OMG! Rush stumbled on the truth!! So let's see, women aren't allowed to want sex freely (Rush says it should always carry CONSEQUENCES--for women). And if they want birth control, it is NOT HEALTH CARE, it is entitlement for her to have sex. Women aren't supposed to 'withhold' even if they are afraid to get pregnant (it is a RECENT development that could 'legally' say no). So maybe women should go back to NO SEX and that includes NO SEX with husbands. Men might start giving the illusion of caring AGAIN about birth control. (Even REPUBLICAN MEN). Rush Limbaugh: Sex, sex, sex is the only reason men back womens birth control rights By David Edwards Monday, July 7, 2014 15:16 EDT Radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted on Monday that mens support of birth control coverage for women was only about sex, sex, sex. During his Monday broadcast, Limbaugh expressed outrage after learning that more than half of privately insured women saved $269 a year by getting free birth control because of President Barack Obamas health care reform law, up from just 14 percent in 2012. Heres the thing, women have demanded independence and power and feminism and all this, and now demanding everybody pay, the conservative host opined, adding that he had realized over the weekend that young men also supported contraception coverage. Todays young men are totally supportive of somebody else buying women their birth control pills because make sure the women are sex is what its all about it! he insisted. Sex, sex, sex. Thats what its all about. Everybody wants it, and whatever it takes to make it safe. And if it takes the taxpayers buying women birth control, the men are for it too. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/...-reason-men-back-womens-birth-control-rights/
Yep. Women would be wise to wake up to that. There's more power in THAT then young women have a clue about. NO BIRTH CONTROL NO FUN!
RUSH! Sex Sex Sex, only reason why MEN CARE about birth control!! Let's see if I understand this. Limp-bog has somehow figured out that birth control has something to do with sex. What clown college did this twerp flunk out of?
Could it be possible that Limbaugh knows that he's working his way slowly down the road to irrelevance, and that he might as well throw red meat to his Archie Bunker wannabe audience? The Sandra Fluke episode cost him far more than he expected or will admit (and far more than I expected it to). So, for him to double down on this schtick is pretty sad. I'm sure he'll be around 20 years from now spewing stuff like this. But, by then, he and his audence will be in nursing homes. - - - Updated - - - Here's a guy who's been married four times, and still hasn't gotten laid!!!!!!
Why are libs addicted to Rush Limbaugh? They hang on every word Limbaugh says and then go ballistic when he says something that they don't like. The problem with Rush is that be thinks too much the way average American conservatives think. And with the left and right in America at each others throats that makes a boogeyman that libs just can't ignore.
No kidding, they can't get enough of him though they have never listened to his show, only read about what he said... Same goes for Fox News, the libs give them so much attention it's mind boggling.
Um, yeah, I can agree with Rush totally here. Many people do not feel that having sex should ONLY be for when they want to make a baby, and weather or not birth control is easily accessable won't change their minds. So it all comes down to what is less expensive (for society), paying to raise a child, or paying for birth control?
Since men do not suffer the consequences of birth, the only reason for men to support birth control is unencumbered sex. Rush is right.
And nobody would have to discuss, much less agree on birth control, if the health care regulations hadn't been forced through federal govt. If you KNOW people are going to disagree religiously, that is why the First Amendment states to keep such matters out of govt laws. It is to AVOID conflicts over private beliefs! The whole health care issue concerns different people's beliefs that are, guess what, conflicting. That is why govt should stay away and let people make decisions individually without such interference or imposition through the public. Duh!
1. For society to pay the costs does not mean it has to depend on govt 2. Overall it is more cost effective in the longrun to teach people to be self-reliant. If you are going to have sex, be prepared to pay financial, legal and social costs. And quit this whole assumption that welfare and govt is going to take care of those costs "as the default" if we don't teach THAT lesson, we pay for more and more irresponsible decisions. People who commit crimes or fraud or govt abuse/corruption should also be held responsible. So until we enforce THAT standard, taxpayers keep footing the bill for billions in govt waste and corporate abuses. Who is going after all THOSE "illegitimate" expenses that ARE coming from the govt budget?
Yes, he understood that there were thousands of Archie Bunkers out there waiting for someone to validate their fears and prejudices! And they made him rich.
NO KIDS!! Somebody has been practicing birth control in his 4 MARRIAGES. (Dare I say, the sight of him should be enough of a 'contraceptive' method but he did manage to get 4 to marry him. I wonder if his pre-nups have mandatory sex in them).
1. How can 'society' in general pay for those costs without the government to make sure people are paying? 2. Sure, it would be better if everyone was self-reliant and repsonsible, but you can't FORCE that. At least, not without the country becoming a dictatorship. I'm not stupid, I know full well the costs of raising a child. I have two sisters that have two children that are paying those costs. That is also one of the reasons I don't have sex. Sadly, I don't have a girlfriend either, but even if I did, I wouldn't be having sex with them until I was sure I wanted to spend the rest of my life with them. But in the end, you just can't FORCE someone to be responsible. If you talk about cutting the benefits we provide to parents, well, that puts the wellbeing of the children in danger. If you talk about forcing the parents to be sterilized, then you come off as an extremist that will never have that idea see the light of day. So, knowing that the odds of us FORCING someone to be responsible are very low, what would you suggest we do about the children that will continue to be born that the parents cannot afford to take care of?
The sex is a nice benefit. However not paying for a child for 18+ years from a one night stand is a pretty good reason as well. Women actually have the opportunity to use effective birth control. The only good options men have, is condoms(not that effective or fun),surgery(not gonna happen) or abstain(been married 20 years so basically yea) Where is my pill to take to prevent me literally paying for a mistake? That in no way compares to having to give birth. I have watched two come into the world and even if I had those parts ain't no way I could deal with that. While home "remedies" seemed to work well for me and my wife(no BC since the early 90's) would not suggest that gamble to others.
And one of the reasons we rejoiced when he had to cut his price big time last year! Limbaugh is on his swan song now. To be sure, he'll be around for a long time. I'm sure that he will work out some way to keep his show syndicated in small town red state America for years to come. But his contract comes up in 2016, the same year as Clear Channel's debt comes due. And since Clear Channel has been losing money hand over fist ever since Mitt Romeny's private equity firm leverage it, largely on the strength of Limbaugh's ratings, the writing appears to be on the wall. No radio personality is worth $40 million a year when he has single digit market shares in the country's biggest markets. And his old white male demographic only ages. Limbaugh will be around for a long time. But his day of adressing the incoming Congressional Republicans are well behind him. It's only a matter of time before they leave him off the program at CPAC. I'm sure that people driving through dusty backwaters twenty years from now will encounter Rush Limbaugh on the radio. They look at each other, roll their eyes and say "remember that guy?"
The problem with Rush is that be thinks too much the way average American conservatives think. I believe you.
Hi [MENTION=53673]Rexxon[/MENTION]: BINGO exactly, that is why people are complaining about the ACA mandates and govt trying to police everyone paying for insurance. to them it is ALREADY like a dictatorship trying to mandate what we can and cannot choose to pay for our own and others' health care. What we can do is reward taxpayers, businesses, and States for investing in school programs and internship training that teaches whole districts to become financially and politically independent self-governing communities. When people are responsible and rewarded for lowering the costs and crimes in their own communities affecting them, there will naturally be accountability, because those people have to answer to their own communities and costs. Instead of punishing people with more taxes when systems fail to curb abuses and crime costing the public millions of dollars, why not set up more systems of direct investment locally and reducing the tax burden by more effective local management and programs. The first step is not to keep promoting a system of govt that dumps responsibility on taxpayers just because we can afford to pay. If we start holding govt officials and party leaders responsible for the actual cost of their programs and policies, then that sets the standard for the rest of the population. So if Bush or Reagan let X Y Z corporation bail out with 2 billion of taxpayers' dollars on illicit or abusive deals, either that corporation, the leaders or their party is held responsible for reimbursing and collecting that back. if Obama is responsible for 500 million in profits by Solyndra in a contested conflict of interest, or Congress cost taxpayers 24 billion fighting over ACA and the related budget, why not hold those parties responsible for reimbursing taxpayers for abuse or waste. As you said "people are not stupid" So if we start demanding responsibility for costs, then other people know they have to do the same. They will know they cannot get away with dumping costs on others. We can even have people or parties sign agreement in advance, agreeing to be financially responsible for costs they incur. And parties can be held to such agreements of paying back past costs before running for office, so there is incentive to curb abuses and not to elect abusive people.
Says the man that was caught with Viagra from someone elses prescription bottle... - - - Updated - - - I thought we were swine...
I'm totally down with demanding accountability. What worries me is when those parents, whom are already irresponsible enough to have children they cannot afford to pay for, react to this. If they are trying to be responsible, they likely will not be able to afford to pay the government back. If they don't care about being resonsible, then they'll just refuse to pay at all. And if we threaten wage garnishment, they will just quit their jobs. After all, we still have to take care of the children. So, I don't think we will get a whole lot of revenue for demanding accountability, and will still have to pay out quite a bit to take care of the children. What do we do then?
