Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-05-2012, 04:54 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mclem0822 View Post
His non apology "apology" was a freakin joke! This dirbag's gonna call this woman a slut and prostitute on the air, but oh he "never meant it to be a personal attack"! How else do you label that but as a personal attack! Hope she sues his ASS off for slander! Great to see a station dump his ass! His feeble attempt to apologize was only cuz the sponsors were bailing, he looks like the PROSTITUTE now cuz he's only whining now for $! Makes me sick!
Media Matters reports that today Limbaugh was attempting to get his audience to hang in with him, and was not-too-subtly urging them to attack the sponsors who have abandoned him. He was blaming the left for causing him this problem, and saying that they (his former sponsors) are attacking his audience.

Rush is an experienced snake-oil-salesman - huckster. He knows his audience. The GOP is still too scared to come out and condemn him.

Clear Channel completely supports Rush in this.

Edit: 10th and 11th advertisers drop Rush: SEARS announces late today that they will not allow any advertisements to appear on his show (they bought general station advertisments) and today singer Peter Gabriel is having his lawyers send a note to Limbaugh demanding he stop using excerpts from the song "Sledgehammer" on his show. Bonobos, men's outfitters, also drops Rush.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts

Last edited by Riot : 03-05-2012 at 05:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-05-2012, 10:36 PM
Ocala Mike
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post

Clear Channel completely supports Rush in this.
Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital; guess that's why Mitt Romney issued a "non-denouncing denouncement" of Rush.


Ocala Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:56 PM
Ocala Mike
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Can't really fault Rush for calling this girl a slut. He was told she was a Georgetown "Hoya" and, as we all know, he's a little hard of hearing.




Ocala Mike
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-06-2012, 06:47 AM
joeydb's Avatar
joeydb joeydb is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southeastern PA
Posts: 3,044
Default

Use whatever term you like. If "slut" was too harsh, fine.

She got up before the nation, before the Senate, and lamented that her expenses for birth control pills, which are not prescribed to combat any other systemic condition (like ovarian cysts which would be covered), are $3000 per year. As if that cost was unavoidable or that her behavior was inevitable. Like she has no mind of her own or can't control whatever urges she has.

She uses the medicine for the original purpose it was designed - to prevent pregnancy. She's being responsible in the preparedness and forethought exercised. That's no problem at all. We should applaud that aspect of it - all of us who want to see less unplanned pregnancy (and subsequent abortion demand).

BUT - make no mistake - it is her responsibility to cover that cost. Birth control is not free - and neither is sex. If you cannot afford the consequences that may come from sexual behavior, then guess what - you shouldn't be having sex.

We have a nation of spoiled brats. Waaaaaaahhhh, pay for my stuff, waaaaaahhh. Grow up people. If you can't afford a Cadillac, buy a Chevy. If you can't afford a house, rent an apartment. Don't spend your last dime - save until you can afford these things.

There is no Constitutional right to subsidized sexual behavior. There is never a right provided to an individual by anyone but God, and these do not depend on another to pay for.

Person A does not pay for Person B's rights. That transaction would have nothing to do with rights whatsoever - just socialism.

Last edited by joeydb : 03-06-2012 at 06:48 AM. Reason: wrong word used
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-06-2012, 07:06 AM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb View Post
Use whatever term you like. If "slut" was too harsh, fine.

She got up before the nation, before the Senate, and lamented that her expenses for birth control pills, which are not prescribed to combat any other systemic condition (like ovarian cysts which would be covered), are $3000 per year. As if that cost was unavoidable or that her behavior was inevitable. Like she has no mind of her own or can't control whatever urges she has.

She uses the medicine for the original purpose it was designed - to prevent pregnancy. She's being responsible in the preparedness and forethought exercised. That's no problem at all. We should applaud that aspect of it - all of us who want to see less unplanned pregnancy (and subsequent abortion demand).

BUT - make no mistake - it is her responsibility to cover that cost. Birth control is not free - and neither is sex. If you cannot afford the consequences that may come from sexual behavior, then guess what - you shouldn't be having sex.

We have a nation of spoiled brats. Waaaaaaahhhh, pay for my stuff, waaaaaahhh. Grow up people. If you can't afford a Cadillac, buy a Chevy. If you can't afford a house, rent an apartment. Don't spend your last dime - save until you can afford these things.

There is no Constitutional right to subsidized sexual behavior. There is never a right provided to an individual by anyone but God, and these do not depend on another to pay for.

Person A does not pay for Person B's rights. That transaction would have nothing to do with rights whatsoever - just socialism.
she specifially talked about a fellow student who wasn't having BC covered for cysts. where are you getting your info from? from what i've read, her entire presentation was about that point. and again, you're arguing on the basis of medical necessity-and yet, there are other prescription drugs that are covered, that aren't medically necessary either. or that aren't life changing, but are covered by insurers. as for consequences from sex-exactly what does that mean? it seems a person using birth control is already being responsible-for their health and attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. or is a pregnancy your idea of 'punishment'? also, do you automatically assume that if someone is using birth control, they then must be promiscuous? i was on birth control for years-the whole time i was married to the same fellow i'm married to now. using the pill, which must be taken daily to be effective, doesn't mean someone automatically is attacking every man that walks by.
also, you're taking the same tack others have, that this is socialism. the hearing was on insurance companies and what they cover-has nothing to do with taxpayers. it's a discussion about private insurance companies.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-06-2012, 07:26 AM
joeydb's Avatar
joeydb joeydb is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southeastern PA
Posts: 3,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig View Post
she specifially talked about a fellow student who wasn't having BC covered for cysts. where are you getting your info from? from what i've read, her entire presentation was about that point. and again, you're arguing on the basis of medical necessity-and yet, there are other prescription drugs that are covered, that aren't medically necessary either. or that aren't life changing, but are covered by insurers. as for consequences from sex-exactly what does that mean? it seems a person using birth control is already being responsible-for their health and attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. or is a pregnancy your idea of 'punishment'? also, do you automatically assume that if someone is using birth control, they then must be promiscuous? i was on birth control for years-the whole time i was married to the same fellow i'm married to now. using the pill, which must be taken daily to be effective, doesn't mean someone automatically is attacking every man that walks by.
also, you're taking the same tack others have, that this is socialism. the hearing was on insurance companies and what they cover-has nothing to do with taxpayers. it's a discussion about private insurance companies.
OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-06-2012, 07:37 AM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb View Post
OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.
in regards to your last paragraph, why do you keep referencing socialism and taxation? she was testifying about student insurance provided by a private company, the premiums all the students responsibility-georgetown wasn't on the hook for any of it. not sure why you keep dragging in taxpayers, this entire discussion has been about insurance companies-not subsidies from the govt.
also, obama stepped back weeks ago from demanding employers cover the costs, instead making it part of the package that insurance companies must offer. it's not about religious freedoms when the onus falls on blue cross or others like them to offer birth control.
there are myriad reasons people must take birth control other than cysts. if a doctor prescribes them, that should be all that's necessary for the insurer to cover them. again, there are other medications that also don't always have a medical reason to be prescribed, and yet they ARE covered.
i know a girl who'd been on the pill for years-and hadn't engaged in any sexual activity in several years' time-but if she did, she wouldn't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. one behavior doesn't automatically point to another.

as for religious freedoms dictating what to cover. like i've said elsewhere-where would that stop? some religions are against blood transfusions, others against organ donations, etc. do you want to have to argue about your health with your employer?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-06-2012, 07:59 AM
jms62's Avatar
jms62 jms62 is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb View Post
OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.
So you are against government funding of birth control and also against welfare. You are for less government in our lives but want more government in our lives when it comes to making abortion illegal and putting expensive barricades in place for those that seek to exercise their rights. All the while you blame Obama for raising deficit. Why not just say you hate anything the democrats are for at least you won't look like such a hypocrite.
__________________
Game Over
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-06-2012, 01:54 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb View Post
BUT - make no mistake - it is her responsibility to cover that cost. Birth control is not free - and neither is sex. If you cannot afford the consequences that may come from sexual behavior, then guess what - you shouldn't be having sex.

We have a nation of spoiled brats. Waaaaaaahhhh, pay for my stuff, waaaaaahhh. Grow up people.
No, we have a nation of self-identified moral zealots trying to force their personal sexual "morality" down the throats of every other American.

Birth control pills are a prescribed medication just like antibiotics or steroids. Of course preventive medication should be covered by insurance as preventive health care if a doctor prescribes them within the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. For some to make the government step into the doctors office, examine a patient's motives, and take that right away is undemocratic theocratic zealotry on the part of a few.

People have individual rights, and the freedom from having others opinions, especially religious, forced upon us is the cornerstone of this democracy.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-07-2012, 06:48 AM
joeydb's Avatar
joeydb joeydb is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southeastern PA
Posts: 3,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
No, we have a nation of self-identified moral zealots trying to force their personal sexual "morality" down the throats of every other American.

Birth control pills are a prescribed medication just like antibiotics or steroids. Of course preventive medication should be covered by insurance as preventive health care if a doctor prescribes them within the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship. For some to make the government step into the doctors office, examine a patient's motives, and take that right away is undemocratic theocratic zealotry on the part of a few.

People have individual rights, and the freedom from having others opinions, especially religious, forced upon us is the cornerstone of this democracy.
It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-07-2012, 06:54 AM
somerfrost's Avatar
somerfrost somerfrost is offline
Atlantic City Race Course
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chambersburg, Pa
Posts: 4,635
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb View Post
It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.
Not sure she ever addressed the issue of her lifestyle, break away from being a ditto head long enough to address the facts.
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-07-2012, 07:00 AM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb View Post
It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.
again, ms. fluke was discussing BC for medical reasons. not sure why you continue to drag this in another direction.
and again, her testimony had to do with private insurers, not medicaid or other govt. subsidized care.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-07-2012, 08:05 AM
Antitrust32 Antitrust32 is offline
Jerome Park
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ft Lauderdale
Posts: 9,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb View Post
It is not an overly moralistic statement to say that your own elective behavior should not be subsidized.

As I pointed out a couple of times - I do agree that when that medication is prescribed as treatment for other conditions it should be covered.

You can't have it both ways. You will not have much in the form of individual rights if you want everything managed and subsidized by government. Like it or not, an inescapable consequence of capitalism is "he who pays the bills dictates the rules." You can only preserve your individual rights by acting - uhh -- as an individual. An individual who is as independent as possible of the government. Otherwise, you will eventually become a serf, or ward of the state, subject to all the rules and control that the state wishes to exert on your life.

And the mechanism you cite is backwards. It is not the people forcing their will upon women like Ms. Fluke. It is Ms Fluke trying to force her will upon the rest of us by demanding a subsidy to her lifestyle.
Did you even read her testimony? She didn't even talk about herself once. For all anyone knows, she could be a virgin. Your last sentence is painfully ignorant.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Can I start just making stuff up out of thin air, too?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-06-2012, 01:55 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocala Mike View Post
Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital; guess that's why Mitt Romney issued a "non-denouncing denouncement" of Rush.


Ocala Mike
I know. Funny nobody has picked up on that one
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-06-2012, 03:44 PM
bigrun's Avatar
bigrun bigrun is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: VA/PA/KY
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
I know. Funny nobody has picked up on that one

Stewart last nite...comments from the big 3 repuke contenders about Rush, what you might expect...and does a roast of Rush...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epi...-shaun-donovan
__________________
"If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think" - Clarence Darrow, American lawyer (1857-1938)

When you are right, no one remembers;when you are wrong, no one forgets.

Thought for today.."No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit
they are wrong" - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, French moralist (1613-1680)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-06-2012, 05:57 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default Advertisers fleeing Limbaugh in droves

ABout time.

Quote:
The steady stream of advertisers fleeing Rush Limbaugh's radio show continued on Monday and Tuesday, as a barrage of new companies announced they would no longer run commercials on the program in the wake of Limbaugh's offensive comments about Sandra Fluke.
Quote:
On Monday night, makeup company Bare Escentuals told its Twitter followers that it was pulling its ads:

So did the Sensa Weight Loss company:

And, earlier on Monday, vitamin site Vitacost made the same announcement:

On Tuesday, Think Progress listed five additional companies who have vacated the show: AccuQuote, ServiceMagic, Polycom, Hadeed Carpet and Thompson Creek Windows.

The businesses join many others (including AOL, parent company of The Huffington Post) in ending their association with Limbaugh's show.

Two radio stations have also dropped the program in the wake of Limbaugh's comments about Fluke.
Quote:
UPDATE: On Tuesday afternoon, ThinkProgress listed nine other companies that have pulled out from Limbaugh's show, or moved to make sure that their ads do not air during the program. Those companies are stamps.com, Deere & Co., Geico, St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Connecticut, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Cascades Dental, Allstate, Sears and men's retailer Bonobos.
Quote:
Geico issued a very strong statement on Tuesday, emphasizing that it has repeatedly instructed partners not to run its ads during Limbaugh's program. It threatened to completely withdraw from the radio network unless its ads are removed from the show [one of it's ads ran Monday on Rush's show]

JC Penney also announced on Twitter that it would ensure that its commercials were not aired on Limbaugh's show.
All the above at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1323358.html
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-06-2012, 08:46 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default Whoa! Rush gets skewered ....

Gene Weingarten :

Quote:
Greetings, update readers.

Were you as gratified as I was when Rush Limbaugh finally admitted on the air yesterday that he has gotten rich and famous by “pandering to the prejudices and insecurities of marginally literate, unfathomably ignorant jackasses who have to be told what to hate”?
Etc.... it gets better!

http://live.washingtonpost.com/gene-...6.html?hpid=z5
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-06-2012, 08:54 PM
bigrun's Avatar
bigrun bigrun is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: VA/PA/KY
Posts: 5,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Gene Weingarten :



Etc.... it gets better!

http://live.washingtonpost.com/gene-...6.html?hpid=z5

ROR..

Quote:
.” That final reference was to a 2006 contretemps in which he was detained at an airport for carrying 29 100-mg Viagra pills in a mislabeled bottle. Yesterday, Limbaugh admitted this was enough Viagra “to arouse a corpse” but noted that he needs the extra stimulation since “the only woman I ever found truly sexy was my mommy, circa 1978.”
__________________
"If you lose the power to laugh, you lose the power to think" - Clarence Darrow, American lawyer (1857-1938)

When you are right, no one remembers;when you are wrong, no one forgets.

Thought for today.."No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit
they are wrong" - Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, French moralist (1613-1680)
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-07-2012, 08:59 AM
geeker2's Avatar
geeker2 geeker2 is offline
Hialeah Park
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocala Mike View Post
Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital; guess that's why Mitt Romney issued a "non-denouncing denouncement" of Rush.


Ocala Mike
He left Bain early in 1999.. There are more important things to worry about than Rush's comments. Good job Mitt!

Hey OM how much did you pay to fill up your gas tank?

$4.69/gal here

Just think how many contraceptives Fluke's Friends could buy with gas in the $2/gal range

justsayin
__________________
We've Gone Delirious
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-07-2012, 10:24 AM
Ocala Mike
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geeker2 View Post

Hey OM how much did you pay to fill up your gas tank?

$4.69/gal here

Around $3.80 down here. Not sure how this fits into this thread, though.
Is Mitt running on the $2/gal. gas platform?


Ocala Mike
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.