Viagra is a gateway drug.

And when it comes to the tea party.That is nothing more than the same thing that they hijaked from the Independents.Together they make up what they call themselfs,the "libertairans".The libertairians hijacked the Independet which was the Independent party and called it the tea party so that they could continue playing swap the mentally inept funds as usuall.Refering of themselfs as libertairians rather than Independents.The libertairian puts on a front that they are against government and their is just freedom and fun for all.They claim that the Independent is "In-dependent" on each other(which it is in a normal society and a true meaning of a government by the people for the people of the people and doesn't separate the government as elected "officials" only.that the Independent are just another government-which the libertairian is so venimously against.So venimoulsy against that is untill they need assistants with finances,health care and most of all protection which you will then find them humping on the establishments leg like some little inbreaded ankle bitting dog.
Libtards the both of them.As they laugh all the way to the bank..................the one that closed quite a bit-ago,that is.As they argue(not debate)over "big government and small government".Both of which is the same size,just refered to diffrent.Just them.You'll never hear them say A government.Only That the elected officials are the government.

The "tea party".Sounds like they are insinuating that we are kicking out the Britts and against Monarchy.However,this isn't 1700's and the unprofessional theatrics that they insist on playing does nothing more than waist money and take away from the real issue.Independents and.........A Government.

Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a puppet of the left.Nothing more than a plot of the two monopoly parties swinging their money back and forth in a conspricy to rip off the American people.
First of all,when a so called right wing money stringint person looses track of math and money(guess what?they are no longer a right wing money man republican as they say.They become the morons just as their constituants on the left complete with the same protections of the inept that the left so stringintly maintains.Then they just swap the back and forth with no one else seeing any of all this money other than the constiturunts.And then(drum roll............they laugh all the way to the bank at all you idiots that got played.

westorbust
Here is a video of the idiot/misogynist that you and the left (including Obama and the WH) defend.....(WARNING for Language).

http://youtu.be/5ISKQD7ytSk

wislady, if you think Maher is the voice of the "left", you don't spend much time listening to him.

gandalf your take on voting out "a" politician based on signing a contract defeats the purpose, it was already signed. There are hundreds of separate union contracts negotiated and signed throughout this state. All of them are not made public until signed when it is too late to stop waste and onerous work rules that once entered into contracts are near impossible to remove without other add-ins to replace what the union defends as contract reductions and the press releases that follow; for example the union owned health insurance demands. The process has been stacked for decades and has led to what we have today. I have never declared public employees shouldn’t be paid well and offered a great wage but the whole system of contracts is a decayed process that has long ago begun to stink; much like the tax system and the IRS. Defending the failures just suspends reality. All voters should insist on corrections to a wasteful and costly process that does not serve the tax payers, the administrators, or the employees.

RAF -- Maybe all public union contracts should be voted on by referrendum. After all, its the taxpayers paying the bill. If a community wants to pay more, they will approve it. If not, well, the union employees can chose another career. Put the power back into the hands of the public and take it away from the politicians.

RAF:
ABSOLUTELY AGREED!
Many will site how drugs will lead to domestic violence. Fine, then make arrests for the actual act of domestic violence. When you make laws that try to enforce behavioral choices, it has been shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN to NEVER WORK. You make laws to protect people from having their liberties, well being, and privacy, violated by others. Making laws to dictate ones behavior is not just an intrusion upon ones own liberty (principals that our country was founded upon), but something that has never worked thorough out the history of man.

Kiow along these same lines of liberty any law created to protect a person from themselves is a bad practice. Laws should only be made to protect a person from others, limitations to personal choice is always a bad thing.

"By the way, I should point out that a true libertarian would accept legalized prostitution and remove all stigma from it. You're free to be free, except when "we" tell you that you can't be "free"."
.
Absolutely.
Myself, and all libertarians, have held that position, and have never wavered on it. Not just prostitution, but drugs, and gambling to boot. All these vices just empower organized crime. It's why we have a mega problem on the boarder now (all driven by drug trafficking), and over 95% of the multi BILLION $$'s of gambling on sporting events, done illegally. The libertarian position is one of TRUE liberty, without big brother telling you what you can and cannot do in your personal life.

Vat your comments are very correct. This whole issue has never been over the comments made it is only about what blowhard said them, typical of the left wing.

Gandalf your retort on union comparison state v federal is laughable. Many of the federal employees are forbidden by law to organize. A perceived hindrance from direct withdrawal from a paycheck is easily fixed by these same people letting the union direct draw from an account of choosing from most financial institutions, again just more empty rhetoric. I love the continued claim the "unions" were going to agree to pay more when not one ever did. The largest problem with public unions in this state has always been closed negotiations, from the tax payers, and onerous work rules; thankfully half of this has been corrected.

bowlgal: If you voted for Walker, you have not voted left. Based on your views, I would respectfully label you a DINO. Your views are so right, it would suggest you are playing with us on this blog. You're a rightie, playing with us, correct?

westorbust
Very relevant....it shows the hypocrisy.

"I enjoy Maher at times, at times he goes too far. Mr. Limbaugh and Maher are both entertainers"

and then you go on to......

"The fact of the matter is that Limbaugh is reduced to being a mouthpiece for the elite and corporate right-wing and will say anything as long as he can get away with it."

And WHO is the mouth of the left?

My post regarding Maher (donated 1 Million to Obama SuperPac) proves it.

Democrats sign Bill Maher for fundraiser

By the way, I should point out that a true libertarian would accept legalized prostitution and remove all stigma from it. You're free to be free, except when "we" tell you that you can't be "free".

Yes, wislady! Deflect the issue by bringing up someone else entirely unrelated to the issue! Par for the course, hole in one, touchdown, you win the game, now we can all go home happy and wiser.

I enjoy Maher at times, at times he goes too far. Mr. Limbaugh and Maher are both entertainers. Obviously people are more up in arms over the "moral" right, claiming to be "morally" right, leveling absurd and nasty things solely to get ratings, and in turn, rake in the cash. It's perfectly within a person's right petition sponsors to let them know their displeasure with whomever they are advertising with. Righties do it all the time. The fact of the matter is that Limbaugh is reduced to being a mouthpiece for the elite and corporate right-wing and will say anything as long as he can get away with it. The only reason he apologized was to retain sponsors, and the vast majority or right winger "moral" crusaders agree with him. What a scary proposition for America.

PERFECT!

Democrats sign Bill Maher for fundraiser as Obama urges civility

Alabama’s Democratic Party has recruited controversial comedian Bill Maher to headline a fundraiser March 17, amid calls by President Barack Obama and other Democrats for greater civility in public debate.

Maher has donated $1 million to aid a superPAC that is aiding Obama’s re-election campaign. He is popular among Democrats, but is reviled by many GOP advocates for his frequent sexually-themed insults of Republican women.

Last March, for example, he called Gov. Sarah Palin a “c*nt” during a live show in Texas and a “dumb twat” during his HBO TV show.

The Alabama Democratic Party’s website advertises the Maher fund raiser. Ticket prices are $100.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/democr...

RAF, what is painfully clear (and once again so ironic) is your 3:30 post. You are apparently more concerned about who is posting the "faux disgust" than what they say and at the same time complaining about them only caring about who says it. I'll ask you once again (as I recently did on another story) "don't you see the irony of your own statement?" Thanks again for the entertainment. Anyone who won't state their disgust for Rush's comments is just as disgusting as he is.

yada, why would a state gov bargain with a union? The state gov doesn't sign any union contracts (that I am aware of). Allowing state and local govt employees the CHOICE to belong to a union I don't think was a bad idea. Having these same employees pay more for healthcare is nothing more than the current president has suggested for members of the military and retires, I also don't have an issue with, but none of the crying crowd has mentioned anything over this either. This whining is nothing more than partisan wrangling and has nothing to do with consistent issues or positions. The ironic part of all of these terrible changes (sarcasm intended) our state and local public employees still have more bargaining rights than most federal employees working for the current president. If you fail to grasp the irony I’ll spell it out for you. Under Walker state workers have more bargaining rights than federal workers under Obama but the dems are only crying about Walker. As I stated, the whining is nothing more than partisan wrangling and has nothing to do with consistent issues or positions.

RAF - Great video of your buddy Walker on the internet. It shows Walker during his campaign explaining PRIOR to being elected that he promised to sit down with unions and bargain with them over pension and health care plans. Check it out any site you would like - you decide which one so you can see the lies. His audience was the editorial board of the Oshkosh Northwestern. Looks like more than a little lie from Walker. He once again deceived the public and is not being honest. WWJD --> Not what Scott Walker is doing.

RAF - Got your BIGGEST shovel out today...lol

Truly funny watching the faux disgust by posters who are then silent when other media members state disrespectful slurs. Clearly shows what really bothers some people is not what is said but only who says it.

My favorite Fake apology ever was given by John "sly" Sylvester when he made national headlines for comparing Condaleeza Rice "Aunt Jemima" for being a subserviant black woman. Then he goes on national TV shows(hannity) and apologizes.....TO AUNT JEMIMA(A fictional Charecter!!) If your gonna make a fake apology then be loud about it!!
One he made was to Keefisch about her cancer and calling her a whore. I though that was completely out of line, and he apologized to the lieutennant Gov in person.
Unfortunately people on TV/radio have simply gained too much power and sway nearly as many voters as the candidates do!!

It's also amazing how many of these radio blowhards say something pathetic, then right away say they FULLY STAND BY IT, then when advertisers bail....OH, NOW APOLOGIZE!It happened with that clown Don Imus, when he made pathetic comments about woman basketball players. That clown over in Milwaukee (Mark Belling) making racist comments about Mexicans. As well as countless other radio show hosts, who have made similar objectionable comments. I'm surly not saying one cannot make those comments. Free speech gives you that right. Just don't be running back to the mic with a phoney apology when the masses turn against your bigotry.

fear&rhetoric:
Apologies are fine, if they are truly hard felt. I myself, have made comments that I have later regretted. I think most who post on these blogs have at some time. If I ever feel a need to apologize, I do so, TRULY meaning it. With Rush, it's OBVIOUS the apology was a total FARCE! It was obviously given, just so he would not lose MEGA $$$'s from his advertising empire. If no company threatened to pull there ads, we all know there would have been ZERO apology. This action makes it even MORE deplorable in my mind. As it's clear that he only cares about his comments being out of line, if it involves the diminished of his muti-million $$'s of wealth.

Funny thing is its not the "liberals" who need to forgive him its the sponsors running from his radio show. Maybe Rush will think twice next time he decides to act like a pig in public, I doubt it, I hope not, but he should. He looks really really bad here, and I love watching conservatives and Fox news setting up fake straw man arguments to try to defend him. Fair and Balanced?

No one should apologize for anything, 1st amendment. Rush is entitled to his free-speech. Now because of him opening his pie hole, he is in trouble sponsor wise. Maher shouldnt be silenced or apologize, none of them should. Unless it causes someone else danger. Otherwise , I say go ahead, at least then we know what they really feel!
Rush obviously wants his tax dollars to pay for sluts having sex on the internet so he can watch! Its his right, and good for im. Just another terrible statement by a very bad man.
Free speech is important so we can see what people are really feeling, Rush, Maher any of them. Id rather hear them tell the truth than put on a front.

It is a clue that this silliness has gone on too long....when Maher comments via Twitter:

Bill Maher ‏ @billmaher

Hate to defend #RushLimbaugh but he apologized, liberals looking bad not accepting. Also hate intimidation by sponsor pullout

""
....such hate on display. You sound like you need some professional help.

""

You knnow wislady I was saying the same thing about you. Pot meet kettle.

""Obamacare won't even allow me a mammogram until I'm 50. "" Really hadntheard that one, could you please post proof? Looking forward to reading.
My insurance covers Vasectomes and mammograms for my wife, since we are in our mid-30s bowlgal how can that be true? Again looking forward to hearing any kind of proof that you may have.
I also would like any of you to refute any of the facts that I put forth, and trust me thos absolutely WILL be centerpoints of his campaign. If you honestly think that this contraception fight will decide the election, you might want to settle down. What I dont understand is why conservatives are so intent on digging their heels in on this one, its a losing issue for them and women are RUNNING from them. Not the entrenched right wingers that never have, or never will vote any other letter, but the independants. Obama is taking the women independants by almost 20 points! Women are 51% of the vote!! Not a very bright move by the repubs here, time to change focus. This is the worst field of candidates in a presidential election, EVER(including the president).
Another incumbent that should get wiped out that will win another term(Bush 2004)

Motorman
I never said the language was acceptable, where did you get that?

There is a double standard though, and that is a separate issue.

How about trying to vilify the numerous people who have tried to argue that some people have the right to talk that way?

"The mouthpiece of the so-called Republican party deserves to be purged, as does his party. That's the only way the party back can get back to its true conservative roots. Radio stations that continue to broadcast his hatefulness should be boycotted, just like the companies that sponsor him. That's called using the power of the people."

Regarding the statement above, is it only conservatives who need to apologize for foul language? Talking about"purging" republicans....such hate on display. You sound like you need some professional help.

SarahB1
And I am not about to pablum feed someone who is to lazy to read what I said earlier.

Read and learn.

Our insurance does pay for vasectomies and viagra but not contraceptives? Now why would any women vote republican after this? Since now you know what the male republicans think of you.

Rush could never make enough nasty comments to catch up with some of those vicious mouths on MSNBC

I doubt it Wislady. No one in the press conference today even bothers to ask that question. Why would they? They are bias.

Obamacare doesn't pay for a vasectomy. It's that a war on men? Isn't it a war on women to put it all on them? Contraceptions as in the pill puts weight on women. Isn't that a war on women's health. Why is the Democrat party pushing poor health by forcing, mandating contraceptions such as the pill by religious employers?
War on religion. War war war on the American public-all Democrats.

Bowlgal

We will see if Obama gives back the millionddollars that potty mouth Maher donated.

Why does the daily show have no words from Bill Maher that pig. Obamacare won't even allow me a mammogram until I'm 50. War on women? Democrats are completely in charge of that war.
Words and actions.

Then explain to me why he won't run on his record if what you say is true.

""
Run on your record Obama. Run on your record.
See how far that gets you.
""

24 months of consecutive private sector job growth after the worst recession in the nations history? Getting the USA out of Iraq? Out of Afghanistan? Osama Bin Laden is DEAD!! Which part should he run on? Just wondering?

Like I keep saying to all of you haters of the president. DO you really think Romney is the guy? I mean George Bush won re-election , and this Field of candidates makes John Kerry look like FDR. So again, while Obama hasnt had the presidency I had hoped he would, he certainly will be getting a second term. Not because he has earned it, but because of the republicans FAILURE to provide a candidate worth voting for.

BTW- do you all love Rush's contention that he should be able to watch her have sex on the internet? Like JS said , the man is just human waste, a bad person, hypocrite, etc....
You get mad about INSURANCE companies(not govt, not the taxpayer) are mandated to cover this. And you say "I" shouldnt have to pay for this? I shouldnt have to "pay" for Iraq, or "pay" for Afghanistan,oil subsidies, or the millions of programs I dont agree with as well. Get over it, its birth control, that isnt always used to control Birth. Love the insert of the video from Stew beef catching all of the Foxies repeating themselves(identical rhetoric).
How is it that Syewart seems to get the better of EVERY single host, show, on the most "powerful name in news". Hilarious!! Wonder why Hannity or Beck are afraid of him? I dont!! Just watch Stewart make fools of them all is priceless!! Especially Megyn Kelly and Billy Oreilly!

This is the by far the best take on El Rushbo. Leave it to a comical satirist to tell us all how it is. Watch the video and let me see you tell me where its wrong, Ill wait.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ma...

Run on your record Obama. Run on your record.
See how far that gets you.

Yes, I am very much for real. The only Republican I have voted for in years was Paul Ryan and I did vote for Walker as I did not like Barrett. Once the unions muscled in and I started really looking into the Obama Administration, I was extremely insulted that my intelligence has been so mocked by the left for so long. They don't respect me. And now to say there is a war on women by the right? Please, how stupid does the left think voters are? Women make up 1/2 the population. Republicans aren't at war, the Democrats are. They must be in deep trouble election wise. It's insulting and ridiculous.

Bowlgal: For real? I have a feeling you never were very left! Also, I will match you Dem to Repub on nasty things said. Go ahead!

Rush was out of line. However, I have heard much worse from the Democrats and have rejected this party in the last year from the foul and filth and slam power of the unions put upon the people. Lies are clearly visible once I really opened my eyes and started digging instead of taking on face value.

The only point to inject into this silly argument: However you wish to paint this magical happytime picture of the freebe du jour, you still end up paying for it. Make your employer pay more to cover X, they will then reduce your compensation in area Y. Or do you folks believe that the employer is there to make your life happy instead of to make a profit? Maybe to go along with more civics classes in school we need to add acounting.

My mom needed some serious pain killers at the end of her life. Her insurance covered them for her situation. Does that mean an insurance company should cover them for all situations NO. That is the problem with government mandated health care

wislady,
The difference between you (conservative) and myself (liberal).
.
I am willing to admit when "my side" is wrong. Example: SLY IS SCUM... AGREED!
.
Meanwhile you defend and deflect what Rush did.
.
See, you partisan republican/conservatives will put party ahead of right vs wrong... I won't.

Scum Sly makes the big time news......

Wisc. Radio Jockey: ‘I’m Gonna Pour Round-Up on Breitbart’s Grave’

http://freebeacon.com/wisc-radio-jockey-...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will...

This is exactly why the "outrage" on the left about Limbaugh is so fake. It's common language for them.

From the article "People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say" at [ http://www.livescience.com/18706-people-... ]: "The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it. But a growing body of research has revealed an unfortunate aspect of the human psyche that would seem to disprove this notion, and imply instead that democratic elections produce mediocre leadership and policies. The research, led by David Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University, shows that incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people, or the quality of those people's ideas."

I had been debating Dunning's premise on another site and had actually quoted many of the same Gazettextra posters who are too incompetent to comprehend the facts surrounding this story in support of my argument favoring Dunning's premise. After witnessing even more of the incompetence on the subject being covered here, despite numerous references to the testimony of the woman, the transcript of Limbaugh and the initiative the woman was testifying in support of, I am more sure than ever of my support for Dunning's premise. The dumbing down of America is alive and well and it's being led by those who are unwilling to educate and inform themselves and those who are unwilling to think for themselves.

joker said, "What makes you think they will buy it through COBRA? Why wont they buy it? Because they are covered by Badgercare and that is free for them."

It makes no difference if they buy it or not, or if they are covered by Badgercare. Badgercare is NOT AN EMPLOYER. A Badgercare recipient is NOT AN EMPLOYEE. Badgercare is NOT subject to the initiative this article is discussing. On to your next MOOT POINT...

At $10 a month my copay wouldn't even cover it.

SQUIRREL!

More than half of the people I work with don't even buya the insurance offered by my employer. What makes you think they will buy it through COBRA? Why wont they buy it? Because they are covered by Badgercare and that is free for them.

joker said, "Poobah when you MANDATE something on an insurance company you thereby MANDATE the taxpayers pay for the same for those who are unemployed or recieving government assistance."

ABSOLUTELY, UTTERLY FALSE! When someone loses their job they are entitled, in most cases, to continue their insurance for a short period of time under COBRA. COBRA requires the UNEMPLOYED PERSON TO PAY for the policy. You can not cite one federal or state law that says the TAXPAYERS pay for the SAME INSURANCE BENEFITS that an unemployed worker had while they were working. People receiving unemployment or assistance ARE NOT EMPLOYEES and the states are NOT THEIR EMPLOYERS and they are therefore NOT COVERED BY THIS INITITIATIVE!

Poobah when you MANDATE something on an insurance company you thereby MANDATE the taxpayers pay for the same for those who are unemployed or recieving government assistance. Repeat it all you want maybe then you will finally see the error in your statement

joker said, "poobah How is it not about taxpayer dollars?"

Read the testimony!!! We're talking about Sandra Fluke's testimony in SUPPORT of the initiative that would require EMPLOYERS to cover the costs of contraceptives in the PRIVATE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE policies THEY provide to their employees. POLICIES THAT ARE NOT, I REPEAT, ARE NOT PAID FOR WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS!!! How dense does one have to be to not recognize it does not involve taxpayer dollars???

I REPEAT, THE POLICIES ARE NOT PAID FOR WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, but by the EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYEES.

I REPEAT!!! THE POLICIES ARE NOT PAID FOR WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, NOT PAID FOR WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

Advertising experts say a person needs to hear something 17 times before they remember it. I think that's now about 23 times I've said that. I guess the advertising experts never came across the likes of joker, Midnight_Ride, wislady and FUTP.

poobah How is it not about taxpayer dollars? How many in this country get taxpayer funded free medical care? I dont agree with Rushs' cmments but my question is still there What kind of medication is actually a need. To use a few examples where a certain medication maybe needed, to blindly cover that medication or mandate it for all. Wrong.

why_think, let us not forget how Sly attacked Rebecca Kleefisch. Was the left outraged? NO, only cheered. poobah, can you say hypocrisy yet?

poobah, My crackers are for you. Can you repeat the word hypocrisy?
I think you can!
Again, the issue is President Obama's unconstitutional mandates. But I know you left wingers want to avoid the real issues of his failed policies. Understandable.

whythink: Sly talks like Rush, but Rush does it more and has for a longer time.
I truly don't believe Rush is for real. He speaks like a bully, and that attracts people who are afraid. I'm not sure he really believes several of his Conservative beliefs. I think he has more in common with Howard Stern: say it and see the bucks. I believe he is a struggling, insecure guy, multi-millionaire or not.

wislady,
Sly is a digusting pig. I have no idea why he has lasted on the radio this long. He should have been fired years ago. He is an obnoxious shock-jock and to use him as a representative from the left is insulting.
.
It is obvious from your comments you watched Hannity last night but failed to read the transcripts of the testimony.
.
BTW, Bill Maher's comments were wrong and he should have apologized. That said, the reson for the double-standard is the "excellence in broadcasting", the "half my brain tied behind my back", the "like them" comment.
.
If you constantly state you are better than this, rip the other side when they do it and then offer a "I acted like them" apology. You should be ripped a new one. You should lose advertisers. Any honest person would not except that. The right wing will because like much of the left (like most ignorant partisans) they lack a backbone.

wislady, you have had many opportunities to answer four simple questions related to your inaccurate characterization of someone advocating for healthcare reform. Your unwillingness to do so speaks volumes about the lack of credibility of your characterization.

I am not understanding the obsession poobah has with this "victim".

Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance

http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gende...

wislady said, "This woman is a fake victim."

I have 4 questions for you, wislady, and would appreciate you answering each one individually.

1) A fake victim of what, wislady?

2) What is wrong with a person in America advocating for healthcare reform?

3) What is your objection to advocacy for healthcare reform -- moral, ethical, legal?

4) Do you think insurance company lobbyists advocating for healthcare reform on behalf of the insurance companies they represent while lobbying Congress is wrong?

That last comment is incorrectly attributed to FUTP and should be Midnight_Ride. Although, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two.

FUTP said, "Only we (conservatives) don't try to silence free speech by threatening advertisers."

Choosing to let companies know you are not going to purchase services or goods from them, for any reason, IS FREE SPEECH! FUTP, want a cracker?

poobah- How much is your "parrot food". Seems you have nothing but regergated material on this site. Read my first post before you insert foot up your behind.
Fluke is an activist. A pawn or player in the game the Dems are playing with the President's unconstitutional mandates. Yet I see you are part of the parroting left that can't discuss the real issue here and that is the President's dictator reach.
Will he return Bill Maher's million dollars since he calls Palin a c**t? Where was her phone call? Or Letterman's attack on Palin's daughter? Where was her phone call?
That's right, Rush dropped to your sickening level. Only we (conservatives) don't try to silence free speech by threatening advertisers.
Free speech is still free speech, even if it is Bill Maher.

wislady, Congress members often hold hearings in their districts or at the capitol and these are considered hearings before Congress. They have the full effect and import of hearings before full committees conducted at the capitol. Now, let me refocus you back to my four questions for you:

wislady said, "This woman is a fake victim."

I have 4 questions for you, wislady, and would appreciate you answering each one individually.

1) A fake victim of what, wislady?

2) What is wrong with a person in America advocating for healthcare reform?

3) What is your objection to advocacy for healthcare reform -- moral, ethical, legal?

4) Do you think insurance company lobbyists advocating for healthcare reform on behalf of the insurance companies they represent while lobbying Congress is wrong?

poobah

I am giving you FACTS, I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

Except this, to show how left wing medica gets a pass....

Wisconsin's leading progressive radio host cheers Breitbart's death, incites despicable comments

MILWAUKEE - Last week Andrew Breitbart, a respected and controversial conservative journalist, suddenly passed away near his home in California. The death of a pioneer in conservative new media led to an outpouring of sympathy to his family and friends. In Wisconsin, Breitbart's death was met with jubilation from the state's leading progressive radio show host, John "Sly" Sylvester.

Following the breaking news last Thursday of the conservative journalist's death, Sylvester engaged in a 20 minute rant punctuated only by calls from callers joining him in his tirade of hateful, disturbing rhetoric cheering the death. "I'm glad he is dead," Sylvester enthused. He went on to say that he would pour weed killer on Breitbart's grave to prevent a resurrection, "I can kill him like the weed that he was."

Sly also compared Breitbart to Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni terrorist, and Kim Jung Il. "Andrew Breitbart is working on the forces of evil pushing for starvation camps," he said.

http://wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article...

wislady, I asked for your response to four specific questions. A bunch of copy pasta doesn't serve that purpose.

poobah

If you are referring to her "testimony" on Feb 23, it was NOT before Congress.

"Fluke was the sole witness who appeared on Feb. 23 before an all-Democratic panel chaired by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)"
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-...

Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist
Mar 4, 2012 10:00 AM EST
Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

(and just for you)

"The grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...

Another note....$9 a month BC costs do NOT add up to $3,000.00 over 3 years.

$9/Mo. Birth Control Pills Available at Target 3 Miles from Georgetown Law

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/birth-control/...

http://nation.foxnews.com/birth-control/...

Is Obama going to return the $1 Million that Maher donated to his SuperPac?

nemesis, I'm waiting for you to give us the paragraph(s) from the Fluke testimony where, as you claim, she demanded that taxpayers pay for her to have illicit sex.

nemesis, you understand it as well as you understood the issue at hand in your 8:35 p.m. post last night. I invite you and others to reread that post and my 8:50 p.m. reply to it.

poobah - I not only have comprehension but understanding of it. I also understand what you and others like you want to do with the constitution and our country. This woman is a extreme left wing activist who is bent on changing the country including Georgetown to her socialist version. You poobah and others are helping her cause.

nemesis, what's even more amazing is your previous comment that was TOTALLY wrong. And more amazing than that is your lack of comprehension about our Constitution. Something, like Fluke's testimony, I'm sure you've never read in its entirety.

It is very amazing seeing the discussion here that many people would simply throw our constitution in the trash heap just so this woman can have her birth control pills or condoms.

joker, you are a joker and have NOT read the testimony of this woman despite it being made available numerous times. This is NOT about your TAXPAYER DOLLARS!! This is about insurance policies offered by employers covering contraceptives. Get it? How many times do you need to be told, read the testimony!

Kiowamohican, I had more faith in you than for you to get sucked down the diversion of this being about taxpayers dollars. That was Limbaugh's CREATION and malicious characterization of her testimony. READ the testimony and stop this taxpayer dollars nonsense

wislady, awaiting your answers to my four questions.

joker:
Yes, pretty much.
Once you become an entitlement society, then everyone wants a piece of the pie. No one wants to be the one who just pays in to support everyone else. Once everyone else around you starts 'getting stuff' it becomes natural for people to then want THEIR piece of the pie as well.. Just look over in Europe. A lot of the stuff you mentioned is indeed governmnet subsidized, and why many of those countries are on the verge of total financial collapse.

I ask one question what is kind of medication is needed. Should my tax dollars pay for birth control, a glass of wine per day (some doctors claim its good for the heart) medical marijauna (went to my class reunuion a few years ago and everyone that moved to Cali has that) I get headaches, buy asprin. Cigarettes help calm my nerves will you buy them also?

wislady said, "This woman is a fake victim."

I have 4 questions for you, wislady, and would appreciate you answering each one individually.

1) A fake victim of what, wislady?

2) What is wrong with a person in America advocating for healthcare reform?

3) What is your objection to advocacy for healthcare reform -- moral, ethical, legal?

4) Do you think insurance company lobbyists advocating for healthcare reform on behalf of the insurance companies they represent while lobbying Congress is wrong?

From: [ http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co... ]

Before you can join the Laurens County Republican Party in South Carolina and get on the primary ballot, they ask that you pledge that you’ve never ever had pre-marital sex — and that you will never ever look at porn again.

- You must favor, and live up to, abstinence before marriage.

- You must be faithful to your spouse. Your spouse cannot be a person of the same gender, and you are not allowed to favor any government action that would allow for civil unions of people of the same sex.

- You cannot now, from the moment you sign this pledge, look at pornography.

I understand they are having problems finding any qualified candidates...

Ms. Fluke has been a very busy young woman, even trying to get insurance companies to pay for the gender reassignment process, back in 2001. This woman is a fake victim.

Sandra Fluke, Gender Reassignment, and Health Insurance – Transcript

Here is an excerpt of Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons appearing in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law’s Annual Review 2001 between pages 635 and 637 edited by Sandra Fluke and Karen Hu:

http://thecollegepolitico.com/sandra-flu...

I ask everyone to READ the testimony of Sandra Fluke. [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/81978568/Testi... ] The characterization of her and her testimony by people like Limbaugh and nemesis are obviously either from never having read her testimony (ignorance) or from deliberately and maliciously characterizing her testimony.

Ms. Fluke was testifying in support of the recent initiatives to require all employers to provide contraceptive coverage as a part of their healthcare insurance plans. Her testimony, and the initiative she was speaking in support of, has nothing to do with taxpayer dollars funding contraceptives.

If you disagree with the initiative, fine, we can debate the initiative. But please stop the ignorant and/or malicious characterizations about Ms. Fluke and her testimony!

nemesis said, "From her testimony it is obvious that a graduate student demanding taxpayers fund illicit sex is nutty."

Please point SPECIFICALLY to the paragraph(s) in Sandra Fluke's testimony where she demanded that TAXPAYERS fund ILLICIT sex. If you can't do that, then admit your statement was nothing more than more malicious rhetoric. Here's a link to a transcript of Sandra Fluke's testimony to facilitate your research. [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/81978568/Testi... ]

From her testimony it is obvious that a graduate student demanding taxpayers fund illicit sex is nutty.

Good twist Midnight. What JCK stated was not "silence the man with his death" which seems quite threatening,so much as saying death would silence the man.

I'm with Dwight....

Monday afternoon Limbaugh said, "“In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them. Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong, I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them.”

Just hours later, Midnight_Ride parroted, "Rush did fall to the name calling level of the left."

Seems the price of parrot food is the ability to think for yourself. Limbaugh's error was his own ignorant and malicious comment, not that of becoming anyone else. Believe me, after the comments Limbaugh made about Fluke, he would have to climb a ladder to reach the level of the slimiest Democrat. [ http://rncnyc2004.blogspot.com/2012/03/r... ]

SarahB1
Mar 5, 2012 at 10:58 a.m.
Rush is an idiot
Just because he called someone a name? Isn't idiot a name? What does that make you?

JCK, as I said and thank you for proving my point. Silence the man with his death.
Beautiful! The left and their way of thinking.

I have noticed the left no longer want to talk about the Presidents unconstitutional mandate. That the left used this card carrying liberal activist to play shell games with the public. Rush did fall to the name calling level of the left. If the left was really outraged, Bill whats his name would not still be on TV (HBO), as well as Ed Schultz or David Letterman, etc etc.
Hypocrisy and double standards on full display yet again.
Rush was right again and even Barbara Walters warned the left of threatening advertisers to muzzle the right.
...Freedom of speech as well as Religious freedom are both in jeopardy with this administration.
This is STILL on issue of on unconstitutional mandate dictated by a socialist President. As much as the left want to do a majic trick of distraction.

The world will be a better place the day Rush Limbaugh no longer walks on it's surface.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/20120305000...
.
Nothing to do with this article but I had to share. Just watch the video. It will shock you. I am no fan of Fox but this was still shocking to me.
.
Sorry, I just had to share on an active discussion. The conversation can be moved to the article last week about gas prices.
THX

This guy is the definition of COWARD!
.
He spent the first few minutes of his show today blaming LIBERALS for what he said. His apology was, "I acted like a liberal" when I said those two words.
.
What a COWARD!
.
BTW, he also said if you lower yourself to your enemies standards the enemy wins.... Here, he is the ultimate hypocrite. Why doesn't he believe in that when it comes to torture or the patriot act? How about apologizing for the burning of the Koran?
.
Each of those examples he believes in acting like the enemy. Torture becomes legal and apologies aren't necessary.
.
He is a pathetic coward who has made millions off the ignorant. He isn't the only one... the left has a few examples as well.
.
BTW, I said for years that this guy was a shock jock (Howard Stern) with a tie and come-over. He was complaining about the double-standard. If he had embraced the "shock jock" label he likely would have been ignored.. and not made as much $$$$. The probllem for Rush is he claims to be educated, fair, smart... all-knowing with standards and ethics on his side. Then when busted.... he cowardly blames the left for not being as great as he is. PATHETIC!

Sorry, Janesvillan, I wasn't attempting to defend nor excuse what Rush (or Bill) said, it was a mere observation. That said, it's nice to know that necause defamation of public figures may be acceptable under some guiseof the law that it's then ok to do so. Neither should have said what they did, but alas they are both "entertainment", albeit a sorry excuse for it.

DwightKSchrute, you may have noticed that the law provides different remedies for public figures than it does for private citizens. That said, "the other side does it too!" is a colossally childish defense that exposes your own hypocrisy as much as anyone else's.

Ha! He is far from an "idiot". The man makes $28 million dollars / year (not $400 million as some have said - that was a full contract amount). Moreover, he has done it in the private sector, unlike how politicians make (steal) money. And I did not support his poor word choices last week so don't go there.

Ezoner -- That is a bit of an oversimplification of the issue. Are you really suggesting that a person should not take employment based on the fact that they disagree with the employer on an issue. If that were the best strategy, few people would have jobs.

What is striking about this whole debate is that we live in a country where many people regularly differ on the beliefs of Catholics. Yet, few would suggest that the church does no good. It is the fact that these organizations offer many opportunities to make a positive impact that draws people to them.

At the heart of this issue is whether or not an organization's beliefs allow them the right to limit the type of medical care that they will cover simply because they practice a certain type of religion. Ultimately, it is an issue of power and control.

Yes, the government has taken the stance that birth-control should be covered by insurance. Yet, we have people that are now trying to get out of that obligation because they don't want people getting that treatment. The more this gets talked about, the more it becomes a case of 'I don't want to, here's my excuse'.

What is to keep the church from using this tactic to discriminate against anything else they do not promote?

I mean, it isn't as if they have ever taken a wrong stance on any other issue, have they?

To me, the arguement is fairly simple. Do not attend a catholic university, do not use a catholic hospital, do not work for a religious organization. I believe it is the organizations right to determine whether they will cover contratceptives. I also believe that women and men have the right to not use the services nor work for those companies. Its a free world. I would not ask someone to do something against their core principles, and would not expect someone that disagrees with those principles to be forced to be employed nor utilize those services.

Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn't be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt's amendment, Sen. Rubio's bill, or Rep. Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.

When this exception does exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals, because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, a woman's health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.

In 65 percent of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms.

For my friend and 20 percent of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verification of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay. So, clearly, polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.

After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.

I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period, she'd been in the emergency room. She'd been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, "It was so painful I'd woke up thinking I'd been shot."

Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.

On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor's office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.

Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old.

Finally, Limbaugh claimed that Fluke and supporters of the Obama administration's policy "want the contraception free." The idea that Fluke and other Georgetown students want something for nothing is silly.

The annual cost of Georgetown's student health insurance this year was $1,895.

These students are already paying plenty for their insurance. Asking that a health care product as ubiquitous as hormonal birth control be covered under an already costly plan is not unreasonable.

As libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh noted on his blog:

The logic makes no sense. There's nothing substantive in common between being paid to have sex, and having contraceptives be provided by a health plan. (Would you call a man a gigolo because he uses a condom that he got for free from some university giveaway?) The allegation that somehow Ms. Fluke is "having so much sex" strikes me as misunderstanding the way birth control pills work: You have to take them all the time even if you're having sex only rarely, and even if you're having sex with only one person (I mention this because the implication seems to me that Ms. Fluke is being promiscuous).

And second, Fluke's testimony wasn't about sex. Much of her testimony was about women who take birth control for medical reasons, rather than as a contraceptive, including the story of a friend who was taking birth control to prevent cysts from growing on her ovaries and ultimately had to have an ovary removed:

A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy.

Limbaugh's Justification For Attacking Fluke Is Nonsense
March 05, 2012 11:14 am ET by Chelsea Rudman

Rush Limbaugh's ugly attacks on Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke have centered on the idea that she -- and other women who think birth control should be covered by health insurance -- "wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences." For support, Limbaugh has referenced a CNS News blog post by CNS communications director Craig Bannister that's headlined "Sex-Crazed Co-Eds Going Broke Buying Birth Control, Student Tells Pelosi Hearing Touting Freebie Mandate."

The blog post obsessed about the cost of condoms and postulated that $3,000 -- the amount Fluke said some female Georgetown students pay for three years of birth control -- could buy enough condoms to have "sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years."

First of all, Fluke wasn't talking about condoms -- she was talking about birth-control pills. And when used as contraception, birth control pills must be taken regularly to be effective, regardless of how much sex the user is or isn't having.

One of the things wrong with this debate over contraception is that it continues to be framed as an example of government suppressing the rights of religion. However, if that were genuinely the case at hand, this would also be a debate of how far a groups beliefs can extend to diminishing the rights of others.

One of the facts of this issue is that there is an exemption allowed for churches so that they do not have to offer contraceptives. However, this exemption does not extend to the organizations that they are affiliated with such as hospitals and universities. What is being argued however is that they should be allowed to exempt themselves even in these places as well.

I do understand how this issue can be contrived to mean that by allowing access to birth-control, the church is somehow allowing for things that are against their beliefs to happen. Yet, it is those seeking the birth-control that are going against the churches beliefs. In allowing for the payment of birth-control, religious groups would just not be fighting the issue.

Here is where the problem really lies. This issue isn't about the government going against the churches rights. Instead, it is an issue of the church fighting to control the environment that people live in based on their own beliefs. They feel that since they are the employer, they should be able to dictate every option available to their employees.

While this may be perfectly reasonable within the church itself, extending this mindset to the other organizations the church is affiliated with is not. Working for one of these places, be it a hospital of university, does not require that a person be of a particular faith. So why then should they be allowed to object to another persons beliefs simply because they are the employer?

The worst part of this whole situation is that the church is trying to set a precedent that will undoubtedly lead to a mess later on. Should the church get their way on this issue, what is to stop any organization from claiming that they will not cover certain cost simply because they object on the grounds of their beliefs?

Funny thing is that Rush, the King of Conservatives, didn't even know how contraception works. He said that Ms. Fluke and her friends are having so much sex that they can't afford the contraception (referring to the pill). Rush apparently didn't understand that the pill is a once a day medication and not the Plan B pill. How could a man of his age NOT know how the pill works?!! Wow.

Bottom line, he is right. Religious beliefs at stake and mandates are not for the people. It's about Government control over the people. We should not pay for people's sexual choices. Period. The left try to tell us this is a health issue. BULL, it's a choice. You pay for your choice.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...

Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin a cu*t and an eyebrow is barely raise. Rush Limbaugh calls someone unknown a sl** and people are calling for his head.

Comparing advice given by a preist and a doctor? Now thats a reasonable comparison!!LOL
I think if a religious group wants their separation of church and state and doesnt want to be subject to any rules and regulations put forthin society , then they should forfeit their tax-exempt status, IMMEDIATELY. Sick of these zealots getting a free ride.
Comparing a belief system to health care is about as ridiculous as suggesting abstinence to solve the birth control issue. Gotta do better than that stepdaddy.

A good article, but not nearly as good as Maureen Dowd's commentary. [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/opinio... ] One point Kathleen got wrong. Limbaugh is NOT an entertainer. As far as I'm concerned, absent strong national Republican leadership and no Republican in the White House, Limbaugh is the titular head of the Republican party. There are very few brave souls in the Republican ranks who dare to cross him. Just look at the measured criticisms of his vile rant from Republicans... "not the words I would have used", "absurd", "just an entertainer", etc.

If you haven't actually heard his rant, please take a minute to listen to it. No transcript or quoted excerpt can compare to hearing him say what he said. [ http://rncnyc2004.blogspot.com/2012/03/r... ]

I would also highly recommend that prior to commenting on the issue, you read the testimony of Sandra Fluke to see how maliciously Limbaugh characterized her testimony. [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/81978568/Testi... ]

hey. if your religion doesn't want to "partake" of available options, then don't. No one said if a catholic gets pregnant then she MUST consider the option of abortion. OR how about this one: the catholic church says that you shouldn't have sex unless you are attempting to have a child, but not EVERY American (with those same Constitutional rights) is catholic...and might want to have sex, but not get pregnant. eeeeegads. say it isn't so!

I get it now. Since you have the egg, and have to go through all the problems associated with pregnancy and labor, all men are scum.

By the way, the church doesn't have the right to tell you how to conduct your sex life. But just like if you are over weight and go to the doctor, he will give you reasons to lose weight. If you talk to a religious leader (priest or pastor) they may give you suggestions to improve your spiritual life. It is your right to follow either of these suggestions or not. As I have stated before, contraceptive devices are out there and inexpensive. It's up to the individual to use them if they want.

I don't like Obama telling my church they have to provide abortion pills to women.Period> He doesn't have the right to do that. He is the "Hope and Change " President. Maybe he's "Hoping" to "Change" the constitution.

Abstinence? Realistic suggestions only please. If you believe that is a viable solution you must have had a pretty bad pubescent period through your 20s.
I find it interesting that so many righties who are all pro-life don't think this is a great idea! How many thousands of unwanted pregnancies does something like this prevent? How many abortions?
I think sometimes conservatives need a shot of common sense, picking a battle you can win might be advisable, instead of driving a majority of women away?

In this day and age? Are you kidding me? It takes TWO parties...and the last I checked only ONE is truly affected negatively (by conception, anyway) if things go awry. The MALE pope and the MALE priests (who, by the way, are not married or have "willing" OR "female" sexual partners) don't get to decide how, when, where, why or how a FEMALE chooses to conduct her sexual life. That's the issue that no one seems to be able to make the leap to...call it whatever you want. This is ultimately up to the woman to decide. and men HATE not having that control...

sassy
Contraceptives are available to all. go to any gas station or convenience store and you will be able to get a condom. Obama wants to make them FREE for all. Not only contraceptive devices but abortion pills as well. In this day and age, if you can't get your hands on a condom, you aren't trying. That said, I think everyone knows the consequences of unsafe sex, and the risks associated with all birth control. If you are unwilling to accept the consequences, don't do it, abstain. And don't come to me asking for an abortion pill because you made a bad decision. Since when am I responsible for your bad choices.

I agree that if a woman is mature enough to have sex she should be mature enough to ask for contraceptives. And while you want this to be about something else...what it REALLY is about is that becoming pregnant is STRICTLY a woman's issue. If it were a choice whether a man or woman could get pregnant, my choice is for the guy. I've already done it. Now it's time for the guy to experience it. and yes, it's about contraception. How dare any religious group suggest that I shouldn't have the access to health care for ME regardless of what THEY (IT) believes?! (and this isn't about whether or not it's "free", it's about whether or not it is "provided" at all...)

sassy
So we both agree that any college student (men and women) have contraceptives available to them for free. What you are worried about is the fact that they may be a bit embarrassed to ask for them. If you ask me, if they are mature enough to be having sex, they should be mature enough to "ask" for free condoms. Give me a break.

This article is about her testimony, and Rush's poor response to that testimony. You keep trying to make it about something it isn't. Next you will try to blame Bush and Walker and those evil Republicans for it.

how is this "forcing" a religious organization doing anything? If someone does not believe in contraception, they will not seek it. Plastic surgery is an elective that would be partially covered by my insurance. I will not seek it; however, as I feel my body is the way God wants it to be.

"I" am not making this out to be a gender issue. au contraire! In fact, this IS a gender issue. I am in agreement that most college campuses have resident assistants, etc that would be able to guide a college-aged woman to a place where she can feel like she is buying drugs and has to conceal her identity or feels too embarrassed to actually face the student advisor who will dig into a brown paper bag to hand her a condom or two. What about the woman who is not working, has no insurance and no income. Oh...I know...abstinence. Good idea. Not a practical or realistic idea, however.

sassy I can see you want to make this a man vs. woman issue. I see this as an article about the president's attempt to force religious organizations to pay for items that go against their core values. That is why I made the A.A. comment. The testimony of this woman was about her "right" for free contraception, not a gender issue as you would make it out to be.

and you don't think younger guys use Viagra as a party drug, do you? of course you don't. Ask any typical guy under 30 if he's taken Viagra more than once and didn't "need" to....

sassy You are talking apples and oranges. These are drugs for older men. She is talking about the need for contraception for women of college age. I give her argument little value when she states that they are economically unavailable to most college students. I am certain planned parenthood has a chapter on most campuses. I'm sure they would love to give out free condoms to anyone who asks.

I want to say also that I don't agree with Rush, but I don't agree with Obama's stance on this issue either.

and while I sort of apologize for getting all "Eyster" like there, I am trying to assert my very valid points....

really, stepdad? for STARTERS, AA is FREE. So there is no need for any insurance company to be involved. But shhhh. Keep that down, or the insurance companies will try to go after self-help programs as well! and yes, abstinence would be a nice solution to contraceptives, but THINK BACK to who was the influencer in your first, second, fiftieth sexual encounter...was it the MAN who was "pressing the issue"....or the FEMALE? Seriously. Think back to your early 20's....Why is this the WOMAN'S fault???? Oh, RIGHT...cuz SHE is the one who can get pregnant. If men could get pregnant, you can bet your last penny...and the rock you found it under....that there would be contraception available EVERYWHERE....or there would be a cure for contraception to those who wanted it.

stepdad...yeah, of course I realize Viagra and Cialis are not contraceptives. Yet, without either, contraceptives would not be necessary. wow. true revelation there.

sassy You do realize that viagra or cialis are not contraceptives. They do something entirely different. I have no problem with these college aged women getting contraception, but do I need to pay for it? In her speech she stated that was an economic hardship for college women to pay for contraception. I think I remember her stating they were around $3000 a year. I think there are more economical ways to prevent pregnancy, abstinence for one comes to mind. I also don't feel it is a good idea for the president to cram this contraceptive issue down religious organizations throat. It's a slippery slope. Next he will tell A.A. they need to serve beer because the college kids need to have access to it.

Conservatives don't hate women.
However, the current front line conservatives
seem to hate the idea of equality for women.
Why do they have so much ideological dogma
in common with the burqa and stoning contingent?

and I don't quite think "uniter" and "rush airbag" could EVER justifiably be in the same sentence, this article included...

well, while I have women in mind as I type this, I'd like someone to show me an insurance company that doesn't cover viagra or cialis.

You can get a medication to make conception possible for a man, (not that that is what HE wants) but not allow a woman to PREVENT a pregnancy from happening? give me a break. This is a man's world, but women could do a WHOLE lot better, given the opportunity!

I totally disagree with Rush's use of the s-word, and even the p-word. And this is the first I heard of him saying "We want you to post the videos online.." which is obviously offensive. But I do agree, in principle, that forcing insurers to provide free contraception (when not medically necessary) is ridiculous. Yes, a line must be drawn, as to what is covered by insurance and what is not. But is it up to the Obama administration to do so? That is also ridiculous.
I have asked this question many times on this blog, and I still never get an answer. Where does it end? Should Nikes be "free" to combat obesity? Should inner-city children get "free" trips to Europe to ensure "equal access" to education? Should winning athletes be stripped of their awards, metals, etc. to boost the self-esteem of the losers? Surely providing "free" contraception for all is the road paved with good intentions.