White people for GOP

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:46 pm

woodchip wrote:[All of your above examples are not race orientated. Keep trying to cover for your guy though.

um, one of them WAS, actually. Still struggling with reading comprehension, eh?

Where do you see any of the GOP presidential candidates urging white people let alone angry white men, to vote for them?

explain the appeal of Newt Gingrich, or Rick Perry for that matter. Obviously, I was making an exaggerated remark, but that was the take-home message from Jeb's appeal. Running campaigns based on fear and gloom appeal to angry people almost exclusively. Running campaigns that crap on women(with a great assist from nitwits like Limbaugh cheerleading by calling college girls 'sluts'), ignore latinos and issues important to African Americans limits the party. Eventually, you will see a party of largely angry white guys, and that was what Jeb Bush was warning against, and has been for some time. Why do you think Sen. Snowe just bailed out of the Senate? What sent Arlen Specter packing? The GOP is aiming for a narrower, and narrower demographic. It strikes me a sort of crazy, but it's their choice........

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:54 pm

No other candidate has a website equal to Obama's. His website is outright segregating. If it's not race motivated then what else? If it is, and it's acceptable for Obama to outright and flagrantly solicit based on the like color of their skin, then is it also acceptable for any and all of the other candidates to do so? Why has no other candidate a website that even remotely touches on race?

EDIT: Or can I join the African Americans for Obama, the President? If so, I take back everything I said.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:10 pm

actually, you could join, and give them money, too, Flip. I just asked someone with the campaign.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:12 pm

How do they feel about my other questions?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:14 pm

flip wrote:How do they feel about my other questions?

I didn't insult their intelligence by asking, a tack I would suggest you observe........

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:19 pm

All I said was double standard.

I didn't insult their intelligence by asking, a tack I would suggest you observe........

Flamebait. Common tactic of the liberal left

.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:37 pm

callmeslick wrote:Running campaigns based on fear and gloom appeal to angry people almost exclusively...

then I'm sure you'll be pointing that out to all your DNC constituents

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:38 am

callmeslick wrote:

Where do you see any of the GOP presidential candidates urging white people let alone angry white men, to vote for them?
explain the appeal of Newt Gingrich, or Rick Perry for that matter. Obviously, I was making an exaggerated remark, but that was the take-home message from Jeb's appeal. Running campaigns based on fear and gloom appeal to angry people almost exclusively. ignore latinos and issues important to African Americans limits the party. Eventually, you will see a party of largely angry white guys, and that was what Jeb Bush was warning against, and has been for some time. Why do you think Sen. Snowe just bailed out of the Senate? What sent Arlen Specter packing? The GOP is aiming for a narrower, and narrower demographic. It strikes me a sort of crazy, but it's their choice........

Nice how you base your answer on assumptions with no examples. Until you can show this board where the white GOP candidates are promoting whites to vote for them, you....well, fail. So as it stands you approve Obama's use of race to get elected which means you approve of racism (of course this is only when it benefits your guy). If you approve of racism then it appears you are a racist yourself.

callmeslick wrote:Running campaigns that crap on women(with a great assist from nitwits like Limbaugh cheerleading by calling college girls 'sluts'),

" Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous."

Lets see, the same college girl gets up before the world and exclaims how she needs a 1000.00 a year for condoms. At roughly a dollar a condom that would mean she wants to get laid about 3 times a day...every day. Now perhaps Slick grew up where all the girls were panting to get laid and this was considered normal virtuous behavior. Where I come from this kind of sexual activity by a girl earns her the label of slut. I find it amazing how the Demoscammers can take a Slut and turn her into a Saint.

TheWhat · Post by **TheWhat** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:44 pm

*my post was deleted*

[Mod] Your post was not deleted, it was moved to NHB.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:18 pm

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Running campaigns that crap on women(with a great assist from nitwits like Limbaugh cheerleading by calling college girls 'sluts'),
" Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous."

Lets see, the same college girl gets up before the world and exclaims how she needs a 1000.00 a year for condoms. At roughly a dollar a condom that would mean she wants to get laid about 3 times a day...every day. Now perhaps Slick grew up where all the girls were panting to get laid and this was considered normal virtuous behavior. Where I come from this kind of sexual activity by a girl earns her the label of slut. I find it amazing how the Demoscammers can take a Slut and turn her into a Saint.

Obviously you and Rush Limbaugh have no concept on how hormonal birth control works woodchip. A woman has to take it all the time for it to work because it has to modify the menstrual cycle to prevent pregnancy. So a woman has to take it every month, no matter how many times she wants to have a sexual encounter, if she does at all. It's not something that you can toss back after the fact and then say you're protected. And these pills can cost between $50 and a $150 a month. Also, some women have take birth control pills to deal with menstrual problems, not prevent pregnancy

Maybe if Rush had instead brought up cheaper alternatives to the pill, instead of being a misogynist jackass, he would have come off more reasonable and informed.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alp ... h-control-

And if he would put some of the onus on male sexual responsibility (they should be paying for the condoms by the way) with birth control, that would be better. It takes 2 to tango woody. It shouldn't fall totally on the woman to protect herself, but it's always her problem when there's a pregnancy.

And if he had also championed that Viagra, Cialis, and other ED drugs should be no longer covered by insurance, I'd have a little more respect for him.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:33 pm

tunnelcat wrote:And if he had also championed that Viagra, Cialis, and other ED drugs should be no longer covered by insurance, I'd have a little more respect for him.

I don't want to pay for that either

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:42 pm

Ohhhh! We agree on something!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:46 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Ohhhh! We agree on something!

THREE TIMES IN A YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!

the end is Nigh

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:48 pm

You're keeping count?!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:49 pm

tunnelcat wrote:You're keeping count?!

hard not to!!! it happens so seldom

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:01 pm

I just saw this anonymous quote:

"Rush - As soon as u started losing the big $$ from your hate speech, you caved & obeyed the men who pay u. Who's the prostitute now, ★■◆●?"

A little off-track, but still amusing.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:28 pm

vision wrote:I just saw this anonymous quote:

"Rush - As soon as u started losing the big $$ from your hate speech, you caved & obeyed the men who pay u. Who's the prostitute now, ★■◆●?"

A little off-track, but still amusing.

how true......and, maybe too little prostitution too late. He lost another sponsor today, rumor has it three more are bailing when contracts are up. Damned shame that ClearChannel is stuck with his fat, ignorant, opiate-addled ass until 2016.......

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:12 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Ferno wrote:it's actually been a fair bit better since slick came on board.

you all must have been starved for entertainment.......

change that to "intellect" and you'll have it nailed.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:10 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Obviously you and Rush Limbaugh have no concept on how hormonal birth control works woodchip. A woman has to take it all the time for it to work because it has to modify the menstrual cycle to prevent pregnancy. So a woman has to take it every month, no matter how many times she wants to have a sexual encounter, if she does at all. It's not something that you can toss back after the fact and then say you're protected. And these pills can cost between $50 and a $150 a month. Also, some women have take birth control pills to deal with menstrual problems, not prevent pregnancy

Not to burst your bubble TC but I have a degree in Zoology and I may know more than you as to how the reproductive cycle works. Also I was married for 20 years so have had some field experience to boot

tunnelcat wrote: And if he had also championed that Viagra, Cialis, and other ED drugs should be no longer covered by insurance, I'd have a little more respect for him.

I remember Rush being quite against Viagra being supplied by the teachers union in Wisc.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:27 pm

callmeslick wrote:
vision wrote:I just saw this anonymous quote:

"Rush - As soon as u started losing the big $$ from your hate speech, you caved & obeyed the men who pay u. Who's the prostitute now, ★■◆●?"

A little off-track, but still amusing.
how true......and, maybe too little prostitution too late. He lost another sponsor today, rumor has it three more are bailing when contracts are up. Damned shame that ClearChannel is stuck with his fat, ignorant, opiate-addled ass until 2016.......

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.

Now to the poor maligned little college girl Rush maligned. Turns out she is not quite so pristine. Seems she already got a degree:

"Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based nonprofit aiding victims of domestic violence, where she launched the agency's pilot Program Evaluation Initiative."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Fluke

What is even more interesting is how the press and the democrats manuvered you into believing she was testifying before a Senate committee. She was not:

"On February 16, 2012, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing on infringement of religious liberty and contraceptive mandates, entitled "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?". This hearing was seen as one concerning religious freedoms by Republican members and one concerning Women's health by Democratic members."

"Citing the inability to vet Fluke and develop a line of questioning, Issa denied her testimony."

"She was later[9] invited to testify on February 23 to House Democratic members,[10] and submitted written testimony."

So the Demoscammers made it look like a real sub-committee hearing when in reality it was just more liberal street theater to once again bring social issues as the main talking points instead of the economy or gas prices. So now you can take the bull★■◆● ring out of your noses and smell the roses. Now the question is....who was prostituting whom?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:46 pm

so, calling female law students 'sluts' and 'prosititutes' is ok with you, huh, Woody? Nice. Real class....likely explains many earlier posts. Yup, explains quite a bit......Mostly, it explains the thing that has disgusted me most about conservatives. It's ok, I suppose, and somewhat understandable, for isolated nitwits(or 'entertainers') to make repugnant public remarks. What is appalling is watching rank and file 'conservatives' fall over themselves twisting in every direction to excuse such remarks as acceptable. They aren't. They aren't under any decent human beings' definition. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the young woman's position, or wish to defend an all-male Congressional hearing on female birth control. Defending Rush's comments, and likewise the 'defense' you made in the other thread about the 'joke' regarding Obama's mother shows you to be real small in the personal morality department. Especially small in regards to respect for women, in my opinion. But, take heart, you aren't alone.....you have a sizeable group who embarrass themselves, and their call for values and morality, daily, under the pretext of restoring Conservative values. Hell, I can think of quite a few Conservatives I respect. At least one of them on this board, but those people have the common decency to know when ideology gives way to blind zealotry and hate. You don't, and it's clearly pointed out on these pages daily, by your own hand.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:03 pm

Slick, it's fine to comment about your perspective on the topic, or even on other's perspectives on the topic... but the shot about woodchip's marriage / personal life is way out of line. Fix it.

vision · Post by **vision** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:18 pm

woodchip wrote:"Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based nonprofit aiding victims of domestic violence, where she launched the agency's pilot Program Evaluation Initiative."

Wow, she sounds like a terrible person.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:29 pm

Foil wrote:Slick, it's fine to comment about your perspective on the topic, or even on other's perspectives on the topic... but the shot about woodchip's marriage / personal life is way out of line. Fix it.

right you are, and my apologies for letting temper get the best of me. Fixed.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:33 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:"Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based nonprofit aiding victims of domestic violence, where she launched the agency's pilot Program Evaluation Initiative."
Wow, she sounds like a terrible person.

exactly. For a post that began with 'she hardly is pristine', I kept waiting for the part where she was convicted of child abuse or at least larceny.

Also, it is so amusing when folks cite Rush's huge audience. A bigwig in the GOP summed it up best back in 2008: "Rush couldn't carry a sack of groceries". What he was referring to is that Rush's audience doesn't vote in big numbers and he has yet to influence one election in his direction. Ask John McCain......Rush appeals to tough-talkers and closet haters, two groups who the nation can do better without.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:16 pm

oh, and I was wrong....TWO more advertisers dropped Rush today, bringing the total to 9. Further, and far more impactful politically, the young lady in question is now making the rounds of the daytime talk shows(massive, massive female audience), and on a daily basis resuscitating the message that the GOP is at war with women. Now, in 2008, one of the absolute keys to Obama's victory was that he held a 59-41 margin among women voters(hence the desperation move of adding Palin to the ticket, which served to move few women and turned off key demographics like elderly voters). As of late, the margin is back to those levels and widening, so that is why I view this latest Conserva-blunder as potentially impactful. Attaboy, Rush, we can count on you at election time!!

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:18 pm

What a farce.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:20 pm

callmeslick wrote:so, calling female law students 'sluts' and 'prosititutes' is ok with you, huh, Woody? Nice. Real class....likely explains many earlier posts. Yup, explains quite a bit......Mostly, it explains the thing that has disgusted me most about conservatives. It's ok, I suppose, and somewhat understandable, for isolated nitwits(or 'entertainers') to make repugnant public remarks. What is appalling is watching rank and file 'conservatives' fall over themselves twisting in every direction to excuse such remarks as acceptable. They aren't. They aren't under any decent human beings' definition. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the young woman's position, or wish to defend an all-male Congressional hearing on female birth control. Defending Rush's comments, and likewise the 'defense' you made in the other thread about the 'joke' regarding Obama's mother shows you to be real small in the personal morality department. Especially small in regards to respect for women, in my opinion. But, take heart, you aren't alone.....you have a sizeable group who embarrass themselves, and their call for values and morality, daily, under the pretext of restoring Conservative values. Hell, I can think of quite a few Conservatives I respect. At least one of them on this board, but those people have the common decency to know when ideology gives way to blind zealotry and hate. You don't, and it's clearly pointed out on these pages daily, by your own hand.

First off I didn't make any excuses for Rush, but nice try at deflection. Point of my post was how the liberals used the feminine activist as a shill to push their agenda. I won't get into how YOU are in good company with all the slime ball liberals who lecture conservatives on civility, then turn around and use every foul deprecating description when describing those who don't agree with them. Your "don't look behind the curtain" way of posting would do the guards at Treblinka proud.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:22 pm

callmeslick wrote:oh, and I was wrong....TWO more advertisers dropped Rush today, bringing the total to 9. Further, and far more impactful politically, the young lady in question is now making the rounds of the daytime talk shows(massive, massive female audience), and on a daily basis resuscitating the message that the GOP is at war with women. Now, in 2008, one of the absolute keys to Obama's victory was that he held a 59-41 margin among women voters(hence the desperation move of adding Palin to the ticket, which served to move few women and turned off key demographics like elderly voters). As of late, the margin is back to those levels and widening, so that is why I view this latest Conserva-blunder as potentially impactful. Attaboy, Rush, we can count on you at election time!!

You forget one itty bitty thing...Rush is not running for President.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:25 pm

not forgetting anything, but observing his proven counter-effect on those that do.

oh, and nice dance around your comments about the female law student, as well as your prior posts on the matter.
You wear a special outfit for that, or just slip on tap shoes? Allow me to refresh your memory:

woodchip wrote:" Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous."

Lets see, the same college girl gets up before the world and exclaims how she needs a 1000.00 a year for condoms. At roughly a dollar a condom that would mean she wants to get laid about 3 times a day...every day. Now perhaps Slick grew up where all the girls were panting to get laid and this was considered normal virtuous behavior. Where I come from this kind of sexual activity by a girl earns her the label of slut. I find it amazing how the Demoscammers can take a Slut and turn her into a Saint.

now, of course, the girl was referring to the price of oral contraceptives, not condoms, a method which allows the WOMAN to have choice in the matter, a concept which seems to elude you. Still, dance away, little man.....it's amusing.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:34 pm

a potential dance partner for Woody.....pricelessly funny:

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... -from-show

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:59 pm

callmeslick wrote:not forgetting anything, but observing his proven counter-effect on those that do.

oh, and nice dance around your comments about the female law student, as well as your prior posts on the matter.
You wear a special outfit for that, or just slip on tap shoes? Allow me to refresh your memory:

woodchip wrote:" Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous."

Lets see, the same college girl gets up before the world and exclaims how she needs a 1000.00 a year for condoms. At roughly a dollar a condom that would mean she wants to get laid about 3 times a day...every day. Now perhaps Slick grew up where all the girls were panting to get laid and this was considered normal virtuous behavior. Where I come from this kind of sexual activity by a girl earns her the label of slut. I find it amazing how the Demoscammers can take a Slut and turn her into a Saint.
now, of course, the girl was referring to the price of oral contraceptives, not condoms, a method which allows the WOMAN to have choice in the matter, a concept which seems to elude you. Still, dance away, little man.....it's amusing.

Well lets see. I did a little shopping around for contraceptive pills and from a Canadian pharmacy and for about 20.00 a month you can get your prescription filled:

http://www.northwestpharmacy.com/Produc ... yclen%20Lo

Seems the money Miss Fluke paid on education wasn't well spent. So tell me again why she needs a 1,000.00 a year for birth control? Get her cheap ass boyfriend to kick in. Or her parents as I'm sure they wouldn't want to see her knocked up either. Why should we have to pay for some broads contraception when it ain't all that expensive to begin with

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:00 pm

callmeslick wrote:a potential dance partner for Woody.....pricelessly funny:

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2 ... -from-show

Yawn, lets see if it is a issue 6 months from now.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:14 pm

so now you want her to buy meds from another country? I'll bet you were all over that issue when the left brought up the price of meds in the US vs. Canada, a few years back, right? NIce try, but another swing and miss. Lucky we allow more than three strikes in this league.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:56 am

callmeslick wrote:so now you want her to buy meds from another country? I'll bet you were all over that issue when the left brought up the price of meds in the US vs. Canada, a few years back, right? NIce try, but another swing and miss. Lucky we allow more than three strikes in this league.

Why not buy from Canada? Sounds like you think it is a bad idea. If you bet money on me being against seniors and state governments buying cheaper drugs from another country, you are now the poorer for it. Good thing you're not a umpire as you'd be accused of trying to throw the game to your favorite team. Sounds like you don't even know where the strike zone is.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:44 pm

woodchip wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:
Obviously you and Rush Limbaugh have no concept on how hormonal birth control works woodchip. A woman has to take it all the time for it to work because it has to modify the menstrual cycle to prevent pregnancy. So a woman has to take it every month, no matter how many times she wants to have a sexual encounter, if she does at all. It's not something that you can toss back after the fact and then say you're protected. And these pills can cost between $50 and a $150 a month. Also, some women have take birth control pills to deal with menstrual problems, not prevent pregnancy
Not to burst your bubble TC but I have a degree in Zoology and I may know more than you as to how the reproductive cycle works. Also I was married for 20 years so have had some field experience to boot

tunnelcat wrote: And if he had also championed that Viagra, Cialis, and other ED drugs should be no longer covered by insurance, I'd have a little more respect for him.
I remember Rush being quite against Viagra being supplied by the teachers union in Wisc.

Rush screwed himself with this one. He's lost 2 radio stations and 11 advertisers. If he hadn't referred to "her wanting more and more pills for more and more sex" and then calling her a "slut" remarks, I figured he either had no idea how hormonal birth control worked, or he was just a jackass pandering to his moronic radio base.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/adv ... d=15852538

AND thanks to the Rush and Ms. Fluke debacle, plus Governor McDonald of Virginia and his vaginal probe abortion bill and all the other abortion and female reproductive control bills recently passed in many states that mandate state control over women's health by Republicans this year, Obama just may have gotten the women vote this next election thanks to all this over-reaching nonsense over women's reproductive rights by moralizing conservatives.

Oh, and woodchip, you may have studied reproduction and know the mechanics, but I have lived with it since puberty, and the science books and medical science still don't fully understand what is going on with hormones in a female's body. If you don't believe me, I'd gladly trade bodies with you for a year, if that were possible.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 3:53 pm

Yeah someone is going to have to explain why this is even an issue. In terms of female health, birth control goes far beyond mitigating the chances of pregnancy. Much like preventative measures for prostate cancer and other male health issues, birth control works in similar ways for the female body. If this was simply "pay for this medicine so i can have sex," then the male ED pills should not be covered because those are ONLY for sexual reasons. And how exactly does mandating that a religious organization include this in their insurance coverage correlate to the citizen having to pay for this?

Preventative health guys...isn't this so much better than reactionary (i.e abortion, cervical cancer?) This is basic women's health, why are there detractors?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 6:25 pm

I was in touch(to plan fishing schedules for 2012) with a handful of lawyer pals today. The consensus is that Rush didn't just screw up, but that he is utterly finished. By their reckoning, Ms.Fluke likely has a line of civil attorneys at her door. All of them agreed, emphatically, that she has a nearly air-tight case against Rush for Libel, Slander and Defamation of Character, as he lied about her planned testimony, called her viscious names and publicly assailed a private citizen and held her up to public ridicule. Now.....
and this is where it gets really fun: By allowing the fat oaf to go onto the airwaves again after the first round of disgusting insults and lies, ClearChannel Communications is ALSO liable for Defamation, and being a multi-billion dollar corporation, the settlement will be massive. That will allow them to drop Rush, or at least pull him off the air and NO ONE, but no one will ever take the risk of allowing him back on the public broadcast airwaves. Good night, funny man, it's going to be a hoot watching you go down slowly....

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:04 pm

I never knew I was actively withholding a means of "preventative health" from these sluts by not wanting our government to pay so they won't get pregnant when they go screwing around. I'm practically pushing them into the abortion clinic, aren't I?

This "preventative health" takes the ★■◆●ing cake, Zuruck. I've heard some bastardizations of the truth in my day, but that is bold. Did you come up with that bull**** yourself?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:11 pm

From cancer.gov

"Studies have consistently shown that using OCs reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. In a 1992 analysis of 20 studies of OC use and ovarian cancer, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of OC use. Results showed a 10 to 12 percent decrease in risk after 1 year of use, and approximately a 50 percent decrease after 5 years of use (5).

Researchers have studied how the amount or type of hormones in OCs affects ovarian cancer risk reduction. One of the studies used in the Harvard analysis, the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study (CASH), found that the reduction in ovarian cancer risk was the same regardless of the type or amount of estrogen or progestin in the pill (6). A more recent analysis of data from the CASH study, however, indicated that OC formulations with high levels of progestin reduced ovarian cancer risk more than preparations with low progestin levels (7). In another recent study, the Steroid Hormones and Reproductions (SHARE) study, researchers investigated new, lower-dose progestins that have varying androgenic properties (testosterone-like effects). They found no difference in ovarian cancer risk between androgenic and nonandrogenic pills (8).

OC use in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations has been studied. One study showed a reduction in risk, but a more recent study showed no effect (9, 10).

The use of OCs has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time OCs are used, and continues for many years after a woman stops using OCs (11). "

Reduces risk of various types of cancer. Hmmm...seems preventative to me. The govt isn't paying for this...it's mandating that oral contraceptives be included in insurance coverage. You seem to have no problem with insurance companies covering erectile dysfunction pills...why is that? If you can't get your cock up, maybe you shouldn't be using it.