Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
SANDRA FLUKE: A FAKE VICTIM OF GEORGETOWN’S POLICY ON CONTRACEPTIVES?
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Lester
May 8, 2012, 4:59:56 AM5/8/12
to
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-
georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/
Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
has been called many things, from a heroine to a �slut,� but
actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air
suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie
Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting
information:
For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving
�coed�. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was
described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that
prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women�s right
advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as
talking about how she reviewed Georgetown�s insurance policy
prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn�t cover
contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express
purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was
described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time
Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she
appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This
morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it
was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been
reported all along.
Though there aren�t links in the original post to the content
mentioned, a little digging shows that it�s all true. Fluke has
described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown
University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary
to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a
wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a
college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a
30-year-old women�s rights activist who not only didn�t get
caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically
knew the university didn�t cover it and chose to attend for
precisely that reason.
First, there�s the matter of Fluke�s age. In a segment on
Fluke�s battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams
called Fluke �the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited
from testifying.� Yet Fluke�s own Linkedin profile reveals a
more mature woman:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-
2012-03-02-at-9.18.22-PM.png
In fact, according to that profile, she graduated from college
in 2003. Barring Fluke being a child prodigy who somehow
graduated college at the age of 15, this would make her at least
30 years old:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-
2012-03-02-at-9.18.40-PM.png
It�s worth noting the massive number of women�s issues groups
Fluke was involved in, even while in college.
Now, to be fair, Fluke�s age could have been misreported by the
media. Most 3rd year law students are at least 25, and they
could have confused her for being an undergraduate senior rather
than a 3rd year law student.
The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of
Georgetown�s policy on contraceptives is another matter
entirely. In several interviews, especially following Rush
Limbaugh�s attack, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the
group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of
Georgetown�s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats
supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown�s
insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that
would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status.
But what if she not only decided to attend the university
anyway, but decided to attend specifically so she could fight
this battle? Consider this passage from an early Washington Post
story done on Fluke before she was permitted to testify:
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive
coverage: She researched the Jesuit college�s health plans for
students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not
included. �I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise
the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,�
says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the
administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got
the university president�s office last spring, where Georgetown
declined to change its policy.
Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the
students at Georgetown that don�t have birth control covered,
and what that�s meant for them. �I wanted to be able to share
their stories,� she says. �My testimony would have been about
women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical
needs and have suffered dire consequences..?.?.The committee did
not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women
who have been dramatically affected by this policy.�
That�s right. It seems Fluke intentionally chose to go to
Georgetown so she could agitate and sway them to cover
contraceptives. She then went to a hearing as a representative
of women who hadn�t known about Georgetown�s policy until it was
too late. Unsympathetic observers might liken this to James
O�Keefe attending a hearing to speak against ACORN on behalf of
pimps. It certainly raises the question of why the women Fluke
claims to speak for couldn�t present their stories for
themselves.
Indeed, in a video made after she was denied the opportunity to
testify, Fluke raises two �stories� from women who had emailed
her, supposedly about their non-sex-related need of
contraceptive medicine. She does not identify the emailers by
name, or even by school, saying simply that they are students at
an unnamed Catholic University:
If Fluke�s stories are real, many will likely call on her to let
the women who sent them speak for themselves and stop hogging
the spotlight, given that she did choose to attend Georgetown
knowing full well what its policy was on contraceptives, and
with every indication of being willing to risk the price tag �
whether that price tag would be $3000 over 3 years or not.
georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/
Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
has been called many things, from a heroine to a �slut,� but
actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air
suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie
Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting
information:
For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving
�coed�. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was
described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that
prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women�s right
advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as
talking about how she reviewed Georgetown�s insurance policy
prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn�t cover
contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express
purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was
described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time
Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she
appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This
morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it
was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been
reported all along.
Though there aren�t links in the original post to the content
mentioned, a little digging shows that it�s all true. Fluke has
described herself as a third year law student at Georgetown
University, and indeed, that is what she is. However, contrary
to the narrative of innocent victimhood that portrays Fluke as a
wide-eyed 23-year-old girl caught without contraception on a
college campus full of predatory men, Fluke herself is really a
30-year-old women�s rights activist who not only didn�t get
caught without contraception at Georgetown, but specifically
knew the university didn�t cover it and chose to attend for
precisely that reason.
First, there�s the matter of Fluke�s age. In a segment on
Fluke�s battle with Rush Limbaugh, MSNBC reporter Anne Williams
called Fluke �the 23-year-old Georgetown law student, prohibited
from testifying.� Yet Fluke�s own Linkedin profile reveals a
more mature woman:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-
2012-03-02-at-9.18.22-PM.png
In fact, according to that profile, she graduated from college
in 2003. Barring Fluke being a child prodigy who somehow
graduated college at the age of 15, this would make her at least
30 years old:
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-
2012-03-02-at-9.18.40-PM.png
It�s worth noting the massive number of women�s issues groups
Fluke was involved in, even while in college.
Now, to be fair, Fluke�s age could have been misreported by the
media. Most 3rd year law students are at least 25, and they
could have confused her for being an undergraduate senior rather
than a 3rd year law student.
The idea that Fluke is herself an unwitting victim of
Georgetown�s policy on contraceptives is another matter
entirely. In several interviews, especially following Rush
Limbaugh�s attack, Fluke has implicitly included herself in the
group of women who allegedly unwittingly suffer as a result of
Georgetown�s policies. This is a key point for the Democrats
supporting her, for if Fluke did happen to read Georgetown�s
insurance policy before coming and decide to come anyway, that
would, at best, undermine her spokeswoman status.
But what if she not only decided to attend the university
anyway, but decided to attend specifically so she could fight
this battle? Consider this passage from an early Washington Post
story done on Fluke before she was permitted to testify:
Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive
coverage: She researched the Jesuit college�s health plans for
students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not
included. �I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise
the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,�
says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the
administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got
the university president�s office last spring, where Georgetown
declined to change its policy.
Fluke says she would have used the hearing to talk about the
students at Georgetown that don�t have birth control covered,
and what that�s meant for them. �I wanted to be able to share
their stories,� she says. �My testimony would have been about
women who have been affected by their policy, who have medical
needs and have suffered dire consequences..?.?.The committee did
not get to hear real stories I had to share, about actual women
who have been dramatically affected by this policy.�
That�s right. It seems Fluke intentionally chose to go to
Georgetown so she could agitate and sway them to cover
contraceptives. She then went to a hearing as a representative
of women who hadn�t known about Georgetown�s policy until it was
too late. Unsympathetic observers might liken this to James
O�Keefe attending a hearing to speak against ACORN on behalf of
pimps. It certainly raises the question of why the women Fluke
claims to speak for couldn�t present their stories for
themselves.
Indeed, in a video made after she was denied the opportunity to
testify, Fluke raises two �stories� from women who had emailed
her, supposedly about their non-sex-related need of
contraceptive medicine. She does not identify the emailers by
name, or even by school, saying simply that they are students at
an unnamed Catholic University:
If Fluke�s stories are real, many will likely call on her to let
the women who sent them speak for themselves and stop hogging
the spotlight, given that she did choose to attend Georgetown
knowing full well what its policy was on contraceptives, and
with every indication of being willing to risk the price tag �
whether that price tag would be $3000 over 3 years or not.
Phlip
May 8, 2012, 7:54:27 AM5/8/12
to
> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
> has been called many things, from a heroine to a slut, but
> actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air
> suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie
> Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting
> information:
hanging your hats on??
> Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive
> coverage: She researched the Jesuit college s health plans for
> students before enrolling
lark, it's the UNIVERSITY who are the REAL victims here!
Seriously, folks, the historical fact that Rosa Parks was a
blacktivist, not just the tired black girl that the media made her out
to be, has more merit than this tripe.
If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
Machine has no Off switch.
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 8:08:53 AM5/8/12
to
against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss Fluke
is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
the mean Rush Limbaugh.
Wht is interesting is that you seem bent on maintaining the lie.
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 10:20:15 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 7:08 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>
>> Lester <lest...@yahoo.com> quoted from:
>
> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/
...
>>> Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive
>>> coverage: She researched the Jesuit college s health plans for
>>> students before enrolling
>>
>> Ah, so because she did due diligence, and didn't just sign up on a
>> lark, it's the UNIVERSITY who are the REAL victims here!
>>
>> Seriously, folks, the historical fact that Rosa Parks was
>> a blacktivist, not just the tired black girl that the media
>> made her out to be, has more merit than this tripe.
>>
>> If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>> Machine has no Off switch.
>
> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
> against their contraceptive policy.
And how do you know that, precisely? Is just vague insinuation,
>>> coverage: She researched the Jesuit college s health plans for
>>> students before enrolling
>>
>> Ah, so because she did due diligence, and didn't just sign up on a
>> lark, it's the UNIVERSITY who are the REAL victims here!
>>
>> Seriously, folks, the historical fact that Rosa Parks was
>> a blacktivist, not just the tired black girl that the media
>> made her out to be, has more merit than this tripe.
>>
>> If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>> Machine has no Off switch.
>
> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
> against their contraceptive policy.
or is there even a slight factual detail to support that?
> The problem is that Miss Fluke was presented to the American people
belief don't count for much with me, such as this next fallacy..
> Miss Fluke was presented to the American people
> as someone whom she is not.
> Miss Fluke is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed
> who was bullied by the mean Rush Limbaugh.
you couldn't possibly know past Republican 'talking points'..
> Wht is interesting is that you seem bent on maintaining the lie.
and the usual distortions of facts..
--But, that's because you cling to a false doctrine of lies..
Phlip
May 8, 2012, 10:50:36 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
>
> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
...ignored by everyone.
> > Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
>
> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
ANYTHING about women's health!
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 10:55:49 AM5/8/12
to
that they were presented as anything other than what they are, a group
of men called to lead various church bodies. In addition, the only issue
they addressed was the propriety of forcing a church to act in
opposition to their teachings and confessions.
Phlip
May 8, 2012, 10:45:09 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 5:08 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss Fluke
activist and a student of the topic at hand.
> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
>
> > There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
> > Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
>
> > There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
> > Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>
> >> has been called many things, from a heroine to a slut, but
> >> actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air
> >> suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie
> >> Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting
> >> information:
>
> > Jammie... Wearing... Fools..? This is the journalist nym you are
> > hanging your hats on??
>
> >> actually, she may just be a fake. Gateway Pundit and Hot Air
> >> suggest that may be the case, with citations to a post by Jammie
> >> Wearing Fools that introduces the following interesting
> >> information:
>
> > Jammie... Wearing... Fools..? This is the journalist nym you are
> > hanging your hats on??
>
> >> Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive
> >> coverage: She researched the Jesuit college s health plans for
> >> students before enrolling
>
> > Ah, so because she did due diligence, and didn't just sign up on a
> > lark, it's the UNIVERSITY who are the REAL victims here!
>
> > Seriously, folks, the historical fact that Rosa Parks was a
> > blacktivist, not just the tired black girl that the media made her out
> > to be, has more merit than this tripe.
>
> > If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
> > subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
> > Machine has no Off switch.
>
> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
> against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
> >> coverage: She researched the Jesuit college s health plans for
> >> students before enrolling
>
> > Ah, so because she did due diligence, and didn't just sign up on a
> > lark, it's the UNIVERSITY who are the REAL victims here!
>
> > Seriously, folks, the historical fact that Rosa Parks was a
> > blacktivist, not just the tired black girl that the media made her out
> > to be, has more merit than this tripe.
>
> > If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
> > subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
> > Machine has no Off switch.
>
> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss Fluke
> is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
Strawman argument. She testified before Congress because she was an
> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
activist and a student of the topic at hand.
Phlip
May 8, 2012, 11:03:27 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 7:55 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip<phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
>
> >> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
> >> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>
> > ...ignored by everyone.
>
> > Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
> > that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
> > ANYTHING about women's health!
>
> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
Oh, so their belief in an Invisible Sky Fairy makes up for their
> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip<phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Since her controversial testimony on February 23, Sandra Fluke
>
> >> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
> >> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>
> > ...ignored by everyone.
>
> > Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
> > that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
> > ANYTHING about women's health!
>
> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
complete lack of knowledge about the subject Congress was researching
at the time.
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 11:27:40 AM5/8/12
to
that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
Phlip
May 8, 2012, 11:35:35 AM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a candidate?
> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
Really?
At least Congress didn't ask Fluke what newspapers she reads!!
Tristan daCunha
May 8, 2012, 11:35:21 AM5/8/12
to
Sandra Fluke eased out a quiet fart, and thousands died!
Tristan daCunha
May 8, 2012, 11:33:17 AM5/8/12
to
Good post Lester; You forgot a cogent detail,it is rumored that Sandy
has a 3" clit.
has a 3" clit.
wy
May 8, 2012, 11:02:19 AM5/8/12
to
not? She was talking about a legitimate issue that affects women. It
certainly doesn't affect men, so why should they have a say in the
matter? It'd be like women demanding that all men have 10-inch dicks
or they just won't get any nookie at all.
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 11:48:08 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>
>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>
-->
>>> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>
>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>
>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>
> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>
>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>
>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>
> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
--Why did you forget that?
gfn
May 8, 2012, 11:48:26 AM5/8/12
to
have a portion of their paychecks confiscated to pay for such benefits?
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 11:51:14 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 10:27 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 09:45 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> On May 8, 5:08 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
--->
> On 05/08/2012 09:45 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> On May 8, 5:08 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>> If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
>>>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>>>> Machine has no Off switch.
>>>
>>> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
>>> against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
>>> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss Fluke
>>> is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
>>> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
>>
>> Strawman argument. She testified before Congress because she was an
>> activist and a student of the topic at hand.
>
> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
That would be a 'false equivalency' on your behalf..
>>>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>>>> Machine has no Off switch.
>>>
>>> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
>>> against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
>>> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss Fluke
>>> is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
>>> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
>>
>> Strawman argument. She testified before Congress because she was an
>> activist and a student of the topic at hand.
>
> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
--Why do you rely on such distortions of fact, David?
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 11:53:45 AM5/8/12
to
On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>
>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>
> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a candidate?
> Really?
"Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>
>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>
> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a candidate?
> Really?
You have some interesting values.
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 11:54:46 AM5/8/12
to
Your dishonesty strikes again.
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 11:58:46 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 10:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
False Equivalence Alert..
> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
>>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>>
>> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a candidate?
>> Really?
>
> "Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
--And going rogue..
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 11:59:35 AM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 10:54 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 10:51 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 10:27 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2012 09:45 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>> On May 8, 5:08 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
----->
> On 05/08/2012 10:51 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 10:27 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2012 09:45 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>> On May 8, 5:08 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>> If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
>>>>>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>>>>>> Machine has no Off switch.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
>>>>> against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
>>>>> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss
>>>>> Fluke
>>>>> is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
>>>>> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
>>>>
>>>> Strawman argument. She testified before Congress because she was an
>>>> activist and a student of the topic at hand.
>>>
>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
>>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>>
>> That would be a 'false equivalency' on your behalf..
>
> Actually, it would not be.
Actually, it is..
>>>>>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>>>>>> Machine has no Off switch.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
>>>>> against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
>>>>> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss
>>>>> Fluke
>>>>> is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
>>>>> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
>>>>
>>>> Strawman argument. She testified before Congress because she was an
>>>> activist and a student of the topic at hand.
>>>
>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
>>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>>
>> That would be a 'false equivalency' on your behalf..
>
> Actually, it would not be.
--Your not-so-clever dishonesty aside..
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 12:00:49 PM5/8/12
to
ministries to offer contraception coverage in their insurance policies,
even if the church teaches that contraception is a violation of their
beliefs. The men on th panel all head major national church bodies. They
very definitely have knowledge of the subject. In fact, given the church
leaders likely have more actual knowledge on the subject than Miss Fluke.
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 12:02:40 PM5/8/12
to
By the way, the topic was not Women's health, but the constitutionality
of forcing churches to pay for contraception.
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 12:16:44 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
---->
> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
>>>>> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>
>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>
>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>
>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>
>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>
>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>
>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>
>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>
>> --Why did you forget that?
>
> Huh?
>
You know, the one that refused to hear her testimony..
> By the way, the topic was not Women's health
have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
taken care of responsibly..
--Sans rhetoric and false religious doctrines..
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 12:18:55 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms whined briefly:
> To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?
What about Chelsea Clinton?
--Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
What about Chelsea Clinton?
--Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
Tireman
May 8, 2012, 12:59:06 PM5/8/12
to
> and the usual distortions of facts..
>
> --But, that's because you cling to a false doctrine of lies..
Obamacare, and destroy the morals of America.
Fluke's testimony was also designed to gain votes for Obummer from the
parasites who require sustenance from the government tit.
Phlip
May 8, 2012, 1:31:23 PM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 9:59 am, Tireman <onthee...@razorsharp.net> wrote:
> Fluke's testimony was also designed to gain votes for Obummer from the
> parasites who require sustenance from the government tit.
and the fact she was complaining about health insurance SHE PAID FOR
> Fluke's testimony was also designed to gain votes for Obummer from the
> parasites who require sustenance from the government tit.
is irrelevant to you...
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 2:23:13 PM5/8/12
to
violate their religious teachings is relevant.
Phlip
May 8, 2012, 2:30:19 PM5/8/12
to
On May 8, 11:23 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> > and the fact she was complaining about health insurance SHE PAID FOR
> > is irrelevant to you...
>
> The fact that she thinks she has has the right to force Georgetown to
> violate their religious teachings is relevant.
Their religion says people with a disease can't take a pill?
> > and the fact she was complaining about health insurance SHE PAID FOR
> > is irrelevant to you...
>
> The fact that she thinks she has has the right to force Georgetown to
> violate their religious teachings is relevant.
What if their religion supported genital mutilation of children? or
witch burning?
David Hartung
May 8, 2012, 2:31:06 PM5/8/12
to
On 05/08/2012 11:16 AM, Slackfest wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
> ---->
>>>>>> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
>>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>>
>>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>>
>>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>>
>>> --Why did you forget that?
>>
>> Huh?
>
> You know, the one that refused to hear her testimony..
>
>> By the way, the topic was not Women's health
>
> Why do you think it's "unconstitutional" for a woman to
> have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
> at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
> to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
> taken care of responsibly..
More dishonesty.
> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
> ---->
>>>>>> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
>>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>>
>>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>>
>>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>>
>>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>>
>>> --Why did you forget that?
>>
>> Huh?
>
> You know, the one that refused to hear her testimony..
>
>> By the way, the topic was not Women's health
>
> Why do you think it's "unconstitutional" for a woman to
> have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
> at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
> to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
> taken care of responsibly..
Get back to me when you are willing to discuss this honestly.
Tristan daCunha
May 8, 2012, 6:51:37 PM5/8/12
to
Chelsea looks like Harpo Marx, with a throbber up his arse!
Slackfest
May 8, 2012, 11:04:55 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/2012 1:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2012 11:16 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
------>
>
> On 05/08/2012 11:16 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
>>>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>>>
>>>> --Why did you forget that?
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> You know, the one that refused to hear her testimony..
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>>>
>>>> --Why did you forget that?
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>
>> You know, the one that refused to hear her testimony..
>>> By the way, the topic was not Women's health
>>
>> Why do you think it's "unconstitutional" for a woman to
>> have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
>> at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
>> to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
>> taken care of responsibly..
>
> More dishonesty.
> Get back to me when you are willing to discuss this honestly.
Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
--Since you keep trying to avoid that established fact..
Tristan daCunha
May 8, 2012, 11:18:03 PM5/8/12
to
Sandy was invited to Churchill Downs to milk the horseys, after the
race.
She declined, citing a donkey show she was invited to in Mexico.
She's well suited...
race.
She declined, citing a donkey show she was invited to in Mexico.
She's well suited...
stinking cunt
May 8, 2012, 10:35:48 PM5/8/12
to
On May 9, 8:51 am, nomdeveri...@webtv.net (Tristan daCunha) wrote:
> Chelsea looks like Harpo Marx, with a throbber up his arse!
Nah...heres a better foto of this turd Sandra..
> Chelsea looks like Harpo Marx, with a throbber up his arse!
http://www.veronicamoser.com/images/mosers5.jpg
Tireman
May 9, 2012, 12:48:28 AM5/9/12
to
everyone to pay for her "fun." Why doesn't she just get sterilized?
Tireman
May 9, 2012, 12:49:29 AM5/9/12
to
fixed.
Tireman
May 9, 2012, 12:50:20 AM5/9/12
to
On 05/08/2012 03:51 PM, Tristan daCunha wrote:
> Chelsea looks like Harpo Marx, with a throbber up his arse!
>
Actually, she looks like her father, Webster Hubbel. He looked like one
> Chelsea looks like Harpo Marx, with a throbber up his arse!
>
of the three stooges with Botoxes lips.
Slackjaw
May 9, 2012, 7:10:45 AM5/9/12
to
>
> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
---
If ignorance is bliss, why are there so many miserable liberals?
---
Slackfest
May 9, 2012, 7:40:10 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 6:10 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
*>cricket.wav<*
--Still need help with you "psychics problem"?
>
> Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms whined briefly:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:58:46 AM UTC-4, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 10:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> False Equivalence Alert..
>>>>
>>>>>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than
>>>>>>> the treatment that Sara Palin has received for the past
>>>>>>> four years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a
>>>>>> candidate? Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
>>>>
>>>> You betcha..
>>>>
>>>> --And going rogue..
>>>
>>> To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?
>>
>> What about Chelsea Clinton?
>
> What about her?
Why do you have to ask?
> Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms whined briefly:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:58:46 AM UTC-4, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 10:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> False Equivalence Alert..
>>>>
>>>>>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than
>>>>>>> the treatment that Sara Palin has received for the past
>>>>>>> four years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a
>>>>>> candidate? Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
>>>>
>>>> You betcha..
>>>>
>>>> --And going rogue..
>>>
>>> To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?
>>
>> What about Chelsea Clinton?
>
> What about her?
>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
--Still need help with you "psychics problem"?
David Hartung
May 9, 2012, 7:54:22 AM5/9/12
to
On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
Slackfest
May 9, 2012, 8:43:48 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 6:54 AM, David Hartung deleted and bleated:
>
> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest restored:
>>> Get back to me when you are willing to discuss this honestly.
>>
>> Let's see if you're capable of that 'requirement'..
>>
options that could be misconstrued as 'contraception'..
--May the Gods of PMS have their wrath upon you today..
>
> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest restored:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 1:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 11:16 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
-------->
>> On 5/8/2012 1:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 11:16 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:48 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 9:55 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 09:50 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 4:54 am, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>> There was nothing controversial about the actual testimony. Without
>>>>>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>>>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>>>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Why did you forget that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> You know, the one that refused to hear her testimony..
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>>> By the way, the topic was not Women's health
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's "unconstitutional" for a woman to
>>>> have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
>>>> at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
>>>> to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
>>>> taken care of responsibly..
>>>
>>> More dishonesty.
>>
>> On your own behalf, yes..
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>>>>>>> Rush's controversial screed, it would have been
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...ignored by everyone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now how about that men-only panel the GOP paraded for us? The spin
>>>>>>>> that they were REAL activist beggars the notion they actually knew
>>>>>>>> ANYTHING about women's health!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you perhaps speaking of the panel of Church leaders?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Why did you forget that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?
>>>>
>>>> You know, the one that refused to hear her testimony..
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>>> By the way, the topic was not Women's health
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's "unconstitutional" for a woman to
>>>> have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
>>>> at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
>>>> to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
>>>> taken care of responsibly..
>>>
>>> More dishonesty.
>>
>> On your own behalf, yes..
>>> Get back to me when you are willing to discuss this honestly.
>>
>> Let's see if you're capable of that 'requirement'..
>>
>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>
>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>
>> --Since you keep trying to avoid that established fact..
>
>
> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
Nah, they just don't want women to have various health care
options that could be misconstrued as 'contraception'..
--May the Gods of PMS have their wrath upon you today..
David Hartung
May 9, 2012, 9:15:16 AM5/9/12
to
they may not constitutionally be forced to fund(through their insurance)
actions which violate their church teachings.
The "options" are still available to those who want them.
Believe it or not, no one has the inherent right to force employers to
pay for things such as health care.
Tristan daCunha
May 9, 2012, 9:29:41 AM5/9/12
to
Fluck Fluke; Can't sterilize a diesel dyke!
Tristan daCunha
May 9, 2012, 9:23:06 AM5/9/12
to
That pic doesn't do Sandy justice.
Not enough beans and nuts in her buffet!
Not enough beans and nuts in her buffet!
Tristan daCunha
May 9, 2012, 9:27:01 AM5/9/12
to
Fluck Flu
Slackfest
May 9, 2012, 9:50:31 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 8:15 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 07:43 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 6:54 AM, David Hartung deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 1:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 11:16 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
----->
>
> On 05/09/2012 07:43 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 6:54 AM, David Hartung deleted and bleated:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 1:31 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 11:16 AM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:02 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> Why do you think it's "unconstitutional" for a woman to
>>>>>> have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
>>>>>> at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
>>>>>> to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
>>>>>> taken care of responsibly..
>>>>>> have choices for reproductive health, even if they work
>>>>>> at a 'religious' institution? It seems "unconstitutional"
>>>>>> to let some religion dictate how a woman's health is
>>>>>> taken care of responsibly..
*>cricket.wav<*
>>>>> Get back to me when you are willing to discuss this honestly.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if you're capable of that 'requirement'..
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>
>>>> --Since you keep trying to avoid that established fact..
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>
>> Nah, they just don't want women to have various health care
>> options that could be misconstrued as 'contraception'..
>
> How have these "options" been denied?
Why do you even have to ask? Does the obvious escape your
>>>>> Get back to me when you are willing to discuss this honestly.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see if you're capable of that 'requirement'..
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>
>>>> --Since you keep trying to avoid that established fact..
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>
>> Nah, they just don't want women to have various health care
>> options that could be misconstrued as 'contraception'..
>
> How have these "options" been denied?
tightly-held ideological prison that readily?
And, did it laugh as it walked away from you, again?
> All the churches have saud is that they may not constitutionally
> be forced to fund(through their insurance) actions which violate
> their church teachings.
various 'medications' that also can prevent unwanted pregnancies,
cannot be limited by a 'religious institution' ideological dogma.
This is yet another example of the church interfering with
the government of our local, state and national government..
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> The "options" are still available to those who want them.
> Believe it or not, no one has the inherent right to force
> employers to pay for things such as health care.
--While you again attempt to move the goal-posts..
Phlip
May 9, 2012, 9:54:56 AM5/9/12
to
> > Believe it or not, no one has the inherent right to force
> > employers to pay for things such as health care.
>
> That would be a non sequitur argument on your behalf..
And we are back to "employer-based healthcare is wrong".
> > employers to pay for things such as health care.
>
> That would be a non sequitur argument on your behalf..
Yep, but before you both go supporting Single Payer, that's the system
we have, so we are forced to make the best of it.
Now how about employers who refuse to pay for Viagra, hmm?
2966 Dead
May 9, 2012, 10:37:52 AM5/9/12
to
David Hartung
May 9, 2012, 1:06:07 PM5/9/12
to
"Dictating" a certain action presumes that the person or entity has
authority to force compliance.
The Roman Catholic Church, like a number of other Christian churches
*teaches* that contraception is wrong, and that good Catholics shouldn't
use it. However, the Roman Catholic church lacks any means to enforce
its teaching, as indicated by the percentage of Roman Catholics who do
use birth control.
Phlip
May 9, 2012, 1:25:12 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 10:06 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> > Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>
> How are they "dictating"?
By denying a drug to help a woman with ovarian cysts, because that
> > Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>
> How are they "dictating"?
drug can also be used for recreational nookie.
Seriously, misogynists, and those who love them, should read this:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html
Synopsis: Because Sandra Fluke is taking BC to have sex with OTHER
men, and NOT YOU!!
And I remember Cracked back in the days when it was just a sucky
parody of Mad Magazine...
2966 Dead
May 9, 2012, 2:46:36 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>
>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>
> How are they "dictating"?
Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>
>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>
>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>
> How are they "dictating"?
church.
I take it you know nothing about this story, either.
David Hartung
May 9, 2012, 8:19:25 PM5/9/12
to
On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>
>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>
>> How are they "dictating"?
>
> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
> church.
As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this, I must assume that
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>
>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>
>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>
>> How are they "dictating"?
>
> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
> church.
you are making this up.
Slackfest
May 9, 2012, 9:09:14 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
----->
>
> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>
>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>
>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>
>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>> church.
>
> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
You are mistaken..
>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>
>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>
>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>
>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>> church.
>
> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
--And ignorant of history..
David Hartung
May 9, 2012, 9:16:54 PM5/9/12
to
will on their American parishioners?
> --And ignorant of history..
What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
Catholic Church in the USA?
Slackfest
May 9, 2012, 9:26:29 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 8:16 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
------->
>
> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>
>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>> church.
>>>
>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>
>> You are mistaken..
>
> I am?
Indeed, and it's not the first time, either, is it?
>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>
>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>> church.
>>>
>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>
>> You are mistaken..
>
> I am?
> What means does the Roman Catholic church have
of the largest churches on the face of the Earth to you?
>> --And ignorant of history..
>
> What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
> Catholic Church in the USA?
--It's a pity that an evangelical Protestant doesn't get it..
wy
May 9, 2012, 9:25:31 PM5/9/12
to
On May 9, 9:16 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> > ----->
> >>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
> >>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>
> >>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>
> >>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>
> >>>> How are they "dictating"?
>
> >>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
> >>> church.
>
> >> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>
> > You are mistaken..
>
> I am? What means does the Roman Catholic church have to impose their
> will on their American parishioners?
He didn't say parishioners, he said those who aren't members of the
> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>
> >>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> > ----->
> >>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
> >>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>
> >>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>
> >>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>
> >>>> How are they "dictating"?
>
> >>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
> >>> church.
>
> >> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>
> > You are mistaken..
>
> I am? What means does the Roman Catholic church have to impose their
> will on their American parishioners?
church. Pay attention and try not to be revisionist.
>
> > --And ignorant of history..
>
> What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
> Catholic Church in the USA?
begins as soon as a nano-second has past after the present. A full
second ago is the past, a minute ago, an hour ago, as well as a day,
week, month, year ago, all the way to the year 2000 and further back
before that. It's all the past. Yes, Hartung, the 21st century
actually does have history to it that includes whatever history there
is with the authority of the Catholic church in the US.
David Hartung
May 9, 2012, 9:53:46 PM5/9/12
to
On 05/09/2012 08:26 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 8:16 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> ------->
>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>> church.
>>>>
>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>
>>> You are mistaken..
>>
>> I am?
>
> Indeed, and it's not the first time, either, is it?
>
>> What means does the Roman Catholic church have
>
> Why do I have to explain the religious indoctrination of one
> of the largest churches on the face of the Earth to you?
1.The ROman Catholic Church can teach anything it wants, but in the USA
> On 5/9/2012 8:16 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> ------->
>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>> church.
>>>>
>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>
>>> You are mistaken..
>>
>> I am?
>
> Indeed, and it's not the first time, either, is it?
>
>> What means does the Roman Catholic church have
>
> Why do I have to explain the religious indoctrination of one
> of the largest churches on the face of the Earth to you?
it has no means to force its parishioners to follow those teachings.
2. Birth control is available to any woman at Georgetown.
3. Your "logic" in this issue os even worse than usual.
>>> --And ignorant of history..
>>
>> What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
>> Catholic Church in the USA?
>
> *>LOL!<* Your question answers itself, David..
>
> --It's a pity that an evangelical Protestant doesn't get it..
struggling to be able to support it with fact.
Here is a hint. You have failed.
2966 Dead
May 9, 2012, 10:23:04 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:16:54 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>> ----->
>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>
>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>> church.
>>>
>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>
>> You are mistaken..
>
> I am? What means does the Roman Catholic church have to impose their
> will on their American parishioners?
“The Pope? How many divisions does he have?” - Josef Stalin
> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>> ----->
>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>
>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>> church.
>>>
>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>
>> You are mistaken..
>
> I am? What means does the Roman Catholic church have to impose their
> will on their American parishioners?
Slackfest
May 10, 2012, 12:24:19 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/9/2012 9:23 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:16:54 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
-------->
>
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:16:54 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>
>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>> church.
>>>>
>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>
>>> You are mistaken..
>>
>> I am? What means does the Roman Catholic church have to impose their
>> will on their American parishioners?
>
> “The Pope? How many divisions does he have?” - Josef Stalin
I wouldn't know, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition..
>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>> church.
>>>>
>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>
>>> You are mistaken..
>>
>> I am? What means does the Roman Catholic church have to impose their
>> will on their American parishioners?
>
> “The Pope? How many divisions does he have?” - Josef Stalin
--Listening to Dmitri Shostakovich "Can can"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWbVRWVeyJ0&feature=related
Slackfest
May 10, 2012, 12:37:40 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/9/2012 8:53 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 08:26 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 8:16 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
--------->
>
> On 05/09/2012 08:26 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 8:16 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>>> church.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>>
>>>> You are mistaken..
>>>
>>> I am?
>>
>> Indeed, and it's not the first time, either, is it?
>>
>>> What means does the Roman Catholic church have
>>
>> Why do I have to explain the religious indoctrination of one
>> of the largest churches on the face of the Earth to you?
>
> 1.The ROman Catholic Church can teach anything it wants
Including false doctrines, like you do..
>>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>>> church.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>>
>>>> You are mistaken..
>>>
>>> I am?
>>
>> Indeed, and it's not the first time, either, is it?
>>
>>> What means does the Roman Catholic church have
>>
>> Why do I have to explain the religious indoctrination of one
>> of the largest churches on the face of the Earth to you?
>
> 1.The ROman Catholic Church can teach anything it wants
> but in the USA it has no means to force its parishioners to follow those teachings.
tell women what health care options they can have. Thanks!
Now, back to what I was telling you earlier..
>>>> You are mistaken..
>>>>
>>>> --And ignorant of history..
>>>
>>> What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
>>> Catholic Church in the USA?
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Your question answers itself, David..
>>
>> --It's a pity that an evangelical Protestant doesn't get it..
>
> In other words
There's no "in other words" to what I wrote above..
>>>> --And ignorant of history..
>>>
>>> What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
>>> Catholic Church in the USA?
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Your question answers itself, David..
>>
>> --It's a pity that an evangelical Protestant doesn't get it..
>
> In other words
You asked:
"What has history to do with the 21st century authority
of the Roman Catholic Church in the USA?"
Catholic Church, in the 21st Century, in the USA?
Especially in regards to the availability of contraceptives..
Now, why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
institutions to dictate a woman's health choices at a religious
institution where she works?
--Need some more paint in that corner?
David Hartung
May 10, 2012, 6:10:36 AM5/10/12
to
>> but in the USA it has no means to force its parishioners to follow
>> those teachings.
>
> Then, by your logic, we also don't have to allow religions
> tell women what health care options they can have. Thanks!
> Now, back to what I was telling you earlier..
>
>>>>> You are mistaken..
>>>>>
>>>>> --And ignorant of history..
>>>>
>>>> What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
>>>> Catholic Church in the USA?
>>>
>>> *>LOL!<* Your question answers itself, David..
>>>
>>> --It's a pity that an evangelical Protestant doesn't get it..
>>
>> In other words
>
> There's no "in other words" to what I wrote above..
>
> You asked:
>
> "What has history to do with the 21st century authority
> of the Roman Catholic Church in the USA?"
>
> Ask yourself, David, what has history to do with the
> Catholic Church, in the 21st Century, in the USA?
> Especially in regards to the availability of contraceptives..
historically had no political authority.
> Now, why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices at a religious
> institution where she works?
You have yet to show that any sort of "dictating" is going on in any
church institution. In fact you refuse to admit that the Church lacks
any sort of dictatorial authority at all.
What you are trying to re-frame as a health issue, abortion and birth
control, are issues on which the Catholic church has long standing and
well known religious positions. For the government to require the church
to act in opposition to those well know church teachings is a direct
violation if the US Constitution.
This is the bottom line, and it was this subject which was addressed by
the church leaders who testified before Congress.
Slackjaw
May 10, 2012, 7:40:19 AM5/10/12
to
>
> > > --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
>
> *>cricket.wav<*
>
> --Still need help with you "psychics problem"?
Slackfest
May 10, 2012, 8:22:59 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>> Slackfest was exploiting theambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined briefly:
Here, try it again:
You wrote:
"To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?"
I replied:
"What about Chelsea Clinton?
--Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?"
You replied:
"What about her?"
Oh, I see, so since Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate, that makes
it okay to start a political smear campaign using a President's
children, so far as you so-called "conservatives" are concerned..
Right? Anything else you'd like to rationalize?
--Glad to help you out in understanding your own false equivalency..
>
> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>> Slackfest was exploiting theambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined briefly:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:58:46 AM UTC-4, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 10:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False Equivalence Alert..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable
>>>>>>>>> than the treatment that Sara Palin has received for the
>>>>>>>>> past four years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a
>>>>>>>> candidate? Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You betcha..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --And going rogue..
>>>>>
>>>>> To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?
>>>>
>>>> What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:58:46 AM UTC-4, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 10:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False Equivalence Alert..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable
>>>>>>>>> than the treatment that Sara Palin has received for the
>>>>>>>>> past four years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a
>>>>>>>> candidate? Really?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You betcha..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --And going rogue..
>>>>>
>>>>> To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?
>>>>
>>>> What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
>>>
>>>
>>> What about her?
>>
>> Why do you have to ask?
>
> And Kurt run
Aww, did I make you have to think too hard again?
>>
>> Why do you have to ask?
>
> And Kurt run
Here, try it again:
You wrote:
"To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?"
"What about Chelsea Clinton?
--Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?"
"What about her?"
Oh, I see, so since Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate, that makes
it okay to start a political smear campaign using a President's
children, so far as you so-called "conservatives" are concerned..
Right? Anything else you'd like to rationalize?
--Glad to help you out in understanding your own false equivalency..
Slackfest
May 10, 2012, 8:43:00 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 5:10 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2012 11:37 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 8:53 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 08:26 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2012 8:16 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
----------->
>
> On 05/09/2012 11:37 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/9/2012 8:53 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2012 08:26 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2012 8:16 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2012 08:09 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 7:19 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 01:46 PM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:06:07 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/09/2012 09:37 AM, 2966 Dead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 06:54:22 -0500, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:04 PM, Slackfest wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing
>>>>>>>>>>> so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>>>>> church.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are mistaken..
>>>>>
>>>>> I am?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and it's not the first time, either, is it?
>>>>
>>>>> What means does the Roman Catholic church have
>>>>
>>>> Why do I have to explain the religious indoctrination of one
>>>> of the largest churches on the face of the Earth to you?
>>>
>>> 1.The ROman Catholic Church can teach anything it wants
>>
>> Including false doctrines, like you do..
>
> A sign that you have no argument
As you deflect hard right, away from my question:
>>>>>>>>>>>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To the best of my knowledge, no religious institution is doing
>>>>>>>>>>> so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ever heard of the Catholic Church?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How are they "dictating"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trying to impose their will on people who are not members of their
>>>>>>>> church.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As the Catholic Church lacks any means of doing this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are mistaken..
>>>>>
>>>>> I am?
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and it's not the first time, either, is it?
>>>>
>>>>> What means does the Roman Catholic church have
>>>>
>>>> Why do I have to explain the religious indoctrination of one
>>>> of the largest churches on the face of the Earth to you?
>>>
>>> 1.The ROman Catholic Church can teach anything it wants
>>
>> Including false doctrines, like you do..
>
> A sign that you have no argument
Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>> but in the USA it has no means to force its parishioners to follow
>>> those teachings.
>>
>> Then, by your logic, we also don't have to allow religions
>> tell women what health care options they can have. Thanks!
>
> Not sure how your comment relates to mine.
Why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>>>>>> You are mistaken..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --And ignorant of history..
>>>>>
>>>>> What has history to do with the 21st century authority of the Roman
>>>>> Catholic Church in the USA?
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* Your question answers itself, David..
>>>>
>>>> --It's a pity that an evangelical Protestant doesn't get it..
>>>
>>> In other words
>>
>> There's no "in other words" to what I wrote above..
>>
>> You asked:
>>
>> "What has history to do with the 21st century authority
>> of the Roman Catholic Church in the USA?"
>>
>> Ask yourself, David, what has history to do with the
>> Catholic Church, in the 21st Century, in the USA?
>> Especially in regards to the availability of contraceptives..
>
> You are making no sense.
> In the USA, The Roman Catholic Church has
> historically had no political authority.
have any "political authority", as you call it? Think about it..
>> Now, why do you think it's "constitutional" for some religious
>> institutions to dictate a woman's health choices at a religious
>> institution where she works?
>
> This is a "do you still beat your wife" sort of question.
it's okay for a 'religious institution' to deny certain health
care options to women, on the basis of 'moral convictions' alone
instead of rational health care options..
Too bad you're blinded by ideology and false doctrine, David..
> You have yet to show that any sort of "dictating" is going on in any
> church institution
> What you are trying to re-frame as a health issue
> For the government to require the church to act in opposition
> to those well know church teachings is a direct violation if
> the US Constitution.
a "direct violation" on the behalf of those churches..
> This is the bottom line
There is no "bottom line" to this, except for the costs of a
woman's reproductive health, and related metabolic concerns
which are being mislabeled as only "contraception"..
> and it was this subject which was addressed by
> the church leaders who testified before Congress.
--A woman might know more about it than a bunch of old guys, hunh?
2966 Dead
May 10, 2012, 9:50:30 AM5/10/12
to
Slackjaw
May 10, 2012, 8:19:17 PM5/10/12
to
of her being attacked the way liberals go after the children of
conservatives.
Typical.
Slackfest
May 10, 2012, 10:44:18 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
------>
attack the children of political figures, and then try to
pretend it's somebody else that's doing it to rethuglicans..
--My, how your sociopathy is so self-evident tonight..
>
> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>
>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2012 6:10 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>
>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/2012 6:10 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
------>
>>>>>>> To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
>>>>>
>>>>> What about her?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you have to ask?
>>>
>>> And Kurt run
>>
>> Aww, did I make you have to think too hard again?
>>
>> Here, try it again:
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?"
>>
>> I replied:
>>
>> "What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>
>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?"
>>
>> You replied:
>>
>> "What about her?"
>>
>> Oh, I see, so since Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate, that makes
>> it okay to start a political smear campaign using a President's
>> children, so far as you so-called "conservatives" are concerned..
>>
>> Right? Anything else you'd like to rationalize?
>>
>> --Glad to help you out in understanding your own false equivalency..
>
> You brought up Chelsea Clinton
Yup, as an example of how you rethuglicans will desperately
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
>>>>>
>>>>> What about her?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you have to ask?
>>>
>>> And Kurt run
>>
>> Aww, did I make you have to think too hard again?
>>
>> Here, try it again:
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> "To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?"
>>
>> I replied:
>>
>> "What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>
>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?"
>>
>> You replied:
>>
>> "What about her?"
>>
>> Oh, I see, so since Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate, that makes
>> it okay to start a political smear campaign using a President's
>> children, so far as you so-called "conservatives" are concerned..
>>
>> Right? Anything else you'd like to rationalize?
>>
>> --Glad to help you out in understanding your own false equivalency..
>
> You brought up Chelsea Clinton
attack the children of political figures, and then try to
pretend it's somebody else that's doing it to rethuglicans..
--My, how your sociopathy is so self-evident tonight..
Slackjaw
May 11, 2012, 7:40:53 AM5/11/12
to
Slackfest
May 11, 2012, 8:03:57 AM5/11/12
to
On 5/11/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
--Which is your 'psychics problem' to solve..
>
> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>
>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw<wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
--->
> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>
>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw<wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>> Aww, did I make you have to think too hard again?
>>>>
>>>> Here, try it again:
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?"
>>>>
>>>> I replied:
>>>>
>>>> "What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?"
>>>>
>>>> You replied:
>>>>
>>>> "What about her?"
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I see, so since Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate, that makes
>>>> it okay to start a political smear campaign using a President's
>>>> children, so far as you so-called "conservatives" are concerned..
>>>>
>>>> Right? Anything else you'd like to rationalize?
>>>>
>>>> --Glad to help you out in understanding your own false equivalency..
>>>
>>> You brought up Chelsea Clinton
>>
>> Yup, as an example of how you rethuglicans will desperately
>> attack the children of political figures, and then try to
>> pretend it's somebody else that's doing it to rethuglicans..
>>
>> --My, how your sociopathy is so self-evident tonight..
>
> That made absolutely no sense
..to you, that is..
>>>>
>>>> Here, try it again:
>>>>
>>>> You wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?"
>>>>
>>>> I replied:
>>>>
>>>> "What about Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?"
>>>>
>>>> You replied:
>>>>
>>>> "What about her?"
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I see, so since Bill Clinton wasn't a candidate, that makes
>>>> it okay to start a political smear campaign using a President's
>>>> children, so far as you so-called "conservatives" are concerned..
>>>>
>>>> Right? Anything else you'd like to rationalize?
>>>>
>>>> --Glad to help you out in understanding your own false equivalency..
>>>
>>> You brought up Chelsea Clinton
>>
>> Yup, as an example of how you rethuglicans will desperately
>> attack the children of political figures, and then try to
>> pretend it's somebody else that's doing it to rethuglicans..
>>
>> --My, how your sociopathy is so self-evident tonight..
>
> That made absolutely no sense
--Which is your 'psychics problem' to solve..
wynn69
May 13, 2012, 1:33:36 PM5/13/12
to
On Tue, 08 May 2012 10:18:55 -0600, Slackfest <baron.v...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms whined briefly:
This should be a real knee-slapper...take all the screens you need '<
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms whined briefly:
>> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:58:46 AM UTC-4, Slackfest wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2012 10:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> False Equivalence Alert..
>>>
>>>>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the
>>>>>> treatment
>>>>>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a candidate?
>>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> "Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
>>>
>>> You betcha..
>>>
>>> --And going rogue..
>>
>>> On 5/8/2012 10:53 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 05/08/2012 10:35 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>> On May 8, 8:27 am, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> False Equivalence Alert..
>>>
>>>>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the
>>>>>> treatment
>>>>>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are comparing calling someone a "slut" to vetting a candidate?
>>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> "Vetting" a candidate? That is what you call it?
>>>
>>> You betcha..
>>>
>>> --And going rogue..
>>
>> To liberals, going after a candidate's underage children is OK?
>
>
> What about Chelsea Clinton?
>
> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
Which "candidate" do you claim Sandra Fluke is an "underage child" of?
>
> --Or calling Sandra Fluke a "slut"?
This should be a real knee-slapper...take all the screens you need '<
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Slackfest
May 14, 2012, 9:42:23 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
> Who attacked Chelsea Clinton?
Why do you have to ask? Are you that intellectually lazy?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks/
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5785
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html#ixzz1qWdLje7Q
--Better get to work on that homework assignment, faulty..
>
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
>>
>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 6:10 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined briefly:
-------->
>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/2012 6:10 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 11:05 AM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined briefly:
Why do you have to ask? Are you that intellectually lazy?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks/
http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5785
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html#ixzz1qWdLje7Q
--Better get to work on that homework assignment, faulty..
Slackfest
May 16, 2012, 2:15:50 PM5/16/12
to
faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered for another insult:
>
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
> Evasion noted.
On your behalf.. Hell, I've even found McCain making inappropriate
comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
--But, you still can't address the real issues, can you?
>
> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>
>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
----->
>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>
>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
On your behalf.. Hell, I've even found McCain making inappropriate
comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
--But, you still can't address the real issues, can you?
Slackfest
May 16, 2012, 5:20:11 PM5/16/12
to
faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command for:
>
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:15:50 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
> For example, you could find several instances of a story posted
> about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog.
Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush Limbaugh
calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose there might be
an element of truth to it..
--Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:15:50 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>
>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered for another insult:
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
------->
>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered for another insult:
>>>
>>> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was again exploiting the ambitious ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 6:40 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>> You brought up Chelsea Clinton
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, as an example of how you rethuglicans will desperately
>>>>>> attack the children of political figures, and then try to
>>>>>> pretend it's somebody else that's doing it to rethuglicans..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --My, how your sociopathy is so self-evident tonight..
>>>>>
>>>>> Who attacked Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you have to ask? Are you that intellectually lazy?
>>>>
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks/
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5785
>>>>
>>>> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
>>>>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html#ixzz1qWdLje7Q
>>>>
>>>> --Better get to work on that homework assignment, faulty..
>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>>
>> On your behalf.. Hell, I've even found McCain making inappropriate
>> comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
>>
>> --But, you still can't address the real issues, can you?
>
> I don't always believe something because it's found on the net.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, as an example of how you rethuglicans will desperately
>>>>>> attack the children of political figures, and then try to
>>>>>> pretend it's somebody else that's doing it to rethuglicans..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --My, how your sociopathy is so self-evident tonight..
>>>>>
>>>>> Who attacked Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you have to ask? Are you that intellectually lazy?
>>>>
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks/
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5785
>>>>
>>>> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
>>>>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html#ixzz1qWdLje7Q
>>>>
>>>> --Better get to work on that homework assignment, faulty..
>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>>
>> On your behalf.. Hell, I've even found McCain making inappropriate
>> comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
>>
>> --But, you still can't address the real issues, can you?
>
That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
> For example, you could find several instances of a story posted
> about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog.
Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush Limbaugh
calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose there might be
an element of truth to it..
--Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
Tristan daCunha
May 16, 2012, 4:38:00 PM5/16/12
to
Chelsea's father was Harpo Marx!
Just look at her!
Just look at her!
Tristan daCunha
May 16, 2012, 4:42:03 PM5/16/12
to
Janet Reno is Joy Behar's father!
Mantan Moreland was Whoopi Golberg's father!
Mantan Moreland was Whoopi Golberg's father!
riptide revelry
May 16, 2012, 5:51:59 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/2012 3:20 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> in regards to Rush Limbaugh
> calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose there might be
> an element of truth to it..
Promiscuous perhaps, but a slut, really?
> in regards to Rush Limbaugh
> calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose there might be
> an element of truth to it..
> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
riptide revelry
May 16, 2012, 5:54:13 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/2012 12:15 PM, Slackfest wrote:
> I've even found McCain making inappropriate
> comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
That's just flucking BS my man, Renoid never got the full monty,
> I've even found McCain making inappropriate
> comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
everyone knows she's sporting a strapon.
Slackfest
May 16, 2012, 9:06:43 PM5/16/12
to
faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
> N,o it was a fabrication,
Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
> The truth is, of course, it never happened
Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
--See subject header for important clue..
>
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>
>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command for:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:15:50 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered for another insult:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
-------->
>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command for:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:15:50 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered for another insult:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:44:18 PM UTC-4, Slackfest laughed at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 7:19 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
> The truth is, of course, it never happened
Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
--See subject header for important clue..
Slackjaw
May 16, 2012, 9:31:07 PM5/16/12
to
there's a White House dog?" and then he had a picture of Chelsea
Clinton shown?
Because if you are, then you're a liar.
>
> > The truth is, of course, it never happened
>
> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>
> --See subject header for important clue..
Slackfest
May 16, 2012, 10:29:39 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>
> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
> Because
Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
Hrrrmmm, I wonder what else Limbaugh said about Chelsea Clinton..
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends
private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required
students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White". '... My
source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show,
quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)
REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the
network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of
external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: "There is no
legitimacy to the story that has been circulating.... We're anxious to
let people know that this story is not true." The essay topic would be
particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school's student body
that is not white.
Personal Attacks
LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh constantly tells his audience that he doesn't make
personal or ad hominem attacks. To a caller who had a problem with his
personalized attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: "Give me a
specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?"
(Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: One hour before that call, Limbaugh was telling his audience
that a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice--pictured on the cover of
Time magazine--was really Sally Jesse Raphael: "This is just what Sally
Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!"
MORE REALITY: Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93)
this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke:
Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat.
But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture
of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a
picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's
a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was
13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to
anyone.
When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the
gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had
put up the picture of Chelsea--which I found as disgusting as his
original attempt at humor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Use_of_entertainment_props
During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program,
Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then
stated, "But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and a
picture of Chelsea Clinton was shown. When questioned about it, Limbaugh
claimed that it was an accident and that without his permission some
technician had put up the picture of Chelsea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/chelsea.htm
Still, "Saturday Night Live" saw fit to air a sketch that compared
Chelsea, then 13, unfavorably with Vice President Gore's daughter. The
first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush Limbaugh
took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh.
"Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White
House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/16/hillaryclinton.uselections2008
Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it also
sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from reruns.
Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment meted out on
conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing firebrand Rush
Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned Chelsea on his TV show
as 'the White House dog'.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-dominate-talk-radio-781729.php
Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During the
Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of his
most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks about
pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn Beck and
his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama, attacking her
intelligence
>
> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>
>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command for:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:15:50 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered for another insult:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
-------->
>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command for:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 2:15:50 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered for another insult:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 14, 2012 9:42:23 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2012 4:54 PM, faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>> Who attacked Chelsea Clinton?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you have to ask? Are you that intellectually lazy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5785
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html#ixzz1qWdLje7Q
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Better get to work on that homework assignment, faulty..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On your behalf.. Hell, I've even found McCain making inappropriate
>>>>>> comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --But, you still can't address the real issues, can you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't always believe something because it's found on the net.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>
>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story posted
>>>>> about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog.
>>>>
>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush Limbaugh
>>>> calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose there might be
>>>> an element of truth to it..
>>>>
>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>
>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>
>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you have to ask? Are you that intellectually lazy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/chelsea-clinton-sandra-fluke-unite-over-rush-limbaugh-attacks/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=5785
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882947,00.html#ixzz1qWdLje7Q
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Better get to work on that homework assignment, faulty..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On your behalf.. Hell, I've even found McCain making inappropriate
>>>>>> comments about Chelsea being ugly because Janet Reno was her father..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --But, you still can't address the real issues, can you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't always believe something because it's found on the net.
>>>>
>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>
>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story posted
>>>>> about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the White House dog.
>>>>
>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush Limbaugh
>>>> calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose there might be
>>>> an element of truth to it..
>>>>
>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>
>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>
>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>
>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>
>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>
>>
>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>
> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
Did I stutter?
> Because
Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
Hrrrmmm, I wonder what else Limbaugh said about Chelsea Clinton..
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
LIMBAUGH: "You know the Clintons send Chelsea to the Sidwell Friends
private school.... A recent eighth grade class assignment required
students to write a paper on 'Why I Feel Guilty Being White". '... My
source for this story is CBS News. I am not making it up." (Radio show,
quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times, 1/16/94.)
REALITY: When Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times called CBS, the
network denied running such a story. Ellis Turner, the director of
external affairs for Sidwell Friends, told Roeper: "There is no
legitimacy to the story that has been circulating.... We're anxious to
let people know that this story is not true." The essay topic would be
particularly difficult for the 28 percent of the school's student body
that is not white.
Personal Attacks
LIMBAUGH: Limbaugh constantly tells his audience that he doesn't make
personal or ad hominem attacks. To a caller who had a problem with his
personalized attacks, Limbaugh responded with a denial: "Give me a
specific example: who, what, when, where, and what exactly did I say?"
(Radio show, 2/18/94)
REALITY: One hour before that call, Limbaugh was telling his audience
that a 5,000-year-old man found buried in ice--pictured on the cover of
Time magazine--was really Sally Jesse Raphael: "This is just what Sally
Jesse Raphael looks like without makeup!"
MORE REALITY: Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93)
this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke:
Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat.
But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture
of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/05/lyin-bully
On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a
picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's
a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was
13 years old at the time and as far as I know had never done any harm to
anyone.
When viewers objected, he claimed, in typical Limbaugh fashion, that the
gag was an accident and that without his permission some technician had
put up the picture of Chelsea--which I found as disgusting as his
original attempt at humor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh#Use_of_entertainment_props
During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program,
Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then
stated, "But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and a
picture of Chelsea Clinton was shown. When questioned about it, Limbaugh
claimed that it was an accident and that without his permission some
technician had put up the picture of Chelsea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/chelsea.htm
Still, "Saturday Night Live" saw fit to air a sketch that compared
Chelsea, then 13, unfavorably with Vice President Gore's daughter. The
first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush Limbaugh
took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh.
"Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White
House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/16/hillaryclinton.uselections2008
Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it also
sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from reruns.
Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment meted out on
conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing firebrand Rush
Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned Chelsea on his TV show
as 'the White House dog'.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-dominate-talk-radio-781729.php
Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During the
Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of his
most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks about
pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn Beck and
his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama, attacking her
intelligence
Message has been deleted
Slackjaw
May 17, 2012, 7:01:37 AM5/17/12
to
>
> > Because
>
> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
> > Because
>
> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
> The first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush
> Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat,"
> said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there
> is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea.
happened. It's a total fabrication created by the liberals.
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/16/hillaryclinton.uselections
> 2008
>
> Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
> criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it
> also sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from
> reruns. Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment meted
> out on conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing firebrand
> Rush Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned Chelsea on his
> TV show as 'the White House dog'.
>
>
> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-dominate
> -talk-radio-781729.php
>
> Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During the
> Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of
> his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks
> about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn
> Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama,
> attacking her intelligence
>
> --See subject header for important clue..
>
> Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
> criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it
> also sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from
> reruns. Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment meted
> out on conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing firebrand
> Rush Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned Chelsea on his
> TV show as 'the White House dog'.
>
>
> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-dominate
> -talk-radio-781729.php
>
> Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During the
> Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of
> his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks
> about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn
> Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama,
> attacking her intelligence
>
> --See subject header for important clue..
Slackfest
May 17, 2012, 7:25:49 AM5/17/12
to
On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>
> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
------>
"I watched this take place on live TV.."
television show for a short while?
> - but it never actually happened.
It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
reference to Grim Dreck mocking President Obama's children..
> It's a total fabrication
*>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
>
> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>
>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>
>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command:
>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>
>>>> faulty_spasms <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>
------>
>>>>>>> I don't always believe something because it's found on the net.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>
>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>
>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>
>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>
>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>
>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>
>> Did I stutter?
>
> If you said you saw this yourself
Did I stutter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>
>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>
>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>
>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>
>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>
>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>
>> Did I stutter?
>
> If you said you saw this yourself
"I watched this take place on live TV.."
>>> Because
>>
>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>
> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
>>
>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>
> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
television show for a short while?
>> The first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush
>> Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat,"
>> said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there
>> is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/16/hillaryclinton.uselections2008
>> Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat,"
>> said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there
>> is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of Chelsea.
>>
>>
>> Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
>> criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it
>> also sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from
>> reruns. Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment meted
>> out on conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing firebrand
>> Rush Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned Chelsea on his
>> TV show as 'the White House dog'.
>>
>>
>> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-dominate-talk-radio-781729.php
>>
>> Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During the
>> Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of
>> his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks
>> about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn
>> Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama,
>> attacking her intelligence
>
>> Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
>> criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it
>> also sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from
>> reruns. Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment meted
>> out on conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing firebrand
>> Rush Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned Chelsea on his
>> TV show as 'the White House dog'.
>>
>>
>> http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-dominate-talk-radio-781729.php
>>
>> Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During the
>> Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of
>> his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks
>> about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn
>> Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama,
>> attacking her intelligence
>
> Yes, that's the story I was referring to
What "story" is that, again?
> - but it never actually happened.
reference to Grim Dreck mocking President Obama's children..
> It's a total fabrication
Slackjaw
May 17, 2012, 11:47:23 PM5/17/12
to
Slackfest wrote:
> Did I stutter?
I can't say, Kurt, I only see what you *type*.
the Rush Limbaugh show. Why is that?
>
..
> > >
> > > http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-domi
>
> > - but it never actually happened.
>
> It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
> reference to Grim Dreck
Grim Dreck?
> mocking President Obama's children..
>
> > It's a total fabrication
>
> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
Oh yes I can. I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
was taking about an "in" and "out" list. What was "in" was the "cute
kid", and out was the "cute dog". When he was talking about the "cute
kid" his technician put up a picture of the Gores' dog.
Rush immediately said "No, no, no, that's not it" - until they put up a
picture of Chelsea. "Now that's it"
Liberals immediately jumped on this and spread the lie that Rush called
her a dog. The truth didn't back that up, so they had to spin it into
something else - the lie became "Do you know there's a White House
dog."?
Gullible liberals (no offence) around the nation fell for it. However,
being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
And think about it, use a little common sense and ask yourself why
would Rush even do that? What would he have to gain from attacking the
looks of a 13-year-old? I could tell that story was false the moment I
first heard it.
>
> --See subject header for important clue..
> Did I stutter?
I can't say, Kurt, I only see what you *type*.
>
> "I watched this take place on live TV.."
The truth is, you did not.
> "I watched this take place on live TV.."
>
> > > > Because
> > >
> > > Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
> >
> > You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>
> Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
> television show for a short while?
I find it hard to believe that you, of all people, would be watching
> > > > Because
> > >
> > > Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
> >
> > You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>
> Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
> television show for a short while?
the Rush Limbaugh show. Why is that?
>
..
> > >
> > > http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-domi
> > > nate-talk-radio-781729.php
> > >
> > > Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During
> > > the Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the
> > > glee of his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean
> > > remarks about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days
> > > ago, Glenn Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old
> > > Malia Obama, attacking her intelligence
> >
> > Yes, that's the story I was referring to
>
> What "story" is that, again?
(Duh-eee)
> > >
> > > Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During
> > > the Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the
> > > glee of his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean
> > > remarks about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days
> > > ago, Glenn Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old
> > > Malia Obama, attacking her intelligence
> >
> > Yes, that's the story I was referring to
>
> What "story" is that, again?
>
> > - but it never actually happened.
>
> It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
> reference to Grim Dreck
> mocking President Obama's children..
>
> > It's a total fabrication
>
> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
was taking about an "in" and "out" list. What was "in" was the "cute
kid", and out was the "cute dog". When he was talking about the "cute
kid" his technician put up a picture of the Gores' dog.
Rush immediately said "No, no, no, that's not it" - until they put up a
picture of Chelsea. "Now that's it"
Liberals immediately jumped on this and spread the lie that Rush called
her a dog. The truth didn't back that up, so they had to spin it into
something else - the lie became "Do you know there's a White House
dog."?
Gullible liberals (no offence) around the nation fell for it. However,
being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
And think about it, use a little common sense and ask yourself why
would Rush even do that? What would he have to gain from attacking the
looks of a 13-year-old? I could tell that story was false the moment I
first heard it.
>
> --See subject header for important clue..
Slackfest
May 18, 2012, 9:28:32 AM5/18/12
to
On 5/17/2012 3:20 PM, faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined at:
>
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:25:49 AM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
-------->
That's been said about you..
Ever wonder what else Limbaugh said about Chelsea Clinton?
>
> On Thursday, May 17, 2012 7:25:49 AM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>
>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
-------->
>>>>>>>>> I don't always believe something because it's found on the net.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>>>
>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>
>>> If you said you saw this yourself
>>
>> Did I stutter?
>>
>> "I watched this take place on live TV.."
>>
>>>>> Because
>>>>
>>>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>>>
>>> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>>
>> Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
>> television show for a short while?
>
> Well, as for me, I can say I'm unaware of anything
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>>>
>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>
>>> If you said you saw this yourself
>>
>> Did I stutter?
>>
>> "I watched this take place on live TV.."
>>
>>>>> Because
>>>>
>>>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>>>
>>> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>>
>> Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
>> television show for a short while?
>
That's been said about you..
Ever wonder what else Limbaugh said about Chelsea Clinton?
Phlip
May 18, 2012, 9:40:55 AM5/18/12
to
On May 18, 6:28 am, Slackfest <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program,
> Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then
> stated, "But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and a
> picture of Chelsea Clinton was shown.
Just let the wingnuts relive the hilarity, would you...
> During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program,
> Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons' cat. He then
> stated, "But did you know there is also a White House dog?" and a
> picture of Chelsea Clinton was shown.
Slackfest
May 18, 2012, 9:44:49 AM5/18/12
to
On 5/17/2012 10:47 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>
>Slackfest was exploiting the socipoathy exhibited by:
Did you think that your lies mean anything significant?
>>>>> Because
>>>>
>>>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>>>
>>> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>>
>> Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
>> television show for a short while?
>
> I find it hard to believe that
You finding anything that disagrees with your narrow-minded
right-wing ideology seems impossible, owing to your beliefs..
I see, as a result of that, that you're not interested in
trying to refute the following cites I provided..
commented on Limbaugh's faux pas, and compared his past comments
to calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'?
>>> - but it never actually happened.
>>
>> It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
>> reference to Grim Dreck mocking President Obama's children..
>
> Grim Dreck?
Yup, it's dreck and it's also rather grim that you actually
countenance such irrational nonsense, instead of thinking
this through like an adult..
>>> It's a total fabrication
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
>
> Oh yes I can.
Oh, so now you are admitting that this actually took place?
Nice flip-flop you've got going there, flaps_jaw..
> I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
> was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
So, you're admitting that there was a comment about the 'white
house dog'?
> However, being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
Oh, so you're actually just lampooning the 'rightists' by pretending
to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
on command?
Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
--And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
>
>Slackfest was exploiting the socipoathy exhibited by:
>>
>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't always believe something because it's found on the net.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>>>
>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>
>>> If you said you saw this yourself
>>
>> Did I stutter?
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>
>>>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>>>
>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>
>>> If you said you saw this yourself
>>
>> Did I stutter?
>>
>> "I watched this take place on live TV.."
>
> The truth is, you did
Indeed, I did..
>
> The truth is, you did
Did you think that your lies mean anything significant?
>>>>> Because
>>>>
>>>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>>>
>>> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>>
>> Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
>> television show for a short while?
>
> I find it hard to believe that
right-wing ideology seems impossible, owing to your beliefs..
I see, as a result of that, that you're not interested in
trying to refute the following cites I provided..
>>>> Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During the
>>>> Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of
>>>> his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks
>>>> about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn
>>>> Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama,
>>>> attacking her intelligence
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the story I was referring to
>>
>> What "story" is that, again?
>
> (Duh-eee)
How is it merely a "story" when dozen of people have already
>>>> Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the glee of
>>>> his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean remarks
>>>> about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days ago, Glenn
>>>> Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old Malia Obama,
>>>> attacking her intelligence
>>>
>>> Yes, that's the story I was referring to
>>
>> What "story" is that, again?
>
> (Duh-eee)
commented on Limbaugh's faux pas, and compared his past comments
to calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'?
>>> - but it never actually happened.
>>
>> It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
>
> Grim Dreck?
Yup, it's dreck and it's also rather grim that you actually
countenance such irrational nonsense, instead of thinking
this through like an adult..
>>> It's a total fabrication
>>
>> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
>
> Oh yes I can.
Nice flip-flop you've got going there, flaps_jaw..
> I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
> was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
house dog'?
> However, being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
on command?
Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
--And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
Slackjaw
May 18, 2012, 6:56:09 PM5/18/12
to
..
"dozen of people" -
LOL - another indicator of Kurt's intelligence.
> have already
> commented on Limbaugh's faux pas, and compared his past comments
> to calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'?
Because they are liberals, and liberals are liars.
>
> > > > - but it never actually happened.
> > >
> > > It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
> > > reference to Grim Dreck mocking President Obama's children..
> >
> > Grim Dreck?
>
> Yup, it's dreck and it's also rather grim that you actually
> countenance such irrational nonsense, instead of thinking
> this through like an adult..
Non sequitur
>
> Nice flip-flop you've got going there, flaps_jaw..
It seems to be getting worse.
>
> > However, being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
>
> Oh, so you're actually just lampooning the 'rightists' by pretending
> to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
> on command?
>
> Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
>
> --And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
OK, post a link showing the video of Rush saying "Did you know there's
a white house dog" and showing a picture of Chelsea. Go ahead put it
right here:
You won't, of course, because it doesn't exist. I predict you'll come
up with a ton of excuses, but no results. It's easy for me to know
exactly what people of inferior intelligence (like you) will do.
Oh just to be clear, let me post this again: you're a liar. I'd better
repeat that so you can't cowardly doctor the post like you usually do:
Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar.
You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know
it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a
liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and
I know it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you
are a liar. You know it and I know it.
Ah, that felt good.
> > >
> > > "I watched this take place on live TV.."
> >
> > The truth is, you did
>
> Indeed, I did..
>
> Did you think that your lies mean anything significant?
>
> > > > > > Because
> > > > >
> > > > > Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that
> > > > > late?
> > > >
> > > > You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
Why do you keep running away from that question?
> > > "I watched this take place on live TV.."
> >
> > The truth is, you did
>
> Indeed, I did..
>
> Did you think that your lies mean anything significant?
>
> > > > > > Because
> > > > >
> > > > > Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that
> > > > > late?
> > > >
> > > > You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
LOL - another indicator of Kurt's intelligence.
> have already
> commented on Limbaugh's faux pas, and compared his past comments
> to calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'?
>
> > > > - but it never actually happened.
> > >
> > > It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
> > > reference to Grim Dreck mocking President Obama's children..
> >
> > Grim Dreck?
>
> Yup, it's dreck and it's also rather grim that you actually
> countenance such irrational nonsense, instead of thinking
> this through like an adult..
>
> > > > It's a total fabrication
> > >
> > > *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
> >
> > Oh yes I can.
>
> Oh, so now you are admitting that this actually took place?
Still have that reading comprehension problem I see.
> > > > It's a total fabrication
> > >
> > > *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
> >
> > Oh yes I can.
>
> Oh, so now you are admitting that this actually took place?
>
> Nice flip-flop you've got going there, flaps_jaw..
>
> > I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
> > was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
>
> So, you're admitting that there was a comment about the 'white
> house dog'?
Worse and worse...
> > I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
> > was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
>
> So, you're admitting that there was a comment about the 'white
> house dog'?
>
> > However, being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
>
> Oh, so you're actually just lampooning the 'rightists' by pretending
> to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
> on command?
>
> Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
>
> --And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
a white house dog" and showing a picture of Chelsea. Go ahead put it
right here:
You won't, of course, because it doesn't exist. I predict you'll come
up with a ton of excuses, but no results. It's easy for me to know
exactly what people of inferior intelligence (like you) will do.
Oh just to be clear, let me post this again: you're a liar. I'd better
repeat that so you can't cowardly doctor the post like you usually do:
Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar.
You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know
it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a
liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and
I know it. Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you
are a liar. You know it and I know it.
Ah, that felt good.
Slackfest
May 18, 2012, 11:07:27 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/9/2012 1:32 PM, faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 10:27 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 09:45 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 5:08 am, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
----->
>>>>>> If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
>>>>>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>>>>>> Machine has no Off switch.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
>>>>> against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
>>>>> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss Fluke
>>>>> is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
>>>>> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
>>>>
>>>> Strawman argument. She testified before Congress because she was an
>>>> activist and a student of the topic at hand.
>>
>> --Why do you rely on such distortions of fact, David?
>
> Sigh, 'false equivalency', again. I think you need to learn
> a new term, Kurt. You're run that one into the ground
"You're run that one into the ground"?
*>LOL!<* That's a keeper..
Now, what else were you whining about?
> It's doesn't make you look smart if you don't even understand
> the words you throw around so causally.
After that "You're run that one into the ground"?
--As you 'causally' throw your own words around.. *>chuckling<*
>
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 11:51:14 AM UTC-4, Slackfest wrote:
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 10:27 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/08/2012 09:45 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 8, 5:08 am, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/08/2012 06:54 AM, Phlip wrote:
----->
>>>>>> If you fascists knew what was good for your party, you'd drop this
>>>>>> subject. But, fortunately for the Democrats, the Right Wing Noise
>>>>>> Machine has no Off switch.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is not that Miss. Fluke chose Georgetown in order to fight
>>>>> against their contraceptive policy. The problem is that Miss Fluke was
>>>>> presented to the American people as someone whom she is not. Miss Fluke
>>>>> is an experienced activist, not some innocent coed who was bullied by
>>>>> the mean Rush Limbaugh.
>>>>
>>>> Strawman argument. She testified before Congress because she was an
>>>> activist and a student of the topic at hand.
>>>
>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
>>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>>
>> That would be a 'false equivalency' on your behalf..
>>> Then Rush's treatment of her was no more unacceptable than the treatment
>>> that Sara Palin has received for the past four years.
>>
>>
>> --Why do you rely on such distortions of fact, David?
>
> Sigh, 'false equivalency', again. I think you need to learn
> a new term, Kurt. You're run that one into the ground
"You're run that one into the ground"?
*>LOL!<* That's a keeper..
Now, what else were you whining about?
> It's doesn't make you look smart if you don't even understand
> the words you throw around so causally.
After that "You're run that one into the ground"?
--As you 'causally' throw your own words around.. *>chuckling<*
Slackfest
May 18, 2012, 11:23:05 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 5:56 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>
> Slackfest restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>>>>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>>>>>
>>>>> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>>>>
>> How is it merely a "story" when [dozens] of people have already
more to you than the facts that show how fascist you've become?
F'rinstance..
>>>>> - but it never actually happened.
>>>>
>>>> It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
>>>> reference to Grim Dreck mocking President Obama's children..
>>>
>>> Grim Dreck?
>>
>> Yup, it's dreck and it's also rather grim that you actually
>> countenance such irrational nonsense, instead of thinking
>> this through like an adult..
I see that you're unable to respond to this, and tried to
dismiss it as a 'non sequitur', which you finally learned
how to spell correctly..
"You're run that one into the ground (and "fake premise" also)"
>>>>> It's a total fabrication
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
>>>
>>> Oh yes I can.
>>
>> Oh, so now you are admitting that this actually took place?
>
> Still have that reading comprehension problem
No, you're again evading my question, slapped_raw..
Are you now admitting that this actually took place?
"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh.
"Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is
also a White House dog?"
You've stated that it didn't happen, now you're saying it did?
>>> I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
>>> was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
>>
>> So, you're admitting that there was a comment about the 'white
>> house dog'?
*>cricket.wav<*
>>> However, being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
>>
>> Oh, so you're actually just lampooning the 'rightists' by pretending
>> to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
>> on command?
>>
>> Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
>>
>> --And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
>
--Keep up the great work of marginalizing right-wing shit-heads..
>
> Slackfest restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>> Slackfest was exploiting the socipoathy exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command:
---------->
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command:
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't always believe something because it's found on the net.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you said you saw this yourself
>>>>
>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's why I presented several examples from several sources,
>>>>>>>>>> to corroborate the matter at hand, which you've avoided, again..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example, you could find several instances of a story
>>>>>>>>>>> posted about Rush Limbaugh calling Chelsea Clinton the
>>>>>>>>>>> White House dog.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which Chelsea herself has mentioned, in regards to Rush
>>>>>>>>>> Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut".. You don't suppose
>>>>>>>>>> there might be an element of truth to it..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Considering everyone else knows it to be a fact..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> N,o it was a fabrication,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The truth is, of course, it never happened
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove it, since I watched this take place on live TV..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're saying that you actually saw Rush Limbaugh say
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you said you saw this yourself
>>>>
>>>> Did I stutter?
>>>>
>>>> "I watched this take place on live TV.."
>>>
>>> The truth is, you did
>>
>> Indeed, I did..
>>
>> Did you think that your lies mean anything significant?
Why do you keep running away from this, flaps_jaw?
>>>
>>> The truth is, you did
>>
>> Indeed, I did..
>>
>> Did you think that your lies mean anything significant?
>>>>>> Because I watched it, and you were too young to stay up that late?
>>>>>
>>>>> You watched the Rush Limbaugh show?
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that you're unaware that Lush Rumpjaugh had a
>>>> television show for a short while?
>>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that
>>
>> You finding anything that disagrees with your narrow-minded
>> right-wing ideology seems impossible, owing to your beliefs..
>>
>> I see, as a result of that, that you're not interested in
>> trying to refute the following cites I provided..
Why do you keep running away from this, slapped_raw?
>>>> television show for a short while?
>>>
>>> I find it hard to believe that
>>
>> You finding anything that disagrees with your narrow-minded
>> right-wing ideology seems impossible, owing to your beliefs..
>>
>> I see, as a result of that, that you're not interested in
>> trying to refute the following cites I provided..
>> commented on Limbaugh's faux pas, and compared his past comments
>> to calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'?
>
> Because they are liberals
Oh, so you're admitting that your partisan politics means
>> to calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut'?
>
> Because they are liberals
more to you than the facts that show how fascist you've become?
F'rinstance..
>>>>> - but it never actually happened.
>>>>
>>>> It happened, and it's been commented upon above, including a
>>>> reference to Grim Dreck mocking President Obama's children..
>>>
>>> Grim Dreck?
>>
>> Yup, it's dreck and it's also rather grim that you actually
>> countenance such irrational nonsense, instead of thinking
>> this through like an adult..
dismiss it as a 'non sequitur', which you finally learned
how to spell correctly..
"You're run that one into the ground (and "fake premise" also)"
>>>>> It's a total fabrication
>>>>
>>>> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
>>>
>>> Oh yes I can.
>>
>> Oh, so now you are admitting that this actually took place?
>
> Still have that reading comprehension problem
Are you now admitting that this actually took place?
"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh.
"Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is
also a White House dog?"
>>> I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
>>> was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
>>
>> So, you're admitting that there was a comment about the 'white
>> house dog'?
>>> However, being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
>>
>> Oh, so you're actually just lampooning the 'rightists' by pretending
>> to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
>> on command?
>>
>> Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
>>
>> --And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
>
> Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it
You're appealing to a belief, and making yourself look immature..
--Keep up the great work of marginalizing right-wing shit-heads..
Slackfest
May 18, 2012, 11:32:45 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 10:21 PM, slapped_raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>> Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar.
>> You know it and I know
>> it. Kurt, Oh my, another vapid response you are a
>> liar. You from a right-wing sock-puppet You know it and
>> I know it it. Kurt, you
descend into ad hominem attacks."
--"It seems there are a lot of concepts you're never heard of."
>> Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it. Kurt, you are a liar.
>> You know it and I know
>> liar. You from a right-wing sock-puppet You know it and
>> I know it it. Kurt, you
>> are a liar. You know it and I know it.
>
>
> "You're run that one into the ground (and "fake premise" also)"
"When defeated in an argument, the usualy liberal response is to
descend into ad hominem attacks."
--"It seems there are a lot of concepts you're never heard of."
Slackjaw
May 18, 2012, 11:39:33 PM5/18/12
to
Slackfest wrote:
..
Again, what you cowardly snipped out:
OK, post a link showing the video of Rush saying "Did you know there's
a white house dog?" and showing a picture of Chelsea. Go ahead put it
right here:
Go ahead, Kurt, what are you waiting for?
..
Again, what you cowardly snipped out:
OK, post a link showing the video of Rush saying "Did you know there's
a white house dog?" and showing a picture of Chelsea. Go ahead put it
right here:
Go ahead, Kurt, what are you waiting for?
Slackfest
May 18, 2012, 11:59:28 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 10:39 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
Why do you keep running away from this, slapped_raw?
--See subject header for details..
>
> Slackfest restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>
>> On 5/18/2012 5:56 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2012 10:47 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the socipoathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command:
------------>
> Slackfest restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>
>> On 5/18/2012 5:56 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>
>>> Slackfest restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:
>>>>
>>>> On 5/17/2012 10:47 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>
>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the socipoathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/2012 6:01 AM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slackfest was pointing out the obvious as it laughed at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:31 PM, flaps_jaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> lied again:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the sociopathic projections of:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> choked on the facts posted by:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:20:11 PM UTC-4, Slackfest was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> faulty_sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled on command:
>>>>>>> It's a total fabrication
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes I can.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so now you are admitting that this actually took place?
>>>
>>> Still have that reading comprehension problem
>>
>> No, you're again evading my question, slapped_raw..
>>
>> Are you now admitting that this actually took place?
>>
>> "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh.
>> "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is
>> also a White House dog?"
>>
>> You've stated that it didn't happen, now you're saying it did?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>LOL!<* Yet, you've never been able to substantiate that..
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yes I can.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so now you are admitting that this actually took place?
>>>
>>> Still have that reading comprehension problem
>>
>> No, you're again evading my question, slapped_raw..
>>
>> Are you now admitting that this actually took place?
>>
>> "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat," said Limbaugh.
>> "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is
>> also a White House dog?"
>>
>> You've stated that it didn't happen, now you're saying it did?
Why do you keep running away from this, slapped_raw?
>>>>> I remember that episode - what actually happened was Rush
>>>>> was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
>>>>
>>>> So, you're admitting that there was a comment about the 'white
>>>> house dog'?
>>>>> was taking about an "in" and "out" list.
>>>>
>>>> So, you're admitting that there was a comment about the 'white
>>>> house dog'?
Why do you keep running away from this, slapped_raw?
>>>>> However, being a rightist, I have a better handle on the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you're actually just lampooning the 'rightists' by pretending
>>>> to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
>>>> on command?
>>>>
>>>> Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
>>>>
>>>> --And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
>>>
>>> Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it
>>
>> You're appealing to a belief, and making yourself look immature..
>>
>> --Keep up the great work of marginalizing right-wing shit-heads..
>
> Again,
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you're actually just lampooning the 'rightists' by pretending
>>>> to be an abject moron that regurgitates the GOP 'talking points'
>>>> on command?
>>>>
>>>> Wow, I'm impressed that you thought that up by yourself..
>>>>
>>>> --And you're doing such a great job of it, too! *>LOL!<*
>>>
>>> Kurt, you are a liar. You know it and I know it
>>
>> You're appealing to a belief, and making yourself look immature..
>>
>> --Keep up the great work of marginalizing right-wing shit-heads..
>
Why do you keep running away from this, slapped_raw?
> what you cowardly snipped out
What did you try to "snipped out"?
--See subject header for details..
Slackfest
May 19, 2012, 8:55:33 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/2012 7:14 AM, slapped_raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
> Again, what [I[ cowardly snipped out:
> Again, what [I[ cowardly snipped out:
Slackjaw
May 19, 2012, 10:23:52 AM5/19/12
to
sites? Yet, you still haven't found one site with a video that actually
proves Rush saying that. Not one.
Exactly as I predicted.
Slackfest
May 19, 2012, 10:48:46 AM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/2012 9:23 AM, slapped_raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> sniveled:
>
> Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
I 'see' that you've not been able to refute one single fact..
--As expected..
>
> Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
--As expected..
Slackjaw
May 19, 2012, 1:41:43 PM5/19/12
to
>
> --As expected..
What you cowardly snipped:
See how the lie has been picked up and spread by (mostly liberal)
sites? Yet, you still haven't found one site with a video that actually
proves Rush saying that. Not one.
Exactly as I predicted.
Slackfest
May 20, 2012, 10:24:16 AM5/20/12
to
On 5/19/2012 12:41 PM, slapped_raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
So, are you calling Sandra Fluke and Chelsea Clinton liars?
--Or, does your partisan pabulum disallow critical reasoning still?
--Or, does your partisan pabulum disallow critical reasoning still?
Slackjaw
May 20, 2012, 1:55:32 PM5/20/12
to
I'm calling *you* a liar.
And a coward. Of course, only an idiot believes that if he snips text
he doesn't like, no one will notice it.
Now, here it is again:
See how the lie has been picked up and spread by (mostly liberal)
sites? Yet, you still haven't found one site with a video that actually
proves Rush saying that. Not one.
Exactly as I predicted.
Are you going to snip it again?
>
> --Or, does your partisan pabulum disallow critical reasoning still?
Squirm, Kurt, squirm.
Slackfest
May 21, 2012, 7:55:18 AM5/21/12
to
On 5/20/2012 12:55 PM, slapped_raw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
Then, you're simply lying about the video mattering..
> I'm calling *you* a liar.
Coming from a right-wing zealot like you, that's ironic..
> Of course, only an idiot believes that if he snips text
Like that?
--You've still not been able to refute one single fact that I posted..
> I'm calling *you* a liar.
> Of course, only an idiot believes that if he snips text
--You've still not been able to refute one single fact that I posted..
Salty Stan
May 21, 2012, 12:05:34 PM5/21/12
to
On May 21, 7:55 am, Slackfest <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/2012 12:55 PM, slapped_raw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
> >>>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/inaug/players/...
like to see it too.
> On 5/20/2012 12:55 PM, slapped_raw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
>
> >> On 5/19/2012 12:41 PM, slapped_raw <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
>
>
> >>> Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
>
> >>>> On 5/19/2012 9:23 AM, slapped_raw <wsjames...@gmail.com> sniveled:
> >>> Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
>
>
> >>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
>
> >>>>>> On 5/19/2012 7:14 AM, slapped_raw <wsjames...@gmail.com> deleted:
> >>>>> Slackfest was exploiting the neurotic sociopathy exhibited by:
>
>
> >>>>>> Still, "Saturday Night Live" saw fit to air a sketch that compared
> >>>>>> Chelsea, then 13, unfavorably with Vice President Gore's daughter.
> >>>>>> The first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush
> >>>>>> Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat,"
> >>>>>> said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know
> >>>>>> there is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of
> >>>>>> Chelsea.
>
> >>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/16/hillaryclinton.uselection...
> >>>>>> Still, "Saturday Night Live" saw fit to air a sketch that compared
> >>>>>> Chelsea, then 13, unfavorably with Vice President Gore's daughter.
> >>>>>> The first lady was furious about that, and even angrier when Rush
> >>>>>> Limbaugh took this shot: "Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat,"
> >>>>>> said Limbaugh. "Socks is the White House cat. But did you know
> >>>>>> there is also a White House dog?" And he held up a picture of
> >>>>>> Chelsea.
>
>
> >>>>>> Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
> >>>>>> criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it
> >>>>>> also sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from
> >>>>>> reruns. Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment
> >>>>>> meted out on conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing
> >>>>>> firebrand Rush Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned
> >>>>>> Chelsea on his TV show as 'the White House dog'.
>
> >>>>>>http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Complaints-and-anger-dominat...
> >>>>>> Saturday Night Live's 'Wayne's World' segment ran a skit on her,
> >>>>>> criticising her looks. It may have generated a few laughs, but it
> >>>>>> also sparked understandable parental anger. The skit was axed from
> >>>>>> reruns. Less easy to defend was the brutal and cruel treatment
> >>>>>> meted out on conservative talk radio, especially by right-wing
> >>>>>> firebrand Rush Limbaugh. He despised the Clintons and lampooned
> >>>>>> Chelsea on his TV show as 'the White House dog'.
>
>
> >>>>>> Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During
> >>>>>> the Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the
> >>>>>> glee of his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean
> >>>>>> remarks about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days
> >>>>>> ago, Glenn Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old
> >>>>>> Malia Obama, attacking her intelligence
>
> >>>>>> --See subject header for important clue..
>
> >>>>> See how the lie
>
> >>>> I 'see' that you've not been able to refute one single fact..
>
> >>> LOL - "Mother Jones", "Fair.org" -
>
> >> So, are you calling SandraFlukeand Chelsea Clinton liars?
> >>>>>> Even children are not safe from these microphone bullies. During
> >>>>>> the Clinton presidency, to the horror of most Americans and the
> >>>>>> glee of his most ardent followers, Rush Limbaugh made ugly, mean
> >>>>>> remarks about pre-pubescent Chelsea Clinton's looks; a few days
> >>>>>> ago, Glenn Beck and his co-host derisively mocked 11-year-old
> >>>>>> Malia Obama, attacking her intelligence
>
> >>>>>> --See subject header for important clue..
>
> >>>>> See how the lie
>
> >>>> I 'see' that you've not been able to refute one single fact..
>
> >>> LOL - "Mother Jones", "Fair.org" -
>
>
> > Oh, no. Of course not.
>
> Then, you're simply lying about the video mattering..
>
> > I'm calling *you* a liar.
Ouch...that's got to smart.
> > Oh, no. Of course not.
>
> Then, you're simply lying about the video mattering..
>
> > I'm calling *you* a liar.
>
> Coming from a right-wing zealot like you, that's ironic..
>
> > Of course, only an idiot believes that if he snips text
>
> Like that?
Just like what you're doing, yes.
> Coming from a right-wing zealot like you, that's ironic..
>
> > Of course, only an idiot believes that if he snips text
>
> Like that?
>
> --You've still not been able to refute one single fact that I posted..
So, Kurt, why don't you go ahead and post a link to that video? I'd
> --You've still not been able to refute one single fact that I posted..
like to see it too.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages