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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ventian
Would not surprise me if he got pulled soon. Now this will blow over but he is getting up in age. I could see a news report announcing he has dementia starting and that is why he made those comments. Just some speculation on my part though.


This did cross my mind.

Is his replacement even worse?




posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Hessling
 


You guys still obsessing on Limbaugh. That's more of a story than his saying something wrong while exercising free speech. That tells me you are opposed to free speech. What he said was wrong and anyone who has never said anything wrong themselves has every right to be critical. Problem is there is nobody alive I think who has not done the same.

This whole thing was a ruse to divert attention from Obama's attempt to negate the 1st Amendment. But then the voters are dumb enough to fall for it. I think his supporters would be OK with him being a Dictator if they could get away with it. Lord knows he and his followers have railed against free speech and a free press over and over again.

Why are you opposed to free speech by the way? What's the deal with that? You do know your radio has the ability to change stations at any time you wish? This is just more hate and divisive crap that is ruining our country and allowing the real bad guys to strip our rights away. I wonder how loud you yell when it comes time for your speech to be controlled? It's coming and your part of the cause.

When people mess up and then apologize, you forgive them and then they do the same when you do the same.

...and you will.
edit on 3/8/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/8/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)


First of all, I can assure you I am not opposed to free speech. (No self-respecting member of ATS should be, agreed?)

When a person refers to someone as a "slut" and a "prostitute" that's their opinion. When someone says the same thing over the public airwaves that strikes me as slanderous. It is in their own professional interests to watch such talk and Mr. Limbaugh should have known better.

Finally, the point of this post was not weighing the pros and cons of Rush's behavior. It was more to reflect upon how a popular outcry can still have an effect in this country which I'm sure you'll agree is a good thing.

Peace.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ventian
Would not surprise me if he got pulled soon. Now this will blow over but he is getting up in age. I could see a news report announcing he has dementia starting and that is why he made those comments. Just some speculation on my part though.


Get pulled soon? He owns his show.
The EIB network is owned and operated
by him. He is the boss. He has a contract
they can not break it for anything he says on air.
He is not going anywhere..



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


Go back and read what I posted again...you missed one very important word. SUBSIDIZED!! Subsidies from the federal government will cover low-income or no-income persons requiring medical treatment. Where does the federal government get subsidies? Tax payers. Sandra Fluke was testifying on behalf of these very people, then moved on to "college kids" who can't afford birth control.


You've still failed to show me how I'm way off.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Gseven
 






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.



You have any evidence to back that up?

Are you a doctor, are you subscribing that women shouldn't be treated for those conditions?



Evidence? Sure...I'm fairly certain Google works just as well for you as it does me, but my evidence comes from personal accounts, so I'm pretty positive that won't be good enough for you. I did Google it and tons of info came up, so you'll understand if I don't have the time to do for you what you can do for yourself, right?

As far as women being treated...of course I believe they should be treated! What kind of absurd question is that?? By my approach to any physical problem is to attack the underlying problem, not slap a dirty band aid on a gaping wound. BCP's don't do anything but exasperate pre-existing conditions or even cause them in some cases.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Gseven
]

You're arguing from the standpoint of your own personal experiences, so I'll do the same.


You should give that money back because there was no argument in that post at all. What there was was questions. I am questioning a claim from you that seemed rather empty. Your response should have been to answer that question and back that claim. Whatever argument you are reading, you are imagining.

Do you not have the answer to my question?


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.


That is really just super.
I asked a simple question, made no argument, and you failed to handle that.


When you actually spend time READING what I wrote, and stop skipping over pertinent facts just for the sake of an argument, I'd be happy to debate this with you. As far as answering questions, the only ones you asked were how much money her family made, and how much of that money went to her. The questions weren't important, and I clearly made that point by my "rant", as you so eloquently put it. I see that you don't read between the lines very well, so I'll spell it out for you...

Making personal, RESPONSIBLE decisions has absolutely NOTHING to do with how much money a person makes, and neither I, nor anyone else should be flipping the bill for someone else's lack of personal responsibility. If there is a medical condition and they have made a personal decision to treat that medical condition with the use of synthetic hormones supplied through Birth Control Pills, then fine...it should be covered as medicinal usage at that point. But condoms and birth control pills being used for indiscriminate sex are not the government's, the employer's, or the insurer's responsibility. Regardless if the government will pass laws to force employers and health insurers (with the aid of subsidies funded directly from tax dollars) to fund these provisions, let me be very clear here...at the end of the day, that money will come from one source only...the tax payers. You can mince words all you want, but you're not looking at the larger picture here.

So, that is all I have left to say on this. If you don't understand my stance by now, or the reasoning I have, then we have nothing more to debate really. The government should not be involved in this issue, period.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven
When you actually spend time READING what I wrote, and stop skipping over pertinent facts just for the sake of an argument, I'd be happy to debate this with you.


Well then we have reached an impasse because I did read everything you wrote.
What you mean to say is
"When you take the time to RESPOND TO EACH AND EVERY THOUGHT IN MY POST THE WAY I EXPECTED YOU TO then I'd be happy to debate this with you."

But if you are just going to up and say I did not read it for no reason then maybe you should share with someone else. I found very little worth responding to so far and I will not be berated into writing more than I have to express.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven
reply to post by LErickson
 


Go back and read what I posted again...you missed one very important word. SUBSIDIZED!!


I read it. You apparently cannot read or understand my responses so you respond to me by telling me I did not read something? That is the weirdest argument tactic I have ever come across.


Subsidies from the federal government will cover low-income or no-income persons requiring medical treatment. Where does the federal government get subsidies? Tax payers. Sandra Fluke was testifying on behalf of these very people, then moved on to "college kids" who can't afford birth control.


You've still failed to show me how I'm way off.


You said Sandra wanted tax payers to pay for her birth control.
That is still not even close to the truth.
That is still how you are way off.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Get pulled soon? He owns his show.
The EIB network is owned and operated
by him. He is the boss. He has a contract
they can not break it for anything he says on air.
He is not going anywhere..


He does not own any of the stations that broadcast him and that is why he has already been pulled from a few of them. He can own his own mic all he wants but when no one will broadcast your show it is just him sadly sitting in a room talking into his big golden mic by himself.

EIBN is not actually a "network."
edit on 11-3-2012 by LErickson because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

You guys still obsessing on Limbaugh. That's more of a story than his saying something wrong while exercising free speech. That tells me you are opposed to free speech. What he said was wrong and anyone who has never said anything wrong themselves has every right to be critical. Problem is there is nobody alive I think who has not done the same.

This whole thing was a ruse to divert attention from Obama's attempt to negate the 1st Amendment. But then the voters are dumb enough to fall for it. I think his supporters would be OK with him being a Dictator if they could get away with it. Lord knows he and his followers have railed against free speech and a free press over and over again.

Why are you opposed to free speech by the way? What's the deal with that? You do know your radio has the ability to change stations at any time you wish? This is just more hate and divisive crap that is ruining our country and allowing the real bad guys to strip our rights away. I wonder how loud you yell when it comes time for your speech to be controlled? It's coming and your part of the cause.

When people mess up and then apologize, you forgive them and then they do the same when you do the same.

...and you will.
edit on 3/8/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/8/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



Limbaugh has ALL the right to express himself freely, even if in an influential public address system such as the radio median.

BUT, EQUALLY too, the rest of humanity DO have the RIGHT and FREEDOM to respond in kind.

That's only the 1st Amendment at work. It works both ways.

Limbaugh, by voicing his opinion freely, must and should expect a response. He should be glad there was a response, rather than apathy. At least, then he would have known reality - to continue on, or to stop.

The public outcry and backlash was huge, thus he should with all honor and integrity, stop his BS, apologise and make redemptions. A mistake had been pointed out, and only a fool would ignore. Only by acknowledging mistakes can we progress and evolve.

A simple 'apology' isnt gonna work. Words are cheap to come by. Many other religions had often derided christians that they got it cheap - by praying for forgiveness and the matter ends. It only shows the shallow depth of their knowledge.

The Messiah will help us for us, for those who believe in his message, to intercede for us. But in the end, forgiveness lays with our Creator. There will be a price to be paid for mistakes made. It's called retribution and is real. But how long or short that price is lays within the depth of our heart for redemption by true remorse.

Similarly, Limbaugh is free to utter apologies freely. But redemption will be sought by others, in what he does next, to regain back the trust and honor, if he had any in the first place.

It's only natural to make mistakes for we humans are flawed. It's what we do next that after mistake made that makes us either remorseless monsters, hell bent on hurting and harming others, or acknowleging and correcting mistakes so that we can evolve and progress to a higher plane of existance.


edit on 11-3-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Not a surprising world-view from a self-described "commie artist".



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Know what's funny?

Rush Limbaugh was a pillhead. The guy was a painkiller junkie and he recently got busted with Viagra and no RX.

We clearly see that Rush Limbaugh loves (along with pie) a good supply of assorted pills. The pills he likes are the kind that work per dose. The more you require the more you take.

This is why the guy thinks that Ms. Fluke must be having so much sex. He actually thinks that she cannot afford her BC because the amount of sex she's having prohibits her from affording it. As if the amount of sex or lack thereof equates to her personal cost of birth control.

Rush, not all pills or medication work that way



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by LErickson
You said Sandra wanted tax payers to pay for her birth control.
That is still not even close to the truth.
That is still how you are way off.



I guess I'll spell it out for you.

1.) On the video I posted, the bottom of the news screen has this: "Sandra Fluke was blocked from testifying at a House Oversight Committee hearing on insurance companies providing contraception coverage".

First of all, you need to ask yourself, how in the world can our government have the authority to tell insurance companies what they will and will not provide to their clients, unless they are subsidizing and funding them as well. What business is it of the government?? It isn't...unless they have a financial stake in the matter, which they do. The House Oversight Committee hearing, as well as this hearing she was filmed at, are both government entities. Got that one? Have you swallowed it? OK, moving on...

2.) She is quoted at 1:38: "When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage..."

3.) She is quoted at 2:14: "Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, 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 the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy."

Now, my biggest issue is this: there are two different groups being clumped into the "contraception" group. This is wrong, and is the MAIN source of all the discussions and anger. If synthetic hormones are required to treat an existing medical problem, then the name should be changed or formulated under a different label and covered under normal pharmaceutical provisions. THIS is what Sandra Fluke should be promoting - a distinction between these two groups, so that medical issues will be covered. However, she starts off with a bang, talking about all these medical cases, but then drifts around to the topic that has everyone up in arms...those who do not require synthetic hormones due to medical reasons. These are the ones in the REAL contraception group....the ones having the sex, not wanting babies. Her argument is empty and full of crap, in my book, masked purely by pretty words and a lot of hoo-hah and blah-blah that sounds official, but has zero proof to back up her claims.

There are a number of alternatives to the Pill:

Condoms (Male)
Calendar Method
Contraceptive Foam
Diaphragm
IUD
Contraceptive Sponge
Cervical Cap
Female Condom
Withdrawal
Abstinence
Sterilization

As I said before in another post, the Pill CAUSES, or is linked to at the very least, most of the medical issues for which women are taking these things for to begin with. But that's for another post all together. You can read for yourself here: Ditch The Pill

4.) She is quoted at 9:30: "....we expected women to be treated equally. To not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools live up to the Jesuit creed of Cura Personalis, to care for the whole person by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected, that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for us as students, they would help us. We expected that when94% of students opposed the policy, the University would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for, completely unsubsidized by the University. We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere, and even if that meant going to a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent, that in the twenty-first century, anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice, simply because we are women."

Plain and simple...Sandra Fluke used the word "we", to include herself. She used various examples of "women" from her school to point out "medical" needs, however, she herself was not included in that group of having a medical issue. Her only argument was that BCP's were expensive. Then, toward the end, are we to believe that 94% of the student population are female and also have medical issues that demand synthetic hormones? Surely not!! Only a very small percentage of the student population of women only, require medical usage of synthetic hormones....the rest are just having sex. Sandra Fluke, by her own lack of words, has secured herself in this category by NOT including herself in the others.

She most certainly IS asking to have her birth control provided for free. The university may not be subsidizing the insurance, but the government surely is. That's why the hearing took place! And guess who pays for that?

Furthermore...since when are schools obligated to meet all of the students' medical needs?? On what planet do they live, because when I went to school, the coverage was pretty darn basic, and that was that. You were lucky to have that, if at all, and we were grateful for the basic coverage.
Yet, here is Sandra Fluke and her fellow students, whom she represents, attending a "prestigious" school by her own description, making DEMANDS on the school for what they will provide to them. Seriously? If you can afford a prestigious school, you can most certainly afford your own birth control. And if you have a medical issue that requires that much treatment, then you need to take responsibility to secure a better insurance carrier that will take care of you.

And lastly, Sandra Fluke states that they REFUSE to choose between a quality education and their health. I'm sorry, but if I were a woman and had a life threatening health issue, or at least one that threatened my ability to have children one day, I might just compromise on the price tag of my schooling to ensure that my medical needs were taken care of, rather than relying on the flimsy argument from the likes of Sandra Fluke to get my birth control pills covered. Do you see the ridiculousness of her argument now? Please tell me you do.

I am not Catholic. I am not democratic. I am not republican. I am, however, old enough to know better, and this is nothing more than a bunch of spoiled brats at law school who are trying to milk the system with manipulation tactics and their sense of entitlement.
edit on 15-3-2012 by Gseven because: content

edit on 15-3-2012 by Gseven because: typo



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gseven
 


I am sorry you seem to have completely lost what it is you are talking about.
I am not sure why I need to repeat myself but I am kind of tired of it.
Nothing in your post really matters to me. Your out of context quotes still do nothing to make her have said what Rush claims she said. He lied about her plain and simple. Write a couple more essays if you think that helps but the number of words you use does nothing to add to your credibility. Having a valid point is all you need and one you have not got.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gseven


There are a number of alternatives to the Pill:

Condoms (Male)
Calendar Method
Contraceptive Foam
Diaphragm
IUD
Contraceptive Sponge
Cervical Cap
Female Condom
Withdrawal
Abstinence
Sterilization



Now I know you are trying to be stupid. It has been pointed out many times already and Fluke even testified about the reasons for using the pill that have nothing to do with getting pregnant. That is not all it is used for. Tell me how condoms fight cervical cancer.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Gseven
 


P.S. If you and your kind really want to go down this road to its inevitable conclusion then maybe you would be more comfortable in the Middle East or the Middle Ages. You are trying to condemn me if were to choose to have sex but choose not to become a mother because your god does not like it. Welcome to Americha!




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join