he TRULY doesn't understand the female body. I don't know what happened to CONSERVATIVE children when it came time to learn the birds and the bees.. I have a feeling that their parents did NOT speak of such things, and did NOT let their children participate in biology class that day. Yes, we were NOTIFIED what was going to happen on THAT DAY, so SOME kids COULD be kept home. I'm sure they weren't the LIBERAL ones. In fact, I'll bet you replied to ME the same way your parents replied to YOU when you wanted to know what's going on.

Go ahead, tom. Reassure me.

excon

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 04:05 AM

I can't speak to Limbaugh's education. You can ask him. What I do know is that in his 'apology' (first line) he wrote of the illustrating the absurd with absurdity.
Your generalization is equally absurd .

TUT317 · Mar 5, 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Won't bother to replying to the question . The real point is that Ms Fluke used examples to address specific medical conditions . For that usage I have no problem with prescriptions being covered . That is not what the President's plan entails so her testimony was irrelevent to the issue of the discussion.
I will not defend Rush since his show is pretty much in line with the stuff Bill Mahrer routinely spews .

Hi Tom,

It may well be the case that the testimony is irrelevant to the President's plan, but that doesn't make it irrelevant to the discussion since the discussion is actually about this particular individual's comments.

Producing counter examples may prove the left engages in the same type of tactics. But, no it is not irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Tut

excon · Mar 5, 2012, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Your generalization is equally absurd .

Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry.. I'm NOT going away.. There WERE people who were NOT allowed to attend biology class to LEARN about sex.. That is SO.

Given that my FACTS are correct, I want to KNOW what happened to those people.. It's a LEGITIMATE inquiry. My feeling, is that you don't want to discuss it because you KNOW that I'm right... The BULK of the Republican party has NO CLUE about how a woman's body works.. I BELIEVE it. Convince me I'm wrong.

excon

TUT317 · Mar 5, 2012, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

I'm sorry.. I'm NOT going away.. There WERE people who were NOT allowed to attend biology class to LEARN about sex.. That is SO.

Given that my FACTS are correct, I wanna KNOW what happened to those people.. It's a LEGITIMATE inquiry. My feeling, is that you don't want to discuss it because you KNOW that I'm right... The BULK of the Republican party has NO CLUE about how a woman's body works.. I BELIEVE it. Convince me I'm wrong.

excon

Hi Ex,

I don't really know but perhaps it works this way.

In this day and age the majority of males know how a woman's biological reproductive system works ( regardless of the political party they are associated with).

Perhaps it is a problem of too many males in a position of power who think they know what it is like to be a woman, or what a woman should like. Perhaps policies in relation to woman's sexuality has a male bias.

Perhaps if woman were the dominating force in politics things would be different.

Just a thought.

Tut

tomder55 · Mar 5, 2012, 04:56 AM

It is a ridiculous proposition and I will not engage in it further .

excon · Mar 5, 2012, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by TUT317

In this day and age the majority of males know how a woman's biological reproductive system works ( regardless of the political party they are associated with).

Hello TUT:

Where, prey tell, WOULD these people learn about it?? You ASSUME they did SOMEWHERE. I don't.

Oh, that doesn't mean they COULDN'T. The information is available. But, I STILL don't think a conservative would avail himself of the information.. Oh, I believe he'd LEARN about SCREWING... But, learning how to SCREW, isn't learning about reproduction.

excon

TUT317 · Mar 5, 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello TUT:

Where, prey tell, WOULD these people learn about it??? You ASSUME they did SOMEWHERE. I don't.

Oh, that doesn't mean they COULDN'T. The information is available. But, I STILL don't think a conservative would avail himself of the information.. Oh, I believe he'd LEARN about SCREWING... But, learning how to SCREW, isn't learning about reproduction.

excon

Hi again Ex,

I think I see what you are getting at.

A specified group within society had a lack of biological knowledge in regards to female reproduction.

This particular group is in a position of political power

This groups policies in regards to woman's health would reflect this lack of biological knowledge.

You could argue something like this. However, I think the problem is that it would be very difficult, if not impossible to isolate a particular group and claim they have a lack of biological knowedge.

Tut