PDA

View Full Version : Rush Limbaugh speaks the truth. (This time)




Brett85
03-03-2012, 10:44 AM
I don't like the way that Rush has treated Ron Paul, but he's absolutely right on this. Why should I have to pay for someone else to have sex? And what word do you use to describe someone who gets paid to have sex?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html?tid=pm_local_pop

bluesc
03-03-2012, 10:56 AM
Better be careful agreeing with him, the women here throw around "misogynist" more than the liberals do.

I may not agree with his wording, but I agree that birth control should not be tax payer provided.

Brett85
03-03-2012, 11:05 AM
Better be careful agreeing with him, the women here throw around "misogynist" more than the liberals do.

I may not agree with his wording, but I agree that birth control should not be tax payer provided.

Well, what he said is certainly controversial. But what he said is technically correct, because this woman wants you and I to pay for her to have sex, and a prostitute is someone who gets paid to have sex.

GrahamUK
03-03-2012, 11:40 AM
Better be careful agreeing with him, the women here throw around "misogynist" more than the liberals do.

I may not agree with his wording, but I agree that birth control should not be tax payer provided.

While i understand your thinking i have a question. Isn't it better to pay a little for birth control with the view that it actually benefits the tax payer in the long run?

Safe sex = less STD's and HIV/AIDS which has a positive effect on the healthcare system and its cost to the tax payer..

Same applies to contraceptive birth control, i know this is pretty controversial but, alot of people end up having kids they can't afford to provide for which further adds to the cost of the welfare system..

Brett85
03-03-2012, 11:48 AM
While i understand your thinking i have a question. Isn't it better to pay a little for birth control with the view that it actually benefits the tax payer in the long run?

Safe sex = less STD's and HIV/AIDS which has a positive effect on the healthcare system and its cost to the tax payer..

Same applies to contraceptive birth control, i know this is pretty controversial but, alot of people end up having kids they can't afford to provide for which further adds to the cost of the welfare system..

No. For one thing, whenever the government subsidizes something, it just makes it more expensive. So having the government subsidize birth control certainly isn't going to bring down the costs. Secondly, it's simply morally wrong for the government to steal money from taxpayers and spend it on something that those same taxpayers may object to on moral/religious grounds.

slamhead
03-03-2012, 12:01 PM
You subsidize something you get more of it. As long as these subsidies are around I look at giving them free birth control is better than the cost of an abortion or the cost of a child on welfare. Obviously we don't want any of these things paid for with tax dollars. The woman in front of congress is a sham. She has an agenda and I am sure she has the resources to pay for her own BC.

pcosmar
03-03-2012, 12:02 PM
Big Whoop.

He's right on a minor and highly divisive issue while being dead wrong on most issues of substance.

Stop wasting time listening and promoting that worthless propagandist.

jonhowe
03-03-2012, 12:06 PM
There are three issues in this debate.

1. Is contraception immoral?
2. Should the government mandate what insurance must cover?
3. IF 2 is "yes", should it mandate contraception.

I would say the GOP is focused too much on issue 1. Rush is focusing too much on issue 3. The REAL issue is #2.

GrahamUK
03-03-2012, 12:07 PM
No. For one thing, whenever the government subsidizes something, it just makes it more expensive. So having the government subsidize birth control certainly isn't going to bring down the costs. Secondly, it's simply morally wrong for the government to steal money from taxpayers and spend it on something that those same taxpayers may object to on moral/religious grounds.

Yes i totally understand that but the fact still remains that you have a welfare state which is a cost to the tax payer.. Birth control costs the tax payer less than raising an unwanted child ??

moostraks
03-03-2012, 12:07 PM
While i understand your thinking i have a question. Isn't it better to pay a little for birth control with the view that it actually benefits the tax payer in the long run?

Safe sex = less STD's and HIV/AIDS which has a positive effect on the healthcare system and its cost to the tax payer..

Same applies to contraceptive birth control, i know this is pretty controversial but, alot of people end up having kids they can't afford to provide for which further adds to the cost of the welfare system..

sounds like the same argument used for government education...both arguments are nonsense!

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Sex is not a right, and no contorted act of justification can legitimize forcing people to support that which goes against their moral/religious values financially or otherwise.

r3volution
03-03-2012, 12:08 PM
Big Whoop.

He's right on a minor and highly divisive issue while being dead wrong on most issues of substance.

Stop wasting time listening and promoting that worthless propagandist. yalp

MelissaWV
03-03-2012, 12:08 PM
Big Whoop.

He's right on a minor and highly divisive issue while being dead wrong on most issues of substance.

Stop wasting time listening and promoting that worthless propagandist.

This.

And yeah he was right about a few things during his rants. Asking for her to post videos of it online, though, was pretty stupid. Deliberately so, it seems, as he did that on the second show. I think he meant to stir shit up the first time, then went home to mostly positive and generally unshocked feedback. The second day, then, he was determined to "shock" us all with the other comments.

It isn't misogynist to not pay for birth control pills. It is currently a pretty misogynist policy, however, that pays for a lot of male-enhancement drugs out of our pockets, but tries to say that birth control pills shouldn't be paid for. None of it should be paid for with theft.

moostraks
03-03-2012, 12:11 PM
Yes i totally understand that but the fact still remains that you have a welfare state which is a cost to the tax payer.. Birth control costs the tax payer less than raising an unwanted child ??

Free college will cut back on welfare too by opening up the job choices for people. Should we go there?

How about free cars?

Then we need free fuel for those cars.

At some point you have to say enough.

THis does not even touch the discussion that it IS AGAINST CERTAIN RELIGIOUS VALUES FORCED AT GUNPOINT! Ugh....

Dutch
03-03-2012, 12:21 PM
And what word do you use to describe someone who gets paid to have sex?
Eh - an entrepreneur? :D

Anti Federalist
03-03-2012, 12:23 PM
+rep


Big Whoop.

He's right on a minor and highly divisive issue while being dead wrong on most issues of substance.

Stop wasting time listening and promoting that worthless propagandist.

GrahamUK
03-03-2012, 12:25 PM
Free college will cut back on welfare too by opening up the job choices for people. Should we go there?

How about free cars?

Then we need free fuel for those cars.

At some point you have to say enough.

THis does not even touch the discussion that it IS AGAINST CERTAIN RELIGIOUS VALUES FORCED AT GUNPOINT! Ugh....

Hey im not apposed nor against your values but the fact of the matter is that you have a welfare state, agreed, its not quite as far gone as in the UK (btw you get free cars in some situations as part of welfare provision here in Britain)

I live in the UK and have grown to HATE the welfare state and everything it stands for.. I detest that my tax money pays for people who refuse to work.. We're even paying using tax money to pay for woman to have boob jobs!!!

We also pay HUGE amounts of money so that herion addicts can have FREE methadone and other types of subsitutes drugs because they made a lifestyle choice..

In Britain some families who are reliant on welfare actually have more kids so they can boost their state income.. Each one of those kids then comes into the world and is in turn then reliant on MY taxes and not their parents income to support themselves, and so it continues, on and on until we're all broke..

To answer your question, were does it stop? the short answer is that it doesn't.... once you start down the path to socialism your pretty much doomed.... Look to the UK, we're 20-30 years ahead of you and you guys are catching us fast.


P.s, unless you can get Ron elected *prays for RP 2012*

Brett85
03-03-2012, 12:25 PM
Yes i totally understand that but the fact still remains that you have a welfare state which is a cost to the tax payer.. Birth control costs the tax payer less than raising an unwanted child ??

Yes, but taxpayers still shouldn't be on the hook for people wanting to live a reckless lifestyle free of consequences. I don't care if people have sex, use drugs, or do whatever else, but just don't expect me to pay for it. The key is to abolish as many social programs as possible and eventually end the welfare state.

Brett85
03-03-2012, 12:29 PM
Big Whoop.

He's right on a minor and highly divisive issue while being dead wrong on most issues of substance.

Stop wasting time listening and promoting that worthless propagandist.

I wouldn't call it a "minor issue," because it's just one more thing that expands the entitlement state. But, I'll admit that I've been disappointed by Rush's harsh comments and lack of support for Ron. It's sad that someone like Rush who has spoken out in favor of "freedom and "liberty" over the years now supports a big government Republican like Rick Santorum.

GrahamUK
03-03-2012, 12:37 PM
It's sad that someone like Rush who has spoken out in favor of "freedom and "liberty" over the years now supports a big government Republican like Rick Santorum.

Yup, but without big gov't and socialist policies how else do you expect the elites to control us ?

bill1971
03-03-2012, 02:56 PM
“It sounded a little crude the way it came across to me,” Paul said. “I don’t know why it has to be such a political football like this, so you have to ask him about his crudeness.”

andrew1229649
03-03-2012, 03:04 PM
All I have to say is, you allow the government to start funding birth control and the next thing you know it will become a requirement based upon income.

pcosmar
03-03-2012, 03:10 PM
I wouldn't call it a "minor issue,"

I would and do.
I am personally opposed to abortion. (Ambivalent on Contraceptives)
But it is a minor issue compared to The Raping of our Liberties and our Economy.
It is minor compared to the endless wars.

And the FACT that it is a political hot potato thrown around by those that have NO INTENTION of actually doing anything about it, but use it to sell themselves as a "protector of the innocent"
it is abject Hypocrisy to most of these folks,, a lot of hot air without substance.

it is an emotional issue with which they can gain votes. Nothing More.

ZenBowman
03-03-2012, 06:46 PM
No. For one thing, whenever the government subsidizes something, it just makes it more expensive. So having the government subsidize birth control certainly isn't going to bring down the costs. Secondly, it's simply morally wrong for the government to steal money from taxpayers and spend it on something that those same taxpayers may object to on moral/religious grounds.

That argument only holds true if we did not have welfare. As long as we do have a welfare state, I'd rather the government steal less money (for contraception) than steal more money (for welfare).

smithtg
03-03-2012, 06:52 PM
While i understand your thinking i have a question. Isn't it better to pay a little for birth control with the view that it actually benefits the tax payer in the long run?

Safe sex = less STD's and HIV/AIDS which has a positive effect on the healthcare system and its cost to the tax payer..

Same applies to contraceptive birth control, i know this is pretty controversial but, alot of people end up having kids they can't afford to provide for which further adds to the cost of the welfare system..


do people have more or less sex when they have birth control?

NoOneButPaul
03-03-2012, 06:55 PM
As always... leave it up to the states to decide these matters...

Feeding the Abscess
03-03-2012, 06:58 PM
As always... leave it up to the states to decide these matters...

Even better, leave it up to individuals.

When Rush Limbaugh starts talking about government theft funding the military and calling it an evil mandate, I'll give a rat's ass about what he's saying.