RUSH IS A KNUCKLEHEAD

[fabian]

Well, isn’t that woman a slut? If she is promoting premarutal free sex...what is the proper word? Maybe Rush was angry when he said it so now he has some guilt about it and thus apologized.

[TigersEye]

Georgetown Student: Rush is Right

His comments regarding Sandra Fluke, third year Law student at Georgetown University, are less outrageous when viewed in the real context of the debate on Obama’s mandate for religious institutions to include contraceptive coverage in their healthcare plans.

Fluke, in her own testimony before a Democratic panel, pointed out that the University covered birth control pills when used for the treatment of a medical condition. This is the key to understanding Limbaugh’s comments. When used for medicinal purposes and healthcare, Georgetown has no problem covering the expense of birth control under their insurance plan. Fluke’s complaint was based on the fact that it was not covered for the use as a contraceptive, which would violate the Catholic church’s beliefs.

[TigersEye]

Transcript of Sandra Fluke's Congressional Testimony

“And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.

Hmmm, not one mention of "medical need" in those statements.

[saganite]

Hmm.

[Born Conservative]

The reason he is a knucklehead is because he took his eye off of the ball, and fell for the Lib’s rope-a-dope; contraception. It’s the economy, Rush.

[muawiyah]

She definitely meant to conflate the four ~ condoms, BC pills as BC pills, BC pills as medication for non sexually related conditions, and OTHER BC ~ and there are a number of things ~ IUDs, abortion, etc.

That way no matter what how we attacked her, her confederates in the "audience" (which is now internet discussion boards) could say, "Oh, no she clearly meant XYZ not NWT".

That is exactly what happened.

Where they screwed up is they had to deviate from their theory of "tax expenditures" to claim that public money is not involved, and they had to deviate from the "Anita Hill" thesis that "some women" does include, for purposes of argument, the claimant who says "some women".

From my point of view "they" lost the debate. Now, to hit them for their midnight calls about "bed bug attacks" on the mattress marketeers who advertised on Rush' show.

[muawiyah]

Specific answer to a single question ~ why would you go to the pharmacy to buy a case of condoms ~ that's the question you want to ask.

That's because they don't put the big boxes out on the shelves!

Think "club pack" and you'll have a better grasp of the marketing situation. There are lot of people want a box of 10 or 12, so they're on the rack. A smaller number buy 'em by the gross. They will be kept in the pharmacy storage room in back due to the risk of damage ~ can't have any holes or tears in them you know!

[Eaker]

It doesn’t matter what she said, she NEVER talked about her own sex life. To call her a slut was uncalled for.

No it wasn't. You are falling for the left's tactics. Most all she talked about was contraception and a woman that has so much sex outside of marriage and wants someone else to pay for it by very definition is a slut.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Agreed.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Maybe I should have rephrased. If she is spending $3000 a year on condoms, I can see why someone would call her a slut. I really don’t like the term and I regret that the conversation has degenerated to that.

I may have misunderstood Rush’s comments. I didn’t get to hear it all because we were in the car with our children and had to turn it way down so they wouldn’t hear and then we just turned it off.

Antecdotal stories or not, her entire premise was wrong and I just wanted to focus on that and not have our argument lost in the fray.

I appreciate what Rush does and I enjoy listening to him. He gets alot of abuse and I can understand. It is hard to remain civil to the enemies of our liberties!

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Thank you for posting this.

I agree she was being very deceptive in her language. I knew she was lying all along. I was just wrong about WHAT she was lying about.

I guess I can’t wrap my head around the fact that a WOMAN wants her insurance to cover condoms for her. Of course, I never have been good about understanding the mentality of the left.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Sorry to disappoint but ther is no cat fight. Women can disagree without acting like liberals. :)

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Actually she mostly talked about medical conditions but as someone else pointed out upthread, BC pills are already covered to treat medical conditions so that part of her testimony is irrelevant.

I agree with your above post. She conflated the three and I didn’t see it at first because I couldn’t imagine anyone asking insurance to pay for condoms. So I continued to believe that she was just lying about the cost of BC pills. Well BC pills cost the same no matter how much sex you are having so I couldn’t see why people were saying that these women were having so much sex.

TigerEye posted a excerpt in Post 198 from the Obamacare mandate and cleared up the issue. It DOES ask for condoms to be covered.

Thanks again TigerEye.

I still think calling her a slut is a losing platform but at least now I can understand why everyone is.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

*Actually Eaker it wasn’t your post I was agreeing with it was muawiyah. You only posted to me once. I didn’t ping muawiyah to it so I am reposting it below. Sorry for the confusion. Trying to hurry and answer before I head out the door.

To Eaker: Actually she mostly talked about medical conditions but as someone else pointed out upthread, BC pills are already covered to treat medical conditions so that part of her testimony is irrelevant.

I agree with your above post (muawiyah). She conflated the three and I didn’t see it at first because I couldn’t imagine anyone asking insurance to pay for condoms. So I continued to believe that she was just lying about the cost of BC pills. Well BC pills cost the same no matter how much sex you are having so I couldn’t see why people were saying that these women were having so much sex.

TigerEye posted a excerpt in Post 198 from the Obamacare mandate and cleared up the issue. It DOES ask for condoms to be covered.

Thanks again TigerEye.

I still think calling her a slut is a losing platform but at least now I can understand why everyone is.

[muawiyah]

Yes, yes, and yes ~ plus there's a reason she went to the THREE YEAR PERIOD ~ that gets you up in the range of a standard employer's medical insurance policy's employee percentage, where abortion might be covered.

So, maybe she conflated 5 things in all ~ but FUR SHUR she understood that part.

The confederates out in the audience (including the gals on "the view", the network news, cable news, the internet) were all prepared to address any valid concern with a single item by simply saying "well, she was actually talking about this other thing".

So, we said CONDOM, and they said NO, BC PILLS, and if we said BC PILLS, they'd say MEDICAL USE (of same chemical), and so on.

This has been well practiced over the years so these people have it down.

The primary purpose is to protect the Abortion Industry, and following along behind that, the manufacturers of Abortificiants and Birth Control Pills.

You can imagine their lawyers arguing over these things for weeks before trying them out on the goobers.

They only use the parts that work.

I found some of them claiming, No, this was not public money, and that's when I started running a reverse play on them using their "Tax Expenditures" argument. That usually stopped that line of argument cold.

Limbaugh wasn't wrong to attack them but he should have called her "a dude in a dress". Somebody slipped her in without realizing what they really had. I've noticed that this morning the Washington Post is making it very difficult to gain access to the Fluke threads to post more comments. That came after this story broke yesterday afternoon that she was for all intents and purposes a shill for the sex change industry.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

Wow this whole thing is all mixed up. I understand the liberal brain too little to comprehend it.

I appreciate being able to state my view in this issue without people attacking me. You guys have actually debated the issue and tried to get me to see the truth. It does help you to gain perspective and see things from a different point of view. Thanks!

[mamelukesabre]

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you will see that my contempt for that scumbag max americana has nothing to do with his/her opinion about rush. It comes from the intentional LIES this turd told about me personally in attempt to discredit me personally. Max is scum as far as I’m concerned. And unlike the knucklehead I started this thread about, I will never apologize for insulting a scumbag who deserves far worse than a simple insult.

[Vendome]

LOL

Just teasing you ladies.

[Vendome]

took me a few seconds but i was looking a little further up.

LOL

[TigersEye]

I guess I can’t wrap my head around the fact that a WOMAN wants her insurance to cover condoms for her.

That's not really what she wants per se. It is part of the Progressive takeover of health care which itself is only a means towards altering our legal system from one of negative rights to one of positive rights. At some point in the future they will stop covering most of this "gimme" stuff as well as a lot of other things because there just won't be any money. This is just a two-pronged assault. 1)The giveaways to pander to the base. 2)The attack on 1st Amendment religious protections. Sandra Fluke is a young Hillary Clinton. A hardcore Progressive (communist.) Women (in the context of her speaking on behalf of) are just useful idiots for the cause.

This is what it's really about...

Whose right is health care? Do you think it's yours?

Congressman Anthony Weiner has said that health care is not a commodity. If it isn't a commodity then do doctors and nurses have rights? Assigning health care the status of a right makes health care workers slaves to that right who must serve it. On what ground could a health care worker refuse to provide their products and services since that would violate the patient's "basic human right to health care."

That is a direct loss of individual rights for health care providers. The collective right of the people to receive health care would supersede the provider's individual right to set fees and hours or to change their occupational status or even decide how to apply their skills and knowledge if taken to its logical extreme. A collective right, by practical definition, is a state right because it is a right that is created and given by the government to those it chooses to give it to. It is not a natural right possessed by each person protected by the Constitution from the government. It is also a collective/state right by virtue of the fact that it would supersede individual rights when the two come into conflict. How else would the government view a right that it created and administers vs. one it has no control over?

Of course it isn't stated in any bill that a patient's right to care supersedes a provider's right to set fees and hours etc, but it doesn't need to. Rights, as always, are adjudicated in the courts. The Health Care Reform bills simply establish the foundation for the courts to rule in favor of the collective right.

Weiner’s view is collectivist, fascist and totalitarian. Collectivist because it has to be described as being a right of the many instead of the one and superior due to that fact. Fascist because ultimately the sole authority for its creation and oversight is from one entity the Federal government. Totalitarian because the Federal government is the enforcer of this collective right as well. State and local jurisdictions will have little say about it.

Congressman Weiner's view is the underlying philosophy of all of the Health Care Reform legislation in the House and Senate. Consider this section in the Senate version of the bill; the setting up of community watch dogs that will monitor citizens for various health parameters. Read pages 382 - 393.

TITLE I—QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS pps 382 - 393

So, even citizens themselves will be subject to Federal regulations on their behavior in order to fulfill the "human right" of universal health care. It isn't the individual's liberty that is being protected by that it is the government's control over its own health care system that is being guarded. How much clearer can it be that these bills abrogate the concept of individual rights? Someone will be checking your lifestyle, according to gov regulations, to be certain you serve the best interests of the "basic human right to health care" ie. "the Public Option."

HCR is not just about rationing care and wealth redistribution. It's about the end of individual rights as the corrosive effects of the new collectivist "basic human right to health care" spreads throughout the legal and political systems like a virus.

I think that the main purpose of Health Care Reform (HCR) is as a direct assault on individual liberties.

Health Care is a Liberty Issue
Conservative Underground - 18 August 2009 - Tim Dunkin

Another Stupid Argument: Heath Care is a Right

Involuntary Medical Servitude

Obama's Authoritarian, Unconstitutional Health Care Proposal

Defining A Right In America

To Americans Who Believe Healthcare is a Right

OBAMA: HEALTH CARE DESTROYING FREE SPEECH

Mandated health insurance threatens freedom, privacy

Bad Laws and Unintended Consequences, part 1.

Obamacare Rips Doctor-Patient Relationship Apart

Second Bill of Rights aka FDR's economic bill of rights
(An early attempt to embed collective rights into American politics and society.)