Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Stepping into an emerging culture clash over women, President Barack Obama made a supportive phone call Friday to a law student who testified before Congress about the need for birth control coverage, only to be called a "slut" by Rush Limbaugh.
These remarks come from the debate raging over an aspect of a mandate allowing contraceptives free of charge via health insurance plans.
I question whether or not the President should have placed himself in this particular component of the debate, but its a safe play because I doubt many people will defend Limbaugh. At least not many people that were considering voting for Obama.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/03/03 08:22:27
Subject: Re:Limbaugh's Rant and Obama's Intervention
I think if he would have attacked Rush, or anything like that, he would have oppened himself up for backlash.
Calling somebody to tell her "thank you for speaking out, it was brave, etc..." is a pretty safe bet, and if he is attacked for that it would make the attacker look out of touch IMO.
What did she misstate? Did she exaggerate the out of pocket costs? Or was her friend's winding up having an ovary removed due to not having coverage for birth control not actually what happened?
Calling her a slut was Rush trolling real life. That's largely what he's paid to do, but he's an unamerican idiot, scumbag and hypocrite anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/03 13:56:28
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
biccat wrote:I think at least a little mockery is in order. Calling her a "slut" may have been a bit much.
Ya think?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
biccat wrote:She lied (or intentionally misstated the truth) before Congress.
I think at least a little mockery is in order. Calling her a "slut" may have been a bit much.
Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
He wasn't going after her for "lying" to Congress, by the way. He was going after her because he believes she has a lot of sex. The guy who came back from the Dominican Republic with a Viagra prescription in somebody else's name and told folks he had a great time, but couldn't talk about it.
The only thing that could make this more prototypical social conservative behavior is if Rush is outed as gay in the next couple months.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/03 14:34:47
biccat wrote:She lied (or intentionally misstated the truth) before Congress.
I think at least a little mockery is in order. Calling her a "slut" may have been a bit much.
Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
He wasn't going after her for "lying" to Congress, by the way. He was going after her because he believes she has a lot of sex. The guy who came back from the Dominican Republic with a Viagra prescription in somebody else's name and told folks he had a great time, but couldn't talk about it.
The only thing that could make this more prototypical social conservative behavior is if Rush is outed as gay in the next couple months.
Well 4 wives in with no kids I would not be surprised. Then again, it's probably because he uses what the rest of humanity uses to prevent having kids. BIRTH CONTROL.
"The Imperium is nothing if not willing to go to any lengths necessary. So the Trekkies are zipping around at warp speed taking small chucks out of an nigh-on infinite amount of ships, with the Imperium being unable to strike back. feth it, says central command, and detonates every vortex warhead in the fleet, plunging the entire sector into the Warp. Enjoy tentacle-rape, Kirk, we know Sulu will." -Terminus
"This great fortress was a gift to the Blood Ravens from the legendary Imperial Fists. When asked about it Chapter Master Pugh was reported to say: "THEY TOOK WHAT!?""
Seaward wrote:Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
Not sure what you're talking about. And this comment is especially entertaining given that the video posted is from a left-wing blog.
The woman clearly and obviously lied before Congress. I think that in that case it's appropriate to make fun of her. Rush was clearly making a joke at her expense, although I think he went a little OTT. If you really want to see some political hatred, check out what the left said about Breitbart over the past few days.
Seaward wrote:Ah, someone's been out in the weeds of the right-wing blogosphere, I see.
Not sure what you're talking about. And this comment is especially entertaining given that the video posted is from a left-wing blog.
The woman clearly and obviously lied before Congress. I think that in that case it's appropriate to make fun of her. Rush was clearly making a joke at her expense, although I think he went a little OTT. If you really want to see some political hatred, check out what the left said about Breitbart over the past few days.
Manufactured outrage is awesome.
Your forgetting to mention how she lied. You say she lied but what did she lie about?
And remember, its only lieing if its deliberate.
Thats not a lie, Its just misappropriation. Coould be a simple slip of tongue. Republicans lie all the time(remember death panels?)
Also, If it was a lie(its not) Attacking of character s not a way to go.
Not big enough to be scary, as if you cant' afford $3k I doubt $1k is much better.
Big enough to noticeable.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, as a person that went through law school... having a lot of sex will in no way interfere with graduating and passing the bar.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/03 16:06:35
Polonius wrote:I don't think it's ridiculous that it could cost that much.
It could cost that much, sure. But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.
I can't afford a car, does that mean my income is too low by the price of a Ferrari or by the price of a used Honda?
Polonius wrote:I don't think it's ridiculous that it could cost that much.
It could cost that much, sure. But when your complaint is that you can't afford X, you don't use the most expensive option, well, unless you're trying to deceive people.
I can't afford a car, does that mean my income is too low by the price of a Ferrari or by the price of a used Honda?
The difference is that there might not be a cheaper alternative available. I don't know the facts, and I know we're all shocked that a person would use carefully worded and selected facts in a political discussion.
Conversion vans with wheelchair elevators cost more than hondas. But... if we accept that people should be able to get around, you gotta acknowledge what that costs.
I was puzzled by Rush's comment that she was having so much sex she couldn't afford the contraception. I was like "huh? but the pill is once daily regardless of how much sex you have..."
Yeah, he's an idiot; I doubt if he's even talked to a woman regardless of how many times he's been married.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
Polonius wrote:The difference is that there might not be a cheaper alternative available.
But there are.
Polonius wrote:I don't know the facts, and I know we're all shocked that a person would use carefully worded and selected facts in a political discussion.
I wouldn't be shocked if she were a politician. But she is (or at least was presented as) an impartial witness to discuss the increased cost of receiving contraceptive benefits that Georgetown doesn't cover because of their religious beliefs.
Of course, if Georgetown has to cover the expense for birth control, her insurance is going to go up. What she's really asking for is a gender-based tax and subsidy - most women will get the pill, but only have to pay half the cost in increased premiums. Men will pay increased premiums but won't get any advantage.
Polonius wrote:Conversion vans with wheelchair elevators cost more than hondas. But... if we accept that people should be able to get around, you gotta acknowledge what that costs.
You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
hotsauceman1 wrote:Because, If we spend moeny on birth control we save in others, Such as social welfare programs or maybe daycares.
well, we'd also cut down on abortions.
Interestingly, while the same group of people generally opposes paying for all of these, they still pitch a fit over by far the cheapest and most morally palatable.
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
Condoms are available for free, especially around a college campus.
I think it's a good idea for insurers to cover contraception costs, especially on a college campus, but I don't think they should be required to do so.
Polonius wrote:And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
I doubt there's an equal distribution of men and women receiving the benefit of contraception.
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
Yeah, I'm allergic to latex and it sucks. Let's have a list of things that have latex in them:
Band-aids.
Condoms.
Balloons.
That's all I can think of right now, but it still sucks. I CANT EVEN HAVE BALLOONS AT MY BIRTHDAY!
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
Condoms are available for free, especially around a college campus.
I think it's a good idea for insurers to cover contraception costs, especially on a college campus, but I don't think they should be required to do so.
Again, not necessarily latex-free. Maybe that's changed since I last had sex on a college campus...
Polonius wrote:And since women derive roughly half the benefit from contraception, I don't see a problem with them paying for only half the cost!
I doubt there's an equal distribution of men and women receiving the benefit of contraception.
Maybe she should charge a per-user fee?
How do you figure? Do you think the number of sexually active men and women are different?
It's like the old joke: "I sleep with a lot of girls, but it never lasts because they turn out to be tramps."
Polonius wrote:You do realize that some people are allergic to latex, and non-latex condoms are far more expensive? Also, many people use both the pill and condoms in combination.
Now, I'd agree that it's likely that the $1k a year in contraception costs are more due to preference... but that preference is still preventing pregnancies.
Condoms are available for free, especially around a college campus.
I think it's a good idea for insurers to cover contraception costs, especially on a college campus, but I don't think they should be required to do so.
Again, not necessarily latex-free. Maybe that's changed since I last had sex on a college campus...
Yeah, as far as I'm aware, they still don't have free latex-free condoms.
It's more a case of the Dems want it so they're against it....goes with the whole "Party of 'NO'" thing.
My take on medication is:
Step one, do you have to have a prescription to buy it? If yes, go to step two. If no, it's not coverable.
Step two, is there medical evidence that taking this medication can prevent illness or injury? If yes, it should be covered by insurance. If no, it's not coverable.
That's probably an overly simplistic approach but it's my take on the matter which means Rush's viagra wouldn't be covered nor would the allergy medicine I have to take as it's over the counter.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts