Sandra on Limbaugh: Attempts To Silence Women Have 'Clearly Failed'

Why can you not understand that it was a staged play. It was a performance, not a statement, or a testimony. It was an intentional STAGED performance intended to DEFRAUD. Had it had any legal standing, it would have been CRIMINAL Fraud.

Watch Desperate Housewives or CSI on TV, Same thing,,,,,, performances, only meant to entertain with occasional subliminal messages inserted.

 

how do you know it was a 'performance'? (you know, other than the fact that you said it)

 

Why not research for yourself, like READING the news.

The Congressional Hearing refuses to seat her after Pelosi tried to get her before the HEARING. They refused her as a witness because she had no unique expertise in anything. Congressional Hearings are not market research pulling in people at random. So Pelosi, in order to get this women's health insurance ACTIVIST some air time, pulled together a group of Democrats and Lamestream cameramen and had Fluke recite her lines for the cameras. If you research the news, you learn that.

What we have is liberals on one hand ejaculating in their shorts over what she said before The Congressional Hearing, and other liberals pitching a fit because the Congressional Hearing refused to recognize her as an expert witness, and did not have her testify..

And liberals fully believe both things can be and are true.

 

iow, you have nothing.

 

In my opinion, people of alleged religious morals should be able to walk in the shadow of the valley of prophylactic users and fear no need to engage in that behavior. Why is this not the case?

 

A guy was found dead seated in a porn movie theater. Was he a 'stroke' victim?

 

I would never argue that, Gamewell, but your tlaking point of "Silencing Women" would be beneath most people but not liberal true believers. The most massive "attack on women" came from President Clinton and was totally ignored by liberals.

I think Rush Limbaugh made a stupid statement. I think Bill Maher is a foul-mouthed nitwit. I think Ed Schultz is mentally ill and should get help. But, I don't expect you to admit any of that. No, you have your orders. It's "Silencing Women". Oh, wait, but you want to silence Governor Palin. Michelle Malkin. Ann Coulter. Rep. Bachmann. Oh, wait, they've been declared non-women by the sexists, haven't they?

 

She said women, and she was speaking for all women including herself, in law school spend $3000 on birth control. Do the math or get help. The whole "Silencing Women" shows the lengths liberals will go to fomenting hate and divisiveness and while they do it they're desperately trying to silence everyone who dares say anything they disagree with.

Rush Limbaugh made a stupid statement. Bill Maher makes a living of stupid, dishonesit, hateful statements. Ed Schultz is mentally ill. Chris Matthews is in love with President Obama. It's pitiful AnnaK.

 

Has anyone asked Sandra Fluke the question "What Do you think you should pay for?" Because it seems to can replace Birth Control with just about anything else and make the same lousy case.

 

While I don't have the link handy, if you look at Georgetown's policies, they do provide contraception for those who need it for medical conditions. Which pretty much destroys Fluke's "testimony"

 

hmm, in the testimony, she said that the insurance company thought her friend was lying when she tried to get the pill to treat an ovarian cyst, despite a doctor's recommendation. sooo...was she lying about that, and how do you know?

 

Such things are NOT handled by word of mouth, either she had an Rx or she did not. If she did not, no pill. If she did, pill.

So if there was no pill, what does that tell you? And in Fluke's stage performance, NOT testimony, Fluke told other lies. So what makes this, "insurance wouldn't cover a MEDICAL CONDITION," believable,,,,,,,,,nothing.

 

sorry, that's what i meant. she had a prescription, but the insurance company wouldn't cover it.

 

Said, Doesn't make it true. Fluke made no testimony under any oath, she could have lied her ass off with impunity. She was a character in a play. Scripts of stage plays can be and often are, total fiction.

 

and yet your accusation that she is a liar has yet to be proven

 

When walking through a field, I don't step in bull(*)(*)(*)(*) even tho no one has proved its bull(*)(*)(*)(*). When parts of a story do not add up, don't step in the unproven bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Write that on your palm.

 

you have yet to show how her story doesn't "add up"

so make your case or shut yer yapper

 

Nothing crude about calling her the liar she is and if she is going to go before congress and spout them she better be prepared for what will be coming to her.

 

Why aren't IUDs more readily available instead of forms of drugs.

 

$3000. for contraceptives. Case closed, shut yer yapper.

 

For cryin' out loud! A "performance intended to defraud"? What in the world are you talking about? Who did she defraud? If the committee HAD had legal standing, what did she do that was illegal? That's totally irrational.

 

I'm not the one who needs help - with math or otherwise. LISTEN TO HER TESTIMONY. She said women CAN SPEND UP TO $3000 OVER 3 YEARS OF LAW SCHOOL. She didn't say SHE did and she didn't say ALL women did. She did no more than exercise her right to free speech to make a statement to a committee in support of a provision of health care reform and in return was subjected to a brutal, obscene, paranoid attack by a drugged out potty mouth who has apparently arrived at a point in his brain rot that he thinks he's untouchable by mere mortals - kind of like the kids on LSD who jumped out of windows because they thought they could fly.

Rush Limbaugh did more than make "a stupid statement". He attacked her personally as a woman - not as a witness in support of health care reform exercising her right of free speech - for 3 days straight on a 3-hour show. A video of the "statement" he made about her is posted here somewhere but I doubt you bothered to watch it.

As a retired police officer, I'd think you would judge a situation by the EVIDENCE and all you have to do to know who's telling the truth here is to listen to HER speech to the committee as it actually was and listen to the video of Limbaugh's 3-day attack on her. You have it easily available to you so pretend you're still a police officer and this is a case you're investigating.

 

Listen to her testimony during a hearing on religious freedom. Perspective is important.

 

She didn't testify in a hearing on religious freedom. She spoke to a Congressional committee in support of women at religious schools having the same access to BC from their insurance company as all other women will have under the new health care reforms. FACTS are important.

 

FAIL. The dems wanted to change the subject so brought up Fluke. Facts are important.