It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:19 AM
Has anyone pointed out the names yet? It's just a FLUKE. And...well, the other just writes itself. Boehner.

Anyhow, on topic. Limbaugh is such a self absorbed bad of female hygiene product that he's blinded by his own "greatness." As highly conservative as I can be at times, I can't stand to listen to this guy talk because he's just become such a joke. He's out for controversy and shock value to raise his ratings and could care less about actually getting a good message out there. Hope he finally loses his job. He can go talk to himself in the corner.

I feel bad for Fluke. She didn't deserve to be called out like that. And I actually agree with what Obama did.

Funny how I wouldn't have said this a few months ago. But I still hate everyone, so it's not like my views have drastically changed.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:10 AM
Satan laughs, he knows God laws are for our good.

Sex outside of marriage, sex outside of procreation (contraception) both are a grave mortal sin.

"Diabolical disorientation", the same for Catholics, the Church less a few in the hierarchy, parish priests too have been silent about contraception for fifty years.

That's why you keep hearing, "it's not about contraception but the loss of religious liberty." No, it is both.

Pope Paul VI was a prophet, sharing the consequences of contraception in Humanae Vitae -1968. The last has now come true, Obama's mandate.

a general lowering of moral standards throughout society
a rise in infidelity
a lessening of respect for women by men
the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Maslo

You are using anecdotal evidence to deny statistics. Thats a logical fallacy.

What 'statistics'? There haven't been any statistics presented to deny!

There is a direct correlation between poverty and criminality (Kelly, 2000; Block and Heineke, 1975). Becker’s economic theory of crime (1968) assumes that people resort to crime only if the costs of committing the crime are lower than the benefits gained. Those living in poverty, therefore, have a much greater chance of committing property crime (Kelly, 2000, Chiu and Madden, 1998) than the general population. Property crime is defined as burglary, larceny, or theft (O’Connor, 2005).

Poor people make up the overwhelming majority of those behind bars as 53% of those in prison earned less than $10,000 per year before incarceration.

Sociologist and criminal justice scholars have found a direct correlation between poverty and crime. One economic theory of crime assumes that people weigh the consequences of committing crime. They resort to crime only if the cost or consequences are outweighed by the potential benefits to be gained. The logical conclusion to this theory is that people living in poverty are far more likely to commit property crimes such as burglary, larceny, or theft.

The city of Detroit, in which I live and work, is the poorest large city in America. Michigan has the nation’s worst economy of any state. Detroit has the poorest economy in Michigan. The neighborhood in which this ministry is located is one of Detroit’s poorest. I see first hand every day the effects of poverty and crime. In an environment of extreme poverty, system failures abound. For instance, Detroit Public Schools graduate only between 25-40% of its students depending on which report you believe. Low education rates, by the way, are also linked to high crime rates.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:27 AM

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Bravo Obama...good for you. Maybe some conservatives can take some notes on how to make a statement on the issue while staying above the pettiness.

And this is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberal view on women using contraception: It is their right to be able to plan their future with contraception, it is a medical issue and thus should be covered under health insurance.

Conservative view on women using contraception: They are whores and sluts who should keep their legs closed.

The same type of thinking goes for homosexuals, the poor, and immigrants.

Liberals on homosexuals: They are people too, government shouldn't rule who you should love. Their HUMAN rights should be protected.
Conservatives on homosexuals: Screw em, They are disgusting perverts and should be shamed into conforming to MY views.

Liberals on the poor: We should help people who have fallen on hard times.
Conservatives on the poor: Screw em, they are lazy idiots that just want to leech off of us.

Liberals on immigrants: We should be accepting to people who want to come here and make a better life for themselves, we should make it easier on them to come here legally.
Conservative on immigrants: Screw em...they look different, speak different, and act different than "true" Americans...we got here first...they can go back to where they came from.

I really think people who have voted Republican for decades may finally be waking up to the fact that they have been decieved to vote against their own, and fellow countrymens, interests.
edit on 2-3-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

Spoken like a true leftist bigot.
This is the truth:

Liberals on Contraception: Only women should have reproductive rights.

Rational Perspective on Contraceptive: Why should I fund the birth control of someone else when they are actively keeping a male birth control pill from the market?

Liberals on Homosexuality: There is nothing wrong with homosexuality; homosexuals should be free to force themselves on heterosexuals, and hetero sexuality should be discouraged.

Rational Perspective: What is right for Homosexuals is not right for Heterosexuals, and what is right for Heterosexuals is not right for Homosexuals.

Liberals on the poor: We need more jobs for rich kids so we need to create more poverty by trying to crash the system.

Rational Perspective: We need to lower the cost of living, to ease the burden of the poor.

Liberals on immigration: We need to crash the system, shore up our voting electorate and kill whitey.

Rational Perspective: There is only so much to go around. And if we take in the best and brightest from each nation, what we are really doing is robbing those nations of their futures.(Look at Africa and other poorer nations that are having a doctor shortage because their med students come here to learn and practice medicine, instead of returning home and bettering their communities. Also neo-Imperialist's use immigration to keep foreign countries from advancing themselves).

The only bigot here is you and Rush Limbaugh( a neo-conservative, which is code word for a chicken hawk liberal that likes to carry a Bible[but forgets to read it]).

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:31 AM
reply to post by Maslo

So what is the excuse for the rich?

Because after all it is the unethical decisions of the rich which create poverty, and lead to most of the criminal activity you talk about.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:04 AM

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by Maslo

Because after all it is the unethical decisions of the rich which create poverty, and lead to most of the criminal activity you talk about.

Indeed, thats why I agree with some redistribution of wealth from the rich (especially very rich) to the poor, because they are also partially responsible for the status quo. The rich have the power to change things after all.
Redistribution of wealth of the rich to the poor in the form of paying for their contraception and abortion falls under it.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:33 AM
This Just goes to show that Mr. Obama is still attempting to destroy Americas morals.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:45 AM
reply to post by Believer101

Lot's of emotional arguments...first, this posting, and the news story is about this womans argument that insurance should cover birth control for sex...not health issues. Second, my insurance covered birth control pills for my wife when she had to take them for health issues...does yours? Lets stick to the story at hand...should insurance pay for birth control for the sake of having sex, a personal choice?

This boils down to what the government should be involved in...and I stand by that the govt. SHOULD NOT be involved in telling private companies what they should do. Please go to the constitutuion and tell me where it states that power of authority.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Insurance doesn't pay for everything. Likely she still has to pay an out of pocket deductible before anything else can get covered and there may be a separate co-pay for prescriptions.

No where in Sandra Fluke's testimony does she use the word "free".

She does use "cover" or "coverage" about 23 times.

If you can find me a quote from her that says she wants "free contraception"...please share it with all of us.

This is part of the problem...continuing lies people hear from Rush and Fox News that she is demanding "FREE" contraception.
edit on 4-3-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by BigFrigginAl

Tell me where, exactly, Fluke said this was only for the sake of having sex. From what I've read, she never said such a thing, it was a lie from Limbaughs side.

I'll be waiting.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Brian2384

Originally posted by arbiture

Originally posted by Brian2384

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by Brian2384

No, birth control should never be mandatory. I'm pro-choice

Pro-choice for who? You? nobody else matters right?

Oh give it a rest huh? I don't know about you but no matter how hard I try I can't get pregnant.

Lucky you, or is there aspirin in the equation?

Great. Demonstrate the level of intellect of the Republicans, excluding Ron Paul. No doubt you think its OK to make such an asinine s*** for brains comment as the Republican candidate who did. And that does say very much regarding your level of respect for women, which seems to be zero. Perhaps you and Rush can join the same phi beta misogynist frat. No doubt he'll vouch for you, you deserve each other.

And please feel free to call me a women, since you likely think that is the terrible insult that wounds... Even though I'm gay, I'm very comfortable with my male identity and masculinity. Sounds like you have numerous on going issues. And sex may be the least of them, which seems gross enough...

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by MidnightTide

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by MidnightTide

Nobody is asking you to pay for anyone's birth control. It about negotiating an insurance policy with an employer or educator that includes women's reproductive services.
edit on 3-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

She wants insurance to pay for her birth control correct? So everyone who pays the insurance company will be paying for it....there is no free stuff. Insurance is for injuries, illnesses. If you want birth control, pay for it. If the health insurance industry has to cover preventative treatments such birth control I think the auto insurance industry should be required to cover my tires, brakes and windshield wipers.

But by all means, if this woman privately wants to negotiate a deal with her private insurance to include birth control - then go for it. But by no means should the government get involved in this, or tax payer dollars.

edit: Ok, her employer pays for her insurance I believe. Therefore her employment has every right to dictate what is covered. She doesn't like it then tough, find a job with the insurance package she prefers.

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


First of all, insurance companies have routinely been covering birth control for decades. This is what is expected by women when they acquire an insurance policy. I'm sure your policy covers needs that are specific to you.

The point here is the issue as it relates to religious "conscience" because some people think birth control is in somehow immoral, and therefore are exempt from providing access to it. The problem is that no one seems to be explaining, specifically, to the Catholic Church how incredibly misguided they are to take that stance against birth control. BTW, they are against your 25cent condoms too.

The majority of Catholics, or the majority of Christians, are NOT against birth control, in fact I think the position of being against birth control isn’t defensible. This idea that married people have to have children and that unmarried people are forbidden from having sex altogether, is a divorce from reality and as outdated as the idea that interracial marriage should be forbidden.

Besides having a bigoted and ignorant position, the Catholic Church wants to be exempt from the law, and force their stance upon their employees and students. How is that in the 21st Century we are still arguing the necessity and positive usefulness of birth control in our health care system?

Do you think that the employees of Catholic universities (that provide secular education), hospitals (that hire secular doctors and nurses), schools and other subsidiaries have less expensive health care premiums than say Kaiser's or Humana's, who do provide contraception? NO! Because of some religious nut in a dress, worried about you spilling your seed and not knocking up your wife properly, the employees of these establishments have to go to extraordinary lengths to cover what others take for granted. Is that fair?

edit on 4-3-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 01:35 PM
So, yeah I am not a Limbaugh fan.

And...I am no Obama fan.

But this story just reeks of what it really is. A production!

What a shock!

It was all a BIG PRODUCTION!

The Democrat’s token abused college coed is actually a 30 year-old hardcore women’s rights activist.

Sandra Fluke is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by burntheships

That's exactly what it is/was.

What is sad is Rush and others like him don't realize they are playing a losing game.

It doesn't matter who wins the debate or argument anymore its how you look in the public eye that matters.

Kennedy knew this when he debated Nixon.

Kennedy looked more cool and calm and collected.

Rush does nothing to help his side by throwing around slurs he hurts his side.

If he had waited a few days and called her a political plant instead he still would have gotten his message across but would have looked better.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Once again she never hid these facts. She even says during her introduction at the hearing that she was the president of Georgetown's LSRJ. As I have mentioned numerous times now though, this doesn't matter. If you even read the interviews she gave before the hearing she says that she was not willing to short change her education simply because she disagreed with Georgetown's policy. Plenty of people go to schools with policies they disagree with. They go because it's a the school presents the best opportunity for them. That doesn't stop them from trying to change to policies they disagree with while at said school.

I don't see why people are trying to condemn her for doing the exact same thing tons of college students do every day. Do you think every campus activist is also a fraud?

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:25 PM
reply to post by Xcalibur254

If she wants to be an activist that's fine.
She still did this on purpose, which is also fine.
It shouldn't be dismissed with the argument that she didn't want to compromise her education.
If you are good enough to get into Georgetown law you are good enough to get into a bunch of other colleges of equal standing that have different healthcare options.
It's not like her only options were Georgetown or night school.
She chose Georgetown to make a stink, which is fine it's her right.

But she shouldn't be treated like some innocent victim or a bystander, she made the conscience decision to attend a school she doesn't agree with.
It's not like she showed up on the first day of school and then found out about the health care options.

People are complaining about her portrayal as an innocent victim of an evil school policy.
At least that's what I think most people are complaining about.

She wants to be an activist fine, but don't portray her as an innocent victim who had to decide between contraception and her education.
There were other choices, she chose.
That means she isn't a victim.

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by Pigraphia

The fact that she was expected to choose is what makes her a victim. Why should most women have to choose the school they go to based on the insurance policy that school offers while most men can base their decision freely on the academic qualities of the school? That's where the arguments regarding equality are coming from. Except in rare cases a man can go to any school or accept any job they want and not have to worry about what the insurance covers. On the other hand many women are prescribed birth control pills and to many of these women it is considered a basic healthcare item. So why should women be expected to significantly change their lifestyle in order to accept a great job or go to a good school while men are never faced with that dilemma?

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 02:56 PM
I posted this on another thread, but it directly applies here as well.

The arguments here supporting the contraception mandate are so very logical and I'll make a deal..........I'll propose a similar mandate that if accepted, I will too support the contraception mandate. Note that my mandate proposal meets all the logical requirements as argued by members of this board, of the contraception mandate. I would be able to argue flawlessly according to this logic for my proposal.

Here is my proposal:

I propose that humanity has a right to lead healthy lives. Personally, heart disease runs within my family and so I am at great risk of having it myself. In fact, my insurance rates are higher as a result of this risk.

However, there is something amazing out there that could help me prevent heart disease. I don't feel like dying early in life from this disease that has plagued my family. I know it is preventable if only I had the money or ability to do this one thing that has been proven time and time again to lower risks of heart disease.

In fact this one thing I'm going to propose has worked extremely well for France. Even though the common French citizen has a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol due to the amounts of cheese, butters, and meats consumed, they have a very low incident of heart disease.

I propose the "A Glass a Day of Red Wine Insurance Mandate". Wine has many compounds within it that support a healthy heart. Compounds such as resveratrol and anti-oxidants have proven to help with heart health and prevent the plague of heart disease, which is the number one cause of death in the United States of America. In fact a glass of wine a day has proven to support heart healthy functions in many scientific studies.

A good but cheap bottle of wine costs approximately $10 a bottle. Each bottle has around 4 glasses of wine contained within it so let's just say 2 bottles a week would cover me. This would cost me approximately $80 a month (which, oddly enough, is the approximate cost of birth control). However, just think of the savings insurance companies could have. They may not have to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars on me if I would ever need heart surgery or possibly even a heart transplant. If the insurance company would only pay me and the many others at risk around $80 a month they could prevent so many future costs that would be associated with my genetic predispositions.

It is only logical that this mandate should be passed by our beloved government. It would insure healthy hearts everywhere in the United States where heart disease is a major killer. It would save us from ourselves and protect our right to comfort, health, and a sound mind. As you can tell this mandate has all the required pieces that allow us to logically condone the contraception vote for my proposal today.

Thank you and may logic prevail!

edit on 4-3-2012 by Bugman82 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Xcalibur254

The same choices are made Re: dental and eye care.

In life you have to make choices you can't alwasye get what you want.
You have to move somewhere you don't like for a better job sometimes.
You have to pick the job that will lead to better opportunities but sacrifice dental.

Making choice doesn't make someone a victim.
It puts the power in their hands to choose what they value most.

Should birth control be available to everyone who wants it yes.
Anyone should be able to go to a doctor and ask for a prescription.
That's not the issue, the issue is paying for it.
Insurance companies should not be forced to provide something that is not a medical necessity.
In the cases where it is to prevent another baby from being born premature, prevent cancer, seizures yes it should be covered.
Other than that it is optional.

Hell I know times have changed, but there was a time when men were not allowed a vasectomy without their wives or mothers permission.
The doctor would not preform the surgery until he signed a paper saying he was single and his mother was dead.
When I was in HS from 2000-2004 there was a case where a man wanted a vasectomy and lied and said he was separated from his wife.
While in recovery he asked for his wife and the doctor said "you're separated" the man confessed that it was a lie and he just didn't want more children.
The doctor called up the insurance and they put a stop payment on the procedure because the wife had not given her permission.
The man was stuck with a very large bill, and couldn't even use his insurance for the Rx pain killers.

So do I think because she was asked to make a choice she is a victim?
No! life is full of choices and society needs to stop making people out to be victims when they make conscience choices.

She is no more of a victim than I was for choosing a local state college to help take care of my sick father over moving away for a full ride.
I'm still in college because I had to take care of him, does that mean I should get to huff and puff and say it's the insurance fault for not providing a nurse so I could go off and go to a better college?
(I'm referring to the private insurance we had, not any school insurance.)
edit on 4-3-2012 by Pigraphia because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by Xcalibur254

Insurance companies should not be forced to provide something that is not a medical necessity.

Birth control is a medical necessity for me. It is for my best friend. It is for about 85% of the women at my school. I'm not sure how many times I have said this, but I'll say it again. Birth control is not JUST for preventing pregnancy.
Birth control does =/= the same as a condom.

new topics

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in