The latest push in the War on Women . . .

[lawrocket 3]

It’s amazing to see these arguments. Viewed as an attack on women. And these arguments could have been balanced (well, to those with open minds – there are partisans on both sides who go off of slogans and the like) by simply sticking to the issues that are being brought out: (1) the cost of birth control; (2) that the Fluke testimony was a set-up dog and pony show; (3) etc.

But what happened? Limbaugh fucked it up for anybody with a decent argument in opposition by, um, attacking a woman. There are some deep issues here that worthy discussion. Too bad. Limbaugh opted to focus on other things. And the focus is directed at his comments attacking a woman which support the argument from the left that it is an attack on women. quod erat demonstrandum

For anyone arguing against this policy, quit wasting your time. That battle is lost because Limbaugh wouldn’t either shut his pie hole or wouldn’t focus on reasonable debate. Instead he opted to go with a nasty attack that foreclosed all reasonable argument. Limbaugh ran his vicodin-laced mouth and singlehandedly put an end to reasonable discussion.

It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t decent satire. It was Limbaugh being a dick and ensuring that reasonable counterarguments were no longer part of the discussion. He’s a dick.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

what is REALLY sad is what you say about Rush

It is obvious you get your info from somewhere and have not listened to him for any amount of time

If you had would not, with a straight face, be able to post what you did about him here

He has not been hurt

He did NOT lose 28 sponsors

Two national sponsors who left are already asking to come back

One is begging

Your ignorance about him and what he says and stands for makes me wonder if you can go out in public

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

It’s amazing to see these arguments. Viewed as an attack on women. And these arguments could have been balanced (well, to those with open minds – there are partisans on both sides who go off of slogans and the like) by simply sticking to the issues that are being brought out: (1) the cost of birth control; (2) that the Fluke testimony was a set-up dog and pony show; (3) etc.

But what happened? Limbaugh fucked it up for anybody with a decent argument in opposition by, um, attacking a woman. There are some deep issues here that worthy discussion. Too bad. Limbaugh opted to focus on other things. And the focus is directed at his comments attacking a woman which support the argument from the left that it is an attack on women. quod erat demonstrandum

For anyone arguing against this policy, quit wasting your time. That battle is lost because Limbaugh wouldn’t either shut his pie hole or wouldn’t focus on reasonable debate. Instead he opted to go with a nasty attack that foreclosed all reasonable argument. Limbaugh ran his vicodin-laced mouth and singlehandedly put an end to reasonable discussion.

It wasn’t funny. It wasn’t decent satire. It was Limbaugh being a dick and ensuring that reasonable counterarguments were no longer part of the discussion. He’s a dick.

In this case (to a point) I agree
He agreed as well when he said he was wrong using the two words to describe her

Everything else that is being brought is bull.....

As much bull as the premise of this thread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Everything else that is being brought is bull.

Much of it is. But Limbaugh effectively drowned out that conversation. He singlehandedly removed any high ground or reasonability from the discussion.

He lost the battle for everyone with a rational argument.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

Quote

Everything else that is being brought is bull.

Much of it is. But Limbaugh effectively drowned out that conversation. He singlehandedly removed any high ground or reasonability from the discussion.

He lost the battle for everyone with a rational argument.

Bingo

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

what is REALLY sad is what you say about Rush

It is obvious you get your info from somewhere and have not listened to him for any amount of time

If you had would not, with a straight face, be able to post what you did about him here

He has not been hurt

He did NOT lose 28 sponsors

Two national sponsors who left are already asking to come back

One is begging

Your ignorance about him and what he says and stands for makes me wonder if you can go out in public

Seriously? You are hilarious champ. I'd back off the crack pipe if I were you. There is NO context where what he said was acceptable.

I've heard more than enough of his invective, and as I'm politically neutral in this case I'm far more able to listen with a balanced viewpoint than you are.

He may not have lost 28 sponsors, he certainly lost some. That's kind of irrelevant. What he DID lose is credibility. See Lawrocket's post above.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Everything else that is being brought is bull.

Much of it is. But Limbaugh effectively drowned out that conversation. He singlehandedly removed any high ground or reasonability from the discussion.

He lost the battle for everyone with a rational argument.

Sorry

I dont believe that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

what is REALLY sad is what you say about Rush

It is obvious you get your info from somewhere and have not listened to him for any amount of time

If you had would not, with a straight face, be able to post what you did about him here

He has not been hurt

He did NOT lose 28 sponsors

Two national sponsors who left are already asking to come back

One is begging

Your ignorance about him and what he says and stands for makes me wonder if you can go out in public

Seriously? You are hilarious champ. I'd back off the crack pipe if I were you. There is NO context where what he said was acceptable.

I've heard more than enough of his invective, and as I'm politically neutral in this case I'm far more able to listen with a balanced viewpoint than you are.

He may not have lost 28 sponsors, he certainly lost some. That's kind of irrelevant. What he DID lose is credibility. See Lawrocket's post above.

He lost nothing

He did expose those like you who get their talking points from hoffo post of Dem underground

THAT my friend is easy
very easy
to see

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,648]

I see that once again the GOP chooses to use its government powers to force women to behave according the GOP's wishes. This from the party that **CLAIMS** to want to get the government out of people's lives. What a bunch of hypocrites.

www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/va-gov-signs-bill-requiring-ultrasounds-for-women-before-abortions-_-but-not-invasive-exams/2012/03/07/gIQAnSpWxR_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,434]

>I see that once again the GOP chooses to use its government powers to force
>women to behave according the GOP's wishes.

While I disagree with the entire "guilt em into having an unwanted child" approach it is much improved over the original version. It's an external ultrasound, they don't have to look at it and it doesn't apply to women who have been raped. For most women it will just be a government mandated waste of healthcare funds. For the ones who really object, they'll just claim they were raped.

I wonder if a company who provides healthcare coverage for women will have to pay for this if they find it morally objectionable?

[Gravitymaster 0]

What is morally objectionable about an ultra-sound?

[billvon 2,434]

>What is morally objectionable about an ultra-sound?

Some people may not want to force women to have an unnecessary procedure they do not want. Everyone has their own views on what's morally objectionable.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I see that once again the GOP chooses to use its government powers to force
>women to behave according the GOP's wishes.

While I disagree with the entire "guilt em into having an unwanted child" approach it is much improved over the original version. It's an external ultrasound, they don't have to look at it and it doesn't apply to women who have been raped. For most women it will just be a government mandated waste of healthcare funds. For the ones who really object, they'll just claim they were raped.

I wonder if a company who provides healthcare coverage for women will have to pay for this if they find it morally objectionable?

Given the example of contraception and the Catholic Church, yes they will.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[muff528 3]

Quote

What is morally objectionable about an ultra-sound?

Not sure if I like the idea of "the government" mandating a medical procedure that has no benefit to general public health or welfare (like vaccines, etc.), no medical benefit to the "patient", and is intended only to influence a personal decision, possibly against her will. Maybe the ultrasound procedure itself is not morally objectionable, but the door it opens is a little orwellian ...especially with the prospect of government-controlled national "healthcare" looming.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>What is morally objectionable about an ultra-sound?

Some people may not want to force women to have an unnecessary procedure they do not want. Everyone has their own views on what's morally objectionable.

That's not what you said. You said:

Quote

I wonder if a company who provides healthcare coverage for women will have to pay for this if they find it morally objectionable?

Why would a "company" that provides healthcare find it morally objectionable? This is not even on the same scale as the government forcing people to buy health insurance, which apparently you think is OK.

Frankly I think it's BS to force the ultra-sound. I also think it's BS to force people to buy insurance.

[kallend 1,648]

Quote

What is morally objectionable about an ultra-sound?

I find it morally objectionable that the government should mandate any medical procedure that has no benefit whatsoever to the patient victim.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Are you a company that provides healthcare?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

What is morally objectionable about an ultra-sound?

Can you think of any medical procedure, that is not medically nescecary, that is also refused by the patient, and be forced by the government that is not morally objectionable?

If this was Obama forcing this , I would already be able to hear the sound of gunfire off in the distance.

[billvon 2,434]

>Why would a "company" that provides healthcare find it morally objectionable?

Why would a "company" that provides healthcare find birth control morally objectionable?

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One thing I find confusing: It seems that anyone who is strongly against abortion, that they would be strongly for any plan to reduce the number of abortions that happen. And providing free birth control to all women definitely seems like a way to reduce the number of abortions. But it seems like a lot of the people who are strongly against abortion are also against providing birth control to women, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Luke 11:46
Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Matthew 23:4
They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.


That's all...I just found the context of these verses to be relevant. It's basically condemning the religious leaders of the day for creating their own burdensome religious rules outside of scripture.

Funny how when a non-believer quotes verses from the bible, we are told we do it "out of Context" and need to read everything before and after.

[jclalor 12]

It's funny how Santorum tries to live his life based upon his Catholic beliefs, accept when it comes to capital punishment, torture, war and the needy.

[Bertt 0]

"Seems like they're in a pretty good situation, at a good school, with reasonably good health insurance, and likely a good career in the future. Which is more than most people in the country can say. So I just can't seem to get upset about the Georgetown students having to pay for their own contraception. "

Thank you, Shotgun. That brings me to my point. The Democrats blew it. Forget the ravings of a 3-times divorced, overweight drug-addict. Rush does what he gets paid to do. The Democrats, on the other hand, are a bunch of bumbling fools who could fuck up a free lunch. Here's my case:
1) Congressman Issa held hearings on contraception covered by insurance. His panel of experts didn't include any women.
2) The Democrats wanted to counter his point, so they held their own hearings.
3) Dems chose as their spokesperson a single law student at a prestigous university.
This is where things fell apart.
They would have done better to choose a married mother of two who doesn't want any more children right now.
She could talk about the benefit to her and the insurance company of contraception vs. more children.
She could have taken a little dig at Rick Santorum by saying, "My husband and I really can't afford to support seven children."
There would have been little the opponents of this position could say except to respond with a well-reasoned argument.

The reason Democrats don't like guns is because they're afraid they'll shoot themselves in the foot.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[billvon 2,434]

>They would have done better to choose a married mother of two who doesn't
>want any more children right now.

Some republican pundit would have called her a bitter used up media whore and the whole spectacle would have been repeated.

>There would have been little the opponents of this position could say except
>to respond with a well-reasoned argument.

Ha!

>The reason Democrats don't like guns is because they're afraid they'll shoot
>themselves in the foot.

Probably true! And the reason Republicans don't like women is that they show the GOP up as fools so often.

[billvon 2,434]

>He did NOT lose 28 sponsors

You are correct. He lost 45.

================================
Rush Limbaugh loses 45 advertisers

By MJ LEE
3/6/12 2:25 PM EST

At least 45 companies have pulled their ads from the “The Rush Limbaugh Show” since the conservative talk show host called a law student a “slut” on the air last week, as the social media blitz against the popular radio program showed no signs of slowing down Thursday.

Companies are continuing to join the rapidly growing list of businesses that have ceased advertising on Limbaugh’s show, responding to the flood of grievances that are pouring in from disgruntled customers — even as the radio host dismissed the reports of advertisers pulling their commercials on his program Wednesday.

The list of companies that officially announced on Twitter, Facebook or in statements to other media outlets that they would stop advertising on the radio show include: AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, American Heart Association, AOL, Aquarium of the Pacific, Bare Escentuals, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Bonobos, Capital One, Carbonite, Cascades Dental, Citrix, Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Constant Contact, Cunningham Security, Freedom Debt Relief, Geico, Girl Scouts, Goodwill Industries, Hadeed Carpet, JCPenney, Legal Zoom, Matrix Direct, Netflix, New York Lottery, Norway Savings Bank, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Philadelphia Orchestra, PolyCom, Portland Ovations, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Regal Assets, Reputation Rhino, RSVP Discount Beverage, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows, TurboTax and Vitacost.

. . .

Many companies explained that their ads had run on Limbaugh’s show inadvertently. A spokesperson for Goodwill Industries said in an email to POLITICO: “A PSA about Goodwill was aired on a DC-area station that airs the Rush Limbaugh Show and was done without our permission, knowledge or consent. We asked them to remove it because this was done without our prior approval.”
==============================


But all is not lost! New advertisers are appearing to take up the slack:

====================
Meanwhile, a few companies are stepping up to support Limbaugh’s show: SeekingArrangement.com, a company that bills itself “the world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website,” announced its decision to start advertising on Limbaugh’s show late Tuesday.
====================

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>He did NOT lose 28 sponsors

You are correct. He lost 45.

================================
Rush Limbaugh loses 45 advertisers

By MJ LEE
3/6/12 2:25 PM EST

At least 45 companies have pulled their ads from the “The Rush Limbaugh Show” since the conservative talk show host called a law student a “slut” on the air last week, as the social media blitz against the popular radio program showed no signs of slowing down Thursday.

Companies are continuing to join the rapidly growing list of businesses that have ceased advertising on Limbaugh’s show, responding to the flood of grievances that are pouring in from disgruntled customers — even as the radio host dismissed the reports of advertisers pulling their commercials on his program Wednesday.

The list of companies that officially announced on Twitter, Facebook or in statements to other media outlets that they would stop advertising on the radio show include: AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, American Heart Association, AOL, Aquarium of the Pacific, Bare Escentuals, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Bonobos, Capital One, Carbonite, Cascades Dental, Citrix, Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Constant Contact, Cunningham Security, Freedom Debt Relief, Geico, Girl Scouts, Goodwill Industries, Hadeed Carpet, JCPenney, Legal Zoom, Matrix Direct, Netflix, New York Lottery, Norway Savings Bank, O’Reilly Auto Parts, Philadelphia Orchestra, PolyCom, Portland Ovations, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Regal Assets, Reputation Rhino, RSVP Discount Beverage, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows, TurboTax and Vitacost.

. . .

Many companies explained that their ads had run on Limbaugh’s show inadvertently. A spokesperson for Goodwill Industries said in an email to POLITICO: “A PSA about Goodwill was aired on a DC-area station that airs the Rush Limbaugh Show and was done without our permission, knowledge or consent. We asked them to remove it because this was done without our prior approval.”
==============================


But all is not lost! New advertisers are appearing to take up the slack:

====================
Meanwhile, a few companies are stepping up to support Limbaugh’s show: SeekingArrangement.com, a company that bills itself “the world’s largest sugar daddy and sugar baby dating website,” announced its decision to start advertising on Limbaugh’s show late Tuesday.
====================

Caught that and checked into it

It is a lie

What they are saying is those that are on local staitions ask those staitions to move their adds to time slots other than during Limbaughs show

But ( now get this) they are NOT pulling add dollars away

He talked about this "article" at the start of his show

But you can keep hoping you and yours on the left have the a bit of power to affect him

but it aint happening

Again

NOT advertisers who advertise ON his show but during

Big difference


He is on over 600 staitions

Figure modestly that there are 30 who have adds during his show (not ON his show)
He get nothing from this advertisers AND his staitions are NOT getting hurt because they are NOT pulling dollars. Just asking that their adds times get moved


You can do the math

Means nothing
Next

you do so want him hurt

dont you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln