Rush Checks Bank Account - Then Waves White Flag

[NJ Stinks]

I think it's time to back something up.
__________________________________________

Limbaugh apologizes to law student for insult on sex, says he intended no personal attack

By Associated Press, Updated: Saturday, March 3, 8:43 PM

WASHINGTON — Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh apologized Saturday to a Georgetown University law student he had branded a “slut” and “prostitute” after fellow Republicans as well as Democrats criticized him and several advertisers left his program....

....“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir,” Limbaugh said on his website. “I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”


[And now a word from his sponsors:]


And even after the apology, some advertisers still planned to abandon Limbaugh.

“Even though Mr. Limbaugh has now issued an apology, we have nonetheless decided to withdraw our advertising from his show,” Carbonite CEO David Friend said on his company’s Facebook page. “We hope that our action, along with the other advertisers who have already withdrawn their ads, will ultimately contribute to a more civilized public discourse.”

More at the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/limbaugh-apologizes-to-law-student-for-insult-says-he-intended-no-personal-attack/2012/03/03/gIQAz53LpR_story.html?hpid=z1

[PaceAdvantage]

Good to see people still take Rush seriously, even though they claim the opposite... :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Good to see people still take Rush seriously, even though they claim the opposite... :lol:

Seriously? I put this up for Boxcar. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Seriously? I put this up for Boxcar. :lol:Well, somebody is taking Rush seriously...they're gettin' all in a tizzy over what he said...thus, they are taking him seriously...

Howard Stern says shit like that all the time, but nobody really takes him seriously, thus no uproar...

You can't have your cake and eat it too...either people pay heed to what Rush says, or they don't...

Obviously, they do...and it continues to piss left-leaners like you off to no end.

[Grits]

He said on Wednesday, “What does it say about the college coed ... who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.”

He dug in a day later, refusing to give ground.

“If we’re going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke,” Limbaugh said. “And that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we’re getting for our money.”

He also asked the 30-year-old Fluke: “Who bought your condoms in junior high?”

This guy's at what? Wife #4? I'd rather be in hell with my back broke than live with this piece of trash who would speak of any woman in this manner, who thinks his sense of humor is cute, who thinks rules don't apply to him, who pops Viagra like candy even when off for the weekend with his guy friends? (Good luck there, Rushie boy)

I wish the FCC would fine him and every advertiser in this country would drop him. I don't care what the political football is--NO ONE should be allowed a platform to speak to, or of women in this manner. I loathe this fool.

[Tom]

Actually, I think Rush was spot on with what he said.
Now they want us to pay both ends of the abortion.
Would be cheaper to abort the middleman (woman).

If I have to pay for her sex, I should get some of it - fair is fair.

Contraception is NOT health care.

[NJ Stinks]

Obviously, they do...and it continues to piss left-leaners like you off to no end.

Obviously, protesting is no way to get you to believe me. ;)

[Grits]

PA, I don't have any problem whatsoever standing straight up. I don't lean. What I said is true. THIS was wrong! I don't care how one looks at it. This guy is crazy as a rat in a coffee can. Drugging damaged this dude's brain.

How would you feel if someone on national airwaves called your wife a slut and asked for your sex videos? Gimme a break. This was vile.

[Tom]

Hey, it just occurred to me, now there is no excuse whatsoever for ever having another paternity law suit - there is no reason for a man to be held accountable for the woman's responsibility, seeing how he already paid for her and she was too stupid to take advantage of it. And they don't buy our rubbers, so it is now 100% the woman's fault.

[Rookies]

This latest from Flushed hasn't changed my opinion of him one scintilla.:lol:

Never been averse to trolling in the gutter with personal invective to make his trailer trash points. A disgusting human being who has failed in his personal relationships but has the brass to tell the rest of us how to run our own lives.

[Grits]

Contraception is NOT health care.

But,VIAGRA, CIALIS, AND LEVITRA are?

Gotcha. ;) Uh huh.

For the next week, count the number of commercials you see aired on TV for these and the number you see for female contraceptives, then get back to me.

Advertising by Big Pharma is one of healthcare's biggest problems. We can't make enough generic chemotherapy drugs for children with cancer, but we sure got plenty of penis dysfunction meds on hand. NOPE, no shortage of these.

Bless y'alls heart. Something's really wrong with this picture. And, there's even more wrong with Limp for speaking of this woman in this manner.

[Tom]

Rookies, is Rush out having so much sex he cant' pay for it and expects everyone else to?

I mean, she is going to college, and she wants someone who is trying to put food on the table for his family to now pay for he entertainment?

Come on, she is the one in the gutter here.

[Tom]

But,VIAGRA, CIALIS, AND LEVITRA are?

I don't agree they should be covered, but they ARE HC in the cases of a physical problem the prevents proper functioning in that area. Like hearing aids, glasses, you know, stuff the person cannot control...unlike laying on your back.
And Rush is not talking about all women - only that kind. You pay your own way to the sack, and we have no problem with what you do. As always, personal responsibility counts. No one is trying to stop your good times or deny you the pill. Just pay for it yourself. Like I do for my food, which is far more essential to my HC than ANY danged pill. How can you justify people have pay for food but not for fun?

BTW, does the HC policies have to pay the wine, too? What about dinner and and a movie....covered? The cigarette at the end?

Motion lotion...covered?

[Tom]

A disgusting human being who has failed in his personal relationships but has the brass to tell the rest of us how to run our own lives.


Explain how, because that is not what he is doing. What is telling you you have to do?

[JustCoolGene]

Greg Gutfeld (Red Eye and The Five) said that American's don't expect taxpayers to just pay for their contraceptives such as condoms, diaphragms, and hormonal contraceptions.. they expect taxpayers to pay for FREE dinners, FREE wine, and FREE flowers to get them into the mood! :)

Gene

[Let's Roll]

Carbonite just screwed themselves.Rush's listeners will cancel subscriptions over this, his apology was more than enough. I expect Carbonite stock to lose value Monday morning, I'm sure the stockholders will be happy :lol:

[lsbets]

From Reason yesterday:

Fluke's testimony prompted a sexist tirade from Rush Limbaugh that was not only gratuitously offensive but failed to zero in on the glaring weaknesses in her case for the mandate. Her argument boils down to this: Here is something we want but cannot afford; therefore someone else should be forced to pay for it. We've already discussed the fallacy behind the second part of that argument. What about the first part?

Fluke says birth control "can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school," which translates into $1,000 a year, or about $83 a month. Even that estimate is suspiciously high. Here is a website that offers a month's worth of birth control pills for less than $20. According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills "cost about $15–$50 each month." (Condoms and diaphragms are even cheaper.) Even if you include the cost of a doctor's visit to get a prescription, Fluke's figure is inflated. Are Georgetown Law students really struggling to pay $1 for a condom or buy a diaphragm with an amortized cost (including spermicidal jelly) of $2 or $3 a month? If so, abstinence is always an option.

In short, Fluke chose to attend a Jesuit school and now objects because she has to pay out of pocket for birth control, a trivial expense compared to the cost of tuition, books, food, rent, transportation or even the copayments for other medical services. How can this inconvenience possibly justify compelling someone else to pay for her contraceptives, especially when they have religious objections to doing so?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/02/does-reproductive-freedom-imply-a-right

Regardless of what Rush said, no one else should be forced to pay for another's personal choices. That woman's belief that other people should pay for her choices because, well, because, embodies all that is wrong with our country today.

[PaceAdvantage]

How would you feel if someone on national airwaves called your wife a slut and asked for your sex videos? Gimme a break. This was vile.If my wife pulled a similar stunt...going before Congress and testifying that her birth control should be paid for by others...if she PUTS HERSELF in the national spotlight like that...then I wouldn't be surprised that her absurd actions were met with equally absurd commentary by the likes of Limbaugh and others.

Rush, as he said, was using absurdity to comment on absurdity.

[Tom]

The saddest part about all of this is that the REAL disturbing thing going on here is the violation of the constitution by this president. He has no power to make this demand on HC insurance providers. Once again, the left has managed to change the reality and get everyone on the wrong argument.
This book looks to be a winner - I order it and will review it asap.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1484277148001/authors-look-to-wake-sleeping-giant

The right has GOT to start practicing "Recognize > Reframe > Refocus."
I fell into that very trap in this thread in my reply to Rookies.
Allow me to fix that...

Rookies, Rush is not telling us what to do, and h certainly isn't telling YOU what to do. He is a US citizen discussing OUR affairs. YOU are not a part of it. You are a guest here. Please respect our internal affairs and worry about your own. When Rush decides to tell YOU what to do, feel free to jump in. Until then, you have no role in this. You can ignore my question before...your answer really doesn't matter.

[PaceAdvantage]

And for the record, I NEVER listen to Rush Limbaugh...in fact, I don't listen to or watch any political commentators these days.

[PaceAdvantage]

But,VIAGRA, CIALIS, AND LEVITRA are?

Gotcha. ;) Uh huh.How is this even comparable?

A better example might be a woman diagnosed with an abnormally low sex drive due to a hormonal imbalance...she is then prescribed a hormone therapy that I will bet you is covered by insurance, just like the above drugs you mention.

[TJDave]

I'll gladly pay my fair share for the government to provide free contraception to any woman who cannot afford it. I'd rather pay for the pills than raise the next generation of idiots.

And if there were any way to force-feed 'em the pills I'd be for that, too.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Seems to me, in college, activies for men & women involving the need of condoms makes that actitivy a 'club sport'. Something you do on your own because you want to, and pay for it on your own, without financal support from the school.

[bigmack]

I'll gladly pay my fair share for the government to provide free contraception to any woman who cannot afford it. I'd rather pay for the pills than raise the next generation of idiots.

And if there were any way to force-feed 'em the pills I'd be for that, too.
Big, colossal post that fits snugly with my sentiment.

I wonder what the spread is on kids born that become drains on the system over those that become productive? My guess would be 6-1, easy.

Bye Bye Miss American Pie.

[hcap]

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/03/Screen%20shot%202012-03-02%20at%2010.29.37%20PM.png

[boxcar]

Actually, I think Rush was spot on with what he said.
Now they want us to pay both ends of the abortion.
Would be cheaper to abort the middleman (woman).

If I have to pay for her sex, I should get some of it - fair is fair.

Contraception is NOT health care.

You're right, Tom. Rush was dead on the mark. Any woman who goes before congress with her hand out begging for money so that she can have all the illicit sex she wants has got some serious moral/spiritual issues. She's a woman with no shame, no pride, no dignity, no self-respect, no character. And then to add insult to injury lies about the terribly high costs for her recreational sex; for decent women have called into Rush's show to inform him that contraception is really cheap at Wally Mart -- something like $5. per month! Plus this woman chose to attend Georgetown, knowing full well that their insurance wouldn't cover her playtime sex. And now she complains? Why did she choose to attend if she didn't like the university's policy? She's a total fraud.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/03/Screen%20shot%202012-03-02%20at%2010.29.37%20PM.png

Pelosi is far worse, Hcap. She said at one point that 98% of all Catholic women are on the pill. Do you think there's something wrong with that statement? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[maddog42]

I'll gladly pay my fair share for the government to provide free contraception to any woman who cannot afford it. I'd rather pay for the pills than raise the next generation of idiots.

And if there were any way to force-feed 'em the pills I'd be for that, too.

Birth control is the cheapest most cost effective type of health care. When my tax dollar goes to birth control I know it will:

1 Stop unwanted pregnancies and save the tax payer thousands of dollars.
2 Possibly save lives (condoms, aids) and prevent abortions.
3 Prevent teens, immature people, and drug addicts from raising kids and adding to our welfare rolls.

[lsbets]

I'll gladly pay my fair share for the government to provide free contraception to any woman who cannot afford it. I'd rather pay for the pills than raise the next generation of idiots.

And if there were any way to force-feed 'em the pills I'd be for that, too.

That is not the issue. The issue is forcing an individual or organization who has religious objections to contraception to pay for it. That is wrong.

I am all for birth control. There are several posters on here who make me wish their parents had better access to birth control. But the government should not be able to force Catholics to act against the teachings of their religion to accommodate someone else's choice of recreational activities.

[maddog42]

Since Rush signed a $400 million contract, I don't think he has to worry too much about his bank account. $400 million??!!!! I take it back: Rush is not a stupid junkie. He is way smarter than me.

[lsbets]

How is this even comparable?

A better example might be a woman diagnosed with an abnormally low sex drive due to a hormonal imbalance...she is then prescribed a hormone therapy that I will bet you is covered by insurance, just like the above drugs you mention.

That brings up the one thing about the pill and where it fits into legitimate treatment, not just birth control. Almost every girl I met from the time I was 17 or so until I got married at 30 was on the pill and they all said it was to regulate their cycle. I didn't believe any of them but didn't argue about it, why ruin the mood?, but how often is that really the case?

[ArlJim78]

its a manufactured campaign issue which furthers the lefts attack on religion, the woman is a fraud, completely misrepresented herself. what a disgrace that a woman with the brains and means to get into Georgetown would end up in front of congress sniveling about the onerous cost of her birth control. just the lastest flavor of victim brought to us by the ideology that says do whatever you want and don't worry about the cost or consequences because it's not your fault or your responsibility.

[Tom]

Put this in perspective - insulin, heart medications, asthma medications, depression medication, therapy sessions.....all legitimate medicines are not provided 100% free. There are co-pays. But birth control has to 100% free?

[lsbets]

its a manufactured campaign issue which furthers the lefts attack on religion, the woman is a fraud, completely misrepresented herself. what a disgrace that a woman with the brains and means to get into Georgetown would end up in front of congress sniveling about the onerous cost of her birth control. just the lastest flavor of victim brought to us by the ideology that says do whatever you want and don't worry about the cost or consequences because it's not your fault or your responsibility.

It is a completely manufactured issue the "war on women" as MSNBC calls it, and the usual dolts here fall for it. No one, not even Santorum, has mentioned banning contraception. If someone did, they would be laughed out of town. But the administration is using it as an excuse to subvert religious organizations to the will of the state. That should be an issue, and it is for me. Sadly, simpletons don't recognize the serious consequences of this assault on liberty.

[toetoe]

This guy's at what? Wife #4? I'd rather be in hell with my back broke than live with this piece of trash who would speak of any woman in this manner, who thinks his sense of humor is cute, who thinks rules don't apply to him, who pops Viagra like candy even when off for the weekend with his guy friends? (Good luck there, Rushie boy)

I wish the FCC would fine him and every advertiser in this country would drop him. I don't care what the political football is--NO ONE should be allowed a platform to speak to, or of women in this manner. I loathe this fool.



Who is this really ? [Bill Cosby voice.] Wanda Sykes ? Beware the Crotchkickers Three, Mr. Limbaugh. Be very afraid. :eek:

[BlueShoe]

I'm with Rush on this one, and do not give a damn if the FemiNazis like it or not. Every time this tramp spreads her legs the taxpayers are supposed to pay for it? In effect this is what she was asking for. More entitlement mindset; if I want it someone else is obligated to pay for it. What next, smokers will want taxpayers to pay for their habit, drunks and druggies get their booze and drugs on the house? :rolleyes: Better still, what about we horseplayers? The next time we return from the track after taking a drubbing do we get a new bankroll from the citizens? :rolleyes:

As for Sandra Fluke, there is more than it first seemed. She is not a young coed, she is in fact 30 years old, hardly a kid. She has also been active in women's movement activities, presumably of the far left variety.
www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/)

[Tom]

This whole deal was panned with the help of the Lame Stream Media and Stephanopoulis's ridiculous question to Mitt in one of ABC's excuses of a debate.
It was all set up. Other LSM sources now piled on because it was debated question...meanwhile, the worst president in our history sits at home laughing because the real issues have once again been replaced by knucklehead stuff.

Wake up out there......RRR.
Don't get "Fluked" again.

[TJDave]

just the lastest flavor of victim brought to us by the ideology that says do whatever you want and don't worry about the cost or consequences because it's not your fault or your responsibility.

You cannot force the irresponsible to behave responsibly. And because the end result of THIS particular irresponsible behavior are babies you can't turn your back and say it's not MY problem.

Pills are cheaper than babies.

[lsbets]

You cannot force the irresponsible to behave responsibly. And because the end result of THIS particular irresponsible behavior are babies you can't turn your back and say it's not MY problem.

Pills are cheaper than babies.

So you are okay with the government forcing a religious institution to act contrary to their beliefs?

How do you feel about the proposed idea of outlawing circumcision? If the state decides its a cruel and unnecessary procedure, are you okay with it being illegal to circumcise a Jewish child?

[delayjf]

I'll gladly pay my fair share for the government to provide free contraception to any woman who cannot afford it.

Free no - cheap over the counter yes, which is the way it is in Europe. There are also other options like the morning after pill.

[Robert Goren]

You on the right can chortle all you want whether the pill should be paid for by insurance and how it is not a "War on Women". I hope whoever the GOP nominee is makes it a major issue this fall. I willing to let the voters decide this. So is every democrat I know.

[lsbets]

You on the right can chortle all you want whether the pill should be paid for by insurance and how it is not a "War on Women". I hope whoever the GOP nominee is makes it a major issue this fall. I willing to let the voters decide this. So is every democrat I know.

It is not a matter of whether the pill should be covered by insurance. It is whether a religious organization should be forced to act against their beliefs by the government. Sadly the Republicans are unable to frame the argument in those terms, but that is what it comes down to. A choice of liberty or tyranny. This administration chooses tyranny. And if you stand with them, so do you. :ThmbDown:

[FantasticDan]

Maddow did a great segment on it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46610339

[boxcar]

I'll gladly pay my fair share for the government to provide free contraception to any woman who cannot afford it. I'd rather pay for the pills than raise the next generation of idiots.

And if there were any way to force-feed 'em the pills I'd be for that, too.

How come the woman's lover boy can't pay? He can't afford it either, eh?

You're close to embracing an authoritarian state. When it fully manifests itself in this country, I have to think you will also no problem in supporting Chinese style birth control either.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You cannot force the irresponsible to behave responsibly. And because the end result of THIS particular irresponsible behavior are babies you can't turn your back and say it's not MY problem.

Pills are cheaper than babies.

Good. Then you can pay for all health-conscious people's pricey organic and natural foods,too. Using your logic, it would be cheaper to pick up the tab of everyone's health store bills than to pay for their medical care.

Then you say that we cannot force the irresponsible to act responsibly, but you're okay with the state forcing responsible, hard-working taxpayers to pick up the slack of the irresponsible? That you're okay with?

Finally, I have a better idea: If people want to fornicate nilly willy, why not have the state force them to submit to sterilization as a way to protect society and even themselves? They can pay on an installment plan -- maybe something along the lines of taking out a student loan? In fact, maybe they can name the new bill the Fluke Act.

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

The funniest part of all this is that the SAME PEOPLE who are slamming Rush over this are also laughing out loud with approval when Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a c*nt or jokes about Michelle Bachmann being violently raped. In short, it's that good old double standard in action.

[PaceAdvantage]

Then again, as Bill Maher said himself, he's on HBO, has no commercial sponsors, and can say whatever he likes without consequence.

Not really comparable...

[TJDave]

So you are okay with the government forcing a religious institution to act contrary to their beliefs?

If those beliefs violate the law then, absolutely.

It's against the law to hire, fire or dispense benefits based on beliefs.


How do you feel about the proposed idea of outlawing circumcision? If the state decides its a cruel and unnecessary procedure, are you okay with it being illegal to circumcise a Jewish child?

Good question. Since circumcision is an elective procedure only for Jews I don't see how it would necessarily fit this discussion...(no Jewish agency would require a prospective employee have a circumcision or deny their application.) However, if this were to become law and pass constitutional muster I would have no choice but to live with it.

[Mike at A+]

Maybe not comparable in the context of commercials and sponsors. But in the context of being a decent person, Maher fails miserably and deserves to be beaten to a pulp. That may even improve his looks. :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

You're right, Tom. Rush was dead on the mark.

Boxcar

You mean when he apologized? :lol:

Seriously, I wonder if you guys ever heard of the term "the big picture". Here's a hint:

Meaning:

the big picture : everything that relates to or is involved in a situation or issue

▪ We need to look at the big picture before we can work out specific details.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/big%20picture

[boxcar]

If those beliefs violate the law then, absolutely.

It's against the law to hire, fire or dispense benefits based on beliefs.

Can you point to that law for us?

And here's something else about this whole issue that points to the chronic hypocrisy of the Left, i.e. the Separation of Church and State Doctrine. The Left only wants this to work one way. They only want the Church to stay out State affairs. But they're perfectly okay with the State imposing its brand of morality upon the Church. It's okay for the State to intrude on the Church's doctrinal issues and moral/spiritual edicts. Why is this? Why should the Church have to its conscience compromised by the State? Why should the State have the right to restrict the free practice of religion, which involves people's right to live their lives according to those religious beliefs -- to practice what they believe?

I take it, TJ, that if homosexuality were to become a protected civil right, that you would be fine with the State imposing serious penalties and sanctions on a Church if it preached any sermons about the sinfulness of homosexual practices and the consequences that will be suffered by those who live that lifestyle? Or if any church or denomination refused to recognize that civil right and refused to marry gay couples? You'd be okay with that, too?

You, Goren, NJ, Mosty and Hcap are all the same kinds of peas in a pod. Just can't get enough Statism into your life, can you? Why do you hate Freedom so much? What do you have against Individual Liberties? What is so horrible about instilling into our culture and society the virtues of personal responsibility, and all the good benefits that come from accepting responsibility for our lives? What is so terrible about suffering the consequences of our decisions -- good and bad alike? Why do you want the State to control virtually every aspect of your personal life? Are people like you so insecure that you need to be led by the nose at every step of your life?

I ask these things because for the life of me, I cannot relate to people like yourself. I was raised to think very differently -- thanks be to God! (Thank you, Lord, for your grace!) My only answer to this near universal phenomenon of socialism (in one form or another) is that since all people are alienated from their Creator, according to scripture, then they can only look to the State to supply their needs. Something has to fill the void, so I guess it's government? So, the natural inclination of peoples all over the world, evidently, is to create something that they think is as big or even bigger than God himself -- the Nanny State -- a government that will take care of us from cradle to grave. Am I close here? I'm really trying to understand the underlying dynamics that motivates people to embrace Statism. I'm trying to understand why people want to become enslaved to the State.

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Seriously, I wonder if you guys ever heard of the term "the big picture". Here's a hint:

...

So... do you think the evil insurance companies will be raising or lowering their rates (do you think the "cash" cost of these products will go up or down once they are covered?) with yet another mandate?

I mean, if we are going to talk 'big picture' then I just want to make sure that the "screamers" about bringing down the cost of health care, whom also want EVERYTHING covered, are going to acknowledge all of the pictures in the scenario.

[boxcar]

You mean when he apologized? :lol:

Seriously, I wonder if you guys ever heard of the term "the big picture". Here's a hint:

Meaning:

the big picture : everything that relates to or is involved in a situation or issue

▪ We need to look at the big picture before we can work out specific details.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/big%20picture

The big picture is a larger absurdity than any of its details! This woman is a liar, a fraud and must be at the very bare minimum --- quite promiscuous. Any woman who has to spend thousand of dollars (as Fluke has claimed) on birth control must be spending more time on her back than on her feet!

And don't think for a moment that I'm questioning this gal's virtue. (Hint: Remember what I said once about Obama and how it's impossible to assassinate his character and why?)

Boxcar

[Mike at A+]

What is so horrible about instilling into our culture and society the virtues of personal responsibility, and all the good benefits that come from accepting responsibility for our lives?
The short answer: Democrats would lose votes.

[NJ Stinks]

Am I close here?

Boxcar

You're not even in the same hemisphere.

[boxcar]

The short answer: Democrats would lose votes.

Exactly right, Mike. The whole entitlement, welfare-state mentality that Dems are inculcating into our culture is no different than than how they treat Blacks. Think about it. Both Blacks and Whites are essentially helpless. Both groups are victims, but in different ways. So the State must step in and help us. And by instilling into us our roles of dependency (instead of independence), the libs are assured of getting reelected. Our role is society is to become dependent slaves to our governmental slave masters -- just in the same way black slaves in this country were dependent upon their owners. In principle, there is no difference. None!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You're not even in the same hemisphere.

But you're too ashamed to tell us on what planet you live, eh? :rolleyes:

YOUR god, NJ, is the State. Own up to it. This is what you worship. This is what you look to for your safety net. This is your only hope in this life -- a government that will come along and give you something that resembles their idea of utopia. You want the government's version of heaven here on earth. You want a government that tells you you can live a consequence-free life, providing, of course, you play by their rules.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

So... do you think the evil insurance companies will be raising or lowering their rates (do you think the "cash" cost of these products will go up or down once they are covered?) with yet another mandate?

I mean, if we are going to talk 'big picture' then I just want to make sure that the "screamers" about bringing down the cost of health care, whom also want EVERYTHING covered, are going to acknowledge all of the pictures in the scenario.

The big picture was stated rather succinctly by Maddog in Post #28 of this thread. I'm confident Maddog's points are cost effective for the heathcare providers as well as the rest of us.

[lsbets]

Not surprisingly the statists do not seem to understand the issue. Or maybe they do. If they do, they are some sick twisted folks.

[highnote]

Then you say that we cannot force the irresponsible to act responsibly, but you're okay with the state forcing responsible, hard-working taxpayers to pick up the slack of the irresponsible? That you're okay with?


Many people are overweight because they refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. Taxpayers end up paying for their cholesterol and blood pressure lowering drugs as well as drugs for diabetes.

Since these people are unwilling to change their lifestyles should they be forced to pay for their own medication?

[johnhannibalsmith]

The big picture was stated rather succinctly by Maddog in Post #28 of this thread. I'm confident Maddog's points are cost effective for the heathcare providers as well as the rest of us.

Maddog's points primarily address the societal costs that impact on the taxpayer a la welfare programs.

You aren't answering my question. Do you think that your premium will go up or down as more coverage mandates are implemented? It isn't a trick question and I'm not confident that my implication is necessarily the definitive answer, but history seems to compel me to believe that your premiums will not decline nor remain the same.

I don't care - I just don't want to hear the same crybaby crap about the cost of insurance as we mandate a) that everyone has it even if they can't afford it and b) that everything under the sun is covered if it can loosely be fit under the umbrella of healthcare.

Not that it needs to be said - but, I don't think that hard-on pills should be covered, I don't think that "prescription strength" :rolleyes: acetaminophen should be covered, I don't think that a lot of things should be covered. If you can afford an iPhone and a $100 monthly service bill, you can buy pills, rubbers, whatever, if this is such a crucial health issue that it runs as the lead on all the news segments.

Still, I don't really care if this is what people really want. Just spare me that outrage down the road about the cost of healthcare when you mandate everyone have insurance and then mandate that the insurance cover damn near everything. Birth control has been available, accessible, and fairly inexpensive for damn near ever and we still have half a generation of rugrats that nobody parents as it is. I wish you well in your belief that another mandate will "fix" society's ills. Unless that mandate is that people actually must take the pill. That may work.

[PaceAdvantage]

Since these people are unwilling to change their lifestyles should they be forced to pay for their own medication?Probably...but since we already live in an entitlement society, it is going to be impossible to pull folks away from the public trough on which they gorge themselves nonstop.

[highnote]

Can you point to that law for us?

And here's something else about this whole issue that points to the chronic hypocrisy of the Left, i.e. the Separation of Church and State Doctrine. The Left only wants this to work one way. They only want the Church to stay out State affairs. But they're perfectly okay with the State imposing its brand of morality upon the Church. It's okay for the State to intrude on the Church's doctrinal issues and moral/spiritual edicts. Why is this? Why should the Church have to its conscience compromised by the State? Why should the State have the right to restrict the free practice of religion, which involves people's right to live their lives according to those religious beliefs -- to practice what they believe?

In some cases the states brand of morality is superior to a religion's brand of morality. For example, the case of the judge in Pennsylvania who threw out the case of the Muslim attacking the atheist dressed as a Muhammad zombie during a Halloween parade. The judge was using Sharia law. Free practice of a religion that infringes upon the rights of others is incongruent with a free society. The state has the right to impose its authority and brand of morality to stop that particular practice of that religion in this country.

[NJ Stinks]

The big picture is a larger absurdity than any of its details! This woman is a liar, a fraud and must be at the very bare minimum --- quite promiscuous. Any woman who has to spend thousand of dollars (as Fluke has claimed) on birth control must be spending more time on her back than on her feet!

Boxcar

Unfortunately, you cannot accept the fact that this woman was speaking for women across the country - not just for her own selfish reasons.

It reminds me of when John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 and said:

"We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?..."

This woman was doing the same thing - asking Americans to think about something and as with Kerry - it took a lot of guts to do it.

And, as an aside, I could care less what anybody else thinks about John Kerry. What he said back in 1971 is something I will never forget. I would be honored to meet the man one day - and I can't say that about most politicians.

[highnote]

Probably...but since we already live in an entitlement society, it is going to be impossible to pull folks away from the public trough on which they gorge themselves nonstop.


I think it goes beyond being an entitlement society. I think as a society, Americans are proud people and proud of their country. Americans want everyone in this country to have the best possible health. The intentions are good. However, good intentions are expensive.

The fitness craze that hit the country in the 80s was a good thing. Exercising became fashionable. Smoking became unfashionable. I am sure a lot of money has been saved because of this trend.

Genetics also plays a role -- even healthy people have heart attacks. The runner, Jim Fixx, for example. Had he been taking cholesterol lowering drugs he might still be alive.

In the case of genetics causing heart disease, should people with unlucky genes be forced to pay for their own medicine?

As I said, Americans want the best for every citizen. However, there is a big cost to have the best.

A lot of social battles were fought during the 60s. Many of those battles were won. There is a lot more equality in America now. Perhaps now it is time for Americans to return to a more independent mindset.

And for the record, I have no problem with Rush expressing an opinion. I don't agree with it and it was crude, but he is free to say whatever he wants. I don't listen to him because the few times that I have he always seems to be trying to stir up controversy. The more controversial he is the more publicity he gets. I am sure he is very happy with the press he is getting.

[TJDave]

Can you point to that law for us?

The Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Civil Rights Act, Rehabilitation Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Immigration Reform and Control Act...Probably more...


Why should the Church have to its conscience compromised by the State? Why should the State have the right to restrict the free practice of religion, which involves people's right to live their lives according to those religious beliefs -- to practice what they believe?


The State has the right to govern religious practice in so far as it conforms to the laws of the land. For instance: I doubt one could effectively argue the religious freedom to conduct child sacrifice.



I take it, TJ, that if homosexuality were to become a protected civil right, that you would be fine with the State imposing serious penalties and sanctions on a Church if it preached any sermons about the sinfulness of homosexual practices and the consequences that will be suffered by those who live that lifestyle? Or if any church or denomination refused to recognize that civil right and refused to marry gay couples? You'd be okay with that, too?

First, what two consenting adults of the same sex decide to do in private IS a protected civil right.

Second, sermonizing is protected free speech, unless it entices incitement to harm. Also, church sanctioned marriage by nature is discriminatory. You'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic priest who would marry a Jew, Muslim or Protestant. ;)

[chickenhead]

if we'd only go my way -- of not treating employer health insurance preferentially, but instead treating personal health insurance preferentially we wouldn't have this discussion.

But whatever health insurance you want. Make it tax deductible.

Done.

Everyone's happy.

We've set up a system where we essentially force people to be reliant on an employer for health insurance...of course you end up with weird impedance mismatches, and many of them.

There is no "good decision" within that context, the context is absurd. Get rid of it.

[Tom]

Many people are overweight because they refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. Taxpayers end up paying for their cholesterol and blood pressure lowering drugs as well as drugs for diabetes.

Since these people are unwilling to change their lifestyles should they be forced to pay for their own medication?

Not comparable, John.
If the women does not use BC and gets pregnant, no one has said she should not receive HC benefits.

[NJ Stinks]

Maddog's points primarily address the societal costs that impact on the taxpayer a la welfare programs.

You aren't answering my question. Do you think that your premium will go up or down as more coverage mandates are implemented? It isn't a trick question and I'm not confident that my implication is necessarily the definitive answer, but history seems to compel me to believe that your premiums will not decline nor remain the same.



I think the cost factor either way will be negligible when it comes to contraception. As for "more coverage mandates" affecting how much we pay for health insurance and/or health provider services, I believe a single payor system will make healthcare affordable to all. What we decide to cover or not cover with a national healthcare program is certainly debatable. And, of course, the more things covered, the more it will cost.

Anyway, I don't think health insurance premiums/health provider services can go up any faster than they have in the last 12 years or so no matter what we do now to change the system. So I believe attempting to change the system is a good thing. We can always go back to what we had if changes made are ineffective or more costly than what we had.

[Tom]

Put this in perspective - insulin, heart medications, asthma medications, depression medication, therapy sessions.....all legitimate medicines are not provided 100% free. There are co-pays. But birth control has to 100% free?

Not one of the left has addressed this post yet. Why BC 100% and not these really needed drugs?

[delayjf]

It reminds me of when John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 and said:

"We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?..."

Idotic premise - nobody went up to any soldier in Vietnam and asked if they would like the honor of being the last man to die in Vietnam.

Also - doctors are not required by law to perform abortions. So they can withhold treatment based upon belief.

[NJ Stinks]

Not one of the left has addressed this post yet. Why BC 100% and not these really needed drugs?

I don't know the answer, Tom. I think it's a fair point you make. Maybe somebody else knows why they are treated differently. :confused:

[boxcar]

Many people are overweight because they refuse to live a healthy lifestyle. Taxpayers end up paying for their cholesterol and blood pressure lowering drugs as well as drugs for diabetes.

Since these people are unwilling to change their lifestyles should they be forced to pay for their own medication?

This is not the issue here. Please get up to speed on what the core issue is. LS and a few others know what the real issue here is.

Secondly, if obese people have insurance their drugs are covered.

This goes back to what I wrote earlier. Shouldn't I get FREE, FREE, FREE (as in no cost to me) organic groceries so that I can eat super well and healthy and help keep medical costs down? Why should I have to pay for the food I eat?

Once you get on this "free" kick, it quickly becomes addictive. And I can out-absurd El Rushbo with this: Everyone should pay for everyone else. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Unfortunately, you cannot accept the fact that this woman was speaking for women across the country - not just for her own selfish reasons.

You're delusional. She was speaking only for the feminazis. There are many women out there who find these radicals laughable if not downright pathetic or even despicable.

If these women spending "thousands" on birth control can't afford it, maybe they should become unionized so that can raise their rates while they're spending all that time on their backs. :rolleyes: Either that or they need to find their way to the nearest Wally Mart.

Boxcar
P.S. I don't think anything about Kerry because he's the last guy I would want to have on my mind. My mind has very discriminating tastes, thank you.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... And, of course, the more things covered, the more it will cost.
...

Thanks. By the way, we don't have a single payor system and while many would like it and seem to believe that we do have it or are on our way to having it, we don't. We have the same group of insurance companies that everyone alleges to hate, now having everyone funnelled to them as customers, and a litany of ideas being implemented that may work for a single payor system being foisted onto the existing health insurance system which has already driven care costs to absurd levels. Maybe you consider that progress, but just do me a solid and remember all of this when the shit hits the fan. We're just going to end up having to undo all of this damage at some point to get to where you'd like to be and it won't be pretty nor easy to do. Just thinking "big picture" for you and thinking the now isn't the best time to be pushing for higher premiums to cover treatments that are by most standards already rather affordable... for the time being.

[Tom]

You on the right can chortle all you want whether the pill should be paid for by insurance and how it is not a "War on Women". I hope whoever the GOP nominee is makes it a major issue this fall. I willing to let the voters decide this. So is every democrat I know.


This is your main issue this year?
Sad.

So Bobby, is it your position that Obama, or any president has the right to decide what is covered under health care, and how much of it is covered?

I say no president has that right. Do you disagree with that?

[Tom]

Good question. Since circumcision is an elective procedure only for Jews I don't see how it would necessarily fit this discussion...

Are you seriously that ignorant?

[NJ Stinks]

if we'd only go my way -- of not treating employer health insurance preferentially, but instead treating personal health insurance preferentially we wouldn't have this discussion.

But whatever health insurance you want. Make it tax deductible.

Done.

Everyone's happy.

We've set up a system where we essentially force people to be reliant on an employer for health insurance...of course you end up with weird impedance mismatches, and many of them.

There is no "good decision" within that context, the context is absurd. Get rid of it.

For what it's worth, health insurance premiums are tax deductible if one itemizes on (Form 1040)Schedule A.

Even after I googled it you lost me with the use of the word "impedance", Chickenhead. :confused:

I agree 100% that we need to get away from a employer-based health insurance program.

[chickenhead]

I'm not a jew. I also don't remember "electing".

[Let's Roll]

.......just do me a solid and remember all of this when the shit hits the fan. We're just going to end up having to undo all of this damage at some point.....
This damage, what others here call "hope & change", will never be undone.All this damage is designed to overwhelm and destroy the fabric of our American way of life, so that it can never be repaired.Remembering will not do anything, except make some of us long for the good old days.

[boxcar]

The Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Civil Rights Act, Rehabilitation Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Immigration Reform and Control Act...Probably more...

None of these subordinate the Church to the State. Again, where are you when it comes to the Doctrine of Separation? And where are you on the First Amendment Rights? If the State is going to force anyone to behave or act contrary to their religious beliefs, then the State, in essence is establishing itself as the authority religion because it become the lord over people's consciences. And this "establishment" is clearly forbidden in the Amendment. The right to Religious Freedom includes the right to practice that Faith, i.e., live it according to the dictates of the person's conscience.
Not everyone in this nation is a phony baloney believer or Christian whose only claim to fame is warming a pew every week at some church. The world is filled with people who behave like saints for a few hours a week, then act like demons for the rest of the week. But true believers take their faith very seriously and want to live what they believe in their hearts, preach, teach or share with others.

The State has the right to govern religious practice in so far as it conforms to the laws of the land. For instance: I doubt one could effectively argue the religious freedom to conduct child sacrifice.

Poor example. Can you tell me which recognized Faith here in this country or any civilized country condones or supports child sacrifice? But I can give you plenty of religious faiths that condemn all matter of illicit sex, such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, etc.

First, what two consenting adults of the same sex decide to do in private IS a protected civil right.

But two consenting heterosexual adults are not a protected class of citizens! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Second, sermonizing is protected free speech, unless it entices incitement to harm. Also, church sanctioned marriage by nature is discriminatory. You'd be hard pressed to find a Catholic priest who would marry a Jew, Muslim or Protestant. ;)

Your analogy is stinks. We're not talking about inter-faith stuff. Good grief, man. Get on the same page!

However, if homosexuals were to become a protected class of citizen, then I could easily see the state imposing its will on the Church nixing that "free speech sermonizing" stuff or requiring a church to marry such people. And so would you, if you took your own reasoning to its logical conclusion. In your mind, the State should have the final say in what a Church can or cannot do within the sphere of the Church's doctrines or creeds. Again, so much for the Doctrine of Separation, eh? And so much for First Amendment Rights.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This damage, what others here call "hope & change", will never be undone.All this damage is designed to overwhelm and destroy the fabric of our American way of life, so that it can never be repaired.Remembering will not do anything, except make some of us long for the good old days.

Exactly right! This is all designed to NOT be undone. Indeed, so that it cannot be undone short of a civil war. We're too, too far into the swamp to turn back.
But it's going to be really interesting to watch AmeriKans down the road a piece start squealing like Greeks or Brits!

Boxcar

[Robert Goren]

This is your main issue this year?
Sad.

So Bobby, is it your position that Obama, or any president has the right to decide what is covered under health care, and how much of it is covered?

I say no president has that right. Do you disagree with that?. I am very much in favor of that. I have learned from personal experience what happens when the government gives health insurance companies free reign on what they pay have pay for even when their policy says that they cover it.

[elysiantraveller]

Just throwing this out there... many women go on birth control not because they are "promiscuous" or trying to have sex but because of underlying health and hormonal issues...

Most are ignoring this key point.

[Tom]

So Bobby, you understand that if your right comes from the government, they can take it away just as easily, right?

By YOUR way of thinking, if Santorem gets elected, he can outlaw all coverage of abortion, contraceptives, any care for the elderly....anything he wants because you say he has that power. You would get only what the current president wanted to give you.

[PaceAdvantage]

Just throwing this out there... many women go on birth control not because they are "promiscuous" or trying to have sex but because of underlying health and hormonal issues...

Most are ignoring this key point.But the vast majority do not go on birth control for this reason.

[Tom]

Just throwing this out there... many women go on birth control not because they are "promiscuous" or trying to have sex but because of underlying health and hormonal issues...

Most are ignoring this key point.

No one is ignoring that. I used that exact case talking about male enhancement drugs - they should NOT be covered, unless they are being used for a legitimate physical reason. That is a deflection argument - just like the left always uses to defend abortion. What about rape or incest???? OK, ignore the VAST majority and focus on the minority.

BTW, are hormonal issues more important than heart medications? Or insulin?
Because they both have co-pays.

[elysiantraveller]

But the vast majority do not go on birth control for this reason.

I would disagree with that statement.

Two common reasons for it being prescribed are acne and to help in regularity.

[Robert Goren]

So Bobby, you understand that if your right comes from the government, they can take it away just as easily, right?

By YOUR way of thinking, if Santorem gets elected, he can outlaw all coverage of abortion, contraceptives, any care for the elderly....anything he wants because you say he has that power. You would get only what the current president wanted to give you. Thats why he is not going to be elected.

[chickenhead]

is the issue about co-pays? I haven't followed this closely enough to know, but what I've read had to do with institutions specifically being able to choose "no coverage" for birth control. No coverage means full price (i.e. as if you have no insurance), not a co-pay (with the remainder paid for by the insurance).

For most plans all covered prescriptions have co-pays, birth control being no different than anything else.

[elysiantraveller]

No one is ignoring that. I used that exact case talking about male enhancement drugs - they should NOT be covered, unless they are being used for a legitimate physical reason. That is a deflection argument - just like the left always uses to defend abortion. What about rape or incest???? OK, ignore the VAST majority and focus on the minority.

BTW, are hormonal issues more important than heart medications? Or insulin?
Because they both have co-pays.

Look, I don't think the Church should be forced to offer it. All health plans differ from one another. I just don't think its as much of a deflection argument as most on here would think... based solely on my experience it seems pretty legitimate.

[elysiantraveller]

I agree 100% that we need to get away from a employer-based health insurance program.

Then you should hate health-care reform...

[lsbets]

I would disagree with that statement.

Two common reasons for it being prescribed are acne and to help in regularity.

I brought that point up earlier.

I doubt that the majority of the time that is why it is prescribed. I think the true number is less than 10% of the time. Yes, every girl I dated until I got married, except two, was on the pill. They all told me it was to stay regular. I never called them out on it because I loved the fact they were on the pill. Not one of them was a virgin.

Most of the time the stay regular excuse is a cover so the guy she is about to sleep with doesn't think she's easy. Since I operated on the 3 date rule (if I didn't get it by the 3rd date time to move on), the easy part was never a question at that point.

[TJDave]

Poor example. Can you tell me which recognized Faith here in this country or any civilized country condones or supports child sacrifice? But I can give you plenty of religious faiths that condemn all matter of illicit sex, such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, etc.


It was meant as an extreme example. If the State, through the constitutional process deems it illegal for anyone to discriminate in hiring or extending benefits (health care) based on their personal bias or religious mores then these restrictions apply to religious institutions as well. Separation of State from Church does not extend to exclusion from the law.

[Pell Mell]

Recently read an article that stated that drug companies are falling behind in R & D of antibiotics.
The reason being that there is no money in antibiotics. They are used til a cure is accomplished and then are stopped. Drug companies are only interested in drugs that are taken on a regular basis for a long time.

BC pills fit that bill perfectly and drug companies don't care who is paying for it because they know somebody is.

Those in bed with the drug companies will use any and all means to advance their agenda...connect the dots.

[Tom]

Thats why he is not going to be elected.

Typical dodge - you can't support your argument so you dodge the question.
ANY president.........if you are that hard up to make a point.

[Tom]

For most plans all covered prescriptions have co-pays, birth control being no different than anything else.

The King of Kenya says it must be given to all women at no charge.

[Tom]

Look, I don't think the Church should be forced to offer it. All health plans differ from one another. I just don't think its as much of a deflection argument as most on here would think... based solely on my experience it seems pretty legitimate.

The point here is that Obama doesn't ave the power to order insurance companies to do this in the first place.

[boxcar]

It was meant as an extreme example. If the State, through the constitutional process deems it illegal for anyone to discriminate in hiring or extending benefits (health care) based on their personal bias or religious mores then these restrictions apply to religious institutions as well. Separation of State from Church does not extend to exclusion from the law.

Yes, it was, which is why it was absurd, especially since I know of no religion that practices child sacrifices.

But the Separation Doctrine should extend to the exclusion of Church adherence to Law when doing so would violate the Church's doctrines or creeds or beliefs. The State is plainly hypocritical here, as liberals are constantly preaching tolerance, tolerance , tolerance. Yet, where is the State's tolerance and sensitivity toward Church's religious beliefs? A state cannot make a law that violates Religious Freedom, and this free exercise of religion includes practice thereof according to the dictates of an individual's conscience. The State has NO RIGHT to become lord over anyone's conscience. The State has no right to force someone to violate his or her own conscience. The State should not be the final arbiter that decides for a person what is acceptable or not acceptable to that person's conscience.

Furthermore, no religious institution is barring a woman from getting her contraceptives. The institution is simply saying, you're not going to get them from us, since it goes against our religious beliefs. In fact this is a straw man erected solely for political purposes! For one thing, a woman or a man don't have to work for any company or institution when they disagree with its policies. They're free to turn down offers or find other sources of employment that might give them what they want.

Also, a woman can get all the freebie birth control she wants from Planned Parenthood in the event Wally Mart is still too expensive for her. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[TJDave]

But the Separation Doctrine should extend to the exclusion of Church adherence to Law when doing so would violate the Church's doctrines or creeds or beliefs.

NO

[Robert Goren]

Typical dodge - you can't support your argument so you dodge the question.
ANY president.........if you are that hard up to make a point.The congress which passed the bill gave him the power. Whether you like it or not, he and the congress were elected to do just what you are bitching about. If you can elect a president and a congress to change it, then it will be changed. This is America and thats the way things work here. Our government does not take its marching orders from some old guy in Rome.

[lsbets]

The congress which passed the bill gave him the power. Whether you like it or not, he and the congress were elected to do just what you are bitching about. If you can elect a president and a congress to change it, then it will be changed. This is America and thats the way things work here. Our government does not take its marching orders from some old guy in Rome.

The issue is our government giving marching orders to "some old guy in Rome".

How anyone can support this is beyond me. None of you deserve to live in a free country.

[Robert Goren]

Yes, it was, which is why it was absurd, especially since I know of no religion that practices child sacrifices.

But the Separation Doctrine should extend to the exclusion of Church adherence to Law when doing so would violate the Church's doctrines or creeds or beliefs. The State is plainly hypocritical here, as liberals are constantly preaching tolerance, tolerance , tolerance. Yet, where is the State's tolerance and sensitivity toward Church's religious beliefs? A state cannot make a law that violates Religious Freedom, and this free exercise of religion includes practice thereof according to the dictates of an individual's conscience. The State has NO RIGHT to become lord over anyone's conscience. The State has no right to force someone to violate his or her own conscience. The State should not be the final arbiter that decides for a person what is acceptable or not acceptable to that person's conscience.

Furthermore, . In fact no religious institution is barring a woman from getting her contraceptives. The institution is simply saying, you're not going to get them from us, since it goes against our religious beliefsthis is a straw man erected solely for political purposes! For one thing, a woman or a man don't have to work for any company or institution when they disagree with its policies. They're free to turn down offers or find other sources of employment that might give them what they want.

Also, a woman can get all the freebie birth control she wants from Planned Parenthood in the event Wally Mart is still too expensive for her. :rolleyes:

Boxcar Does not the Catholic Church want to outlaw the pill? Weren't they opposed to it legalization way back when?

[lsbets]

Does not the Catholic Church want to outlaw the pill? Weren't they opposed to it legalization way back when?

Who cares if they want to outlaw it? The question is whether our government should be able to force them to pay for it. If you think our government should be able to force them to provide it to people, then you do not deserve any of the benefits of a free society, because you believe in the complete opposite.

[highnote]

FThis is not the issue here. Please get up to speed on what the core issue is. LS and a few others know what the real issue here is.

Secondly, if obese people have insurance their drugs are covered.

This goes back to what I wrote earlier. Shoduldn't I get FREE, FREE, FREE (as in no cost to me) organic groceries so that I can eat super well and healthy an d help keep medical costs down? Why should I have to pay for the food I eat?

Once you get on this "free" kick, it quickly becomes addictive. And I can out-absurd El Rushbo with this: Everyone should pay for everyone else. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

I read every single post before I posted. You just don't like to agree with me. LOL

[bigmack]

The issue is our government giving marching orders to "some old guy in Rome".
With just a modicum of thought anyone with a semi-operational brain could figure that out. But yet, Goren not only doesn't get it, his take is the complete & total opposite.

'lsbets' - I trust you play/played shots that are long. Stands to reason.

'bigmack' I'm a 6'3" Mick. Stands to reason.

'RobertGoren' :confused: :confused:

[Robert Goren]

Who cares if they want to outlaw it? The question is whether our government should be able to force them to pay for it. If you think our government should be able to force them to provide it to people, then you do not deserve any of the benefits of a free society, because you believe in the complete opposite. I believe in elections even when they go against me. You apparently don't. If you don't believe in having elections to decide issues such as this, then you don't deserve in a country that has them. You and the rest of the right have never gotten over the fact that country elected Obama. I got news for you. The country is going to re-elect him whether you like it or not. So you had better start getting use to him around for awhile and things like health insurance that cover the pill that most Americans support.

[lsbets]

I believe in elections even when they go against me. You apparently don't. If you don't believe in having elections to decide issues such as this, then you don't deserve in a country that has them. You and the rest of the right have never gotten over the fact that country elected Obama. I got news for you. The country is going to re-elect him whether you like it or not. So you had better start getting use to him around for awhile and things like health insurance that cover the pill that most Americans support.

You don't get it, as your answer shows.

This is not about elections.

This is not about the pill.

This is not about health insurance.

This is about a limit on the power of government.

This is about being a free people or being slaves.

This is whether we are free to live our lives or if we submit to the will of the state.

This is a choice between liberty and tyranny.

You choose tyranny.

Elections do not equal mob rule where the rightd of individuals are trampled by the majority.

You do not deserve the benefits of liberty. You are not worthy of it.

Just because someone is elected, does not mean they can go outside the bounds of the proper limits placed on government in our Constitution. When someone does so by decree, they are a dictator, no better than King George, Saddam Hussein, or that other guy we're not supposed to mention. At that point it is only a matter of degree. You, as so many sheep throughout history, march happily down the road to your death, singing joyous songs along the way because you were foolish enough to buy into the cult of personality.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all people are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Dolts like you have no idea what that means.

You think rights are granted by the government. You think what you have comes from the state. You think liberty is some arcane concept that can be cast aside anytime anybody feels bad and would feel better if they were given something taken forcibly from someone else.

Our grand experiment in living as a free people has failed. You are free to march to your death if you wish, but I shall not join you, and for the sake of my children I shall fight it with every last breath in my body.

[Tom]

Very well put. :ThmbUp:

(psssst - someone tell Goren we have a constitution)

[chickenhead]

I have to play devils advocate here....because sometimes I think people go too far, and it irks me.

I do appreciate the sentiment -- and our settled law is actually against me on this point (hopefully to some day be overturned), but -- corporations aren't people, they are legal constructs of the state. No corporation existed prior to a lawyer putting pen to paper and circumscribing its framework of behavior. That fact, and it is a fact, is actually important.

People exist, on their own. The people created the state (beginning with the constitution). And the state created the legal framework within which the institutions exist (the subsequent laws the state created). Some people don't like this idea, but it is actually the way it worked.

People -> State -> Legal Institutions -> Private Institutions

Corporations and institutions are not people. They are vitally and importantly different -- and at some point it becomes ludicrous to ignore, when ranting about things like whether the state has any rightful say in corporations and institutions.

We, as people, are Gods to the State. We created it. The State is God to our private institutions. We are the Gods meant to be preeminent, and that power is not meant to be shared with corporations, or any other kind of non-person.

Again -- I don't disagree with you in most cases probably as to what is a good idea, but I probably disagree with you on what is a valid, if bad idea. Some ideas are just bad ideas, or poorly thought out, and that is actually the extent of it. They aren't (and don't have to be) an encroachment on some supernatural corporate rights that don't in fact exist.

[boxcar]

NO

Then you don't believe in Freedom of Religion, do you?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you do, but then say the State has the right to dictate its morality to the Church. The intent behind the First Amendment is crystal clear..."Congress shall make no law...". The framers knew the danger associated with the State interfering with the Church's doctrines, creeds or any matter of faith that is associated with the practice of religion.

You, too, will love the authoritarian state when it fully hits this country because this is precisely why communists prohibit the free exercise of religion. Communism cannot tolerate competing moral authorities. And neither can you. You're agreeing with the communists. You'll make a very good one.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

I have to play devils advocate here....because sometimes I think people go too far, and it irks me.

I do appreciate the sentiment -- and our settled law is actually against me on this point (hopefully to some day be overturned), but -- corporations aren't people, they are legal constructs of the state. No corporation existed prior to a lawyer putting pen to paper and circumscribing its framework of behavior. That fact, and it is a fact, is actually important.

People exist, on their own. The people created the state (beginning with the constitution). And the state created the legal framework within which the institutions exist (the subsequent laws the state created). Some people don't like this idea, but it is actually the way it worked.

People -> State -> Legal Institutions -> Private Institutions

Corporations and institutions are not people. They are vitally and importantly different -- and at some point it becomes ludicrous to ignore, when ranting about things like whether the state has any rightful say in corporations and institutions.

We, as people, are Gods to the State. We created it. The State is God to our private institutions. We are the Gods meant to be preeminent, and that power is not meant to be shared with corporations, or any other kind of non-person.

Again -- I don't disagree with you in most cases probably as to what is a good idea, but I probably disagree with you on what is a valid, if bad idea. Some ideas are just bad ideas, or poorly thought out, and that is actually the extent of it. They aren't (and don't have to be) an encroachment on some supernatural corporate rights that don't in fact exist.

Uhh...'scuse me but where does the Church come into your neatly packaged little construct? The Church has existed long before any lawyer put his pen to paper. The Church = People. The Church is composed of People. There would be no Church without People. The Church is a body of believers.The first settlers to this country were largely "church people". They fled an oppressive and tyrannical king across the Big Pond who wanted to impose his moral will upon the Church, pretty much the way the federal government now wants to do.

The central idea behind the First Amendment is to protect the religious freedom of People. This freedom includes what they believe and what they practice.

God help this nation if the federal government becomes our only voice of moral authority. Don't think that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The issue is our government giving marching orders to "some old guy in Rome".

How anyone can support this is beyond me. None of you deserve to live in a free country.

You get my hearty AMEN to that!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

F

I read every single post before I posted. You just don't like to agree with me. LOL

I don't agree with you because you miss the central thrust to this thread, which is the free exercise of religion both in terms of beliefs and everyday practice.

While the State likes to think it is a god, it is not. The state has no right whatsoever to compel me to act in a way that would violate my conscience, yours or anyone else's.

Boxcar

[highnote]

I don't agree with you because you miss the central thrust to this thread, which is the free exercise of religion both in terms of beliefs and everyday practice.

While the State likes to think it is a god, it is not. The state has no right whatsoever to compel me to act in a way that would violate my conscience, yours or anyone else's.

Boxcar


You're wrong again Box! That state has every right to compel you to act in a way that violates your conscience if your conscienable actions violate my human rights and Constitutional rights.

[highnote]

The issue is our government giving marching orders to "some old guy in Rome".



I had to read this line about 5 times before I got it. That was pretty clever. :ThmbUp:

But I'd also add that Martin Luther, Henry VIII and to some extent the Founding Father's all gave the old guy in Rome marching orders.

[lsbets]

I had to read this line about 5 times before I got it. That was pretty clever. :ThmbUp:


I can't take the credit for the old guy part, that was in response to Goren's post.

[highnote]

Who cares if they want to outlaw it? The question is whether our government should be able to force them to pay for it. If you think our government should be able to force them to provide it to people, then you do not deserve any of the benefits of a free society, because you believe in the complete opposite.


I tend toward the liberal side, but I also believe in free markets. I tend to think the gov should NOT tell a company or organization what the insurance they sell or offer can cover. The company should decide. If the person working for the company doesn't like the policy that is offered by the company the person is free to seek other insurance or another employer.

But there are problems with this type of absolute thinking. Why should a company be forced to pay for unemployment insurance? Maybe it is up to the employee to seek out companies that pay that type of insurance if that is important to them.

[highnote]

I can't take the credit for the old guy part, that was in response to Goren's post.


Maybe not, but it was funny the way you reversed it. It cracked me up. :D

[boxcar]

You're wrong again Box! That state has every right to compel you to act in a way that violates your conscience if your conscienable actions violate my human rights and Constitutional rights.

Read the First Amendment, since you think you know something about constitution rights The state has no right to infringe upon or restrict Americans' religious freedom. Don't you understand this? Do you understand of what religious freedom consists? Do you understand that religious freedom consist of much more than just the right to assemble to worship God according to the dictates of conscience? Do you?

I cannot believe this forum has so many totalitarians on it! And then people like Mack, John and others can't understand why I have this attitude about giving the freedom haters in this nation what they so crave for, which is the biggest, most powerful, controlling, oppressive and tyrannical government in U.S. history! :bang: :bang:

And what human right is being violated here, precisely? Or what constitutional right of Fluke and her fellow feminazis? The right to free condom or other birth control devices? Show me where that's in the Constitution, since you appealed to it!

Boxcar

[highnote]

Read the First Amendment, since you think you know something about constitution rights The state has no right to infringe upon or restrict Americans' religious freedom. Don't you understand this? Do you understand of what religious freedom consists? Do you understand that religious freedom consist of much more than just the right to assemble to worship God according to the dictates of conscience? Do you?

I think it is you who does not understand the constitutional rights. You have the freedom to practice your religion as long as it doesn't affect my human rights or constitutional rights.


And what human right is being violated here, precisely? Or what constitutional right of Fluke and her fellow feminazis? The right to free condom or other birth control devices? Show me where that's in the Constitution, since you appealed to it!

Boxcar

I didn't say Fluke's constitutional rights were violated. You said, "The state has no right whatsoever to compel me to act in a way that would violate my conscience, yours or anyone else's."

I said that is true as long as your conscienable actions do not violate my rights.

I was merely pointing out an exception to your interpretation to the rules.

[chickenhead]

Uhh...'scuse me but where does the Church come into your neatly packaged little construct? The Church has existed long before any lawyer put his pen to paper. The Church = People. The Church is composed of People. There would be no Church without People. The Church is a body of believers.The first settlers to this country were largely "church people". They fled an oppressive and tyrannical king across the Big Pond who wanted to impose his moral will upon the Church, pretty much the way the federal government now wants to do.

The Church contains people, so does General Motors, NAMBLA, and the Senate. The Church, General Motors, NAMBLA, and the Senate are not a person, and they are NOT people. They are institutions. The gulf between an institution and a person is not a small one. Just any group of people are not an institution. You have to seek it out, and hire lawyers to formulate it and instantiate it. It's a very particular legal thing.

A group of people getting together on a Sunday under a tree, and having a pot luck and having someone talk to them about spiritual matters, a church in the old sense, -- I don't believe there is any, as in none, as in zero -- rule or law governing anything about anything. At all. Complete and utter freedom of religion, of gathering, of belief, and of practice. That is church, right? No institution. That is old school.

When something becomes institutionalized, seeks to become a legal institution, and be a hospital, or a school, or whatever...it is necessarily entering into the world of legal frameworks and a world of laws. Many, many, many of them.

Georgetown University, or St. Josephs hospital, or whatever -- they are not a person, and they are not a religion. One is a university, one is a hospital.

They operate under a plethora of state laws, and are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the same private institutions that operate under the same legal frameworks, say Harvard University and any other private hospital. Say it with me, Georgetown University is neither a person nor a religion. Allen Iverson went there. Allen Iverson didn't go to school at a religion.

Do you think these are the first state sponsored rules that Georgetown and St. Josephs hospital have encountered? Of course not. They operate under the states legal frameworks, they exist under their protection and affordance and regulations, they literally don't exist otherwise.

Now, I already gave my thoughts on how things should work, and it isn't this. But I can't ignore what people are, and what non-people are. And the Constitution is all about people, not non-people.

[boxcar]

I think it is you who does not understand the constitutional rights. You have the freedom to practice your religion as long as it doesn't affect my human rights or constitutional rights.

I didn't say Fluke's constitutional rights were violated. You said, "The state has no right whatsoever to compel me to act in a way that would violate my conscience, yours or anyone else's."

I said that is true as long as your conscienable actions do not violate my rights.

I was merely pointing out an exception to your interpretation to the rules.

So, then, why are you so dead set against the Catholic Church being protected of its constitutional rights under the First Amendment? Why do you want the Church to act in a way that violates its canons, laws, faith and conscience? It appears you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If the church doesn't want to provide contraceptives to women, those women still have a right to go elsewhere to procure same.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

The Church contains people, so does General Motors, NAMBLA, and the Senate. The Church, General Motors, NAMBLA, and the Senate are not a person, and they are NOT people. They are institutions. The gulf between an institution and a person is not a small one. Just any group of people are not an institution. You have to seek it out, and hire lawyers to formulate it and instantiate it. It's a very particular legal thing.

A group of people getting together on a Sunday under a tree, and having a pot luck and having someone talk to them about spiritual matters, a church in the old sense, -- I don't believe there is any, as in none, as in zero -- rule or law governing anything about anything. At all. Complete and utter freedom of religion, of gathering, of belief, and of practice. That is church, right? No institution. That is old school.

When something becomes institutionalized, seeks to become a legal institution, and be a hospital, or a school, or whatever...it is necessarily entering into the world of legal frameworks and a world of laws. Many, many, many of them.

Georgetown University, or St. Josephs hospital, or whatever -- they are not a person, and they are not a religion. One is a university, one is a hospital.

They operate under a plethora of state laws, and are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the same private institutions that operate under the same legal frameworks, say Harvard University and any other private hospital. Say it with me, Georgetown University is neither a person nor a religion. Allen Iverson went there. Allen Iverson didn't go to school at a religion.

Do you think these are the first state sponsored rules that Georgetown and St. Josephs hospital have encountered? Of course not. They operate under the states legal frameworks, they exist under their protection and affordance and regulations, they literally don't exist otherwise.

Now, I already gave my thoughts on how things should work, and it isn't this. But I can't ignore what people are, and what non-people are. And the Constitution is all about people, not non-people.

If the First Amendment doesn't also protect religious institutions (i.e. churches), then what does the First Amendment protect? The Amendment protects the freedom of beliefs and to a very high degree religious practice, unless the state can show it has a compelling interest to limit a religious practice -- or to force conduct that violates one or more tenets of faith. In the case of providing birth control, the state has no compelling reason to force the Church (and its members) to provide contraception because women can still freely procure their birth control elsewhere.

As stated previously, the government did, from purely a biblical perspective wiggle out of showdown with the R.C. Church because the Church isn't required to directly provide contraception. The Church, however, provides indirectly because it must provide and pay for insurance coverage that does. However, I would still like for the Church to fight this vigorously because the government did take a big step toward compelling a church to act directly against its tenets of faith. I have given the example of what would probably happen if homosexuals are granted civil rights -- if homosexuals are ever granted protected status under the law. If that were to happen, then the state could order any Christian church that it must not discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to marry them. Then what? The church must obey the moral dictates of a godless, secular state and involve itself directly in marriage ceremonies or else? Again, from a biblical perspective, that is where the line is clearly drawn in the sand. Man is to obey God before any government whenever the state commands a person to act contrary to God's revealed will. And pastors or elders or priests of churches are people end they also represent the institution.

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

As stated previously, the government did, from purely a biblical perspective wiggle out of showdown with the R.C. Church because the Church isn't required to directly provide contraception. The Church, however, provides indirectly because it must provide and pay for insurance coverage that does. However, I would still like for the Church to fight this vigorously because the government did take a big step toward compelling a church to act directly against its tenets of faith. I have given the example of what would probably happen if homosexuals are granted civil rights -- if homosexuals are ever granted protected status under the law. If that were to happen, then the state could order any Christian church that it must not discriminate against homosexuals by refusing to marry them. Then what? The church must obey the moral dictates of a godless, secular state and involve itself directly in marriage ceremonies or else? Again, from a biblical perspective, that is where the line is clearly drawn in the sand. Man is to obey God before any government whenever the state commands a person to act contrary to God's revealed will. And pastors or elders or priests of churches are people end they also represent the institution.

If you want to get down to the root of my solutions, for all these types of things Boxcar, it is actually separating things out. People have competing wants and interests, why force them to be conjoined unless there is an overwhelming, an inherent need?

I would prefer employing institutions of all type to not be involved with health insurance, at all. There is no need for them to be. All of your religious institutions should not have to worry about this issue. Nor should any people. It's a pain point brought about by a poorly designed set of tax benefits. Let's recognize where the root of the problem lies.

A similar problem, ideas about marriage, has a similiar solution.

I would prefer the government to get completely out of the marriage business, so far as recognizing it whatsoever.

Religious marriage, for people who seek it, is a religious function, it needs no government sanction, recognition, or anything else of the like. The government was never involved in my baptism, nor my confirmation. So far as I'm aware, they recognized neither. It is entirely unclear to me why I'd need them involved in my marriage.

There are an easily understandable set of civil contract laws that can easily cover whatever needs to be covered, between whoever wants it covered, amongst adults who share property. Which in the civil sense is all "marriage" is, shared property rights. Whether you're married or not should really mean nothing in the civil world. Do you share property? Then talk to the state. You want a religious marriage? Talk to a church.

I see no reason to conjoin the two, or treat them as the same. If you'd like a religious marriage, go find a church to give you one. Can't find one, start your own. I could care less.

If you want shared property contracts legally binding, go talk to the state.

Our problem in this country is our peanut butter is all mixed up with the jelly, for no good reason. I really do believe in a separation of church and state. Get them the hell away from each other, in both directions.

[highnote]

If you want to get down to the root of my solutions, for all these types of things Boxcar, it is actually separating things out. People have competing wants and interests, why force them to be conjoined unless there is an overwhelming, an inherent need?

I would prefer employing institutions of all type to not be involved with health insurance, at all. There is no need for them to be. All of your religious institutions should not have to worry about this issue. Nor should any people. It's a pain point brought about by a poorly designed set of tax benefits. Let's recognize where the root of the problem lies.

A similar problem, ideas about marriage, has a similiar solution.

I would prefer the government to get completely out of the marriage business, so far as recognizing it whatsoever.

Religious marriage, for people who seek it, is a religious function, it needs no government sanction, recognition, or anything else of the like. The government was never involved in my baptism, nor my confirmation. So far as I'm aware, they recognized neither. It is entirely unclear to me why I'd need them involved in my marriage.

There are an easily understandable set of civil contract laws that can easily cover whatever needs to be covered, between whoever wants it covered, amongst adults who share property. Which in the civil sense is all "marriage" is, shared property rights. Whether you're married or not should really mean nothing in the civil world. Do you share property? Then talk to the state. You want a religious marriage? Talk to a church.

I see no reason to conjoin the two, or treat them as the same. If you'd like a religious marriage, go find a church to give you one. Can't find one, start your own. I could care less.

If you want shared property contracts legally binding, go talk to the state.

Our problem in this country is our peanut butter is all mixed up with the jelly, for no good reason. I really do believe in a separation of church and state. Get them the hell away from each other, in both directions.


Seems like your solution is to obvious to be of interest to the church or the state.

[riskman]

“We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I of the constitution which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

The Preamble explains the purposes of the Constitution, and defines the powers of the new government as originating from the people of the United States.

We the people continue to elect these representatives who make the laws in our name to supposedly serve our interests. We have authorized these representatives to vote and approve on our behalf the income tax law, social security, medicare, education laws,environmental laws, OSHA, Affordable Health Care Act, it goes on and on and the government continues to grow while we continue to elect these representatives.
The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under and are subordinate to that document. No law may contradict the Constitution.. :confused:
We can only blame our selves for the predicament
we find ourselves, in regards to the state of the union. In 2008, in which some experts say is one of the highest voter turnout rates only 64% eligible voted. Pathetic, yet people complain about the congress.

[Robert Goren]

There is a lot of talk here about the Constitution, yet when the pipeline was brought up, everyone of you thought it is OK for the government to come in and force the land owners to have it run over their land. You guys believe in the Constitution only when it fits what you want. You want the pipeline so the Constitution be damned. You could care less about women getting the pill so the Constitution comes into play. What a bunch of hypocrites. It is not even about the pill or the pipeline, it is about Obama with you guys. If he were to reverse his positions on either or both, you'd reverse yours.

[Tom]

Go check your facts and get back to us on this one.

[lsbets]

There is a lot of talk here about the Constitution, yet when the pipeline was brought up, everyone of you thought it is OK for the government to come in and force the land owners to have it run over their land. You guys believe in the Constitution only when it fits what you want. You want the pipeline so the Constitution be damned. You could care less about women getting the pill so the Constitution comes into play. What a bunch of hypocrites. It is not even about the pill or the pipeline, it is about Obama with you guys. If he were to reverse his positions on either or both, you'd reverse yours.

Can you show me one post where I said I was okay with the use of eminent domain to build the pipeline? Just one.

No. Didn't think so. So get a clue or STFU (to quote Hcap).

Now go find any post where I mention eminent domain and tell me if I favor it or consider it an abuse of government power.

Try again detective.

[maddog42]

This guy's at what? Wife #4? I'd rather be in hell with my back broke than live with this piece of trash who would speak of any woman in this manner, who thinks his sense of humor is cute, who thinks rules don't apply to him, who pops Viagra like candy even when off for the weekend with his guy friends? (Good luck there, Rushie boy)

I wish the FCC would fine him and every advertiser in this country would drop him. I don't care what the political football is--NO ONE should be allowed a platform to speak to, or of women in this manner. I loathe this fool.


The real tragedy is that the Republicans wouldn't let this woman testify (actually no women on the committee or giving testimony). Several Democratic Women Senators walked out in protest over not allowing women to testify on a hearing over access to birth control.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/birth-control-hearing-was-like-stepping-into-a-time-machine/

[lsbets]

The real tragedy is that the Republicans wouldn't let this woman testify (actually no women on the committee or giving testimony). Several Democratic Women Senators walked out in protest over not allowing women to testify on a hearing over access to birth control.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/birth-control-hearing-was-like-stepping-into-a-time-machine/

The real tragedy is anyone thinks this hearing was about access to birth control.

[delayjf]

What's the point - liberal feminist attending law school (probably paid for by the Government) wants something see cannot afford and thinks somebody else should pay for it. What's new?

[Tom]

The real tragedy is that the Republicans wouldn't let this woman testify (actually no women on the committee or giving testimony). Several Democratic Women Senators walked out in protest over not allowing women to testify on a hearing over access to birth control.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/birth-control-hearing-was-like-stepping-into-a-time-machine/\

No one is restricting anyone's access to birth control.
Get your facts straight.

[delayjf]

What a bunch of hypocrites.

What ever happened to "what happens between consenting adults is nobodies business?" Should the Government now subsidies K-Y as well?

[canleakid]

Rush Checks Bank Account - Then Waves White Flag :faint:

Rush is a BIG BAG OF HOT AIR just tells people what they want to hear ;)
but he is NO DUMMY, Sponsors walk, he plays the "Apologize" card :eek: yeap the might dollar speaks again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[maddog42]

\

No one is restricting anyone's access to birth control.
Get your facts straight.

Lack of Contraceptive coverage, would "restrict access" to some women.


The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule called an all-male panel with no women representatives, prompting some women members of Congress to walk out of the hearing in protest. Issa, a Republican from California, is the committee chairman.

[Tom]

Not those who are paying college tuition - this is strictly a choise they made.
Remember, pro-choice?
Unless it costs money, I guess.

[Tom]

Rush Checks Bank Account - Then Waves White Flag :faint:

Rush is a BIG BAG OF HOT AIR just tells people what they want to hear ;)
but he is NO DUMMY, Sponsors walk, he plays the "Apologize" card :eek: yeap the might dollar speaks again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

So here is my suggestion - I am writing to all of his sponsors and telling then that I will no longer buy their products unless I hear them advertized on Rush's show.

[boxcar]

If you want to get down to the root of my solutions, for all these types of things Boxcar, it is actually separating things out. People have competing wants and interests, why force them to be conjoined unless there is an overwhelming, an inherent need?

I would prefer employing institutions of all type to not be involved with health insurance, at all. There is no need for them to be. All of your religious institutions should not have to worry about this issue. Nor should any people. It's a pain point brought about by a poorly designed set of tax benefits. Let's recognize where the root of the problem lies.

A similar problem, ideas about marriage, has a similiar solution.

I would prefer the government to get completely out of the marriage business, so far as recognizing it whatsoever.

Ahh...that will never happen, thanks to the progressive income tax system we have. Not only that but county governments would have to raise taxes or something to cover the loss of marriage licenses. :D Marriages are too ingrained into society's laws in various ways.

But herein is the rub between the Separation of Church and State: Laws. Both have their own set of laws! And sometimes those laws conflict. Then what? Does the government have the right to violate a religious person's conscience? Does the government have the right to be lord over a religious person's conscience? Let's take another scenario.

Abortion is law of the land, right? In fact, many would say "settled law", yes?
So, let's say that a Lutheran, Methodist or Catholic hospital refuses to perform abortions, but the state comes along and says to these institutions that if your doctors don't obey the law and honor a woman's [civil] right to abortion, those doctors will lose their licenses to practice and the hospital will be fined, etc. So, according to how I'm understanding you, because these hospitals are institutions they are obligated to suspend their own laws and obey the state. Correct? And many here feel the same way because they believe that the Separation Doctrine should only work one way. It should only work to keep the Church out Government. But if that's the case and the Doctrine should only be invoked and applied when government wants to keep God out of the public square or out of public discourse, etc., then what is to prevent the State from eventually seizing control of the Church and establishing itself as the Church's final authority since you claim that the Church is not at all protected by the First Amendment and neither should it be protected by the Separation Doctrine?

This perennial tension between Church and State has manifested itself numerous times during history and, therefore this battle for Supremacy is old. And here's the core reason why: The Church does not belong to the State -- any state. The Church (talking here strictly of the Christian Church) was not founded by any State. The Church is not a state institution. The Church does not depend on government funding for its existence. The Church is the property and possession of another King and falls under His authority and that King does not reside here on earth.

So what we essentially are witnessing today is a huge battle between two kingdoms -- the Kingdom of Heaven (Church) and the Kingdom of Satan (world governments). The present regime in this country would love to exert more authority over the Church -- to infiltrate it -- to become an intricate part of its fabric because in this way it would compromise the spiritual mission of the Church in the world and , therefore, diminish the Church's moral authority. I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but this is what is happening. There is a fierce spiritual battle being waged between the two kingdoms for the souls and minds of peoples everywhere. Obama himself expressed his disdain for the Church with his "bitter bible clingers" remark a few years ago. (Note: He only said the bible. He didn't say the Koran. He didn't say the Book of Mormon, or any other "sacred" books.)

This administration has no love for the Church because the Church is another voice of moral authority. And Obama can't stand that. He doesn't like his authority challenged.

In closing, it also sounds like you support a two-way separation between the two moral authorities. If so, you're on the right track. The State needs to keep its nose out of Church affairs, issues and all matters of faith and should not be in the business of violating anyone's conscience in these areas. The state needs to practice what it preaches: Tolerate diverse moral views.

Boxcar

[lsbets]

Lack of Contraceptive coverage, would "restrict access" to some women.



No it wouldn't. There are plenty of places for women to get the pill for free. Or they could buy condoms, about a dollar each. If you can't afford a one dollar condom you have bigger problems than wanting someone else to pay for your birth control.

[JustRalph]

I had a friend in radio (GM of a local station that carried Rush) back in the late 90's. He told me that Rush Limbaugh's show has over 300 advertisers standing in line waiting on a spot. I don't think Rush is worried............

[Tom]

Rush Checks Bank Account - Then Waves White Flag :faint:

Rush is a BIG BAG OF HOT AIR just tells people what they want to hear ;)
but he is NO DUMMY, Sponsors walk, he plays the "Apologize" card :eek: yeap the might dollar speaks again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

So, now Rush has apologized......do you suppose Bill Manure, or whoever the hell he is, will apologize for calling Sarah Palin a "C?" Or is he just a worthless bottom feeding pig with no class as he demonstrates weekly?

[bigmack]

Somebody tell Limbaugh to pipe down before he sullies the brand and costs me an election.

[NJ Stinks]

So, now Rush has apologized......do you suppose Bill Manure, or whoever the hell he is, will apologize for calling Sarah Palin a "C?" Or is he just a worthless bottom feeding pig with no class as he demonstrates weekly?

Bill doesn't haven't have 300 sponsors to kiss up to. :rolleyes:

Also, you have to pay a fee to hear Bill's insults. Not so with Limbaugh.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Somebody tell Limbaugh to pipe down before he sullies the brand and costs me an election.

Nice, now you have a scapegoat...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Bill doesn't haven't have 300....

I think I understand.

But anyway.............

Sponsors, advertisers aside...

Maher did just do a "streaming show" that was carried by Yahoo! and plugged as nauseum on their web service. As much as people do has does have loathe Bill Maher, nobody was throwing a tantrum about his equally "offensive" commentary towards the female being.

The outrage has been mainly about how dastardly Rush is for calling her a "slut", the language being the problem, but they'll chortle and cackle at one of their own calling a woman that they don't like a "cu*t". Obviously there is a double-standard when it comes to how women on the left need to be treated to not throw a fit and how they react to women on the right enduring the same, or worse, treatment.

[Tom]

Bill doesn't haven't have 300 sponsors to kiss up to. :rolleyes:

Also, you have to pay a fee to hear Bill's insults. Not so with Limbaugh.

Sponsors have nothing to do with this. He will replace them.

You are saying as long as there are no sponsors, you can call people the C word and it is OK?

Would you say that if he called your wife a C?
Or is it only if he calls Palin that?

[mostpost]

What's the point - liberal feminist attending law school (probably paid for by the Government) wants something see cannot afford and thinks somebody else should pay for it. What's new?
You have no idea whether Ms. Fluke's tuition was paid by the government. If you have proof, provide it. Otherwise, quoting lsbets quoting Hcap STFU. :lol:

[cj's dad]

I believe she testified that she spent $3,000 per year on birth control.

At $,83 each, maybe Rush shouldn't have apologized.

[mostpost]

Sponsors have nothing to do with this. He will replace them.

You are saying as long as there are no sponsors, you can call people the C word and it is OK?

Would you say that if he called your wife a C?
Or is it only if he calls Palin that?
Sandra Fluke, Sarah Palin; calling any woman a C is more than wrong. If Bill Maher did it, that does not excuse Rush Limbaugh. It just means there are two P's in the world.

[lsbets]

You have no idea whether Ms. Fluke's tuition was paid by the government. If you have proof, provide it. Otherwise, quoting lsbets quoting Hcap STFU. :lol:

Gotta give you credit, I laughed, that was funny.

[mostpost]

There is a lot of misinterpretation in this thread. First of all is the idea espoused by lsbets and several others that this policy is forcing people to pay for birth control that the user of the BC cannot or will not pay for themselves. Not true.

This is part of an insurance policy purchased by that person, for which they pay premiums. That is how insurance works. I pay for your birth control. You pay for my prostate exams. To fail to cover any health issue discriminates against someone.

The argument is made that the government is forcing religious institutions to act against their beliefs. But why do those institutions have the right to force their beliefs on persons who are not a part of their community. Georgetown is not saying it will not cover contraception for practicing Catholics; it is saying it will not cover contraception for any student regardless of religious affiliation.

Surely the people who run Georgetown are aware that the Church's teaching on birth control is followed by only a small minority of Catholics.

[NJ Stinks]

I think I understand....


....The outrage has been mainly about how dastardly Rush is for calling her a "slut", the language being the problem, but they'll chortle and cackle at one of their own calling a woman that they don't like a "cu*t". Obviously there is a double-standard when it comes to how women on the left need to be treated to not throw a fit and how they react to women on the right enduring the same, or worse, treatment.

Somehow I don't think you understand. Fortunately, I'm here to enlighten you! ;)

Maher is a comedian who gets much of his material from politics. Sure he leans left but, generally speaking, people understand Maher is clowning around. Contrastly (is that a word?), Rush is a mean-spirited piece of work. Hence, Limbaugh gets no free pass for being a pr_ _ k.

Any questions? If so, please call 8675309 and ask for BigMack.:cool:

[boxcar]

There is a lot of misinterpretation in this thread. First of all is the idea espoused by lsbets and several others that this policy is forcing people to pay for birth control that the user of the BC cannot or will not pay for themselves. Not true.

It is true because not all health insurance policies are created equal, anymore than car insurance policies are. Not all coverages are equal. Not all benefits are equal. Therefore, the religious institution's premiums will rise because of increased coverage.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Somehow I don't think you understand. Fortunately, I'm here to enlighten you! ;)

Maher is a comedian who gets much of his material from politics. Sure he leans left but, generally speaking, people understand Maher is clowning around. Contrastly (is that a word?), Rush is a mean-spirited piece of work. Hence, Limbaugh gets no free pass for being a pr_ _ k.

Any questions? If so, please call 8675309 and ask for BigMack.:cool:

I thought Rush was always considered by libs to be an entertainer like the mean-spirited pieces of cow pies you have just justified. You liberals need to get on the same page and decide what it is you really want Rush to be. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

I thought Rush was always considered by libs to be an entertainer like the mean-spirited pieces of cow pies you have just justified. You liberals need to get on the same page and decide what it is you really want Rush to be. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Somehow I don't think you understand. Fortunately, I'm here to enlighten you! ;)


On second thought....that ain't ever gonna work! :p :)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Somehow I don't think you understand. Fortunately, I'm here to enlighten you! ;)

Maher is a comedian who gets much of his material from politics. Sure he leans left but, generally speaking, people understand Maher is clowning around...

Quit. Buddy just gave a cool million to Obama's SuperPAC and along with other "clowns" like Colbert and Stewart, is considered a great political thinker by his followers. I'm not sure how you can deny that Bill Maher influences the politics of his fans - any more than you can deny that people are drawn to his "comedy" simply because of his politics. He's a pretty close parallel to Limbaugh.

But nevermind all of that - the outrage is (allegedly) NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT being selectively dispensed to all the willing consumer because of the individual who used the words, but rather because of the actual words themselves and their deep offense to all females.

Or maybe you are exactly right - the outrage is complete bullshit - it is entirely about who said offensive things about women compared to who else says even more offensive things about women.

Good point!!!! ;)

[boxcar]

I had a friend in radio (GM of a local station that carried Rush) back in the late 90's. He told me that Rush Limbaugh's show has over 300 advertisers standing in line waiting on a spot. I don't think Rush is worried............

Even Government Motors wanted to become a Rush sponsor. Rush said today that he turned them down. Gotta love it. :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Lack of Contraceptive coverage, would "restrict access" to some women.


The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the contraceptive coverage rule called an all-male panel with no women representatives, prompting some women members of Congress to walk out of the hearing in protest. Issa, a Republican from California, is the committee chairman.

Hey, Doggie, that meeting had nothing to do with women's reproductive rights. Zero. Nada. Nothing. It was about the constitutionality of Obama's actions, from which, btw, he eventually backed backed away. Issa acted correctly. What would any flaming, airhead female progressive know about the Constitution? It's best to let conservative males to perform that kind of heavy lifting. ;)

http://www.newsytype.com/14734-congresswomen-walk-out/

Boxcar

[Tom]

mostie, I refuse to pay for your prostrate exams!!
However, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I will agree to perform your colonoscopy! I somehow feel qualified......:eek:

[boxcar]

mostie, I refuse to pay for your prostrate exams!!
However, in the spirit of bi-partisanship, I will agree to perform your colonoscopy! I somehow feel qualified......:eek:

And I will chip in by Fedexing the Jaws of Life to Tom that will be needed for the head extraction part of the procedure. :jump:

Boxcar

[bigmack]

And I will chip in by Fedexing the Jaws of Life to Tom that will be needed for the head extraction part of the procedure.
After what seems like an eternity of you trying your hand at hughmore, you finally bumped into one that actually registered a slight 'blip' on the jocosity meter.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1232109585_dramatic_20cat.gif

Maher is a comedian who gets much of his material from politics. Sure he leans left but, generally speaking, people understand Maher is clowning around. Contrastly (is that a word?), Rush is a mean-spirited piece of work. Hence, Limbaugh gets no free pass for being a pr_ _ k.
Nice piece by K. Powers. Read it, or be square. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

[boxcar]

Somehow I don't think you understand. Fortunately, I'm here to enlighten you! ;)


On second thought....that ain't ever gonna work! :p :)

You're absolutely right for a change. And the reason it would never work is because there is no light in you with which to enlighten anyone else. You're the kind of guy who would take a lighted lamp and hide it under a basket or put it under the bed. :rolleyes:


Boxcar

[boxcar]

Somehow I don't think you understand. Fortunately, I'm here to enlighten you! ;)

Maher is a comedian who gets much of his material from politics. Sure he leans left but, generally speaking, people understand Maher is clowning around. Contrastly (is that a word?), Rush is a mean-spirited piece of work. Hence, Limbaugh gets no free pass for being a pr_ _ k.

Any questions? If so, please call 8675309 and ask for BigMack.:cool:

Yeah, I have a question for you: Was this liberal "clowning around" or was he being "mean-spirited"?

Liberal Radio Host Mocks Storm Victims: ‘Their God…Keeps Smashing Them Into Little Grease Spots’

With all the talk of holding radio talk show hosts accountable lately, it’s probably worth bringing you what liberal firebrand Mike Malloy said last week as storms ravaged the South. According to a clip from his March 2 show, it seems the storms are God’s way of getting back at them for not believing in science. Or something.

“Their God … keeps smashing them into little grease spots on the pavement in Alabama, and Mississippi, and Arkansas, and Georgia, and Oklahoma,” Malloy says in his broadcast from Friday. “You know, the Bible belt, where [in a mocking voice] they ain’t gonna let no goddamned science get in the way, it says in the Bible, blah blah blah blah blah. So, according to their way of thinking, God with his omnipotent thumb reaches down here and so far tonight has smashed about 20 people into a grease spot on highway 12, or whatever the hell highway they live next to.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/liberal-radio-host-mocks-storm-victims-their-god-keeps-smashing-them-into-little-grease-spots/

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Has anyone noticed this college student is 30 years of age?

When do most women lose their virginity? Let's say 18. Who's been paying for her BC the last 144 months and when does she plan on graduating?

[PaceAdvantage]

Maher is a comedian who gets much of his material from politics. Sure he leans left but, generally speaking, people understand Maher is clowning around. Contrastly (is that a word?), Rush is a mean-spirited piece of work. Hence, Limbaugh gets no free pass for being a pr_ _ k.No, that is YOUR bias showing through. Many people find what Rush says to be funny...or clowning around...Rush himself said he was using THE ABSURD (calling her a slut) to comment on the ABSURD (what he considered her testimony to be before Congress).

Don't you ever want to appear objective at least once in your life?

[NJ Stinks]

Nice piece by K. Powers. Read it, or be square. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html

I think one of the people who commented on that article said it well:
_____________________________

While I don't condone misogyny, I must point out the delicate topic that many of these pundits also use derogatory terms when discussing men in the news that they dislike. What makes this situation with Limbaugh even the least bit newsworthy is that it involves a more private citizen as opposed to a more public figure.

I also think that people tend to gloss over the contrast between Limbaugh's use of the word slut and the situation with Ed Schultz. Besides the fact that Schultz used it in regards to a more public figure AND that he was not using it in the sexual sense (he called her a "talk-slut," whatever that may mean), the reaction was very different. First of all, he issued a real apology, one that was sincere and had nothing to do with trying to save advertisers. The other difference, and this is the bigger one, is that he was then suspended for a week by his employers. The conservative "news" outlets haven't got the history of suspension to show that they are serious about trying to control the vitriol and hate speech that their on-air personalities use. At least MSNBC has shown an effort in that direction, suspending Schultz and Olbermann for their behavior. Where is the suspension for Limbaugh? Where is any sort of discipline from his employers? Until they make a move in that direction as some (not all) on the liberal side have done, please save the comparisons for another day.

[NJ Stinks]

No, that is YOUR bias showing through. Many people find what Rush says to be funny...or clowning around...Rush himself said he was using THE ABSURD (calling her a slut) to comment on the ABSURD (what he considered her testimony to be before Congress).

Don't you ever want to appear objective at least once in your life?

He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

But don't quote me on that. (Pick an icon.)

[ArlJim78]

it's hilarious to watch the double standard in action on this topic. you even have some Republicans denouncing Limbaugh for this, when I don't recall them ever having much to say about any of the liberal pol's or mediafolk who day in and day out traffic in much worse slander, sleaze and sludge. like rush said today you can't get hung up on the double standard, it has always been there and always will be. if you're on the left you can be rich elites, racists, make threats, be mysogynistic, immoral, or outright criminal, and you get a pass because just being on the left makes them special people, immune from the standards that others must comport to. i mean all of this fauxrage over the slut quip, yet how many of the heroes of the left are lifetime womanizers who use women like kleenex, yet are still worshipped and greatly admired?

[boxcar]

I think one of the people who commented on that article said it well:
_____________________________

While I don't condone misogyny, I must point out the delicate topic that many of these pundits also use derogatory terms when discussing men in the news that they dislike. What makes this situation with Limbaugh even the least bit newsworthy is that it involves a more private citizen as opposed to a more public figure.

I also think that people tend to gloss over the contrast between Limbaugh's use of the word slut and the situation with Ed Schultz. Besides the fact that Schultz used it in regards to a more public figure AND that he was not using it in the sexual sense (he called her a "talk-slut," whatever that may mean), the reaction was very different. First of all, he issued a real apology, one that was sincere and had nothing to do with trying to save advertisers. The other difference, and this is the bigger one, is that he was then suspended for a week by his employers. The conservative "news" outlets haven't got the history of suspension to show that they are serious about trying to control the vitriol and hate speech that their on-air personalities use. At least MSNBC has shown an effort in that direction, suspending Schultz and Olbermann for their behavior. Where is the suspension for Limbaugh? Where is any sort of discipline from his employers? Until they make a move in that direction as some (not all) on the liberal side have done, please save the comparisons for another day.

Hey, you really need to stand on a street corner and beg for clues in threads that are as tattered as your mind. Perhaps, then, someone may take pity on you. This gal lost her privacy when she chose to put herself in the public spotlight. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[johnhannibalsmith]

I think one of the people who commented on that article said it well:
_____________________________

While I don't condone misogyny, I must point out the delicate topic that many of these pundits also use derogatory terms when discussing men in the news that they dislike. What makes this situation with Limbaugh even the least bit newsworthy is that it involves a more private citizen as opposed to a more public figure.

...

I've read this brilliant analysis a few times myself and it reeks of pathetic justification when you know you haven't got a leg to stand on.

How on earth is it funny, appropriate, noble, or even clever to AGAIN use a word that is inherently offensive to ALL women (if you believe the pervasive argument) when the individual is a public figure or a less public figure than the other public figure. Not to walk off my point, but just to address the other aspect of this absurdity - she is making conscious decision to NOT be a private citizen and is being heralded and lauded by nearly everyone for, in fact, being a spokesperson (aka a public figure) on the subject.

It's lamebrained to draw that distinction if that's all you got to justify using derogatory terms about women. Private vs. public - it's okay to call a public figure a cu*t and a t*at - that's not offensive to women because the target is a public figure. Okay, gotcha - total pile of shit argument if anyone expects to have their outrage taken seriously whatsoever.

[lsbets]

Why are you guys expecting anything of substance to come from stinky? He is the shallowest poster on this board.

[cj's dad]

Has it occurred to anyone that this is a diversionary tactic ? While we are discussing the merits of this woman who pays $3K per annum for birth control, we are deflected from:


Hostages being held overseas,
High price of gasoline
Imminent danger in the middle East
Continued unemployment
General Motors layoffs
Depressed housing market
C,mon folks, wake up and smell the roses.

[Greyfox]

Has it occurred to anyone that this is a diversionary tactic ? While we are discussing the merits of this woman who pays $3K per annum for birth control, we are deflected from:

Hostages being held overseas,
High price of gasoline
Imminent danger in the middle East
Continued unemployment
General Motors layoffs
Depressed housing market
C,mon folks, wake up and smell the roses.

Exactly. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Has anyone noticed this college student is 30 years of age?

When do most women lose their virginity? Let's say 18. Who's been paying for her BC the last 144 months and when does she plan on graduating?

She's a professional student. One of the big advantages to a sexually active one like this one is student turnover. She has a steady stream of freshman guys coming in every year to help her keep feeling young. Plus maybe she figures that she'll even get lucky and nab an occasional virgin if she stays long enough. :lol:

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Has it occurred to anyone that this is a diversionary tactic ? While we are discussing the merits of this woman who pays $3K per annum for birth control, we are deflected from:


Hostages being held overseas,
High price of gasoline
Imminent danger in the middle East
Continued unemployment
General Motors layoffs
Depressed housing market
C,mon folks, wake up and smell the roses.

Excellent point. They will talk about anything to avoid the economy

[NJ Stinks]

I've read this brilliant analysis a few times myself and it reeks of pathetic justification when you know you haven't got a leg to stand on.

How on earth is it funny, appropriate, noble, or even clever to AGAIN use a word that is inherently offensive to ALL women (if you believe the pervasive argument) when the individual is a public figure or a less public figure than the other public figure. Not to walk off my point, but just to address the other aspect of this absurdity - she is making conscious decision to NOT be a private citizen and is being heralded and lauded by nearly everyone for, in fact, being a spokesperson (aka a public figure) on the subject.

It's lamebrained to draw that distinction if that's all you got to justify using derogatory terms about women. Private vs. public - it's okay to call a public figure a cu*t and a t*at - that's not offensive to women because the target is a public figure. Okay, gotcha - total pile of shit argument if anyone expects to have their outrage taken seriously whatsoever.

I understand your points, John. Some are pretty good too. As was Boxcar's.

Changing the subject, has anybody heard about the petition to get Limbaugh off Armed Forces Radio? :p

[Tom]

Even mosite has more credibility than stinky.

If you are a comedian, you can call someone's mother a C.
I guess Joisey has the toxic dumps, but not so much class.

[Tom]

Has it occurred to anyone that this is a diversionary tactic ? While we are discussing the merits of this woman who pays $3K per annum for birth control, we are deflected from:



Hostages being held overseas,
High price of gasoline
Imminent danger in the middle East
Continued unemployment
General Motors layoffs
Depressed housing market
C,mon folks, wake up and smell the roses.



China spending 100 billion on defense - of who? US!
Restricting drilling as a means to reduce dependency on foreign oil
Constitution being silenced while libs hold a national idiot-fest

[boxcar]

Even mosite has more credibility than stinky.

Man, you have really scraped the bottom of the barrel now. :D

Boxcar
P.S. Hey, Stinky, you need to cross over to the light and hang with better people 'cause you ain't gettin' any respect.

[bigmack]

She's a professional student.
We got a plant.
As many have already uncovered Sandra Fluke she is, in reality, a 30 year old long time liberal activist who enrolled at Georgetown with the express purpose of fighting for the school to pay for students' birth control. She has been pushing for mandated coverage of contraceptives at Georgetown for at least three years according to the Washington Post.

However, as I discovered today, birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law.
http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance

[Tom]

And as Rush pointed out, she was a last minute substitute at that hearing - and while at first, she was not allowed to speak because there was no time properly vet her, she was finally allowed because the repubs gave in in toe the lady-libs crying tantrums to try keep peace amongst the congressional bitches (it's OK, Stinky, I gots no sponsors and am somewhat of a comedian). It was a set up, starting with the toilet-bowl news reader Stephanopoulos right through to this sham. All to protect Obama, the most failed president in the history of this country.

[bigmack]

It was a set up, starting with the toilet-bowl news reader Stephanopoulos right through to this sham.
I remember when Gerogie Boy was asking questions about states & contraception. I thought, WTH?

I know everyone keeps trying to remind me of the lack of intelligence in our voting pool but a fool can see that this is G-Man telling a church what it must do. I don't see this playing well for Team Pathetic..

Have you heard him stumping of late? His bullet points are, saving Detroit & getting Osama. OH, & affordable health care. :lol:

How much has private insurance gone up since the passage of that nightmare?

http://media.nj.com/njv_tom_moran/photo/nj-lawmakers-house-health-care-votejpg-193bd6e488f8eba3_large.jpg

[Tom]

Everything about HC so far has been a lie, or FAR over on costs.
A total failure, just like Obama the Failure.

[johnhannibalsmith]

We got a plant.

...

I posted a reply to this that I then quickly deleted for fear of getting in toruble and now all I get are ads all over this place for gardening and nurseries... :lol:

[bigmack]

I posted a reply to this that I then quickly deleted for fear of getting in toruble and now all I get are ads all over this place for gardening and nurseries... :lol:
I have GOT to get in on this banner ad fun. Why just yesterday with my Crack about Bob Crane, I'd love to see a few ads down that cul-de-sac.

What a nut that Crane was. Did much of his handiwork in AZ, I understand. You do realize we don't think highly of you Zonies here in Diego, right Cuz? :D

[johnhannibalsmith]

... You do realize we don't think highly of you Zonies here in Diego, right Cuz? :D

I'm the only sunnovabeetch in the entire state that has never even tried to fit in by wearing "Levi's". Khaki or black, it's cheap slacks, even at the track.

As I told the rude gentleman at Rillito who hollered at me while being photographed to "Go back to Turf Paradise with that horse!" ... "They don't want me at Turf Paradise either!"

I even use the left lane for passing when possible.

Don't own a firearm.

Never worn a hat bigger than a shirt.

Smoke instead of chew.

Never owned a pickup.

Still think boots are for snow.

But, hey, I got the fake teeth now so I'm making progress...

[delayjf]

You have no idea whether Ms. Fluke's tuition was paid by the government. If you have proof, provide it. Otherwise, quoting lsbets quoting Hcap STFU.

Well according to the below article, Ms Fluck is going to school on a Public Interest scholarship. I don't know for sure which is why I said "probably". But I will stand by my estimate that she going to school if not totally than partially on the Government's dime. And she was not just advocating that BC be covered by Insurance - she wants it free of charge. Now its your turn to shut the Fluke up :lol:






http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/sex-crazed-co-eds-going-broke-buying-birth-control-student-tells-pelosi-hearing

[bigmack]

But, hey, I got the fake teeth now so I'm making progress...
Progress indeed. You need to CeleryBrate & pull a good 'black bag job' - I have just the caper.

We become groupies of a regional symphonic orchestra. BIG FANS we are. Before long we cut a couple loose. Say, cellists, flautists, something of that nature.

Next thing ya know we're buyin' 'em an Apricot Fizz or maybe Alabama Slammer or even a Kamikaze.

Then? Sky's the limit. :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...We become groupies of a regional symphonic orchestra. BIG FANS we are...

I could play that part well. But if we make a move in 'Zona we'll probably have to be persuasive with a can of Keystone. Left that regional shortcoming off my list dammit.

[Ocala Mike]

Can't really fault Rush for calling this girl a slut. He was told she was a Georgetown "Hoya" and, as we all know, he's a little hard of hearing.

;) ;) ;) ;)


Ocala Mike

[NJ Stinks]

Something compelled me to buy the Philadelphia Daily News today instead of the New York Post. ;)


http://phillydailynews.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

[boxcar]

Something compelled me to buy the Philadelphia Daily News today instead of the New York Post. ;)

Because you think you're moving up to a better brand of toilet paper, perhaps?

Boxcar

[Tom]

Did you go fishing?

[NJ Stinks]

You guys take that back!

I'll have you know the Philadelphia Daily News is one of the most liberal papers in the country! If they didn't drop horseracing like a hot potato a few years ago, I wouldn't be buying the New York tabloids every day. :blush:

[JustRalph]

Still waving that white flag?

Ratings up from 10- 60%


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/29/limbaugh-my-ratings-are-up-from-10-to-60-across-600-stations-since-the-boycott-began/

[Tom]

The truth shall set you free.