http://todayonthetrail.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/10560998-woman-called-slut-by-limbaugh-is-stunned-outraged

Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that this chick doesnt have to worry about pregnancy as a result of consensual sex?

She does sound like a slut.

A lazy, cheap slut.

Another example of the GOP War on Women. If a woman wants to exercise the same sexual freedoms as a man, she's a "slut." I assume that means every woman Limbaugh has slept with who uses birth control is also a slut. Even the ones he has been married to.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

That fat turd wishes he could get a woman as cute and as intelligent as she is and since he knows he never will, he resorts to calling them sluts and prostitutes.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> every woman Limbaugh has slept with who uses birth
> control is also a slut.

Rush taking his shirt off is the only form of birth control those women ever needed.

If he's going to insult someone, be original, instead of ripping off Saturday Night Live.

"What does it say about the college co-ed Susan Fluke (sic) who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.”

Well, it's true. If you require payment for sex, that makes you a prostitute.

The posting of video clips was over the top. But the fact that anyone thinks they have a right to free birth control is the real problem. Why do liberals always have to be reminded that nothing is free. $3000 a year in birth control? Where's the shame of testifying before congress and admitting you want to have sex but don't want to pay for the birth control? This society is going straight down the tubes. It's like it's being run by horny 10th grade boys.

Amazing. If he doesn't get fired for this, I don't know what it will take.

In a perverse kind of way, however, Limbaugh and the Republican right serve as a wake-up call for young women. Those of us who have been around for a while fought these kinds of battles thirty years ago. I can't believe that we have to cover this ground again.

Women my age viewed suffragettes as anachronisms. Women my kids age view us as anachronisms. We were both wrong.

An advertiser has already pulled out from sponsoring Limbaugh's show. It would be great if this is the beginning of the end for that fat fucktard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

She goes to Georgetown Law and wants the taxpayer to pick
up the tab for her fuckfests? Wonder how much money she spends
in some of those fine off-campus botiques, restaurants and nightclubs?
Will she want us to pay for that too? Looks to me like she's trying
to use this as an attention getting device. When's her first
interview on Good Morning America? Rachael Maddog? Look for her
book out soon.

Buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She goes to Georgetown Law and wants the taxpayer
> to pick
> up the tab for her fuckfests? Wonder how much
> money she spends
> in some of those fine off-campus botiques,
> restaurants and nightclubs?
> Will she want us to pay for that too? Looks to me
> like she's trying
> to use this as an attention getting device. When's
> her first
> interview on Good Morning America? Rachael Maddog?
> Look for her
> book out soon.

She'll probably end up as a writer for Huffington Post.

Buster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She goes to Georgetown Law and wants the taxpayer
> to pick
> up the tab for her fuckfests? Wonder how much
> money she spends
> in some of those fine off-campus botiques,
> restaurants and nightclubs?
> Will she want us to pay for that too? Looks to me
> like she's trying
> to use this as an attention getting device. When's
> her first
> interview on Good Morning America? Rachael Maddog?
> Look for her
> book out soon.

This is about the Georgetown University health plan picking it up, not taxpayers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> She'll probably end up as a writer for Huffington
> Post.


You can already do that for free. In fact, isn't HuffPost being sued by its writers because they aren't being paid?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT!

Reports are in that Rush Limbaugh has made an unprecedented controversial statement. This shocking news will be covered 24/7 until we get to the bottom of this. Details as they become available.

WXYZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT!
>
> Reports are in that Rush Limbaugh has made an
> unprecedented controversial statement. This
> shocking news will be covered 24/7 until we get to
> the bottom of this. Details as they become
> available.


He will probably get through this, but the fact is his statement really hurts the Republicans, who are already suffering from an "anti-woman" image due to Santorum's nonsense.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Rush is an expert on women, considering he is on his fourth wife.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > She'll probably end up as a writer for
> Huffington
> > Post.
>
>
> You can already do that for free. In fact, isn't
> HuffPost being sued by its writers because they
> aren't being paid?


Now that you mention it, I think I've heard that as well.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WXYZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT!
> >
> > Reports are in that Rush Limbaugh has made an
> > unprecedented controversial statement. This
> > shocking news will be covered 24/7 until we get
> to
> > the bottom of this. Details as they become
> > available.
>
>
> He will probably get through this, but the fact is
> his statement really hurts the Republicans, who
> are already suffering from an "anti-woman" image
> due to Santorum's nonsense.


Not to mention Virginia's debacle that is all over the nationwide news. Personally, I dont know how much he will suffer from this. Where one sponsor backs out another will be right there to ride the coattails.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WXYZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT! NEWS ALERT!
> >
> > Reports are in that Rush Limbaugh has made an
> > unprecedented controversial statement. This
> > shocking news will be covered 24/7 until we get
> to
> > the bottom of this. Details as they become
> > available.
>
>
> He will probably get through this, but the fact is
> his statement really hurts the Republicans, who
> are already suffering from an "anti-woman" image
> due to Santorum's nonsense.


The Republicans are only suffering from an "anti-woman" image in the minds
of Democrats. If you really want to see some suffering try looking at pics
of Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That fat turd wishes he could get a woman as cute
> and as intelligent as she is and since he knows he
> never will, he resorts to calling them sluts and
> prostitutes.


This chick is the farthest thing from cute. Not even close. She is bordering on hideous. Sorry, I call em like I see em.

WXYZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The Republicans are only suffering from an
> "anti-woman" image in the minds
> of Democrats. If you really want to see some
> suffering try looking at pics
> of Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.


And you prove my point.

Women are split on abortion, but the contraceptive thing is ridiculous. Most of the women in the Republican base on not die-hard Catholics. They are evangelicals, who have no issue with the use of birth control. The GOP is shitting on the women in their own base.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I will give the Democrats this one. They have successfully turned public perception on this issue. They have convinced people that it is all about birth control and has nothing to do with First Amendment rights.

I guess it wouldn't be all that good if they came out against First Amendment rights, which they clearly are.

What is with the Democrats attack on the First Amendment these days, first this issue, then Jim Moran's attack on an ad. Why do they hate the First Amendment so much?

B o R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will give the Democrats this one. They have
> successfully turned public perception on this
> issue. They have convinced people that it is all
> about birth control and has nothing to do with
> First Amendment rights.
>
> I guess it wouldn't be all that good if they came
> out against First Amendment rights, which they
> clearly are.
>
> What is with the Democrats attack on the First
> Amendment these days, first this issue, then Jim
> Moran's attack on an ad. Why do they hate the
> First Amendment so much?

It's the First Amendment rights of individuals versus institutions. If you are a protestant working at a University or hospital owned by a Catholic organization, why should that entity have more rights to their religious beliefs than you do to yours as an individual?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 01:33PM by WashingTone-Locian.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> B o R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I will give the Democrats this one. They have
> > successfully turned public perception on this
> > issue. They have convinced people that it is
> all
> > about birth control and has nothing to do with
> > First Amendment rights.
> >
> > I guess it wouldn't be all that good if they
> came
> > out against First Amendment rights, which they
> > clearly are.
> >
> > What is with the Democrats attack on the First
> > Amendment these days, first this issue, then
> Jim
> > Moran's attack on an ad. Why do they hate the
> > First Amendment so much?
>
> It's the First Amendment rights of individuals
> versus institutions.

Birth control is a First Amendment right?

> If you are a protestant
> working at a University or hospital owned by a
> Catholic organization, why should that entity have
> more rights to their religious beliefs than you do
> to yours as an individual?

You seem to be confused about how the First Amendment works. The First Amendment is enforced AGAINST the government, not a private entity. Under our laws, a private entity can enter into whatever contract it wishes with its employees, with some exceptions.

The government should not be in the business of telling that private entity that it must pay for medication and procedures that fundamentally abhorrent to them. Personally, I support the use of birth control, but could never have envisioned a country that shits all over the constitution.

no way Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That fat turd wishes he could get a woman as
> cute
> > and as intelligent as she is and since he knows
> he
> > never will, he resorts to calling them sluts
> and
> > prostitutes.
>
>
> This chick is the farthest thing from cute. Not
> even close. She is bordering on hideous. Sorry,
> I call em like I see em.


At first I thought she was Elijah Wood

B o R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > B o R Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > ---
> The government should not be in the business of
> telling that private entity that it must pay for
> medication and procedures that fundamentally
> abhorrent to them. Personally, I support the use
> of birth control, but could never have envisioned
> a country that shits all over the constitution.

I find it interesting those who oppose blood transfusions for religious reasons never make a stink about it being part of their health insurance policies.

California based Sleep Train Mattress Centers have announced they are pulling their sponsorship of the Rush Limbaugh show due to Rush’s remarks. Proflowers and eharmoney told thinkprogress they are getting a lot of calls questioning their sponsorship of Rush Limbaugh after his remarks.

And by the way, who remembers Rush returning from Puerto Plata, DR, a destination for many a pedophile, with mislabeled Viagra in his suitcase?

Just imagine Rush Limbaugh naked, trying to find his tiny dick under those massive rolls of flab.

Best birth control Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just imagine Rush Limbaugh naked, trying to find
> his tiny dick under those massive rolls of flab.


Sure, if you're a gaytard. Otherwise, imaging other guys naked is fag territory.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find it interesting those who oppose blood
> transfusions for religious reasons never make a
> stink about it being part of their health
> insurance policies.

I find it interesting that you came here attempting to make a point, but failed miserably. Your analogy fails on multiple levels. First, are the Watchtower/Jehova Witness organizations required to offer blood transfusions by the federal government? While you ponder on that, maybe you will come to the conclusion that it isn't individuals working for non-religious organizations protesting their insurance covering contraception and abortifacients, it is religious organizations upset that they are being forced to pay for medications and procedures contrary to their beliefs.

This is no different than that age old liberal line that the government needs to stay out of the bedroom.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That fat turd wishes he could get a woman as cute
> and as intelligent as she is and since he knows he
> never will, he resorts to calling them sluts and
> prostitutes.


He seems to be doing ok. How many millions have you banked this year?
Attachments:

Rolling in the doggie doo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Best birth control Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just imagine Rush Limbaugh naked, trying to
> find
> > his tiny dick under those massive rolls of
> flab.
>
>
> Sure, if you're a gaytard. Otherwise, imaging
> other guys naked is fag territory.

That's the whole point, idiot. Imagining fat, disgusting Rush Limbaugh naked is great birth control because it prevents those of us who are normal for getting aroused. Now, a polesmoker like you, on the other hand, is probably rubbing one out right now.

The entire problem is that the religious organizations dont want "free contraception" provided on a policy they are paying for. Whats so funny is that if the contraception is included in the policy it will be 'buffet style' or in other words, the subscriber has the option to pick and choose what services they care to use. It will not be an ala carte menu where the companies are paying for specific items. Its all inclusive. Kinda like going to the Hoing Kong Buffet. If I dont want the fried egg rolls Im gonna pay the same price regardless.

Given this logic, The Catholic church should also boycott Shoney's for serving meat on Fridays during lent. Exact same principals apply.

Now with all that being said, the contraception rule completely outdoes itself for the unconstitutionality of Obamacare. Contraception has nothing to do with health or wellness. Insurance is intended to protect against unforeseen circumstances, not protect against obvious repercussions. Example: Many policies do not protect you against an injury incurred while participating in an extreme sport. Why? Because it was a foreseeable outcome.

Moreover, and much more costly, will be the addition of forced maternity care.

The only reason that women above is married to fat fuck Rush is for his money. That makes his wife a slut and a whore. Loser.

Please Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only reason that women above is married to fat
> fuck Rush is for his money. That makes his wife a
> slut and a whore. Loser.


jealous much?

+3

Please Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only reason that women above is married to fat
> fuck Rush is for his money. That makes his wife a
> slut and a whore. Loser.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Given this logic, The Catholic church should also
> boycott Shoney's for serving meat on Fridays
> during lent. Exact same principals apply.

Shoney's is not the government and they don't force Catholics to eat meat. Analogy FAIL.

Shrimp-n-grits Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Given this logic, The Catholic church should
> also
> > boycott Shoney's for serving meat on Fridays
> > during lent. Exact same principals apply.
>
> Shoney's is not the government and they don't
> force Catholics to eat meat. Analogy FAIL

No one is FORCING them to take contraceptives either, just simply saying it must be an option on the menu.

You are looking at this from an internal view. Expand your perspective. In both examples they are being asked to pay for a bufet of items and choose only the items they care to. It doesnt matter that the government doesnt force them to go to Shoney's; Only that they do indeed go there and choose to not eat the meat.... They either boycott organizations that do things that go against their belief or they are setting a double standard.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 03:40PM by JBass.

Please Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only reason that women above is married to fat
> fuck Rush is for his money. That makes his wife a
> slut and a whore. Loser.


And Teddy Kennedys wife married him because he was such a stud muffin.
Attachments:

B o R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUNdamental Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I find it interesting those who oppose blood
> > transfusions for religious reasons never make a
> > stink about it being part of their health
> > insurance policies.
>
> I find it interesting that you came here
> attempting to make a point, but failed miserably.
> Your analogy fails on multiple levels. First, are
> the Watchtower/Jehova Witness organizations
> required to offer blood transfusions by the
> federal government?

If those groups offer health insurance to employees, than yes, blood transfusions are part of that health insurance offering, and it is not stripped out for those groups.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T
>
>
> Now with all that being said, the contraception
> rule completely outdoes itself for the
> unconstitutionality of Obamacare. Contraception
> has nothing to do with health or wellness.

You sir are a no-nothing. There a plenty of health benefits to women on the pill.

Doctors prescribe the pill every day to teenage girls (that are not sexually active) for health reasons.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > T
> >
> >
> > Now with all that being said, the contraception
> > rule completely outdoes itself for the
> > unconstitutionality of Obamacare.
> Contraception
> > has nothing to do with health or wellness.
>
> You sir are a no-nothing. There a plenty of
> health benefits to women on the pill.
>
> Doctors prescribe the pill every day to teenage
> girls (that are not sexually active) for health
> reasons.

Unproven pesudo-science that is perpetuated my immoral pill-pushers does not equal health benefits. And the benefits are merely side efects and could be obtained with less intrusive medications. What say you about the increased chances of blood-clots, hypertension and the myriad of other ill-effects these pills provide. Not to mention that the bill in its current wording would provide for non-oral contraception including tube-tying and vacetomys. What are the medical benefits of those procedures?

think before you type.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> B o R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FUNdamental Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I find it interesting those who oppose blood
> > > transfusions for religious reasons never make
> a
> > > stink about it being part of their health
> > > insurance policies.
> >
> > I find it interesting that you came here
> > attempting to make a point, but failed
> miserably.
> > Your analogy fails on multiple levels. First,
> are
> > the Watchtower/Jehova Witness organizations
> > required to offer blood transfusions by the
> > federal government?
>
> If those groups offer health insurance to
> employees, than yes, blood transfusions are part
> of that health insurance offering, and it is not
> stripped out for those groups.


Nice dodge. You didn't answer the question. Does the federal government require those groups to include it in their health benefits?

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:

> And you prove my point.
>
> Women are split on abortion, but the contraceptive
> thing is ridiculous. Most of the women in the
> Republican base on not die-hard Catholics. They
> are evangelicals, who have no issue with the use
> of birth control. The GOP is shitting on the women
> in their own base.


And once again you are trying to twist facts what a surprise.

Conservatives arent trying to ban contraceptives. They dont want to pay for it. If health insurance has to provide it free everyone will be paying for it. People should buy their own condoms and not expect everyone else to buy them for them. If she really wants them free she can walk over to the health office at the school and pick up free condoms like every non catholic school in the country, and yes georgetown hasnt been a catholic school in anything but name for quite sometime.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> It's the First Amendment rights of individuals
> versus institutions. If you are a protestant
> working at a University or hospital owned by a
> Catholic organization, why should that entity have
> more rights to their religious beliefs than you do
> to yours as an individual?


Because religious freedom is the most protected right in the constitution aside from maybe free speech thats why. Thats why it was the first amendment.

If not being able to get free condoms in their health care plan is a deal breaker they can either get an individual health care plan or not work for a religious institution.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Shrimp-n-grits Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JBass Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > Given this logic, The Catholic church should
> > also
> > > boycott Shoney's for serving meat on Fridays
> > > during lent. Exact same principals apply.
> >
> > Shoney's is not the government and they don't
> > force Catholics to eat meat. Analogy FAIL
>
> No one is FORCING them to take contraceptives
> either, just simply saying it must be an option on
> the menu.
>
> You are looking at this from an internal view.
> Expand your perspective. In both examples they
> are being asked to pay for a bufet of items and
> choose only the items they care to. It doesnt
> matter that the government doesnt force them to go
> to Shoney's; Only that they do indeed go there and
> choose to not eat the meat.... They either
> boycott organizations that do things that go
> against their belief or they are setting a doubl
> standard.

I get what youre saying, but its really not a good analogy because the church doesnt fund shoneys. Their objection to it isnt that its being provided in insurance (even though they are against it) but that theyre being forced to provide it in the insurance that they pay for. If they were running shoneys the analogy would work.

For example they dont refuse to do business with insurance for their employees because the insurance companies themselves provide contraceptive care to other people, but they refuse to let the insurance they purchase have that coverage.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another example of the GOP War on Women. If a
> woman wants to exercise the same sexual freedoms
> as a man, she's a "slut." I assume that means
> every woman Limbaugh has slept with who uses birth
> control is also a slut. Even the ones he has been
> married to.


So if I the tax payer has to pay for her to have sex.... Can I get a piece of the action? I should.

I want to see the video tapes. Now.

sorta Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Shrimp-n-grits Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > JBass Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > Given this logic, The Catholic church
> should
> > > also
> > > > boycott Shoney's for serving meat on
> Fridays
> > > > during lent. Exact same principals apply.
> > >
> > > Shoney's is not the government and they don't
> > > force Catholics to eat meat. Analogy FAIL
> >
> > No one is FORCING them to take contraceptives
> > either, just simply saying it must be an option
> on
> > the menu.
> >
> > You are looking at this from an internal view.
> > Expand your perspective. In both examples they
> > are being asked to pay for a bufet of items and
> > choose only the items they care to. It doesnt
> > matter that the government doesnt force them to
> go
> > to Shoney's; Only that they do indeed go there
> and
> > choose to not eat the meat.... They either
> > boycott organizations that do things that go
> > against their belief or they are setting a
> doubl
> > standard.
>
> I get what youre saying, but its really not a good
> analogy because the church doesnt fund shoneys.
> Their objection to it isnt that its being provided
> in insurance (even though they are against it) but
> that theyre being forced to provide it in the
> insurance that they pay for. If they were running
> shoneys the analogy would work.
>
> For example they dont refuse to do business with
> insurance for their employees because the
> insurance companies themselves provide
> contraceptive care to other people, but they
> refuse to let the insurance they purchase have
> that coverage.


Well done sir, or ma'am.... anhat peels back the next layer of the onion. The government shouldnt be involved with healthcare anymore than they should decide what goes on Schoney's buffet line. Forcing anybody to purchase, pay for or provide anything that is against their moral compass is wrong. Government intrusion into free markets is wrong.

For what it worth the uncle Sam might as well tell companues they are not allowed to pull sponsorship from Limgaugh's show because they dont like the content he is providing....
...Lets say a talk show host said something pro-gay and a religious organization pulled sponsorship... Should the government force that deal?

There is not real answer to either question except for big brother to stay out of our marketplace. They should be here to enforce contracts, not negotiate them.

JBass Wrote:

> Well done sir, or ma'am.... anhat peels back the
> next layer of the onion. The government shouldnt
> be involved with healthcare anymore than they
> should decide what goes on Schoney's buffet line.
> Forcing anybody to purchase, pay for or provide
> anything that is against their moral compass is
> wrong. Government intrusion into free markets is
> wrong.
>
> For what it worth the uncle Sam might as well tell
> companues they are not allowed to pull sponsorship
> from Limgaugh's show because they dont like the
> content he is providing....
> ...Lets say a talk show host said something
> pro-gay and a religious organization pulled
> sponsorship... Should the government force that
> deal?
>
> There is not real answer to either question except
> for big brother to stay out of our marketplace.
> They should be here to enforce contracts, not
> negotiate them.

I couldnt agree more especially when it comes to the government trying to say religious organizations have to have birth control in their health care. Its not like they cant get it out of their own pocket if they really want it anyway. They know when they choose to accept a job there that their policies will never have that in them and they make the choice to decide to work there. If it was such an issue for them they are free to leave and go work somewhere where they have that.

Until now theres never been an issue with religion and the insurance companies as they have provided policies that fit there their beliefs. The person above was trying to make an argument about blood transfers, yet left out the fact that the religions are free to decide thats not a big enough issue for them that they want that excluded. If the religions were fine with birth control being in their policies or decided they didnt have a problem with it they would have it too.

But at the end of the day the government shouldnt be in the practice of discrimination. If the government told people they had to be religious people would be up in arms, but because the discrimination is against people who choose to be religious a lot of people are fine with that. No one is forcing anyone to abide by their rules unless they choose to be that religion or work for them.

Letting the government pick and choose what they can and cannot discriminate against is insane and goes against everything this country was founded for. A lot of people always say that religious beliefs have no business being in the government, if you believe that the reverse of that should also be true that the government has no business forcing its beliefs on religion. There is no law being broken not covering birth control. There is no fundamental right to birth control. We seem to think that everything now a days is some protected fundamental right when its not

I hope Rush gets slapped with a big defamation (or libel) lawsuit this time. He can only hide behind "its a show for entertainment purposes" for so long. If this isn't the definition of libel I don't know what is.

Someone needs to knock him down a couple notches.

He has no morals. He as been married four times and was a drug addict. Loser!

Well she did get a phone call from Obama which is ok. Now if it had been Clinton calling her she might have to watch out.
Attachments:

Ha ha ha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He has no morals. He as been married four times
> and was a drug addict. Loser!

His net worth is half a billion, his annual salary is 40 million. I could use that kind of losing.

Her face is just ok. I cant tell about the rest since she is seated behind a table. She may have one of those super wide asses the result of sitting and bitching all the time. While that may be ok for the brothers I am not into the wide rides.
Attachments:

Uh, Slappy... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rolling in the doggie doo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Best birth control Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just imagine Rush Limbaugh naked, trying to
> > find
> > > his tiny dick under those massive rolls of
> > flab.
> >
> >
> > Sure, if you're a gaytard. Otherwise, imaging
> > other guys naked is fag territory.
>
> That's the whole point, idiot. Imagining fat,
> disgusting Rush Limbaugh naked is great birth
> control because it prevents those of us who are
> normal for getting aroused. Now, a polesmoker like
> you, on the other hand, is probably rubbing one
> out right now.


Ooooo, good one genius. You beg us to image a guy naked and then try and deny your faggery. You gayness is screaming at us all. Don't want to outed as a fag, don't beg other dudes to imagine another guy naked. Pretty simple. Try and follow along Mary

res Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope Rush gets slapped with a big defamation (or
> libel) lawsuit this time. He can only hide behind
> "its a show for entertainment purposes" for so
> long. If this isn't the definition of libel I
> don't know what is.
>
> Someone needs to knock him down a couple notches.

Yep, right after Bill Maher and that dumbass Jon Stewart get sued for all the crap they spew.

You Libs got played!! Wake up, this cunt is an activist and 30 years old!! Time for another Obama beer summit??

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/03/stunner-georgetown-coed-sandra-fluke-is-a-30-year-old-womens-rights-activist/
Attachments:

her hair looks kind of dingy, I hope she is well kept south of the border

Birth control pills are $5 a month at Walmart. What is she talking about $3000? Even if she is talking about condoms that is one heck of a lot of sex going on.

I hope this wasnt some overkill on her part to try to make her case.

figures Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Birth control pills are $5 a month at Walmart.

!!!

You SURE about that?

yes five bucks at walmart nine at Target. I can guess the price is what it is to get women into the store. Once inside and waiting at the pharmacy they think of other things they need while in the store. Just a guess.

Lib_Control Wrote:
Wake up, this cunt is an
> activist and 30 years old!!

At 30 shouldnt she have graduated from law school. In her third year she should be more like 24-26

She wants taxpayers to provide her with free birth control? Others want free housing, free college, free health care, free day care for their kids, free breakfast, lunch and in some areas free dinnner for school kids.

The U S is reaching a breaking point and will soon be Greece.

Where does it end Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She wants taxpayers to provide her with free birth
> control? Others want free housing, free college,
> free health care, free day care for their kids,
> free breakfast, lunch and in some areas free
> dinnner for school kids.
>
> The U S is reaching a breaking point and will soon
> be Greece.

No, she just wants it covered in the health insurance she is already paying for.

I dont know of any health care plan that covers condoms or BC pills. Those are extras paid out of pocket . I know my plan will not cover diabetes testing supplies, I have to pay that out of pocket but the checkups and medication are partially covered. Now if she is asking for it to cover abortions that could be more costly.

Rush Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No, she just wants it covered in the health
> insurance she is already paying for.


Then she should get an individual plan that covers it. She chose to go to a catholic school. Theres plenty of top law schools that have no religious affiliation. You dont have the right to go to the school of your choice and demand they change their policies to give you everything you want.

And no she wants it paid for by other people since the great "compromise" requires it to be free in catholic policies

no she doesnt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rush Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > No, she just wants it covered in the health
> > insurance she is already paying for.
>
>
> Then she should get an individual plan that covers
> it. She chose to go to a catholic school. Theres
> plenty of top law schools that have no religious
> affiliation. You dont have the right to go to the
> school of your choice and demand they change their
> policies to give you everything you want.
>
> And no she wants it paid for by other people since
> the great "compromise" requires it to be free in
> catholic policies


This is all well and good, I'm not arguing against any of your points. What I am commenting on is the claim that she specifically wants tax money to pay for it, which you don't address (the claim I quoted, which you might not have read).

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That fat turd wishes he could get a woman as cute
> and as intelligent as she is and since he knows he
> never will, he resorts to calling them sluts and
> prostitutes.


Lol, the only thing cute is the fact that someone considers her to be intelligent. She's a spoiled yuppie.

Btw, the average cost I hear girls paying for birth control pills is $25 a month. WTF did that $3,000 figure come from? Maybe the chick really is a slut.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Rush is an idiot and so is anybody who listens to his show.

The agenda of the republicans is to outlaw contraception because it goes against christian teachings. Republicans also want abortions to be made illegal for the same reason. It's been this way for a while. Nothing new.

When Sandra Fluke was talking to the cogressional commitee, i thought she was relating to a story, "about one of her friends having her overies removed because of cyst and how that birth control pills (which she couldn't afford) could have prevented them". Rush is an idiot and he makes a cave man sound highly intelligent. I wonder what his wife, who is obviously with him for his money, thinks about his comments. Pubes are all the same, they want women to have all the babies they can, but when a deadbeat dad does not want to own up to his own kids: the pubes say kick the kid to the curb.

Gotta love the way republicans bitch about the poor having too many kids but also don't want anybody to get abortions or have birth control.

Rush Wrote:

> This is all well and good, I'm not arguing against
> any of your points. What I am commenting on is
> the claim that she specifically wants tax money to
> pay for it, which you don't address (the claim I
> quoted, which you might not have read).


She either wants tax money to pay for it or she wants other people to pay for it. Since her plan doesnt have it Im assuming its through the school. The great "compromise" by Obama was that it has to be provided free in such cases since they have religion affiliation.

As a result of her wanting it to be covered in her plan from a religious place, she is in fact asking for others to pay for it and apparently hasnt taking the constitutional law class yet.

She may not directly be asking for others to pay for it directly but the end result will be the cost of her "free" coverage being passed to others.

Is there some quote you are referring to somewhere that I am missing?

A sufficient number of advertisers have said "Buh bye" that Limburger apolgized.

What a fantastic spokesman for The Imploding Party he is, huh?

Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gotta love the way republicans bitch about the
> poor having too many kids but also don't want
> anybody to get abortions or have birth control.


No one bitches about the poor having too many kids. You should have the amount of kids you want and CAN AFFORD. You should have the amount of sex you want and CAN AFFORD to pay for the consequences of. You liberals will never get it. Thank gosh you're only 20% of the population. Enough to do significant damage to be sure, but any more and we'll do straight down to the Greece-standard.

just another voice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont know of any health care plan that covers
> condoms or BC pills.

Most prescription plans cover birth control. I've only once been at an organization that didn't cover it and it was for obvious political reasons.

As for $5/month for birth control... I've never paid that little. My birth control was always more than my copay. I think the full cost varied from $35-$65/month.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just another voice Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I dont know of any health care plan that covers
> > condoms or BC pills.
>
> Most prescription plans cover birth control. I've
> only once been at an organization that didn't
> cover it and it was for obvious political reasons.
>
>
> As for $5/month for birth control... I've never
> paid that little. My birth control was always more
> than my copay. I think the full cost varied from
> $35-$65/month.


According to the planned parent hood website of all places it costs between 15-50 a month. I wouldnt be shocked if one of the big chains like walmart had it very cheap but wouldnt know from personal experience.

For what its worth a simple google search reveled that Target/Walmart/Koger were offering it for 9 bucks a month and some of the stores it was even as low as 4 bucks a month

no she doesnt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rush Wrote:
>
> > This is all well and good, I'm not arguing
> against
> > any of your points. What I am commenting on is
> > the claim that she specifically wants tax money
> to
> > pay for it, which you don't address (the claim
> I
> > quoted, which you might not have read).
>
>
> She either wants tax money to pay for it or she
> wants other people to pay for it. Since her plan
> doesnt have it Im assuming its through the school.
> The great "compromise" by Obama was that it has
> to be provided free in such cases since they have
> religion affiliation.
>
> As a result of her wanting it to be covered in her
> plan from a religious place, she is in fact asking
> for others to pay for it and apparently hasnt
> taking the constitutional law class yet.
>
> She may not directly be asking for others to pay
> for it directly but the end result will be the
> cost of her "free" coverage being passed to
> others.
>
> Is there some quote you are referring to somewhere
> that I am missing?


You keep insinuating that "other" people are the taxpayers, when she made no such claim. I was quoting the poster Where Does This End who also made this erroneous statement (you know, the actual statement in quotes in my initial post). Insurance companies do not equate to the taxpayers. Whether it is right or wrong for them to have to cover it is a separate issue from whether tax money covers it.

I'm sure there are certain types that are cheap, but women often have to try several different birth control pills/patches/etc to find one that doesn't have side effects. Good job using google, but this is obviously a topic in which first hand knowledge is important.

even IF the tax money pays for her contraception which would you prefer for your tax money to go to .. birth control pill or welfare entitlement !? Little sacrifices can bring better resolutions in the long run .If this preventative care was provided for all women there would be less abortions ,less people whom are getting welfare( assumption!) ...but tax money paying for it isn't even the case !

not to mention who gives a flying f* if she is having too much sex .. So does this f*tard think that you pop a birth control pill everytime you get it on . This is what is wonderful about our country even a person this STUPID can live the American Dream ...so long as there is more of his kind to support his idiocracy .

--No one bitches about the poor having too many kids. You should have the amount of kids you want and CAN AFFORD. You should have the amount of sex you want and CAN AFFORD to pay for the consequences of. You liberals will never get it. Thank gosh you're only 20% of the population. Enough to do significant damage to be sure, but any more and we'll do straight down to the Greece-standard.

--You kinda are bitching about it tho .. You should be happy that poor people are having so many kids , so republicans can pick up their slack and adopt them .. for a big tax deduction heh!

Rush Wrote:

> You keep insinuating that "other" people are the
> taxpayers, when she made no such claim. I was
> quoting the poster Where Does This End who also
> made this erroneous statement (you know, the
> actual statement in quotes in my initial post).
> Insurance companies do not equate to the
> taxpayers. Whether it is right or wrong for them
> to have to cover it is a separate issue from
> whether tax money covers it.

Whether it not the money comes from tax payers or not doesnt really matter. The money will either come from tax payers, or increased charges in insurance coverage. Either way other people will be paying for a private service to someone else from a government mandate.

The same can be said for the where does it end quote, if they can force this presumably they could force more. To me it makes it worse that the money wouldnt be coming from tax payers but from other citizens. Its bad enough when the government wastes tax money, but then to take the next step and say well were going to require this to happen but we dont want to find the money for it so well just past the cost off on to everyone else but you still have to pay all your taxes even with this increased cost you put on you.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sure there are certain types that are cheap,
> but women often have to try several different
> birth control pills/patches/etc to find one that
> doesn't have side effects. Good job using google,
> but this is obviously a topic in which first hand
> knowledge is important.


True, but that said just because someone gets something doesnt mean they are aware of the cheapest place to get it from. Im sure theyre are a lot of women who would never think to go and price check at walmart for their birth control pills.

Either way I think the main point is that compared to a 60-90k a year law school, the cost of birth control pills is very marginal and something she could find the money for but cutting out an extra expense in her life. Its not like shes a struggling single mother whose barely able to put food on the table. If anyone is going to get help it should be someone like that, not someone who decided to go to one of the most expensive law schools in the country.

Also if she got into Gtown she almost certainly got into or could have gotten into another top law school with no religious affiliation at all where this wouldnt be an issue at all. She knew the religious affiliation of the school before she decided to attend and now wants them to change to fulfill her wants

Nevermind all this politics. More importantly, hot or not?

If "not", than, would you anyway? "Law student next door" maybe?

Lefty Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gotta love the way republicans bitch about the
> poor having too many kids but also don't want
> anybody to get abortions or have birth control.

Not true. When a local school was going to give out condoms and birth control I was all for it and I am a Republican. The less taxes I have to pay to support welfare babies the better off for me.
I see kids having babies at 14 and everyone knows the taxpayers will foot the bill to raise that kid when the mother is a child herself.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nevermind all this politics. More importantly, hot
> or not?

Her hair is kind of mangy. Looking at the spread of her jacket at the waist I suspect she may have a fat ass.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are a protestant
> working at a University or hospital owned by a
> Catholic organization, why should that entity have
> more rights to their religious beliefs than you do
> to yours as an individual?

Because they are private org and you have a choice of working or not working there. Them employing you is not their obligation, just like you're free not to work there.

^^ spoken like an attorney. impressive

Price Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you are a protestant
> > working at a University or hospital owned by a
> > Catholic organization, why should that entity
> have
> > more rights to their religious beliefs than you
> do
> > to yours as an individual?
>
> Because they are private org and you have a choice
> of working or not working there. Them employing
> you is not their obligation, just like you're free
> not to work there.


Practically speaking, a university or hospital employing thousands isn't going to be able to be that selective about who they employ.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Practically speaking, a university or hospital
> employing thousands isn't going to be able to be
> that selective about who they employ.


Depends where it is. Georgetown for example could, a place in a rural areas maybe not so much. A hospital would be harder just because of the requirements for some of the staff but a university could easily fill itself however it wanted to. Enough people have college degrees now

This girl was a plant so they could bring the issue up and distract us from the horrible job Obama is doing with the economy. There is nothing that is free - tax payers pick up the tab! She can go to Walmart and get her stuff for a very low amount annually.

Why should I pay for her to have sex! What about more important things like cancer drugs! I have cancer and believe me even with insurance the drugs are expensive. Am I asking for tax payers to give me stuff for free when my life is in danger? Get some perspective here everyone!

Near George Mason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This girl was a plant so they could bring the
> issue up and distract us from the horrible job
> Obama is doing with the economy. There is nothing
> that is free - tax payers pick up the tab! She can
> go to Walmart and get her stuff for a very low
> amount annually.
>
> Why should I pay for her to have sex! What about
> more important things like cancer drugs! I have
> cancer and believe me even with insurance the
> drugs are expensive. Am I asking for tax payers to
> give me stuff for free when my life is in danger?
> Get some perspective here everyone!

The taxpayer has nothing to do with this, idiot. She never called for taxpayer funding. Rush Blimpballs made that up. She wants it covered by insurance, just like hundreds of other drugs are covered. By your logic, every damn thing covered by insurance is suddenly taxpayer funded. And you are not paying for her to have sex, dumb ass. Are you paying for a guy to eat at McDonald's just because his cholesterol medication is covered by his insurance policy?

Dittohead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The taxpayer has nothing to do with this, idiot.
> She never called for taxpayer funding. Rush
> Blimpballs made that up. She wants it covered by
> insurance, just like hundreds of other drugs are
> covered. By your logic, every damn thing covered
> by insurance is suddenly taxpayer funded. And you
> are not paying for her to have sex, dumb ass. Are
> you paying for a guy to eat at McDonald's just
> because his cholesterol medication is covered by
> his insurance policy?


Before calling other people stupid you should make sure you are 100 percent correct which you are not even close.

She goes to a religious school. Religious organizations will not allow birth control to be in their plans. Obama is trying to force them too and she wants it to be in her plan from the religious school. His compromise was that the insurance company has to provide it for free.

The insurance companies will not provide anything for free. Even if they cant charge the school more for their insurance they will get the money back somewhere and will not just be eating the cost. It will either be paid for by tax dollars, or more likely by rate increases for everyone else. She is in fact asking for other people to pay for it.

It would be you who have proven to be the "dumb ass", but thanks for joining the conversation to call other people stupid when you dont know what you are talking about

Ms. Fluke goes to one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. Did Ms. Fluke pay her tuition out of pocket or through SALLY MAE?

What right is it of congress to mandate coverage? That's already a major cause of escalating premiums. Look at New York where sex change operation coverage is mandated by the state.

If she can afford to be a career student at GT @ 40,000 k tuition per year she shouldn't be worried about birth control costs. Remember she said it was a financial burden.

Otherwise if she is borrowing money from us which we have no guarantee of getting back, she needs to keep her legs crossed and graduate after 12 fucking years.

Rush is right. She is a slut

Lets put things in perspective.

First of all, Rush Limbo has no credibility. He has accomplished nothing, done nothing.Except talk.

But he did find an audience on the radio, and became quite skilled of supplying the rhetoric that this audience wants to hear.

It is a large audience,a bunch of old conservitive farts,and various other smaller douche groups, thus accounting for Rush's success.

But besides preaching to the conservitive choir, nothing of value comes from his yap.

He's a hypocritical baffoon, denouncing drugs while addicted to Oxycodin, and preaching morality while he marries 4 times and smuggles large amounts of Viagra from the Dominican Republic.

Why would anyone care what he says about anything? He doesn't even believe his own bullshit, he just gives a few million ultra conservitive douches what they want.

Save yourselves a lot of aggravation, and don't take seriously any opinion of a pandering, fat, impotent drug addict hypocrite.

I wish Rush's parents would of used birth control.

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets put things in perspective.
>
> First of all, Rush Limbo has no credibility. He
> has accomplished nothing, done nothing.Except
> talk.
>
> But he did find an audience on the radio, and
> became quite skilled of supplying the rhetoric
> that this audience wants to hear.
>
> It is a large audience,a bunch of old conservitive
> farts,and various other smaller douche groups,
> thus accounting for Rush's success.
>
> But besides preaching to the conservitive choir,
> nothing of value comes from his yap.
>
> He's a hypocritical baffoon, denouncing drugs
> while addicted to Oxycodin, and preaching morality
> while he marries 4 times and smuggles large
> amounts of Viagra from the Dominican Republic.
>
> Why would anyone care what he says about anything?
> He doesn't even believe his own bullshit, he just
> gives a few million ultra conservitive douches
> what they want.
>
> Save yourselves a lot of aggravation, and don't
> take seriously any opinion of a pandering, fat,
> impotent drug addict hypocrite.

+1,000!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm not concerned about the very poor." – Willard "Mitt" Romney, February 1, 2012

All I can say is I hope all you fuckers taking the sluts side on this has a daughter grow up to testify before congress and the whole world that she can't afford all the spermicide and morning after pills it takes her to keep from getting pregnant.

I'm sure all of you stupid fucks would be proud papa's and slut mama's

Looking at the slut's pic, I would say the men attending Georgetown should testify right behind her demanding insurance cover the incredible number of boner pills it would take to do her in the first place. Also free double lined paper bags.

I'm serious as shit about this.

For all the dumbass libtard men out there supporting this cunt what are you trying to prove? Wanna get with her? Bet you do!

It would be better if you would just stop being a faggot but that's unlikely.

For all the women who support her congratulations! you're all slutty little stinky cunts too!

Wow. This thread certainly reminds women that there are plenty of ignorant, hate-filled men out there who would undo any progress we've made over the past 40 years. This is a real wake-up call to women. And thanks for helping reelect Obama.

You Ignorant Asses Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. This thread certainly reminds women that
> there are plenty of ignorant, hate-filled men out
> there who would undo any progress we've made over
> the past 40 years. This is a real wake-up call to
> women. And thanks for helping reelect Obama.


If by progress you mean the ability to be bigtime sluts, you'd be correct.