.
Sandra Fluke’s parents must be so proud.
On Monday, she went before a House Subcommittee to tell everyone that she has sex. Lots and lots of sex. Why, she has so much sex that it costs her $1000/year to pay for birth control.
And gee willikers, she just can’t afford to pay for that, so she thinks that the American taxpayer should pick up the tab.
.
.
I mean, the poor girl is attending a Catholic law school, and they don’t provide birth control on campus. Their insurance policy doesn’t cover the cost of it, either.
And the administrators at Georgetown University aren’t willing to treat her like the special little snowflake that her parents always told her she is – my word, they had the AUDACITY to tell her that if she didn’t like their policy that she was more than welcome to attend a different Law School.
But no – she DEMANDS that she be given everything that she feels that she is entitled to. How dare this institution expect her to do without what she claims is one of her “rights”?
.
.
(I don’t know about you, but if Law Schools around the country are telling students that Free Birth Control is a right, it’s time to shut them all down and start over)
Listen, cupcake – your parents may not have explained this to you, so allow me to be the first to tell you that LIFE.ISN’T.FAIR.
You don’t get to have everything you want – you go to work, you make a salary, and then you learn to live within your budget. There are going to be some things that you will never be able to afford. But guess what? It’s not going to kill you to not have those things. You will learn to place value on the things that matter most to you.
The world doesn’t owe you a DAMN thing.
You want to be able to have consequence-free sex, and you want ME to pay for it with higher insurance rates? OK, fine – I’ll make you a deal:
.
.
I’ll pay for your drunken weekends with whichever guy straps on the beer goggles at last call, but in return I expect you to keep your piehole shut when you have to pay higher insurance rates for MY lifestyle choices.
And boy, howdy, am I going to stick it to you BUT GOOD.
You just THINK you’ve been screwed by all of those Frat Boys, but it is nothing compared to the rogering you are going to get from me.
.
.
I am going to start living a life of indulgent luxury – I’m going to plop my fat ass on my couch and watch television all day long – no exercise for me. I’m going to eat the fattiest, greasiest foods that I can find – there isn’t going to be a vegetable in sight. I don’t drink, smoke, or use drugs, but I am thinking about taking them up – just so I can run up your insurance premiums.
You see Ms. Fluke, you have as much as admitted that no one has to take personal responsibility for their actions. No, you sat in front of a national audience and said that each of us has to pay for whatever other people in the rest of the country decide they want to do.
And if you don’t want them telling you what you can or cannot do with YOUR body, then you sure as heck don’t get to tell them what they can or cannot do with theirs.
.
.
So I want to thank you in advance for picking up the tab for all of the blood pressure medications, cholesterol medications, diabetes testing materials, dialysis, the chest X-Rays and chemotherapy for the lung cancer that I might get, and the cirrhosis treatment and eventual liver transplant that I might have to have as a result of all of that drinking.
.
.
Thanks also for the quadruple bypass to fix my clogged arteries, the hip replacements and motorized scooters to accommodate my massive weight gain, and all of the other things that I am going to need to take care of the health problems that will no doubt crop up as a result of my free-wheeling lifestyle.
I’m pretty sure that you’re going to end up paying a WHOLE lot more than $1000/year.
‘Cuz I have “rights”, you know?
.
[Cross-posted at Red State]
[Update]: It seems that Ms. Fluke is not at all what she professes to be. Over at Jammie Wearing Fool, there are some links to more biographical information about this sex-crazed “co-ed”. She’s not 23 years old – she got her first degree (in Gender Studies – go figure) in 2003. She attended Georgetown precisely BECAUSE they didn’t offer contraception – she went there with the express intent of shaking things up. Sadly, this doesn’t suprise me one little bit – liberals somehow find it easier to lie when they are trying to shape public opinion….
[Update 03/03/12]: Thanks to Professor Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection for making this the “Post of the Day”! His wonderful website was recently named “Most Underrated Blog” at CPAC – his site has been a favorite read of mine for quite awhile.
[Update 03/19/2012]: Planet Moron has a great post on the “Fluke Translator” – now in one handy place, a way to interpret what Ms. Fluke REALLY means!
Koch's Tour 
yea … geeme som o’dem rights two! Affer all, you’ll owe me then, Sandra dear.
What? You think you’re the only one who can claim “Rights?” No one can “give” you a right … at least no one you know.
LikeLike
She might wanna start thinking about having some kids – when they are old enough to start working, they can help her “spread the cost” with their tax dollars….. 😛
LikeLike
They’ve been lecturing us for years that it’s none of our #$%&! business what people do in their bedrooms… but they d@mn well expect us to pay for it! I still can’t figure out how contraception can cost that much. Is she adding in the cost of her sex toys, seductive lingerie, viagra for her partners, and the cost of hiring male prostitutes? Cause a thousand bucks is a LOT of money, and I know the pill doesn’t cost that much. In fact, where I live, the public health nurses hand them out to anyone who wants them, for next to nothing.
LikeLike
Some of the links in the post go to a couple of hilarious articles that address just that issue. But, according to her, “Everyone knows” that BC costs that much. If we DON’T know that, then we’re just stupid rubes.
NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Don’t go look it up – just take her at her word; after all, she’s a 3rd-Year Law Student at Georgetown University.
What, you think you’re smarter than she is?
Pffft. As if.
LikeLike
It’s scary to think this chick is going to be a lawyer soon.
On the other hand, she’ll be so busy having sex ten times a day she probably won’t have much time for lawyering.
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike
Probably a couple of abortions a year.
LikeLike
Pingback: Pay to Play (or, No, I Don’t Want to Subsidize Your Sex Life) | RedState
Great job,Tif. (I always only seem to see the first 3 letters of your abbreviated screen name). Tif, Tiff, Tiffy. There we go: Tiff or Tiffy. So it is written, etc…
*eyes bag of Cheese Doodles* oh yesss…
LikeLike
Scoot over, Lippy – I’m bringing the sodas! (There’s ice cream in the fridge…..)
LikeLike
mmmm, you have ice cream? How is my new best friend?
Oh, wait, let’s make some peach cobbler too.
*pre-orders my free turbo-charged lard ambulator. vroom vroom!
LikeLike
It occurred to me that there is ONE way that I would be happy to pay for these little mental wards of the state’s birth control . . . I’ll pay for them all to be sterilized. My money, my choice!
LikeLike
No – first they have to pop out at least THREE spawn to help pay for all of these programs that they want to foist on us.
I’ll be eligible for Social Security in about 20 years, and by golly, this little gal had better start contributing her “fair share” to the future revenue stream – I’ll be damned if I’m going to eat cat food 20 years from now just so this little tart can have worry-free fun right now…..
LikeLike
I think people who never had children should be ineligible for Social Security. Childless individuals and couples can make a lot more money over their working lives than people who have children, and they never have any of the expenses involved in having and raising children, so let them finance their own retirement. It’s completely unjust that people who weren’t willing to assume the cost of having children themselves can collect SS payments that are deducted from the paychecks of other people’s children.
LikeLike
Yeah, but they have told us all these years that Social Security is “being held” in an account for us, gaining interest; our benevolent gubmint just looking out for us.
The sad fact is that our kids ARE paying for our Social Security in real time.
Personally, I’d prefer that SS just go away, and everyone can save their own money in their own retirement account. But Uncle Sugar can’t let go of that money….
LikeLike
I have been trying to figure out how it costs her that much a year. I can get to $600 if she is using the pill and condoms and having sex more than once a day, every day. What I want to know is where is she finding the time?
Also, I guess I am missing something here regarding insurance. Do students now get their insurance from the higher educations institution they attend?
LikeLike
A lot of colleges offer health insurance – of course, if this young lady is under the age of 26, thanks to Obama she should be covered under her Mommy and Daddy’s insurance. If she doesn’t have any income, she should qualify for government assistance, and can get her birth control for practically nothing at any public health facility.
She’s just miffed that a Catholic university doesn’t offer contraception on campus.
And she wants to argue the Feminist Manifesto.
LikeLike
Thanks for the information:-). I just told a friend she should check into at her school. I guess since I was covered by my parents insurance in college I never knew.
LikeLike
I’m all for l’orchid noire’s solution 😉
I find it odd that this so-called law student would say something so blatantly stupid, and not review the consequences of it. That is what a lawyer does, isn’t it??
LikeLike
Not the “do-good” lawyers – they just take the cases that make them FEEL like they are doing “what’s right”. Heaven forbid that they should think any further than the here and now…..
LikeLike
Excellent. I like the pictorial accommp….accompian…I like the pictures too.
BTW, did she actually claim to be 23 and lie in congressional testimony?
LikeLike
I think many of us made the (incorrect) assumption that since she is a 3rd-Year Law Student that she would be around that age.
I’m not sure she was “sworn in” – she was just giving a statement.
The fact that her “statement” is full of holes that you could drive a truck through is, apparently, irrelevant…..
LikeLike
She may plan on being a community organizer type of lawyer, they turn their license in after a few
years and try politics.
LikeLike
Great – another Obama type, suing the government and taking more of my tax dollars…..
LikeLike
Ms. Fluke and the Democrat Party have just run a massive con job on the American people. They even conned Rush and are making fundraising appeals over his accurate depiction of her sex life.
The THIRTY year old woman spent several years, after graduating from Cornell with a degree in GENDER STUDIES, as a community ACTIVIST, specializing in issues like domestic violence, human trafficking, and LGBT matters. She CHOSE to go to a Jesuit university PRECISELY BECAUSE Georgetown did NOT offer contraception coverage as part of its insurance coverage. Law schools OFFER health insurance, but students are able to have THEIR OWN insurance coverage instead. Apparently, Ms. Fluke, the NYC activist did not CHOOSE to provide her own insurance.
Has anyone even asked Ms. Fluke if she engages in heterosexual relationships, so that she might want birth control pills?
This is a CON, a FRAUD, and the GOP doesn’t ever do its homework beforehand, so that it knows the truth of the fraudulent memes that the Democrats float.
LikeLike
BTW, which Democrat is Ms. Fluke’s patron? Pelosi, Gillibrand, Shumer? She’s somebody’s flunky…..
LikeLike
That’s what I’ve been wondering – how, exactly, did Ms. Pelosi find this young woman in the first place? She (Ms. Fluke) was obviously eager to have her opinion heard, and Darrell Issa wouldn’t allow her to testify in front of the full Subcommittee (this was literally a one-woman show).
This was all VERY carefully orchestrated.
LikeLike
Good job, Teresa!
LikeLike
Most excellent job, Tiffy.
You won’t believe this, but I am really, truly eating cheese doodles RIGHT NOW!!!
LikeLike
LOL!!!!!
LikeLike
Got linked over here from HotAir. I like the cut of your jib.
Funny isn’t it? Within 24 hours after the infamous Joe the Plumber question to candidate Obama, we knew pretty much every detail of Joe’s life story thanks to a very aggressive press who took umbrage at Joe’s audacity in daring to question their chosen One. Yet here, the only ones who have bothered to take a peek into Ms. Fluke’s background are those in the conservative press; the White House stenographers that are the main stream media were perfectly willing to portray Fluke at face value and are busy trumpeting her courage while denigrating those like Rush who have pointed out the moral state of a young unmarried woman who is testifying before a congressional subcommittee [of democrats because the full committee was busy looking at constitutionality vs. liberalism] on national television about her not being able to get birth control covered by insurance and needing to spend $1K per year on birth control.
LikeLike
Well said, AZF – and welcome!
LikeLike
I’m running for Congress. I want 5 minutes to ask her all kinds of pervy questions. Just expound on Lizards’ Comment “I have been trying to figure out how it costs her that much a year. I can get to $600 if she is using the pill and condoms and having sex more than once a day, every day”. Soo, what kind of guys do you pick up? Any standards at all? Ever sleep w/a Congressman, and would you like to? Then maybe an Olberman style…”Have you no shame?”. People are in record #’s on food stamps, and you want “Tramp Stamps”?
LikeLike
I sorta get the impression that she doesn’t need BC – not for the “usual” reasons, anyway (NTTAWWT).
But if she and her friends want me to stay out of their bedrooms, they’d better not be asking me to pay for anything they plan on using in said bedrooms…..
Are you really running for Congress? If so, where?
LikeLike
So over the weekend I re-read Ms. Fluke’s testimony and again am astounded that the highly intelligent media(note sarcasm) did not question this part of her testimony:
“One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.
So apparently her friend was raped and did not report it to the police or failed to allow them to collect the necessary evidence to convict the rapist. Police basically take you directly to the hospital and even if you do not have insurance a victims advocacy group generally will cover the testing for diseases and medications. As her friend is a law student I find it well inconceivable that she would not have reported the rape. I also find it odd that during that traumatic time she thought they don’t cover bc they won’t cover this and frankly at that time you would not care about the cost either.
LikeLike
Well, it’s awfully “convenient” that her “friend” who was “raped” didn’t report it to the police – that way there isn’t any record for anyone to check.
Same thing with her “friend” who was at the doctor’s office “today”, having had her entire reproductive system irrevocably harmed, due to her not paying attention to the signs of endometriosis (which, I’m told CANNOT be ignored) who didn’t go to the doctor ONCE while she was home visiting Mom and Dad to get checked out.
I mean, really – these gals go on and on and on about all of the “services” that Planned Parenthood offers “for free”, and they couldn’t get taken care of there? Or at a local low-cost health clinic? (And I’m not touching the PP thing, because we all KNOW that’s the “in” they want to use to justify keeping those places open – I mean, honestly, if “only 3 percent” of their services are abortions, you’d think that they would be able to take care of something like this, but NOOOOO…..).
I’m thinking that if all of these gals are too STUPID to figure out HOW to pay for these services, then perhaps Georgetown needs to invesitgate whether they are also too stupid to be lawyers…..
LikeLike
LOL agreed 🙂
LikeLike
Well, thanks for telling us you’re going to get all fat, like 60% of America. I’m pretty sure I’ve been subsidizing their lifestyle of being fat for years, now, so I don’t really see how you’re going to teach us a lesson like you say, but whatever makes you happy.
Pictures of you overeating or you’re a liar
LikeLike
I’m 5’0″ tall and weigh 250 pounds – do you REALLY want a picture?
I’m going to take off all of my clothes and have my husband take a really nice side angle view, so that you can get an idea of what all of the rolls and rolls of fat look like – they are truly a spectacle to behold.
Send me your mailing address, so that I can send them to you at home – I don’t want to break anyone’s computer screen.
(FWIW – I had an angiogram done a little over a year ago. My coronary arteries are clean as a whistle…..)
LikeLike
Pingback: Fisking Fluke’s Fables | Koch's Tour
Pingback: More on the Sandra Fluke Agitprop: Obama adviser Anita Dunn’s PR firm, Fluke Exposed As Fraud, Activist, White House Operative, Fluke’s appearance no fluke, and Fisking Fluke’s Fables « What's Right News Blog
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud—incredibly-gross
just another take on it I guess
LikeLike
so should insurance companies cover viagra?
LikeLike
The decision should be left up to each individual insurance company, not mandated by the Federal Government.
Ms. Fluke is demanding that all insurance companies be required to cover birth control, even if it goes against their religious beliefs. She wants the Federal Government to step in and make it a requirement.
I really don’t want to have the Federal Government telling a private company – ANY private company – that they are required to do anything, but ESPECIALLY if it would force them to betray their religious beliefs.
That is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Ms. Fluke is already on record as saying that she thinks that insurance companies should be required to pay for Gender Reassignment Surgery; my bet is that she will be coming back in a few years, asking the Federal Government to require all insurance companies pay for fertility treatments for all of these gals who couldn’t be bothered to get pregnant in their prime reproductive years.
So we’ll end up paying up to $15,000 (15 years at $1000/yr) to keep these ladies from getting pregnant, and then be asked to turn right around and pay $15,000 a pop per round of fertility treatments (the average number of tries is 4-6)?
And a LOT of those IVF babies are high-risk pregnancies and end up needing NICU care.
We’re headed down a very slippery slope, but a lot of people haven’t taken the time to look that far down the road….
LikeLike
so yes they should?
LikeLike
Like I said, it should be left up to each individual insurance company. Should the Federal Government be allowed to REQUIRE them to cover it?
Absolutely not.
The Federal Government needs to stay out of our bedrooms. (That IS what all of the liberals have been saying all along, right?)
LikeLike
Should the Federal government demand they cover it?
No…but should they demand genders be treated equally to protect the rights of their citizens…absolutely
LikeLike
Forgive me for asking this, but how old are you? The reason that I ask is because I am old enough (51) to remember when “Health Insurance” basically only covered what we refer to as “catastrophic” care.
What we have now can in no way be construed as “Insurance” – which is why it is so expensive.
And each time that an insurance company is told that they “have” to cover another service, their rates have to go up accordingly.
Do you have car insurance? (I don’t know where you live – some people don’t own a car)
Think about what your insurance rates are like – if you are a “safe” driver, your rates are lower, because the “risk” that you will have an accident is relatively low. However, if you are a younger (under 25) driver, or you have a lot of accidents or tickets, have a “sporty” car, etc., you are considered at a higher risk to have an accident, so your rates are higher.
It used to be that you could get Health Insurance that was “tailor-made” for your lifestyle – a 25-year-old single male in good health who doesn’t smoke obviously wouldn’t NEED a policy that included OB/GYN services, extra pharmacy coverage, or lung cancer/emphysema coverage, whereas a young married couple with no kids could be expected to want OB/GYN coverage, and well-child coverage when they start having kids. Their health needs are going to be QUITE different from those of a retired couple with more health/maintenance issues.
We have gotten away from that model, and have moved to a “one size fits all” model – so now EVERYONE is having to pay for everything under the sun, and each time a new “condition” is added, the price of that coverage goes up.
And make no mistake, Ms. Fluke wants ALL of us to be required to cover gender reassignment surgery, and I have no doubt that she will be championing fertility treatments next. Now, you and I will probably never need that kind of surgery, but we are going to be asked to pay for it. While there may not be that many people availing themselves of that surgery, I have no doubt that there WILL be plenty of people who want fertility treatments, and those aren’t cheap ($10-$15K PER CYCLE, and it can take an average of 4-6 cycles before a successful outcome).
At some point, it is going to become too expensive to pay for all of the “goodies” that we are being promised now, and the government will start removing things from coverage. By the time that starts happening, the people will have NO power to stop them.
If you don’t believe me, look to England, Canada, Cuba – any country that has “Socialized” medicine. It’s not pretty.
And Obamacare has a lovely little clause in it about end-of-life measures – if you are over 70 years of age, you will ONLY be given “palliative” care; in other words, the state is only required to make you comfortable until you die.
Check recent Internet articles about the state of nursing homes in England – there are some real horror stories coming out, and that is where we are headed if this monstrosity isn’t overturned.
Contrary to what you may believe, Ms. Fluke and her classmates HAVE access to birth control – their school insurance policy doesn’t cover it, but there are plenty of other health insurance policies out there right now that do; Ms. Fluke and her friends are free to sign up for a policy that covers the cost of birth control. Nobody is stopping them from doing that. They have “access” – all they have to do is call up an insurance agent, and they will have coverage that day IF THAT’S WHAT THEY WANT.
However, Ms. Fluke doesn’t WANT to look into other options, she specifically chose to go to Georgetown BECAUSE they don’t have that kind of coverage. She could have gone to any Law School in the country, but she did her research and found a school that didn’t cover birth control, because she was on a mission (http://is.gd/nzJdkL).
You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t have any sympathy for her whatsoever…..
LikeLike
No…but should they demand genders be treated equally to protect the rights of their citizens…absolutely
What “right”, exactly is being denied? If somebody else is being required to pay for it, it ISN’T a right.
And the last time I checked, both genders are equally able to go to any drug store in the country and purchase condoms.
As a matter of fact, if you want to get really technical about it, if we are being asked to cover the cost of birth control pills, then men would be well within their rights to demand that the state pick up the cost of condoms – THAT would be “equal” treatment.
Ms. Fluke’s argument falls apart the minute she starts talking about “equal” treatment or being “denied” access. She isn’t asking for equal treatment, she is demanding UNequal treatment by virtue of her gender. She has never been DENIED access to birth control – she can walk into any drug store and purchase condoms; she can go to any doctor, get a prescription for birth control, and get that prescription filled at any number of pharmacies across the nation.
She is making this an issue because she has a problem with a RELIGIOUS entity that doesn’t want to provide those services – because it is against their religion’s doctrine. It would be interesting to get her opinion of Muslims being exempt from Obamacare because it is against their “religion” to purchase insurance products. Somehow, I have a feeling that she would RESPECT their “right” to religious freedom….
LikeLike
“I really don’t want to have the Federal Government telling a private company – ANY private company – that they are required to do anything, but ESPECIALLY if it would force them to betray their religious beliefs.”
I really hope you realize that there needs to be exceptions to this and the complete abscense of government can be even more detrimental to one’s freedom when compared to it being used effectively (Articles v Constitution argument). Don’t take what protects you for granted or misrepresent it through generalization for the sake of rhetoric or partisan politics.
LikeLike
Government has no business telling private companies what services they MUST provide.
The ONLY purpose of government is to enforce the Rule of Law; each time that we cede more power to government to dictate our day-to-day affairs, we lose a little more of our personal freedoms.
Right now, government has the “power” to tell you what kind of toilet you can/cannot have, what can/cannot be in your laundry/dishwasher detergent, what kind of light bulb you are required to use, what kind of gasoline you are allowed to use in your car, etc.
The government gets to decide what kind of instruction your children are going to receive in school, and what kind of food they get to eat when they are at school.
And now, they are going to be able to have the power to tell your doctor what kind of care they are AND ARE NOT allowed to give you. And once they have that power, you will have NO recourse if you disagree with them.
Right now, you have the choice to see a different doctor if you don’t agree with the care they are giving you. Pretty soon, no doctor is going to be “different” from any other – some pencil-pusher in Washington is going to decide what services are and are not covered, and you will not be offered anything more (ask women in England how long it takes to get a mammogram – you won’t like the answer).
Do you really want to give that kind of power to a bureaucrat?
LikeLike
See the way I see it is that government does have the right to tell a business if they can or cannot do something if the business is working directly against the rights of people. I am not sure how we got to the point where public opinion and profit is what is “best” for our country. Government, especially ours when it was designed, made every effort and had every intention of keeping the public and other groups out of the day to day decision making process so that it could function above those restraints and work in the best interest of ALL and not the select few.
Our nation’s masses of people are fickle and easily persuaded to judge without giving the appropriate amount of thought to a problem and the potential effects that it would have on our society. Match that with businesses out to maximize profit either with or without the rights of people in mind and you have chaos. The analogy I would give is like putting a kid in a candy store with $100 and saying “choose the best option” if the parent isn’t there and only the store owner is, how do you think that will turn out? If the parent is there obviously it’s a different story.
LikeLike
Government’s “job” isn’t to be a parent. Freedom is SCARY, but there is no teacher like experience, and if people aren’t allowed to make mistakes and learn from them, then we will never be a truly free country.
Believe it or not, if a business isn’t doing what is in everybody’s best interests, it will fail.
Our nation’s masses of people are fickle and easily persuaded to judge without giving the appropriate amount of thought to a problem and the potential effects that it would have on our society.
I would argue that if Government steps in, then the “masses of people” never have the opportunity to be GIVEN the appropriate amount of thought to a problem.
I would argue that is how we are in the mess that we are today – too many people having too many things “taken care of” for them, and not having to think about either the cost or the consequences of their actions.
Three of my kids are now out on their own – let me tell you, they are having to think about things that they “took for granted” when they were living at home. And all of the “teaching” in the world that we tried to do was NOTHING compared to the lessons that they were forced to learn when Mommy and Daddy weren’t there to take care of them any more.
But they have THRIVED with their newfound freedom, and they have learned that they are ultimately responsible for what happens to them. And believe it or not, they APPRECIATE the sacrifices that were made for them, now that they are making their own decisions. They are better people now that they are “free” (for lack of a better word).
The analogy I would give is like putting a kid in a candy store with $100 and saying “choose the best option” if the parent isn’t there and only the store owner is, how do you think that will turn out?
You do realize that when you make this particular analogy that you are basically saying that the American public is no better than mindless children, right? And if that particular “store owner” wanted my business ever again, he/she would make darn sure that they didn’t “cheat” me or my child. That’s how they STAY in business.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to live in a nation of really big children; by the same token, I don’t want to be told by Big Daddy government that I have to give them my money and they will in turn decide how much of it they are going to give back to me and THEN tell me what I can and cannot spend it on.
I want to be allowed to make my own money and spend it on what I want to. And if I make bad choices, then there shouldn’t be a “safety net” to catch me, because that isn’t going to teach me how to make better choices (that’s something that we all have to learn as our kids get older – sometimes you have to let them fail).
THAT is freedom. THAT is liberty. THAT is what this country was founded on, and it is why we have thrived while others have floundered.
LikeLike
Yes masses of people are like big children, almost exactly. They are impulsive, unrealistic, selfish and short sighted with the occasional moment of appropriateness but mostly just awkward.
And yes the business will stay thriving because they got the kids money and cater specifically to those needs mentioned above. Don’t worry the parents aren’t around, they have been told by the store owner that parents only limit their freedom, liberty and ability to make decisions anyway so why bother having them around.
Free market is great, it has given us success stories like slavery, massive death of indigineous people and the killing off of an entire people but hey we can chalk that up to a learning experince so we know what not to do next time.(sarcasm implied here)
Businesses and corporations do a much better job creating the illusion of choice rather than offering you choice but whatever works for your fiction is okay with me. There has to be a balance in order for things to function and losing the authority of government would be nonsensical and counterproductive.
LikeLike
Yes masses of people are like big children, almost exactly. They are impulsive, unrealistic, selfish and short sighted with the occasional moment of appropriateness but mostly just awkward.
Then let their “parent” take care of them – but don’t ask ME to pay (higher taxes) their “parent” (Government) to do their job. I’m already being asked to pay for their education – I keep getting asked to pay more, but I am getting less and less for my money.
Don’t worry the parents aren’t around, they have been told by the store owner that parents only limit their freedom, liberty and ability to make decisions anyway so why bother having them around.
And that store owner will ONLY be in business long enough for all of the SMART parents to tell their friends not to send their kids there. I mean, would YOU allow your kids to go back to that store? Would YOU give them $100 a second time? And if so, what does that say about YOU?
The problem is that when Government is the parent, and the “money” isn’t theirs to begin with, they don’t really CARE about how much of it is wasted – they will just come back to the taxpayer with their hand out, telling them that they HAVE to give them more money.
I don’t LIKE that kind of “parent”.
Free market is great, it has given us success stories like slavery, massive death of indigineous people and the killing off of an entire people…
You have a problem with “slavery”, you’re going to need to take it up with the AFRICAN people who were perfectly willing to “market” their own people; they were the ones who did the rounding up and the selling, and there were PLENTY of buyers from LOTS of different countries.
And how you can say with a straight face that the “free market” was responsible for the massive death of “indigenous” people is beyond laughable (I assume you are trotting out the “Smallpox-infested blankets” myth) – unfortunately, anytime an organism comes in contact with a virus/bacteria/etc., either the organism (in this case a human being) is going to adapt, or it is going to die.
That’s NATURE – it has nothing to do with “free market”. It would have happened whether Europeans came over or Africans or any other group of people who had exposure to different germ strains. It happens all the time in nature, and nature sure as heck doesn’t have a “free market”.
And you are going to have to enlighten me about “killing off an entire race”, because that’s a new one for me.
Businesses and corporations do a much better job creating the illusion of choice rather than offering you choice
Really? Tell me – how many different brands of televisions can you CHOOSE from? How many different cell phones are available, and how many different plans can you CHOOSE from? That ain’t an “illusion” – that’s REAL choice.
If the government takes over, there is only going to be ONE choice, and you are going to take it and you are going to like it. It won’t matter that you don’t want to have to spend a bunch of extra money for minutes you might not need or a data plan that doesn’t do everything that you need. You get what they offer you or you get nothing.
But, hey – if that’s the kind of “choice” that you want, please feel free to find a country that will take care of you from cradle to grave, and you won’t have to think for yourself ever again.
Funny – I’m not willing to give up the CHOICES that I have.
LikeLike
guess you just don’t get my point of view.
Never said government needs to take over; not once but government does need to be part of the process.
What caused the massive amounts of people to be expanding in this direction without the consideration of the well being of native people? Primarily greed and the search for wealth which was not regulated and in fact promoted by the countries searching for more economic freedom and prosperity. That is not a myth and is deeply routed in fact. You can’t tell me European people from that time actually had the best interest of native people at heart, it’s just not possible.
Saying “nature” is the best way to describe the situation is completely ridiculous and a feeble attempt of riding the groups responsible of guilt. Slavery (in US History) is a direct result of free market, it was a form of cheap labor that kept the price of crops and other materials low so that the colonies / early states could be economically competitive and more profitable. Of course little was done to fix the massive human rights violation that was done (until government eventually stepped in – damn regulators), but I guess at that time who said Africans had a “right” to live free in the first place?
I will still make decisions on my own but why should I be allowed to make decisions that harm the greater good when the only benefit would be to myself…and yes the concept of “the greater good” is highly American and NOT socialist and it was not specifically based in business or profit.
Also just to answer a previous question, I am 33…and by the way T you are awesome and fun to debate with as usual. I would love to get you to provide my students with your way of thinking as I see it as both missing and valuable to discussions that we have in class. If you are open to it I would like to send you some questions and get some type of response from you that I can share with my classes to provide them with a better representation of people’s opinions (that are also well written). Let me know.
LikeLike
Saying “nature” is the best way to describe the situation is completely ridiculous and a feeble attempt of riding the groups responsible of guilt.
I was talking about the “smallpox” myth in specific when I was talking about “nature”.
You can’t tell me European people from that time actually had the best interest of native people at heart, it’s just not possible.
I don’t happen to believe that they had evil intentions toward them, either – they saw an opportunity for a new life, and many of them took it. I think that many of them DID try to reach out to the native people, and many of them succeeded to the advantage of both parties.
We tend to forget how harrowing it was to come over here from Europe – many of those first settlers came here with literally NOTHING (many also came over later as indentured servants) and were forced to find their own way. I honestly don’t think they had any time to “oppress” the natives – they were too busy trying to grow crops and build shelter to do much of anything else.
…who said Africans had a “right” to live free in the first place?
The ones who were sold into slavery weren’t ever going to be “free” – that’s why they were sold (usually by a conquering tribe) in the first place. That practice is STILL going on in many African countries, BTW. I daresay the descendants of the ones who were transported here fared a lot better than the descendants of the ones who weren’t….
…why should I be allowed to make decisions that harm the greater good when the only benefit would be to myself…
Because, believe it or not, that “zero sum game” ends up being beneficial to EVERYONE in the aggregate long run. And who defines “the greater good”? Left to their own devices in a country with the Rule of Law (with the bare minimum of regulations), things tend to even out pretty quickly.
It’s when people try to do “Central Planning” that everything gets screwed up. How many more years before all of the well-meaning do-gooder environmentalists realize that all of those CFL lightbulbs are doing more harm than good to the environment because of the amount of mercury that’s going to end up in landfills all across the country? Mercury that WOULDN’T have been there in the first place if not for their pigheaded stubborn “belief” in Manmade Global Warming?
Yes, SOME government is needed – it’s a social compact that we have agreed to; “We will give you some of our money to protect us from those who mean us harm – you help protect my women, my children, and my home so that I am free to go find food and other things to provide for them”. But that’s IT. They don’t get to protect me from myself – that’s MY responsibility.
Some government regulation is necessary, but it has gotten way out of hand, and now there are unelected bureaucracies that are making rules for us that we don’t necessarily want or need, and we have no recourse to take that freedom back. And now with Obamacare, there will be ANOTHER unelected bureaucracy making our HEALTH decisions for us; especially when most of the decisions will be made based on the COST of care, rather than what is best for each individual person. If a decision is made based on cost, by golly I want to be the one to decide HOW that money is going to be spent, not some faceless accountant up in Washington D.C.
If you are open to it I would like to send you some questions and get some type of response from you that I can share with my classes to provide them with a better representation of people’s opinions (that are also well written). Let me know.
Oh my gosh! Seriously – you want my opinion on stuff? I’ll do what I can…..fair warning, though – my kids didn’t think much of what I had to say when they were teenagers; I’ve apparently gotten much smarter as they’ve gotten older 😛 .
I enjoy our discussions, too – you definitely keep me on my toes!
LikeLike
Pingback: Somebody call the Waaaaaah-mbulance…. | Koch's Tour
Pingback: Somebody call the Waaaaaah-mbulance…. | RedState
Late to the game here but I thought it worth mentioning- It’s a novel threat, but roughly 35% of the country- predominately in our reddest states- already beat you to it.
And if you’re as short and fat as you describe, then it’s not much of a threat, as- statistically- you’re *already* a ticking time bomb of health issues, and, by extension, a likely future burden on our healthcare system. Disease doesn’t differentiate between “trying to be fat” and “just plain fat already”. Adult onset diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, cancers- you name it. You’re at a much higher risk for those conditions than the average citizen.
So yeah, I guess paying that possible 1k for birth control sucks, but in return you’re getting a crop of women predominately of child bearing age (read: young) who are, statistically speaking, much less likely to dip into more than their fair share of the collective insurance pool (considering that their birth control, whether directly or indirectly, will be at least offset by their premiums) than you- the self described fat person- are. And they’re volunteering to take an enormous potential expense (child birth) off the table from the get-go.
So yeah, I enjoy the sudden spate of “Now we’re going to get fat- out of spite!” that’s going around. You already are! And you’re already costing the rest of us *hundreds of billions of dollars* per year! And it’s not as if anyone’s ever been thrilled about it. Now you’re faced with a comical fraction of the cost y’all put on the system, and you’re up in arms about it?
Cute.
LikeLike
Darlin’, I wasn’t born fat – I only weighed 100 lbs when I graduated from high school.
No, the obesity is the direct result of an auto-immune disorder that wasn’t discovered until a few years ago.
You see, obesity isn’t a disease – it is the SYMPTOM of a defective/suppressed immune system.
Think I’m lying?
Ask anyone who has had to be on high doses of steroids if they were able to keep from getting fat – their answer will be an unequivocal “No”.
If a person’s immune system is firing on all cylinders, they don’t get fat – it’s as simple as that.
Once I figured out that I had a long-term food allergy/intolerance and removed 2 items from my diet, I was no longer hungry and I started to lose weight with no effort – and no other dietary changes – whatsoever. And that was with no exercise (my muscles got much stronger as a result of that change as well).
Unfortunately, once my immune system started working again, it exacerbated ANOTHER auto-immune disorder which can only be treated with steroids.
So I’m back where I started.
Incidentally, not every fat person has heart disease, diabetes, cancer, or arthritis.
My arthritis went away when I quit eating the foods that I was allergic to (within a week).
My coronary arteries are clean as a whistle – and I have the arteriogram to prove it.
It takes YEARS for plaque to build up in a person’s arteries – amazingly enough, I’ve been “fat” for over 30 years, and mine STILL don’t have a trace of plaque in them – I wonder why that is? Could it be that all of that food that is “bad” for you is actually “good” for you instead? (The answer to that question is an unequivocal “yes”, BTW – but all of the “experts” aren’t willing to look at the research that definitively backs that up)
There is NO history of diabetes on either side of my family, and I was never in danger of developing it – until I started taking steroids, and within 2 MONTHS of being on them, my blood sugar numbers started creeping above 100. (Diabetes is an auto-immune disease, BTW)
There is no history of cancer in my family – on either side, for as far back as I can remember.
My husband is not overweight, and he DOES have “iffy” numbers (and a family history of diabetes).
He also – despite eating “healthy” and exercising – has a definite blockage in one of his arteries.
He has a family history of cancer.
So please do enlighten me – how does my being overweight cost you any more than my normal-sized husband (with an extensive history of genetic illnesses) does?
LikeLike
So yeah, I guess paying that possible 1k for birth control sucks, but in return you’re getting a crop of women predominately of child bearing age (read: young) who are, statistically speaking, much less likely to dip into more than their fair share of the collective insurance pool (considering that their birth control, whether directly or indirectly, will be at least offset by their premiums) than you- the self described fat person- are. And they’re volunteering to take an enormous potential expense (child birth) off the table from the get-go.
And by being on birth control now, are you telling me that they aren’t EVER going to grow old, get pregnant, or go through childbirth? Do birth control pills have some magic ingredient that keeps these women eternally youthful and healthy?
Or are they going to one day decide that they WANT to have children and discover that their most fertile years are behind them and then turn around and expect us to pay for their fertility treatments – and the accompanying HIGH-RISK pregnancy – a few years down the road?
And children of these older women are much more likely to need more neonatal care – the birth defect rate for children born to older mothers is much higher, and the chance of mom needing a Caesarean section is GREATLY increased. (If they decide they don’t want a defective baby, am I going to be expected to pay for their abortion as well?)
I think it’s gonna cost me more than $1000 to pay for all of that……
LikeLike
And you’re already costing the rest of us *hundreds of billions of dollars* per year!
That’s funny – I don’t recall you writing any checks to my insurance company or picking up the tab for any of my medical treatments. I’ve done that all by myself, and never expected anyone else to pay for it.
How much do you think I “cost” the system, anyway?
I don’t – and never have – drink.
I don’t – and never have – smoke.
I don’t – and never have – use illegal drugs.
I don’t – and never have – engage in risky physical behavior.
I don’t – and never have – sleep around. My husband and I both have only ever had one partner.
I pay for my own medications, and I pay for my annual check-ups and those of my family.
I’ve carried insurance since I left home over 30 years ago.
We pay our premiums, and we pay for anything that our insurance doesn’t cover.
We paid for our own birth control when we wanted it.
So don’t get up on your high horse about how I am costing you “billions of dollars” – I’m not.
It’s funny how you don’t have a problem paying for someone to have consequence-free sex, but you DO have a problem with anyone who wants to enjoy consequence-free anything else.
LikeLike