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

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


Thanks Muttley2012, you people are on it. Ask a question. Get an answer.




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Reply to post by kaylaluv
 


In a sense yes I would pay but not chemo. I do not use modern medicine. I do not use OTC or prescribed drugs. Only natural remedies. But I understand what you are implying. My point was I do not ask for anyone to pay for my habit. I buy my cigs. But if BC fails to work and a baby is created should the medical costs be put on someone else's shoulders? Since the BC would be paid for other than the user?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
OK last post I swear...


Fluke came to Georgetown University interested in contraceptive coverage: She researched the Jesuit college’s health plans for students before enrolling, and found that birth control was not included. “I decided I was absolutely not willing to compromise the quality of my education in exchange for my health care,” says Fluke, who has spent the past three years lobbying the administration to change its policy on the issue. The issue got the university president’s office last spring, where Georgetown declined to change its policy.


www.washingtonpost.com... R_blog.html

She KNEW what she was doing all along and perhaps should have saved her summer babysitting money to stock up on birth control pills. Why not pick another NON Jesuit university that covers birth control ?? Just askin'
edit on 2-3-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Reply to post by jibeho
 


She is getting her face and name out there. She found a microphone and used it. Her 15 minutes will be over next week.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


[color=ADD8E6] ★ &


Very well stated RealSpoke. Amazing , unfortunately, how some people attempt to focus so much on the negativety of people instead of appraising and applauding the good they do and the compassion they feel for others plight.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Can't wait for Limbaugh's 15 minutes of fame to end!!

and this is coming from an ex Limbaugh fan.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoNotForgetMe
Reply to post by kaylaluv
 


In a sense yes I would pay but not chemo. I do not use modern medicine. I do not use OTC or prescribed drugs. Only natural remedies. But I understand what you are implying. My point was I do not ask for anyone to pay for my habit. I buy my cigs. But if BC fails to work and a baby is created should the medical costs be put on someone else's shoulders? Since the BC would be paid for other than the user?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



I would much rather pay for someone else's birth control than to pay for someone's lung cancer treatment. Birth control is much less expensive. Smokers are the ones who really drive up everyone else's insurance premiums, so, thanks for that. If we should deny birth control coverage because we don't want to pay for it, then we should deny coverage to smokers, and to people who eat junk food and to people who never exercise, because all those things are their responsibility, and all those things cause health problems, which ends up costing everyone more money in premiums. But since that will never happen, paying for birth control is not that much to ask.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

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.


I would ask are you serious? But I already know you are.

This is the most partisan, small minded, mindless drivel I have seen posted in some time. For starters, how can you paint all conservatives with the same broad brush based on Limbaugh's view? Last time I checked the only person who spoke for me, was me. Against my better judgement, let's get to it.


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.


First of all, birth control is a personal choice. Not a human right . The problem here is, that Government is involved in health insurance to begin with. They should not be. They have no right to be, and they have no business involving themselves in it. Get Government out of the way, and there will be some company who sees this issue as a way to get more customers and they will offer birth control as part of their policy.


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.


The issue here is that Government is involved in marriage. Fact is "marriage" is a religious issue. It is a religious ceremony that consist of two people making an agreement with God to spend their lives together and be faithful to one another. THE ONLY reason this is even an issue is because of what marriage means in terms of taxes. Married people can file head of household and get tax breaks while single people can not. Married people get plenty of deductions, that single people do not get. The only people who argue the issue of gay marriage, which is exactly what your post is describing gay marriage and not just being a homosexual, is the religious. Normal everyday people do not care one bit about this issue. As far as the majority are concerned, we don't care who you marry.


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.


There is a difference between help and entitlement. Just handing out money because someone is out of work is foolish. If you really want to help people, you will give them welfare to help them out and you will give them job training so hopefully they will not have to fall on hard times again. Interestingly enough, it is Conservatives who usually mention job training and the liberals who fight that.


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.


This is a flat out lie. No one has said close the boarders and do not allow immigrants in. The problem and the issue here is what to do with the millions of people who already came here illegally and have been here for years. The majority Conservative view is to deport those who can here illegally, let them get in line, and come back in a legal fashion. This is really just an issue of the rule of law. Either we have laws and are willing to enforce them, or we have laws that need to be repealed because we do not want to enforce them. It is that simple. The issue of illegal immigration can easily be compared to bank robbery. If I were to rob a bank and I get caught and I do my time, once I am released do I have a right to keep that money if it was not recovered? After all, I broke the law to attain that money. I did my time for stealing it so is it mine now?

ILLEGAL Immigration is not much different. They broke the law to come here. They have done their time, they have ties to the community, friends, family, and some have children that they brought into this world while living here. They have done their time and are accustomed to being here. They have done their time pretending to be legal citizens, so is citizenship theirs now?


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.

We have all been deceived for decades, by BOTH parties. Wake up!



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
That was nice of him, seriously. Limbaugh sucks, he sucked before oxycontin abuse and after not that they ever stopped, hardly any oxy addict ever stops, ive had like 4 friends die from that stuff. If Obama only had some of Ron Pauls policies about less gov and bringing the troops home and not taking 2 years to make some plane trips. Could you imagine being in Afghanistan when they are really pissed at you for burning the books.With suicide bombers and snipers.. THAT would suck.....but he will get around to saving their asses in 2 years or so. and why are they there anyway? oh forgot,,no one knows.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I never use the S word. Rude...

I sometimes post videos with the S word though.




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I think you didnt get the whole story. The girl was quoted as saying she was having so much sex she couldnt afford the $1800-$3000 a month for it, and that it was her right to have it paid for by tax payer.

Alot of the people at her school George town I believe it was, are also not very enamored with her statements.

I havent even read any other post yet, but I bet that alot of you guys wont even research before passing judgement on Limbaugh.

I totally disagree with your OP, but I will S+F this post if I am wrong.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

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.


You are joking here, right? I mean first you tell us how conservatives need to "stay above the pettiness" then you go on stating petty drivel, such as.......






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)


Hello Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
I watched the video, and I really don't believe the taxpayers should have to pay for her birth control. I don't believe we should have to pay for abortions either. You may not understand, but that's asking me to pay for killing a human being. I am entitled to believe this even if you disagree.


Hows your view then on the state paying welfare to raise that kid that could have been prevented?
Who would need state assisted contraceptives? poor people
what happens when poor people have babies they didn't plan on? They go on welfare for about 18 or so years, and that kid has far less opportunity than one planned out.

So, by -your- decision as a voter that would try to remove contraceptives from availability towards the poor, you directly create welfare babies

Now, I assume you personally believe fully that we should increase the welfare state dramatically in order to work well with your ideals...right? right?

ya..thought so.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Great post. Couldn't agree with you more. Here's her actual Testimony


When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected, and I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage. And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard. Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter, learning for the first time that contraception wasn’t covered, and had to walk away because she couldn’t afford it. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.


I'm sorry... what??? "On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or other schools or who works for a religiously affiliated employer who has suffered financial, emotional, and medical burdens because of this lack of contraceptive coverage." So what she's saying is that these women are spending sooo much money on birth control pills and/or condoms that it becomes burdensome??? Am I reading that correctly? Here's a tip... save money, quit having so much sex if you can't afford it.

I do not believe that a religious institution should be forced to provide contraception if it goes against their beliefs. You don't like the school policies? Find a non-religious school to attend or find a private insurance company who will cover these costs for you.

However.. insurance companies (religious or not) need to reconsider options for people like this:


These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs.


On one hand I believe that private insurance companies should offer the option of covering contraceptives (if the customer is willing to pay the price for that policy), but I do not think that people should expect any insurance company to provide contraception coverage unless it can be proven that it is for purposes I mentioned above. Other than for truly medical purposes, contraception is NOT a human right, it is a privilege. You don't want to get pregnant? Buy your own damned condoms or pills. You can't afford it? Keep your legs closed and your zipper up.

Since she didn't start out with the argument that women need this coverage for medical purposes, I am going to assume that her first concern was pregnancy, and I can't stand people who feel entitled to everything. So let me make this clear one more time... contraception should be covered ONLY if it is for medical purposes as cited above.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
First let me say Rush was incorrect to attack this woman in such a personal manner.
But this whole line of thinking has got me wondering........

Will they also start giving male students $3,000 a year to help them have sex as well? They can get the condoms they need for free at pph, so I guess that will leave a lot left for call girls.
Quad



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quadrivium
First let me say Rush was incorrect to attack this woman in such a personal manner.
But this whole line of thinking has got me wondering........

Will they also start giving male students $3,000 a year to help them have sex as well? They can get the condoms they need for free at pph, so I guess that will leave a lot left for call girls.
Quad


Men can't get raped and become pregnant. There is a difference. Men having sex can be without consequence that ends up being a burden on the state, or an even tougher choice down the line (abort).



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Incidently, I fully encourage the right wing continue to keep contraception as their staging post for their re-election campaigns.
a whopping 12% of the american public are siding with them...with numbers like that, no doubt you will get exactly what you want
keep up the culture war there folks...sing it loud...maybe we can then get them other laws like removal of segregation repealed.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DoNotForgetMe
 


I don't think publicity was this lady's top priority. I don't think it factors in as a variable in why she does what she does outside of the benefits of networking with like minded peoples.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by reddwhite
reply to post by David9176
 


I think you didnt get the whole story. The girl was quoted as saying she was having so much sex she couldnt afford the $1800-$3000 a month for it, and that it was her right to have it paid for by tax payer.

Alot of the people at her school George town I believe it was, are also not very enamored with her statements.

I havent even read any other post yet, but I bet that alot of you guys wont even research before passing judgement on Limbaugh.

I totally disagree with your OP, but I will S+F this post if I am wrong.


I don't think you understood what she was saying. She said it could cost up to $3,000 over the course of law school - not each month. And I believe she was referring to the cost of the birth control pill, which can cost $50-60/month. Over 3-4 years of law school, it can add up to $3000 total. She WAS NOT quoted as saying she was having so much sex, it was costing her $3,000 a month for it. Get real.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Incidently, I fully encourage the right wing continue to keep contraception as their staging post for their re-election campaigns.
a whopping 12% of the american public are siding with them...with numbers like that, no doubt you will get exactly what you want


The Republican party has absolutely no intentions of taking control of the white house next election. They have not demonstrated a percieved necessity to claim any ownership or take any responsibility for this nations current problems. One only needs to listen to the words that come from their top tier spokesmen/women to determine none of the problems we face are their fault at all. Just ask them. Nothing they have done has contributed to where we are. And with misinformation juggernauts like bull____ artists Fox "news", I can't fault Americans for not being able to properly make informed decisions due to the lack of being informed.

Example: Fox News Gretta "The sparks are really flying on Capital Hill with reports that President Obama plans to withdrawal all but 3,000 troops from Iraq by the end of the year"



Too bad this is just another example of Fox "news's" misinformation campaign and propaganda machine. Yes, President Obama did plan on withdrawalling nearly all troops from Iraq, but to comply with agreement the Bush administration signed.

But that was easily overlooked at the time due to the distraction of what happened at the press conference where Bush & the leader of Iraq announced the *timetable of when all troops would be withdrawalling from Iraq:




The Bush administration determined the timeline LONG before President Obama took office, Fox "news".

edit on 2-3-2012 by ILikeStars because: finish incomplete sentence due to real world distractions.

edit on 2-3-2012 by ILikeStars because: * "timetable of"





top topics
 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join