Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

Rush's slut girl was a good Obama power play

This is a great political move for Obama.

Obama or someone in the administration sides with the attractive slut.  Rush calls her a slut.

Now, Obama sides with the slut and he looks good.

So Obama can go, "see I told you so.  The Republicans don't care about women"  and he can push his contraceptive agenda.

...

How do I feel on this?  Why in the world is the Federal Government worrying about contraceptives or the Republicans.

Ron Paul is right again, the government shouldn't get involved in these matters.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 5th, 2012 1:46am
The availability of contraception that is totally under the woman's control is a major contributor to the stance of women as equal members of modern society.

Its a great issue for the GOP because it synergies the free market hatred of regulation with the American Taliban's hatred of women.

As a man you may see the moral condemnation of sexually emancipated woman and equating contraception with abortion with murder as a non-issue, but any self respecting woman certainly does not.
Permalink MS 
March 5th, 2012 2:43am
Why is it an issue for the Federal Government?
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 5th, 2012 2:50am
Not very good at reading are you?

Let me sum it up: Because it is important, in more than one way, to women's rights.
Permalink MS 
March 5th, 2012 2:54am
Why is it an issue for the Federal Government?

Are shipments of contraceptives being hijacked making them less available.  Then I guess the FBI can get involved.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 5th, 2012 2:55am
You liberals love collectivism.
Permalink Bot Berlin 
March 5th, 2012 2:56am
You libertarians never worry about anyone's rights but your own.
Permalink MS 
March 5th, 2012 3:05am
"Let me sum it up: Because it is important, in more than one way, to women's rights."

Women don't need extra rights. They already have far more rights and benefits and privileges than men do. They get to be supported in a comfortable lifestyle by men even if they walk away from a marriage. They get presumed custody of children in the same scenario. They get to force men to pay for their children even the father has no voluntary part in the procreation. They get to terminate a pregnancy over the objections of the father. They get a free pass from conscription and getting killed in wars.

In general women get all the benefits and none of the downsides.

As for the topic of this thread, there is no earthly reason why women (or men) should get free contraceptives on health insurance. That is a total abuse of the system. What's next, free food on health insurance? (You need food to stay healthy, right?)
Permalink Q 
March 5th, 2012 3:13am
Yeah, they're called food stamps. Why, you want to abolish those too?
Permalink Colm 
March 5th, 2012 3:20am
"Women don't need extra rights. They already have far more rights and benefits and privileges than men do. "

Load of bullshit.
Permalink Quant 
March 5th, 2012 4:34am
"You liberals love collectivism."

Sometimes
Permalink Shylock, not Dan 
March 5th, 2012 5:53am
>This is a great political move for Obama.

Political opportunity, perhaps. Rush is a loudmouthed, ignorant, bigoted, boorish prat. That he still has fans is a marvel, itself highlighting how stupid some among us really are.

However I'm not quite sure what your OP is saying. Do you think the administration orchestrated this? I'd say they simply took advantage of Rush being the ignorant asshole that he is.
Permalink df 
March 5th, 2012 7:51am
It's like when the Germans were overrunning France in WWI when they went too far.

"Ils nous offrent leur flanche..."
Permalink Shylock, not Denman 
March 5th, 2012 8:55am
Q hates women. His input here is meaningless.
Permalink MS 
March 5th, 2012 9:03am
Insurance should be for catastrophic problems, not daily events. To make something "free" is just a way to tax everyone. Medical costs would be much better controlled if no one had insurance.
Permalink Fan boy 
March 5th, 2012 10:47am
"To make something "free" is just a way to tax everyone. "

True. Some things are worth this.
Permalink Quant 
March 5th, 2012 11:00am
Rush is a drug addict and clown who has always supported the efforts of the establishment.

As I pointed out before, it was a very simple matter to discuss that contraceptive pills cost $120 a year, less than law students at private universities pay for one textbook, not $1000. Simple to discredit.

Instead he says "She must be a fucking slut if she is going through $1000 in condoms a year!"

Stupid argument which was DESIGNED to create the shitstorm, all a dsitraction from real issues.

The clown DIVERTS attention.
Permalink Idiot 
March 5th, 2012 11:08am
"Load of Bullshit"

He followed his claim with a long list of factual examples supporting his assertion.

you did as you always did, posted a namecalling argument with no supporting facts.
Permalink Idiot 
March 5th, 2012 11:09am
How can you treat a guy who writes "They get to force men to pay for their children even the father has no voluntary part in the procreation." seriously?
Permalink Quant 
March 5th, 2012 11:47am
Guy gets a blow job. Girl goes to bathroom, spits semen out of mouth into turkey baster, then inseminates herself. Has baby, files for child support. Judge rules that semen was a gift for her to do with as she pleases, including insemination. Judge rules that man is liable for child support.

You support this legal ruling, I do not.
Permalink Idiot 
March 5th, 2012 11:52am
You live in a fantasy land, Idiot.
Permalink Quant 
March 5th, 2012 11:55am
> fantasy land

Unfortunately, not in this case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving/
Permalink bpd 
March 5th, 2012 12:35pm
Nope. Still a fantasy land.
Permalink MS 
March 5th, 2012 12:55pm
> How can you treat a guy who writes "They get to force
> men to pay for their children even the father has no
> voluntary part in the procreation." seriously?

The whole structure of society is being broken up. A couple live together, share a home, have children. The children are a shared blessing and obligation to which both parents contribute in partnership.

If the mother decides to leave the home and live independently, why should the father take on the burden of supporting the mother? If the mother wants to live independently, she should support herself. And if she wants custody of the children, she should support the children. If you are the custodian, support is your responsibility. Why should you get a free ride at someone else's cost as so often happens today?

Of course marriage breakups happen, and fathers still want to look after their children. So the law should maintain a principle of shared responsibility and shared obligation. If women are to be "equal" then equality should apply everywhere.
Permalink Q 
March 5th, 2012 1:14pm
"If the mother decides to leave the home and live independently, why should the father take on the burden of supporting the mother?"

He isn't. He's supporting the child.
Permalink Quant 
March 5th, 2012 1:30pm
> He isn't. He's supporting the child.

That's not how divorce law is written. A wife can have an affair, run off with another man, sue for divorce from her husband, and then get court ordered maintenance payments from her former husband to keep her in the manner to which she was accustomed. Her former husband can then be thrown into jail if he can't afford to pay.

Where is the equality in that?
Permalink Q 
March 5th, 2012 3:11pm
Fantasy land.
Permalink MS 
March 5th, 2012 3:59pm
+1 Q. I had to pay my ex 22K to marry her husband.
Permalink Antonia's Creditor 
March 5th, 2012 4:23pm
it's funny how everyone goes back a forth, tit/tat, democrat/republican, liberal/libertarian.

Everyone knows all of these career politicians want the same thing, right?  They're job is to enrich themselves (money, power, influence, etc).  They wear different colors (red/blue) but simply fsck y'all over just the same.

I say we all do a little r-e-v-o-l-tin'.

Let's steal us some TVs and Occupy Dunkin Donutz!!!
Permalink CircusAttraction 
March 5th, 2012 5:27pm
No, the government is to help the people. That's why we need to give them more power so they have the tools to do what needs to be done for the people and more money to pay for doing the right things so everyone gets their fair share.
Permalink Educated TV Viewer 
March 5th, 2012 6:40pm
Your health insurance is part of your compensation from your employer for working there.  How much control do you want your employer to have over how you spend your compensation?

Should your boss be able to tell you not to buy condoms?
That you can't have a vasectomy?
Buy alcohol?
Ride a motorcycle?
Eat cookies?
What color carpet am I allowed to get?
Permalink Crisis of Salad 
March 5th, 2012 7:23pm
The thing about insurance is it is supposed to insure against events outside your control. If you use it to pay for routine activities entirely within your control it is no longer insurance, it is a charge against other contributors to the pool. In short, it isn't a fair use of the benefit. If we suppose for example that everyone insured has a similar desire for contraceptives then everyone would end up paying equally, and there is no point covering it by insurance. Everyone may just as well buy their contraceptives directly and avoid the middle man. Does the insurance policy cover condoms? If not, why not?
Permalink Q 
March 5th, 2012 10:52pm
I can make the case that just about anything is within your control.  Diet, lifestyle, risks, etc.
Permalink Crisis of Salad 
March 6th, 2012 1:52am

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: March, 2012 Other topics: March, 2012 Recent topics Recent topics