I really hope the Republicans nominate Santorum

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:10 pm

88 wrote:
Do you prefer being called a "cock" or a "cocksucker"?

Looks like a perfectly good poll question.

I vote for cocksucker.

Unless you have a selection for " cocksucking troll". Then I would vote that way.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:19 pm

Derron wrote:
88 wrote:
Do you prefer being called a "cock" or a "cocksucker"?
Looks like a perfectly good poll question.

I vote for cocksucker.

You would prefer being called a cocksucker? Shocking.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:50 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Derron wrote:
88 wrote:
Do you prefer being called a "cock" or a "cocksucker"?
Looks like a perfectly good poll question.

I vote for cocksucker.
You would prefer being called a cocksucker? Shocking.

Derron wrote: :doh:

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:54 pm

Derron wrote:
88 wrote:
Do you prefer being called a "cock" or a "cocksucker"?
Looks like a perfectly good poll question.

I vote for cocksucker.

Unless you have a selection for " cocksucking troll". Then I would vote that way.

Derron, I wasnt surprised when you voted to be called a cocksucker, I figured you for one.

88, just ask women which one they hate more, its a no-brainer. NO woman on the planet likes the word "cunt". However, millions of women like to see themselves as sluts.

Women in the workplace use words like "hooker", and slut, BUT NEVER the word "cunt".

Im surprised you dont know much about females 88. Do you work in a men's prison?

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:03 pm

88 wrote:
bradhusker wrote:guys, what about the gross hypoccricy of president Obama???

He makes a phone call to Ms. Fluke, to apologize for Rush's "slut" remarks. Obama uses the rationale that he thinks about the world in which his two precious daughters will grow up in.
MEANWHILE, when Bill Mahr calls Sarah Palin a "CUNT", president Obama was strangely silent.
Well, there is a distinction. A "cunt" is a derogatory word that describes female genitalia. A "slut" is a word that describes a woman that freely allows others to use her female genitalia for sexual purposes.

When Bill Mahr called Sarah Palin a "cunt", he used a derogatory term to call her a vagina. But when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut", he stated that she freely allows others to put their genitalia into her vagina. So ask yourself this:

Do you prefer being called a "cock" or a "cocksucker"?

It depends 88, are you asking me this "tongue and cheek", or dead-pan serious, or just for laughs?

I would have to say, "COCK', because it denotes "tough" or "cocksure" or "BIG cock of the walk"
whereas, derron chose "cocksucker", which denotes "sissy" "fairy" or "FAG".

But I digress, 88, I thought you'd know women a little better than you do. Cause if you did, you would easily come to the conclusion that women the world over, ABSOLUTELY HATE the word, "CUNT"
its a well known fact.

In the workplace, its common for women co-workers and friends to often refer to one another as "hooker" or "whore", or slut, BUT NEVER EVER the word "CUNT", The fact that you were unaware of this 88, leads me to believe that you work in a men's prison or the morgue.

ANYONE who has ever worked with women, knows that the word "CUNT" is completely taboo.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:52 pm

bradhusker wrote:
ANYONE who has ever worked with women, knows that the word "CUNT" is completely taboo.

Shut your pie hole cunt.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:14 am

bradhusker wrote: Do you work in a men's prison?

Why? Are you looking for hook up?

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:35 am

mvscal wrote:
bradhusker wrote: Do you work in a men's prison?
Why? Are you looking for hook up?

No, im fine, mvscal, BUT I hear you are looking for a hook up? I can get you into the county morgue after hours, where, with any luck, they might wheel you in a few fresh stiffs to fuck, some still semi-warm.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:34 pm

Jsc810 wrote:The economic momentum boosting President Barack Obama in the polls continued to roll forward Friday, with the addition of 227,000 jobs in February and the county’s unemployment rate holding steady at 8.3 percent.

Hiring in the manufacturing, health care and restaurant sectors contributed to the growth, while retailers and construction companies shed jobs, the Labor Department reported.

The payroll numbers slightly beat Wall Street forecasts of 210,000 jobs, confirming that the hiring jumps in recent months were not flukes.

Jsc's morning fellatio of Onogger continues. What you got planned for this afternoon?..amazing how these cooked numbers come out heading into election season now ..

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:50 pm

The part I struggle to understand here is why a guy like Jsc—someone who claims to be a lifelong Republican—would constantly tout Obama.

I know Jsc says he's grown disenchanted with the religious right wing elements of the party, but that group has been a mainstay of the party for his entire voting career. Nothing's really changed there, so why is he rooting so strongly for Obama?

Just seems rather odd to me.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:07 pm

Jsc810 wrote:They have been there but have not been as in control as they are now. Their social agenda disgusts me. I really hope they break off and form a separate party. Perhaps after November's ass kicking, they will.

What is their Social agenda? Please inform us.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 7:33 pm

More importantly, how does it differ in the least from the social platforms of every other mainstream Republican candidate over the past thirty or so years? In order to win the Republican nomination, candidates have always had to cater to the religious right wing wackos.

I mean, c'mon...Pat Robertson?

This year is simply more of the same. If you have a problem with it now, you should have had a problem with it your entire life.

In the meantime, guys like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich aren't the least bit in the camp of the religious nutjobs. Sure, they have to pay lip-service to them, as does any politician from either party who wishes to remain electable on a national scale, but how can an avowed Republican claim "process of elimination" to reconcile Barack Obama?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:09 pm

Van wrote: In the meantime, guys like Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich aren't the least bit in the camp of the religious nutjobs.

At least not the run of the mill religious nutjobs. If Newt were ever elected I would fully expect him to come out and claim that he's the direct descendant of Valentine Michael Smith.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:20 pm

Jsc810 wrote:They have been there but have not been as in control as they are now. Their social agenda disgusts me. I really hope they break off and form a separate party. Perhaps after November's ass kicking, they will.

I am for Obama by process of elimination; I cannot be for any of the four remaining Republicans. I wish Gary Johnson would have had a chance, but it didn't happen.

Social agenda jsc?????

Sorry to inform you, BUT, Mitt Romney is not a far right wing nut. He is closer to the center. Which is why he will kick Obama's ass in November.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:26 pm

Breaking NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This just in, Gloria ALLRED the left wing jew attorney for women's rights has filed a deffamation suit with the states attorney's office in Palm Beach today.

She fully expects Rush Limbaugh to be arrested and prosecuted by the authorities in Florida.

FIRST, why did she not raise an uproar when Bill Mahr called Sarah Palin and her teenage daughter cunts???

I thought Ms allred deeply cares for ALL womens rights?

Second, I want every member in this forum to start posting insults about Ms. Allred immediately.

I will begin with the fact that she is a hook nosed JEW, a KYKE SLUT, and a filthy dirty jewish cunt.

Furthermore, she is an ambulance chasing whore kyke, with rat like eyes, and money grubbing in her cancer ridden bowels.

Gloria ALLRED should be exposed as the filthy slut that she is.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:51 pm

Never heard of anybody getting arrested for "defamation". Is this a Florida thing?

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:33 pm

What is with this horrid troll's insistence on doubling everything? 'Deffamation'? 'Dellusional'? Is he trying to prove that he's twice as stupid as we already know him to be?

Then there's the constant stream of witless insults hurled at Jews.

It's all poorly conceived spam.

Mgo, R-Jack...someone...enough is enough. Flush this guy. Do so with a thoroughly clean conscience.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:45 pm

Deffinately needs to be runnnned.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:10 pm

Haven't thought about her in awhile.

My wife can't stand her and hates that she claims to represent women.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:21 am

Mikey wrote:Never heard of anybody getting arrested for "defamation". Is this a Florida thing?

He can be prosecuted "under an 1883 law making it a misdemeanor to question a woman's chastity."
Which is why they can't prosecute Bill Maher on said charge, but don't tell bradhukkkster he is on a Racist roll.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:47 am

Moving Sale wrote:
Mikey wrote:Never heard of anybody getting arrested for "defamation". Is this a Florida thing?
He can be prosecuted "under an 1883 law making it a misdemeanor to question a woman's chastity."

Good luck with that. That stupid twat claimed she spends $1,000 a year on birth control. There aren't any questions on her chastity or lack thereof.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:27 am

Good job completely missing the point.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:44 am

Van wrote:What is with this horrid troll's insistence on doubling everything? 'Deffamation'? 'Dellusional'? Is he trying to prove that he's twice as stupid as we already know him to be?

Then there's the constant stream of witless insults hurled at Jews.

It's all poorly conceived spam.

Mgo, R-Jack...someone...enough is enough. Flush this guy. Do so with a thoroughly clean conscience.

Van, do us ALL a favor and shut your fuckin leftist PIE HOLE! You are a dumb motherfuckin pussy.
Gloria Alred is a sick leftist pig who is trying to have someone prosecuted for "words".

Since you are a sick fuckin liberal racist fuck, you dont see the seriousness here. Get out of this forum, and dont come back UNTIL you realize the grave seriousness of what that JEW lawyer is trying to do to Rush Limbaugh.

Until you realize how serious it is for ANY lawyer to try to prosecute a person over "words", GET OUT.

We dont need idiot liberals like you in here. UNTIL you get a brain, GET OUT. You are just as dangerous as Ms Alred for not realizing the assault on our freedom of speech here.

you idiot.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:21 pm

How so, Scrotte?

We are talking about a voluntary ongoing expense.

Such things ought never be covered by insurance. Unfortunately, the whole concept of insurance is lost on the majority of people today.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:01 pm

I think covering birf control is money well spent by an insurance co. that would be on the hook for paying the costs associated with having kids, however, it should be a decision made by the insurance company and whoever is paying for the insurance. It should not be the decision of the government.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:08 pm

Birth control can currently be obtained for free from a ton of places including Planned Parenthood. Many states, federal programs and private foundations also offer free birth control.

If these free programs are not preventing unwanted pregnancy, why is government mandated birth control going to change this?

Further, what about all those who are on the government teet? Most don't have insurance anyway.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:40 pm

KC Scott wrote:This

smackaholic wrote: Such things ought never be covered by insurance. Unfortunately, the whole concept of insurance is lost on the majority of people today.
Then 20 minutes later.......

smackaholic wrote:I think covering birf control is money well spent by an insurance co. that would be on the hook for paying the costs associated with having kids, however, it should be a decision made by the insurance company and whoever is paying for the insurance. It should not be the decision of the government.

Let me clarify my position.

Buying insurance for routine services is a bad fukking idea. It is why "healthcare" is a mess today.

When foreseeable expenses like routine doctor visits are covered by insurance they inevitably become more expensive due to the FACT that someone must be paid for this administrative cost and someone else much be paid to police it for fraud.

This is economics 101.

If an insurance company runs the numbers and decides that it is in their financial interest to avoid childbirth costs, I am OK with that. Personally, I'd rather see routine childbirth costs not covered at all.

Would this make having kids more expensive?

Maybe.

A no frills hospitalization policy that didn't cover routine childbirth, would be a shitload cheaper. Notice I say routine. Premies requiring very expensive time in the NICU would be covered.

bradhusker · Post by **bradhusker** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:29 pm

Kc Scott, you dont have a friggin clue, do you? The federal government is getting larger. And as it does so, the country is going down the toilet.

So, you go on about freebies and entitlements, and I will continue to beat the drum for the opposite.

If the country continues on its current path of government having more power and control over all our lives, were doomed. The fact that you cant see the forrest for the trees here? Its downright laughable.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:38 pm

I love it when conservatives say that women shouldn't rely on the government for BC, but just go to PP.

All while campaigning to cut funding to PP.

Would you right wingers provide a link to where Ms. Fluke said that the government should PAY for BC? TIA.

Derron · Post by **Derron** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:52 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:I love it when conservatives say that women shouldn't rely on the government for BC, but just go to PP.

All while campaigning to cut funding to PP.

Why the fuck should the government send anything to Planned Parenthood ? Being a private group they can fund raise and get grants and now have to be asking for Federal funds.

Letting the private side fund shit that the government has no business funding seems to be good business.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:14 pm

smackaholic wrote: When foreseeable expenses like routine doctor visits are covered by insurance they inevitably become more expensive due to the FACT that someone must be paid for this administrative cost and someone else much be paid to police it for fraud.

Insurance companies cover routine doctor visits (many cover an annual physical without deductible or co-pay) because people who have their annual physical tend to stay healthier in the long run, reducing the overall cost to the insurance company.

You may not like it, but it's true.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:50 pm

KC Scott wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Birth control can currently be obtained for free from a ton of places including Planned Parenthood. Many states, federal programs and private foundations also offer free birth control.

If these free programs are not preventing unwanted pregnancy, why is government mandated birth control going to change this?
is this a hypothetical question?

Are there any insurance companies now not covering BC?

If so, it's pretty stupid.

and if yours didn't - would you send your wife to pplanned parenthood to get it?

The plan that the Georgetwon law student has doesn't include birth control. It may be stupid to you but it sure seems the church would disagree. No I wouldn't send my wife to PP if our plan didn't cover it, but I would have a ton of choices, including finding a new plan.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:59 pm

Diego in Seattle wrote:I love it when conservatives say that women shouldn't rely on the government for BC, but just go to PP.

All while campaigning to cut funding to PP.

Would you right wingers provide a link to where Ms. Fluke said that the government should PAY for BC? TIA.

Diego, you missed the point entirely. I only said that birth control is widely available for free and gave PP as one example. Nor did I offer an opinion on PP. Rather, I am asking a simple question about how a government mandate to cover BC is going to make a difference.

As for your link to government paying for BC according to Ms Fluke, go back and look at my post. I didn't say anything about them paying for it and neither did she. Instead she wants the feds to force Georgetown to add BC to their health plan.

We can debate the idiocy of her testimony later.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:35 pm

KC Scott wrote:beause if birth control isn't covered by insurance there will be a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

What a bunch of fucking bullshit. If birth control isn't covered, they pay for it out of their own fucking pockets as they should.

Contraception isn't health care, dumbfuck.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:41 pm

Left Seater wrote:I would have a ton of choices, including finding a new plan.

Or she could just have her doctor write the scrip, take it to your local pharmacy and pony up the big, budget busting fifteen or so dollars to have it filled.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:59 pm

KC Scott wrote:They're hormones, and their only use isn't just to prevent preganacy.

And in cases of legitimate medical necessity they are covered even by Georgetown's plan.

But that's really besides the point isn't it?

Nope. In fact it IS the point.

You propose that sex is purely optional

Of course it is. You can live your entire life without once ever having sex.

and as such reproductive services shouldn't be covered.

Contraception isn't a reproductive service. Prenatal care and the actual birth are.

Wait - maybe you're against it beacuse it's preventitive medicine?

The only thing I'm against is the federal government mandating which products and services a private business must provide.

How about you, you stupid, goosestepping asshole?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:07 am

Jsc810 wrote:
mvscal wrote:
KC Scott wrote:beause if birth control isn't covered by insurance there will be a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
Contraception isn't health care, dumbfuck.
Then-Congressman George Bush, President Nixon, and many other right-thinking Republicans in the 70s disagree with you and these other dumbfuck Republicans of today.

In November, you'll see the results of such stupid shit.

So that's what this election is all about? Forcing insurance providers to provide birth control pills?

Who the fuck are you to be talking about stupid? You're the dumbest fuck mashing a keyboard here or anywhere else. You're a fucking sheep totally incapable of even the slightest bit of critical thought. You just smile and eat the heaping bowl of catshit the media feeds you and ask for seconds.

Yep. We can't have any insurance providers not covering birth control. That is the towering issue confronting our generation. Forget about total economic collapse and massive unrest and instability in the most strategic part of the globe. There are whores in DC who have to buy their own birth control!!!

DUMBFUCK.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:42 am

never. the unwashed southerners wouldn't vote for the GOP unless all that Jesus shit was included.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:41 am

KC Scott wrote:The Doctors discount their services to the insurance company.

Discount?

That rate is negotiated and basically controlled by one side. And it's not the doctor either. You talk like the MD is doing the insurance company a favor. It's part of being a participating provider. You get more volume (referrals) if you're part of a network. So basically that "discount" you're talking about is a provider's willingness to take it in the ass.

You're welcome.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:54 am

KC Scott wrote:Or as I like to call it - A discount

Well, you're a dumbfuck so I guess you can call it that if you like.

A more appropriate word would be rackeetering. But keep on keeping on, moron. Keep saying the doctor is providing a "discount"... especially when there's a gun pointed to his head.

FAIL.