|
|
| Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all (916025) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (916146) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sat Mar 3 16:31:06 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SLRT on Sat Mar 3 12:23:54 2012. No it isn't. what's floundering is the criminal Nazi Tea Party movement. |
|
|
| (916147) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 3 16:48:30 2012, in response to Chris uses LOL sources... Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Mar 3 16:14:04 2012. You're in no position to criticize sources. |
|
|
| (916148) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 16:53:52 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut, posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 3 16:03:19 2012. Nip, nip, nip! If you ask nicely, I'll let you sniff my butt, Calhoun. |
|
|
| (916149) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 16:55:02 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Mar 3 16:13:10 2012. No more than you are a pro-obama slut. |
|
|
| (916150) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sat Mar 3 16:57:06 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 3 16:48:30 2012. fuck you, clown. |
|
|
| (916151) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sat Mar 3 16:58:47 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut, posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 3 15:58:45 2012. I used to LMAO at Rush's Perot schtick. |
|
|
| (916152) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 3 16:59:34 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 3 16:05:45 2012. LOL!!! Now that's some self-centered thinking....just because*he* needs to take a pill (he was popped at the airport once in possession of counterfeit Viagra) to have sex, he must figure that's how it must work for everyone.... Click on the pills to learn something! |
|
|
| (916153) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Mar 3 17:14:14 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 3 16:48:30 2012. Im in far better position than you Olog your sources are about as legit as the Nazi party... |
|
|
| (916154) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Mar 3 17:14:41 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 16:55:02 2012. So then criticizing her is hypocritical then.... thanks for proving my point |
|
|
| (916155) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 3 17:19:47 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 3 16:48:30 2012. Those sources, yes he is. |
|
|
| (916157) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 3 17:27:31 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 14:31:24 2012. How do you know? You don't. You're not in any position to know.Her facts are accurate WRT the cost of care l(though I'm surprised the cost isn't higher) ike that. |
|
|
| (916158) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 17:34:05 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Mar 3 17:14:41 2012. That's no proof of any argument. Your logic is severely faulty. She is not just espousing a political opinion. She is an acknowledged political activist who testified about the alleged medical condition of an alleged fellow student and the alleged fees charged. No proof was offered. I'd say that goes well beyond what you or I do here. Of course, if you want to view yourself a political prostitute because you express your opinions here, you are perfectly free to feel that way. I do not. |
|
|
| (916159) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 17:37:44 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 3 17:27:31 2012. You don't know that her facts about the fellow student or the alleged medical condition are true. All you know for sure is that when you bite into the doughnut - the jelly is going to come out the other end (of the doughnut). Provide proof that the alleged student exists and that her medical condition is as stated. Until then, I'll just be waiting to see BMW move back to Detroit. |
|
|
| (916163) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Mar 3 17:42:02 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 17:34:05 2012. So... shes a woman...I could understand if she was testifying about Erectile Dysfunction... |
|
|
| (916175) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 3 18:13:59 2012, in response to Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Mar 3 11:55:21 2012. Gee ... if ONLY the republicans had had a single woman at that hearing to begin with ... nah ... carry on guys. The more stink you make the more women you're pissing off. Have at it! :) |
|
|
| (916179) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut |
|
|
Posted by JayMan on Sat Mar 3 18:34:24 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut, posted by Fred G on Sat Mar 3 12:46:02 2012. There you go! |
|
|
| (916180) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 18:34:43 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Mar 3 17:42:02 2012. Please re-read my comment. I think you might have missed the point. |
|
|
| (916186) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Mar 3 18:44:12 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Still Doesn't Deserve To Be Called A Slut, posted by JayMan on Sat Mar 3 18:34:24 2012. LOL @ the "better people" thing.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (916192) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 3 19:05:12 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 17:37:44 2012. Why should I? The woman has the right to privacy, to not have her identity public. There's Federal law against against that. It's called HIPAA. |
|
|
| (916309) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 3 23:53:57 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 3 16:59:34 2012. Good article. I hadn't seen it, but somehow had the same thought. |
|
|
| (916438) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 16:15:45 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 3 19:05:12 2012. So how do you know that the bullshit that she's spewing is true? Sh could just be another DB liberal like you who has no concept of the truth. |
|
|
| (916448) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 16:38:43 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 16:15:45 2012. It's certainly not OUR fault that you republicans are fucking idiots. Wasn't your effort in this year's low tech lynching supposed to be "the economy, stupid?" Heh. |
|
|
| (916463) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Mar 4 17:03:45 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 3 14:31:24 2012. If you think ovarian cysts can be treated by a competent gynecologist for less than $1,000 per year, you're living in a dream world. My wife had them too. Not a cheap ailment even 30 years ago. |
|
|
| (916465) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:04:22 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 16:38:43 2012. Hey. Your boy promised to fix the economy. He fucked it up worse and you still support that fucking moron. So now, who are the fucking idiots? |
|
|
| (916466) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 17:05:54 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:04:22 2012. But he DID ... and while your guys continue to trash it too. So yes, do continue being an idiot ... the circus IS in town. |
|
|
| (916471) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:08:23 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 17:05:54 2012. And you and big-bung are the fucking clowns? |
|
|
| (916475) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 17:14:13 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:08:23 2012. Heh. It's a shame ... I remember a few years ago when you at least showed signs of a possible double digit IQ. Ah well ... here's hoping there's someone around to water you and tamp down the soil every now and then. :) |
|
|
| (916478) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:18:40 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 17:14:13 2012. You are in no position to judge IQs. Remember, you and big-bung are supporting my lifestyle :) |
|
|
| (916480) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 17:21:47 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:18:40 2012. Difference between you and us is that we don't object to it nor do we suck up to the party that wants to take it away from you. YOU on the other hand are a hypocrite. |
|
|
| (916487) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:33:56 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 17:21:47 2012. Sure you object to it, Fat ass is complaining all the time about it. |
|
|
| (916493) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 17:43:57 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 17:33:56 2012. Heh. Then maybe your fat ass oughta STFU then ... no fat asses around here, you're the only one. |
|
|
| (916524) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 19:22:30 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 3 18:13:59 2012. what hearing? |
|
|
| (916529) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 19:40:27 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 19:22:30 2012. The "contraception hearing" ... don't tell me that the right wing radio didn't mention where all the hoohah started ...I'll go with ABC News for the link - you might read that one: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell-issa-bars-minority-witness-a-woman-on-contraception-2/ |
|
|
| (916534) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 19:47:31 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 19:40:27 2012. I didn't hear about a contraception hearing. I heard about a freedom of religion hearing. If I don't go for a five mile walk tomorrow, I'll listen to Rush to see what's up.I'm also waiting for JayZeeBMT to update from the parade for all. |
|
|
| (916547) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 20:00:31 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 19:47:31 2012. Of course you didn't ... why would the right wing ever tell the truth? And yeah ... Rush will sure straighten it all out. :) |
|
|
| (916551) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 4 20:09:38 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 19:47:31 2012. I'll listen to Rush to see what's up.yeah, that will surely make you an informed citizen. This post is about YOU |
|
|
| (916575) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 20:43:11 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 20:00:31 2012. Yeah, he knew all about BMW moving their plant from South Carolina to Detroit because the people in South Carolina are "untrainable"! |
|
|
| (916584) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 20:56:03 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 4 20:09:38 2012. why do you say that? |
|
|
| (916587) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 20:58:10 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 4 20:09:38 2012. Is this your way of getting me to respond to a thread I have had nothing to say about? |
|
|
| (916589) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 4 20:58:47 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 20:58:10 2012. She must be lonely. |
|
|
| (916591) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 21:00:08 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 20:43:11 2012. And the state politicians took payoffs and agreed to saddle the taxpayers with the bill to train the people at taxpayer expense for the plant. But skip right over all that ... since you're walking though, I'd check for brush fires behind your knuckles. |
|
|
| (916604) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 21:13:40 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 21:00:08 2012. Show proof that there were payoffs. This is why so few people believe anything political that you or big bung have to say. |
|
|
| (916608) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 4 21:18:35 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 21:13:40 2012. You should've seen what he showed me when I asked for proof of a big evangelical apocalyptic conspiracy to bring about the return of Jesus Christ and destroy all the world's Jews at the same time (something he claims over and over) . . . |
|
|
| (916614) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 21:25:00 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 4 21:18:35 2012. When I see them posting together I can't help thinking about the Judge's speech in the last episode of Seinfeld. |
|
|
| (916617) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 21:27:02 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 21:13:40 2012. Oh yes sir ... yes sir ... right away sir! When you get around to any proof of any of the shit you're flinging, I'll get to it. |
|
|
| (916619) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 21:28:11 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 4 21:18:35 2012. Just so you two know, gay marriage is now legal in this state. Shall I send flowers? Or will a goatse suffice? |
|
|
| (916620) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 4 21:29:07 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Mar 4 19:47:31 2012. I didn't hear about a contraception hearing. I heard about a freedom of religion hearingDidn't know that the government had the right to force contraception on everyone, as well as to force religious organizations to pay for them to be handed out free to sexually-incontinent people. |
|
|
| (916621) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 21:30:29 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 21:27:02 2012. Don't bother. We know that you and the Mrs are both lying sacks, anyway. |
|
|
| (916622) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 21:31:23 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 21:30:29 2012. Uh-huh ... did you take an extinguisher to any of those brush fires yet? |
|
|
| (916624) | |
Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 4 21:32:55 2012, in response to Re: Sandra Fluke: Not so innocent after all, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Mar 4 21:31:23 2012. More jibber? Translate into english. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||