PDA

View Full Version : Rush Limbaugh is a ^&*)^&*)^*)



Nate_C
03-03-2012, 09:56 PM
Rush Limbaugh issued lame apology to Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student he branded a "slut" after she argued to Congress that the expense for her birth control should be covered by her employer's health care plan.

he said: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

I am not sure if he has any fans on this site but how can you guys keep listening to him. Sorry but calling a young woman a slut and a prostitue on national radio is never funny. If he called my wife or sister that I would kick his sorry fat butt.

This guys is a blowheart that isn't worth 2 cents to me.

sleeperls
03-03-2012, 10:18 PM
He is a very smart man, but what he said was very stupid.

I also thing the girls argument should have never been heard. Dont want baby's dont have sex.

JDogger
03-03-2012, 10:18 PM
I am not sure if he has any fans on this site


Don't be so sure. He says it there, it appears here tomorrow, like gospel. JD

roseberry
03-03-2012, 10:19 PM
nate,
don't be doin' what you don't want someone else doin'. i am not sure what a ^&*)^&*)^&*) is but you called rush one and it sounds like it might be just as bad as sl--!;)

Nate_C
03-03-2012, 11:14 PM
nate,
don't be doin' what you don't want someone else doin'. i am not sure what a ^&*)^&*)^&*) is but you called rush one and it sounds like it might be just as bad as sl--!;)

I guess you have a point but this is one man calling another man something which is one thing, but a man calling a young woman a Slut is something else. Especially from a position of power.

JDogger
03-03-2012, 11:37 PM
I guess you have a point but this is one man calling another man something which is one thing, but a man calling a young woman a Slut is something else. Especially from a position of power.

Just wate, nate. It's a' comin'

Hew
03-03-2012, 11:38 PM
...but a man calling a young woman a Slut is something else. Especially from a position of power.
Oh, that poor girl. Strike that. I meant, Oh, that poor 30 year old woman. Strike that. I meant, Oh, that poor 30 year old woman who is a reproductive rights activist/agitator who went to Georgetown knowing full well that contraceptive services were not offered and with the express intent to challenge those policies. So whine about Limbaugh's coarse language if you want (because really, that is such an important topic in today's carefree atmosphere of abundance and wealth), but enough with the notion that Fluke is some sort of co-ed babe-in-the-woods innocently thrust into the spotlight. :rolleyes:

road kill
03-04-2012, 04:38 AM
This whole thread is incredibly sad on a number of levels.



RK

paul young
03-04-2012, 05:18 AM
This whole thread is incredibly sad on a number of levels.



RK

i agree heartily! not a fan of Rush or the "movement". reproductive rights should not be politicized.-Paul

road kill
03-04-2012, 05:21 AM
i agree heartily! not a fan of Rush or the "movement". reproductive rights should not be politicized.-Paul

Interesting.

YOUR guy is politicizing the hell out of it!!

FREE birth control for VOTES!!!
(how much more political can you get?)

What's next???

WE all know what's coming, maybe not next, but it's coming..............


RK

mngundog
03-04-2012, 07:32 AM
Its no different than Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "cu*t" yet Obama will happily take his money.

Duck Blind
03-04-2012, 08:01 AM
Military medical benefits are on the chopping block. Where's the uproar? Oh yeah, it's surrounding one woman who wants the pill covered by her insurance companies. Perfect example of how confused this country is on the issues.

zeus3925
03-04-2012, 08:04 AM
Its no different than Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin a "cu*t" yet Obama will happily take his money.

How are we going to get this country back together if this kind of rhetoric from the extreme ends of the political scale keeps getting media support? We would be far better off if Maher and Limbaugh were sent packing.

mngundog
03-04-2012, 09:38 AM
How are we going to get this country back together if this kind of rhetoric from the extreme ends of the political scale keeps getting media support? We would be far better off if Maher and Limbaugh were sent packing.
You could be right about that, truth is I haven't listened of Rush much in the last 20 years back then he was about to only way to get an opinion from the right. But if we're going to do away with those two, lets get rid of Public Radio also.

Marvin S
03-04-2012, 11:47 AM
I am not sure if he has any fans on this site

I believe he says many things that sensible people agree with - but think that the left from this site follow him more closely than the right does :-P. He had his moment & still does on occasion but listening for 3 hours to get 15 minutes of content is not my idea of productive ;).


Oh, that poor girl. Strike that. I meant, Oh, that poor 30 year old woman. Strike that. I meant, Oh, that poor 30 year old woman who is a reproductive rights activist/agitator who went to Georgetown knowing full well that contraceptive services were not offered and with the express intent to challenge those policies. So whine about Limbaugh's coarse language if you want (because really, that is such an important topic in today's carefree atmosphere of abundance and wealth), but enough with the notion that Fluke is some sort of co-ed babe-in-the-woods innocently thrust into the spotlight. :rolleyes:

Right on :BIG: ! I did think Limbaugh's comment about putting it on video so we could see what we were paying for was hilarious.

Pat Puwal
03-04-2012, 11:53 AM
It is never nice to label anyone with a derogatory term. Mama taught me that a long time ago. That said, why should birth control pills be paid for by an insurance company in a non-medical situation. Society's values are becoming very confused!

Gerry Clinchy
03-04-2012, 12:04 PM
Probably have only heard Limbaugh two or three times in my life. He tries to be provocative; and succeeds and makes money doing it.

How can someone go broke buying contraception? If that's the crux of her statement, she wasted a lot of $ on her college education. She should have saved it for buying contraception.

mngundog
03-04-2012, 12:09 PM
It is never nice to label anyone with a derogatory term. Mama taught me that a long time ago. That said, why should birth control pills be paid for by an insurance company in a non-medical situation. Society's values are becoming very confused!

Because it is cost effective for both the insurance company and the Government IMO.
I have two children both bills were in the 12K range without any real complications, now that is just for the births not an additional 18 years of medical bills. I'm not getting into any religious or political aspect of it just the practical matter.

Pat Puwal
03-04-2012, 02:17 PM
I get it - cost of the births and subsequent bills! My generation paid for their own contraception, but then we were taught by parents and church not to be promiscuous either.

Buzz
03-04-2012, 02:17 PM
Because it is cost effective for both the insurance company and the Government IMO.
I have two children both bills were in the 12K range without any real complications, now that is just for the births not an additional 18 years of medical bills. I'm not getting into any religious or political aspect of it just the practical matter.

Not to mention public assistance and food stamps for those born to women who are probably least likely to use contraceptives in the first place, and then to a school system that some of them hopefully get something out of.

Matt McKenzie
03-04-2012, 03:13 PM
First issue: Rush using insulting language to describe the woman in question. I think it was insulting and disrespectful and distracts from the real issue. It also reflects poorly on those of us who agree with his opinion on this particular issue by painting us with the same brush. It never improves your position in an argument to resort to that sort of behavior.

Second issue: Birth control being payed for by insurance company. It seems to me that it is the business of the insurance company and the customer what they chose to insure. When our government mandates that a privately owned company MUST pay for insurance that covers contraception for its employees, we're taking another step down that road that leads from liberty to tyranny. Call me Henny Penny if you want, but you get there one step at a time. That isn't about religion. It's about liberty. An employer should be able to chose whether or not they want that level of insurance. An employee should be able to chose where they work based on the benefits that they receive for their labor. If your employer doesn't offer a health plan that pays for your contraception, you have several options: 1) find an employer who does, 2) use a less expensive form of contraception, 3) abstain from sex, or 4) take your chances knowing that you may create a child. After reviewing your options, make a decision based on your personal situation. What is so difficult about taking personal responsibility for your own sex life?

Third issue: The idea that we should go along with this assault on personal liberty because it's cheaper than public assistance and food stamps, etc. etc. Well, that starts with the basic assumption that it's the government's job to provide those programs to people who behave irresponsibly. Those programs are the reason we have many of these problems today. By attempting to help people, we started rewarding out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households while punishing traditional families. We continue to waste money on sub-standard government schools, so these people have the double-whammy of poor parenting and poor education. So over several generations, we've developed an entire culture of dependency that we perpetuate because we don't have the backbone to change directions.

Fourth issue: Health care as a "right". All of our rights are free. Check the Bill of Rights. Our rights are compiled in a list. All of those rights are free. None of us has the right to someone else's property. Health care involves someone else's property. In order for me to receive health care, I need the time and/or material that belongs to someone else. I can pay them for it or I can arrange to trade my labor in exchange for my employer to pay for it. Or I can try to vote in a politician that will force my fellow citizens to pay for it. But the fact remains that I have no claim to it. I don't have a "right" to health care any more than I have a right to a new car.

So this issue, like most political issues, boils down to personal liberty, security and responsibility. Unfortunately, too many people in this country are willing to trade their liberty for security because they don't want to take responsibility for themselves and their families. And they are dragging the rest of us along with them.

captainjack
03-04-2012, 04:13 PM
First issue: Rush using insulting language to describe the woman in question. I think it was insulting and disrespectful and distracts from the real issue. It also reflects poorly on those of us who agree with his opinion on this particular issue by painting us with the same brush. It never improves your position in an argument to resort to that sort of behavior.

Second issue: Birth control being payed for by insurance company. It seems to me that it is the business of the insurance company and the customer what they chose to insure. When our government mandates that a privately owned company MUST pay for insurance that covers contraception for its employees, we're taking another step down that road that leads from liberty to tyranny. Call me Henny Penny if you want, but you get there one step at a time. That isn't about religion. It's about liberty. An employer should be able to chose whether or not they want that level of insurance. An employee should be able to chose where they work based on the benefits that they receive for their labor. If your employer doesn't offer a health plan that pays for your contraception, you have several options: 1) find an employer who does, 2) use a less expensive form of contraception, 3) abstain from sex, or 4) take your chances knowing that you may create a child. After reviewing your options, make a decision based on your personal situation. What is so difficult about taking personal responsibility for your own sex life?

Third issue: The idea that we should go along with this assault on personal liberty because it's cheaper than public assistance and food stamps, etc. etc. Well, that starts with the basic assumption that it's the government's job to provide those programs to people who behave irresponsibly. Those programs are the reason we have many of these problems today. By attempting to help people, we started rewarding out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households while punishing traditional families. We continue to waste money on sub-standard government schools, so these people have the double-whammy of poor parenting and poor education. So over several generations, we've developed an entire culture of dependency that we perpetuate because we don't have the backbone to change directions.

Fourth issue: Health care as a "right". All of our rights are free. Check the Bill of Rights. Our rights are compiled in a list. All of those rights are free. None of us has the right to someone else's property. Health care involves someone else's property. In order for me to receive health care, I need the time and/or material that belongs to someone else. I can pay them for it or I can arrange to trade my labor in exchange for my employer to pay for it. Or I can try to vote in a politician that will force my fellow citizens to pay for it. But the fact remains that I have no claim to it. I don't have a "right" to health care any more than I have a right to a new car.

So this issue, like most political issues, boils down to personal liberty, security and responsibility. Unfortunately, too many people in this country are willing to trade their liberty for security because they don't want to take responsibility for themselves and their families. And they are dragging the rest of us along with them.

Well done. This is the answer to every single thread that has been posted to POTUS Place. Make it a sticky and then close it down. No argument against it will ever hold up. Nothing more to say. Thank you Hookset!

Gerry Clinchy
03-04-2012, 04:32 PM
I'm still wondering how someone smart enough to go to college, who should then be able to find a reasonable job to provide a living, is not smart enough to use some of the money they earn for contraception? Have we failed in teaching them their math skills?

I think the center of this particular thread is the woman's statement that purchasing contraception is too large a financial burden for women of average earning capability. The poor, of course, already would have access to cheap or free contraception.

Condoms do not require a prescription (so no doctor's visit to pay for). Some women are not suited for hormone types of contraception like the pill ... and other more expensive means that all carry the same risks (or more) of the pill.

If someone is not smart enough to spend some of the money they earn on a box of condoms, maybe we really should give them free sterilization?

I just don't see how the issue can be that someone will go broke buying contraception.

road kill
03-04-2012, 04:38 PM
The argument that birth control pills are needed for women health issues is Bravo Sierra!

Anyone ever hear of "carcinogenic endocrine tumor mass?"

I have.

Anyone know what causes it?


RK

Down East Labs 217
03-04-2012, 05:02 PM
First issue: Rush using insulting language to describe the woman in question. I think it was insulting and disrespectful and distracts from the real issue. It also reflects poorly on those of us who agree with his opinion on this particular issue by painting us with the same brush. It never improves your position in an argument to resort to that sort of behavior.

Second issue: Birth control being payed for by insurance company. It seems to me that it is the business of the insurance company and the customer what they chose to insure. When our government mandates that a privately owned company MUST pay for insurance that covers contraception for its employees, we're taking another step down that road that leads from liberty to tyranny. Call me Henny Penny if you want, but you get there one step at a time. That isn't about religion. It's about liberty. An employer should be able to chose whether or not they want that level of insurance. An employee should be able to chose where they work based on the benefits that they receive for their labor. If your employer doesn't offer a health plan that pays for your contraception, you have several options: 1) find an employer who does, 2) use a less expensive form of contraception, 3) abstain from sex, or 4) take your chances knowing that you may create a child. After reviewing your options, make a decision based on your personal situation. What is so difficult about taking personal responsibility for your own sex life?

Third issue: The idea that we should go along with this assault on personal liberty because it's cheaper than public assistance and food stamps, etc. etc. Well, that starts with the basic assumption that it's the government's job to provide those programs to people who behave irresponsibly. Those programs are the reason we have many of these problems today. By attempting to help people, we started rewarding out-of-wedlock births and single-parent households while punishing traditional families. We continue to waste money on sub-standard government schools, so these people have the double-whammy of poor parenting and poor education. So over several generations, we've developed an entire culture of dependency that we perpetuate because we don't have the backbone to change directions.

Fourth issue: Health care as a "right". All of our rights are free. Check the Bill of Rights. Our rights are compiled in a list. All of those rights are free. None of us has the right to someone else's property. Health care involves someone else's property. In order for me to receive health care, I need the time and/or material that belongs to someone else. I can pay them for it or I can arrange to trade my labor in exchange for my employer to pay for it. Or I can try to vote in a politician that will force my fellow citizens to pay for it. But the fact remains that I have no claim to it. I don't have a "right" to health care any more than I have a right to a new car.

So this issue, like most political issues, boils down to personal liberty, security and responsibility. Unfortunately, too many people in this country are willing to trade their liberty for security because they don't want to take responsibility for themselves and their families. And they are dragging the rest of us along with them.

Very well said. I would like to hear the far left, middle or far right make any attempt at rebutting this.

Richard

M&K's Retrievers
03-04-2012, 05:23 PM
Because it is cost effective for both the insurance company and the Government IMO.
I have two children both bills were in the 12K range without any real complications, now that is just for the births not an additional 18 years of medical bills. I'm not getting into any religious or political aspect of it just the practical matter.

Cost effective for the insurance company and the government?? How so??

The normal delivery and well baby charges should not be covered at all. These are not injury or illness related expenses and should not be covered. Same goes to contraceptives. These expenses should be the responsibility of the individuals. Complications of pregnancy should and have always been covered.

Franco
03-04-2012, 05:56 PM
Rush Limbaugh is the Democrats best friend!

He is firing up the Dems, moderates, and ralling the women behind all the Democratic candidates. Campaign contributions at the end of last week were record breaking.

Nothing like a social issue to make the Repubs appear to be Neanderthals.

Instead of talking about the real issues, the Dems are going to paint the Repubs as a bunch of backwoods hicks. Look for the Dems to throw more social issues out there for the Repubs to choke over as a diversion from the real issues.

mngundog
03-04-2012, 07:16 PM
Cost effective for the insurance company and the government?? How so??

The normal delivery and well baby charges should not be covered at all. These are not injury or illness related expenses and should not be covered. Same goes to contraceptives. These expenses should be the responsibility of the individuals. Complications of pregnancy should and have always been covered.
It is cost effective because the "normal delivery and well baby charges" are almost always covered by insurance, I have never seen a policy that didn't cover it. You may believe it should be covered, but it is, thus making it cost effective. Quite honestly I don't care one way or the other whether birth control should or should not be required, I simply stated from a business perspective it makes since to cover them under the common practices that are already in place.

M&K's Retrievers
03-04-2012, 07:29 PM
It is cost effective because the "normal delivery and well baby charges" are almost always covered by insurance, I have never seen a policy that didn't cover it. You may believe it should be covered, but it is, thus making it cost effective.

My guess is you are not in the health insurance business. Individual polices do not cover normal delivery or well baby charges. The cost to add it would be unbelievable. Who would buy it? Those that plan on using it. Most group policies for groups under 15 employees don't provide it because they aren't required by law. Only employers with 15 or more employees have to provide maternity coverage as any other illness - that's a Federal reg.

Do you really believe that since it's covered, it's cost effective? You might want to rethink that line of thought.

mngundog
03-04-2012, 08:04 PM
My guess is you are not in the health insurance business. Individual polices do not cover normal delivery or well baby charges. The cost to add it would be unbelievable. Who would buy it? Those that plan on using it. Most group policies for groups under 15 employees don't provide it because they aren't required by law. Only employers with 15 or more employees have to provide maternity coverage as any other illness - that's a Federal reg.

Do you really believe that since it's covered, it's cost effective? You might want to rethink that line of thought.
Nope I'm not in the business, I have had 6 or 7 different plans over the last 20 years and they all covered them, seems to me it was pretty common practice. Are you in the health care business?

HPL
03-04-2012, 08:54 PM
It is never nice to label anyone with a derogatory term. Mama taught me that a long time ago. That said, why should birth control pills be paid for by an insurance company in a non-medical situation. Society's values are becoming very confused!
Just cheaper in the long run. Pill is cheaper than babies. If pregnancy costs and then pediatric care are covered, surely the pill is cheaper.

Buzz
03-04-2012, 08:59 PM
Just cheaper in the long run. Pill is cheaper than babies. If pregnancy costs and then pediatric care are covered, surely the pill is cheaper.

But many would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

M&K's Retrievers
03-04-2012, 09:49 PM
Nope I'm not in the business, I have had 6 or 7 different plans over the last 20 years and they all covered them, seems to me it was pretty common practice. Are you in the health care business?

Yes. 40 years.

mngundog
03-04-2012, 10:15 PM
My guess is you are not in the health insurance business. Individual polices do not cover normal delivery or well baby charges. The cost to add it would be unbelievable. Who would buy it? Those that plan on using it. Most group policies for groups under 15 employees don't provide it because they aren't required by law. Only employers with 15 or more employees have to provide maternity coverage as any other illness - that's a Federal reg.

Do you really believe that since it's covered, it's cost effective? You might want to rethink that line of thought.
The data I saw was a few years old, but it said the 92% of insurance policies were purchased through employer group plans, so that is the standard we have to look at, the coverage 92% of the people have not the 8% you want to use. I am willing to bet that FAR more policies cover births that don't, that is the standard we have to use.

charly_t
03-04-2012, 10:20 PM
The argument that birth control pills are needed for women health issues is Bravo Sierra!

Anyone ever hear of "carcinogenic endocrine tumor mass?"

I have.

Anyone know what causes it?


RK

Explain for those who need to be educated, RK.

M&K's Retrievers
03-04-2012, 11:49 PM
The data I saw was a few years old, but it said the 92% of insurance policies were purchased through employer group plans, so that is the standard we have to look at, the coverage 92% of the people have not the 8% you want to use. I am willing to bet that FAR more policies cover births that don't, that is the standard we have to use.

You must be correct. What was I thinking? How could I have been so stupid? All individual policies cover maternity. All group plans cover maternity. In fact, all plans cover maternity. I was just bull spiting in my earlier post. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have coverage on about 60 employer groups that average 9 employees per group. None of the groups under 15 employees have maternity coverage. I have coverage on several Association groups which cover several thousand employees. None have maternity. Of all the individual policies I have in force, none cover maternity.

What do you do for a living? I would just love to add my expertise to your line of work. I'm certain that I can be an expert. I'll mention the data I saw a few years ago.

Do us a favor. If you have data to support your position, let us know what it is. Stating what you think is true about a subject as fact leaves a lot to be desired.

Jim Danis
03-05-2012, 07:32 AM
Oh, that poor girl. Strike that. I meant, Oh, that poor 30 year old woman. Strike that. I meant, Oh, that poor 30 year old woman who is a reproductive rights activist/agitator who went to Georgetown knowing full well that contraceptive services were not offered and with the express intent to challenge those policies. So whine about Limbaugh's coarse language if you want (because really, that is such an important topic in today's carefree atmosphere of abundance and wealth), but enough with the notion that Fluke is some sort of co-ed babe-in-the-woods innocently thrust into the spotlight. :rolleyes:


I agree with this completely. This person is paying close to $45K a year in tuition. She picked the school because it does not offer these services, knowing it is a Catholic/Jesuit school, planning to try to force change of that policy and we need to have some kind of pity for her? Definitely not!! She was picked purposely to be paraded out in front of the public because she is a reproductive rights activist going to school at a religious institution. This was the left's way of pushing back at the religious institutions for their forcing Obama to make a lame compromise with his contraception policies.

mngundog
03-05-2012, 07:48 AM
You must be correct. What was I thinking? How could I have been so stupid? All individual policies cover maternity. All group plans cover maternity. In fact, all plans cover maternity. I was just bull spiting in my earlier post. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I have coverage on about 60 employer groups that average 9 employees per group. None of the groups under 15 employees have maternity coverage. I have coverage on several Association groups which cover several thousand employees. None have maternity. Of all the individual policies I have in force, none cover maternity.

What do you do for a living? I would just love to add my expertise to your line of work. I'm certain that I can be an expert. I'll mention the data I saw a few years ago.

Do us a favor. If you have data to support your position, let us know what it is. Stating what you think is true about a subject as fact leaves a lot to be desired.

So you are telling me that the majority of plans in are individual plans? I would like to see data supporting that. I asked you for numbers earlier and you gave me none, so I looked up what I could find and they did not support your position, if you have that information I would be happen to look at it. Here's what I have found.

As of 2008, 65 percent of nonelderly Americans were estimated to have private health insurance, with 92 percent of the private coverage obtained through employers.1 The remaining 8 percent of private coverage is purchased directly in the non-group market. While employer sponsored insurance (ESI) is the dominant form of coverage for the nonelderly, the share of the population with that type of coverage is declining, particularly among those with low or modest incomes. As private coverage falls, the share of the population uninsured rises.
I would be interested to know "as an industry" what percentage of plans cover maternity and asked you and you haven't responded with anything besides with what you sell. Do us a favor if you have data supporting your position, please show me. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

JamesTannery
03-05-2012, 08:00 AM
"Free" is just another word for "we" the tax payer absorbing all the costs.

M&K's Retrievers
03-05-2012, 09:02 AM
So you are telling me that the majority of plans in are individual plans? I would like to see data supporting that. I asked you for numbers earlier and you gave me none, so I looked up what I could find and they did not support your position, if you have that information I would be happen to look at it. Here's what I have found.

I would be interested to know "as an industry" what percentage of plans cover maternity and asked you and you haven't responded with anything besides with what you sell. Do us a favor if you have data supporting your position, please show me. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

First, I never said that most insureds are covered by individual plans. What I said was individual plans -and that includes sponsored association programs- do not cover maternity.

Secondly, I said that Federal regs require maternity coverage for employers with over 15 employees. Plans designed for smaller employers do not routinely cover maternity because employers don't want to pay for it if they don't have to.

Third, and thankfully, most people do get their health care through an employer sponsored programs but not all of those programs cover maternity.

Fourth. For those plans that do cover maternity, the cost of providing coverage is higher. If you provide a benefit, you have to pay for that benefit. That does not make something cost effective it makes it costly.

Normal maternity should be treated like cosmetic surgery, elective surgery, contraceptives,etc. and not covered. These are not illnesses and should not be treated as such.

When are you going to share with me what you do for a living so I can make "informed" critiques of your industry?:rolleyes:

road kill
03-05-2012, 09:25 AM
I got an idea.
If you want free Birth Control, why not give it to her.
1 time permanent birth control??
Then she can do whatever she wants as much as she wants and we only have a 1 time cost!!!!

Save some real money!!!!!:cool:


RK

mngundog
03-05-2012, 09:30 AM
When are you going to share with me what you do for a living so I can make "informed" critiques of your industry?:rolleyes:

I have a degree in Criminal Justice and 18 years experience in Law Enforcement and Security, believe me I am use to being critiqued in my field and when a law question arises on a forum, everyone is an expert in my field. :D

Jim Danis
03-05-2012, 09:38 AM
The best form of FREE bith control I know of is Chastity!!

We have provided coverage for our employees from the day we opened our doors 20 yrs ago. We have averaged 20 employees during that time. Contraception has never been fully covered! Every woman paying for contraception has always had to at least pay a co-pay. During most of that time maternity has not been covered either.

menmon
03-05-2012, 09:41 AM
Franco and I agreeing on too many things...either he is going to start voting democrat or I'm going to vote for Ron Paul.

I truly believe that you will be able to look back at this and say that this cost the republicans the presidency and seats in the the house and senate.

What the republicans set out to be damning to Obama..meaning him losing the Cathlic vote, has now turned into the republicans losing the women vote.

First: Cathlic women buy birth control pill inspite of what their priest tell them.

Second: Obama healthcare is structured on reducing cost by efficency. Cost of a pill vs a baby. Sounds efficent. If a hand full of those free pills prevent a few babies it pays for itself.

If I was a republican, I would publicly dismiss myself from Rush and not comment on this issue at all. But what I'm hearing is that republicans are wanting to agree with him and justify what he said.....stupid...even if you truly believe the cost of free birth control pills will be the fiscal blow that puts us over the edge;-)

road kill
03-05-2012, 09:44 AM
Franco and I agreeing on too many things...either he is going to start voting democrat or I'm going to vote for Ron Paul.

I truly believe that you will be able to look back at this and say that this cost the republicans the presidency and seats in the the house and senate.

What the republicans set out to be damning to Obama..meaning him losing the Cathlic vote, has now turned into the republicans losing the women vote.

First: Cathlic women buy birth control pill inspite of what their priest tell them.

Second: Obama healthcare is structured on reducing cost by efficency. Cost of a pill vs a baby. Sounds efficent. If a hand full of those free pills prevent a few babies it pays for itself.

If I was a republican, I would publicly dismiss myself from Rush and not comment on this issue at all. But what I'm hearing is that republicans are wanting to agree with him and justify what he said.....stupid...even if you truly believe the cost of free birth control pills will be the fiscal blow that puts us over the edge;-)
So you also agree with me....Obama used a calculated risk to buy votes with FREE (:rolleyes:) birth control pills??

Pathetic...........

Oh, and what's next??
FREE abortions??
FREE euthanasia???

I mean it would be more efficient!!;-)


RK

Jason Glavich
03-05-2012, 09:52 AM
So you also agree with me....Obama used a calculated risk to buy votes with FREE (:rolleyes:) birth control pills??

Pathetic...........

Oh, and what's next??
FREE abortions??
FREE euthanasia???

I mean it would be more efficient!!;-)


RK

Abortions will be free under the new law.:rolleyes:



Department of Health and Human Services issued its mandate requiring religious institutions, such as religious schools and hospitals, to include abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception in their insurance policies for employees

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/no-mandate-is-ultimate-intrusion/article_470655d5-a54e-5bd9-a4ba-65970775e217.html#ixzz1oG5N6r25

Cowtown
03-05-2012, 09:55 AM
Rush Limbaugh issued lame apology to Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student he branded a "slut" after she argued to Congress that the expense for her birth control should be covered by her employer's health care plan.

he said: "My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

I am not sure if he has any fans on this site but how can you guys keep listening to him. Sorry but calling a young woman a slut and a prostitue on national radio is never funny. If he called my wife or sister that I would kick his sorry fat butt.

This guys is a blowheart that isn't worth 2 cents to me.

I'm a big fan of his. The truth hurts. She herself said that she has so much sex she can't afford contraceptives. I don't know what else you could call her.

You want to divert attention from the real issue here and the real issues facing our great Country. #1 why should I pay for her contraceptives via another government welfare program? if she wants to have so much sex that she can't afford it then maybe she needs to close her legs a little more often or get a job to pay for her own protection, #2 why is government getting involved in sex and contraceptives and people's lives?, and #3 why in the world are we talking about sex and contraceptives when we have millions out of work, a huge national debt, a growing government, more government intrusion than ever into our personal lives, liberty and freedoms, trillions in unfunded entitlement programs and the list goes on.

But you try to shield your boy Obabble and keep the discussion off of him. When liberals fail it's always back to the blame and hate game.

I think you meant "blowhard". Sandra Fluke understands that term...

menmon
03-05-2012, 09:55 AM
So you also agree with me....Obama used a calculated risk to buy votes with FREE (:rolleyes:) birth control pills??

Pathetic...........

Oh, and what's next??
FREE abortions??
FREE euthanasia???

I mean it would be more efficient!!;-)


RK

I have to say I did see this coming when Newt jumped on it a month ago. The word was Obama screwed himself with this one, and I made a comment that was something like "smart as a fox."

No I think this was in the healthcare bill because it made sense, and I'm sure one of our senators put it in because it made sense if the goal was to provide everyone with healthcare and to be able to aford it meant being smarter with the use of it.

Matt McKenzie
03-05-2012, 10:05 AM
Why is it OK for the government to mandate that an employer must pay for contraception for an employee, but it's a violation of rights if the government were to mandate contraception for those on public assistance?

M&K's Retrievers
03-05-2012, 10:06 AM
I have a degree in Criminal Justice and 18 years experience in Law Enforcement and Security, believe me I am use to being critiqued in my field and when a law question arises on a forum, everyone is an expert in my field. :D

OK. I'll leave you alone. Everyone is an expert in my field as well. ;):D

menmon
03-05-2012, 10:19 AM
Why is it OK for the government to mandate that an employer must pay for contraception for an employee, but it's a violation of rights if the government were to mandate contraception for those on public assistance?

It is just an endorsement in the policy. It is not a big deal, but the republicans who want the healthcare plan to fail decided that they could beat it up again over this contraception thing, and it has backfired, but please keep stiring this pot...and I would not let you wife go vote if you are planning on her voting for the republican nominee;)

Gerry Clinchy
03-05-2012, 10:34 AM
I truly believe that you will be able to look back at this and say that this cost the republicans the presidency and seats in the the house and senate.

It's amazing what spin can do. A law is passed that makes light of the 1st Amendment, and those who oppose that are the ones who "lose".

Whether one believes the RC church is right in opposing birth control (and I do NOT agree with that tenet), the church should not be required to abandon any of its beliefs. There are many concessions made to many religious beliefs every day. The whole story about our country is respecting minority opinions ... as long as it does not interfere with someone else's rights.

What the republicans set out to be damning to Obama..meaning him losing the Cathlic vote, has now turned into the republicans losing the women vote.

First: Cathlic women buy birth control pill inspite of what their priest tell them.

And there are many of all faiths that do not abide by every tenet of their church's teachings. That does not change the church's stance.

Second: Obama healthcare is structured on reducing cost by efficency. Cost of a pill vs a baby. Sounds efficent. If a hand full of those free pills prevent a few babies it pays for itself.

Just read yesterday about a $260 billion Medicare/Medicaid scam! Yup, the govt really is efficient in the way it runs its health care/insurance programs ... paying for services that were never rendered.

If I was a republican, I would publicly dismiss myself from Rush and not comment on this issue at all. But what I'm hearing is that republicans are wanting to agree with him and justify what he said.....stupid...

I have not heard one word of support for Rush's behavior. But if one is free to voice one opinion, then it is fair for another to disagree. The fact that Rush was boorish in his response, does not automatically make the other opinion correct.

even if you truly believe the cost of free birth control pills will be the fiscal blow that puts us over the edge;-)

Nobody has said that free birth control pills will be "the fiscal blow that puts us over the edge". That is twisting the debate on this issue.

The debate actually revolves around whether the govt can make a law that goes against the 1st amendment and whether there is anyplace where personal responsibility should be part of our societal framework.

We have developed a warped idea about what insurance is. "Insurance" is about protection for the unexpected and/or uncontrollable.

Think car insurance. We don't have insurance to cover changing the oil in our cars. That is a reasonable cost that can be anticipated if you choose to own a car. If you don't change the oil, when the engine seizes, do you expect the insurance company to pay for a new engine for you?

FWIW, one of the issues in the U.S. is that our birthrate is actually declining. When a birthrate goes down too much (Japan, has a real problem in this regard), immigration provides the labor force that we are not replacing.

We continue to pay for social services that make it more lucrative to have children than not. Are all those women Roman Catholic? Now we also pay for working adults to not have children. Is there something wrong with this picture?

My own opinion (as a woman) would be that a smart woman can do the math (no college education needed). If they want to build a career, for eventual personal financial soundness, they will spend the $ for contraception.

Buzz
03-05-2012, 10:47 AM
Second: Obama healthcare is structured on reducing cost by efficency. Cost of a pill vs a baby. Sounds efficent. If a hand full of those free pills prevent a few babies it pays for itself.

Just read yesterday about a $260 billion Medicare/Medicaid scam! Yup, the govt really is efficient in the way it runs its health care/insurance programs ... paying for services that were never rendered.

Blaming the payor for criminals who try and scam the system and bill for services never rendered is like blaming the victim of a rape for wearing the wrong clothes and telegraphing that "she wanted it."

M&K's Retrievers
03-05-2012, 10:59 AM
Nobody has said that free birth control pills will be "the fiscal blow that puts us over the edge". That is twisting the debate on this issue.

The debate actually revolves around whether the govt can make a law that goes against the 1st amendment and whether there is anyplace where personal responsibility should be part of our societal framework.

We have developed a warped idea about what insurance is. "Insurance" is about protection for the unexpected and/or uncontrollable.

Think car insurance. We don't have insurance to cover changing the oil in our cars. That is a reasonable cost that can be anticipated if you choose to own a car. If you don't change the oil, when the engine seizes, do you expect the insurance company to pay for a new engine for you?

FWIW, one of the issues in the U.S. is that our birthrate is actually declining. When a birthrate goes down too much (Japan, has a real problem in this regard), immigration provides the labor force that we are not replacing.

We continue to pay for social services that make it more lucrative to have children than not. Are all those women Roman Catholic? Now we also pay for working adults to not have children. Is there something wrong with this picture?

My own opinion (as a woman) would be that a smart woman can do the math (no college education needed). If they want to build a career, for eventual personal financial soundness, they will spend the $ for contraception.

There you go making sense again, Gerry. :D

menmon
03-05-2012, 11:01 AM
The debate actually revolves around whether the govt can make a law that goes against the 1st amendment and whether there is anyplace where personal responsibility should be part of our societal framework.


The debate is purely politics:rolleyes:

No one on this forum really gives a rats ass about this subject. Let's not kid one another.

They have been making laws against the 1st amendment since before the ink was dry on it...Again this is just politics...How to defeat the democat president.

Personal responsibility...everyone one of us has taken directly or indectly from the government and its underlying tax payers, too.

But I really encourage you to keep this pot stirred, last thing we want is for it to stick to the bottom;)

luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 11:19 AM
The data I saw was a few years old, but it said the 92% of insurance policies were purchased through employer group plans, so that is the standard we have to look at, the coverage 92% of the people have not the 8% you want to use. I am willing to bet that FAR more policies cover births that don't, that is the standard we have to use.


Most employer based plans specifically exclude maternity coverage for non spouse dependents. This means that if the kid on the parent's employer based policy gets knocked up it is not covered!

luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 11:22 AM
I agree with this completely. This person is paying close to $45K a year in tuition. She picked the school because it does not offer these services, knowing it is a Catholic/Jesuit school, planning to try to force change of that policy and we need to have some kind of pity for her? Definitely not!! She was picked purposely to be paraded out in front of the public because she is a reproductive rights activist going to school at a religious institution. This was the left's way of pushing back at the religious institutions for their forcing Obama to make a lame compromise with his contraception policies.


She even stated that she wasn't paying her law school bill. "public interest" scholorship. It better not be me the taxpayer!

Matt McKenzie
03-05-2012, 11:47 AM
It is just an endorsement in the policy. It is not a big deal, but the republicans who want the healthcare plan to fail decided that they could beat it up again over this contraception thing, and it has backfired, but please keep stiring this pot...and I would not let you wife go vote if you are planning on her voting for the republican nominee;)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your comment about my wife was a weak attempt at being cute and not as disrespectful as it came across. That said, please refrain from making comments of any kind about my family and I will do the same for you. Although it's none of your business, my wife wouldn't vote for a Democrat president under any circumstances, and she certainly wouldn't vote for 4 more years of Obama. She's smarter than that.

It may not be a big deal to you. It isn't a big deal to a lot of people. But it is a big deal to some private religious organizations if they do not want to provide coverage for birth control or abortions for their employees. It's a big deal to me every time our federal government gets bigger or deprives some other person or group of their liberty. It's amazing how much those on the left talk about liberty and rights and choice, but it only applies to those with whom they agree. A woman should be free to chose to kill her unborn child and we should all be free to have sex with whomever we want, whenever we want, but a church is not free to chose not to financially support it for their employees.

It wasn't a big deal when the Germans started making Jews wear a Star of David on their clothing. It wasn't a big deal when they prohibited Germans from marrying Jews. It wasn't a big deal when they forced them to live in their own communities. But it became a big deal eventually, didn't it? How much power are you willing to give to the Federal government?

paul young
03-05-2012, 01:05 PM
this really is great entertainment! i predict at least 15 pages. now the "dicussion" has spread to "naziism"......

menmon
03-05-2012, 01:07 PM
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your comment about my wife was a weak attempt at being cute and not as disrespectful as it came across. That said, please refrain from making comments of any kind about my family and I will do the same for you. Although it's none of your business, my wife wouldn't vote for a Democrat president under any circumstances, and she certainly wouldn't vote for 4 more years of Obama. She's smarter than that.

It may not be a big deal to you. It isn't a big deal to a lot of people. But it is a big deal to some private religious organizations if they do not want to provide coverage for birth control or abortions for their employees. It's a big deal to me every time our federal government gets bigger or deprives some other person or group of their liberty. It's amazing how much those on the left talk about liberty and rights and choice, but it only applies to those with whom they agree. A woman should be free to chose to kill her unborn child and we should all be free to have sex with whomever we want, whenever we want, but a church is not free to chose not to financially support it for their employees.

It wasn't a big deal when the Germans started making Jews wear a Star of David on their clothing. It wasn't a big deal when they prohibited Germans from marrying Jews. It wasn't a big deal when they forced them to live in their own communities. But it became a big deal eventually, didn't it? How much power are you willing to give to the Federal government?

First of all for the record, I did not attach your wife. My point is this is a very sensitive subject of women. And your hero, Rush, called a young girl a whore, slot, etc. and that is ok with you? And you say that while under the pretense that you are true to your God and Church.

Just because something is against ones religion does not mean the person practicing the religion has to partcipate. Jewish people go in restaurants everyday that serve food that their religion deems dirty. Their children go to schools that serve a mandated menu of dirty food. Does not mean the kids have to eat it.

Same with these hospitals. If you don't believe in birth control, you don't have to order it from the menu.

And I'm sick of this big government bullcap arguement you are making. Big government is only bad now because the wrong party in your view is in the whitehouse.

Not that you are going to have the opportunity to see this for a while but your party is all about big government too:rolleyes:

road kill
03-05-2012, 01:15 PM
First of all for the record, I did not attach your wife. My point is this is a very sensitive subject of women. And your hero, Rush, called a young girl a whore, slot, etc. and that is ok with you? And you say that while under the pretense that you are true to your God and Church.

Just because something is against ones religion does not mean the person practicing the religion has to partcipate. Jewish people go in restaurants everyday that serve food that their religion deems dirty. Their children go to schools that serve a mandated menu of dirty food. Does not mean the kids have to eat it.

Same with these hospitals. If you don't believe in birth control, you don't have to order it from the menu.

And I'm sick of this big government bullcap arguement you are making. Big government is only bad now because the wrong party in your view is in the whitehouse.

Not that you are going to have the opportunity to see this for a while but your party is all about big government too:rolleyes:



Any of you ever read Alexis de Tocqueville????

"When men can no longer manage their own affairs, how can they be trusted to elect a competent government???"

"Democracy & socialism share words. Equal is one of them.
In Democracy, men are equal in LIBERTY!!
In socialism, men must be equal in restraint."


It is not in the true American spirit to be beholding to the government for everything.
The HONOR is in acheivement, not servitude.



RK

mngundog
03-05-2012, 01:17 PM
First of all for the record, I did not attach your wife. My point is this is a very sensitive subject of women. And your hero, Rush, called a young girl a whore, slot, etc. and that is ok with you? And you say that while under the pretense that you are true to your God and Church.

Just because something is against ones religion does not mean the person practicing the religion has to partcipate. Jewish people go in restaurants everyday that serve food that their religion deems dirty. Their children go to schools that serve a mandated menu of dirty food. Does not mean the kids have to eat it.

Same with these hospitals. If you don't believe in birth control, you don't have to order it from the menu.

And I'm sick of this big government bullcap arguement you are making. Big government is only bad now because the wrong party in your view is in the whitehouse.

Not that you are going to have the opportunity to see this for a while but your party is all about big government too:rolleyes:

I love the part about the school lunches, very good point, school lunch is an infringement on our civil rights.:D

Franco
03-05-2012, 01:25 PM
First of all for the record, I did not attach your wife. My point is this is a very sensitive subject of women. And your hero, Rush, called a young girl a whore, slot, etc. and that is ok with you? And you say that while under the pretense that you are true to your God and Church.

Just because something is against ones religion does not mean the person practicing the religion has to partcipate. Jewish people go in restaurants everyday that serve food that their religion deems dirty. Their children go to schools that serve a mandated menu of dirty food. Does not mean the kids have to eat it.

Same with these hospitals. If you don't believe in birth control, you don't have to order it from the menu.

And I'm sick of this big government bullcap arguement you are making. Big government is only bad now because the wrong party in your view is in the whitehouse.

Not that you are going to have the opportunity to see this for a while but your party is all about big government too:rolleyes:

Damn, we agree on another topic;-)

If Republican voters were really serious about shrinking the size of the Federal government, job creation, a balanced budget and elimination of the deficit, they would all be backing Ron Paul because all the other candidates are big government!

Nate_C
03-05-2012, 02:43 PM
I'm a big fan of his. The truth hurts. She herself said that she has so much sex she can't afford contraceptives. I don't know what else you could call her.

You want to divert attention from the real issue here and the real issues facing our great Country. #1 why should I pay for her contraceptives via another government welfare program? if she wants to have so much sex that she can't afford it then maybe she needs to close her legs a little more often or get a job to pay for her own protection, #2 why is government getting involved in sex and contraceptives and people's lives?, and #3 why in the world are we talking about sex and contraceptives when we have millions out of work, a huge national debt, a growing government, more government intrusion than ever into our personal lives, liberty and freedoms, trillions in unfunded entitlement programs and the list goes on.

But you try to shield your boy Obabble and keep the discussion off of him. When liberals fail it's always back to the blame and hate game.

I think you meant "blowhard". Sandra Fluke understands that term...


You cannot be serious. Is that the way to talk to women? I am sure someone taught you better then that. My point wasn't about the issue, it was specificly about Rush and his lack of respect for anyone that isn't inline with his thinking. I think he is a loser that says what ever he can to get people going. I think he makes a living out of being hateful.

PS my wife though currently not on birth control becasue we are working on our second child has been on birth control that is mostly picked up by our insurance (we have a co-pay). Is she a slut too.

Hew
03-05-2012, 03:38 PM
If Republican voters were really serious about shrinking the size of the Federal government, job creation, a balanced budget and elimination of the deficit, they would all be backing Ron Paul because all the other candidates are big government!
LOL. Vote for the "King of Pork" Ron Paul to end all your deficit worries!

Cowtown
03-05-2012, 03:56 PM
You cannot be serious. Is that the way to talk to women? I am sure someone taught you better then that. My point wasn't about the issue, it was specificly about Rush and his lack of respect for anyone that isn't inline with his thinking. I think he is a loser that says what ever he can to get people going. I think he makes a living out of being hateful.

PS my wife though currently not on birth control becasue we are working on our second child has been on birth control that is mostly picked up by our insurance (we have a co-pay). Is she a slut too.

Of course you don't want to talk about the issue(s).

Why would you want to drag your wife into this conversation? I'm embarrassed for you. Why would you even try to make a correlation between excessive out of wedlock, irresponsible sex at taxpayer expense with your wife? Are you kidding me?

No, you obviously dont want to address real issues and the real issue of Rush's Fluke comment.

luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 04:54 PM
It is just an endorsement in the policy. It is not a big deal, but the republicans who want the healthcare plan to fail decided that they could beat it up again over this contraception thing, and it has backfired, but please keep stiring this pot...and I would not let you wife go vote if you are planning on her voting for the republican nominee;)


Really???? I'm a woman and I find your comment disgusting!

Matt McKenzie
03-05-2012, 06:33 PM
First of all for the record, I did not attach your wife. My point is this is a very sensitive subject of women. And your hero, Rush, called a young girl a whore, slot, etc. and that is ok with you? And you say that while under the pretense that you are true to your God and Church.

Just because something is against ones religion does not mean the person practicing the religion has to partcipate. Jewish people go in restaurants everyday that serve food that their religion deems dirty. Their children go to schools that serve a mandated menu of dirty food. Does not mean the kids have to eat it.

Same with these hospitals. If you don't believe in birth control, you don't have to order it from the menu.

And I'm sick of this big government bullcap arguement you are making. Big government is only bad now because the wrong party in your view is in the whitehouse.

Not that you are going to have the opportunity to see this for a while but your party is all about big government too:rolleyes:

Looks like you are unable to have a civil conversation, so after this, I will bow out.
1. This is a very sensitive subject for many people of either sex. It is NOT a sensitive subject for ALL people of either sex. Claiming to speak for women makes you look dumber than you are.
2. Rush is not my hero. I don't listen to Rush. In my first post on the subject, I gave my opinion on his comments. No need to repeat myself.
3. Nobody here has ever heard me say anything about being true to God or church. Because I never have.
4. Your second paragraph is too idiotic to rebut, but I'll try. The issue is that our government is forcing religious organizations (and every other employer) to pay for birth control and abortion for their employees whether they chose to or not. That relates to Jewish people going into non-kosher restaurants in no way whatsoever, except in your mind. It isn't about whether or not people can get birth control from a hospital. Next time you jump into an argument, try doing some research so that you understand what the grown-ups are talking about.
4. The "Bullcrap" that I'm spouting about big government is the same bull crap I was spouting when W approved the first TARP and when the Republicans were spending more than we were taking in. The Republicans piss me off more than the Democrats because at least the Dems are honest about wanting to spend us into ruin. It pisses me off when the right wants to control what I do in the bedroom and the left wants to control what kind of car I drive. I want the right to STFU about gay marriage and I want the left to STFU about what food I eat. I want them all to stop buying votes by growing entitlement programs. I want them all to pay attention to our real problems and stop distracting us with BS.
5. You don't know me and I don't know you. You assume that I'm a Bible-thumping, Rush-loving, hard-line Republican just like you assume you know what all women care about when it comes to social issues. Those who know me would tell you how wrong you are about me and those who think would tell you that you can't group people in tidy little categories by sex or race (like the left always does) and expect them to think alike. You sneer at my belief that our Federal government has grown too large and too powerful and that our populace is too lazy and stupid to do anything about it. That's OK with me. I spent 24 years serving my country because I believe in liberty, I believe that this country is worth fighting for and I believe in your right to state your opinion, even if I disagree with you. But the great thing about liberty is that I can chose not to interact with someone who deliberately misrepresents who I am and what I stand for. I'm moving on.

bbmclain
03-05-2012, 07:00 PM
Great post.....


Looks like you are unable to have a civil conversation, so after this, I will bow out.
1. This is a very sensitive subject for many people of either sex. It is NOT a sensitive subject for ALL people of either sex. Claiming to speak for women makes you look dumber than you are.
2. Rush is not my hero. I don't listen to Rush. In my first post on the subject, I gave my opinion on his comments. No need to repeat myself.
3. Nobody here has ever heard me say anything about being true to God or church. Because I never have.
4. Your second paragraph is too idiotic to rebut, but I'll try. The issue is that our government is forcing religious organizations (and every other employer) to pay for birth control and abortion for their employees whether they chose to or not. That relates to Jewish people going into non-kosher restaurants in no way whatsoever, except in your mind. It isn't about whether or not people can get birth control from a hospital. Next time you jump into an argument, try doing some research so that you understand what the grown-ups are talking about.
4. The "Bullcrap" that I'm spouting about big government is the same bull crap I was spouting when W approved the first TARP and when the Republicans were spending more than we were taking in. The Republicans piss me off more than the Democrats because at least the Dems are honest about wanting to spend us into ruin. It pisses me off when the right wants to control what I do in the bedroom and the left wants to control what kind of car I drive. I want the right to STFU about gay marriage and I want the left to STFU about what food I eat. I want them all to stop buying votes by growing entitlement programs. I want them all to pay attention to our real problems and stop distracting us with BS.
5. You don't know me and I don't know you. You assume that I'm a Bible-thumping, Rush-loving, hard-line Republican just like you assume you know what all women care about when it comes to social issues. Those who know me would tell you how wrong you are about me and those who think would tell you that you can't group people in tidy little categories by sex or race (like the left always does) and expect them to think alike. You sneer at my belief that our Federal government has grown too large and too powerful and that our populace is too lazy and stupid to do anything about it. That's OK with me. I spent 24 years serving my country because I believe in liberty, I believe that this country is worth fighting for and I believe in your right to state your opinion, even if I disagree with you. But the great thing about liberty is that I can chose not to interact with someone who deliberately misrepresents who I am and what I stand for. I'm moving on.

luvmylabs23139
03-05-2012, 07:44 PM
Look the shrill already nstated that she was not paying her law school bill. SO she is already a leach!!!! Why is this not mentioned?
I want to know if I the taxpayer am on the hook!
If I am paying any part of her bill she and I will have a chat!

Hew
03-05-2012, 11:11 PM
Looks like you are unable to have a civil conversation, so after this, I will bow out.
1. This is a very sensitive subject for many people of either sex. It is NOT a sensitive subject for ALL people of either sex. Claiming to speak for women makes you look dumber than you are.
2. Rush is not my hero. I don't listen to Rush. In my first post on the subject, I gave my opinion on his comments. No need to repeat myself.
3. Nobody here has ever heard me say anything about being true to God or church. Because I never have.
4. Your second paragraph is too idiotic to rebut, but I'll try. The issue is that our government is forcing religious organizations (and every other employer) to pay for birth control and abortion for their employees whether they chose to or not. That relates to Jewish people going into non-kosher restaurants in no way whatsoever, except in your mind. It isn't about whether or not people can get birth control from a hospital. Next time you jump into an argument, try doing some research so that you understand what the grown-ups are talking about.
4. The "Bullcrap" that I'm spouting about big government is the same bull crap I was spouting when W approved the first TARP and when the Republicans were spending more than we were taking in. The Republicans piss me off more than the Democrats because at least the Dems are honest about wanting to spend us into ruin. It pisses me off when the right wants to control what I do in the bedroom and the left wants to control what kind of car I drive. I want the right to STFU about gay marriage and I want the left to STFU about what food I eat. I want them all to stop buying votes by growing entitlement programs. I want them all to pay attention to our real problems and stop distracting us with BS.
5. You don't know me and I don't know you. You assume that I'm a Bible-thumping, Rush-loving, hard-line Republican just like you assume you know what all women care about when it comes to social issues. Those who know me would tell you how wrong you are about me and those who think would tell you that you can't group people in tidy little categories by sex or race (like the left always does) and expect them to think alike. You sneer at my belief that our Federal government has grown too large and too powerful and that our populace is too lazy and stupid to do anything about it. That's OK with me. I spent 24 years serving my country because I believe in liberty, I believe that this country is worth fighting for and I believe in your right to state your opinion, even if I disagree with you. But the great thing about liberty is that I can chose not to interact with someone who deliberately misrepresents who I am and what I stand for. I'm moving on.
The velvet hatchet has spoken. I knew that wasn't going to end well for Sambo. He brought a nerf ball to a gun fight.

road kill
03-06-2012, 04:42 AM
The velvet hatchet has spoken. I knew that wasn't going to end well for Sambo. He brought a nerf ball to a gun fight.
I think this thread is telling.

I go back to my "Hell-bound train" that so many are gleefully riding!!!:rolleyes:

This issue has been spun to be about womens reproductive rights, when in fact it's about Obama dictating insurance companies giving FREE birth control to college women.
Or giving anything FREE to anyone.

Because all that FREE stuff has to be paid for.

This is fundamentally wrong.

OK folks, Fluke gets her FREE birth control pills, and I lose more LIBERTY I will never get back.

So have each of you, and someday, you will regret it.
What will you give up next for more FREE stuff?

"America, where are you now, don't you care about your sons and daughters??":cry:


RK


BTW---For those of you who dismissed it, "carcinogenic endocrine tumor mass" is pancreatic cancer.
What causes it??
You women who want your FREE birth control should find out............

Cowtown
03-06-2012, 08:23 AM
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Who raises their kids to be a taker in life, asking for free handouts and not taking initiative to work hard for what they have and do the right thing along the way?

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
--Margaret Thatcher

road kill
03-06-2012, 08:56 AM
Kinda funny when Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter and Laura Ingrahm were called the same exact names.

Nary a word from the MSP.
And now just excuses that they were in the public eye.

But of course testifying before congress and lieing is not.

By lieing....I defy anyone to show me that they paid $3,000 in one year for birth control pills.

That is a LIE!

I am not justifying the name calling, by EITHER side.
Just kinda funny that one creates a furor and others are dismissed.

M&K's Retrievers
03-06-2012, 09:05 AM
Kinda funny when Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter and Laura Ingrahm were called the same exact names.

Nary a word from the MSP.
And now just excuses that they were in the public eye.

But of course testifying before congress and lieing is not.

By lieing....I defy anyone to show me that they paid $3,000 in one year for birth control pills.

That is a LIE!

I am not justifying the name calling, by EITHER side.
Just kinda funny that one creates a furor and others are dismissed.


Now let's be fair, Stan. It's $3000 for the time she's in college. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Buzz
03-06-2012, 09:27 AM
I think this thread is telling.

I go back to my "Hell-bound train" that so many are gleefully riding!!!:rolleyes:



Didn't know you were a Savoy Brown fan... :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlqqeobOJvg

road kill
03-06-2012, 09:38 AM
Didn't know you were a Savoy Brown fan... :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlqqeobOJvg

I have the VINYL!!!!!;-)
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa37/RobOZ_2007/141265.jpg

Of course I bought it new.;-)

stan b

ARay11
03-06-2012, 10:06 AM
road kill;934007]I think this thread is telling.

I go back to my "Hell-bound train" that so many are gleefully riding!!!:rolleyes:

This issue has been spun to be about womens reproductive rights, when in fact it's about Obama dictating insurance companies giving FREE birth control to college women.
Or giving anything FREE to anyone.

I sincerely hope someone (with more knowledge than I) can please please tell me why the insurance companies are not THROWING A WALL-EYED FIT with the government telling them that they MUST provide ANYTHING for FREE????? :confused:

Because pills are cheaper than babies? No, that's not it... because cancer is 110x more expensive than a baby. And the insurance companies cannot be ignorant to that fact.

PLUS.... families will still want children.... I do not believe free pills will decrease the number of births paid for by health insurance.

Because all that FREE stuff has to be paid for.

This is fundamentally wrong.

OK folks, Fluke gets her FREE birth control pills, and I lose more LIBERTY I will never get back.

So have each of you, and someday, you will regret it.
What will you give up next for more FREE stuff?


"America, where are you now, don't you care about your sons and daughters??":cry:



RK


BTW---For those of you who dismissed it, "carcinogenic endocrine tumor mass" is pancreatic cancer.
What causes it??
You women who want your FREE birth control should find out............
Just wait 5 years...... how many will want to throw a fit because the free healthcare didnt take care of our health at all???

menmon
03-06-2012, 10:31 AM
road kill;934007]I think this thread is telling.

I go back to my "Hell-bound train" that so many are gleefully riding!!!:rolleyes:

This issue has been spun to be about womens reproductive rights, when in fact it's about Obama dictating insurance companies giving FREE birth control to college women.
Or giving anything FREE to anyone.

I sincerely hope someone (with more knowledge than I) can please please tell me why the insurance companies are not THROWING A WALL-EYED FIT with the government telling them that they MUST provide ANYTHING for FREE????? :confused:

Because pills are cheaper than babies? No, that's not it... because cancer is 110x more expensive than a baby. And the insurance companies cannot be ignorant to that fact.

PLUS.... families will still want children.... I do not believe free pills will decrease the number of births paid for by health insurance.

Because all that FREE stuff has to be paid for.

This is fundamentally wrong.

OK folks, Fluke gets her FREE birth control pills, and I lose more LIBERTY I will never get back.

So have each of you, and someday, you will regret it.
What will you give up next for more FREE stuff?


"America, where are you now, don't you care about your sons and daughters??":cry:



RK


BTW---For those of you who dismissed it, "carcinogenic endocrine tumor mass" is pancreatic cancer.
What causes it??
You women who want your FREE birth control should find out............
Just wait 5 years...... how many will want to throw a fit because the free healthcare didnt take care of our health at all???

Because it isn't free....premiums are paid and I assure you that they will absorb the cost for birth control pills. The insurance companies are looking at this as less babies more profit.

This is not about money and taxes...this is about politics....the republicans continue to screw this up, but instead of shutting their mouths...they are trying to justify themselves instead....keep trying guys....show your real colors to the american women

road kill
03-06-2012, 10:33 AM
Because it isn't free....premiums are paid and I assure you that they will absorb the cost for birth control pills. The insurance companies are looking at this as less babies more profit.

This is not about money and taxes...this is about politics....the republicans continue to screw this up, but instead of shutting their mouths...they are trying to justify themselves instead....keep trying guys....show your real colors to the american women
It's not about American women, it's about American liberty.

STOP trying to take mine away.

Hows that train ride???


RK

ARay11
03-06-2012, 11:30 AM
Because it isn't free....premiums are paid and I assure you that they will absorb the cost for birth control pills. The insurance companies are looking at this as less babies more profit.

This is not about money and taxes...this is about politics....the republicans continue to screw this up, but instead of shutting their mouths...they are trying to justify themselves instead....keep trying guys....show your real colors to the american women


IF SHE CANT AFFORD $6/MO FOR BC AT WALMART.... CAN SHE AFFORD AN INSURANCE PREMIUM?

M&K's Retrievers
03-06-2012, 11:30 AM
Because it isn't free....premiums are paid and I assure you that they will absorb the cost for birth control pills. The insurance companies are looking at this as less babies more profit.

...

Sambo, you might want to stick to pawn shops or whatever it is you do.

Trust me. Insurance companies would rather birth control and normal maternity were not covered.

Jim Danis
03-06-2012, 12:13 PM
Part of what Sambo said is true. This is about Politics and Republicans have really screwed this up. This contraception issue was first planted as an issue during the New Hampshire debates when George Stephanoplous asked Romney if he thought that states could ban contraception. Of course Romney had no clue what he was talking about and basically shut him down. The Republicans had no clue either. The next shoe to fall was when Obama tried to have religious organizations pay for contraception. We all know where that went. Some idiotic compromise that isn't a compromise. Now we are here at this point and the Republicans have really messed up this whole contrived issue. They basically stepped in it and do not know how to clean off their shoes. Actually most all of us have fallen for this. Look at the stir it has caused around the country. This really is a non issue. I think what is tellingly more important is the administration telling us that it is OK to target Americans for assassination if they are deemed threats to national security. In a way I agree with that but where does it go from there?

roseberry
03-06-2012, 12:46 PM
i hate to admit it, but sambo is correct about "women" as a generalized voting block. i do not believe he is talking about any individual woman's beliefs or voting behaviors, but women as a voting block.

an example is president clinton. why would women as a voting block flock to vote for a guy for a second term who, in the worlds most powerful and prominent position was guilty of using his position to sexually harass a teenage college intern? women elected him twice!(along with that rich dude from texas that kept interfering) did i do well while clinton was pres? yep. but had monica been my daughter, and i had allowed her to serve our nation as an intern and what happened happened.....i would have called the secret service, told them i was coming and then would have been shot crossing the whitehouse wall. but women as a "collective group" were not appalled. as a group and in general, abortion and reproductive rights are key factors in how they line up.

examine african americans as a voting block. when gwb named powell and rice to the highest positions ever occupied in our government at that time by african americans, he got the same 10% of that block to vote for him that bob dole got. and rice and powell were uncle tommed to death by the community. that's how they line up. i think john mccain got 8% or so of the aa vote against bho.

that's our country and it is what it is! the nation is pretty much equally divided between the parties and a swing of a percentage or two in any key demographic and boom, the election is decided. sambo is right you gotta be careful what you say and how you say it. will many of us be influenced? nope, most here are not swing voters!!!! lol

i am sure either bill maher or rush would tell you, in the world of syndicated opinion no matter which side you are on......"someone has to call a slut, a slut!"

Buzz
03-06-2012, 03:34 PM
IF SHE CANT AFFORD $6/MO FOR BC AT WALMART.... CAN SHE AFFORD AN INSURANCE PREMIUM?

The whole thing is about "Employer Based" healthcare coverage.

Buzz
03-06-2012, 03:51 PM
Sambo, you might want to stick to pawn shops or whatever it is you do.

Trust me. Insurance companies would rather birth control and normal maternity were not covered.

I trust that there are many things that insurance companies would rather not see covered.

The most ridiculous thing I have ever seen is the law they recently tried to pass in congress. Allow employers to exclude coverages from the insurance they offer for moral grounds?

Yes it is an employee benefit. Doesn't a benefit=pay? In other words, don't employees forgo pay for those benefits? What's next, employers making you sign contracts saying that the money I pay you can't go toward say booze, cigarettes, junk food, porn, guns, ammo, etc, for moral reasons?

ARay11
03-06-2012, 04:03 PM
The whole thing is about "Employer Based" healthcare coverage.

I also have Employer Based coverage... but I still have my portion of the premium to pay. And my part is DEFINITELY more than $6

Buzz
03-06-2012, 04:11 PM
I also have Employer Based coverage... but I still have my portion of the premium to pay. And my part is DEFINITELY more than $6

And maybe AFTER you pay "your part," you can't afford the copays and deductibles. Just trying to help. :D

Gerry Clinchy
03-06-2012, 04:11 PM
Yes it is an employee benefit. Doesn't a benefit=pay? In other words, don't employees forgo pay for those benefits? What's next, employers making you sign contracts saying that the money I pay you can't go toward say booze, cigarettes, junk food, porn, guns, ammo, etc, for moral reasons?

There are employers who already exclude individuals who smoke cigarettes from employment. So, they aren't telling you how to spend the money; they're just telling you that they won't give you any money at all for that reason. Has nothing to do with "moral reasons" ... just actuarial reasons (presumably), i.e. the insurance companies charge more for a group with smokers than with non-smokers; or simply esthetic reasons.

I believe that the govt is already telling parents what they can feed their children in a school lunch? And schools won't allow vending of soda. And NY wants to put a special tax on sugar sodas (maybe they actually did it already?).

So, Buzz, if that was meant to be a joke or sarcasm ... it's now reality.

paul young
03-06-2012, 04:55 PM
goin for 10.......ROFLMAO!-Paul

M&K's Retrievers
03-06-2012, 07:00 PM
I trust that there are many things that insurance companies would rather not see covered. Your right and those include anything not to be considered a sickness or injury, experimental treatment, cosmetic surgery, repeated drug addiction, birth control, normal maternity, co-pays, etc. Exclusion of this crap would be reflected in lower premiums you pay.

The most ridiculous thing I have ever seen is the law they recently tried to pass in congress. Allow employers to exclude coverages from the insurance they offer for moral grounds? Not familiar with this one??

Yes it is an employee benefit. Doesn't a benefit=pay? In other words, don't employees forgo pay for those benefits? What's next, employers making you sign contracts saying that the money I pay you can't go toward say booze, cigarettes, junk food, porn, guns, ammo, etc, for moral reasons? Your correct. It is an employee benefit purchased by the employer for the benefit of their employees and their dependents. The employer pays the lions share of the cost. The employer may require employee contributions to participate but it is still the employers program. Be in it, opt out and buy your own plan or go to work somewhere else.

Random thoughts above

Buzz
03-06-2012, 08:38 PM
goin for 10.......ROFLMAO!-Paul

I laughed & nearly choked on my supper when I read that. Thanks Paul!

gmhr1
03-07-2012, 09:00 AM
I dont agree with what Rush said but I believe he has a right to his own opinion

menmon
03-07-2012, 09:23 AM
I dont agree with what Rush said but I believe he has a right to his own opinion

I agree....Rush need to continue to voice his opinion!

Buzz
03-07-2012, 09:24 AM
I agree....Rush need to continue to voice his opinion!

Ditto!

Does that make me a ditto head? :cool:

menmon
03-07-2012, 09:28 AM
Ditto!

Does that make me a ditto head? :cool:

Be carefull.....;-)

luvmylabs23139
03-07-2012, 09:58 AM
goin for 10.......ROFLMAO!-Paul


Get a darn grip/ You are one of the people destroying CT. Glad I got the heck out when I did. Are you loving paying for illegals? East Haven tries to fight back, but HOLDER got called in. Thank god I don;t live in CT anymore. It is a total liberal waste land.

Gerry Clinchy
03-07-2012, 10:07 AM
Maybe we could all agree with Newt on this topic?



With all that ails the nation, Meet the Press host David Gregory actually began his interview with Newt Gingrich by asking him about contraceptives and Rush Limbaugh.

Showing obvious disgust for the topic, the Republican presidential candidate marvelously responded, "You know, David, I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the President's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression, and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week"

ARay11
03-07-2012, 10:19 AM
Maybe we could all agree with Newt on this topic?
****AGREED!!!****

M&K's Retrievers
03-07-2012, 10:26 AM
Maybe we could all agree with Newt on this topic?

I just wish an electable Republican had the rhetoric and quick on his feet thinking that Newt has.

menmon
03-07-2012, 10:46 AM
I just wish an electable Republican had the rhetoric and quick on his feet thinking that Newt has.

That arogent ba$%#red after winning Georgia didn't thank anyone of his staff or voters...just stood there and told them how great he was:rolleyes:

That does not win elections or much else;-)

Buzz
03-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Get a darn grip/ You are one of the people destroying CT. Glad I got the heck out when I did. Are you loving paying for illegals? East Haven tries to fight back, but HOLDER got called in. Thank god I don;t live in CT anymore. It is a total liberal waste land.

And here I thought Paul was getting up and working hard everyday to help defend America.

Who'd have thunk it...

BonMallari
03-07-2012, 01:55 PM
That arogent ba$%#red after winning Georgia didn't thank anyone of his staff or voters...just stood there and told them how great he was:rolleyes:

That does not win elections or much else;-)

I noticed that too, he has this pipe dream of debating BHO in Lincoln-Douglas style debates, as if that will ever happen...isnt it ironic that Newt was calling for Santorum to bow out in the early primaries so he could go at Romney one on one, and now its the Santorum camp that is hinting that Newt step aside...

paul young
03-07-2012, 02:45 PM
And here I thought Paul was getting up and working hard everyday to help defend America.

Who'd have thunk it...

did i miss something???? no, i think not.....

okduckboy
03-08-2012, 01:33 AM
Definitely the wrong choice of words. Idiot would have been a better choice.