It's hysterically funny watching the knuckle-draggers try to defend and apologize for that fat schmuck. Keep it up guys... You just prove that you're down with the same kind of filth.
BearMtnHIB wrote: Kate - take a look at this chick......
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuK400fQs2wcPq1WRr9pnOMcZB8ybLGc956bFiBAPElBmaUyZyTg
See how she's always "flipping" her hair. And look how shiny her hair is.
You don't get hair that shiny just from using Faberge shampoo.
Oh- she is definitely a major pole monster.
Like I said- I'm not against her for being a slut- I don't like her because she wants us all to pay for her sexual product requirements. That makes her an entitlement brat.
She's a fricken private citizen, with a point of view, and opinion, left or right, it doesn't matter. No one has the right to call he a slut any more than they have the right to call you a TEABAGGER. That never happens.
BearMtnHIB wrote: Yes- this political activist is a slut because I say so. I can tell she is a slut. Women often think they know a slut when they see one, but trust me, men know who the sluts are. We can spot um a mile away.
Keep posting BMH. You are Rush are just driving undecideds away from your cause in droves. Rush is the best spokesman the liberals could have. Please keep it up through November. :thumbsup:
Kate wrote: I know men that get Viagra through a prescription from their Doctor, and it is covered by their health insurance. Why should women be denied the same thing?
If contraception addressed, and was prescribed for, a lack of lubricity or an inability to reach climax without the prescription, you might just have a valid argument here Kate. Given that this is not the reason that the left wants contraceptive medicine and services provided "free" of charge, the premise, and all that results from it, is fatally flawed.
If you are asking that the insurance companies be required to cover prescriptions for existing medical conditions in a consistent manner regardless of what the prescription is, I will absolutely support that. I recognize that a prescription which can be used for contraceptive purposes has other medical indications for treating existing medical conditions such as heavy or irregular menstruation, hormonal mood changes, growths on ovaries and others. I fully agree that a person seeking to treat such a condition should have their prescription covered in an identical manner as one who has been prescribed Viagra to address their medical condition. When prescribed to induce sterility, however, the prescription is not being used to treat a medical condition, it is being used to create one. Thus, equating the coverage of Viagra to address an existing medical condition and the coverage of contraception which is used to create a medical condition is an attempt to equate an apple with an orange.
Let me see if I can paraphrase what you said.
Insurance companies should pay for a prescription for a medical condition so that a man can participate in a voluntary sexual activity. Insurance companies should not pay for a prescription for a woman which can prevent a medical condition that is a result of that same voluntary sexual activity.
