What about those who needs it for other health issues other than birth control? Condom is only ONE form of contraception. According to humanity she is your wife, sister, daughter, mother and grandmother.Originally Posted by Ought Six
When a woman says that the taxpayers need to provide her free birth control because during law school, she is spending $three grand$ on condoms, then according to the Webster's definition ("a promiscuous woman") she is in fact a slut. Not a prostitute, but definitely a slut.
What about those who needs it for other health issues other than birth control? Condom is only ONE form of contraception. According to humanity she is your wife, sister, daughter, mother and grandmother.
That is an entirely different issue. My and most any insurance plan would cover something prescribed out of medical necessity. The fact that it happens to be a birth control device is irrelevant. It would be covered. Free birth control at taxpayer's expense just so you can get your freak on is not that. I have to pay for my own damn condoms, and Ms. Fluke can damn well pay for her condoms herself as well.
However, the "slut" was talking about "an entirely different issue". She was talking about women who needs these medicines that you don't need (if you are not a woman. I could be wrong).
She was talking about that, but she was FoS. Any health insurance policy will cover birth control if it is a medical necessity. Catholic hospitals and clinics will provide birth control devices if they are prescribed by doctors to treat conditions like uterine cancer or polyps, because they classify it as medicine, not birth control in those circumstances. So that whole point is just so much bullsh1t to emotionally manipulate the gullible.
This is the exact comment made by the 'law student coed', Ms. Fluke, to which Rush Limbaugh was responding to.
She is pushing for 'free' condoms for all at taxpayer expense. Fvck that (no pun intended).“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke said, referring to the fact that the university doesn’t pay for contraception. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”
And here is who Ms. Fluke really is, and what her true motives are.
This whole thing was a political put-up job from the beginning, with the media and congressional Dems as willing accomplices. Just as George Stephanopolous brought up a bizarre fictional birth control scenario and hammered Repubs with it when he was moderator at one of the debates, the birth control thing keeps getting introduced over and over. It is part of the Dem's election strategy to try and demonize Repubs in the eyes of women voters. We will be seeing it again, and again, and again until November.Sandra Fluke’s Appearance Is No Fluke
Posted by Just a Grunt on Mar 02, 2012 at 10:49 am
Jammie Wearing Fools blog
For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.
In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.
While she is described as a “third year law student” they always fail to mention that she is also the past president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice.
Then go argue with her on those points! There is NO NEED to call her a "slut"! Get it? In America, manners has even become polarized!
That is a really, really dumb comment. Rush is a 'shock jock', just like Keith Obermann, Rachel Maddow, Michael Savage, Howard Stearn, Don Imus and the rest. Why does it surprise you that he would make such a statement? That is like saying 'there is no need need for the great white shark to bite that poor seal!' This is precisely what 'shock jocks' do. It is their job. Do you seriously not understand that?
F*cking john Boehner condemned the comment yesterday. The same John Boenher inadvertently caught commenting on the chest of a female reporter at a press conference in the late '90s (check it out it really happened). I don't think there is any real debate that the comment was wrong when even Boehner weighs in.
Don't confuse the fact that Rush is a shock jock and we shouldn't be surprised that he said with the fact it was wrong. Of course I'm not surprised Limbaugh made a horribly sexist comment. That's what he does. But just because its a habit of his doesn't make it right. just like when Imus made his comment. Was it surprising? No. Was it wrong? Yes. I simply find it hard to believe I have to explain this.
Some of the shyt I read in this thread blows my f*cking mind. Do y'all not have wives, girlfriends, or daughters? This comment should be condemned universally with no qualifiers. It is wrong. It will always be wrong. And except for the fact that Rush basically owns the whole system that broadcasts his voice he would be fired for having done it. Its not like its unprecedented, either. MNF shytcanned him. EIB didn't and won't. But that don't make it right.
hank
Win. His target demographic is overwhelmingly white middle-aged and older males. Its not like this is hard to google. That information is readily available.
hank
Hai guise. This is how you do it right. UNLESS your real goal is to sell golf balls to middle-aged fat white guys (and just so some don't miss the point I'm contending that is Rush's ultimate goal in all situations).
hank
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, it does not matter what she was talking about. Nothing she says in front of Congress justifies calling her a slut. But I think I must have been raised by wolves or something. Or dropped on my head. Or maybe have some other delusional disorder.
hank
She won't be able to back that up. That's a crazy number. But it still doesn't justify calling her a slut (and I'm not saying you are justifying him calling her a slut).
hank
I've never said anyone was justified in calling her a Slut, Prostitute or Whore, My Father would have smacked me immediately for using that language towards women. Limpbaugh has always annoyed me as a Pompous windbag, But do we have any choice in what he says? Freedom of speech also means putting up with assholes we dont agree with as long as they arent calling for violence to others. And Limpbaugh qualifies as an asshole.
I'm going to admit to having heard Rush. I wouldn't say I listen to Rush, he's just on the radio in the background. I heard his comment when he said it and I thought, "You got to be sh!tting, me." It was both classless and uncalled for.
Debate someone on their facts, expose their bias, show that their argument is faulty. Don't call them names, especially don't call a female "slut."
Please don't misconstrue my challenging your original comment as an insult, i'm certainly not bold enough to tempt fate with a Mod no matter the circumstances. Also, I can't say or believe that you're lying since you've made it clear that neither you nor conservatives you know listen to him, thst fine. But, just because you've never met a conservative who listens or likes Limbaugh that doesn't mean that a large segment of his listeners aren't in that political demographic. Once again Hollis, not insulting or calling you a liar I've just heard that argument too many times and it lacks weight in my book.
Posting Permissions
