It is reported some of the agents made a stop to the store for "condoms" after they had selected their Colombiana partner for the night. Which begs the question and maybe Ms. Sandra Fluke of Georgetown Law School can weigh in.
If any of these men kept a receipt for the purchase of such "ahem!", items, should they not be able to then submit them in their expense report and demand reimbursement by the US government or the insurance agenc they are covered by as US employees?
After all, the items were needed for not only their peace of mind but protection, just the same as the federally funded insurance covered condoms insisted by Ms. Fluke when she spoke as a member of a traditional, moral academic organization.
Now if she says yes, would not that be something? But if she says no, then she is a hypocrite. Is she not a sexist (and also discriminating based on "sexual orientation", also against the Georgetown ethos, because the agents reportedly had a sexual orientation propensity, at least at that time, to have sexual relations as part of a business deal rather than anything romantic)? She is saying she can have such items funded because she is female (even if such items go against the moral foundation of the institution), but the others cannot have them funded because they are male? I don't get it. Which way is it, Miss FLUKE!!?? Shouldn't these men turn the receipts for contraceptives in to the US Government for reimbursement, if they wished to?
So, slut was the right word after all.
Secretary of State “Tools of the Trade”!
Why do we hold the security detail to higher standards than those displayed by a former client (William Jefferson Clinton)?
Don’t look for Sandra Fluke to weigh in on the Secret Service controversy. She is too busy dumpster diving for trojans between classes right now.Poor thing.
I agree with your message, but you might want to clean it up before offering it up as some type of "viral" message!
Nah. That would be “men’s rights.” Can’t be havin’ any of that around Sandra.
The Al Gore-m Doctrine?
"There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."