This the kind of rationalization logic used by socio and psychopaths to rationalize their actions. :thumbsup:
Why should he, or any of us, have to pay for ANY of this whinners activities? She a 30 year old adult, I use the term loosely, can't she pay for her own pills? And if knocked up, make the FATHER pay. Or is this a new concept for you? The local planned parenthood establishment would almost GIVE her the damn pills for free. Walmart pretty cheap too. Kinda sounds like she's pretty cheap as well.
Another one who thinks just because they're called "birth control pills" that's all they're prescribed for.
Yea, I'm sure John Deere will suffer horribly. and, ... Geico, K-Mart and Sears is taking action against those radio stations that aired their commercails during Rush's show when they specified otherwise.
Just to clarify, Viagra is not prescribed for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Revatio is prescribed for PAH. Now, it's the same drug (Sildenafil), just different brand names. Why, you ask? Some insurances won't pay for Viagra because ED is not a life threatening condition, even though ED is a very good sign of cardiovascular disease and you're probably going to have a heart attack in the very near future. PAH is a life threatening condition, so insurance will pay for Revatio. So, no, not all insurances pay for "Viagra".
From Limbaugh: "And again, there are two ways you can get on this program. You can come and be an official EIB sponsor, or you can buy commercial time on one of our local affiliates and become one of 18,000-plus advertisers that we will never know about, except with things like this. When we find out, we do our best to clear this inventory. So I wanted to set this straight. It is an out-and-out lie, just like every other report about lost advertisers and everything else that you're seeing. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have new sponsors coming on in the next week two weeks, three of them at least. As I said yesterday current advertisers that canceled, had a couple meetings with them, they're asking to come back in. There's literally nothing factual being reported about this. So just so you know, as though you don't know -- I'm sure you do -- what is in the Washington Post, either in their newspaper or on their website, is an out-and-out lie. I mean it's not even close. This is a so-called reporter, Alexandra Petri, who simply accepts false information from a site, probably Media Matters, who knows, that she trusts. We are not running spots from this company that tells you how to cheat on your spouse, we never have, and when we find out that they're running on local stations, EIB affiliates, we call the affiliate and we ask them not to. Nor will we ever accept such advertising, because you are not jerks. You in this audience are among those who make this country work. On the second page of this story: "But AshleyMadison, the website for people seeking extramarital affairs, and SeekingArrangement.com, which is, as Politico reported, the self-proclaimed 'world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website' -- they’re now both firmly on board," the Rush Limbaugh program. They are not "firmly on board." They never have been firmly on board and they never will be firmly on board. Folks, I must be honest. (joking) At one time months ago we considered taking AshleyMadison.com because we know that Bill Clinton listens to this program. So we know one member of the audience cheats on his spouse, did so in the Oval Office, and in an attempt to perhaps include everybody we thought maybe we would help out, but we decided no. We didn't know anybody else in this audience who cheats on their spouse besides Bill Clinton, so we rejected it. John Edwards listens. So that's two of them. John Edwards listens to the program. Ted Kennedy listened to the program. But we decided to reject it. We have never run ads from either of these two companies, we never will, and again, for the last time, when we find out that they are running on local stations during this program, we ask the stations to move the commercials. Just that simple. Alexandra Petri, Washington Post, has got the snarky, lying, full-of-holes so-called report today, and I guarantee you, she'll run another story tomorrow saying I made this all up, and I'm trying to cover my rear end but, folks, it isn't true. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/08/washington_post_runs_out_and_out_lie"
There are two types of radio ads that play during Limbaugh's show. One by the show itself and one for the local stations. I'm talking about the advertisers who pay Limbaugh's show to run their commercials. (such as Sleep Train, Carbonite, Pro Flowers etc etc) The names you mentioned all buy advertising at the local level from the individual radio stations. They won't suffer because no one will notice that they are gone. And they will simply be replaced by new advertisers. But the ones who spend the big bucks to get Limbaugh to sponsor them..... they will be the ones to suffer. In fact some already are. Carbonite's stock price has tanked. And Sleep Train asked to get back on the show and was rejected by Limbaugh: "Rush Limbaugh has rejected an advertiser’s apparent attempt to reunite with his show after the company initially dropped its ads from the program following his remarks about contraception advocate Sandra Fluke." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lim...t-suspended-ads-from-show-over-fluke-remarks/
They think they're smelling blood in the water. It'll be interesting to see if it's really blood or just wishful thinking.
Unless Rush is a student at Georgetown, he's not "paying." Also, birth control is a prescription. You can't just give a fist full of pills to someone and send them on their way. Unless that person is Rush and the pills are OxyContin.
That's not what Fluke wants Diacanu. She want's free birth control. If this was just about the issues in that cartoon she would have a point but it's not about that stuff. It's about birth control.
She doesn't want "free birth control." She wants her insurance, which she must purchase as part of being a student at Georgetown, to cover contraception. Rush Limbaugh, because he's an idiot, equates this with "taxpayer dollars." And frankly, birth control SHOULD be free, or at least as inexpensive and accessible as possible.
Contraception is birth control. Fluke has no other medical problems. She wants it free so she can fuck to her hearts delight. And Rush never said anything about taxpayers paying for it. However since he has said Obama wants everything to be one-payer eventually the taxpayers will be paying for it. And birth control is inexpensive, free and accessible. Go to Planned Parenthood. They can help you get it cheap or free. Or poor Ms. Fluke will just have to get a bunch of free condoms and deal with her man having to wear one. Oh poor Ms. Fluke having to fuck a man wearing a condom..... Oh the humanity......
So his entire rant is based on his own perception of something that he thinks might happen based on his own rhetoric. Lewis Carroll couldn't write this script.
Don't go to Georgetown if you don't like the conditions they set. If you think it should be "free," then you can fucking pay for it.
What you fucking bitch? That's exactly what she says she wants. She wants to have sex. She wants birth control to prevent pregnancy and she wants other people to pay for it. She doesn't have any other issue. She just wants to fuck. Nothing wrong with fucking. At least she's being honest about why she wants free birth control instead of the tap dancing you and the other bitches on this board are doing.
I think that generally, it represents a slippery slope if people are allowed to make healthcare decisions about others based on their moral objections. We are not islands, and our healthcare decisions have an effect on society as a whole. I also think it's kinda shitty that these institutions are complaining about having these decisions forced on them by the government, when they're guilty of doing something similar by forcing their decisions on their members (yes, deal with it or get the fuck out still qualifies as a forced decision). That being said, if it's purely a religious institution, and it doesn't accept taxpayer dollars, then I'm willing to accept that institution making whatever rules it wants for its healthcare. However, Georgetown does accept taxpayer dollars in the form of education grants, and its prohibition against contraceptives is not logically consistent with its other beliefs. Georgetown University is responsible for the creation of the most recent iteration of the rhythm method, known as the Standard Days Method. Now, if the moral objection is that contraception is contrary to natural law, then the Standard Days Method is equally as contrary to natural law, as it provides a system for avoiding pregnancy. If the moral objection is that some forms of contraception are abortifacients and cause implantation failures, then the Standard Days Method can be equally morally objectionable, as the Standard Days Method can encourage conception with implantation failures when women have sex during the infertile period prior to menstruation. In this respect, the Standard Days Method is actually morally inferior to the estrogen/progestin pill, as the latter prevents ovulation from occurring, and thus prevents terminated life due to implantation failures. So given all that, when Georgetown University objects on moral grounds, I have to wonder if they've examined all the facts, as there seems to be no moral basis to it, and in fact their proposed alternatives seem morally questionable. It's far more likely is that this is a result of sex-negative individuals acting dogmatically rather than critically analyzing the situation, which to me removes any and all right to have moral objections.
You stupid fuck. She's not asking for free birth control, she wants birth control to be included as part of the paid student healthcare.
1) You're a sanctimonious dickbag. 2) In the event that single payer healthcare were to become a reality in this country, would you rather be paying for contraceptives or hospital bills for deliveries?
Or maybe she doesn't want to pay for other people's unplanned pregnancies, since it's much cheaper to pay for birth control than to deliver a baby. Given that doing so would reduce costs, would you care to explain how birth control would be "free?" If anything, she's paying extra not to have birth control.
No, she wants the pill to be covered under the health insurance she is required to pay for. Are you really that dense?
You really think I don't know about birth control, of all things?? I probably know more about it that most average people! I was simply pointing out that Viagra also has multiple uses.
