Obama Rebukes Limbaugh, Thanks woman called a "slut" and "prostitute", page 13

Pages: << 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 28 times

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:05 AM by KeliOnyx

reply to post by SaturnFX

What are you talking about sir?
Being educated in general is against Conservative values. Right along with walking without dragging ones knuckles and breathing through ones nose. Using his logic fighting the revolution was a mistake because people shouldn't work to change things that are wrong.

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:05 AM by soficrow

reply to post by David9176

Good manners go a long way - sometimes, they actually prevent wars.

Wotta concept. Good on you Obama.

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:05 AM by Maslo

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Maslo

Are you denying the correlation between poverty and crime?

Yes, because some of the biggest criminals in human history have not been poor, they were the RICH!

edit on 3-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

And some were poor.
You are using anecdotal evidence to deny statistics. Thats a logical fallacy.

People resort to crime out of poor morality not lack of money.

Its not that simple. Both personal morality and material conditions have an influence on such things.

edit on 3/3/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:07 AM by zerotime

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by zerotime

The far right republican are simply crazy. They want to control every aspect of your life. They hate minorities. They hate woman. They hate religions other than Christianity. And they hate other sexual orientations. They want to live in a world that's black and white, well white and white, where there are no degree of difference. Everyone must be exactly and robotically the same. But it's all a sham - how can i tell? Because Viagra is also covered but we haven't heard one peep from faux outraged males. and if you're going to insure viagra for all these losers that can't get erections then you better insure birth control.

You must be new here, conservatives are against ANY elective medical procedure paid for by our tax dollars. That certainly includes Viagra.

Then you must be able to sight a source where Rush has come out against it?

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:08 AM by D1Useek

If I gotta pay for her to get laid, she better be givin me some of that. I agree, at least show the video. Hey maybe that way we can pay for birth control. Sell the videos.

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:08 AM by Bugman82

Insurance companies should do whatever they can to keep overall premiums low for the majority of people. So yes, if it helps keeping premiums low for the majority, they should offer it.

And saying there are no studies proving contraception results in fewer pregnancies is LAUGHABLE :@@

Where are these unbiased reports and where is the rush of support from the insurance companies if it is cost effective? The only thing laughable is your claims without substantiation.

edit on 3-3-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:10 AM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by D1Useek
If I gotta pay for her to get laid, she better be givin me some of that. I agree, at least show the video. Hey maybe that way we can pay for birth control. Sell the videos.

I wanna see pregnant women giving birth too since I'm indirectly paying for it!! Show those prego videos!! Makes perfect sense

In fact, according to that "logic", you also wanna see someone's dick every time they chuck a Viagra.

Are you for real???

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:11 AM by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Bugman82

Insurance companies should do whatever they can to keep overall premiums low for the majority of people. So yes, if it helps keeping premiums low for the majority, they should offer it.

And saying there are no studies proving contraception results in fewer pregnancies is LAUGHABLE :@@

Where are these unbiased reports and where is the rush of support from the insurance companies if it is cost effective? The only thing laughable is your claims without substantiation.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

Wait...are you claiming providing condoms and the pill aren't cheaper than a pregnancy with all those consultations? You have to be joking

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:12 AM by SaturnFX

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by SaturnFX

I'm saying she enrolled with a purpose to fight. She chose to attend a Conservative Jesuit University... She chose to pay $47,000 a year for law school. She chooses to take birth control. Plenty of other top notch law schools and universities that I'm sure would fit her needs for free pills. She made the choice to attend and to fight a PRIVATE JESUIT university.

And?

If you see the wall crumbling, and your motivated to fix it, you don't go to the strong points of the wall, you go to the place where there is a problem. She may be an activist, in which case, it would be in her interest to go where the infection/broken part is at and shine a light on it.

This story isn't about one single girl and her pills, its about a much greater issue that effects plenty of people. So, it doesn't matter if she personally is reporting from some hyper liberal area or neocon...the issue is health care coverage for women within a certain income bracket getting help for the pill. You can say knowing this specific girl is important, and you will no doubt lose the entire argument focusing in on a irrelevant battle.

Yes, people tend to send well spoken and educated activists to congress that have a strong allegory backdrop to further demonstrate the point. Instead of her saying "I heard that a different plan/college/institution did this.." she is saying she is there where it happens.

So again...your complaining that someone testifying to congress is educated on the issue she is presenting...that somehow its unfair she got educated (purposefully) on the subject.

I laugh at that mindset

ha

haha

...
ha
-cough-

Hint: best to keep to the discussion of the idea verses try to single this specific person out...Rush is learning this the hard way...seems many conservatives are.
People aren't into witch hunting anymore and those whom try are only showing themselves as the 17th century nutjobs they are.

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:15 AM by KeliOnyx

reply to post by Bugman82

Insurance companies aren't about keeping costs low. Their very existence artificially raises the costs to begin with. It's like having a tumor and telling it to not grow. It's whole purpose as a for profit enterprise is to cut as many costs as possible to make as much money as possible. Who in the equation is going to get squeezed? The healthcare professionals and the patients. The only two groups that even belong in the equation to begin with.

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:15 AM by Bugman82

reply to post by Shoonra

Second, Sandra Fluke was telling the story of another student, a young woman who was not having sex with men, not doing anything that would risk pregnancy, but who had severe (and severely painful) ovarian cysts. The hormonal birth control pills had the effect of shrinking the cysts and reducing the pain. But because Georgetown student health services wouldn't provide these pills -- even for non-contraceptive purposes -- these cysts got so bad that the woman was required to have surgery to remove one of her two ovaries. Now her chances of having a baby are permanently impaired and she not only has been subjected to surgery but will probably need hormone replacement medicines for the rest of her life.

So, because of an extreme situation that fell through a loop hole we shouldn't focus on fixing a loop hole but rather we should enact overarching legislation that should cover contraception for all circumstances? This is the logic that has caused our country to move towards bankruptcy. We've moved from caring for emergency situations and life-threatening issues to providing people with comfort.

Where do you think the cost for this mandate would go? It would be spread across the student body of Georgetown through increased tuition costs. Aren't the progressives already complaining about tuition cost? This is the doublethink that is used and it is the progressive agenda that results in the increased costs.

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:23 AM by Bugman82

reply to post by MrXYZ

Wait...are you claiming providing condoms and the pill aren't cheaper than a pregnancy with all those consultations? You have to be joking

No, read my comments please.

I'm saying that insuring people for contraception costs the insurance company money for every single person who is buying contraception.

Now, if the insurance company did not insure all of the people using contraception and didn't have that cost coming at them I'm saying that the few extra pregnancies in comparison would not add up to the entirety of the cost of supporting everyone's contraception.

Let's use a hypothetical situation:

Let's say the insurance company is insuring 5000 women on birth control. Let's say birth control costs $1000 a year. That is $5 million that the insurance company is shelling out yearly.

Now, let's say the insurance company isn't spending that $5 million on insuring birth control and the lack of birth control results in 20 more pregnancies out of those 5000 women who wouldn't have gotten pregnant if they had birth control. Let's say a pregnancy costs $50,000. The insurance company is only paying $1 million for those 20 extra pregnancies. So, in this hypothetical case it would be 5 times more cost effective for the insurance company to not insure birth control.

It is really quite simple to understand.

edit on 3-3-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:23 AM by SaturnFX

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Bugman82

Insurance companies should do whatever they can to keep overall premiums low for the majority of people. So yes, if it helps keeping premiums low for the majority, they should offer it.

And saying there are no studies proving contraception results in fewer pregnancies is LAUGHABLE :@@

Where are these unbiased reports and where is the rush of support from the insurance companies if it is cost effective? The only thing laughable is your claims without substantiation.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

Wait...are you claiming providing condoms and the pill aren't cheaper than a pregnancy with all those consultations? You have to be joking

Well, depends...
Insurance company stands to gain another monthly coverage cost should people start popping out babies left and right. Might be a long term profit thing verses a short term sting

just a random thought

edit on 3-3-2012 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:28 AM by MrXYZ

reply to post by Bugman82

Your entire example is nonsense, and here's why:

insuring 5000 women on birth control

the lack of birth control results in 20 more pregnancies out of those 5000 women

Only 20 more pregnancies if those 5k women don't use contraception? Have you ever visited a biology or sex-ed class? Please tell me you're joking

It is really quite simple to understand.

Clearly it isn't

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:30 AM by KeliOnyx

reply to post by Bugman82

But you are failing to include the costs and risks associated with the child the pregnancy ends with. Which if I am not mistaken is the higher overall cost to which he is referring. Doctor's appointments, vaccinations, late night emergency room visits and antibiotics because face it the little drool machines get sick at the drop of a hat. And that is just normal everyday practical things not even reaching into the realm of any number of catastrophic things said child could be born with.

reply posted on 3-3-2012 @ 09:33 AM by Bugman82

reply to post by MrXYZ

Only 20 more pregnancies if those 5k women don't use contraception? Have you ever visited a biology or sex-ed class? Please tell me you're joking

Like I said, it is a hypothetical situation. Also, I would suggest you do some research on pregnancy rates and you would find those numbers to not be absurd. What % of young women running around do you see that are pregnant not by choice?

The fact of the matter is that insurance companies are not in support of this legislation and have deemed it not cost effective.