Big Nick Dudley
Nick
Rush Limbaugh is a scumbag pile of shit.
That's a fact.
That's a fact.
Rush Limbaugh And Sandra Fluke
- Thread starter klunderbunker
- Start date
Kind of amusing for Limbaugh to be upset with other people who want to take pills. Perhaps he's jealous women might be able to get their pills legally.
Because government sponsored "population" control is such a big hit over there in China...
But here is something for you to think about...if the government is paying for birth control, they will eventually claim that since they are paying for it, they can regulate it and control it. If population control is the true goal here (it's not, we both know it's not, but just for the sake of humoring your claim) then shouldn't they also be mandating a limit on the number of children you can have? And once you have reached that limit, they should force fathers to get vasectomies and mothers to get tubal ligation. Or, just forcing women to get abortions like China does, whether they want one or not. Would you still claim that it's just population control, or would that be a HUGE invasion of privacy?
If sex is supposed to a private act, then it should be up to the individuals involved to keep it as private as possible by paying for their own contraception. As soon as you invite the goverment in, you are just asking for the government to interject it's will into your sex life.
I would also like to know why only the pill? Why aren't condoms also being provided for free? Isn't that also population control? Considering that condoms also protect you from STDs, unlike the pill, I would think that those would be covered as a disease control method. Yet, nobody has argued that they should. Wonder why not? Why should pills be taxpayer funded, but not condoms?
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
The costs of providing some cheap pills are far less than the costs of providing surgery and abortions. If you can't see the line your logic is crossing here, you must be blind.
But as noted elsewhere, Birth Control pills also offer many non-sex related benefits necessary for women's health.
Because any idiot can score free condoms. Planned Parenthood gives them away. Schools give them away. Businesses even give them away. That's why condoms aren't being brought up. C'mon mang; when you realize that the only other person on your side is fucking Stormy, it should be some sort of wake up call.
If the cost of the pills are so cheap, then why can't people buy them on their own? Why do they need the government to pay for them? Not to mention that if population control is the real goal, just giving someone the pill doesn't guarantee they take them. Vasectomies and tubal ligations are far more permanent, and reliable, and don't require people to have to actively have to think about it.
This manufactured outrage is actually quite amusing...you guy are all pretending like if the government doesn't provide the birth control pill, that nobody is going to have them...as if people haven't been on the pill for the last 40 years already. It's not exactly as if they are hard to get. But, in your minds, if the government isn't providing it, it simply cannot be gotten. Laughable. That there is going to be some massive baby epidemic if they don't force every insurance company to provide it...even though it hasn't happened despite the government not demanding it.
You want birth control? Fine. Fantastic. It's already available to you through many fine insurance plans. Find one that covers it already. The government is not your momma, you are not some helpless baby sucking on it's tit. It's not their job to provide you with everything.
This manufactured outrage is actually quite amusing...you guy are all pretending like if the government doesn't provide the birth control pill, that nobody is going to have them...as if people haven't been on the pill for the last 40 years already. It's not exactly as if they are hard to get. But, in your minds, if the government isn't providing it, it simply cannot be gotten. Laughable. That there is going to be some massive baby epidemic if they don't force every insurance company to provide it...even though it hasn't happened despite the government not demanding it.
You want birth control? Fine. Fantastic. It's already available to you through many fine insurance plans. Find one that covers it already. The government is not your momma, you are not some helpless baby sucking on it's tit. It's not their job to provide you with everything.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
And those women aren't paying for the sex they're having.
Yes because providing financial insurance for pregnancy prevention is the same thing as selective sex abortions, infanticide, and laws requiring no more than one child.
C'mon, Davi, you're better than this. Surely I don't have to explain the difference to you, do I? You know, the whole "choice" thing?
Wow...
You're completely missing the obvious difference. We're not saying women HAVE to take birth control. We're saying if women WANT birth control, it should be insured. If I'm on welfare in Florida, and I don't want to take drug tests, then I go off welfare. I don't HAVE to take the test, because I don't HAVE to be on welfare. I don't HAVE to take birth control.
Your argument is completely without logic.
Wait, who said sex is supposed to be a private act? Doesn't the multi-billion dollar porn industry pretty much defeat this claim?
Yes, because the government NEVER interferes in the sex lives of its citizens now.
C'mon Davi, what are you really trying to argue here? That the government requiring insurance companies to insure birth control pills is going to make our government install cameras in everyone's bedrooms to make sure they are doing sex the right way? That's just silly. You're blowing this WAAAY out of proportion.
Uhh, they have been for a while.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2819696.html
That article was written back in 1996.
Because they already have been for 20 years?
What are you talking about? The government ISN'T paying for them. The government is saying businesses must cover the cost in the insurance policies.
Didn't we have this debate a few weeks ago? You should know the government is not the one paying for it.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
The entire point of this thread is that the GOP is trying to say there should be no insurance plans that cover it. Fluke stated she was talking about private insurance covering a medical service. When you get your facts straight then maybe you will realize how wrong you are.
If you have to go to the doctor for it then health insurance is involved. Almost everyone is dependent on their employer for health insurance. While I doubt any of us agree with everything that an insurance provider pays for I'd prefer to stay out of that pandora's box of exceptions and just let the insurance company function as it is designed. If that means the business has to cover parts of how I choose to use my plan then that is a benefit they owe me.
I keep seeing people say but this is what people really are using it for. I doubt your crazy conceptions are right even if you are correct about the purpose. However, if we are calling a spade a spade then why are we pretending this isn't a religiously motivated issue? The issue being raised here isn't the cost of providing healthcare for a business, it is that they shouldn't have to provide this one specific thing. The reason the former isn't the issue is because there are a ton of things that are involved in health insurance that person A wouldn't want to pay for person B to do. This is just about the entirely antiquated/moronic anti-birth control crowd. If it is even remotely religiously motivated then the government should not be legislating it.
Uh, no they aren't saying that. At all. If an insurance company CHOOSES to include birth control pills, that's fine. The issue is whether the government can FORCE insurance providers to carry it against their will.
Frankly, I am appalled at the level of deception the left has to stoop to in order to manufacture all of this outrage. Catholics object to being forced to provide a service they believe is a sin? They are the devil incarnate. Conservatives don't think the government can force them to provide it because of the US Contitution? Well they must be entirely misogynistic, who just want women to be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen making sandwiches. The fact they they are only opposed to insurance companies being forced to provide it against their will, and have said nothing about if they voluntarily choose to provide it never gets mentioned by the left. You have grossly misrepresented the right's position this entire argument in order to try to make them look like unconscionable bastards. If you bothered to tell the truth about it, your scare tactics and hyperbole would lose all of their potency.
You all know damn well the issue isn't as you have represented it. The 1st Amendment guarantees religions the freedom to practice their religion without intrusion from the government, and you know damn well that if it came down to the Supreme Court as to whether the government has the right to force any religious institution to cover birth control, Obama is going to lose big time. The 1st Amendment is not on your side, and you know it. So you make shit up about what the right wants to do to scare people. Even Vice President Biden thinks Obama is wrong on this.
The government cannot force private religious institutions to carry birth control in their insurance plans if they have a religious based objection to it. I can't wait for this to get to the Supreme Court, Obama is going to look like the total fool he is. 1st Amendment wins. If you are so sure that the law is on your side, I say bring it on. Of course, since this is all tied into Obamacare anyway, as soon as that gets overturned this summer as Unconstitutional, it's really a moot point.
Frankly, I am appalled at the level of deception the left has to stoop to in order to manufacture all of this outrage. Catholics object to being forced to provide a service they believe is a sin? They are the devil incarnate. Conservatives don't think the government can force them to provide it because of the US Contitution? Well they must be entirely misogynistic, who just want women to be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen making sandwiches. The fact they they are only opposed to insurance companies being forced to provide it against their will, and have said nothing about if they voluntarily choose to provide it never gets mentioned by the left. You have grossly misrepresented the right's position this entire argument in order to try to make them look like unconscionable bastards. If you bothered to tell the truth about it, your scare tactics and hyperbole would lose all of their potency.
You all know damn well the issue isn't as you have represented it. The 1st Amendment guarantees religions the freedom to practice their religion without intrusion from the government, and you know damn well that if it came down to the Supreme Court as to whether the government has the right to force any religious institution to cover birth control, Obama is going to lose big time. The 1st Amendment is not on your side, and you know it. So you make shit up about what the right wants to do to scare people. Even Vice President Biden thinks Obama is wrong on this.
The government cannot force private religious institutions to carry birth control in their insurance plans if they have a religious based objection to it. I can't wait for this to get to the Supreme Court, Obama is going to look like the total fool he is. 1st Amendment wins. If you are so sure that the law is on your side, I say bring it on. Of course, since this is all tied into Obamacare anyway, as soon as that gets overturned this summer as Unconstitutional, it's really a moot point.
First off: The one child act hasn't been enforced in years, perhaps decades. That's some shit from old SUPER COMMUNIST NUMBAH ONE China, not the modernize China.
Second of all: Things seem to be going pretty damn well for our brothas from Chinese mothas, now don't they? Probably because they don't have to worry about taking care of 5 billion people.
Again, two points must be made.
One: Slyfox never suggested that the main purpose of paying for birth control was population control; it's just a helpful side effect.
Two: You don't limit birth control, as that would make it ineffective and pointless. A woman has to take every pill at the same time for the entire month, and then take the placebos when she's on her period, and then start all over during her next cycle.
This is some CRAZY conspiracy theory you just cooked up here. You jumped from a government insurance company paying for birth control to some Brave New World shit. I can say that now, because I read the book.
You realize this is insane, right? If the government invited itself into our bedrooms (which would NEVER happen), people would flip their shit. Not to mention I'm pretty sure the super religious nutjobs that are raising a hoot and a holler about this in the first place would be all sorts of disgusted along with the rest of us.
You seem to forget that we live in a Democracy, and if the overwhelming amount of people don't like what the government is doing, then they're ethically, morally, and legally obligated to stop doing it. And if they don't, heads roll.
Condoms aren't provided for free because they're not a medication. Female condoms won't be provided either I'm sure. But hey, Viagra and Cialis and what not will be, so that's a plus, right?
Additionally, women take the pill for lots of other things besides to prevent little spermies from ruining their life for the next 9 months-18 years. They regulate their periods, they lessen the symptoms of PMS, they make their skin clearer, and I'm sure a lot more. It's funny how much their vagina controls their life.
So now it's my turn to rant.
This is the biggest non-issue I've seen in recent memory. This is a clear ploy by the GOP to pull the attention away from a variety of things. For one thing, things are actually going pretty damn well in America right now. Jobs continue to increase as unemployment continues to shrink. We're out of Iraq, and now we're entirely focused on Afghanistan. Iran has become a problem, but so far it's been handled fairly well. We're not out of the woods yet not by any stretch of the imagination but we're well on our way.
So with the Democrats' plan apparently working, they need to distract America from how well things are going. This isn't a new strategy, this has been used the GOP (and probably Democrats too) for ages: they need to find an issue to blow out of proportion and bring to the national spotlight. This is that issue.
Let's remember that the problem here isn't that birth control is being paid for by the government or in some sort of socialist system of health insurance: it's that private companies using private insurance plans shouldn't be forced to pay for birth control because of religious freedom. It's not a monetary thing or a population control thing or even a sex thing; they believe that religious freedom entitles companies to not pay for birth control.
There are two possible LOGICAL explanations for this, but both of them are horribly flawed.
Religious employers shouldn't have to pay for birth control- If the employer of the company has a strong religious belief that birth control is a sin and should be prohibited, they shouldn't have to pay for it.
This is actually a pretty reasonable explanation, but what they fail to realize is that they could probably find an insurance plan that doesn't cover birth control, or work out a deal with their insurance provider where they take out birth control for a slightly discounted cost. No government interference needed!
They should be wary, though, that their female employees might get pretty pissed off about that (and without birth control to alleviate the effects of PMS, that could be dangerous), and they would have to be prepared to deal with that.
Religious employees shouldn't be forced to be part of an insurance plan that includes birth control- Now this one, while somewhat logical, is just stupid. If you think birth control is immoral, then don't use it. It's like the other parts of the insurance plan that you're never going to use, you don't have to use it. And since we're talking about private companies with private insurance, it's not like they're paying into it and supporting someone else's habit. The company is going to pay the insurance rate year after year, with or without you. You take what you need from the insurance, and Jenny two cubicles over will use what she needs.
But here's the part that really pisses me off... this is the GOP sticking their nose in PRIVATE companies with PRIVATE insurance. This is the party of minimal intervention, the party of "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE", the party that is the self-declared protector of the private sector. So how does what my company chooses to include in their insurance plan concern the government at all? Or what my girlfriend chooses to take in terms of birth control? Now if my girlfriend wasn't a blowup doll named Laquanda (they were out of white blow up dolls, but at least she doesn't have pancake titties), I would imagine she would be quite pissed off that the government party that prides itself on keeping their noses out of private business is sticking their nose right into private business.
Though I suppose this wouldn't be the first time the GOP has been wildly hypocritical on where they choose to get involved, and it likely wouldn't be the last. The bottom line is: birth control is not only part of our culture, but it's a phenomenal drug with great benefits that allows people to live their lives how they choose. The GOP's involvement is basically a statement that we are not in control of our own lives, the government is.
I love when Republicans get riled up about defending the 1st Amendment. Mostly because it never seems to happen when the Republicans are in power.
That's because for the most part, Republican Presidents don't pull this kind of shit.
JGlass, option 1 would be perfectly reasonable, and has been what has been in effect this whole time. Obama is trying to remove option 1 completely off of the table by forcing all insurance companies to cover it. There won't be any alternatives left for religious institutions besides compomising their fath or dropping health coverage altogether.
Option 2 assumes that women who work for religious institutions are having birth control stripped from them, when those religious institutions never offered birth control to begin with. If the women that voluntarily choose to work there didn't have a problem with that policy then, why would they suddenly have a problem with it now?
JGlass, option 1 would be perfectly reasonable, and has been what has been in effect this whole time. Obama is trying to remove option 1 completely off of the table by forcing all insurance companies to cover it. There won't be any alternatives left for religious institutions besides compomising their fath or dropping health coverage altogether.
Option 2 assumes that women who work for religious institutions are having birth control stripped from them, when those religious institutions never offered birth control to begin with. If the women that voluntarily choose to work there didn't have a problem with that policy then, why would they suddenly have a problem with it now?
Rick Santorum said:
Mitt Romney said:
Your two leading Republican candidates. But I did say Republican presidents, so how does this one suit you?
Free Speech Zones: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
But hey, why stop there? Let's go back to Eisenhower.
http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/‘under-god’-added-pledge-allegiance
Oh no, Republicans pull this shit too. Of course, their "shit" listed here serves their own personal interests. Obama's serves to benefit millions of women across the country.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
Ah, good old typical GOP selective memory.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
My mistake, I misread one of those opinion pieces as more factual than it was. I guess it just goes back to ridiculous antiquated beliefs instead of total douchebaggery. That still doesn't explain how this equates to the government giving handouts though. I am not buying your 1st amendment defense. The only reason this is an issue in the first place is that the separation wasn't enforced enough so that religious institutions were able to branch into areas that don't have anything to do with religion in the first place. I do agree that in a court this likely would not stand up which is actually a shame more than something to be proud of. This country needs more preventative action when it comes to healthcare, not this reactive only bullshit that costs more. The fact that a policy exists that is specifically designed to exclude birth control for religious reasons in 2012 just reminds me why I tend to hate religion.
Your two leading Republican candidates. But I did say Republican presidents, so how does this one suit you?
Free Speech Zones: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/
But hey, why stop there? Let's go back to Eisenhower.
http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/‘under-god’-added-pledge-allegiance
Oh no, Republicans pull this shit too. Of course, their "shit" listed here serves their own personal interests. Obama's serves to benefit millions of women across the country.
Hmm...free speech zones...Were they prevented from speaking? And you do realize that Obama does the exact same thing, right?
Pledge of allegiance:
You are seriously trying to equate adding the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance with forcing every church run institution to provide birth control despite having perfectly legitimate religious objections to it? Despite the fact that Obama has already granted waivers to the Amish. Why does he exclude the Amish from Obamacare, but not the Catholics? Isn't that a double standard? Why are over half of a million Union workers exempt from it as well? Catholic institutions are required, but a lot of labor unions aren't? WTF? In many states, Pharmacists can refuse to sell it based on conscientious/religious objections, but a Catholic school can't do the same under Obamacare? If you allow one group to be exempt because of a religious objection to it, you have to allow others, it's that simple.
Tell ya what...since In God we Trust is on every dollar bill and coin, why don't you go ahead and send me all of your offensive currency, make sure you never have to look at it. Besides, in the more liberal school districts, you don't even need to say the pledge at all anymore anyway.
Oh, and there is one key little detail that ms. Fluke left out. At a Target near Georgetown, where she attends, you want to know what the price for a monthly supply of birth control is? 9 bucks. That's for those without any insurance at all. 9 dollars. What a terrible financial hardship...I bet you can find similar deals at local Walmart stores too. 9 dollars a month means two less beers at the local pub. What a fucking tragedy.
No, they were just prevented from exercising their speaking near our government officials. It's okay to say whatever you want as long as you like the government, but if you don't like the government, you have to go way far away where no one can hear you.
Considering you turned government support for population control into infanticide and child selection abortion, I think you can make the jump as to how this situation can be dangerous.
What does that have to do with it? Doesn't change the fact Republicans don't care about the 1st Amendment when they are the ones in power.
Classic red herring argument.
Absolutely, did you not read the entire article?
If you don't think that is government trying to brainwash easily influenced children into a Christian lifestyle, then you have absolutely no credibility in this debate.Eisenhower said:
Making children say the words "under God" is a clear violation of the religious freedom you're trying to argue on behalf of your religious institutions not providing birth control. But, just like the evidence presented with Republican leaders, you only care when it works against you, not when it is a position you favor.
I thought he did?
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=3708610&postcount=19
I'm not offended by it, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans to accuse Democrats of not respecting the 1st Amendment.
Doesn't change the fact it IS part of the official pledge.
So? $9 a month is $108 a year. Allow me to steal your argument before and say since you feel $108 is little more than pocket change, feel free to send me $108 in cash. Since it's obviously not a big deal and all.
Sorry, but if you can afford 41k for undergraduate studies and 47k for Georgetown Law, I think you should be able to scrape together 9 bucks a month for birth control if you really need it. Skip Starbucks on your way to class twice, you already have the cash saved. To ask the US govenment to subsidize something you can get completely uninsured for 9 bucks a month is ridiculous.
Again, the government is not subsidizing it, they are requiring employers to make it an option under their insurance plans. And, again, if $108 is nothing for you, then I'll give you my address, and you can mail it to me. You do realize that not everyone who goes on birth control is going to Georgetown, correct?
You do realise it's not a one-size-fits-all pill right? That maybe just grabbing the cheapest thing you can find isn't the greatest idea and could infact be completely pointless and not work. For specific medical conditions and compability issues the cost without insurance could be up to $250 a month.
Ignorance on this is allowed as you're a guy but at least be aware that you don't know what you're talking about.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
More prejudice and jealousy. Perhaps this person got their way in on hard work and not just cold hard cash. Perhaps this person has had to scrap for every little bit they have. Your ignorance is almost as staggering as your blind hatred of something you aren't a part of.
DirtyJosé
Best angle of all: retirement
Rush apologizes for word choices because his sponsors make him realize that his bigotry and idiocy will not always go unpunished:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/03/limbaugh-apologizes-for-****-comment/
What's great is that he still doesn't get it, the bloated dullard. Taxpayers won't be paying for shit. More ignorant angry men being ignorant and angry.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/03/limbaugh-apologizes-for-****-comment/
What's great is that he still doesn't get it, the bloated dullard. Taxpayers won't be paying for shit. More ignorant angry men being ignorant and angry.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
These "apologies" always rub me the wrong way. And he did it on his website instead of on the air. You know, because this isn't important enough to let people hear.
