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

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

It is not just birth control. The issue is the government being involved in things it has no business doing.

We have zilch private industry in the US, but have a government that is the biggest employer in the country. The bigger and more bloated it gets the more rampant the corruption grows.

Face it, we have let the government coddle us to the degree that we are in it's strangle hold. Why in the world do we need Lunch Police at schools?

What does the Department of Energy do beside shuffle paper? FDA is getting it's back scratched so well by Monsanto that it is killing us off with all their protection.

The government owns us, but we are too high maintenance and our economy can not support all the entitlements. So the prevailing trend is to eliminate the excess population to curb this problem.

Where do the entitlements end? They don't, they just keep growing.

My next door neighbor was telling me how he liked prison life. Last I heard one in 100 people are in jail in the US. Yet the banksters and politicians they are in bed with that are raping all of us are living the high life while the pot growers are doing hard time with the murderers.

All we are entitled to is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is fading fast as we allow this sinister government to own a bigger piece of our freedom with each passing day.

God help us all when the economy flat lines and the SHTF, you can bet we will be fighting a new war or be heading into FEMA camps or both.

My rant.

edit on 3/2/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: spelling

I get it - you think the government makes too many laws and is too corrupt. I don't totally disagree with that, BUT I do think that everyone deserves access to affordable healthcare. I think that falls under life and the pursuit of happiness. In this case, the government (Obama) wants all women to have access to affordable birth control. He's not saying that all women MUST use birth control - he wants all women to have affordable access to it. He is trying to compromise by not forcing religious employers to include it in their insurance policies, but still having it available and affordable to those that need/want it, by making the insurance companies provide it at their own cost.

Will the insurance companies pass those costs to all of us in the form of higher premiums? Probably, but that happens anyway with lots of other situations, as in the examples I gave in my previous post.

Do we tell people, "Quit smoking so we don't have to foot the bill for your cancer treatment healthcare coverage"?; or "Quit eating junk food so we don't have to foot the bill for your diabetes healthcare coverage"? No, so we shouldn't tell women, "Quit having sex, so we don't have to foot the bill for your birth control healthcare coverage."

I don't agree with smoking, but people have a right to smoke. People have a right to eat junk food. People have a right to have sex. All of these people also have a right to affordable healthcare.

reply to post by 2manyquestions


No, that was demonstrating that there are differences between men and women having sex and the dangers/why women should be considered having contra covered if they cant readily afford it.

The "well condoms for guys" argument is nonsense..if we say we wont have sex, then 100% we will not have sex. If a woman says they will not have sex..that doesn't always mean there will not be sex...willingness may be a debatable subject.

But no, the whole overarching point is not it should be convered or taken just because of rape.


My actual view on this is simple. Globally, every government on earth should give out free contraception/pill/etc.
Has little to do with omg choice and far more to do with the global temperature rising decade to decade and our resources being slaughtered with the current amount of people on earth.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Really?

The healthcare bill has a mandate that employers with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine (read tax).Individuals who do not get healthcare via their employer (all those companies with fewer than 50 employees, 1099's etc) will be required to buy insurance or pay a fine (read tax).

All people below a certain poverty line, or unemployed will be subsidized by the government so that they can get "affordable care." Tell me how we won't be paying for the 47% who already don't pay any taxes?

Please remember that we are talking about 1/6 of the US economy when we talk about healthcare...

Oh yes we will be paying, and how.

reply to post by MrWendal

Last time I checked the only person who spoke for me, was me. Against my better judgement, let's get to it.

Sorry...but Rush is the mouthpiece of "conservatism"...if you don't like him speaking for you...stop calling yourself a "conservative". By labeling yourself a "conservative"...you are allowing a whole lot of people to speak for you.

If you are a self described "conservative"...and the majority of "conservatives" hold this position....then yes...you are going to be effected when I talk about "conservatives". If you don't like it...stop calling yourself a "conservative"...and then when I talk about "conservatives"...you can be relieved that I'm not speaking for you

So if you have a problem with it...drop the label from yourself...don't ask me not to speak the truths about "conservatives".

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.

Birth control is a health issue...we all know Republicans and Conservatives like to be in womens pants to make decisions for them...but you really have no place.

On the other hand...Government absolutely has the right to be involved in the regulation of health insurance.

I love your argument though...it's so naive. Tell me...why hasn't an insurance company already done this if you are so certain they will if "government gets out of the way".

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.

Marriage is not soley a religous issue. Everyone who gets married, needs to get an official marriage license from the state. It's not only a tax issue, it's a next of kin issue, it's legal rights issue, it's a health insurance issue.

To say it is "just a religous issue" is either being ignorant of the situation or trying to side step the issue.

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.

I have no problem with that...but that's gonna cost some big $$$...and we all know the conservatives won't let us tax their precious rich friends.

Seems you have walked yourself into a bit of a pickle.

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.

Yeah...and who cares if they have US citizen children...you know...those "anchor babies". Guess will just have to change the constitution to get rid of those despicable "anchor babies" so we can deport their asses too. Oh...and they better speak english too and eat burgers and love baseball...how dare they want to celebrate their culture.

Don't bury your head in the sand...Conservatives have their own entitlement issue...they feel entitled to be the only ones that are blessed enough to be US citizens. And if you don't look like them damnit...then you get the hell out of our country that we stole from the natives.




If what I say makes you feel uncomfortable...maybe you should think about the label you have hung on yourself...or maybe you should reflect on your view of the situation. Just a thought.

reply to post by Quadrivium

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

Why yes I can...because I'm not a public figure nor do I pretend to talk for a certain movement or party.

So I am free to call out the demented views of conservatives without worry.


I must have hit a nerve...it's not so pretty to have someone point out the ugly truths...huh?

Pft. Who cares about Limbaugh? I'm more interested in watching the mainstream media purposely mispronounce Boehner's last name because they don't want to end up the butt of every joke by saying Boner on national tv. I love watching them twist in the wind.

Okay, all of you that are mad at Rush and saying "why would anyone deny a woman BC.. Howabout you hang out at the local pharmacy and tell every woman buying birth control items that you will pay for it..

Because this is pretty much what the media and Obama are heralding...(and that woman), That tax payers should pay for any woman's birth control.. Or did I misinterpret this?

I even saw many women's posts about this on Yahoo, and they were all supporting Rush's side of the argument because they thought it was ludicrous for everyone else to pay for this woman's BC products just because she doesn't want to pay, or can't afford it..

I'm taking the "unpolitically correct" side and going with rush limbaugh's arguments on this one...

This woman in this article is so rediculous in the extreme to claim some inherent right to tax payer funded birth control, and the media people that were helping her with their bias against Rush just adds to the clown show IMO....

Pretty funny too....

I have spoken to 7 women this evening about this and shown them the article, and they all laughed and thought this woman was a joke, and they also don't like Rush too much, but they were siding with him on this...

I don't like Rush myself anmore either... but I liked his response to this floozie..

In case people are unfamiliar with this circus freak Rush Limbaugh's history for bombastic hokum...

What did Limbaugh have to say about the horizon deep water catastrophy?





Classic Limbaugh radio show conversation:

reply to post by RealSpoke


"Why would anyone want to deny women birth control?"


Uh derp-di-der wilbur, where in there does it say ANYTHING about denying women birth control, I read the post that talks about who should pay for said birth control, but no article with denying them birth control as the main point,,, hu, must be ignant or something......

Originally posted by alienreality
Okay, all of you that are mad at Rush and saying "why would anyone deny a woman BC.. Howabout you hang out at the local pharmacy and tell every woman buying birth control items that you will pay for it..

Because this is pretty much what the media and Obama are heralding...(and that woman), That tax payers should pay for any woman's birth control.. Or did I misinterpret this?

How bout you block said counter and give that woman about 50k so she can get knocked up and have a welfare baby to send through school/feed/cloth/etc.

I think I would rather chip in the 1/1000th of a penny to help her out frankly.