Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Paying for Others to Have Sex
Topic Started: Mar 4 2012, 06:06 PM (2,485 Views)
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
My concern with paying so others can have rampant and furious Sex - is shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?

I'm concerned that a small group of people, the top 5 percent may be having 95 percent of the Sex.

Why should a virgin or someone left outside of the sexual vortex, involuntarily, be paying for the voracious Sex Madness?

Shouldn't a Federal Program Paying for someone's else's Sex include Fairness and equity?

Shouldn't it have a balanced approach? Shouldn't everyone have their fair share?

Take the IRS, you have to tell them who you donated your money to - and they tell you if it's deductible. You just can't give to anyone. Maybe you can submit your sexual activitiies and it can be established if you are engaging people that are, all too often, left behind and outside of sexual activities. Like a charitable deduction, you meet the criteria - and your taxes are modified accordingly.

What Federal programs don't have oversight and accountability, and strict requirements?

Isn't this akin to making single people pay for weddings and honeymoons of those around them that have found love?
Isn't this like making the infertile pay for Baby Carriages for those baby-makers in society?

I say let the Humping Humanitarians pay for their own orgies.



.


Edited by Mason, Mar 4 2012, 06:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
The Fluke woman is 30 years old.

She calls herself "a reproductive activist".

She has been portrayed as a 21 year old college student.

She evidently thinks that anything that is the slightest financial hardship be paid for by the Federal Government with those Fat Tax Dollars, again.

Ms Fluke is 30. I wonder when she thinks someone should be responsible for their own behavior, activities, and financial entanglements.


.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
If they need BC pills for a medical condition, fine. I have no problem with the doctor getting together with the insurance company to authorize payment.

If they just want free BC, WTH?

What else should be free then?

Of course we aren't talking about free, but "free"... as in, someone else, "the public", is actually paying the costs.
Edited by LTC8K6, Mar 4 2012, 07:40 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
LTC8K6
Mar 4 2012, 07:40 PM
If they need BC pills for a medical condition, fine. I have no problem with the doctor getting together with the insurance company to authorize payment.

If they just want free BC, WTH?

What else should be free then?

Of course we aren't talking about free, but "free"... as in, someone else, "the public", is actually paying the costs.
.
It does seem like this is just the beginning. The Activist cited a financial need, while in college, and thus the money should flow from Taxpayers to her and her former, fellow classmates.

Need for Pizza, Need for Hair done, Need for Nails, Need for Car, Need for Car insurance, Need for Internet, Need for Phone, Need for PC, Need for medicine.

A financial need does not make for Federally funded mandate.

We are looking at the expansion of Government - theres's no doubt. Expect a long list of people feeling like their "needs" should be financed by taxpayers.

.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
longstop
longstop
Mason
Mar 4 2012, 06:06 PM
.
I'm concerned that a small group of people, the top 5 percent may be having 95 percent of the Sex.

Just completed my application to Georgetown . :cele:

Na, Just joking :thup:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
longstop
Mar 4 2012, 09:16 PM
Mason
Mar 4 2012, 06:06 PM
.
I'm concerned that a small group of people, the top 5 percent may be having 95 percent of the Sex.

Just completed my application to Georgetown . :cele:

Na, Just joking :thup:


It's the people that aren't having sex that we should be compensating.


:bunn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
longstop
longstop
Mason
Mar 4 2012, 09:17 PM
longstop
Mar 4 2012, 09:16 PM
Mason
Mar 4 2012, 06:06 PM
.
I'm concerned that a small group of people, the top 5 percent may be having 95 percent of the Sex.

Just completed my application to Georgetown . :cele:

Na, Just joking :thup:


It's the people that aren't having sex that we should be compensating.


:bunn:
How long is the queue ?
Edited by longstop, Mar 4 2012, 10:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
Is it too much to ask these people taking all the sex for themselves to a pay a little for their own pleasure and risks?

I call it Pay-as-you-Orgasm.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Concerned
Member Avatar

If sex is that important to Fluke, what's to prevent her from working one Saturday a month to pay for the pills? What about tutoring a student, babysitting or something?

My cousin's husband is 95% deaf and doctors say he needs $6,000 hearing aids that insurance doesn't cover. Unlike Fluke who is healthy and able to work my cousin's husband is unable to work.

Where are this society's priorities? I'll bet the elderly don't want to pay for someone to have sex, either!

I don't remember birth control pills ever being covered by insurance. Considering today's economy and the nation's massive debt I can't believe coverage would even be considered. I thought the government wanted to bring down the costs of insurance.

And I thought Obama wanted people to make sacrifices.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Concerned
Mar 5 2012, 01:21 AM
If sex is that important to Fluke, what's to prevent her from working one Saturday a month to pay for the pills? What about tutoring a student, babysitting or something?

My cousin's husband is 95% deaf and doctors say he needs $6,000 hearing aids that insurance doesn't cover. Unlike Fluke who is healthy and able to work my cousin's husband is unable to work.

Where are this society's priorities? I'll bet the elderly don't want to pay for someone to have sex, either!

I don't remember birth control pills ever being covered by insurance. Considering today's economy and the nation's massive debt I can't believe coverage would even be considered. I thought the government wanted to bring down the costs of insurance.

And I thought Obama wanted people to make sacrifices.
.
Thank you!

I thought this 30 yr old could've spoken out for Cancer patients, children with diabetes, the disabled, the blind - and she takes the podium and wants a handout to pay for her sex?

Wouldn't it be nice to get a list of expected entitlements up front from the Left - because I know this only the very beginning. The car is just warming up - it hasn't even left the driveway yet.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I say throw out the birth control entirely. We need more babies born to be able to grow up and pay taxes.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Mason
Mar 4 2012, 06:41 PM
.
The Fluke woman is 30 years old.

She calls herself "a reproductive activist".

She has been portrayed as a 21 year old college student.

She evidently thinks that anything that is the slightest financial hardship be paid for by the Federal Government with those Fat Tax Dollars, again.

Ms Fluke is 30. I wonder when she thinks someone should be responsible for their own behavior, activities, and financial entanglements.


.

Sorry miss fluke, Your a reproductive nothing if your taking birth control. Only women who pop out live babies are reproductive activists. Your more of a spoiled getting old lady.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
I wonder how much has been spent on Ms. Fluke in her 30 years by the taxpayer - maybe she could pay taxes for a year or two before demanding more and new benefts?

That's another thing that is left unsaid - she's not a very good spokesperson.



.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
foxglove

This episode speaks volumes about the agenda of the left. Sexual liberation with no consequences, others (taxpayers) bearing the responsibility for their behavior, anti-fertility/population control, and disdain for religion, particularly Catholicism.

Politically, it is an effort to distract from Obama's poor performance as President and an effort to silence Obama's critics.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IronMan

This is such a BS issue. The average cell phone service costs about 10 times what it costs to get generic birth control pills at Wal-Mart. You think this Fluke woman is doing without a cell phone? Maybe she can drop down from the unlimited data plan and have enough to cover herself and three other women for birth control.

And the whole discussion begs the question of what have women been doing for birth control up till now? Have they just done without? Prior to these Obamacare mandates, have women just rolled the dice on getting pregnant?

We all know the answer. Any woman who has really wanted the pill has used the pill since it was first introduced.

The whole notion of the left's argument is really galling to me:

A. Contraceptives cost a lot of money;
B. I need to be able to afford to have sex; ergo
C. The cost of my contraceptives needs to be shifted to someone else to pay for it so that I can continue having sex without consequences.

Geez, have we really fallen that far as a society? That society should shoulder the cost of Sandra Fluke's sex life? Should we also provide her with beer so that she can get her next conquest drunk enough to ... y'know.

The libs are once again playing their "access to health care" card. How is it that conservatives continue to allow the left to frame the debate? This is all very frustrating to me.

They should be calling this "The Affordable Sex Act." Hang a different, unflattering tag on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply