Maybe I should become more "liberal"

14 posts / 0 new

Maybe I should become more "liberal"


Great analysis... Many of you have likely seen the heart rending testimony of Ms. Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, before a Congressional Committee a few weeks ago. She was lamenting that no one would subsidize her birth control expenses, which she claimed would amount to $3000 during her three years in law school. After watching Ms. Fluke describe her desperate situation I set to thinking of ways to help her out of her crisis.First, of course I had to pass through the grieving period I experienced after hearing of her inhumane treatment at the hands of the Georgetown administration and our Government – what cruelty lurks in the heart of men that they would leave this poor woman to fend for herself when all she wanted to do was get laid seven times a day (see my analysis below).

Once I recovered from my grief, I set to thinking about ways to help this poor girl. Being a Physicist, I sat down with my calculator and worked through some numbers. Ms. Fluke’s expense account for birth control (aka sexual entertainment) was claimed to be $3000 for three years at law school. Let’s presume that as an educated woman she wants to be doubly safe and uses both birth control pills to prevent pregnancy and condoms to prevent STD (sexually transmitted disease).

Using the Wal-Mart cost for birth control pills of $9 per month, her birth control pills will cost her $324 for her entire law school career (if you can call it a career – I can think of other names). This leaves only $2676 for her condoms.

I went to Amazon.com, and found quality condoms available for 33 cents each in packages of 60 condoms each. This cost includes tax and shipping. Since she has $2676 for her 33 cent condoms, she will be buying 8109 condoms during her law school “career”.

To use her 8109 condoms (remember, $3000 was Ms. Flukes’ own number) she would have to have sex 7 times a day. This number presumes that she has sex ten times a day on Sundays when she has more free time.So, having worked through these numbers, I have some suggestions for Ms. Fluke to help her work through her crisis:

1. Find dates that are gentlemanly enough to either provide
their own condoms, or at least split the cost with her. Selection
criteria is the key to this one.
2. Spend more time studying. Even seven “quickies” a day will
seriously cut into quality study time. This would not only save
money but would improve her education as well.
3. Seek funding from the EPA from one of their Wetlands
Protection programs – surely Ms. Flukes’ nether regions would
qualify as wetlands given sex seven times a day.

Just trying to help out a starving student.By the way, the average starting salary of new Georgetown Law School graduates is $160,000 a year, FYI.

Booth R. Myers, PhD

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 3:41 pm

Comments

Maybe we should all just be Americans.

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

As I child I remember a time before Roe v. Wade and would learn the whole story as to what happened years later. A friend of the family (I'll call her Gloria) was a rape victim that was having a miscarriage. Doctors were reluctant to help such people back then as they could be accused of performing an abortion and lose their license. Worse still, they could even be jailed. Not able to find a doctor a friend took her to someone she thought could. Gloria bled to death.

After the funeral I remember my grandmother with tears streaming down her face stammering, "It's a damn shame that we live in a country where dogs have access to better treatment than a woman." Gloria was a victim twice, once by the rapist and once by the law.

Many among GOP are old enough to know what it was like before Roe v. Wade. But they also know that people have either forgotten or are to young to know. And boy-o-boy don’t they take advantage of it. Like their tobacco industry buddies it appears that they could care less if we live or die. The tobacco companies want our money and the GOP wants our votes. And neither one cares if we die in the process.

Like before Roe v. Wade the rich will always have access to a safe abortion. And when restricted the affluent will always qualify by an uncanny margin.

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii160/emal2me/A%20political%202/draft_lens3722162module26532452phot.jpg

Dano45's picture
Dano45
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Maybe you are too ignorant, or a truly evil bearer of false witness, but the issue of borth control pills that Ms. Fluke spoke on was a fellow student, who took the pill to control her hormones to maintain her health. Many women do.

Trying to take away access to hormone control medication is your effort to take away the power and freedom women now have over their biology. I hope antikakistocrat and Booth Myers PhD have a daughter who needs the pill to control their health, and they can lose the relationship with their slutburger daughter. Or better, their daughter refuses the demon medicine, and gets seriously ill.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote antikakistocrat:

Maybe I should become more "liberal"


Great analysis... Many of you have likely seen the heart rending testimony of Ms. Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, before a Congressional Committee a few weeks ago. She was lamenting that no one would subsidize her birth control expenses, which she claimed would amount to $3000 during her three years in law school. After watching Ms. Fluke describe her desperate situation I set to thinking of ways to help her out of her crisis.First, of course I had to pass through the grieving period I experienced after hearing of her inhumane treatment at the hands of the Georgetown administration and our Government – what cruelty lurks in the heart of men that they would leave this poor woman to fend for herself when all she wanted to do was get laid seven times a day (see my analysis below).

Once I recovered from my grief, I set to thinking about ways to help this poor girl. Being a Physicist, I sat down with my calculator and worked through some numbers. Ms. Fluke’s expense account for birth control (aka sexual entertainment) was claimed to be $3000 for three years at law school. Let’s presume that as an educated woman she wants to be doubly safe and uses both birth control pills to prevent pregnancy and condoms to prevent STD (sexually transmitted disease).

Using the Wal-Mart cost for birth control pills of $9 per month, her birth control pills will cost her $324 for her entire law school career (if you can call it a career – I can think of other names). This leaves only $2676 for her condoms.

I went to Amazon.com, and found quality condoms available for 33 cents each in packages of 60 condoms each. This cost includes tax and shipping. Since she has $2676 for her 33 cent condoms, she will be buying 8109 condoms during her law school “career”.

To use her 8109 condoms (remember, $3000 was Ms. Flukes’ own number) she would have to have sex 7 times a day. This number presumes that she has sex ten times a day on Sundays when she has more free time.So, having worked through these numbers, I have some suggestions for Ms. Fluke to help her work through her crisis:

1. Find dates that are gentlemanly enough to either provide
their own condoms, or at least split the cost with her. Selection
criteria is the key to this one.
2. Spend more time studying. Even seven “quickies” a day will
seriously cut into quality study time. This would not only save
money but would improve her education as well.
3. Seek funding from the EPA from one of their Wetlands
Protection programs – surely Ms. Flukes’ nether regions would
qualify as wetlands given sex seven times a day.

Just trying to help out a starving student.By the way, the average starting salary of new Georgetown Law School graduates is $160,000 a year, FYI.

Booth R. Myers, PhD

LOL. What a load of crap. How dare the government give a shit about the health of women or society.

Great analysis? I think Mr. Booth's PHD must be from Fallwell University. That you look up to someone so stupid is concerning, anti.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

$9 is your copay jackass. Birth control pills cost a lot more than that out of pocket. That is sort of the whole damn point.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Anti, the point Ms Fluke was making about the cost of and access to birth control pills was not so she could have sex. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, your brain is melting. Her concern was for women who need them for other health related issues, specifically harmone related. Some ladies have harmone imbalances. Some have long and excessively painful periods. There are many other reasons besides birth control for taking the pill.

Maybe you should research an issue instead of listening to folks like Rush. talk to some women. If you don't have women friends, try a relative. peace

scriber1's picture
scriber1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote antikakistocrat:

Maybe I should become more "liberal"

YES - Definitely yes siree - you ought to become "liberal" - if you are refering to the dictionary definition which means progressive, enlightented, advanced, humanitarian. Let's get the liberal part down first - then the "more" liberal part later - after you got the liberal part worked out. First however you need to relax a bit because this other stuff here just doesn't make sensible cents -

Quote antikakistocrat:

.... Being a Physicist, I sat down with my calculator and worked through some numbers..

...Ms. Fluke’s expense account for birth control (aka sexual entertainment) was claimed to be $3000 for three years at law school. ..Using the Wal-Mart cost for birth control pills of $9 per month, her birth control pills will cost her $324 for her entire law school career.....I went to Amazon.com, and found quality condoms available for 33 cents each in packages of 60 condoms each. This cost includes tax and shipping.

Clearly ALL of your time is devoted to being a "Physicist".

This seems the only reasonable explanation to your calculations here - especially the narrow minded thinking behind the theoretics of your beliefs. So, there you have it the anwer to your own question - YES.

Quote antikakistocrat:

Maybe I should become more "liberal"

Undeniably YES !

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm

The essence of what Antikakistrocrat is saying is that he does not want his tax dollars to pay for Ms. Flukes birth control. Those who are protesting for religious reasons don't want their tax dollars to supply birth control to people. Its all about the money, not the birth control.

If this is so, why not just donate money to Planned Parenthood or some other similar organization to distribute birth control. I bet that free or inexpensive medical/birth control advice from Planned Parenthood would do much more good than trying to force people to pay for things that are offensive to them. I am not saying that birth control is good or bad. What I am saying is that this is about money, tax money, and what is done with it. That's it! Money! I know that this sounds weird, but as far as I can tell, its the truth. If someone can prove otherwise, I will gladly be corrected.

"He who has the gold makes the rules." - The Golden Rule (modern era)

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote micahjr34:

The essence of what Antikakistrocrat is saying is that he does not want his tax dollars to pay for Ms. Flukes birth control. Those who are protesting for religious reasons don't want their tax dollars to supply birth control to people. Its all about the money, not the birth control.

"He who has the gold makes the rules." - The Golden Rule (modern era)

Perhaps if we taxpayers were not the golden egg layers for our Over Lords this would be a non -issue. I can understand Antikakistrocrat has other ideas about how our tax dollars ought to be spent. I don't like seeing my tax dollars being used to kill people - murdered for mineral / land rights, destroy other countries - for mineral / land rights, destroy the environment - for mineral / land rights. I abhor my tax dollars given out as corporate welfare to banksers & other corporations. Where is the morality & the ability of the corporations able to stand on their own? Why are they taking well-fare from the government via the taxpayers?

We can come up with all kinds of crazy religious reasons for or against anything and that's why crazy religious reasoning needs to be keep separate from our laws - as our founding fathers wisely wrote.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm

Media_Muse,

From the perspective of people who do not wish to have to pay for other people's birth control, is about money. To them, forcing Catholics to pay for other people's birth control is like forcing a Jehovah's Witness to pay for other people's blood transfusions. Now, arguing "devil's advocate," they are not against the availability of birth control, just the availability of birth control at their expense.

Now, we are getting into an area that is a murcky grey of pitting one person's rights against anothers. This problem could be solved by establishing an universal healthcare where private entities don't have to pay for the health of the public people. The argument is not that birth control should be banned, but that private pharmacies should not be forced to dispense such birth control. Well, if that is the case, then maybe there should be public pharmacies that are sponsored by "the people" who have no financial stake in the medicine they dispense.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I absolutely agree with this you wrote : "This problem could be solved by establishing an universal healthcare."

YES "healthcare" is what matters! This ought to be the focus - together with the especially important "universal" part . Let's look at the "universal" part. "Universal" from dictionary.com means: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience. So, with this consideration I agree with you again ! ! "This problem could be solved by establishing an universal healthcare." With the "universal" meaning: pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole - then Universal Healthcare works for all or the whole.

It appears you would agree - "Universal Healthcare" means the healthcare pot holds what is healthcare for ALL - "everyone". SINCE ALL / EVERYONE'S TAX MONEY GETS THROWN TOGETHER into the universal USA pot - the money therefore used universally for EVERYONE'S HEALTH CARE NEEDS with everything considered TOGETHER.

Healthcare is necessary to living - in this country or any other country for that matter. The "reality" of the need for healthcare is about a human need - not a human "belief". This is why ideological beliefs need to be kept out. The reality of need for healthcare has an actual "real" impact on our living - or not living. The reality of healthcare - an actual entity - with its own life impact - especially the tremendous economic impact - is not the same as an ideological human "belief". This proves again the wisdom of the separation of church and state. Ideological beliefs through a church or other religious function are only what a person "believes". Our beliefs are what makes things "murky".

Our founding fathers wisely intended the separation of church and state. Many years have passed and this intention has proven to be all the more viable - your few examples are excellent reasons for separation of ideological beliefs and the running of a country.

Apparently you mis-read what I wrote - I DO understand the part about money & folks ideological beliefs around how their money is spent - I wrote: " I can understand Antikakistrocrat has other ideas about how our tax dollars ought to be spent. I don't like seeing my tax dollars being used to kill people , destroy the environment - for mineral / land rights. I abhor my tax dollars given out as corporate welfare to banksters & other corporations. Killing people & destroying people and their lands is against MY religious beliefs. I do not want my tax dollars used for those purposes.

media_muse
Joined:
Dec. 10, 2011 3:09 pm
Quote antikakistocrat:

Many of you have likely seen the heart rending testimony of Ms. Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, before a Congressional Committee a few weeks ago. She was lamenting that no one would subsidize her birth control expenses, which she claimed would amount to $3000 during her three years in law school. After watching Ms. Fluke describe her desperate situation I set to thinking of ways to help her out of her crisis.

You did not watch Ms. Fluke. Had you, you would have known that is not what she was talking about. Get it right before posting gibberish.

planetxan's picture
planetxan
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ah2:$9 is your copay jackass. Birth control pills cost a lot more than that out of pocket. That is sort of the whole damn point.
By doing a quick check before calling someone a jack ass you could have avoided looking like one yourself.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Ferguson Effect On Our Great Grand Children

A few weeks ago, Congressman Paul Ryan released his latest proposal for tackling America’s poverty epidemic. Unfortunately, the plan does very little to combat poverty in our country, and instead, continues the devastating austerity policies that Ryan himself helped to create. Thanks to those policies, entire communities across America are underwater, and struggling to survive in tough economic times.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system