DescentBB

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:33 pm**

callmeslick wrote:Good night, funny man, it's going to be a hoot watching you go down slowly....

That's great news; I'll also enjoy the end of that fool's career.

And yes, birth control as a heath measure is exactly right. I used to date a girl who was on the pill, but for health reasons. She had been on it since she was 15 because of a hormone imbalance. She had frequent, painful, irregular menstruations that caused her to miss school and even sent her to the hospital because of blood loss. (If I recall correctly she also had to take clotting/anti-clotting agents related to her condition.) But with birth control, she was able to have a normal life again. She wasn't a slut. She was a bright, fun, caring person who was extremely monogamous.

So yes it's true, birth control has other uses besides reducing the risk of pregnancy. It saved my friend lots of unnecessary pain and medical expenses.

Posted: **Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:37 pm**

I don't know what made me laugh more. the fact that limbaugh would go to such lengths while sounding so ignorant... or his apology where he tried so desperately to shift the blame. "it was the leftists fault! they made me do it!"

the guy is such a pathetic pile of goo. LOL.

on another note: I'd rather see these girls take birth control and have some control over their own lives, than let people dictate to them what they should do and quite possibly have their lives thrown into the grinder if and when they have an unexpected pregnancy.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:22 am**

What I find troubling is that Sergeant Thorne is a grown man and he clearly has no clue about what birth control actually does; of course, he still is completely sure of his opinion and will not change it even though we just showed him how it does actually help prevent certain types of cancer and various hormonal imbalances.

So what do you think Thorne? Do you still consider what I said to be the biggest bunch of bull you've ever read?

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:23 am**

I consider that birth control is primarily for birth control, and I suspect that using it for other purposes may--at best--be just another case of treating the symptoms of a problem instead of treating the problem, which medical "science" so often does. I don't accept that a woman needs to restrict her ability to give birth in order to be healthy, and I think that's a rather convenient position for a man to take. I also think its a very convenient position for a society to take, with it being so fashionable to be interested in population control.

The comparison with erectile dysfunction is logically absurd. That would be closer to women taking some medication in order to help them become pregnant. And where did this come from?

Zuruck wrote:You seem to have no problem with insurance companies covering erectile dysfunction pills...why is that?

Projecting? I've never had a position on the treatment of erectile dysfunction. I think the disorder is kind of a joke, actually, but again I would consider it a symptom.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:02 am**

Ferno wrote:

on another note: I'd rather see these girls take birth control and have some control over their own lives, than let people dictate to them what they should do and quite possibly have their lives thrown into the grinder if and when they have an unexpected pregnancy.

No one was saying anything about limiting birth control. The topic was who pays for it.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:26 am**

woodchip wrote:No one was saying anything about limiting birth control. The topic was who pays for it.

yea but it doesn't make those opposed to it sound as mean if you say it that way Wood

Those mean Republicans want to limit the availability of my medical treatment.......

VS

Those mean Republicans want to make me pay for my birth Control pills instead of giving them to me free.....

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:21 am**

Yup, framing the issue is just about as important as it gets.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:15 pm**

Well Thorne, like I said--nothing is going to get through that thick head of yours. Contraception has been shown to have beneficial applications to a woman's health, aside from controlling pregnancy. But you don't see it like that, for whatever reason. And you don't have to accept the fact that cancer rates go down when women take OC...it's a studied fact and what you believe doesn't really mean ★■◆●.

As for the comparison, you guys are bitching because--in your minds--covering birth control is telling women to go out and have more sex. Isn't that exactly what ED pills do? They're covered by insurance companies, yet their sole purpose is for men to be able to get it on. There are no beneficial applications to Cialis or Viagra, it is purely for males to get it up and start screwing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:11 pm**

woodchip wrote:
Rush has a listener base bigger than any 10 liberal talk shows. It wouldn't surprise me once the sponsors who left take a look at their business dropping away may wind up going back to Rush.

Update. Seems one of the advertisers lost big time:

"On Saturday, Carbonite CEO David Friend released a statement on his company’s website declaring that Carbonite had decided to “withdraw” advertising from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in the wake of his controversial remarks involving Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke because it will “ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse”:"

"However, it hasn’t done much to contribute to his company’s stock price. Since the market opened on Monday through its close today, Carbonite stock (NASDAQ:CARB) has plummeted nearly 12 percent, outpacing the drop of the NASDAQ index in that same time period by nine-and-a-half points. It was also one of the biggest decliners on the NASDAQ on Tuesday."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/06/inves ... ouncement/

Don't some of you hate it when I'm right

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:28 pm**

OOPS…

Also that woman who was “slandered” might want to think twice before pursuing a case against Rush. She might just be in for one hell of an ordeal, if Rush were to decide to defend himself on the grounds he was telling the truth. (no lie, no slander)

Regardless of whether the woman is or is not a slut, she could see her sex life plastered all over the media, and regret not just letting it go.

Even if she is squeaky clean, I can bet some things will be said about her that might or might not be true…

Most of these things are settled out of court, but if I were Rush, I would definitely use the threat of a court case.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:19 pm**

Ferno wrote:I don't know what made me laugh more. the fact that limbaugh would go to such lengths while sounding so ignorant... or his apology where he tried so desperately to shift the blame. "it was the leftists fault! they made me do it!"

the guy is such a pathetic pile of goo. LOL.

Somebody likes him enough to go to the effort to cast his likeness in bronze.

http://gawker.com/5891087/busted-and-br ... te-capitol

Ferno wrote:on another note: I'd rather see these girls take birth control and have some control over their own lives, than let people dictate to them what they should do and quite possibly have their lives thrown into the grinder if and when they have an unexpected pregnancy.

Finally, an intelligent answer instead of a bunch of name calling moralizing. Whether we like it or not, society ultimately has to pay for the consequences of unwanted pregnancies. No person or religion is going to stop people from having sex, so if I'm required to, I rather pay for "prevention" than help pay to raise an "accident". Paying for prevention works out to be much cheaper in the long run anyway.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:43 pm**

The beautiful part is you're not required to, legally. Non of us are.

Zuruck wrote:And you don't have to accept the fact that cancer rates go down when women take OC...it's a studied fact and what you believe doesn't really mean ****.

I never disputed your statistics.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:24 pm**

Zuruck wrote: And you don't have to accept the fact that cancer rates go down when women take OC...it's a studied fact and what you believe doesn't really mean ★■◆●.

Yes but other cancers may be induced by being taken too long:

No clinical correlation as of yet has been observed between breast cancer and oral methods of contraception. But there are certain birth control side effects with prolonged and indiscriminate usage these include:

Depression

Optical problems like increased susceptibility for cataract

Increased number of gallstones

Cardiac failure and transient ischemic attacks in very rare cases.

Decreased resistance towards seasonal infections.

In females the risk of ectopic pregnancies is exponentially related to the period of usage of hormonal contraceptives.

** Increased susceptibility towards endometrial and cervical cancers because of poor nutrition and lack of hormonal balance in endometrial tissues.

Jaundice, clotting and thrombosis on rare circumstances.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:40 pm**

Spidey wrote:OOPS…

Also that woman who was “slandered” might want to think twice before pursuing a case against Rush. She might just be in for one hell of an ordeal, if Rush were to decide to defend himself on the grounds he was telling the truth. (no lie, no slander)

Regardless of whether the woman is or is not a slut, she could see her sex life plastered all over the media, and regret not just letting it go.

Even if she is squeaky clean, I can bet some things will be said about her that might or might not be true…

Most of these things are settled out of court, but if I were Rush, I would definitely use the threat of a court case.

I'll take the assessment of two of North Carolina's best attorneys(one who has presented to the SCOTUS) over yours, and they say the case is a slam-dunk.

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:01 pm**

Lol, North Carolina

Posted: **Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:07 pm**

flip wrote:Lol, North Carolina

well, to their credit neither one of them has ever whined about his financial plights, or the fact that he used to make big money before Obama screwed things up. Yeah, North Carolina.....you can make serious money in Charlotte and Raleigh.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:10 am**

flip wrote:Lol, North Carolina

oh, wow.
and in a thread about racism no less.

TAR-HEELS GO HOME eh flip?

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:22 am**

roid wrote:
flip wrote:Lol, North Carolina
oh, wow.
and in a thread about racism no less.

TAR-HEELS GO HOME eh flip?

let me get this right!!!! you took "Lol, North Carolina

" and somehow saw that as a racist comment

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:20 am**

It was an instant dismissal of someone based on where they were born.
It's surprising to me that you CAN'T see the parallel.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:49 am**

I saw the dismissal, but only YOU took it as racial.

I'm ASSUMING you took the term Tar-Heel to be racist against blacks

History 101

Origin Of Name "Tar Heel"

By William Powell

The moniker is rooted in the state's earliest history, derived from the production of naval stores-tar, pitch and turpentine-extracted from the vast pine forests of the state. Early explorers from Jamestown pointed out the possibilities for naval stores production along the Chowan River. Eventually Parliament offered a bounty for their production, and North Carolina became an important source of tar and pitch for the English navy.....

A story that must be considered folklore states that when Lord Cornwallis' troops forded the Tar River in early May of 1781 en route to Yorktown, they emerged with tar on their feet. This marked their passage through North Carolina as "tar heels." The tar reputedly had been hastily dumped into the river to prevent the British from capturing it. This story cannot be traced beyond the 20th century and may have been made up to suggest the naming of the river.

http://www.mrtarheel.com/tarheelorigin.html

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:47 am**

Instead of you guys surmising about flip's intent... how about asking him?

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:22 am**

i didn't surmise anything about flips intent. it was Roid that did that

I questioned Roid instantly assuming that flips comment was racist, without any substance or content to back it up. that's exactly what those on the left of the Trayvon Martin case have done.

Maybe I'm wrong and roid is right, first time for everything

but roid didn't ask flip what he meant. he went straight in racist attack mode. he Assumed that flips intent was race.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:40 am**

It was a "flippant" remark. I would hope that as long as I've been around, everyone would know I'm not a racist. I would also suggest that I live in a more racially charged atmosphere being here from the south, but I am a peacemaker at heart. My core religious belief is that we are all in wrappers and that the whole promise is to have a new body to reside. Heh, I've done went down the rabbit hole and pulled back the curtain so it's all just different colored dirt to me. I'm looking forward to us all having glorified bodies.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 12:51 pm**

Tar Heel does not have a racist etymology. Only after the Civil War was it is construed as pejorative, but it's since been a taken as a nickname of pride for North Carolinians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_Heel

But the you'll have to admit CUDA, that the South has had a pretty hard time of shaking itself of racism, so some people still will make the assumption that many of those, not all, from southern states might harbor racist views.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:02 pm**

Oh, there is a hell of alot of resent here, and no friggin wonder, but it's living in the past. Most people I know want to move forward, as really having nothing to do with it. I've seen the ★■◆● done though, and the mindset behind it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:29 pm**

People can take a long time to change their mindset, especially if a war was fought over whether they had the freedom to live their lives the way they saw fit. But they lost that war and that loss created resentment and resentment is like a cancer that never goes away completely.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:33 pm**

Yeah, but I was speaking from the mindset of African Americans. I very rarely meet a true "rebel yell" anymore. it's an antiquated idea kept alive by story books and sensationalism in the media.

EDIT: For roids sake, I'll point out that the word tar-heel never crossed my mind, I was making a stupid remark to how much influence N.Carolina has over anything.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:14 pm**

I like how roid's post sailed over everyone's head. He wasn't implying that "Tar Heel" was a racist term, or that flip's line was associated with racism at all...he meant that dismissing someone because they were born in a certain state is essentially the same as dismissing them because they were born with a certain skin color, which is ironic given the thread topic. Sheesh...

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:19 pm**

Top Gun wrote:I like how roid's post sailed over everyone's head. He wasn't implying that "Tar Heel" was a racist term, or that flip's line was associated with racism at all...he meant that dismissing someone because they were born in a certain state is essentially the same as dismissing them because they were born with a certain skin color, which is ironic given the thread topic. Sheesh...

ya you keep telling yourself that

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:44 pm**

CUDA wrote:
Top Gun wrote:I like how roid's post sailed over everyone's head. He wasn't implying that "Tar Heel" was a racist term, or that flip's line was associated with racism at all...he meant that dismissing someone because they were born in a certain state is essentially the same as dismissing them because they were born with a certain skin color, which is ironic given the thread topic. Sheesh...
ya you keep telling yourself that

Top Gun is completely correct.
i was trying to figure out a word to explain what i ment. Stateism? no that already has a different meaning. Nationalism? No these arn't nation-states we're talking about here. HNNNGGGGG
i googled for any sort of pejorative epithet referring to North Carolina, and found one. I'd already read enough about it to know it wasn't about skin colour, and that it was already a reclaimed term.
"GROUP X go home" as an expression has racist history, which is why i summoned it; to make clear a parallel.
I'm not sure why i had to explain any of this, i thought this ★■◆● would have been obvious.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:52 pm**

[youtube]j7E8dC2g_XA[/youtube]

Lol, I hope Roid understands my sense of humor.

Posted: **Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:58 pm**

yeah it was nothing personal flip.
i just thought i'd give an opportunity for a little personal embarassment into the thread.
"oh... actually what you just said there was a bit racist dude",
"oh... ★■◆● you're right"
No racism thread is complete without it, part of a complete breakfast.

DescentBB

White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White People for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP

Re: White people for GOP