The real issue at hand in the Limbaugh/Fluke controversy
 

While feminists and liberals continue to lose their minds over Rush Limbaugh being what he is, a provocateur, the real issue has been pushed to the wayside.The real issue is Obama and his government going too far yet again by violating the constitution and demanding contraception coverage, religious freedoms be damned.They know very well they can't win the constitutional argument since it is pretty black and white, so in predictable liberal fashion, they try to shift the subject without appearing to.They find a female law student(who it turns out is a long time feminist activist/political operative) and parade her out as if she is just a regular student trying to get by in order to inject emotion into the argument and get women on their side.Apparently it has worked to a degree as Obama's support has went up in the past week among the most emotional among us, women.:down:

Another one of your misogynist rants young man?
Still feeling bitter about not getting any?:rotfl2:

Georgetown University's student health programs cost the taxpayer $0.00 US. They are subsidised from tuition and donor contributions. Limbaugh's argument is, therefore, rendered a moot and inaccurate ad hominem. The rest of the OP's comments amount to blatent Misogyny. Sorry, but you just labeled half of the population as weak and emotional. Bad form.

Bubs has shown and proven in the past to be a misogynist. No shocker here.

Those dishes aren't going to wash themselves, Bubblehead.

You mean kind of like the way the GOP Religious Right in Congress know they can't win any up-or-down vote on thier issues so, in predictable Fringe Right fashion, they try to attach their issues as amendments to bills having nothing to do with their pet peeves?... :hmmm:

:har:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fjgDgVEJtw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKTaukDhHus


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYl_...eature=related

I disagree wholeheartedly. First, it's no big news that Limbaugh is an entertainer, and pretty much a terrible person. While I agree with much of what he says on a theoretical level, how he says it is irresponsible, mean, and downright uncivil. He's embarrasing. And he's hypocritical. I remember years ago how he would rant and rave about Ted Kennedy's alchohol habits, pretty much ripping him apart. Which is ok, except Limbaugh has his own substance abuse issues.:nope:

And his comments about this woman were way across the line--and stupid. Where does he get this idea that she's having "lots of sex". You pretty much have to take the pill every day, regardless of how often you engage in sex. :-?

As for the "religious freedom" aspect of this, I don't understand at all how religious people think everything is about them and their religion. So what if insurance covers contraception. That's great! It means fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. Hell, I am all in favor of free birth control for everybody, and I hope they use it.

Both sides do this vienna - calling out "the other side" when both do it (and neither should) simply shows you to be the same as bubblehead - a partisan hack....

OK - let me take issue here Takeda. The cost for the required insurance is $1895.00 a year per student. (source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu...teraccept.html)
Most students are required to participate: (Source: http://studentaffairs.georgetown.edu/insurance/ )

It is added to their "student account" - you know the same "student account" where financial aid - such as FAFSA gained Pell Grants get deposited. Those are federal funds - paid for by the taxpayer. So are student loans - though they are (at least in theory) repayed. I found nothing on Georgetown's site that indicated that the insurance costs were defrayed using donor contributions. Could you show me where that is indicated?

Every piece of information shows that universities charge the student - and the student uses money in their "account" to pay such charges. Given that most students qualify for federal grants - again, paid for by taxpayers - the claim that health insurance for college students costs taxpayers "0.00" is inaccurate.

Now that is a stretch, at best. As you noted, these loans are (again, theoretically) repaid. The money derived from Pell Grants is, at most, indirect.

Takeda - its not a stretch. Taxpayers foot the bill for Pell Grants. Simple as that. Pell Grant money is mixed with other funds and used to pay student bills - including the insurance in question. So if you mandate contraceptive coverage - taxpayer money goes to it. Simple as that.

But the more important argument isn't even being made. That is that the cost of additional coverage is not going to be absorbed by the insurer. There is no such thing as "free" coverage - no matter how much the president says it is. Someone is paying for it. That "someone" is everyone who does business with the insurer - because the insurer passes on the costs to its consumers.

You know that as well as I do. So not only does taxpayer money go to help pay for the insurance - if additional costs are put on the coverage - the consuming public will have to pay additionally.

So why should you or I or another consumer have to defray the costs for students - or any other group for that matter?

Then abolish Pell Grants. Then you don't have to worry about contraceptives.

Takeda - instead - why not use Pell grants for what they were intended - to help pay for a student's EDUCATION?

Instead of mandating something from on high, why are we not expecting some personal responsiblity? These students know the risks and can choose to not engage in behaviors that carry high, long term risks. Oh - that's right - abstinance is a bad word.

Why are we not allowing these students to make the choice to carry contraceptive insurance on their own? Is it because they would choose to spend the money on beer, liquer, pot and meth instead? If so - then why is it our job as a society - or the job of the "gubment" to save them from their own stupidity?

Of all the things that kids can take classes on in college - why is there not a course in plain, good ole fashion common sense?

No, no. Let's get rid of it. But first, let's get rid of that 1.45% of my annual pay that I put out for some senior's heart medication. It's not my fault that he ate red meat three meals a day for 30 years. Common sense indeed.

Posted by Captain Haplo:

You took my post in the manner in which it was not intended, Captain. Given that Bubbles seems to believe it is only "liberals"who do what he deems as underhanded and unethical actions, I was merely pointing out that the world is full of people and organizations, including those he espouses and defends, who are capable of and, quite do the very things he decries as "liberal"...

As far as being a "partisan hack", I take quite a bit of umbrage to your declaration. Firstly, you don't know me well enough to make such a judgement. Secondly, I am very much an independent and very proudly so. As a matter of full disclosure, I live in California where cross-party voting in primaries and other lesser elections is not allowed. I, therefore, am registered as a Democrat so I may have some say in who gets elected and what laws get passed. Democrats run the state and the GOP here is woefully lacking in viable candidates. Registering with one of the independent parties just serves to further maginalize those who do not wish to take a side. I have voted for Dems and for GOP candidates, but I always vote my conscience and ethics. I believe wholly in common sense; rhetoric does not sway me, slogans do not impress me, and the loudness of the true hacks will not make vote their way. I will criticize, question, and speak out against those who see ethics as an inconvienient obstacle and who see common sense as something to be ignored...

BTW, calling someone a "political hack" or the like is often an indication the person doing the calling lacks substantial, viable arguments of their own, is trying to act dismissive to cover that condition as a means of avoiding a real discussion of the issues, and is reacting to the touching of a "raw nerve"...

Just saying... :D

...

Vienna - I simply call it like I see it. Your party affiliation and your reasoning are your own business. I simply pointed out that your choice to decry an action that is done by both sides, yet you chose to only fault one side - smacks of blind partisanship.

I agree the practice is wrong and should be stopped. However, if your going to find fault - don't blame just one side. You take umbrage at being called a partisan hack - I can only respond and say your original complaint makes you appear to be one. Thus, I said you show yourself to be something. Like you said, I don't know you - so I can only go off of how you portray yourself. Was the call inaccurate? Maybe. But it was based of a legitimate observation of you acting entirely one sided.

As for hitting a raw nerve - I am tired of the partisan crap that exists when people ignore the failure of both sides and lambast only one. As for lacking viable underpinnings - we are not disagreeing that the right shouldn't do it - we just are at this point because you didn't fault "your own side" for the same action. Failure to have the same standards when looking at one side vs the other is what defines a person as a partisan.

Ultimately, I would like to see us do that. Now that doesn't mean you can't choose to contribute if you wanted to - but right now, the entire "social net" is compulsory for any working citizen. The government doesn't offer you the choice of whether you want to be a part of providing for others. It mandates your "social responsibility", whether you agree with it or not. The problem is, not only does it mishandle the funds it takes from you and I, it also can increasingly require our "level of social responsibility" to be greater and greater. All without us being able to do anything about it.

I know we will likely disagree on this, but I don't believe that mandating citizen social responsibility is the proper job or role of government. Thus, I would like to see all such mandates end.

I am realistic enough to know that isn't going to happen, and even if it were it would need decades to phase into place. But I think the trend of the people becoming more and more reliant on government to control what they get and how they get it is unhealthy for the cause of liberty and freedom.

Yes, we both agree neither side should do actions that are unethical or lacking in common sense. However, I made the comment you that you dispute as a form of ironic sarcasm to Bubbles own one-sided view of the national condition and his own inability to critcally assess issues. Sometimes, as the saying goes, "Irony is lost on some people"...

This is where I can't understand the hardcore righties. They're so opposed to "entitlement" spending, but things like the spread of birth control that prevents entitlement spending and the necessity for things like welfare, they're against! :06:

I don't think that we would disagree about the need of government to remove itself from social responsibility. I think that we would disagree about how far it would go, and not in the way that you might anticipate that we would disagree. I am all for the removal of all safety nets. I am also for the legalization of all drugs, the end of restriction of marriage as it pertains to same-sex marriage or even polygamy and the full availabilty of abortion in any and all cases. To me, civil liberties are just as important as fiscal liberties.

It is here that I disagree with the Republican party. When they talk about 'liberty', they mean almost exclusively finance. Civil liberty is not now, nor has it been for most of the past century, a priority. This is a party that gave us the so-called Patriot Act, opposes abortion as part of it's party platform, attempts to legislate theological morality and stands in the way of gay rights. It is the polar opposite of the Democratic party, which is in favor of civil rights, but wants to control your money. I want a party that holds liberty in a much broader light.