Just read Limbaugh's comments in context

#226
#226
dreVol said:
let's see if the liberals are willing to put their money where their mouths are. they should start migrating to carbonite, right? after all carnonite made a bold stand against evil rush limbaugh. they should be rewarded, right?

hopefully their stock continues to drop and their ceo gets voted out
Click to expand...

Oh boo hoo hoo.
 
#229
#229
Why do I keep seeing quotes about this being an issue of the "government paying for her to have sex" ... or more politely "government paying for her birth control." I didn't think that was even an issue in this discussion. Is it not about whether or not the government can force private companies to include birth control in their provided coverage?

Personally, I don't think the government should require this. However, to pervert the argument into some sort of government subsidy argument seems intellectually dishonest.
 
#231
#231
TennTradition said:
Why do I keep seeing quotes about this being an issue of the "government paying for her to have sex" ... or more politely "government paying for her birth control." I didn't think that was even an issue in this discussion. Is it not about whether or not the government can force private companies to include birth control in their provided coverage?

Personally, I don't think the government should require this. However, to pervert the argument into some sort of government subsidy argument seems intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

I tried to make this point back on like page 3 and it turned into a convoluted mess.

BTW, I picked up a Carbonite account for the bike shop tonight, as we needed a storage place anyways. Personally, I use Dropbox and am not going anywhere with that right now and I don't even occupy enough space to pay for it.
 
#232
#232
TennTradition said:
Why do I keep seeing quotes about this being an issue of the "government paying for her to have sex" ... or more politely "government paying for her birth control." I didn't think that was even an issue in this discussion. Is it not about whether or not the government can force private companies to include birth control in their provided coverage?

Personally, I don't think the government should require this. However, to pervert the argument into some sort of government subsidy argument seems intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

It is a stretch - I think the closest is that the government mandate leads to increased premiums to cover BC and thus government action is paid for by all of the insured. It's the spreading the costs to all stakeholders argument.
 
#233
#233
volinbham said:
It is a stretch - I think the closest is that the government mandate leads to increased premiums to cover BC and thus government action is paid for by all of the insured. It's the spreading the costs to all stakeholders argument.
Click to expand...

However, that's clearly a manufactured argument. It isn't about government paying for it at all.
 
#234
#234
TennTradition said:
However, that's clearly a manufactured argument. It isn't about government paying for it at all.
Click to expand...

Right. The primary argument is the government forcing a religious argument to violate its principles. The secondary argument is that it is an entitlement that forces everyone to absorb the cost to provide BC for free.
 
#235
#235
volinbham said:
Right. The primary argument is the government forcing a religious argument to violate its principles. The secondary argument is that it is an entitlement that forces everyone to absorb the cost to provide BC for free.
Click to expand...

The uninsured would still not have access to free birth control, unless through existing programs, right? I just see the "you want me to pay so you can have sex" argument to be extremely flimsy, even if cast under the umbrella of increased premiums. The number of people currently insured under plans not covering BC has to be a small percentage of the insured population.

Also, one could argue that the premiums of others (who previously had insured BC) could potentially go down (minutely) in that the cost of covering this service is now shared by a new population (the church employees, for example) who are less likely (if they chose employment based on beliefs) to use that service than the general population.

My point is that the second argument is silly rhetoric that obfuscates the real issue and one that shouldn't have to be about loose women and government subsidies. I feel like the Rs are shooting themselves in the foot.
 
#236
#236
Perhaps I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm not sure where this talk about clouding the main point is coming from. Maybe I missed something in the earlier posts, but the outrage was over a)the government trying to tell a religious institution what it can and can't do and b) trying to use the argument that bc should be paid for because of medical reasons when that's the flimsy excuse. Most but not all use it for birth control. Period.

What am I missing?
 
#237
#237
volsforever27 said:
Perhaps I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm not sure where this talk about clouding the main point is coming from. Maybe I missed something in the earlier posts, but the outrage was over a)the government trying to tell a religious institution what it can and can't do and b) trying to use the argument that bc should be paid for because of medical reasons when that's the flimsy excuse. Most but not all use it for birth control. Period.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're missing anything about the real questions at hand. However, Rush's comments were no where in that ball park. Also, I have seen numerous comments here, Facebook posts, etc. that complain about how the government shouldn't be paying for this ... or if not the government, then "I" shouldn't have to be paying for this. My argument is that these comments are so far removed from the real debate that it clouds the key points and leaves democrats just talking about how republicans are against birth control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#238
#238
Gramps said:
Would you be saying this if Rush called your mother, sister or daughter a slut and prostitute

i agree with the point he was making but he went over the line in the wording he used.

It's not always what you say that get you in trouble, it's the way you say it.


He could have made his point without the name calling. IMO this falls in the same category as the Don Imus ordeal.
Click to expand...

when you enter the public forum you open yourself up to criticism, could by your mother or sister who goes on TV to speak on behalf of a cause. Was it in poor taste? Yes, but he has a right to free speech.

GAVol said:
. . . And the best selective outrage I saw today - Don Imus calling out Rush.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Last edited:
#239
#239
TennTradition said:
I don't think you're missing anything about the real questions at hand. However, Rush's comments were no where in that ball park. Also, I have seen numerous comments here, Facebook posts, etc. that complain about how the government shouldn't be paying for this ... or if not the government, then "I" shouldn't have to be paying for this. My argument is that these comments are so far removed from the real debate that it clouds the key points and leaves democrats just talking about how republicans are against birth control.
Click to expand...

IMO Rush was just connecting the dots (i.e. what the bc was for)... he shouldn't have said slut, but honestly I've heard Rush say far worse. It just happens we're in the middle of a heated campaign, so the Dems jumped on it.
 
#240
#240
volsforever27 said:
IMO Rush was just connecting the dots (i.e. what the bc was for)... he shouldn't have said slut, but honestly I've heard Rush say far worse. It just happens we're in the middle of a heated campaign, so the Dems jumped on it.
Click to expand...

I disagree with his entire notion. She didn't want all of us to pay for her BC - she wanted her employer (or provider) to cover BC and for her employer/provider and fellow subscribers to share said burden.

If you want to take it up a level, she is currently paying premiums to a national provider that is counting on the fact that they do not cover BC for the subscribers on her plan. However, all of the money gets pooled together. In a sense, this woman is paying for the others with insurance with this company who have plans that cover BC to have sex without risk of pregnancy while not receiving the same benefit. In truth, her premiums are adjusted (in some minute way) to account for the fact that BC is not covered - but to me the above argument highlights the stupidity of the Rush, et al. arguments.
 
#241
#241
TennTradition said:
I disagree with his entire notion. She didn't want all of us to pay for her BC - she wanted her employer (or provider) to cover BC and for her employer/provider and fellow subscribers to share said burden.

If you want to take it up a level, she is currently paying premiums to a national provider that is counting on the fact that they do not cover BC for the subscribers on her plan. However, all of the money gets pooled together. In a sense, this woman is paying for the others with insurance with this company who have plans that cover BC to have sex without risk of pregnancy while not receiving the same benefit. In truth, her premiums are adjusted (in some minute way) to account for the fact that BC is not covered - but to me the above argument highlights the stupidity of the Rush, et al. arguments.
Click to expand...

Er, don't go to Georgetown. She knew what she was doing. Their policy isn't a huge secret. Plus, she's the one who said that "Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy". Then came up with some crazy $3,000 statistic. That wasn't Rush's doing.
 
#242
#242
volsforever27 said:
Er, don't go to Georgetown. She knew what she was doing. Their policy isn't a huge secret. Plus, she's the one who said that "Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy". Then came up with some crazy $3,000 statistic. That wasn't Rush's doing.
Click to expand...

I said I was on Georgetown's side in this argument. Rush is the one who instead of defending Georgetown's rights to do this decided to instead make this about a slut and taxpayers supporting her habit. Hyperbole from Rush? Nah - never! My biggest issue is how many people I've seen parroting the government-subsidized crap. Are they already jumping to the next argument? If your private company denies coverage of BC, then the government should offer a "rider"?
 
#243
#243
what about Obama's accommodation? "ok catholic church, I won't make you pay to provide birth control. sorry, insurance companies. you have to foot the bill."

insurance companies aren't altruistic enterprises, so this added cost will necessarily get passed onto other subscribers
 
#244
#244
dreVol said:
what about Obama's accommodation? "ok catholic church, I won't make you pay to provide birth control. sorry, insurance companies. you have to foot the bill."

insurance companies aren't altruistic enterprises, so this added cost will necessarily get passed onto other subscribers
Click to expand...

But, but, but........that does not mean that "WE" have to pay for it.......the money is just "there" for cover BC.


By the way, Maher tweeted support for Rush, blasted Dems for not accepting and said sponsors pulling out is not good. Can we move on now.
 
Last edited:
#245
#245
T-TownVol said:
But, but, but........that does not mean that "WE" have to pay for it.......the money is just "there" for cover BC.


By the way, Maher tweeted support for Rush, blasted Dems for not accepting and said sponsors pulling out is not good. Can we move on now.
Click to expand...

after i read maher's tweet, I ran to the window b/c I was sure that pigs were flying
 
#246
#246
dreVol said:
after i read maher's tweet, I ran to the window b/c I was sure that pigs were flying
Click to expand...

Rush and Hannity both came to Maher's defense a few years ago when maher stepped into a pile o' poo over something he said (before his HBO gig). Kudo's to him for stepping up and returning the favor.
 
#248
#248
MG1968 said:
Rush and Hannity both came to Maher's defense a few years ago when maher stepped into a pile o' poo over something he said (before his HBO gig). Kudo's to him for stepping up and returning the favor.
Click to expand...

i was unaware of that. that certainly makes don imus look like more of a tool
 
#249
#249
TennTradition said:
I said I was on Georgetown's side in this argument. Rush is the one who instead of defending Georgetown's rights to do this decided to instead make this about a slut and taxpayers supporting her habit. Hyperbole from Rush? Nah - never! My biggest issue is how many people I've seen parroting the government-subsidized crap. Are they already jumping to the next argument? If your private company denies coverage of BC, then the government should offer a "rider"?
Click to expand...

He made the exact same mistake that Santorum (and to a lesser extent Romney made). The focus shouldn't be on anything except the insurers or employer's right to define their own coverages.

I still cannot abide by any of the Dem's logic on the issue. Birth control is simply not that expensive, and it is and always will be widely available.
 
#250
#250
Lexvol said:
He made the exact same mistake that Santorum (and to a lesser extent Romney made). The focus shouldn't be on anything except the insurers or employer's right to define their own coverages.

I still cannot abide by any of the Dem's logic on the issue. Birth control is simply not that expensive, and it is and always will be widely available.
Click to expand...

Plus million
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top