Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 26
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101

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.


Birth Control is against God, reject Him and you will make any excuse.
Doctors are waking up to the damage of the "pill" physically, The bias
for so long because people want "no consequences" from sex.

There are 'natural' ways to correct lessor physical problems but instead women accept STDs and breast cancer. And the most important...

The consequences are eternal spiritually. Contraception is an intrinsic
evil, don't wait until your particular judgment to agree.




posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
Birth Control is against God, reject Him and you will make any excuse.

Contraception is an intrinsic evil, don't wait until your particular judgment to agree.


So, because Believer invented a medical condition in order to take birth-control medicine and is evil for doing it? What a wonderful, informed argument you make.

Could you show me the exact passage in the Bible that says birth-control is evil?
edit on 4-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by colbe
Birth Control is against God, reject Him and you will make any excuse.

Contraception is an intrinsic evil, don't wait until your particular judgment to agree.


So, because Believer invented a medical condition in order to take birth-control medicine and is evil for doing it? What a wonderful, informed argument you make.

Could you show me the exact passage in the Bible that says birth-control is evil?
edit on 4-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)


Woah, hang on there a second. I "invented" a medical condition?? I don't think so, pal.

Endometriosis
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (ovarian cysts)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Why hasn't he been fired yet?

Anyone remember the Imus incident....

Fire Him Immediately !!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Believer101
Woah, hang on there a second. I "invented" a medical condition?? I don't think so, pal.


Believer, please accept my most sincere apologies. That was a grave mis-edit on my part. I did not mean to say or suggest that you made up your condition. I originally wrote, "you believe Believer invented a medical condition..." but as you can see the language is very clunky. Again, please accept my apologies. I meant the post to be in your defense.
edit on 4-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by digginforthetruth
While I don't agree with the manner in which he said it, I don't think contraception should be something thrown on the taxpayers. Why should I have to pay for it. I have been married for 10 yrs and we didn't have a kids until we were 5 yrs into it. We used condoms. We never used birth control, but even if we did, why the hell should I expect someone else to pay for it. I don't see birth control as health care. I see it as pregnancy prevention, not health care.


Thankyou i agree 100 percent! When all americans have food, shelter and healthcare then we can worry about contraceptives! Unbelieveable world we live in !!!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Breitbart and.now Limbaugh,looks like Obamas team is taking out some of the rights artillery pieces and everyone is cheering it.sheep.
edit on 4-3-2012 by modified device because: because mu kindle.is a beast to type.with



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Yeah because Obama is responsible for ones poor health choices and the others poor word choices. Tell me just when exactly did he become omnipotent. and if he is omnipotent why he still has his agenda tabled, stalled and otherwise blocked by a party that doesn't care if they put the nation in the toilet just so they can win an election?



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I don't know this whole story really, but the first thing that comes to mind is this...whether I agree or not makes no difference. He has the same freedom of speech as you or I, and if you or anyone else has the fortitude to go and petition a congressional hearing about a controversial subject, you'd better have the skin to withstand the bullets that will come your way. That's just the nature of the beast.

So all in all, I support his right to say what he thinks, and quite frankly, just by reading your post (because again, I'm not familiar with the story), I think he made a darn good point...albeit a sarcastic and exaggerated one. But radio talk hosts do that anyway, so I take it with a grain of salt.

Why in the heck are my tax dollars buying everyone condoms and birth control pills??? I don't need my government to help rescue me from my lack of responsibility or to enable a sex addiction that is so overwhelming to my financial state that I can't afford a box of condoms. What I DO need, is my government to stop taxing the crap out of my monthly salary, and stop spending so much freaking money on stupid programs that won't work. Maybe I shouldn't be having sex if I can't afford the necessary precautions that would prevent me from making babies...I think that's the overall point he made, and I happen to agree.

My solution to this problem? Don't enable uneducated people. Educate them to make better life choices, and if they choose not to make those good choices, let them live with their consequences. Consequences are a great life teacher, both for the person it's happened to, and the people around that person who witness their trials.



posted on Mar, 4 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gseven
 


First the whole subject requires one to wrap their head around the fact the conversation is not nor has been about the taxpayer paying for people to have sex. Sex is a red herring being thrown into the mix because it concerns oral contraception.

Then you have to understand what the problem is. The problem is Birth Control is not always covered under ones insurance plan. Despite the fact that it is used to treat real medical conditions other than unwanted pregnancies. Much in the same way certain anti-depressants have been used as smoking cessation aides. Obama's plan would require all insurance policies to cover the costs of prescribed birth control as opposed to the 80% or so that already do. The debate has nothing to do with condoms at all. It is about ensuring that prescribed birth control is treated the same as any other prescription which it is not. The woman's testimony before Congress was one that highlighted the actual medical part of the problem.

The way he intended to do it before brought a religious and Constitutional question into the mix. Which was on it's own a legitimate question on government overreach. Now it is already a given that religious doctrine is not absolute and that the government can and will at times curtail certain religious practices when they do not conform to the needs of society. The question now is this one of those cases?

On one side you have the Catholic church sponsored institutions which hire non-Catholics to work and teach in their hospitals and universities who in some cases cannot get access to birth control as part of their insurance plan. On the other the government saying all plans should cover this. Personally I feel that the Government is making the right decision. Not because I think the government should force religion to do anything, but because the church run institutions themselves do not comply uniformally with the churches stance itself and some do offer plans that cover it and others do not. If this were not true than I would say that the church has some credibility to their argument and could possibly be right.
edit on 4-3-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-3-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by modified device
Breitbart and.now Limbaugh,looks like Obamas team is taking out some of the rights artillery pieces and everyone is cheering it.sheep.


Limbaugh brought this on himself. How did Obama responsible?



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by colbe
Birth Control is against God, reject Him and you will make any excuse.

Contraception is an intrinsic evil, don't wait until your particular judgment to agree.


So, because Believer invented a medical condition in order to take birth-control medicine and is evil for doing it? What a wonderful, informed argument you make.

Could you show me the exact passage in the Bible that says birth-control is evil?
edit on 4-3-2012 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



I can share chapter and verse, but may I ask, where in Scripture does it say the Bible is our authority and where does it say in Scripture, the Bible is the only source of God's revelation? That darn Martin Luther, tsk, tsk, men basing their eternal lives on his heresy.

You have free will. Maybe you didn't know till this thread. Contraception
is against God, which has been a teaching of the Church for 2000 years and previously in the Old Covenant. God created sex for marriage and children both. When you eliminate one of the two, having sex for self gratification only, impeding a chance for a baby, that's rejecting God, His plan.

God is for the unitive, remember, a woman is not fertile 100% of the time.

Sex is a gift, the pleasure derived from it is not the reason for it. Children
are. Children are a blessing.

The verses on contraception...

"The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).

Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft."

www.catholic.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 




You have free will. Maybe you didn't know till this thread. Contraception
is against God, which has been a teaching of the Church for 2000 years and previously in the Old Covenant. God created sex for marriage and children both. When you eliminate one of the two, having sex for self gratification only, impeding a chance for a baby, that's rejecting God, His plan.


So do we have free will over our bodies or not? Do we have the free will to decide not to procreate but experience the physical bonding techniques encoded in our DNA?




The verses on contraception...

"The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. "Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also" (Gen. 38:8–10).



First of all, this is referring to Jewish law. It doesn't apply to gentiles.

Secondly, if my brother in law ever tried to mount me, he would walk (limp) away like Lorenna Bobbit's husband!

I can't see, for the life of me how this disgusting story has any sort of influence over the Catholic laity. It's message is vulgar and insulting to both men and women. Why should a man be forced to have sex with a woman that he doesn't want to, and certainly doesn't want to have children with? Where was Onan's free will. God killed him for "pulling out" of his dead brother's wife, the shame!

Disgusting! This is your great god? No wonder the Catholic Church's clergy is filled with homosexuals and pedophiles. How can you this justify this psychopathic god of yours? This just makes you and your church look absurdly divorced of reality from all that is holy in a loving union between a man and a woman. How can the clergy even begin to believe that they can dictate authority over something of which they abstain from and personally abhor?




Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft."


It's not obvious to me at all. This stretch of some weird story twisted into Catholic dogma that forces men into fathering children they don't want, or suffer death, says nothing of birth control as being against god to me. This story is about Onan and his relationship with his god, and has nothing to do with the people of today. The ensuing scriptural silence is telling to just how ludicrous and desperate the Catholic Church's stance is.

If this is all they got, this is their religious stance from their Holy God on the argument of why they should be exempt from following a mandate for safe and available birth control to men and women who want to excercise their god given free will and NOT have children? They may win the battle but will lose the war!

You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating such ignorance, fear and slavery to the young people of your influential sphere.
edit on 5-3-2012 by windword because: spelling



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
When Rush Limbaugh is giving us advice about morals, it truly is hell on earth.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by digginforthetruth
While I don't agree with the manner in which he said it, I don't think contraception should be something thrown on the taxpayers. Why should I have to pay for it. I have been married for 10 yrs and we didn't have a kids until we were 5 yrs into it. We used condoms. We never used birth control, but even if we did, why the hell should I expect someone else to pay for it. I don't see birth control as health care. I see it as pregnancy prevention, not health care.


I guess it makes more since to be paying taxes to support the child tax credits that people receive in their tax return because they had the child that they didn't want.

Point being... regardless you're supporting that person's child regardless... unless you have kids yourself and are also receiving credit in your tax returns. I bet you don't complain about that if that's the case.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoNotForgetMe
Reply to post by Skada
 


If insurance companies pay then others with the same company will have higher premiums. Technically taxpayers taxes will not pay for BC. But taxpaying Americans who struggle as it is cannot afford insurance that goes up everytime some punk wants an insurance company to pay for something that we the people should pay out of our own pockets if we choose to do so.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



BS man... I have Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal. You know what happened when Obamacare took effect? I received a letter from my heathcare insurance saying that I no longer need to pay a co-pay when my kids come in for a routine checkup. I then received $200.00 worth of checks from the Doctor's office for the co-pays that I had been paying every time I took my child to the doctor. Guess what?.. My payment actually stayed exactly the same rolling into this year.

This increased premium is the same thing people were saying about Obamacare... and I pay less at the end of the day.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The slut Rush Limbaugh is nothing but a prostitute.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The drug addicted (oxycontin) slut Rush Limbaugh, who takes sex vacations to the Dominican Republic, is nothing but a fat ugly prostitute.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Actually Obama is a LSOS socialist and probably the dumbest POTUS since Warren Harding.

And this is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberal view on women using contraception: Some think it costs nearly a thousand /year and somebody else should pay for it.

Conservative view on women using contraception: Personal responsibility. If you want to use contraceptives, pay for them yourself. The pill is $9/mo at Target or Walmart. Condoms even less.

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

Liberals on homosexuals: They make up some artificial "right" to justify deviant behavior and then try to shame everybody else into accepting such beliefs.
Conservatives on homosexuals: recognize that anal fornication is unhealthy and don't believe they should have to pay for gay bowel treatments, anus reconstruction surgery, as well as HIV and Hepatitis treatments for people who want to practice perverted sex.

Liberals on the poor: They want to keep them forever poor and dependent on the government. Liberals also believe it is not their personal responsibility to help the poor but is the all-wise government's.
Conservatives on the poor: Recognize that when you subsidize something you only get more of it and believe it is a personal responsibility to assist the less fortunate with the government only providing an absolute safety net.

Liberals on immigrants: Believe the USA should simply accept anybody who gets here while complaining about over crowding, destruction of the environment, and global warming. (Hint: anybody in the US generates far more global warming causing CO2 than any immigrant in their own country.)
Conservative on immigrants: they believe in LEGAL immigration and that a nation has borders and laws..


I really think people who have voted Democratic for decades have been deceived to vote against their own, and fellow countrymen's best interests. Unfortunately, too few are waking up.



edit on 7-3-2012 by pfwag because: spelling



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah

Originally posted by DoNotForgetMe
Reply to post by Skada
 


If insurance companies pay then others with the same company will have higher premiums. Technically taxpayers taxes will not pay for BC. But taxpaying Americans who struggle as it is cannot afford insurance that goes up everytime some punk wants an insurance company to pay for something that we the people should pay out of our own pockets if we choose to do so.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



BS man... I have Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal. You know what happened when Obamacare took effect? I received a letter from my heathcare insurance saying that I no longer need to pay a co-pay when my kids come in for a routine checkup. I then received $200.00 worth of checks from the Doctor's office for the co-pays that I had been paying every time I took my child to the doctor. Guess what?.. My payment actually stayed exactly the same rolling into this year.

This increased premium is the same thing people were saying about Obamacare... and I pay less at the end of the day.


Shhhhhhh, you're not supposed to mention facts if it goes against preconceived irrational viewpoints





new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join