What a fucking hypocrite that nasty woman is, but we already knew that.  This is just a different flavor in the overall hypocritical stew.

Previously he was content to defame persons in a general sort of way, this last example is blatant crime against an innocent woman doing her civic duty in the accepted fashion.

Making such statements and such extreme views a large part of the public discussion gives the illusion that a majority actually prefer their viewpoint. 

Nope.  It’s ‘by the very definition of median’.

This needs to be the time that their “place” in modern society is relegated to the same “place” we reserve for KKK adherents, neo-Nazis, and sociopaths. They, those that pay them, and those that support them need to be told, in none-uncertain ways, that they are actively doing evil, and we aren’t buying it.

Obama is right that you need expensive gas because the government is subsidising your fuel costs… meaning that every slack-jawed doofus drives a huge truck (to compensate) when they could actually get by with a much smaller vehicle. I thought you die-hard conservatives were against government subsidies? Oh that’s right… it’s only the subsidies you don’t use that you have a problem with.

Furthermore, if you had any critical thinking skills you would understand that the two quotes you posted are not contradictory or hypocritical. Americans do need to use less gas (which would result from higher prices) and no president would want high gas prices going into an election because everyone uses gas and it is an easy talking point for simpletons to mention and rally around.

You’re a troll and they say I shouldn’t feed you, but you need to know that if you want to be taken seriously by anyone you will have to try harder than your present laughable ‘contributions’.

Please fuck off to wherever you normally spread your idiotic opinion.

http://boingboing.net/2012/02/18/birth-control-is-safer-than-pr.html

Get a brain moran.

Fluke was ostensibly denied because the hearing regulated only one speaker and their first choice, the Chair from the Separation of Church and State Flynn, was their first choice but was swapped at the last minute, and then not allowed by Issa, is the reasoning behind her denial.

Granted her opinion would’ve been just as valid and undeniable without a vet, but should this rule be pointed out anyway?

But of course we all know the pill really prevents all those random and unwanted pregnancies.  Those ones that just randomly occur without warning….the ones that occur without having sex.  <-you know that thing you do to get pregnant.

And why exactly do you need the pill if you don't have Viagra?…I mean if he can't get it up you are wasting money on the pill.

Erectile dysfunction doesn’t necessarily cause physical health issues, directly anyway, but it can have severe psychological effects including depression and can cause huge problems in relationships.

Both men and women should be able to understand this if they think about it. Can you imagine having a normal sex drive but almost never being able to satisfy it? Not being able to get it up is really, really devastating, even if it just happens once because you’re stressed or something – but for ED sufferers it happens all the time or at least most of the time. I’m not an expert but have trouble getting it up if I’m nervous… which is every time I’ve been with a new partner. And that’s among the most depressing things in a young man’s world.

Taking a bottle of Viagra with you to have a wild weekend with child prostitutes in Costa Rica, as Rush Limbaugh almost certainly did, is something entirely different of course.

I don’t mean to sidetrack anything, but there’s been a consistent misunderstanding of why people might take Viagra.

It’s one thing to call a person you don’t like names. It may or may not be juvenile, but it’s just a way to express one’s displeasure. E.g. “Obama is a c*cksucker”.

It’s quite another thing to try to attempt to discredit a person/engage in character assassination by aggressively criticising an unrelated type of behaviour or affiliation. E.g. “How dare that n*gger think he can be President?”

One is acceptable, the other is not.

What Rush and his ilk are saying is that women with an active sex life do not deserve to have their opinions taken into account. Only they are not honest enough to say it outright (I guess even they understand on some level how ridiculous such an opinion is). Instead, they want to repeatedly insinuate it by repeating disparaging allegations against someone they do not like.

EDIT: There is also the fact that, for the same reason we would not tolerate a grown man beating up a little girl, the amount of effort pundits (who, by definition, have a decent amount of public exposure) should spend attacking an individual should be a function of that individual’s own public exposure (and, hence, ability to fight back if desired).

It’s so wrong it’s bizarre – like having the immigration debate driven by people who are most concerned that foreigners are going to use up all our air.

Been following the immigration ‘debate’ in Australia, have you?

Red fucking herring. Everyone knows Libaugh’s an utter prick already, but that’s the only reason most people are talking about it.

Ask yourselves, if this bullshit wasn’t filling the airwaves, what else might we be hearing about right now? You can bet the Republicans would rather you didn’t.

We end up with a system that’s broken, that costs more than in other countries, that costs more than many of us can afford, and that gives employers control over people’s health care. It’s wrong. It means many of us get sick, and some die, due to lack of access to health care.

Access to the treatments we need should not depend on a boss’s permission. As long as we’re stuck with this broken system, we’re all screwed, but policies which limit the bosses’ choices are probably better than policies which help the bosses limit our choices.