Rush Limbaugh And Sandra Fluke

[shattered dreams]

If a man gets AIDS from promiscuous sex should his company's healthcare not have to cover the treatment?

Do you really not know the difference between the government passing a law about something and the government paying for something?

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

What we REALLY gathered out of this:
Women who use Birth Control to have promiscuous unprotected sex are ****es. Since, well, the definition of a ****e is just that.

No, a ****e is someone who gets paid to have sex or accepts money for the act. A **** is someone with multiple sexual partners. If you're assuming every women that takes birth control is some **** that doesn't make you a chauvinist it makes you a misogynist.

Never once did I say that. I have stated every time that the PRIMARY reason for people taking it is that.

People Take Birth Control pills because their side effects help.

People take Viagra to have sex, pregnancy is a side effect of sex as it isn't 100% guaranteed.

Again, putting words in my mouth.

1. I never once said that the government SHOULD pay for Viagra.
2. Even then, Viagra has the primary function of allowing reproduction. Birth Control has the exact opposite function.

No, Viagra's primary function is get you hard for sex so you can enjoy it.

Shocking fact, you don't need to be hard to ejaculate.

When someone has a problem, we should give them a medication for said problem. We shouldn't give them a different product that happens to have a side effect.

And you want a very easy solution to this: here you go.
Women with painful periods want something to help them? Give them hormones that will lighten periods. Give them a 30 day prescription for the pill, with 5 pills (or whatever would be enough to curb the period, but not let them have unprotected promiscuous sex without reprocussions), which the government pays for. The result is less-painful periods, and you aren't paying for promiscuity.

I was nodding till you got to the reasons for your solution. Again, presuming every women that doesn't want a baby is some **** taking five men at a time.

KB doesn't know what he's talking about, nor does he know me.

Oh, and chauvinist=flaming. Flaming isn't allowed in the GSD. Hence, you should infract yourself. Lord knows it won't happen though.

I agree, I think KB has earned himself a week long ban.

Let me explain to you KBs stance, using a different drug.
KB thinks the government should pay for everyone to use Marijuana. He doesn't care that the vast majority of users use it for recreational use. There are some people who use it for medicinal purposes, so taxpayers should pay for everyone to use it.

Game.
Set.
Match

/thread

Is this your argument for Viagra?

 

[shattered dreams]

When someone has a problem, we should give them a medication for said problem. We shouldn't give them a different product that happens to have a side effect.

The medication is for the problem you dumbass. It just happens to have a side effect that you likely won't get pregnant from sex.

And you want a very easy solution to this: here you go.
Women with painful periods want something to help them? Give them hormones that will lighten periods. Give them a 30 day prescription for the pill, with 5 pills (or whatever would be enough to curb the period, but not let them have unprotected promiscuous sex without reprocussions), which the government pays for. The result is less-painful periods, and you aren't paying for promiscuity.

But you are likely paying even more to fix the problem. You aren't a doctor and doctors don't prescribe things with an unintended side effect to treat a problem. I think you have shown how smart you are by saying here that you think it is possible for a pill to stop a period but not make someone be able to avoid pregnancy. For women that take the pill for that reason it isn't one time thing, it is an every month thing. If period suppression is necessary then it would seem obvious to me that the most efficient way to do that both economically and practically would be to use a preexisting product that is already mass produced and designed specifically for that purpose. If you are trying to keep women from having sex I think you would be more successful bringing back prohibition. If I was a business I would much rather pay for birth control than the pregnancies it prevents.

 

[Stormtrooper]

No, a ****e is someone who gets paid to have sex or accepts money for the act. A **** is someone with multiple sexual partners. If you're assuming every women that takes birth control is some **** that doesn't make you a chauvinist it makes you a misogynist.

Definition of ****e:
1: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

2: a male who engages in sexual acts for money

3: a venal or unscrupulous person




Sadly, you are wrong.

And I'm assuming that everyone who takes birth control so that they can have unprotected sex without risking pregnancy is a ****e. But that's not really an assumption at all, is it?

People take Viagra to have sex, pregnancy is a side effect of sex as it isn't 100% guaranteed.

No, Viagra's primary function is get you hard for sex so you can enjoy it.

No, pregnancy is what you try to get out of having sex.

And the primary fuction of Viagra is not to enjoy sex, it's to be able to reproduce.

Shocking fact, you don't need to be hard to ejaculate.

But getting hard makes getting pregnant doable.

I was nodding till you got to the reasons for your solution. Again, presuming every women that doesn't want a baby is some **** taking five men at a time.

I never said they are a **** taking 5 men at a time. I was saying we shouldn't be helping the people who are engaging in promiscuous unprotected sex. Which is why I offered a very fair solution to appease both parties.

I agree, I think KB has earned himself a week long ban.

I do not. I do think that flaming deserves an infraction, though. I highly doubt he has enough infractions to get a ban. And I hope that wouldn't be the case. I enjoy KB non-political posts.

Is this your argument for Viagra?

What argument for Viagra? Never once have I argued FOR Viagra. I have stated why it's been subsidized by the government, but never have I said that it should be.

And no, because the main difference is that the primary use of Viagra is to correct a medical condition. Marijuana and Birth Control have primary uses that have nothing to do with medicine, and everything to do with recreation.

The medication is for the problem you dumbass. It just happens to have a side effect that you likely won't get pregnant from sex.

No, this is what you don't get.
BIRTH CONTROL isn't designed to fix a medical problem. It's designed to CONTROL BIRTH, ie: prevent from getting pregnant.

But you are likely paying even more to fix the problem. You aren't a doctor and doctor's don't prescribe things with an unintended side effect to treat a problem. I think you have shown how smart you are by saying here that you think it is possible for a pill to stop a period but not make someone be able to avoid pregnancy. For women that take the pill for that reason it isn't one time thing, it is an every month thing. If period suppression is necessary then it would seem obvious to me that the most efficient way to do that both economically and practically would be to use a preexisting product that is already mass produced and designed specifically for that purpose. If you are trying to keep women from having sex I think you would be more successful bringing back prohibition. If I was a business I would much rather pay for birth control than the pregnancies it prevents.

Question:
How fucking hard is it to put a weeks worth of pills already being made in a fucking bottle, and only allow people to get said pills once every month?

Answer:
Easy as fucking hell. A monkey can do it.

That was my solution to the problem. Don't tell someone that needs a weeks worth of pills to get a months supply. Tell them to get a weeks supply. The government pays for the weeks supply. If you want it for everyday use, you clearly want it for the unprotected sex reason. Thus, you have to pay for it yourself.






What people don't understand is that my whole argument is based off of MARKETING and PACKAGING, and that's all I have ever argued. package a weeks worth of the same product in a bottle, allow for it to only be purchased once a month, and market it as a period lightener, not a baby preventer. Right now it's marketed as a baby preventer, and is available only as an every day product.

 

[shattered dreams]

No, this is what you don't get.
BIRTH CONTROL isn't designed to fix a medical problem. It's designed to CONTROL BIRTH, ie: prevent from getting pregnant.

It controls birth through the way it effects the female body. The way it effects their body has other uses beyond just preventing pregnancy. This is what you don't get. It is fairly common for medicines to have more than one use.

Question:
How fucking hard is it to put a weeks worth of pills already being made in a fucking bottle, and only allow people to get said pills once every month?

Question: Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

That was my solution to the problem. Don't tell someone that needs a weeks worth of pills to get a months supply. Tell them to get a weeks supply. The government pays for the weeks supply. If you want it for everyday use, you clearly want it for the unprotected sex reason. Thus, you have to pay for it yourself.

Answer: Not in the least.

I think most people aren't even on a pill anymore and I highly doubt it will produce the needed biological results by just taking for a few days. They have stuff now that can eliminate period altogether for months at a time. If birth control isn't a medical service then why do you have to go to a doctor to get it?

If we aren't going to stop paying for heart medicine for obese people that stuff their faces promiscuously or charge cigarette smokers extra for deepthroating constantly then I am not sure why we are condemning women for attempting to satisfy normal hormonal desires responsibly.

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

Definition of ****e:
1: a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

2: a male who engages in sexual acts for money

3: a venal or unscrupulous person




Sadly, you are wrong.

And I'm assuming that everyone who takes birth control so that they can have unprotected sex without risking pregnancy is a ****e. But that's not really an assumption at all, is it?

...Yes, yes it is. You're assuming that everyone who takes birth control so that they can have unprotected sex without risking pregnancy is a ****e.
First off, you've assumed all birth controls takers that don't want to have kids are ****es but, If you're on birth control you are protected from pregnancy. If I know my partner is clean, she doesn't want kids, and is on birth control, I'm not going to wear a condom. I suppose that makes her a ****e under your definition of ****e. Your generalized statement is my issue here.

If what you meant to say was that every promiscuous women shouldn't have free birth control that's something else. What you said and have been saying is all women that want birth control and have sex without condoms are ****es.

No, pregnancy is what you try to get out of having sex.

And the primary fuction of Viagra is not to enjoy sex, it's to be able to reproduce.

No, it's 2012, the primary function of sex is stimulation.

Also wrong, as I've said, Viagra only makes you erect, it does not increase your chance of impregnating someone.

But getting hard makes getting pregnant doable.

Also doable without being hard. And erection is increases sensitivity which increases stimulation.

I never said they are a **** taking 5 men at a time. I was saying we shouldn't be helping the people who are engaging in promiscuous unprotected sex. Which is why I offered a very fair solution to appease both parties.

But you generalized those promiscuous people as everyone who is on birth control but doesn't use protection.

I do not. I do think that flaming deserves an infraction, though. I highly doubt he has enough infractions to get a ban. And I hope that wouldn't be the case. I enjoy KB non-political posts.

I was joking... Aslo, KB hates ellipsis..............

What argument for Viagra? Never once have I argued FOR Viagra. I have stated why it's been subsidized by the government, but never have I said that it should be.

And then you wrote this.

And no, because the main difference is that the primary use of Viagra is to correct a medical condition. Marijuana and Birth Control have primary uses that have nothing to do with medicine, and everything to do with recreation.

Expcet I've made the argument Viagra is intended for recreational use. Men don't need to have sex, they want to.

No, this is what you don't get.
BIRTH CONTROL isn't designed to fix a medical problem. It's designed to CONTROL BIRTH, ie: prevent from getting pregnant.

One might even call it protection from pregnancy no .

If birth control isn't a medical service then why do you have to go to a doctor to get it?

I want an answer to this too.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Stormy's all "USE A CONDOM"!

Condoms aren't reliable, silly. Again, one of the many things you'd know if you knew what you were talking about.

 

[Davi323]

Stormy's all "USE A CONDOM"!

Condoms aren't reliable, silly. Again, one of the many things you'd know if you knew what you were talking about.

The pill only has a 92-95% effectiveness rate, and that assumes that it's taken daily, at the same time every day, without missing a single day. You miss a day, the effectiveness drops significantly. Think about what that means...If you have sex with your partner 100 times while on the pill, statistically, you will get pregnant. That's only having sex with your partner twice a week for one year, and the odds are that you will still get pregnant.

 

[Shocky]

Stupid GOP and their stupid social issues. This is why they have no shot in hell at winning the election this year. I'm not a fan of the Democrats, but I'm pretty much to the point I won't support a GOP candidate that puts social issues ahead of the economy.

And no, this isn't a "poor insurance company has to pay for birth control" issue, this is a GOP doesn't like abortion issue.

 

[SalvIsWin]

The pill only has a 92-95% effectiveness rate, and that assumes that it's taken daily, at the same time every day, without missing a single day. You miss a day, the effectiveness drops significantly. Think about what that means...If you have sex with your partner 100 times while on the pill, statistically, you will get pregnant. That's only having sex with your partner twice a week for one year, and the odds are that you will still get pregnant.

Not true.

There's two rates: perfect use and typical use. Perfect use statistics will tell you the effective rate of the pill assuming consistent and correct usage. Typical use will tell you the effective rate of the pill assuming the latter AND the people who don't use it consistently, or don't use it correctly.

For perfect use, the rate of pregnancy is 0.3%. The typical use rate of pregnancy is a lot higher, between 2-8%.

Basically, if you sampled everyone in America who took the pill and did it the right way, they get pregnant 0.3% of the time. If you sampled everyone in America who took the pill, regardless of if they use it like they're supposed to, then the rate is still 90%+, but more like 92%-98% instead of 99.7%.

Similarly, for condoms, the perfect use rate is 2% , while the typical rate is more like 10% - 20%.

 

[Ty Burna]

Uh first of all my step daughter is on birth control. She's still a virgin (any of you motherfuckers get any sick ideas in your head, leave. Now. Immediately.) and she's been on birth control for over a year now.

Do you know what she was like when she was on her period before getting on the pill? A raging bitch to say the least. And that's not mincing words.

She gets put on birth control, she's relatively her usual self. That in itself is a blessing.

Now let's go further. Let's say she decides to have sex one day. Let's say she's not on birth control. Let's say the condom breaks. No secondary defense and now I'm a soon to be step grandfather. All it takes is one time, even if you're wearing a condom. Even if the woman is on birth control and the man is wearing a condom, it can happen. The point is would you like to have a 50% effectiveness rate or a 95% effectiveness rate? I'll throw my lot in the 95%.

So just because my stepdaughter is on birth control suddenly makes her a ****e? Fuck you if you think that way. She's on the pill because it helps regulate her hormones which means she doesn't bite my fucking head off over every little thing, and as a precautionary measure in case she does decide to become active sexually.

Sorry, it's 20 motherfucking 12. Get with the times. We ain't in the fucking 50's anymore. Women have every right to be sexual if they choose to be. If my stepdaughter decides to have sex, well what's really stopping her from doing so? I'm not going to be a fucking hypocrite because I was doing the same shit back then. That said I will sit down and discuss with her on how to be safe and that she does take her birth controls on time. If she does become sexually active that does not make her a ****e, that makes her a human being with the same god damn urges that we all got.

And this all of course will pertain to my 2 year old when she gets up there in age. You motherfuckers who want to say women are ****es, look in the fucking mirror. How many times have you looked at a woman and said something like "Damn look how hot she is or, holy fuck is she fine" (guilty as charged on my own, truuuuuust me). I'm not saying we need to go full blown feminist movement with this shit, I'm just saying maybe you should take a step back and shut the fuck up about women's bodies and what they can or cannot take. They aren't yours, you need to let them be in the fucking discussion about their own bodies. Taking a pill to prevent pregnancy is the same thing as guys carrying a condom in our pocket. It doesn't mean we're going to go fuck everything with two legs, it means that if the situation arises, we are prepared for said situation to prevent something from happening. Sex is about stimulation 99% of the time nowadays. For fuck sake in the marriage retreat shit I had to do, in a Catholic church mind you, they taught us family planning SO YOU COULD PLAN ON WHEN TO HAVE SEX MERELY FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF IT SO YOU WOULDN'T GET PREGNANT.

Yes. That's right. Even fucking hardcore born again Catholics are teaching how to get it on safely. Problem is, I ain't trusting my mind to keep control of my dick so contraceptives it is. I realize of course they aimed that family planning for married couples blah blah blah. Same concept could be used in a committed non married relationship however, the fact remains that they're teaching how to have sex without having to worry about the reproductive part of it.

So please, quit acting like every woman that's on birth control is a ****e. Next time you go buy a box of condoms, let me know so I can call you a ****e in return as well. Because clearly buying condoms gives you the same go ahead pass that birth control give women according to that theory.

 

[Miko]

lol there are men out there that are against insurance companies or whatever they are paying for something that makes women more bearable while on their periods? Fucking fools, fools I say.

I'd rather pay for contraception than the benefits of the jobless couple with 16 kids.

 

[The Talon]

Dude, it's Rush Limbaugh. Shit like this comes out his mouth like every week. Doesn't surprise me a bit.

 

[Miko]

Sadly, you are wrong.

And I'm assuming that everyone who takes birth control so that they can have unprotected sex without risking pregnancy is a ****e. But that's not really an assumption at all, is it?

You ever been in a relationship? Sometimes two people like to fuck regularly without the risk of pregnancy or hassle of a johnny.

 

[DirtyJosé]

It's Stormy. He's clearly holding a grudge against women having sex because it's never with him.

 

[Slyfox696]

Pregnancy is not a medical condition, is a natural function of all beings that reproduce sexually. Pregnancy is built in to our design as human beings. Calling it a medical condition implies that there is something inherently wrong with it, that it is not perfectly natural, when it clearly is "normal".

I wouldn't say calling it a medical condition implies there is something inherently wrong with it, it simply means it is a condition in which medical assistance is important.

I mean, by your same argument, I would say cancer is not a medical condition. After all, it's a naturally occurrence in a person's body, happens to millions of people, and is simply a part of life. Are you prepared to say cancer is not a medical condition? Of course it is. Just like a pregnancy.

 

[Miko]

It's Stormy. He's clearly holding a grudge against women having sex because it's never with him.

It must be difficult though, having grown up in a very male dominated society, I mean, I've never seen any female Stormtroopers anyway. I am sorry, sorry, Star Wars jokes are not my strong point. I am so sorry.

And, lets get to the root of the matter here: She isn't talking about any of those other grandiose sounding reasons, she is a college student, and was referring to the "right" of other college students to engage in promiscuous sex, because that's what college students do. She wants the government to pay for birth control pills for college students, so they can fuck. Not because of poverty, not because birth control pills have these other beneficial uses, but so that college students can fuck consequence free, so they can continue to be irresponsible college students doing irresponsible college student things. Let's not paint her as some groundbreaking feminist icon. Why the hell should I help pay for that? Should we also pay for their beer, while we are at it? Their pot?

The way Colleges are going this is at least one very good reason to keep them around surely.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

The arguments against this is making my head hurt.

 

[Miko]

I agree with whats-his-names idea of having these women filming their sexual encounters and putting them online, not because I think they're ****es but because theres no such thing as too much porn.

 

[DirtyJosé]

OMG COLLEGE GIRLS ONLY WANT TO HAVE SEX!

Jeez, guys. Could you broadcast your jealousy and loneliness any louder? That she's a college student really has nothing to do with this beyond that she's at least a little more likely to know what she's talking about. Not a guarantee, though.

Anywho, the whole point is that as this very thread shows there are ignorant men out there willing to let their narrow opinions be the law of the land simply because they don't understand women, women's health, and women's rights. That is the really shitty part of this; laws like this are going to end up in the laps of men who don't know what they're talking about. And people like Stormy and Davi are the ones telling them it's ok to be ignorant.

 

[The Talon]

^Couldn't agree more.

 

[LSN80]

Fluke's response:

I felt probably the way many women do when they are called those types of names," Sandra Fluke told CNN. "Initially hurt and then very quickly upset and outraged because somebody is trying to silence you."

Whether you agree with her or not, that's exactly what the bully mentality that Limbaugh and those like him are attempting to do. "If we can't be logical, they think, let's run her down as much as possible so she looks uncredible."

The law student told CNN she thinks Limbaugh was "confused" about her testimony.

"For starters, I didn't say that I should be paid for anything. What we were talking about is private insurance covering a medical need. It has nothing to do with the government paying for anything or taxpayers or anything like that," she said.

This has nothing to do with her wating to be paid to have sex, which, if he has any, further destroys Limbaugh's credibility. This has been a huge deal since Obama and Boehner butted heads over this two weeks ago. Ty talked about his stepdaughter, and my wife needs to take it during her time of the month to prevent excruciating pain in a certain place. Should she be denied that because that's not the primary purpose of birth control?

Id knock off a pharmacy if it came down to it and the medication wasn't provided for her and we couldn't afford it. That's how badly she needs it. It really pisses me off that people would think this shouldn't be covered for any reason, from personal experiences more then one.

Fluke said legislation needs to be realistic.

"We're talking about national legislation. Legislation has to reflect reality, not ideology and I don't think that we can actually expect that American women are going to stop engaging in healthy sexual behaviors," Fluke said.

Personal opinion aside, Fluke is right again. Sex is a natural thing between a men and a woman. Ill let you decide when its appropriate, but if someone desires to engage in healthy sexual behavior, is there a better way?

It's a healthcare need. I realize religious institutions oppose providing healthcare for birth control on moral grounds(Like Fluke's school), but if they're receiving tax breaks or exemptions, than they should have to provide the same coverage that a non-religious one does.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...limbaugh-comment-im-not-going-to-be-silenced/

This "****", this "prostitute", she spoke with a lot more class and dignity then Rush Limbaugh did, eh?

 

[Davi323]

OMG COLLEGE GIRLS ONLY WANT TO HAVE SEX!

Jeez, guys. Could you broadcast your jealousy and loneliness any louder? That she's a college student really has nothing to do with this beyond that she's at least a little more likely to know what she's talking about. Not a guarantee, though.

Anywho, the whole point is that as this very thread shows there are ignorant men out there willing to let their narrow opinions be the law of the land simply because they don't understand women, women's health, and women's rights. That is the really shitty part of this; laws like this are going to end up in the laps of men who don't know what they're talking about. And people like Stormy and Davi are the ones telling them it's ok to be ignorant.

No, just saying she can pay for it. Nobody is saying she can't use the damn pills, the only dispute here is who should be the one paying for it. And don't use Viagra as a counter, both Stormy and I have already stated that it shouldn't be covered either. It's amazing to me how you want the government to stay out of people's bedrooms, yet expect them to subsidize the very activities you claim they need to stay out of...

 

[Slyfox696]

It's amazing to me how you want the government to stay out of people's bedrooms, yet expect them to subsidize the very activities you claim they need to stay out of...

Would it help if I told you the government is not subsidizing sex, but rather population control? After all, the global population is racing towards 7 billion people, which is scary considering only 50 years ago, we were at less than 4 billion people. This planet cannot handle billions of more people.

So don't look at it as subsidizing sex, but rather subsidizing population control, something a government should have an interest in.

 

[DirtyJosé]

Nah, that's too much logic for these kind of people.