Has Rush gone too far?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Has Rush gone too far?
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Mar 2, 2012 9:18 AM
wkfan;1102858 wrote:Where do we stop and why is this the only 'drug' being talked about?
There is a political strategy afoot. There is an attempt to paint a certain political faction as neanderthals who want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Just listening to congressional debate clips on the news yesterday you would think the republicans were attempting to ban contraceptives.
Mar 2, 2012 9:18am
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
Mar 2, 2012 9:42 AM
Unlike many of you I have never paid for a piece of ass in my life and don’t plan on it now.

This is simple logic if I have to pay for something I don’t want then I want to be to bang it when I want ............... Nothing is ever FREE..............
Mar 2, 2012 9:42am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Mar 2, 2012 9:44 AM
LJ;1102801 wrote:Readily? Yes
Widely? no
Tomato...tomahto. The point stands.
Mar 2, 2012 9:44am
G

Gblock

Mar 2, 2012 9:57 AM
im siding with LJ on this one it has to be a net savings in the long run...babies having babies having babies...
Mar 2, 2012 9:57am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:09 AM
Gblock;1102883 wrote:im siding with LJ on this one it has to be a net savings in the long run...babies having babies having babies...
Show me a study proving decreased welfare participation directly correlating to the advent of "readily" available free condoms, and I'll take a look at it. Until that time, Ms. Fluke can pony up the $15/month.
Mar 2, 2012 10:09am
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:12 AM
Don't you see...free* contraceptives will save the taxpayers money when we all have Obamacare*.
Mar 2, 2012 10:12am
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:14 AM
"“You know, back in my days, they’d use Bayer aspirin for contraceptives,” Foster Friess said on MSNBC. “The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”
Friess, the billionairre Santorum financial backer and Rush, thank you for a gender gap that will put Obama back in the White House for another term.
Mar 2, 2012 10:14am
G

Gblock

Mar 2, 2012 10:14 AM
fish82;1102899 wrote:Show me a study proving decreased welfare participation directly correlating to the advent of "readily" available free condoms, and I'll take a look at it. Until that time, Ms. Fluke can pony up the $15/month.
i have no data just my opinion...i dont know guys who like using condoms...it could give women more control..they still have to take it correctly i get that but imagine the savings long term if it only prevented 100 pregnancies a year...or even 1000...i see it as kindof like a pyramid that keeps expanding. not only savings on welfare, but prisons..food stamps etc..
Mar 2, 2012 10:14am
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:16 AM
Gblock;1102903 wrote:i have no data just my opinion...i dont know guys who like using condoms...it could give women more control..they still have to take it correctly i get that but imagine the savings long term if it only prevented 100 pregnancies a year...or even 1000...i see it as kindof like a pyramid that keeps expanding. not only savings on welfare, but prisons..food stamps etc..
No one is saying they can't have contraceptives...were just saying they should pay for it themselves...there is no such thing as free. If the government is providing it, they are providing it from a contract they struck in a back alley that gave them a kickback and the taxpayers the brunt of the cost.
Mar 2, 2012 10:16am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:18 AM
bases_loaded;1102905 wrote:No one is saying they can't have contraceptives...were just saying they should pay for it themselves...there is no such thing as free. If the government is providing it, they are providing it from a contract they struck in a back alley that gave them a kickback and the taxpayers the brunt of the cost.
Unless there is a net savings. I am not saying there WILL be, I am just saying, if there was. What do you have against it if it ended up saving $1 billion per year combined?
Mar 2, 2012 10:18am
G

Gblock

Mar 2, 2012 10:20 AM
i get it...im just saying if my choice is pony up free contraceptives...or pony up welfare, uneployment, foodstamps, prisons... i would choose the former than the latter.
Mar 2, 2012 10:20am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:25 AM
Gblock;1102903 wrote:i have no data just my opinion...i dont know guys who like using condoms...it could give women more control..they still have to take it correctly i get that but imagine the savings long term if it only prevented 100 pregnancies a year...or even 1000...i see it as kindof like a pyramid that keeps expanding. not only savings on welfare, but prisons..food stamps etc..
Well sure, fewer people will save some money on the welfare state. You know what would really pyramid the savings? Just have the military march the streets and start gunning down people. Instead of getting the government out of our lives we should increase the government's involvement and start mowing down people to pay for it. They just better make sure they aren't killing the ones that pay for everything.

Women can take whatever drugs they want. I should not have to pay for them.
Mar 2, 2012 10:25am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:27 AM
Cleveland Buck;1102914 wrote:Well sure, fewer people will save some money on the welfare state. You know what would really pyramid the savings? Just have the military march the streets and start gunning down people. Women can take whatever drugs they want. I should not have to pay for them.
:rolleyes:
Mar 2, 2012 10:27am
G

Gblock

Mar 2, 2012 10:28 AM
Cleveland Buck;1102914 wrote:Well sure, fewer people will save some money on the welfare state. You know what would really pyramid the savings? Just have the military march the streets and start gunning down people. Instead of getting the government out of our lives we should increase the government's involvement and start mowing down people to pay for it.

Women can take whatever drugs they want. I should not have to pay for them.
one could argue that you shouldnt have to pay for their food, shelter, medical care and prison stay...but you do;)
Mar 2, 2012 10:28am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:30 AM
Gblock;1102919 wrote:one could argue that you shouldnt have to pay for their food, shelter and prison stay...but you do;)
I shouldn't have to pay for it. The solution is to stop making me pay for it. Not eliminate people so I don't have to pay for as many.
Mar 2, 2012 10:30am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:31 AM
Cleveland Buck;1102922 wrote:I shouldn't have to pay for it. The solution is to stop making me pay for it. Not eliminate people so I don't have to pay for as many.
lol wut? You can't eliminate someone that was never there to begin with.
Mar 2, 2012 10:31am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:32 AM
LJ;1102924 wrote:lol wut? You can't eliminate someone that was never there to begin with.
I'm not saying contraception is morally the same as murder. I'm saying the end result is the same. Fewer people means fewer people dependent on the welfare state and prison industrial complex.
Mar 2, 2012 10:32am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:33 AM
Cleveland Buck;1102927 wrote:I'm not saying contraception is morally the same as murder. I'm saying the end result is the same. Fewer people means fewer people dependent on the welfare state and prison industrial complex.
Then why do you keep comparing it to that?
Mar 2, 2012 10:33am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:35 AM
LJ;1102929 wrote:Then why do you keep comparing it to that?
You are suggesting we should pay for everyone's contraception because it will reduce the cost of the welfare state by eliminating people, many of whom would presumably rely on it. Instead of paying for contraception, what are other ways to reduce the population?
Mar 2, 2012 10:35am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:36 AM
Cleveland Buck;1102934 wrote:You are suggesting we should pay for everyone's contraception because it will reduce the cost of the welfare state by eliminating people, many of whom would presumably rely on it. Instead of paying for contraception, what are other ways to reduce the population?
It won't eliminate anyone. It will prevent more people from going on it. Completely different, and an absolutely laughable extreme.
Mar 2, 2012 10:36am
G

Gblock

Mar 2, 2012 10:39 AM
Cleveland Buck;1102934 wrote:You are suggesting we should pay for everyone's contraception because it will reduce the cost of the welfare state by eliminating people, many of whom would presumably rely on it. Instead of paying for contraception, what are other ways to reduce the population?
to clarify im not for paying for everyone's contraceptives just those of the poor or those without insurance etc....i dont really know the "facts" of this issue...but anything that cuts down on people having babies who cant afford them i support
Mar 2, 2012 10:39am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:42 AM
LJ;1102935 wrote:It won't eliminate anyone. It will prevent more people from going on it. Completely different, and an absolutely laughable extreme.
Preventing people from going on it is the same thing as eliminating people from the population that would exist if we don't pass out printing press funded contraception. It is the exact same scenario, and if it is morally abhorrent to start murdering people to save costs on the welfare, then why isn't it morally abhorrent to steal money from every holder of dollars to pay for the welfare state in the first place or pay for the contraception? If you want to be moral about the situation, there is only one way. Eliminate the welfare state. Not the people.
Mar 2, 2012 10:42am
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:45 AM
Cleveland Buck;1102939 wrote:Preventing people from going on it is the same thing as eliminating people from the population that would exist if we don't pass out printing press funded contraception. It is the exact same scenario, and if it is morally abhorrent to start murdering people to save costs on the welfare, then why isn't it morally abhorrent to steal money from every holder of dollars to pay for the welfare state in the first place or pay for the contraception? If you want to be moral about the situation, there is only one way. Eliminate the welfare state. Not the people.
As idealist as eliminating welfare is, it isn't going to happen. Cutting it is what is realistic to happen.

Preventing pregnancy is nowhere near the same as killing people, or even the same as abortion. No egg, no fertilization = eliminating nothing. What an absolutely asinine argument.
Mar 2, 2012 10:45am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Mar 2, 2012 10:53 AM
LJ;1102935 wrote:It won't eliminate anyone. It will prevent more people from going on it. Completely different, and an absolutely laughable extreme.


Sadly, what's really laughable are the responses. I didn't expect the majority of OC to criticize their leader. He may be an entertainer, but he wields enormous power in the Republican Party. If you don't believe that, then name me one national Republican officeholder or candidate who has challenged Rush on anything and hasn't either backed up their statement or apologized for them.

And for those of you who didn't know this, Clear Channel Communications (whose radio stations are responsible for beaming Rush into your homes and automobiles) merged with CC Media Holdings, a company co-formed by none other than Bain Capital Partners. What a coincidence!

http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1166&p=hidden
Mar 2, 2012 10:53am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Mar 2, 2012 11:00 AM
stlouiedipalma;1102953 wrote:Sadly, what's really laughable are the responses. I didn't expect the majority of OC to criticize their leader. He may be an entertainer, but he wields enormous power in the Republican Party. If you don't believe that, then name me one national Republican officeholder or candidate who has challenged Rush on anything and hasn't either backed up their statement or apologized for them.

And for those of you who didn't know this, Clear Channel Communications (whose radio stations are responsible for beaming Rush into your homes and automobiles) merged with CC Media Holdings, a company co-formed by none other than Bain Capital Partners. What a coincidence!

http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1166&p=hidden
And Obama killed Andy Breitbart. C'mon, man. :rolleyes:

You're right, though. Any idea where I can send Ms. Fluke her $15 dollars a month so she can bang as much as she wants in the name of "reproductive health?" Count me in Bro...I'm sold!
Mar 2, 2012 11:00am