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

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

. You sound like you have a McDonalds salary.

You sound like an Elitist who looks down their nose at working people.

I happen to agree with Eurisko2012, so does that make me an elitist as well?

Many of us are sick and tired of having to pay for others.

If you look down at people due to their low wages yes.

You do not have to pay for others, you pay less in the end, you have to pay more
for Pregnancy and all the associated costs.

reply to post by mastahunta

You do not have to pay for others, you pay less in the end, you have to pay more
for Pregnancy and all the associated costs.

Brilliant! That sounds exactly like the mafia strongman at your restaurant who is telling you it's much cheaper to pay him to protection money every month than it would be to build a new restaurant.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Actually people have asked you flat out, but you refuse to answer so you can troll more effectively.
There is obviously a difference between a conservative and a neo conservative. You would have to be ignorant to not understand it. I know you are probably only like 22 or so, but if Obama is the president a second term, when you turn about 25 and realize how and why you were wrong, you can make a thread apologizing.

That is unless you are in your early twenties and have rich parents/trust fund and never have to work a day in your life, then you will never learn.

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
A person who is having sex outside of marriage is making a grave mistake. It leads to heartbreak, disordered relationships, confusion and selfishness.

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

Interesting opinion, but this debate isn't about sexual practices. This is about basic public respect for women, and the bad precedent of dicing up healthcare services within a pre-structured healthcare insurance offering. It's also about the equal treatment of men and women in terms of what insurance companies offer and charge for healthcare treatment options.

Maybe you didn't notice (it is a long thread after all) that birth control is only one of the treatments that these hormonal drugs address. This being the case, it's not proper to deny the women who treat these other conditions with these specific drugs the same benefit that men have - within these insurance policy products - to access the drugs that they need to treat their conditions that are specific to being male. One drug that treats prostate enlargement is the same drug that treats male pattern baldness, but no one has an issue with that drug being included within the wide range of covered drugs within a typical basic insurance policy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mastahunta

 

You do not have to pay for others, you pay less in the end, you have to pay more
for Pregnancy and all the associated costs.

Brilliant! That sounds exactly like the mafia strongman at your restaurant who is telling you it's much cheaper to pay him to protection money every month than it would be to build a new restaurant.

Stop exaggerating - that is a very weak comparison

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Most people don't have the means to shop around for insurance companies. Instead they are restricted to the health insurance they receive from work or school. In many cases these policies don't cover birth control. That's what this whole argument is about. Are you saying people should change their jobs or schools just so they can have access to medical treatment that should be available to all women?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

We can't run a nation with the excuse " What would Jesus do?"

Here in reality we have - limited resources -.

You're obviously not Christian, but he obviously is. Also, neither one of you run this nation. You've also displayed an incredible ignorance concerning the science and the progressive ramifications inherent in your own view of what should be done about this issue. In that, you've been successful in irritating 51% of the readers of this thread, and solidified their view against you and your solution.

Nice work. I wish I could hire 1000 guys just like you and send you out to upset voters in all the swing states.

reply to post by David9176


politics and rush limbaugh aside, why do you think it's fair for businesses to be forced to pay for birth control pills.

And please, don't use that tired argument about womens health. 99% of women that use them are as a means of not getting pregnant, lets not kid ourselves.

Applying that same logic to a males health, why shouldn't health insurance providers be FORCED to provide lambskin condoms? You know, in case the men are allergic to latex.

My Daughter is on "the pill" due to a hormone issue. She becomes very depressed and the doctor prescribed "the pill" to solve the problem. It has worked wonderfully. But this was for a medical issue...not simply to keep from getting pregnant while having sex.

My biggest issue with this is...where does it stop? The argument appears to be that "the pill" is a preventative measure to save money, lower abortion rates, etc. What about vitamins? What about healthier food? What about exercise equipment? What about anything that "could" save on health costs down the road and/or save human lives? Is government going to pay for everything in that category? And if so...are they going to mandate what is and is not covered? Or worse yet...whose preventative "product" is to be used?

I can just imagine this turning into a huge nightmare. Sure, it is only birth control right now...but we know where this is really leading. The government will cover such costs (actually our tax dollars will) and then they will determine whose product is covered. Maybe a buddy's company. The goal here (as if we didn't know) is to position government (in this case the Obama administration) as the "Mommy & Daddy", providing for their "Children". And once the "Children" rely on "Mommy & Daddy"...the hope is that we will never go back and continue to support, back, elect those who promise us "things". Like it or not, this is a form of slavery. If we are allowed to become reliant upon government for everything...government controls us and everything we do...or are allowed to do.

That is not a world I want to live in. But if you do...why don't you send me your paycheck each week and I will provide for you. I will provide everything. A place to live, a car, food, medical care, etc. Sure...the place to live may be a cave and the car a 1970 junker...but I will provide for you. And even though it is your money, you better be thankful and pretend that it is actually coming out of my pocket. Sure, I will be giving you cars and caves that I choose and that are purchased from my best friend, at a substantial profit to them...but don't you dare complain...or maybe I'll tighten the noose and choke you a bit by denying you a few pounds of food this week. And if you post bad things about me on the internet, maybe your payout will be temporarily suspended...pending investigation. Then you will shut up and be a good little child!

Are we really that blind???

Originally posted by PrimePorkchop
reply to post by David9176

 

politics and rush limbaugh aside, why do you think it's fair for businesses to be forced to pay for birth control pills.

.

why do you think it is fair for me to have to pay for someone to have a child? Why does
my premium have to pay for their sexual exploits at all? Do you know how much a complicated
pregnancy costs?

We can go all the way to arguing the public toilet seat if you'd wish.

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
Rush Limbaugh's point was...if you can't afford birth control-don't have sex. How is that unreasonable?

The majority of this society doesn't agree with him. This is our society, and it doesn't belong to him. Or to his listeners. If it did, then they'd be the ones setting the agenda for the rest of us. They try, but there just aren't enough of them in our society. And we all get to comment on his comments, and that's what we're doing. We think he's an idiot and a creepy guy, and we're saying so in public. It's all pretty simple, really.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE


Are we really that blind???

Not We, the Right Wing is really that blind, yes 100% for sure.

reply to post by mastahunta


So then...when can I expect your paycheck?

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by mastahunta

 

You do not have to pay for others, you pay less in the end, you have to pay more
for Pregnancy and all the associated costs.

Brilliant! That sounds exactly like the mafia strongman at your restaurant who is telling you it's much cheaper to pay him to protection money every month than it would be to build a new restaurant.

Stop exaggerating - that is a very weak comparison

If you say so, it sounds like basically the same exact thing to me. Threats to pay a little now so that a big bill isn't incurred later. When the person making the original threat is also the person who has the ability to bring about that "big bill" as a reality.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
My Daughter is on "the pill" due to a hormone issue. She becomes very depressed and the doctor prescribed "the pill" to solve the problem. It has worked wonderfully. But this was for a medical issue...not simply to keep from getting pregnant while having sex.

My biggest issue with this is...where does it stop? The argument appears to be that "the pill" is a preventative measure to save money, lower abortion rates, etc. What about vitamins? What about healthier food? What about exercise equipment? What about anything that "could" save on health costs down the road and/or save human lives? Is government going to pay for everything in that category? And if so...are they going to mandate what is and is not covered? Or worse yet...whose preventative "product" is to be used?

I can just imagine this turning into a huge nightmare. Sure, it is only birth control right now...but we know where this is really leading. The government will cover such costs (actually our tax dollars will) and then they will determine whose product is covered.

Are we really that blind???

um....you do know that this is about insurance company policies including this range of drugs within their basic healthcare policy options...right?

The government will never be involved in the financial arrangement that involves these drugs (which your own daughter is dependent on for her well being, by the way) and their being prescribed by doctors to women. This is what's really frustrating about this issue. All the ignorance being propagated by so many people who are either ignorant themselves or purposely trying to keep other people ignorant about what the real issue is.

Again, this is not about the government paying for anything here. We do not have government provided healthcare or medications. That simply does not exist in this society. Not at all.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
Rush Limbaugh's point was...if you can't afford birth control-don't have sex. How is that unreasonable?

The majority of this society doesn't agree with him.

Majority opinion = truth is a fallacy of logic. It's called "Argumentum ad Populum." A majority of society 100 years ago didn't think women and black people were capable of making an informed decision at the ballot box. Was the majority correct 100 years ago?

reply to post by PrimePorkchop


As was mentioned above, drugs that treat benign prostatic hperplasia also treat male-pattern baldness. These drugs are covered in basic insurance policies. Now do you really think most of the people that are being prescribed this are using it for their enlarged prostate or to treat their baldness? Should insurance stop being provided for medication that helps with enlarged prostates simply because the majority of the people prescribed the medication are using to treat their baldness?

reply to post by NorEaster


I truly don't mean this as smart-ass as it may come off. If I pay money to one person (or entity) for health care, and they manage that money, collect that money, pay the people handling that money, decide what company is compliant to get that money, etc, etc...how are they not in control of that money and who is going to provide the care and/or guidelines? I want to be the one choosing a company to pay based upon what they offer (or in this case, cover)...not have someone else choose and take a "piece of the pie" in the process.

PS: I think Rush should apologize (whether he means it or not) for such an insensitive and vulgar statement.