90 Replies to “Hashtag Of The Entitlement Generation”

  2. No, Daniel (4:47), you weren’t “informed” of anything, you read one person’s opinion that calling women “bitches” and “c***s” and “whores” like Letterman and Maher and Limbaugh do doesn’t constitute a real good argument; the fact that you mistake another person’s opinions for information about how ‘we’ think betrays your own status as a follower.
    If another conservative having a different opinion than you hurts your little feelings, go join the royal ‘we’ groupthink sheep on the Left instead of complaining that other conservatives aren’t sheep like you who think we’re collectively writing an embroidered rulebook about how ‘we’ think.

  3. Hey, Texas-Canuck (what’s with the hyphen?), no apologies necessary: ‘Seems to me you’re calling a slut a slut.

  4. bib – I’m not trying to be witty; this is a debate.
    Your medical needs of V- is a medical issue; birth control is a choice. They are not comparable. Same with physiotherapy (massage, chiropractor, acupuncture). Most plans cover them up to an annual limit. The medical prescriptions, no matter what they are, are covered up to an annual limit. The Penn State allowed a total of $500 per year in prescriptions – whether for birth control or diabetic medicine etc.
    You continue to ignore that an insurance plan has to cover all costs incurred by the collective. It can’t, legally, run a deficit. As such, it must limit its coverage OR increase the cost. You don’t seem to consider this FACT.
    If the collective wants this plan to cover ALL health needs – including not only birth control but also toothpaste and etc – the collective has to pay for it.
    BUT why should the collective pay for needs that are not due to sickness or accident, but arise from CHOICE? And, choice of a few but not all. Should the collective pay for the choices of some? Why don’t you answer this question?
    No, Steyn did not say that Ms Fluke wants the govt or taxpayer to pay; he was referring to making the govt mandate a private company or religious institution do something that is against their religious principles. Do you think that the govt should do this? Why don’t you answer?
    For Ms Fluke to insist that a religious institution abandon the very axioms of their faith, because she wants them to, is the height of arrogance. Do you think that an individual should make such a demand of a religious institution?
    As for your comment about fairness, could you explain why you refuse to comment about the various people on the left insulting conservative women, such as Palin, Malkin, Rice, etc? Why don’t you answer?
    As for my being a misogynist – prove it. Don’t slip into insults. Be an adult.
    Equally – I’m bored to tears with the tendency of the left who, when they are losing an argument, to fling out the ‘fascist’ term. This shows of course that they haven’t a clue what it means, but, explain, bibs, what is ‘fascist’ about my arguments. Well?

  5. Banned in Boston:
    Sandra Fluke testified that birth control expenses for students like her are onerous.
    Her tuition costs $46,865 thousand dollars a year. She can get birth control pills for just over $108 per year.
    What’s your point again?

  6. “Explain, bibs, what is ‘fascist’ about my arguments.” — ET
    You arguments are ‘fascist’ because a) you’re using facts and reasoned argument instead of name-calling, and b) you’re winning the debate hands-down.

  7. Bibs – Fluke’s reference to the use of the pill for hormone treatment is a red herring; such prescriptive use for a medical condition is covered by Georgetown.
    Ms Fluke’s reference to $3,000 a year was to contraceptives – and not only is the amount unreasonable but her demand that a religious institution abandon its axioms is unprincipled.
    Equally, are you able to present an argument, based on reason, logic, facts? All you seem able to do is insult me and those of us who post here, call us derogatory names, and refuse to answer comments about your posts. What’s your problem?

  9. You know how it’s not a good idea to feed wild animals because they become dependent?
    Works the same way with leftists.

  10. TrolledinBoston said: “Again, Phantom, I’ll educate you on birth control. One pill a day and you’re covered. You have to take it every day. I guess you don’t know much about sex or contraception, which makes sense considering the quality of the genetics you’re working with.”
    Wow, dial back the ugly there dewd. One might almost think I’d scored on you there. Take too many pucks in the head from ET tonight?
    To be -painfully- clear, I am not the one who said $3000 for three years of contraceptives at college. Sandra Fluke said that. So she’s either a liar or a three-condom-a-day sex machine, turbo-nitrous version. Liar or slut, or possibly lying slut, you be the judge. DemocRat apparatchik in any case. That’s not a good thing to be, by the way. Five steps farther down into the sewer than lying slut.
    But this is the prize right here: “Next time you squawk about burkhas and menstruating girls being kept at the back of the mosque, I’ll refer you back to your comment about “freedom of religion”.”
    Aren’t you supposed to be the super tolerant social justice loving type that can’t abide when, oh for instance the Quebec government requires veils to be removed for driver license pictures? That’s your team, right? We have to love and accept the honor killing, clitorectomies and stuff because “its just their way” right? Ok then.
    So aren’t you somewhat… inconsistent? I mean here’s Sandy “The Slut” Fluke specifically going after a Catholic school, for the express purpose of -forcing- said school to provide contraception against their religious beliefs (that’s from her own lips, as it were), as part of a much bigger push by the Obama administration to -force- the Catholic Church (and every other church, and business, etc.) to pay for contraception and abortion services for all their employees, which is religious NON-freedom. Also a mega rip-off, incidentally.
    According to you, I’m supposed to be the no-freedom Nazi here, right? I’m supposed to be the “lock them in camps!” guy, uh huh?
    But gee Banned baby, all I did was call Sandy a slut! With supporting slut documentation provided by her, I might add. YOUR GUYS are trying to make it illegal to be a frickin’ Catholic and Sandy’s at the sharp end with you backing her up. Here tonight you’re spinning, bobbing and weaving trying to pretend I’m the bad guy, but I’m not the guy trying to f- over a whole religion.
    One of these things is not like the other, Banned. Lest we lose sight of the actual issue in your laser show.
    By the way, you suck at this whole trolling thing. ET pwnd you first time around. I’m just kicking you when you’re down. Its fun. ~:)

  11. Bravo ET, Phantom and others.
    Phantom said, “So aren’t you somewhat… inconsistent? I mean here’s Sandy “The Slut” Fluke specifically going after a Catholic school, for the express purpose of -forcing- said school to provide contraception against their religious beliefs (that’s from her own lips, as it were), as part of a much bigger push by the Obama administration to -force- the Catholic Church (and every other church, and business, etc.) to pay for contraception and abortion services for all their employees, which is religious NON-freedom. Also a mega rip-off, incidentally.”
    This is exactly what it is all about. These were the same methods used in the Soviet Union in the 1920s to destroy the churches. It did not work there and will not work here.

  12. Call me old school but I cant’ for the life of me figure out how it costs $1000/yr to keep the tramp or any one from getting pregnant or acquiring festering pustules on the taxpayer’s dime. Do males submit claims for condoms? Last time I checked, washroom vending machines did not receipts for “shore kits” as they referred to them in the navy.
    batb, I would be honoured to meet you and your daughters anytime. The ladies seem to have a pretty good roll model to follow.

  13. EBD (7:03) I was just having a little fun. 🙂 I generally like your opinions.
    I don’t agree with you on the Rush Limbaugh issue though.
    It was nothing more than another manufactured “outrage” from the left. It is called Alinsky tactics. It only works as long as people fall for it. And it is particularly useful for the left when a conservative falls for it.

  14. Ken, it really hacks me that you have to see this crap played out again having lived through it in Europe once already. I plan on it not turning out the same as it did in Russia, we have your experience with these a-holes to build on.

  15. We’re allowed to disagree, Daniel, and that was my only point, that we’re not like the leftists who require everyone to sing from the same hymnbook.
    I’m won’t rehash my opinion on the issues you raise except to say that I completely disagree that my – lifelong – opinion on the tactics/language of the likes of Limbaugh/Letterman/Maher is playing into the hands of the left; I believe that the low ghetto-standard of public discourse pumped out by the left into our culture has been unconsciously absorbed by the right, and that this plays into the hands of the left.
    Like I said, we’re allowed to disagree. Some don’t agree that conservatives should be allowed to disagree, but I disagree with them whether they allow it or not.
    Anyway, Daniel, I let my foul mood get the better of me, and for that I apologize; I have no evidence that you’re one of those “which side are you on, boy?” sheeple who piss me off so much.

  16. She’s only here to be the presentable face of an ugly, hateful fascism. Smart people can see that.
    Posted by: Banned in Boston at March 10, 2012 5:08 PM
    Gawd but I love that line. So because we, as taxpayers, are reluctant to be strong armed in paying for Ms.Flukes exorbitant sexual appetite we are considered facists. When you have a nymphomaniac combined with a cleptomaniac, all you really have is a f*cking thief.She is demanding $3000. for $500. worth of product. She is attacking Christian values and common sense at the same time which makes her perfect as a useful idiot to be championed by twits like Banned in Boston (now we know why)and Obama himself. Rush just said what needed to be said.

  17. Some people wouldn’t say sh!t if their mouth was full of it. Slut is a perfectly good word, and if the shoe fits…although it does have more value if used sparingly.

  18. As I’ve said before, I’m with Daniel loves EBD on this one: Rush’s comments were altogether apt to the circumstance and I’m sorry he didn’t just throw the whole load right back at the unprincipled lefty hypocrites who made a mountain out of a molehill—as usual. It’s time to stop letting them write all the rules, which was Breitbart’s point.

  19. bib – you still haven’t answered my questions.
    IF you think that the names called against Ms Fluke are ‘just pig talk’ then why do you insult the people here? Why do you call me, for example, names?
    IF you think that the names called against Ms Fluke are ‘just pig talk’ then why do you say nothing about the names used againstn Palin, Malkin, Ingrahm, Rice, etc?
    Most certainly, Ms Fluke knew that the Catholic University’s health plan wouldn’t cover birth control prescriptions.
    But – you’ve now just said that this could make for a civil debate. Are you prepared to debate this?
    You’ve already concluded that “if birth control is an attack on “Christian values,” Christian values are in a lot of trouble.” Is this your final conclusion or are you prepared to debate?
    After all, so far, neither you nor Ms Fluke show any evidence of debating this issue. Ms Fluke’s argument was only about the cost of birth control which she set at $1,000 a year – an openly false amount.
    Her request that a religious institution have the same values as a secular institution was an assertion not a reasoned argument.
    You had the opportunity here to discuss and debate the viability of asking a religious institution to change its beliefs – but instead, you have steadfastly ignored this concern.
    Instead, you have insulted everyone, refused to answer questions about the real costs of birth control, about the nature of insurance policies, about whether or not needs-of-choice should be covered by the collective – and about the rights of religious institutions.
    All you’ve done is insult people and claimed that because they insult, then you can insult. Hmm.
    So- how about answering some questions, how about moving the debate into a rational zone? Well?
    Let’s try it. You said – If birth control is an attack on Christian values, then Christian values are in a lot of trouble’. Please explain why.

  20. Dontcha just love it when leftists get all righteous? Especially after those who have followed that philosophy have killed over 100 million people…

  21. bib -you still haven’t answered my questions about the role of insurance policies and how much the collective should pay for goods-of-choice, not medical necessity, requested by some.
    You now state that: “If birth control is an attack on Christian values, Christian values are in a lot of trouble’.
    In your next post, you seem to support ‘civil debate’ – so, could you comment on the validity of your above opinion?
    You argue against insults to Ms Fluke yet you insult commenters here. Why? And you have nothing to say about the insults made by various people against Palin, Rice, Malkin etc. Why not?
    And, what’s your view on whether an individual should take a religious institution to task for not being similar to a secular institution? Ms Fluke insists that this is wrong. Do you agree?

  22. You might as well save your breath, ET. Bib’s not going to answer your questions because s/he can’t. S/he’s good at hurling invective but when asked to defend the drivel, s/he reverts to ad hominems, implying that we’re not smart enough to “get it.”
    Troll. Plain and simple. ‘Not worth your analytical skills or time.

  23. ahh, bib, now it’s up to you to show, clearly, that I have given NO ‘sign of morality’. Please explain how you come to this conclusion about me. What evidence have I provided for such a lack?
    Otherwise, you are retreating into insults.And, retreating into a stance where you refuse to justify your opinions.
    You have set yourself up as strongly against insults.
    That’s what puzzles me. You are against personal insults – a stnce with which I agree. And yet, you continuously insult people – including me, who has yet to do that to anyone. Could you explain why you do this?
    You make assertions and yet, when asked to justify them, you retreat into the common fallacious tactic of ‘blame the Other’.. This is a tactic where you claim that you cannot justify or explain your opinions because the other person is: ‘too amoral, too dumb, too bigoted, too…(none of which are proven)..
    Now, you’ve come on this thread and made quite a few claims. I’ve asked you about them. Are you capable of a rational, logical debate or are you someone who asserts but when called to account, reverts to Insults?
    Again, you’ve now accused me of lacking morality. Could you explain and justify this assertion against me?

  24. bib – I’m not the one ‘ignoring comments’. I’ve asked you numerous questions about the issue of insurance, costs, institutional obligations etc which you refuse to answer.
    You ignore that I’ve never said that Fluke wants state funds. Why are you referring to it?
    You also claim that I use ‘distortion and distraction’. Could you provide examples?
    As for her demand that her policy cover a medical choice, birth control, you ignore several things:
    First, that her claim of costs is empirically invalid.
    Second, that birth control is a choice not a medical necessity. You ignore several issues on this topic. First, it can’t be linked to ‘women’s health’ with any more valid connection than nutritious food, soap, toothpaste etc – none of which are covered by a medical insurance plan.
    And second, you ignore the question of whether a medical insurance policy geared to accidents and illness, ought to pay for the choice health care products of some of the collective.
    As I’ve said, the policy can’t go into debt; it must cover all claims. Therefore, if SOME people want these CHOICES covered by the collective, the cost of these policies must increase. Do you agree with such a demand?
    As for your claim that ‘not all Christians’ are opposed to birth control – you are right, but this has absolutely nothing to do with Ms Fluke’s demand. Her demand is that a Catholic Institution (and not all Christians are Catholic), which DOES oppose birth control, should deny its principles. Do you agree with this?
    As for your opposition to insults, with which I agree, your many posts on this thread have strayed far, far from such a voiced opposition. Instead, you have chosen, yourself, to insult me and others who have NOT used any invectives. Why?
    Your insistence that I join you in voicing my opposition to insults is unreasonable. I am dealing only with the issues of Ms Fluke’s request – issues which you have also commented on – and which you refuse to deal with when questioned.
    Now – you have called me a ‘fascist propagandist’. Yet another insult. Please explain what is fascist about my opinions.
    Please explain what I am propagandizing.
    And again, please explain why you define me as lacking morality.

  25. And while you are (not) explaining that to ET maybe tell us again why she singled out the Catholic church and why she needs $1000. per year for contraception.

  26. You lack morality because you pretend to apply a standard (to me) which you do not apply to people you support.
    Oh, you mean like the socialists you support who have killed more than 100 million people?

  27. bib – you are demanding that I ‘join you’ in your opposition to those posters who have insulted Ms Fluke. That is an unreasonable demand; I’m not a sheep and am not yours to command. You, without evidence, declare that I support these people who have insulted Fluke. Prove it.
    What you ignore in your demand that I ‘be yours’, is that I choose to comment only on issues. Always.
    You, however, choose not to deal with the issues and instead, focus primarily on the insults. When I confront you on your refusal to deal in any depth with the issues – you revert to personal insults.
    Now, you are demanding that I join you in opposing those who insult Ms Fluke. I don’t deal with insults; only issues.
    Yet, when I ask you, who are heavily involved in insults, to oppose those who insult Palin, Rice, Bachmann, Ingrahm, Malkin etc – you say: nothing. Not a word. That’s strange – you insist on a group response to insults to Fluke but refuse to join in on any response to other insults to women.
    You claim that such shows my lack of morality. Can’t I make the same accusation against you? As you say, moral codes – you either have them or not. Yet you say nothing about these other women. You either have morality or don’t.
    You have shown your own lack of knowledge of the issues, including the policies of state universities, including the viability of a collective covering costs incurred by choice rather than just risk; including actual costs of birth control; including the rights of religious institutions etc. You choose to ignore or post superficial and frequently incorrect comments on these issues. When asked about your comments you revert to personal insults.
    Fine – berate those who insult, but don’t insult those of us who start to deal with issues. Don’t refuse to discuss the issues when you yourself choose to bring them up – and when your facts are wrong.
    And for heaven’s sake, the use of propaganda (which I do not do) is NOT a definition of fascism. Kindly show where I have lied, where I have ‘demagogued’; show my double standards.
    And how do I misrepresent people? Give an example of my ‘dehumanizing’ someone. And also, provide evidence that I ‘stifle free speech and dissent’.
    Wow – those are quite the accusations. So, if you are committed to morality, to legitimate debate and reject insults and spurious name-calling – kindly justify what you have said against me.

  28. Why don’t we change the name to “banned in canada”?
    Such typical lefty behaviour: new to the site and insulting the regulars with the lowest and verifiably false insults. I’d like to say “Smarten up”, but one needs to have the ability to do so. Some people just don’t have it.

  29. I said it before but it bears repeating,Sandra Fluke is a TERRORIST.She is no different than the people that flew the planes into the trade center.She and her followers are trying to bring down a religious instution.She and they are not using the methods of third world radicals but that of like minded jurists and legislators.

  30. BiB @11:39 – “Fluke… simply wants the plan she pays for (and is likely forced to buy, since, if US universities are anything like Canadian ones, there’s no opt-out for the campus health plan) to cover a product she believes are valuable for women’s health.”
    This is an argument for de-regulating the health-care industry. Maybe you’re a libertarian and you don’t know it. Add that to the list of things you don’t know. (BTW, what if Fluke “believed” quartz crystals were “valuable for a woman’s health”? Plenty do.)
    Anyway, ET has covered everything that needs to be said. This is why I keep telling you people not to be so mean to Davenport. At least she’s smart. BiB isn’t coherent.

  32. black mamba – I’m not sure if Bib’s comment is an argument for deregulating the health care industry. What Fluke – and Bib – don’t address is first, the question of why a health care policy should cover birth control which is a choice not a prescription for an illness; and second, the costs of such a requirement to the annual cost of that policy.
    As I’ve said, nothing is free. Therefore, if your health care coverage moves from a collective Reserve Fund meant to cover risk, ie, non-choice ill health and accidents…to one that also covers choice products that have nothing to do with illness or accident – well, how much will your premiums increase to cover these additions?
    Bib won’t address this. The left won’t address this.
    Equally, Bib and the left won’t address the moral question of the state ordering a religious institution to abandon its ideological principles.
    Bib is very typical of the left. He won’t enter into any rational debate. When confronted with questions and concerns about the issues, he and the left, resort to insults. Ad hominem insults. You can see such in the insults of the left to Palin, Malkin, Rice etc – and Bib’s insults towards me. Very strange.
    Then, there’s the leftist retreat into smug sanctimonious claims of superiority – where they claim ‘you aren’t smart enough to understand’ or claims that ‘you amuse me’ (a declaration of superiority, heh).
    It’s puzzling why the left run from any discussion of the issues. They either retreat into ideology (Marx knows best) or insults. Weird.

  33. Black Mamba said: “This is why I keep telling you people not to be so mean to Davenport. At least she’s smart.”
    Relative to bib, maybe. Not much of an achievement, IMHO. This bib here can’t seem to get past the whole “put-up job” concept. Seems to think Sandy The Slut has an actual leg to stand on. Duh.
    Case in point: bib said “BTW, there’s a fine argument to be made by saying “my castle, my rules,” that Fluke knew when she applied to a Catholic university that Catholics oppose birth control and won’t contract for a health plan that provides it. In a society with civil debate, that would be a strong case.”
    Gee, didn’t I say exactly that? Twice? Why, I believe I did! bib has managed to argue his/her/itself right around 540 degrees of spin and ended up on MY side of the argument.
    bib, baby. This is the Nazi side. Get back over there on your own side with The One Who Shall Save Y’all. Us Nazis are picky who we let on our side, y’know.

  34. ET said: “It’s puzzling why the left run from any discussion of the issues.”
    Its because any “issue” to the Left is just a disposable straw man. Have you noticed the way they’ve all abandoned gun control? Twelve years ago that was the hill they were all going to die on, and after Algore lost the election over it you never heard another word. Sacred gun control is deader’n disco, no matter that Barry endangered the whole country of Mexico trying to bring it back.
    This contraception farce is like that. I don’t think arguing facts and reason with these pinheads gets us anywhere. I think maybe having 100,000 voters show up at weekend rallies from now November in the USA will make the argument much stronger.
    Or we could wait for them all to get mugged. I understand a good mugging will switch your average bib from DemocRat to Republican faster than Sandra Fluke can get out of a skirt.
    bwaha!

  35. Banned in Boston, let’s find out once and for all if you’re capable of answering an entirely straightforward question. Here it is:
    You refer to the “vile misogyny” of the “hateful fascists” and “knuckle-draggers” here who refuse to condemn Limbaugh’s “slut” remark. Will you go on the record here, right now, and condemn Bill Maher and Dave Letterman for calling Sarah Palin a “c*nt” and a “whore”?
    Thanks in advance for your response.

  37. No, bib, you don’t understand the situation.
    A rational adult doesn’t do something because someone else does it or because someone challenges you to do it. You do it because of your own initiative.
    Your choice was to focus only on the insults to Fluke. OK – your choice. But you have no right to demand that others follow you.
    You ignored the insults to other women. Your choice.
    And, you CHOSE to insult me and others (who were not involved in the mud-slinging)with your own name-calling. Those were the choices you made.
    Note your own hypocrisy – how you now state that ‘no-one should be called those names’. But you CHOSE to call me and others quite a few insults – calling us ignorant, lacking morality, fascist, demogogues, ‘wallowing in slime, comparing me to one of the Third Reich’s most notorious, etc.
    How do I deal with people who insult? I ignore them and focus on the issues. You have chosen a different route. Your primary focus is insults, you refer, briefly, to the issues and when called to account for the misinformation in your comments, you refuse to respond.
    But you have no right to demand that any of us join you in your own personal focus. You can ask, certainly, but you cannot demand it and cannot insist, and cannot insult us because we do not join you. There are some of us who focus only on issues and you have no right to insult us for so doing.

  38. Thanks for clarifying that, Banned in Boston. I’m sure the “trogs” “knuckle-draggers”, “winged monkeys”, “chowderheads”, “ugly, hateful fascists”, and “ignorant rubes” here are relieved to hear that you’re opposed to name-calling.

  39. Glad you rested your case. The jury finds you guilty of tunnel vision and childish insults.

  40. Bib said: “I sure will. No one should be called those names.
    Now, will EBD and ET condemn those who post here call Fluke a slut, whore, prostitute, thief and terrorist?”
    Dude (or whatever). We aren’t the one saying Limbaugh is wrong for calling Sandy The Slut a slut. You are. All you’ve done is say you’d like to shut -everyone- up, not just Limbaugh. Making you an equal opportunity censor. No surprise there.
    Still no word on why the general public should be on the hook for Sandy’s contraceptives bill though, right?
    How’s your smile now?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation