Rush..

[RidgeHunter]

I didn't say I agreed with her stance; I'm simply saying it's silly to bring her stance down to sex/promiscuity.

Pre-existing condition denials don't have anything to do with the Fluke testimony, either. Speaking out about one subject doesn't imply a stance on an unrelated subject. But personally, if a particular plan covers anti-depressants or whatnot, and doesn't cover BC because of its ties to sex - yeah, I'd say that's goofy.

 

[HMFIC]

I didn't say I agreed with her stance; I'm simply saying it's silly to bring her stance down to sex/promiscuity.

Pre-existing condition denials don't have anything to do with the Fluke testimony, either. Speaking out about one subject doesn't imply a stance on an unrelated subject.

Ya I understand, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with her. FWIW, I agree with you on the stance point. I just take it one step further to say it doesn't even have anything to do with BC per se. It's just all about what the government has a right to demand that insurance companies or businesses do about things that are not Constitutionally protected.

The pre-existing thing was just to further the point. It has as much to do with what the government can force insurance to do Constitutionally as the Fluke testimony does. For that matter the argument should be the same if Obama wanted to declare cocaine suppositories as mandated free medicine. None of it jives, the whole arguement is around whether or not the government has any right to tell these businesses, churches or individuals what they MUST do.

 

[MLR]

Can someone tell what the difference would be between forcing a company to supply a product to someone for free or forcing a house painter to paint his neighbors house for free.

Michael

 

[LightningCrash]

Limbaugh's right that organizations with moral objections to contraception shouldn't have to pay for it for their employees. Nor should insurance companies have to pay for it (will just raise premiums for everyone). Since when did contraception become a right?

That said: Limbaugh went way over board calling her a slut and a prostitute. Suggestion she post videos was - well - just nutty.

I know the guy's a conservative ICON but hey! Going too far is just going too far and all he accomplishes when he behaves like that is to further alienate moderates (damned fence sitters) and energize the left.

We're in agreement here. Good post.

 

[JB Books]

Was he high on pills when he said that?

 

[MLR]

Was he high on pills when he said that?

If he paid for them himself I don't care. If he demands that I pay for them another matter.

Michael

 

[Hobbes]

This whole debate about this is unfocused and I believe on purpose. It's not about sex, it's not about BC, it's not about the 1st Amendment, it's about expanding social programs even further and expecting taxpayers to foot the bill either directly or in an agenda designed to raise insurances costs and force people onto Obama-care. This lays the groundwork is all. It also has the added effect of trying to get us to not think about the economy come election time. It just more fear-mongering and placating those who are easily distracted and fooled.

There is a conspiracy theory floating around in the right wings of the interwebz that HHS promulgated this rule, to spark the current birth control controversy, in order to achieve two goals:
1. Distract the voting public from the economy.
2. Escalate the social issue debate in order to help Santorum in his campaign against Romney.

If that's true then Rush Limbaugh is either:
1. Blundering directly into the plans of the Obama campaign staff.
2. Aiding and abetting in the promotion of Santorum over Romney.

Why would Rush devote 3 days to this issue?
Maybe it's as simple as he's doing what he's always done.

Promoting himself even if it's at the expense of the party he claims to represent.

 

[JB Books]

If he paid for them himself I don't care. If he demands that I pay for them another matter.

Michael

Even whackadoodle Santorum thinks Rush is "absurd."

 

[HMFIC]

There is a conspiracy theory floating around in the right wings of the interwebz that HHS promulgated this rule, to spark the current birth control controversy, in order to achieve two goals:
1. Distract the voting public from the economy.
2. Escalate the social issue debate in order to help Santorum in his campaign against Romney.

If that's true then Rush Limbaugh is either:
1. Blundering directly into the plans of the Obama campaign staff.
2. Aiding and abetting in the promotion of Santorum over Romney.

Why would Rush devote 3 days to this issue?
Maybe it's as simple as he's doing what he's always done.

Promoting himself even if it's at the expense of the party he claims to represent.

Could be any of that I suppose.

I hadn't read or heard anything about it other than the continous blathering about sex and whatnot which is all fun and good to stir emotions, but to me the issue is just a basic "what does the government have the right to make us do" issue.

If you take the Catholic Church completely out of it, you're still left with Obama trying to force insurance companies and/or private businesses to provide free BC. Where on EARTH does the Constitution tell him that's within his limited powers?

When I think about it logically, it seems to me they want to make it an emotional issue involving the church and then they can use the fallback position of giving the church an exemption and everyone who was suckered into it will thing they've won, when they actually lost. He just threatens to nuke you and then agrees to let you get by with being bombed conventionally so the masses feel lucky.

 

[been]

Even whackadoodle Santorum thinks Rush is "absurd."

i thought Santorum didnt want people to have sex?