quote:

---

Originally posted by DFreedom

Even at $1,000 per year (3 years of law school) what is she buying, gold plated condoms? Regardless of how much it is and for whatever period of time, I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR HER SEX LIFE! (**(), you don't see me asking for taxpayer money to fish or drink beer. If you want to have sex, do it on your own dime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by on a fishin mission

quote:

---

Originally posted by DFreedom

Even at $1,000 per year (3 years of law school) what is she buying, gold plated condoms? Regardless of how much it is and for whatever period of time, I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR HER SEX LIFE! (**(), you don't see me asking for taxpayer money to fish or drink beer. If you want to have sex, do it on your own dime.

---

Ms. Flukes position has not been for sex but the fact that some women need birth control for medical issues. No where have I read that she wants birth control so she could have as much sex as she wants, but this is what the right wants you to believe. As I have said many times, I am not for required heath insurance. I am for a person being able to voice their opinions without being called a slut though.

"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mixed Nutz

I stand corrected MCV. That's not the same testimony that I heard. Birth control pills are $5.00/month at Wal-Mart. A seemingly affordable amount wouldn't you agree?

...Politicians aren't the "Oldest Profession", but the results are still the same!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gotchacovered

I never really listened to Rush that much and haven't in years. I've probably heard him two or three times in the last 20 years. I never liked some of the comments he made about homeless people in general in the 90's. However, to wish death upon Rush? Wow, MC, that's messed up. You need to pray about that, man. It's ironic that you now talk to MN about showing "respect" to the lady who lied about her BC pills--after you said that about Rush. What you said is as bad as anything Rush has said.

Moving on, I think some of the younger people (obviously not you, MC, because you've told us your age) don't understand why Rush is so popular, and it's not really their fault because they just weren't around to see the demand for SOME form of Conservative voice in some branch of what we call "the media". I'll explain from the perspective of one who was working, paying taxes, voting, and concerned about the political landscape when Rush hit the scene and rose in popularity. I'm not old--only 43--so it was at a time when I was just starting my career life as a new adult, so I remember it well. Many more here--who are my age or much older--can probably second my recollections.

Rush became an instant hit in the late 80's, and more so in the early 90's, because, at that time, there was virtually no balanced or pro-Conservative representation in the news media or entertainment industry with regard to politics. It was before the advent of Fox News and just before the internet exploded to become the open-access "information super-highway" that it is today (it was just starting to take a foothold in the public at the time and was still mostly a new toy, enjoyed primarly by computer geeks as late as 1994). In those days, the primary offering of political news was on the "big three" TV networks, CNN, and newspapers--all dominated HARD by the Left. Political news was nowhere close to being balanced, and there was certainly nothing pro-Conservative (to speak of, anyway--at least, not in my experience). The Left-ward slant of the news and entertainment industries was more than obvious to about half the country, and a lot of people were frustrated. For decades, the nation had been innundated with pro-Liberal bias across the board in all forms of news and entertainment, from Norman Lear's Good Times to CBS' 60 minutes to NBC's "Nightly News" to the presses of the New York Times. When cable TV had hit the scene, back in the 70's, CNN had added it's scepter to the pro-Liberal campaign force for the Democratic Party. At the end of Bush Sr.'s administration, we Conservatives watched the Liberal news and entertainment industries do no less than openly campaign for President Bill Cliton.

So, at the time, Conservatives were begging for representation and recognition in some form by media personalities, and radio was the only place where a Conservative even had a chance of hearing any like-minded voice. Conservatives had had their fill of the Liberal media cramming the Left-wing agenda down the American throat, and, not surprisingly, Rush's popularity took off like a rocket in the early nineties, fueled by that demand for a counter-balancing voice.

Fox News took advantage of the same deficit and demand for Conservative representation and political balance. People had literally prayed that TV news would someday have a more balanced voice, or one that cantelevered the Left-biased networks with a Right counter-balance. That is exactly why Fox News quickly topped the charts and became so popular that it began to draw fire from the Left.

Today, many of the same who criticize Rush use the same criticisms against Fox News and its personalities, like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley, and Mixed Nutz is 100% correct when he says it's notable how LITTLE the same voices criticize the Liberal ranters, like Bill Mahr and others, who openly disparage Christianity and promote the murder of babies. What they do and say is no less disrespectful or outrageous than Rush Limbaugh supporting cults in Africa (or wherever). They go just as far to offend as he does, if not farther, and millions of people lean on their words, just like Rush's.

So, I can totally relate with why so many people like Rush, even though I personally find him to be a bit--for lack of a better description--off track on some of what he says, and I never really listen to talk radio, except on rare occasions when I am in the car with nothing else to do.

What amuses me, though, is when people criticize the comparatively miniscule Conservative media, without a relative peep of criticism for the giant Liberal media machine that has been dominating the scene for more than 40 years.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gotchacovered

Mcvlbound, it's absolutely true that some use birth control pills for valid medicinal reasons. That's a fact. However, that is a false argument when used to defend President Obama's position on this because his policy provides it for ALL reasons--not just medicinal--AND it also provides for the "mornin-after pill", which is NOT valid "medicine".

Second, it may also be absolutely true that the woman quoted was referring to a 3-year term when she cited the $3,000 in costs, but that still makes her claim a LIE because that would mean her BC pills cost her $83 per month, and we know that they don't cost anywhere close to that. Law school costs a lot of money. If she can afford law school, she can buy her own BC pills.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mcvlbound

Too bad.
If life was fair it would have been that fat POS Limbaugh instead of Brietbart.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gotchacovered

Tell me something. If it's really just about medicinal BC pills, then why doesn't the administration just change the policy to only provide BC pills for people needing them for that puropse and exclude all other coverage for contraceptives and abortafacients. I'll tell you why--because they are LYING. It's NOT really about medicinal use. It's about covering birth control and abortafacients. It's about covering people in having convenient sex without having to worry about getting pregnant. We all know this, so let's stop pretending.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dixiedog02

I think Mixed hit the nail on the head. Political process for getting something the other party doesn't want is to act like you want the whole thing while knowing that both parties will come to an agreement to compromise (so they can reach across the aisle and get re-elected) and in reality, do it baby step by baby step. So we give in on the birth control, and when one shows up pregnant, she sues for pain and suffering, and we have to foot her bills for life.

MC, the fact that you see Obama in this as the "knight in shining armor" about says it all. If you don't think that he will be seen as the entitlement king after this, you aren't looking at the whole picture. I think most will look at this 30 year old adult as a smart person who can very easily find a way to pay a few dollars a day.

Gotcha, I agree that Rush got a great head start because of the timeline that he was introduced, but you have to admit that he is still has the best ratings and the most listeners. That has to say something about his message and/or delivery. I am not saying that I agree with everything that he says, but for someone to talk hard politics for as long as he has done, his message and views are impresive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mcvlbound

quote:

---

Originally posted by gotchacovered

Tell me something. If it's really just about medicinal BC pills, then why doesn't the administration just change the policy to only provide BC pills for people needing them for that puropse and exclude all other coverage for contraceptives and abortafacients. I'll tell you why--because they are LYING. It's NOT really about medicinal use. It's about covering birth control and abortafacients. It's about covering people in having convenient sex without having to worry about getting pregnant. We all know this, so let's stop pretending.






Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862

---

You're stating the obvious. Now to take it a step further I'm going to bring up the "safety net" again. When you have a "safety net" the last thing you want is for people to depend on it. Unfortunately though, human nature being what it is, the "safety net " ends up getting a real work out. I am going to say what I've said before. The problem isn't the measures that are being taken to keep people from falling or willfully jumping into the net, it's the net itself. We want to have the "safety net" for the unfortunate that need it, yet we can't afford to have it overwhelmed. Pregnant women that cannot afford to pay for their prenatal care, the birth of the child, and the care of the child, end up going into the "safety net", and the child goes there with them. As "shameful" as this might sound, cheap contraceptives can keep women and their unplanned babies out of the "safety net". It's not a nice way to put it, but it's the truth.
Does this logic apply to students that can afford Georgetown University? Not really. Like someone said before, if they can afford to go to Georgetown, they can probably afford contraceptives. If not they should at least have enough intelligence to either get some, or abstain from having sex until they do. This same logic doesn't apply across the board though, and denying contraception at Georgetown could result in contraception being denied elsewhere, and then somewhere else. At least I am pretty sure that is how it is seen by those fighting for it.
The real question should be, if we don't want women to have easy access to contraceptives, how will we prevent unplanned pregnancies from overloading the welfare system? If we don't want to address it realistically as to what it is really for, then what should we expect as the outcome if access to contraception becomes restricted? Is it wrong to look at it from a dollar and cents perspective, or should it just be something we deal with regardless of cost because it's the right thing to do?

---