It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Limbaugh broadcasts dead air during commercial breaks

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna

That cartoon is a fair argument.
However on the other side of the coin, we might want to realize that the societal cost is greater for not providing birth control for low income individuals. I know the same ones of you that are against this kind of support are also against welfare. Well let me tell you, welfare is a LOT more expensive.

Think about it.


I agree with that statement to SOME degree, however, Sandra Fluke is NOT from a low-income family. She went to Georgetown University. In fact, most college kids going to universities are not from "low income" families. They are upper and middle class, so the argument is hypocritical at best. And I'm of the belief that the only "welfare" we should be paying for, is educational programs to help people get back on their feet after they've hit bottom, instead of giving them handout after handout. Yes, emergency programs should be in place, and I agree with that....there are legit cases out there. But for long term use? Heck no. And I'm of the feeling that if someone wants welfare, they need to submit to urine tests. If they pop positive, they automatically go into a treatment center. THAT would be a far better use of our welfare system, in my mind! Simply handing out condoms, hoping and praying it curbs the rate of unwed and unwanted pregnancies, is just stupid. It's like pissing on a forest fire, hoping you're going to put it out.




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

What planet are you on?
The woman he called a slut was not asking the government to pay for anything.
Rush makes up this crap about him and you paying for something out of thin air and you waste no time getting angry over it.
How much of my private insurance do you think you pay for? How much do you think the government pays for?
Does my asking that they cover things they currently do not raise that price? How so? How much? Can you answer any of these questions without posting a picture?


You HAVE watched her petition to congress, right? Because the one I saw most certainly had her petitioning for the coverage of birth control.



I think people are failing to realize that it is not the government's responsibility to help ANYONE have "safe sex". Again, this is indicative of how skewed this generation's ideologies are, and their attempts at placing their own bodily responsibility on the government. "Oh I got pregnant, and it's the government's fault for not providing me with birth control"....please tell me I'm not the only one who sees how maddening this is!!

And the really sad part of this video is....polycystic fibrosis and endometriosis have BOTH been linked to birth control pills, as well as the higher increases of infertility in women who have been on birth control their whole lives. I have family members who have experienced this heartbreak first hand - due to the extended use of birth control pills. They can't have children, and a couple have had full blown hysterectomies. Talk about regret!! Sandra Fluke uses examples of women with these issues as an argument FOR the usage of these things.

No one NEEDS birth control pills, and until they came along, humans were doing just fine, with a LOT less instances of infertility. Even condoms are being linked to some serious issues and infections. People just need to understand that if they want an active and indiscriminate sex life, there WILL be consequences...period. Whether it is with or without birth control. Why doesn't anyone get this?


edit on 9-3-2012 by Gseven because: content



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven

You HAVE watched her petition to congress, right? Because the one I saw most certainly had her petitioning for the coverage of birth control.


Not from the government though.
Have you watched it?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Gseven

You HAVE watched her petition to congress, right? Because the one I saw most certainly had her petitioning for the coverage of birth control.


Not from the government though.
Have you watched it?


The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on women's health and contraception isn't a part of our government or it's agencies? New one on me.
Sounds just like one of the many, MANY useless and bipartisan committees our tax dollars are being wasted on. This most certainly IS our government, and had congressional members of the democratic party listening to her.

As an added note, she's testifying IN SUPPORT of the Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Coverage Regulation, and in fact, her opening statement reads:


Leader Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.


Source



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven


I agree with that statement to SOME degree, however, Sandra Fluke is NOT from a low-income family.


How much money does her family make? How much of it goes to her? I do not get any of my families money.


She went to Georgetown University. In fact, most college kids going to universities are not from "low income" families.


Something else about most people that go to university, they understand the word most. Guess how wealthy my family is. I went to university.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven

The House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on women's health and contraception isn't a part of our government or it's agencies? New one on me.
Sounds just like one of the many, MANY useless and bipartisan committees our tax dollars are being wasted on. This most certainly IS our government, and had congressional members of the democratic party listening to her.


Listening to her say...?
When did she ask them to pay for her birth control?


As an added note, she's testifying IN SUPPORT of the Affordable Care Act Contraceptive Coverage Regulation, and in fact, her opening statement reads:


Leader Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.


Source




You have no idea what you are talking about. The "regulation" is not about tax funded birth control.
Holy crap are you way off.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Gseven


I agree with that statement to SOME degree, however, Sandra Fluke is NOT from a low-income family.


How much money does her family make? How much of it goes to her? I do not get any of my families money.


She went to Georgetown University. In fact, most college kids going to universities are not from "low income" families.


Something else about most people that go to university, they understand the word most. Guess how wealthy my family is. I went to university.


You're arguing from the standpoint of your own personal experiences, so I'll do the same. When I went to college, I went on a FULL BLOWN scholarship. Why? Because if I had to pay for it, there would have been no way in hell I could have gone. I came from a single parent home. In fact, my Dad drove me an hour and a half away to my university, dropped me off with $50 and said "good luck", then drove off. That $50 had to buy all my books and feed me for the next month. I had no vehicle. Some classes were completely WITHOUT books or by sharing with other members in my class. Sadly, we were considered lower middle class, so don't talk to me about how bad it is/was for you. I've been there, and I know. I would have to decide what meal of the day I was going to have...a PB&J sandwich or a package of Ramen Noodles, and I would space it out so I wouldn't go to bed hungry. SOMEHOW, through ALL of that, I managed to be responsible with my sexual encounters, and every single one of them involved a condom. In fact, the couple of "love interests" I had in college, involved a few "no's" at the worst possible time, because we had nothing with us to ensure a responsible encounter...so we got creative. Duh.
I didn't walk around campus with a picket sign, pissed off because my weekend sexual escapades were ruined because the government didn't provide me with free birth control.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

You have no idea what you are talking about. The "regulation" is not about tax funded birth control.
Holy crap are you way off.



Sorry, but I fail to see where you believe I am "way off". The regulation is a part of the new 2010 health care law regulation requiring employers and insurers provide contraception coverage to their employees, which is ABSURD to put that burden on employers! With that new 2010 health care law comes the Health Care Reform Bill, (a.k.a., "Obama Care"), in which the Federal Government subsidizes the same health insurance that we all will be forced to go under very shortly, ESPECIALLY for lower income and/or poverty stricken households. Our tax dollars, (those of us working, that is), will MOST CERTAINLY be fronting the bill for this subsidy, and working Americans will be basically paying for health coverage of those who can't afford it. No different than how it already works, but it will be more streamlined according to how the democrats would like it. This is very much a partisan issue, and one in which I think politics don't belong. My stance is it's just more spending on something that should not be provided for free...period. Healthcare, yes. Birth control? No. There's a fine line between personal responsibility and governmental responsibility. I think most people are missing this completely.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
www.wnd.com...


“We have three brand-new sponsors that will be starting in the next two weeks,” Limbaugh said this afternoon, adding he was not going to identify them today.

“Two of the sponsors who have canceled have asked to return. We are being very careful about that. I’m not gonna give you any names here. One of them is practically begging to come back.”


Wonder if one of the sponsors begging to come back is Carbonite? Their stock took quite a big hit since they left.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Violater1
Does the gobermnt pay for Viagra? I hope not.


Yes! It pays for Viagra -- if its through any medical program.

Because erectile dysfunction is considered a legitimate medical condition.


Back when divorce was illegal, women could easily get divorce if her husband had ED, so it is a big issue. But there is a big difference between Viagra and birth control.The only real equivalent to Viagra would be hormone replacement for women going through menstruation.

Now if feminists and traditionalists didn't block the male birth control pill, yous might have more support. But as it stands enjoy the Traditionalist Noose.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Now if feminists and traditionalists didn't block the male birth control pill, yous might have more support. But as it stands enjoy the Traditionalist Noose.


Do you have real data on that?

There are many real medical issues the birth control pill is used for.

There are many women that develop medical problems from pregnancy.

Not really interested in the "old days" - - when a man could divorce his wife if she didn't provide him with an heir or a male heir. Because of course - - it was the woman's fault.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by korathin

Now if feminists and traditionalists didn't block the male birth control pill, yous might have more support. But as it stands enjoy the Traditionalist Noose.



THE QUESTION: Given that various feminist organizations,politicians and activist's forced the pharmaceutical companies to kill male birth control funding(if it wasn't for feminist's a male birth control would be on the market by 2011). Birth control is a right, a right feminist's have denied men.

THE ANSWER: There is no evidence supporting your false allegation.

Men are afraid of hormonal birth control because the they too would be subject to the same health risks as women who use hormonal birth control.

R&D is very expensive and Big Pharma has decided there is no profitable market out there:

"Just a few years ago, the new male contraceptive seemed like an inevitable reality. Major pharmaceutical companies like Wyeth, Schering and Organon were pumping millions into hormonal birth-control development programs for men, and researchers were breathlessly promising imminent production.

But in 2008, there's still no birth control for men. What happened? In a word: money. With the cost of new-drug development hovering in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the pharmaceutical industry decided there wasn't enough of a market to make male hormonal contraceptives worthwhile. answers.yahoo.com...

www.time.com...

edit on 9-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
most of these advertisers will run and hide due to their political affiliations.. when the heat is off they will come right back... Rush even said Medai Matters was full of it on the show the other day...

Straight from the horses mouth.. plus somehow magically hes making more money today than he is a week ago...

Sorry liberals you lost this one



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 


That's a pretty disgusting picture.

Why am I not surprised that Limbaugh's posse hangs out here? Redstate wasn't red enough for them.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hessling
 


No station ever intentionally broadcasts dead air, and it has nothing to do with advertisers. If there is not a paying advertiser, they just fill the spots with promos or free ads for their bigger customers. It is ridiculous to think dead air equals no advertisers.


This was some kind of technical problem, and it will probably not repeat itself for a long time.

Although, haven't Limbaugh and Beck both been experiencing a lot of technical issues lately? I don't care for either one, and I never listen, but my Mom has been reporting power outages, dead air, death threats, and who knows what else. I have just been blowing it off as these guys being melodramatic, but perhaps there really is something to all of it?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I love how the Rush haters come out and talk about Rush negatively... Which just helps this thread, and its rating on google which ads more publicity to him






posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


The 3 Ps:

Pill Popping Piece of #.

That's Rush Limbaugh.

Worthless, bloviating swine.


I don't get it. I don't get how anyone can listen to Rush.

Unless they enjoy the euphoria of getting all riled up.

Rush is like a Political Carnival Barker. He plays to emotion. I don't think it even matters what he says - - - as long as the listener gets an "emotional high" from it.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven

Originally posted by LErickson

You have no idea what you are talking about. The "regulation" is not about tax funded birth control.
Holy crap are you way off.



Sorry, but I fail to see where you believe I am "way off".


Let me let you explain where.


The regulation is a part of the new 2010 health care law regulation requiring employers and insurers provide contraception coverage to their employees, which is ABSURD to put that burden on employers!


But you claimed it was tax funded, not employer funded. That is how you are way off. Your entire argument revolved around your claim that this had to do with tax dollars which as you just pointed out was wrong. How are you not way off when you get all the facts wrong?


With that new 2010 health care law comes the Health Care Reform Bill, (a.k.a., "Obama Care"), in which the Federal Government subsidizes the same health insurance that we all will be forced to go under very shortly, ESPECIALLY for lower income and/or poverty stricken households. Our tax dollars, (those of us working, that is), will MOST CERTAINLY be fronting the bill for this subsidy, and working Americans will be basically paying for health coverage of those who can't afford it. No different than how it already works, but it will be more streamlined according to how the democrats would like it. This is very much a partisan issue, and one in which I think politics don't belong. My stance is it's just more spending on something that should not be provided for free...period. Healthcare, yes. Birth control? No. There's a fine line between personal responsibility and governmental responsibility. I think most people are missing this completely.


Great rant. Now do you understand the difference between tax funding and private insurance?



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Then there is my 'favorite' Rush quote

"You don't have to think for yourself kiddies. Let your uncle Rush do your thinking for you."

It appears that ATS enjoys an abundance of 'kiddies'.
edit on 9-3-2012 by oghamxx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join