|
On March 03 2012 06:46 Felnarion wrote:
I can't even listen to Rush most times, he's too religious for my blood.
But I gotta say, he's right on here. If you can't afford the contraception, don't have sex. I can accept the argument that idiots will fuck anyway, and the burden to society is greater if an unwanted child is born, so we should fund contraception...
But then why don't we just shoot these idiots once they prove themselves to be idiots? Society would be better off, save it money.
Because you don't want to support government-mandated birth control suppport...
... you call for the government to murder its citizens en masse to save money?
Pretty legit logic.
|
On March 03 2012 06:46 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 03 2012 06:37 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:
without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous. Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it. lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back." and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name. before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!" He pretty much just called her a name though...? Or instead rather, he called ALL females who want affordable medication costs sluts, even worse I suppose
no he didn't "just call her a name". but whatever, i don't think he should have said it that way. his point was valid though, and absolutely not he was not calling "all females who want affordable medication costs sluts". this is exactly what i'm talking about: you condemn him for using a word, and then you completely misrepresent him. imo they are just as dishonest and wrong.
|
@ Ashely
... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
|
On March 03 2012 06:42 darthfoley wrote:
agreed with the sane people on this forum. bc shouldn't be a debate, remain legal and stay like it is today.
What should remain legal?
|
|
|
On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote:
... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post.
I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
|
On March 03 2012 06:51 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote:
... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post. I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out.
Have you watched this video? + Show Spoiler +
|
On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works? Look up the term "Insurable Risk." Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice. Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion. Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay. Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it. Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice? You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt. Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation. I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex.
Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
|
On March 03 2012 06:51 aminoashley wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote:
... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post. I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter
I think that private insurance (or whatever the individual may choose) is preferable over the government getting involved. Please raise your fist half-heartedly.
Hahaha. This sure was a waste of effort.
|
On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works? Look up the term "Insurable Risk." Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice. Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion. Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay. Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it. Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice? You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt. Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation. I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about
I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
|
On March 03 2012 06:36 Yergidy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:26 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote:
It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses. The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked. You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional. And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control? The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead. And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one. I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts.
Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail?
Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be.
That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
|
On March 03 2012 06:59 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:51 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote:
... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post. I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out. Have you watched this video? + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U73xKgbXh68
I pay 15$/month and yes the reason I was originally prescribed was for a medical reason. How do they lose money if I am paying for insurance and paying money for the medication that I will likely be on for a good majority of my life. Seems like they would make money off of that.
And I watched the first few minutes of it- seems to be more against the so called "Obama Care" in general, a position that I can respect but disagree with.
|
On March 03 2012 07:02 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:36 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:26 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote:
It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses. The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked. You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional. And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control? The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead. And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one. I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts. Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail? Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be. That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Just because the government ignores the constitution and does something, it does not make that thing constitutional. All it means is that it's possible to circumvent the constitution.
|
On March 03 2012 06:59 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:51 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 06:49 Dark Templar wrote:
... Sure, things shouldn't change, Obama-care shouldn't be implemented and you should pay for you own pills.
See earlier post. I do pay for it- just not full price which could be about 80-200$ a month, which would be unreasonable to me if I had no insurance. I simply could not afford that and I dont think I am speaking alone in that matter How much does your insurance cost? Does it only provide you birth control because you have a unique medical condition which would result in more than just pregnancy? If not, the cost of the birth control is built into the cost of your insurance. Think about it. How can an insurance company profit off of offering you birth control when birth control, unlike things like broken bones, cancer, etc. will happen. The only way they can profit/break even is by including all of the cost of the birth control that you consume into your premium. This is not the same case for chance things (such as developing a condition in which not having birth control will cause health issues) which might not happen in which they would profit off of the premium while never paying out. Have you watched this video? + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U73xKgbXh68
That video makes no sense. It uses the argument that any person with a chronic disease should be denied treatment. If insulin was not available a lot of people could not afford it, or be forced on a keto diet while reducing the amount of blood test a person would take leading to other health issues. The problem with the plan is and has been for a long time in the healthcare industry is that medicine is to expensive and health care is profit driven.
The main reason for this is and is with many laws in the US is to assist poorer women.
|
On March 03 2012 07:02 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 07:00 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:48 killa_robot wrote:On March 03 2012 06:29 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:23 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 06:18 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 06:09 meadbert wrote:On March 03 2012 05:31 FryBender wrote:On March 03 2012 05:24 meadbert wrote:
The issue is do you force a woman who does not want contraception to pay for it anyway.
If insurers must provide contraception "for free" then they will simply include the cost of contraception in the price.
It would be like the government forcing McDonalds to provide a toy with each meal. They would obviously raise the price to that of the "Happy Meal" and for those wanting a toy there would be no change, but for those not wanting the toy paying more for a toy they do not want is a waste.
A woman who is actually trying to get pregnant or possibly already pregnant will be quite annoyed that she is forced to pay for contraception. But that's a silly excuse. By your argument insurance should not cover any problems that I'm not worried about having. I exercise a lot and eat right so you're saying I should be mad that my insurance covers triple-bypass heart surgery? Do you understand how insurance works? Look up the term "Insurable Risk." Basically insurance is to insure against bad luck in a risk you take. It is not to simply pay for a decision you make. I can buy insurance to cover the cost of fixing my roof if it is damaged by a falling tree. I cannot buy insurance to cover the cost of adding on a new bedroom. Adding on the new bedroom was my choice. Using contraception is a choice. Eating fatty foods is a choice as well. Again by your logic health insurance should not pay for any kind of heart procedures for anyone who does not regularly excercises and eats healthy. Or maybe they shouldn't cover skin cancer becasue you took a risk and went to the beach at some point in your life. Or maybe they shouldn't cover my broken bone when I choose to play basketball and hurt myself because of my clumsiness. All these are "preventable" diseases and yet I think you'd have a hard time arguing that these things shouldn't be covered. Face it the only difference with contraception is that religion thinks it's immoral and tries to force their views on others who do not follow their religion. Eating fatty foods may increase your risk and thus increase your insurance premium. Playing sports may increase your risk of broken bones. Neither is actually choosing to break a nose or get heart disease. If you intentionally hurt yourself, insurance may actually not pay. Buying contraception is a choice. You either choose to buy it or you choose to not buy it. Allright just so we don't get lost in this argument, I'm saying that contraceptives is a healthcare need, akin to heart surgery or setting a broken bone. In my analogy having sex is like playing basketball. You're saying contraception is a choice just like setting a bone after a broken foot is a choice? You realize the point of a sport is for fun right? At no point are you actually supposed to get hurt. Sex is meant, physically meant, to produce babies. Contraception isn't some random thing that happens when you have sex, it's the direct result of it. Sex, and the risks that come with it, is in no way, shape, or form, the same as playing basketball. The only difference between now and a hundred years ago, is society has changed what we BELIEVE sex to be. We believe it to be an activity for fun/pleasure. That doesn't change that the reason for sex, is for procreation. I'm really not sure if you're stupid, or you judgement is just really clouded. Having sex with always be a choice, and contraception will always exist as a result, not some random side effect, of having sex. Actually sex is a fundamental human need. That is why it is on the basic rung of Maslow's pyramid. So no it's not as easy to say "Hey all you sluts. Stop having sex." I'm guessing that you're pretty young and really do believe that a person can just deny basic human urges like a sex drive. You may even think that a homosexual can just tell him or herself that they can be attracted to a different gender and presto-chango they're "fixed." Unfortunately that's not how human physiology and psychology works. While we certainly have control over our basic urges it is not by any means total control. Have you ever seen what truly hungry people are willing to do for food? Well the sex drive is actually not that different as the food drive in our brains. So before you call someone stupid please educate yourself on what you're actually talking about I agree that sex is completely fundamental to human happiness but it's not the government's role to provide people with happiness. You have a right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness. Also, masturbation is enough to be sexually self-sufficient.
And the government shouldn't pay for contraception. But insurances should. I believe that contraception is a basic healthcare provision. Most doctors agree which is why they prescribe it for their patients. There is a reason why women go to doctors to buy the pill or get an IUD instead of sex shops. Doctors are expensive and health insurance in the US exists to defray those expenses. Therefore it makes perfect sense that health insurances should cover contraception. Actually most insurers agree since it's much cheaper to pay for contraception then it is for unwanted pregnancies. The argument simply came out because the catholic church does not want contraception to be available on any of their plans, even if the plans are for people who are not catholic. This is a purely social debate and I think it's ridiculous that the politicians in the US government who are supposed to represent everyone and not show favor to religions are pandering to catholic priests. It's politics at it's worst, ideology above reason.
|
On March 03 2012 06:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:37 aminoashley wrote:On March 03 2012 06:33 sc2superfan101 wrote:
without a direct quote from rush i won't pass judgement on what he said or didn't say. if he straight up called her a slut, than ok, that's wrong. however, this woman is clearly being untruthful about a debate that, as far as i know, she has no place being in (and don't start with this "she's a woman!" stuff either). is she a doctor? is she an insurance provider? is she a religious leader? does she have any expertise whatsoever on the subject? or does she have a sensationalist story that tries to play on our emotions instead of addressing the actual issue in a rational manner? my bet goes with it being the latter.
and the fact that i am reading a comment right now basically saying:
"why do republicans want to ban birth control?"
is proof that both sides of the aisle are creating strawmen here and using sensationalism to get their point across. no prominent republican has ever suggested banning birth control, or limiting women's access to it, or preventing women from getting it or preventing people from selling it. don't be ridiculous. Edited the OP with the video clip of Rush Limbaugh if you'd like to hear it. lol, right at the end he said: "i take it back." and his point was actually a lot deeper than just calling her a slut and a prostitute. it's hilarious that people are coming down on him for it (which is acceptable), while completely hiding the context in which he said it and acting like he just called her the name. before you go crazy and tell me that the context doesn't matter, it does. he was making a broader point about her statement than just "she's a slut!"
Yeah he took it back with a smirk on his face and called her round-heeled instead. Much better.
|
On March 03 2012 07:02 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 06:36 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:30 Leporello wrote:On March 03 2012 06:26 Yergidy wrote:On March 03 2012 06:12 Leporello wrote:
It's sadly condemning that the right-wing not only seeks to make this an issue, but argues it from a constitutional perspective. Any form of providing for the public welfare can probably be argued about on a constitutional basis, but its missing the point.
The only point in arguing over any form of public welfare is whether or not it is good for society and worth the investment. That's being practical. And speaking practically, giving woman control over their reproduction is an extremely good idea.
But can it be that simple? Nope. Because of the Evangelicals and other Leave it to Beaver enthusiasts, we need to make it an issue, and argue over it's constitutionality. Republicans need to drop this tiresome act.
The government's job, in the end, is to help foster the best society it can, with the best possible quality of life. And if government intervention, welfare, and/or contraception can provide its people with a better quality of life for a decent price, then you need to just stuff your religion and constitutional-excuses. The constitution is the single most important governing document for the United States. All governing law should revolve around it, even though lately it has been lets try and get this in even if it violates the constitution and the burden falls on the people to complain enough to get it reversed. The constitution is there to protect YOU and tell government how far their powers go. The time we stop caring about if something is constitutional or not is the time when we stop being a free country. If you don't know exactly how important the constitution is in this country I think you need to go back and re-take high school government because your teacher apparently sucked. You have the constitution in one hand, and you're looking at what in our country in unconstitutional. And THIS is what you come up with? Mandating insurance-coverage for birth control? The constitution isn't to be revered. The Second Amendment, for example, sucks. It doesn't define firearms or militias. By the Second Amendment's possible interpretations, I should be able to buy a nuclear warhead. And maybe you should go take some classes on critical thinking, and maybe one on discourse so you can learn to close your arguments without resorting to insults like this one. I am not insulting you at all.. If anything I am insulting your government teacher for their poor teaching job on how US government works. If you hate the constitution so much why don't you move to a country that fits your idea if how a government is supposed to work and stop trying to fundamentally change the US? That would seem to be the easier choice. Like it or not that is how the government was founded and unless they have another constitutional convention that is how it's going to stay. I am just explaining facts. Am I wrong, or did the Blunt Bill fail? Oh, yes it did. So I'm fine. I''m not the one saying the law currently is unconstitutional. That'd be the Republicans. But the government just voted, and it disagrees. So now it's constitutional. Because that's what our politicians voted it to be. It's that simple. Just like in countless other cases, the constitution is only as good as our interpretation, which is exactly how it was meant to be. That's why I don't have to move. Our government isn't written in stone. Maybe you're the one who needs classes, or needs to move, or needs to do whatever other generic belittling statement you come up with next.
Honestly man, you just keep showing your ignorance on this issue. It is not up to the politicians to judge constitutionality, politicians just make laws, they can make laws that are unconstitutional, although morally they shouldn't. It is up to the JUDICIAL system to judge the constitutionality not congress... Just because some congressmen vote on something and it passes doesn't mean it is automatically constitutional.
If there is an unconstitutional law it is filed and tried in court where the government is supposed to defend it and whoever is making the claim is stating why it is unconstitutional. It goes up the judicial ladder as each side opposes the ruling until it reaches the supreme court which has the ultimate ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In no way shape or form does the legislative branch or the executive branch have any say on the constitutionality of an issue.
|
It's always funny to me when Rush Limbaugh says things purposely designed to get a rise out of the media, and then the media suddenly jump on it and go crazy. Rush has been trolling people like this since the 80's, he's perfected the art.
He says himself repeatedly, that he tries to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. Those people who hate him just take his absurd statements at face value and go wild, and give him free advertising.
Can't people tell just from watching that video that he's TRYING to instigate anger? And everyone bites lol. I'm not a fan of RL but when things like this happen I can't help but enjoy his trolling.
|
USA every moving closer towards Theocracy......
This whole birth control debate is to distract the public from the REAL issues this country is facing, like you know....the economy?
|
As a christian I believe that people should be allowed to exercise their god given ability of free will, even if I don't agree with it. labeling anything religious or conservative the same because of cnn is just stupid no one I've ever met takes them seriously and the bill failed. It was more of the conservatives trying to add in that they wouldn't have to pay for abortions that might come later. trying to be meta makes you stupid and look stupid which means you get in situations like this. if they where taking it because they wanted to they should pay for it but if its for any health reasons theres no reason why it shouldn't be covered like any other drug.
The debates held in congress and the whole process is so outdated it makes me sick. The country would be a lot better off if there was a "health court" with doctors to make these decisions for the betterment of peoples health instead of leaving it up to politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
