In comments made this week, Rush Limbaugh has ignited a bit of a firestorm among liberals with his views on contraception and, more particularly, a certain Georgetown student who wanted to testify before the House Committee regarding contraceptives and the Affordable Care Act. a lot of us consider Rush to be the de facto leader of the Republican Party, simply because every time any Republican criticizes him, he/she is forced to apologize and take back their criticism. I'll include a link to the Rush comments below, but I have to ask all you righties out there a couple questions.

Does Rush speak for you when he makes comments such as this?
Do you share Rush's view on contraceptives and women in general?

I really look forward to seeing your comments. They may or may not reinforce my belief that many Republicans long for the good old days of Ozzie and Harriet. I myself think that Rush has really gone too far this time. Of course, I consider him a doctor-shopping drug addict. I could be a bit biased.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1313891.html

I find it quite repulsive to working Americans that a Georgetown Law student is arguing before congress that someone else should be forced to pay for their basic health care.

I wonder how many of these women's faces that miss Fluke looked upon had a cell phone pressed against the ear?

Well, Rush is an entertainer... not in public office. Frankly, it bothers me more that 75 congressman have sent a letter to the speaker of the house... concerning an entertainer. This would kind of like the Republicans sending letters to the speaker of the house concerning Hollywood celebs and the various "causes" they comment on world wide. It just does not make sense.

Rush is a sensationalist, so no, He does not speak for me. He is always going to be "over the top" in his comments to stay in the limelight. Why real congressmen and women respond to an entertainer is quit scary.

He's a real life troll begging for attention by saying the most outrageous things possible. I laugh thinking about all the people who passionately follow a guy who's essentially a real life sleeper.

I happened to be driving back from Cleveland yesterday, and as luck would have it caught about half the show. In this particular case, Rush was spot on with every single comment he made.

Ms. Fluke has already admitted that she knew GU did not offer bitrth control when she enrolled there, yet she did anyway. She's not some "poor student wronged by the system." She's an activist from the start...with a clear agenda. I could care less if she wants to bang every dude on campus...but don't ask me to pay for it. Sorry sweetie.

No. He's right. I too happen to catch it on air yesterday. They figured out that she could buy enough condoms to have sex 5.... yes.... 5 times a day for a around $950 per year.
Here's an idea honey..... close your legs! Doesn't cost a damn dime!
Next will be some dumb ass college kid telling us he's going broke buying beer, and now wants it paid for by tax payers!

Rush is not even the defacto leader of the Republican party.

He needs to magnetize audiences. That's what talk radio is all about.

I do share his view on contraception if it means I don't believe we should be paying for it for others.

Contraception is not a right. It's a product. Major medical insurance should be singinficant medical procedures not daily medical expenses.

You have to wonder though, would a free contraception program cause a net savings on welfare?

LJ;1102788 wrote:You have to wonder though, would a free contraception program cause a net savings on welfare?

It certainly seems possible. Sometimes the right thing to do however isn't always the cheapest thing.

I think most intelligent people don't really take Rush too seriously. He is a radio talk show host. Is it classless to call someone a Slut and a prostitute? Yes, but again its Rush Limbaugh.

At the end of the day, who really cares if women use contraception. It is their right to do whatever they want. Id rather women be on the pill than have abortions. My wife uses the pill for Medical reasons, However it definitely should not be mandated by government to be covered for free.

Lets focus on how Rush described the girl(to drive ratings) instead of the REAL problem. If anything Rush is proving how fucking stupid this country has become. Lets ignore the problem and focus on the fact that some talk show host called a slut, a slut.

LJ;1102788 wrote:You have to wonder though, would a free contraception program cause a net savings on welfare?

Unlikely. Free condoms are already widely available.

fish82;1102797 wrote:Unlikely. Free condoms are already widely available.

Readily? Yes
Widely? no

LJ;1102788 wrote:You have to wonder though, would a free contraception program cause a net savings on welfare?

No, do you think people on welfare are going to stop having babies? That is how they get their raises/bonus's in their welfare checks.

Skyhook79;1102807 wrote:No, do you think people on welfare are going to stop having babies? That is how they get their raises/bonus's in their welfare checks.

This

The system is broken and this slut and the MSM are driving it to be broken more.

She picked Georgetown knowing they don't supply BC and then took them to task for it and she is being put on a pedestal

The fuck is wrong with this country

Skyhook79;1102807 wrote:No, do you think people on welfare are going to stop having babies? That is how they get their raises/bonus's in their welfare checks.

Some yes, but you always have a lot of cases like "Jane" who got pregnant at 18 and gets more from welfare than she work with a job-daycare

First it is insulting that you call this entertainer, who's only job is to get more people to listen, the "de facto leader of the Republican party". Then you border on idiocy when you ask if he speaks for all of us "righties".

Now, about the actual story, the woman is retarded. Buy your own dang contraceptives if you want to sleep around. Not that hard to figure out.

jmog;1102818 wrote:First it is insulting that you call this entertainer, who's only job is to get more people to listen, the "de facto leader of the Republican party". Then you border on idiocy when you ask if he speaks for all of us "righties".

Now, about the actual story, the woman is retarded. Buy your own dang contraceptives if you want to sleep around. Not that hard to figure out.

+1 ,It's like Repubs saying Bill Maher is the De Facto leader of the Dem Party and speaks for all of them.

LJ;1102788 wrote:You have to wonder though, would a free contraception program cause a net savings on welfare?

So would sterilization or euthanasia...and those are not necessarily good ideas and CERTAINLY not something that our government should force on us.

wkfan;1102842 wrote:So would sterilization or euthanasia...

Those are quite extreme compared to BC pills.

LJ;1102846 wrote:Those are quite extreme compared to BC pills.

but could be construed as being cheaper options than welfare.

BTW...they were meant to be extreme examples. As Con_Alma said, sometimes the right thing to do is not the cheapest alternative.

wkfan;1102848 wrote:but could be construed as being cheaper options than welfare.

BTW...they were meant to be extreme examples. As Con_Alma said, sometimes the right thing to do is not the cheapest alternative.

Personally, I am economically against both (welfare and free contraceptive) but I don't understand the morality argument against free contraceptives.

LJ;1102854 wrote:Personally, I am economically against both (welfare and free contraceptive) but I don't understand the morality argument against free contraceptives.

I was not talking morality. I have no issues with birth control methods. I have no problem with 'women being in control of their bodies'. What I am against is them being paid for by taxpayers.

If birth control pills are free taxpayer supplied), then will you pay for my allergy meds? Costs me $440 every 3 months. How about Lipitore or insulin??

Where do we stop and why is this the only 'drug' being talked about?

wkfan;1102858 wrote:I was not talking morality. I have no issues with birth control methods. I have no problem with 'women being in control of their bodies'. What I am against is them being paid for by taxpayers.

If birth control pills are free taxpayer supplied), then will you pay for my allergy meds? Costs me $440 every 3 months. How about Lipitore or insulin??

Where do we stop and why is this the only 'drug' being talked about?

Like I said above, the only reason I could see an argument for it is if it drastically reduced welfare costs. If that is the case, I don't really see it being the "wrong thing". We already pay for fatties, drunks and smokers, why not be preventative for once if it actually saves money?