goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 01, 2012, 09:48:32 PM

Title: Lickey
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 01, 2012, 09:48:32 PM
I have noticed that you are missing me.   :blush:

- Sugar "ditto head" Dick

P.S.
What to do about the adolescents trashing THE PIT?

P.S.S.
ditto head? Do explain
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: star seed 7 on March 01, 2012, 09:51:53 PM
people that listen to rush are "ditto-heads".

they call in and say "mega-ditto's rush!  i just can't believe we have a black in office, why hasn't anyone killed this guy yet?!?"
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 01, 2012, 10:00:02 PM
I'm always unsurprised to find out the psycho obsessive liberal left knows more about "mainstream" conservatism than I do.

Not only do they choose to live in their own unreality, but they also create an antagonistic unreality to compete with. Quite the frightening psycho disorder.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: star seed 7 on March 01, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
a guy i worked with would listen to him, and i heard it more than a few times.

he was the typical dumb, racist, conservative too.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: star seed 7 on March 01, 2012, 10:19:03 PM
but you would like him, you parrot him a lot.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 01, 2012, 10:21:32 PM
but you would like him, you parrot him a lot.

Typical dumb, racist bakaaaaaaw!!!

LOL, what a tard
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: mortons toe on March 01, 2012, 11:04:29 PM
a guy i worked with would listen to him, and i heard it more than a few times.

he was the typical dumb, racist, conservative too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksBA11k6xvQ
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: star seed 7 on March 01, 2012, 11:16:25 PM
a guy i worked with would listen to him, and i heard it more than a few times.

he was the typical dumb, racist, conservative too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksBA11k6xvQ

pretty disgusting as well.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: LickNeckey on March 02, 2012, 12:07:18 PM
usually Rush says something like this

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/03/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-law-student-a-slut-and-a-prostitute--73277.html

and a bunch or morons call in and say "mega dittos" Rush


(i haven't listened to the guy in years, however much of my youth was spent listening to him on the only radio station i could get in the tractor cab.)
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Dave Wooderson on March 02, 2012, 01:15:43 PM
Cracks me up that this woman, who goes to a school that costs $40,000+, says she is going broke from buying birth control and that it should be subsidized and paid for by someone else and people think that this is logical.  If you had sex three times a day and used $1/condum it would be $900/year (excluding the days she is on the rag).  This woman claims she is spending $3,000/year on birth control.  That would definately put her in the slut category.  And if she wants someone else to pay for her to be able to have sex, that would put her in the prostitute category.  So she is a slut and wants to be a prostitute.  Not sure why she isn't a prostitute, cause she could make a lot more money with all the sex she wants to have.  What the eff happened to personal responsibility and paying for your own entertainment.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: LickNeckey on March 02, 2012, 01:28:05 PM
See.

just like that
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 02, 2012, 02:30:34 PM
Cracks me up that this woman, who goes to a school that costs $40,000+, says she is going broke from buying birth control and that it should be subsidized and paid for by someone else and people think that this is logical.  If you had sex three times a day and used $1/condum it would be $900/year (excluding the days she is on the rag).  This woman claims she is spending $3,000/year on birth control.  That would definately put her in the slut category.  And if she wants someone else to pay for her to be able to have sex, that would put her in the prostitute category.  So she is a slut and wants to be a prostitute.  Not sure why she isn't a prostitute, cause she could make a lot more money with all the sex she wants to have.  What the eff happened to personal responsibility and paying for your own entertainment.

 :lol:
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: LickNeckey on March 06, 2012, 02:36:19 PM
just for you Dave.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/409941/march-05-2012/rush-limbaugh-apologizes-to-sandra-fluke?xrs=eml_col
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: SdK on March 06, 2012, 11:23:32 PM
Cracks me up that this woman, who goes to a school that costs $40,000+, says she is going broke from buying birth control and that it should be subsidized and paid for by someone else and people think that this is logical.  If you had sex three times a day and used $1/condum it would be $900/year (excluding the days she is on the rag).  This woman claims she is spending $3,000/year on birth control.  That would definately put her in the slut category.  And if she wants someone else to pay for her to be able to have sex, that would put her in the prostitute category.  So she is a slut and wants to be a prostitute.  Not sure why she isn't a prostitute, cause she could make a lot more money with all the sex she wants to have.  What the eff happened to personal responsibility and paying for your own entertainment.

Parody post?




Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: SdK on March 06, 2012, 11:25:59 PM
Parroty post!
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 07, 2012, 08:20:24 AM
Guys, I bet the prostitutes who work the streets must spend $20,000 per year on birth control. How will we ever afford to subsidize their lifestyle? :frown:
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 07, 2012, 11:52:16 AM
Guys, I bet the prostitutes who work the streets must spend $20,000 per year on birth control. How will we ever afford to subsidize their lifestyle? :frown:

They probably get theirs from Planned Parenthood for $15 a month.  That Georgetown chick must not be very bright if she's paying $3K a year.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: SdK on March 07, 2012, 11:56:25 AM
Without insurance, the cost can be around 1k a year.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 07, 2012, 12:02:06 PM
Without insurance, the cost can be around 1k a year.

Tell your girlfriend to go to planned parenthood. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: SdK on March 07, 2012, 12:08:41 PM
Hell a script that I used to get filled once a month cost me 12 dollars with insurance, and now without insurance it's 80.

It pays to have insurance. It's even better to have great insurance.

I may have misunderstood this argument and what is actually being proposed. But isn't the argument about telling insurance companies that they have to cover birth control and not that the government will be paying for birth control? If that is what it is, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. In addition, I'm a huge fan of cutting down the amount of babies that are being popped out in this country. I think that making insurance companies cover bc would be a huge plus. I'm not saying it would cure the idiots from getting knocked up, because they still have to take it right, etc.


Also, bc isn't just about preventing pregnancies. If it were, I wouldn't know so many women that are waiting until marriage or not having sex and haven't for years still taking birth control.

Doesn't the bible say that women go through childbirth as punishment for the original sin? If that is the case, are you telling me that catholic women or religious women always go for natural birth? I don't think so. In fact, I know they don't.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: SdK on March 07, 2012, 12:11:26 PM
Without insurance, the cost can be around 1k a year.

Tell your girlfriend to go to planned parenthood. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm


She came from a wealthy family, so money wasn't the issue and felt that taken advantage of the system when it wasn't necessary wasn't the right thing to do. Also, this was four years ago, and the bc that would work for her was one of the more expensive ones.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 07, 2012, 12:27:28 PM
Hell a script that I used to get filled once a month cost me 12 dollars with insurance, and now without insurance it's 80.

It pays to have insurance. It's even better to have great insurance.

I may have misunderstood this argument and what is actually being proposed. But isn't the argument about telling insurance companies that they have to cover birth control and not that the government will be paying for birth control? If that is what it is, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. In addition, I'm a huge fan of cutting down the amount of babies that are being popped out in this country. I think that making insurance companies cover bc would be a huge plus. I'm not saying it would cure the idiots from getting knocked up, because they still have to take it right, etc.


Also, bc isn't just about preventing pregnancies. If it were, I wouldn't know so many women that are waiting until marriage or not having sex and haven't for years still taking birth control.

Doesn't the bible say that women go through childbirth as punishment for the original sin? If that is the case, are you telling me that catholic women or religious women always go for natural birth? I don't think so. In fact, I know they don't.

So if the government forces insurance companies to offer birth control for free or a small co-pay, they won't raise rates?  They're really nice.  :D
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: SdK on March 07, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
I'm sure they would. The cost for covering bc is a lot loss then covering the costs associated with a pregnancy though.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 07, 2012, 02:26:21 PM
I'm sure they would. The cost for covering bc is a lot loss then covering the costs associated with a pregnancy though.

You are assuming that if we don't pay for a woman's pills they are going to have a baby. I don't think I would risk having a baby to save even $50 a month, let alone $15.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: SdK on March 07, 2012, 02:45:57 PM
I'm sure they would. The cost for covering bc is a lot loss then covering the costs associated with a pregnancy though.

You are assuming that if we don't pay for a woman's pills they are going to have a baby. I don't think I would risk having a baby to save even $50 a month, let alone $15.

No, I'm saying pregnancies and all that goes with that are covered already. Adding something that could lessen the occurrence of that huge bill doesn't seem deserving of a price hike.

Insurance companies now have to cover smoking cessation options. I see bc in the same light as this. Actually I think smoking cessation having less cause for coverage than bc.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: LickNeckey on March 07, 2012, 03:04:22 PM
Didn't you hear Dave? 

these women are WHORES.

You're gonna sit there and tell me i gotta spend my money on WHORES.  Well if that's the case they should have to webcast their whorin for the world to see and not even charge like them other sites.  I know Dave's with me, who else????
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 07, 2012, 05:27:03 PM
A federal entitlement for contraception is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) regardless of how many whores use it.

It's insurance, not a prepaid Walgreens card.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: steve dave on March 07, 2012, 05:38:24 PM
fsd, you are awful human being

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 07, 2012, 06:31:25 PM
fsd, you are awful human being

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Why?
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Bookcat on March 07, 2012, 07:46:27 PM
A federal entitlement for contraception is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) regardless of how many whores use it.

It's insurance, not a prepaid Walgreens card.

yes because contraception is ALWAYS to avoid a pregnancy. No other health reason..m I rite?

Also, ALL POOR people are lazy.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 07, 2012, 07:55:12 PM
A federal entitlement for contraception is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) regardless of how many whores use it.

It's insurance, not a prepaid Walgreens card.

yes because contraception is ALWAYS to avoid a pregnancy. No other health reason..m I rite?

Also, ALL POOR people are lazy.

By definition, contraception is to avoid pregnancy.  Dumbass.

If birth control can be used to prevent/treat other health issues, I'm sure they can figure out how to work it in.



Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 08, 2012, 08:26:21 AM
A federal entitlement for contraception is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) regardless of how many whores use it.

It's insurance, not a prepaid Walgreens card.

yes because contraception is ALWAYS to avoid a pregnancy. No other health reason..m I rite?

Also, ALL POOR people are lazy.

By definition, contraception is to avoid pregnancy.  Dumbass.

If birth control can be used to prevent/treat other health issues, I'm sure they can figure out how to work it in.

This pill is used to avoid pregnancy, increase fertility, prevent ovarian cysts, and control irregular periods, to my knowledge. There might be other uses I'm not aware of.
Title: Re: Lickey
Post by: michigancat on March 15, 2012, 06:22:36 PM
Quote
Spending just $235 million to expand access to Medicaid family planning services would save $1.32 billion, Brookings projects. That's an amazing rate of return: 560%. And that's just the spending on a government health care subsidy. Paying your private health care premium is an even more efficient way to invest in female contraception because there's no new government bureaucracy to set up; the framework is already there. It's a private-sector solution that grows the economy and makes us all wealthier. It reduces the abortion rate and cuts down on the number of unmarried mothers. If that's not a conservative-friendly idea, what is?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-fiscal-conservatives-case-for-spending-more-money-on-birth-control/254442/

 :dunno: