New Rogernomics wrote:In that logic, all Republicans with male escorts are gay.
Wait they're not?
In all seriousness why do we allow Limbaugh near anything similar to that of a microphone?
Advertisement
by Calenhardon » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:57 pm
by Azakhia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:02 pm
by Calenhardon » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:09 pm
Azakhia wrote:By making religious institutions offer birth control as part of their health coverage, would'nt that be crossing the separation of church and state?
Also, shouldn't the health care insurance package be the option of the employer?
by Osthia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:22 pm
by Wisconsin7 » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:44 pm
Osthia wrote:Let's be frank here. Rush Limbaugh is a self-centered douchebag who is also a hypocrite (mention the Dominican Republic and his Viagra in front of him and he'll probably say he was doing his masculine duties). He's lost about four of his sponsors, and he may lose enough to force him to shut down. Sometimes his rants are laughable because he acts stupid. But calling someone a slut for pointing out their views and the medicinal uses of contraception is ridiculous and lacks the Christian values he SOOOOO admires to preach about.
Basically, the act doesn't force religious institutions to pay for contraception, but rather, it says insurance companies must pay for their clients' contraception medication. This will actually save them money, since it costs them more to give coverage to a pregnant woman (in other words, they don't want pregnant clients).
So Rush was acting out of step, and the ass may get what's coming to him.
by Cannot think of a name » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:46 pm
Calenhardon wrote:Carajos wrote:
Wait they're not?
In all seriousness why do we allow Limbaugh near anything similar to that of a microphone?
WE don't. Clear Channel does because there are enough stupid wingnuts to give him an audience, and enough corporations who want to advertise their shit to the stupid wingnuts.
by New Rogernomics » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:47 pm
by You-Gi-Owe » Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:43 pm
Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:You-Gi-Owe wrote:1. You know what saves insurance companies even more money than subsidized chemical birth control? Answer = Condoms and/or absinence
Which would not have controlled the health issue the young lady with the ovarian cyst problems had...which was the point of Sandra Fluke's testimony.
edited for clarity.
by Calenhardon » Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:48 pm
by Revolutopia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:48 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:Gotta call "B.S." Her primary testimony was about "contraception". She didn't go to testify on ovarian cyst medication that also just happens to work as a contraceptive.
Her goal was to attempt a change in policy, so she's whoring herself to the Democratic Party, who is aiding because their goals coincide with hers. Both sexually and politically, she's a total slut. I loved how B.O. telephoned her and said her parents ought to be proud of her. Has anyone called them and asked. I'll look for that story.
by Death Metal » Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:54 pm
by Gauthier » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:00 am
Revolutopia wrote:You-Gi-Owe wrote:Gotta call "B.S." Her primary testimony was about "contraception". She didn't go to testify on ovarian cyst medication that also just happens to work as a contraceptive.
Her goal was to attempt a change in policy, so she's whoring herself to the Democratic Party, who is aiding because their goals coincide with hers. Both sexually and politically, she's a total slut. I loved how B.O. telephoned her and said her parents ought to be proud of her. Has anyone called them and asked. I'll look for that story.
Actually, her goal was to defend the president's policy it is the Catholic Bishops whoring themselves to the Republican Party that are trying to change policy. Additionally, I would love to see your sources on how she is a sexual slut.
by You-Gi-Owe » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:04 am
Revolutopia wrote:You-Gi-Owe wrote:Gotta call "B.S." Her primary testimony was about "contraception". She didn't go to testify on ovarian cyst medication that also just happens to work as a contraceptive.
Her goal was to attempt a change in policy, so she's whoring herself to the Democratic Party, who is aiding because their goals coincide with hers. Both sexually and politically, she's a total slut. I loved how B.O. telephoned her and said her parents ought to be proud of her. Has anyone called them and asked. I'll look for that story.
Actually, her goal was to defend the president's policy it is the Catholic Bishops whoring themselves to the Republican Party that are trying to change policy. Additionally, I would love to see your sources on how she is a sexual slut.
by Gauthier » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:07 am
You-Gi-Owe wrote:Revolutopia wrote:
Actually, her goal was to defend the president's policy it is the Catholic Bishops whoring themselves to the Republican Party that are trying to change policy. Additionally, I would love to see your sources on how she is a sexual slut.
I believe the Catholic Church policy on contraception has been around longer than the Obama policy on contraception. Therefore, the attack, or notion that someone should change policy, is coming from the government.
Hey, Rush spelled it out. She believes that someone, other than herself, needs to pay for her to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. Sounds slutty to me.
Don't we have enough entitlement programs? What happened to Feminism wanting the government to keep it's hands off womens' bodies? In this case, they want the government to pay women to get something into their bodies.
by Farnhamia » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:08 am
You-Gi-Owe wrote:Revolutopia wrote:
Actually, her goal was to defend the president's policy it is the Catholic Bishops whoring themselves to the Republican Party that are trying to change policy. Additionally, I would love to see your sources on how she is a sexual slut.
I believe the Catholic Church policy on contraception has been around longer than the Obama policy on contraception. Therefore, the attack, or notion that someone should change policy, is coming from the government.
Hey, Rush spelled it out. She believes that someone, other than herself, needs to pay for her to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. Sounds slutty to me.
Don't we have enough entitlement programs? What happened to Feminism wanting the government to keep it's hands off womens' bodies? In this case, they want the government to pay women to get something into their bodies.
by Revolutopia » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:11 am
You-Gi-Owe wrote:I believe the Catholic Church policy on contraception has been around longer than the Obama policy on contraception. Therefore, the attack, or notion that someone should change policy, is coming from the government.
Hey, Rush spelled it out. She believes that someone, other than herself, needs to pay for her to have sex without the risk of pregnancy. Sounds slutty to me.
Don't we have enough entitlement programs? What happened to Feminism wanting the government to keep it's hands off womens' bodies? In this case, they want the government to pay women to get something into their bodies.
by Death Metal » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:14 am
by New Conway » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:19 am
by Cannot think of a name » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:21 am
New Conway wrote:What I don't get is... why not use the alternatives? They can use Condoms instead, if they can't afford condoms, well I guess they can either use their hands, or not have sex at all?
by Revolutopia » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:21 am
New Conway wrote:What I don't get is... why not use the alternatives? They can use Condoms instead, if they can't afford condoms, well I guess they can either use their hands, or not have sex at all?
by Norstal » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:22 am
Aeronos wrote:I can't understand right-wing rhetoric. Really...
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Death Metal » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:23 am
New Conway wrote:What I don't get is... why not use the alternatives? They can use Condoms instead, if they can't afford condoms, well I guess they can either use their hands, or not have sex at all?
by Norstal » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:24 am
New Conway wrote:What I don't get is... why not use the alternatives? They can use Condoms instead, if they can't afford condoms, well I guess they can either use their hands, or not have sex at all?
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anti-void, Krimalia, Three Galaxies, Valles Marineris Mining co, Xind
Advertisement