View Single Post
Old 03-10-12, 03:25 AM   #43
Bubblehead1980
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida USA
Posts: 7,133
Downloads: 606
Uploads: 44


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens View Post
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.

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.
Well her claim about $3,000 a year is total bull.I remember my ex spent $50 a month, does not add up.I have heard others mention can get it for $20, sure the numbers are a little different depending on insurance, or lack there of etc etc but nowhere near three grand, just an outrageous figure from a democratic/feminist operative with an agenda, not the all american student the Dems tried to make her out to be.I believe Limbaugh was lampooning her ridiculous claims as the sarcasm in his voice was pretty easy to detect.I found his remarks somewhat amusing as did many others but as usual the fems, the dems and others who can't handle satire etc because it offends their politically correct sensibilities are just full of "moral outrage" and self righteous indignation.

The religious freedom aspect, which is the real issue not contraception itself, is a constitutional right.The federal government has absolutely no authority under the constitution to require a church to pay for something or do anything that is against it's own teachings.A church buys health insurance but does not want their policy to cover contraception, that is their right to do so.

I am an atheist and very much a fan of contraception BUT this is not about my opinion or yours, it is about not allowing the government to once again violate the constitutional rights of others.Some may say "so what?" government gets a pass because it's just those silly religious people.Well that sets a precedent and they will do it again in the future, next time you may be your or I because some fool like obama decides he knows better than us.That is why we have a bill of rights, to protect us.

I always think of the Martin Niemoller quote "

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me."


I find religious people to be morons usually, some are more intelligent than others but they certainly lack some intellect to believe in the fairy tale that is religion and I mean pretty much any religion.Sure. church is a big thing in many cultures and it is difficult to pull away, I grew up in the south so am well aware of that but I evolved away from that nonsense and that is my right, to be an atheist and not have the government involved in my religious life or lack thereof.Well, religious people have a right to the same protections.Like I said in the OP, people like Obama know this(for all things he is, he is not stupid really, he knows the constitution, just dislikes it unless it serves him which is rare as most liberal's views are contrary to the constitution) but just decided to be intellectually dishonest OR they shift the subject as they did this time.I do admire their political skill in this one as the sympathetic press really picked up on it and changed the discussion.
Bubblehead1980 is offline   Reply With Quote