Has Rush gone too far?

• jmog

  Bigdogg;1103297 wrote:Yes, Rush calling this young lady a slut is wrong and anyone with half a brain knows this. The far right wackos of the Rebublican party will not quit until this is the law of the land:
  
  

  That rhetoric is worse than Rush's...congratulations you fail.
• gut

  Bigdogg;1105818 wrote: Like I said before, my wife worked in a Catholic hospital where contraceptives were not covered, but viraga was even if there was no documented health needs. Why should my wife have to pay for someone else’s elective boner? It’s the same logic used here by a lot of our misguided friends on here, but they have their head so far up Rush's ass, it's beyond reason.

  Viagara should follow the same logic. There could be a medical need for it for someone trying to conceive, but otherwise it should be an elective medication (not unlike over-the-counter stuff isn't normally covered). Also, many employers have flex spending plans, so people can purchase such tax-free.
  
  I personally don't feel employers should be required to provide insurance. If you agree with that, then you MUST agree they also have the right to choose what they want to cover and what not to cover, so long as it doesn't imply a discriminatory benefit against a protected class (i.e. covering viagara but not the pill could be construed as such).
• fish82

  

  ED meds are perfectly in line with church doctrine, i.e. supporting procreation. BC Pills...not so much. One may disagree with the doctrine, but the church is following consistent guidelines...the same guidelines they've had for hundreds of years.
  
  Most employers already offer several different levels of coverage, at varying price points. You can already pretty much get the coverage you want at the price you're willing to pay.
  
  Lastly...does anyone actually use the word "boner" anymore, save 12 year olds?
• gut

  If you really wanted to be a dick about it, you could argue that the pill (for birth control) is not a viable promotion of good health practices (unprotected sex). As such, you might subsidize condoms but not the pill. Then there's no leg to stand on, because either you or your boyfriend are covered for the type of birth control that reduces the spread of STD's.
• jmog

  isadore;1104170 wrote:gosh I am a jehovah witness employer and gosh and my beliefs don't allow me to provide funds to give my employees blood transfusions.
  or I am a Christian Science and I dont believe in providing medical treatments for my employees.

  Then said employer should be ALLOWED to chose that and the employees would know what is/is not covered going into the job. Your argument doesn't hold water at all.
• jmog

  BGFalcons82;1104317 wrote: Which is more important for our government, to protect the First Amendment or to provide free contraception/abortive medications for its citizens?

  That is a key point, the left is trying to skew the argument to make it sound like it is ONLY about BC pills when in fact the mandate says they have to pay for sterilization and the abortion pill (morning after).
  
  That is a whole different argument. Not only catholics, but most Christian churches are against the morning after pill.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;1105359 wrote:The point some of us are trying to make is that if your health care provider doesn't cover a particular medication, you pay full price for it. Believe me, I'm damned happy that I only have to pay $10 or $20 for prescription medication that is covered under my plan. Without that, I would be in hock. And, yes, when I switched to Wal Mart last month my one-month supply of 40mg Lipitor (generic) would have been $159 without health insurance. Do the math. There are folks out there who don't have "cadillac" coverage and it's easy to see how they can rack up big-time debt just to keep up with their medications.
  
  
  Rush has now lost seven sponsors. He can talk all he wants about his massive audience, but without the sponsors' dollars he knows he won't be on very much longer. That's why he issued his "apology". It wasn't because he suddenly saw the light. It was a financial decision, pure and simple.

  Wrong.
  
  Doctor visit, always covered-$20
  BC Pill, even not covered is ONLY $15-30/mo. depending on type.
  
  Do the math, that is $200-$400 per year since you only have to go to the doctor once to get a yearly prescription for BC, you don't have to go every month.
  
  You fail, Fluke failed, the left failed.
• jmog

  Bigdogg;1105818 wrote:Bottom line is if my employer choses to offer health insurance as a benefit, I should be able to pick and choose what coverage I want and need. If it cost more I see no reason I would not pay for it. From what I understand by talking to people I know in the insurance industry, contraceptives use actually reduce the cost of insurance.
  
  Like I said before, my wife worked in a Catholic hospital where contraceptives were not covered, but viraga was even if there was no documented health needs. Why should my wife have to pay for someone else’s elective boner? It’s the same logic used here by a lot of our misguided friends on here, but they have their head so far up Rush's ass, it's beyond reason.

  No, you have your head up the MSM's rear end that you can't see our point.
  
  It isn't a women's right problem, its a 1st amendment problem. The government forcing a religion to go against its moral values is STRICTLY prohibited by the 1st amendment...PERIOD.
  
  This should NOT even be a discussion, but unfortunately with the current liberals they only want to separate church and state when it suits them (aka don't put a nativity scene in a state park, but feel free to force a religion to go against their beliefs).
• Bigdogg

  fish82;1105932 wrote:Lastly...does anyone actually use the word "boner" anymore, save 12 year olds?

  You are starting to get very creepy with all the stalking you do of my posts. Adding you to my ignore list because you bore me.
• Devils Advocate

  

  queencitybuckeye;1105567 wrote:principles*

  Yes, because a mis spelling totally invalidates the post.
• fish82

  

  Bigdogg;1105958 wrote:You are starting to get very creepy with all the stalking you do of my posts. Adding you to my ignore list because you bore me.

  Says the guy talking about boners.
  
  You'll be back. You know you can't quit me.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1105955 wrote:No, you have your head up the MSM's rear end that you can't see our point.
  
  It isn't a women's right problem, its a 1st amendment problem. The government forcing a religion to go against its moral values is STRICTLY prohibited by the 1st amendment...PERIOD.
  
  This should NOT even be a discussion, but unfortunately with the current liberals they only want to separate church and state when it suits them (aka don't put a nativity scene in a state park, but feel free to force a religion to go against their beliefs).

  The moral values that say that birth control is wrong because you shouldn't have sex except for procreation yet at the same time are fine with Viagra,etc. Gotcha.
• queencitybuckeye

  Devils Advocate;1105968 wrote:Yes, because a mis spelling totally invalidates the post.

  No, the idea that acting against one's stated principles is more prevalent on one side of the political spectrum is so stupid on the surface that it doesn't really need to be addressed.
• jhay78

  

  Good stuff about the leftist misogyny that the media has ignored for years now, yet they freak out over one conservative commentator:
  
  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/04/rush-limbaugh-s-apology-liberal-men-need-to-follow-suit.html
  

  But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?
  
  During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.
  
  
  Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.
  
  But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”
  
  This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.
  
  After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?
  
  
  It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.
  
  

  Liberals who freak out over Rush and ignore the dozens of idiots on the left who cross the line every day are hypocrites.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;1105981 wrote:The moral values that say that birth control is wrong because you shouldn't have sex except for procreation yet at the same time are fine with Viagra,etc. Gotcha.

  I don't want to pay for grandpa's sex either.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1105981 wrote:The moral values that say that birth control is wrong because you shouldn't have sex except for procreation yet at the same time are fine with Viagra,etc. Gotcha.

  Where do they say not to have sex except for procreation?
• Little Danny

  

  jmog;1105955 wrote:No, you have your head up the MSM's rear end that you can't see our point.
  
  It isn't a women's right problem, its a 1st amendment problem. The government forcing a religion to go against its moral values is STRICTLY prohibited by the 1st amendment...PERIOD.
  
  This should NOT even be a discussion, but unfortunately with the current liberals they only want to separate church and state when it suits them (aka don't put a nativity scene in a state park, but feel free to force a religion to go against their beliefs).

  It's funny how libs advocate separation of Church and State, except for instances where the State wants to put madates on the Church.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1105981 wrote:The moral values that say that birth control is wrong because you shouldn't have sex except for procreation yet at the same time are fine with Viagra,etc. Gotcha.

  I NEVER said I agreed with their belief on BC, because I don't. However, I DO believe that the government has no right to infringe on their beliefs about BC.
  
  THAT is the difference, if the government allows this we might as well throw out the 1st amendment completely.
• QuakerOats

  I Wear Pants;1105906 wrote:Defending Rush only makes one look like an **** (not saying you were defending him but just in general).
  QUOTE]
  
  
  Hardly; the guy is right at least 90% of the time. You are simply a hater, and I am not afraid to call you out on it.
  
  The "average" female college student should be insulted by Fluke, and everything she stands for (which doesn't sound like much). She can either pay for her own contraception, have her partners pay for it; or start shacking up with lesbians so she doesn't need it; I could care less. But, I am not paying for her pleasure trips, and I don't think most others care to either. So thanks again to Rush, for bringing this atrocity to light. The left ought to be completely embarrassed by Fluke, but then again they have no shame, so they made her their stool pigeon.

• IggyPride00

  

  Rush has now lost 12 sponsors at last count.
  
  The left has had an immediate action plan they hit the ground running with at first chance.
  
  They are bombarding his sponsors right now in an attempt to get him off the air.
  
  Where is that type of built in infrastructure on the conservative side for when Liberals make ridiculous comments?
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1105955 wrote:No, you have your head up the MSM's rear end that you can't see our point.
  
  It isn't a women's right problem, its a 1st amendment problem. The government forcing a religion to go against its moral values is STRICTLY prohibited by the 1st amendment...PERIOD.
  
  This should NOT even be a discussion, but unfortunately with the current liberals they only want to separate church and state when it suits them (aka don't put a nativity scene in a state park, but feel free to force a religion to go against their beliefs).

  You might have a point if it wasn't obviously clear that this does not violate first amendment jurisprudence. The government is free to pass regulations that disproportionately affect religious institutions so long as a particular religion or belief is not singled out. The contraception mandate very clearly does not violate the 1st amendment
• Cleveland Buck

  

  It does not violate the 1st amendment of the Constitution. It does violate most of the rest of the document though. Not that that matters at all.
• Thread Bomber

  

  Then why did Rush apologize???
• gut

  jhay78;1106029 wrote:Good stuff about the leftist misogyny that the media has ignored for years now, yet they freak out over one conservative commentator:

  It's pretty simple, actually. They don't respect or value conservative women. It's that a women with conservative views must be so ignorant and backwards that she doesn't deserve defending.
  
  Interesting because I watch Bill Maher and remember those comments. Didn't find them particularly outrageous or shocking at the time (nor were they all that funny), but it's odd when reading that article - and the jokes are quite accurate - how much more offensive and inappropriate it seems.
  
  100% spot-on with the joke about Santorum's wife. I thought it was tasteless and unfunny, but WOW imagine Rush saying that about Obama or Pelosi.
• Footwedge

  majorspark;1106030 wrote:I don't want to pay for grandpa's sex either.

  Well, I'm grampa age, and it's I that doesn't want to pay for everyone else's birth control, which I guess is mandated if I were to get my own insurance.
  
  Socializing the cost of all bc pills, Viagra, vasectomies and the likes....I don't want to chip in for all the sexually active fertile people.
  
  Very bad policy in my view. With that said...LMFAOROTF at those that are defending the chubby guy for the bs he spewed. Women who want bc are not sluts or whores.
  
  That guy probably cost the GOP the election again this year and his supporters are too blind to see it.