• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You agree with this posterH

Your choices are/


  • Total voters
    51
Thank you for your irrational partisan opinion about MSNBC.

I'm not partisan. I'm just calling it how it is, I don't get my news from fox news either...
 
No, I have your posts trying to tie filibusters to racism. You can obfuscate all you wish, but the posts are there for all to see.
I didn't make definite connection but A racist would oppose everything the President wanted,No?
 
:doh So what? It was democrats doing it; you asked for a citation; I gave you a citation. :rwbelepha:failpail:

You gave me squat, you can't prove those people throwing eggs are Democrats or even political. Nice try though.
 
I'm not partisan. I'm just calling it how it is, I don't get my news from fox news either...
:lamo You bash liberals, and you're not partisan? Try again.
 
If it was a real news outlet, he should be fired. Since it's MSNBC - no harm, no foul. You should expect nothing less from them.

You don't fire a partisan from a partisan network for partisanship. Hell, I'm shocked that Olbermann got the can.
 
I didn't make definite connection but A racist would oppose everything the President wanted,No?

Not necessarily, but even if they would there is no correlation. There's a famous example where one year the number of rapes in a city coincided with the rise in nuns, leading folks with your sort of logic to the conclusion that we had an epidemic of racist nuns.
 
You gave me squat, you can't prove those people throwing eggs are Democrats or even political. Nice try though.
LOL - nice try. I gave you what you asked for.

If it made you :eek:uch: not my problem.

If you think those people throwing eggs aren't democrats or even political, well LOL - not my problem either.
 
I'm sure the people who are complaining about this have no problem with the rhetoric of Fox News.
 
LOL - nice try. I gave you what you asked for.

If it made you :eek:uch: not my problem.

If you think those people throwing eggs aren't democrats or even political, well LOL - not my problem either.
Show me Democratic politicians conspiring to take down a president then you have something.
 
:lamo You bash liberals, and you're not partisan? Try again.

Did you just finish claiming, above this post, that people throwing eggs and protesting against Bush at the start of his term weren't either Democrats or political? You can't have it both ways - you can't claim someone who doesn't like your guy is a partisan hack and someone who doesn't like the conservative guy is apolitical. Even you must see the hypocrisy of that suggestion.
 
I'm sure the people who are complaining about this have no problem with the rhetoric of Fox News.

That's your answer? A subject about something someone said on MSNBC and you respond with "blah blah Fox".

Some moderate. Denial is an ugly thing.
 
You, on the other hand, were trying to imply that Ms. Fluke had a medical reason for her need for government funded contraceptives.

I never said a thing about medical need.

I have no idea what the woman's medical needs are.
 
Show me Democratic politicians conspiring to take down a president then you have something.

Sure, one is now governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe. He was once the wild and wacky chair of the DNC. Very outspoken about bringing down President Bush and opposing every measure Bush supported.
 
I never said a thing about medical need.

I have no idea what the woman's medical needs are.

So, in your view, Ms. Fluke wanted free contraceptives, not because she needed them for some rare medical condition and not because she was having sex, right? Is there a third reason?

She just wanted free stuff, is that it?
 
So, in your view, Ms. Fluke wanted free contraceptives, not because she needed them for some rare medical condition and not because she was having sex, right? Is there a third reason?

She just wanted free stuff, is that it?

Well there is the acne thing and the pill does lessen cramping and periods in general. :mrgreen:
 
So, in your view, Ms. Fluke wanted free contraceptives, not because she needed them for some rare medical condition and not because she was having sex, right? Is there a third reason?

She just wanted free stuff, is that it?
IIRC, Ms. Fluke did not speak about her needs, she spoke about someone else who needed the pill for medical reasons. Needs prescribed by a doctor.
 
When you're unmarried that's precisely what it suggests to most folks. Now thast suggestion may be inaccurate, but more times than not it's dead on.

Let me get this straight.

You're saying that most Americans think that unmarried women who take responsibility for their contraceptive health are promiscuous?

I'd like to see that proven in some way.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

See, I would suspect that most Americans would simply think that we're talking about women who are generally pretty monogamous but are, nevertheless, sexually active.

That's the boat that almost all adult women that I know, heck that I've ever known, fall into.

And unless you're a lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christian conservative, or a Muslim (two peas in a pod in many, many respects), you don't automatically conflate monogamous sexual activity out of wedlock with promiscuousness.
 
So, in your view, Ms. Fluke wanted free contraceptives, not because she needed them for some rare medical condition and not because she was having sex, right? Is there a third reason?

She just wanted free stuff, is that it?

My suspicion would be that she used contraceptives because she was sexually active.

Now, how you and Rush Limbaugh spin that into frequent, random, indiscriminate, casual sex (which is to say, "promiscuous" sex) is beyond me.

You realize, I hope, that it's perfectly possible for a woman to have sex with a single partner, right?

And the fact that she's using contraceptives is in no way indicative of a promiscuous lifestyle?
 
IIRC, Ms. Fluke did not speak about her needs, she spoke about someone else who needed the pill for medical reasons. Needs prescribed by a doctor.

She spoke about herself, not being able to get free contraceptives under the Georgetown University Student Health Insurance Plan because the University that, being a Catholic institution, did not support contraception as a matter of religious doctrine, did not include them in their plans.

When she got rightly called out on it, she changed her story, conveniently.
 
Let me get this straight.

You're saying that most Americans think that unmarried women who take responsibility for their contraceptive health are promiscuous?

I'd like to see that proven in some way.

Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

See, I would suspect that most Americans would simply think that we're talking about women who are generally pretty monogamous but are, nevertheless, sexually active.

That's the boat that almost all adult women that I know, heck that I've ever known, fall into.

And unless you're a lunatic fringe fundamentalist Christian conservative, or a Muslim (two peas in a pod in many, many respects), you don't automatically conflate monogamous sexual activity out of wedlock with promiscuousness.

We're not talking contraceptives in general really, we're talking about the pill and the term "contraceptive health" is a made up nonsense term to pretty things up. I'd like you to prove folks don't view (again generally) women who are unmarried and take the pill as likely to be promiscuous.
 
Back
Top Bottom