Rush Limabaugh vs. Sandra Fluke

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Nobody even mentioned Rush in this thread for over 24 hours until just now.

[^_^ 5,021]

reading? pshhhhhhhh!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

reading? pshhhhhhhh!

Reading's for girls and metrosexuals.

[The_Dude 1,142]

That's your fallacy, there have been multiple comments since you first created the "you seem" straw man! You're kicking a dead horse with your "seem to suggest."

Ex-boyfriend took you out for dinner and paid = he needs to be seated in the front of the next Leykis 101 class.

What strawman? You are the one who introduced 'Leykis' into this and suggested that a man who pays for a lunch out with an ex, who happens to be a close friend should take Leykis' advice. The logical disconnect here seems to be your unfamiliarity with Tom Leykis, who advocates that men who pay for women in general are idiots. Sorry, it appears some people are just far more comfortable with their roles and finances than others. Maybe you should listen to Leykis a bit more before you invoke his dogma.

Edited March 8, 2012 by The_Dude

[Danno 1,228]

Who is 'Leykis' ?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He's a lady's man and an expert on getting women to jump in the sack.

[MyLittlePony 340]

Rush Limbaugh is to classiness what Rosie O'Donnell is a pig they are both fat pigs.

[Leatherneck 693]

What strawman? You are the one who introduced 'Leykis' into this and suggested that a man who pays for a lunch out with an ex, who happens to be a close friend should take Leykis' advice. The logical disconnect here seems to be your unfamiliarity with Tom Leykis, who advocates that men who pay for women in general are idiots. Sorry, it appears some people are just far more comfortable with their roles and finances than others. Maybe you should listen to Leykis a bit more before you invoke his dogma.

There was no mention of "close friends" or friendship period in the comment I posted a response to. After the post stating the relationship was 'friendly' in nature -- Tom Leykis was a dead issue, as far as I was concerned. If you decided to ignore, didn't read or didn't comprehend any of the subsequent comments, that's the real "logical disconnect." However, I've posted the comments in that exchange in their entirety, unlike you, posting quotes that tell part of the story. Of course only those posts that appear to support your out of context rant.

I was working. Then my ex-boyfriend took me out to dinner where we discussed professional and spousal privilege in a legal context. He paid. There was no sex of any sort, consensual or otherwise.

Glad you're interested in the minutiae of my life.

I see no "close friends" or friends of any type mentioned in that post.

Ex-boyfriend took you out for dinner and paid = he needs to be seated in the front of the next Leykis 101 class.

My reply, considering there was no mention of friends or friendship.

Friends can't buy each other dinner?

Glad I'm not friends with a cheapskate who would insist everything was right down the middle all the time.

Her next response to my post.

Sure friends can buy each other dinner, sometimes.

My last reply in that particular exchange related to paying for meals, yet even after that post you continued to 'kick a dead horse.' After reading that exchange, a logical and rational person would've dropped their rant. However, there are always exceptions. Since it never registered, I was in agreement.

There was more after we had an agreement and moved on;

i sense agreement.

and this,

Yes, "sometimes" being the key word.

Yet after all of those comments, there for the world to read, you continue taking my original comment and reference to Tom Leykis out of context.