Rush Limbaugh has finally jumped the shark - advertisers abandoning him

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

except that when she testified, it was about a student's need for birth control due to an ovarian cyst. not about sex. altho one has to wonder why it would matter if it was about sex. one also wonder's how this turned into 'taxpayers paying' when all along it was about health insurance providers, not tax payers.

We do need to take this to it's logical inclusiveness. Fix it so male students cannot get condoms from Georgetown U., or any university health service, any more. If men think they have an STD, well the sluts deserve it for being loose. Too bad, not covered. Any man who wants Viagra must have a digital rectal exam and a cardiac treadmill test. Single men will not be allowed to receive any Viagra or condoms. Married men who get Viagra will have to produce one child per 30-pill prescription. Single men no longer have any parental rights regarding any child born out of wedlock.

Employers are free to determine what health care their employees receive. For example, Sharia Law will be implemented for employees of Muslims, and Christian Sharia for employees of Catholics and Evangelicals. If an employer doesn't "believe" in vaccination, none of their employees children can be covered for vaccinations. Employers can limit the number of children their employees insurance will pay for if they think the world is too overpopulated.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and now it's nine advertisers who have pulled the plug. who would have thought, after all the sheer stupidity and hatred coming out of that persons mouth, that something would finally resonate with advertisers.

AOL has bowed out. And the first radio station, in Hawai'i, has dumped Rush.

Our tax dollars shouldn't pay for Limbaugh's hate speech, either. And they do right now. Thousands sign petition to White House to have Panetta remove Rush from Armed Forces Radio, as he compromises the safety and respect of woman in the military. Led by women veterans: http://homepost.kpbs.org/2012/03/tho...-forces-radio/

[Riot]

Well, interesting take, Geeker, except Fluke was testifying how a fellow student couldn't afford contraception (which are hormones) not covered by student insurance, that were needed to treat an ovarian cyst, and as a result she lost an ovary and has halved her chances at having children.

And it has nothing at all to do with any "taxpayers" paying for contraception. It has to do with the insured in a group, as they do now at many Catholic institutions, paying for birth control pills for their fellow members in the group.

As virtually every single person who has insurance in America does right now.

Rush Limbaugh was lying about all that. He's an idiot, and a liar. And so are the dittoheads that ignorantly repeat his bullshiat lies about the testimony.

[mclem0822]

His non apology "apology" was a freakin joke! This dirbag's gonna call this woman a slut and prostitute on the air, but oh he "never meant it to be a personal attack"! How else do you label that but as a personal attack! Hope she sues his ASS off for slander! Great to see a station dump his ass! His feeble attempt to apologize was only cuz the sponsors were bailing, he looks like the PROSTITUTE now cuz he's only whining now for $! Makes me sick!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

His non apology "apology" was a freakin joke! This dirbag's gonna call this woman a slut and prostitute on the air, but oh he "never meant it to be a personal attack"! How else do you label that but as a personal attack! Hope she sues his ASS off for slander! Great to see a station dump his ass! His feeble attempt to apologize was only cuz the sponsors were bailing, he looks like the PROSTITUTE now cuz he's only whining now for $! Makes me sick!

Media Matters reports that today Limbaugh was attempting to get his audience to hang in with him, and was not-too-subtly urging them to attack the sponsors who have abandoned him. He was blaming the left for causing him this problem, and saying that they (his former sponsors) are attacking his audience.

Rush is an experienced snake-oil-salesman - huckster. He knows his audience. The GOP is still too scared to come out and condemn him.

Clear Channel completely supports Rush in this.

Edit: 10th and 11th advertisers drop Rush: SEARS announces late today that they will not allow any advertisements to appear on his show (they bought general station advertisments) and today singer Peter Gabriel is having his lawyers send a note to Limbaugh demanding he stop using excerpts from the song "Sledgehammer" on his show. Bonobos, men's outfitters, also drops Rush.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and now it's nine advertisers who have pulled the plug. who would have thought, after all the sheer stupidity and hatred coming out of that persons mouth, that something would finally resonate with advertisers.

Re-Tweet of the day from LOLGOP: "Rush needs to go back to racism, his sponsors were okay with that".

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

except that when she testified, it was about a student's need for birth control due to an ovarian cyst. not about sex. altho one has to wonder why it would matter if it was about sex. one also wonder's how this turned into 'taxpayers paying' when all along it was about health insurance providers, not tax payers. people wish to claim that their religions preclude them from paying for care like that. so where would it end? some don't agree with blood transfusions, others with organ donation, etc, etc. seems to me that insurers would rather have bc paid for then the thousands of dollars for pre-natal and maternity care, pediatric care, and so on.
and if the argument is 'but it's not a medical necessity'-well, neither is viagra. been paid for all along. there goes that line of reasoning.

I guess you don't get the humor of SNL either

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Attachment 1932

Winner...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

I guess you don't get the humor of SNL either

it has its moments.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it has its moments.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

i enjoyed the mitt romney sons skit. the guest host? not so much.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i enjoyed the mitt romney sons skit. the guest host? not so much.

all time fav

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XMr3QO2Sbc

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by geeker2

all time fav

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XMr3QO2Sbc

Originally Posted by Riot

Clear Channel completely supports Rush in this.

Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital; guess that's why Mitt Romney issued a "non-denouncing denouncement" of Rush.


Ocala Mike

Can't really fault Rush for calling this girl a slut. He was told she was a Georgetown "Hoya" and, as we all know, he's a little hard of hearing.




Ocala Mike

[joeydb]

Use whatever term you like. If "slut" was too harsh, fine.

She got up before the nation, before the Senate, and lamented that her expenses for birth control pills, which are not prescribed to combat any other systemic condition (like ovarian cysts which would be covered), are $3000 per year. As if that cost was unavoidable or that her behavior was inevitable. Like she has no mind of her own or can't control whatever urges she has.

She uses the medicine for the original purpose it was designed - to prevent pregnancy. She's being responsible in the preparedness and forethought exercised. That's no problem at all. We should applaud that aspect of it - all of us who want to see less unplanned pregnancy (and subsequent abortion demand).

BUT - make no mistake - it is her responsibility to cover that cost. Birth control is not free - and neither is sex. If you cannot afford the consequences that may come from sexual behavior, then guess what - you shouldn't be having sex.

We have a nation of spoiled brats. Waaaaaaahhhh, pay for my stuff, waaaaaahhh. Grow up people. If you can't afford a Cadillac, buy a Chevy. If you can't afford a house, rent an apartment. Don't spend your last dime - save until you can afford these things.

There is no Constitutional right to subsidized sexual behavior. There is never a right provided to an individual by anyone but God, and these do not depend on another to pay for.

Person A does not pay for Person B's rights. That transaction would have nothing to do with rights whatsoever - just socialism.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Use whatever term you like. If "slut" was too harsh, fine.

She got up before the nation, before the Senate, and lamented that her expenses for birth control pills, which are not prescribed to combat any other systemic condition (like ovarian cysts which would be covered), are $3000 per year. As if that cost was unavoidable or that her behavior was inevitable. Like she has no mind of her own or can't control whatever urges she has.

She uses the medicine for the original purpose it was designed - to prevent pregnancy. She's being responsible in the preparedness and forethought exercised. That's no problem at all. We should applaud that aspect of it - all of us who want to see less unplanned pregnancy (and subsequent abortion demand).

BUT - make no mistake - it is her responsibility to cover that cost. Birth control is not free - and neither is sex. If you cannot afford the consequences that may come from sexual behavior, then guess what - you shouldn't be having sex.

We have a nation of spoiled brats. Waaaaaaahhhh, pay for my stuff, waaaaaahhh. Grow up people. If you can't afford a Cadillac, buy a Chevy. If you can't afford a house, rent an apartment. Don't spend your last dime - save until you can afford these things.

There is no Constitutional right to subsidized sexual behavior. There is never a right provided to an individual by anyone but God, and these do not depend on another to pay for.

Person A does not pay for Person B's rights. That transaction would have nothing to do with rights whatsoever - just socialism.

she specifially talked about a fellow student who wasn't having BC covered for cysts. where are you getting your info from? from what i've read, her entire presentation was about that point. and again, you're arguing on the basis of medical necessity-and yet, there are other prescription drugs that are covered, that aren't medically necessary either. or that aren't life changing, but are covered by insurers. as for consequences from sex-exactly what does that mean? it seems a person using birth control is already being responsible-for their health and attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. or is a pregnancy your idea of 'punishment'? also, do you automatically assume that if someone is using birth control, they then must be promiscuous? i was on birth control for years-the whole time i was married to the same fellow i'm married to now. using the pill, which must be taken daily to be effective, doesn't mean someone automatically is attacking every man that walks by.
also, you're taking the same tack others have, that this is socialism. the hearing was on insurance companies and what they cover-has nothing to do with taxpayers. it's a discussion about private insurance companies.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

she specifially talked about a fellow student who wasn't having BC covered for cysts. where are you getting your info from? from what i've read, her entire presentation was about that point. and again, you're arguing on the basis of medical necessity-and yet, there are other prescription drugs that are covered, that aren't medically necessary either. or that aren't life changing, but are covered by insurers. as for consequences from sex-exactly what does that mean? it seems a person using birth control is already being responsible-for their health and attempting to prevent unwanted pregnancy. or is a pregnancy your idea of 'punishment'? also, do you automatically assume that if someone is using birth control, they then must be promiscuous? i was on birth control for years-the whole time i was married to the same fellow i'm married to now. using the pill, which must be taken daily to be effective, doesn't mean someone automatically is attacking every man that walks by.
also, you're taking the same tack others have, that this is socialism. the hearing was on insurance companies and what they cover-has nothing to do with taxpayers. it's a discussion about private insurance companies.

OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

OK in fairness I did not see the entire clip of her testimony.

The use of the pill should be covered as a treatment for ovarian cysts, and any other condition where it's the appropriate treatment. If it's not - get a better insurance company, because that one will not be around long.

I said she was being responsible insofar as her making the necessary provisions - but - she should pay for it, nobody else.

The hearing was an attempt to save the Obama administration from the very unpopular stand that they have taken against religious freedom. They stepped in it when they forced the Catholic Church to pay for insurance for their non-clergy employees - and here's the key - that MUST cover birth control.

There is little difference between a tax paid directly to the government versus a mandated payment to a third party like an insurance company. If you want to split hairs between what a taxpayer is and a mandated insurance customer, be my guest.

The assumption that someone who is single and taking birth control when not medically necessary by another condition is promiscuous is a reasonable one. There are always exceptions like any assumption, but who would take the medical risks (blood clots for example) and expense for a product that they didn't anticipate a need for?

And it is socialistic to take money from one person to give to another, whether directly or in the form of provided products. Taxation and those funds should be minimized by only paying for needs of the entire country - like the Defense Department, court system, Congress and the presidency, and, on a local level fire departments and police, and other similar functions. It should not be used to take money from one group and give it to another just because they complain. That's where the complaints of class warfare arise from too.

in regards to your last paragraph, why do you keep referencing socialism and taxation? she was testifying about student insurance provided by a private company, the premiums all the students responsibility-georgetown wasn't on the hook for any of it. not sure why you keep dragging in taxpayers, this entire discussion has been about insurance companies-not subsidies from the govt.
also, obama stepped back weeks ago from demanding employers cover the costs, instead making it part of the package that insurance companies must offer. it's not about religious freedoms when the onus falls on blue cross or others like them to offer birth control.
there are myriad reasons people must take birth control other than cysts. if a doctor prescribes them, that should be all that's necessary for the insurer to cover them. again, there are other medications that also don't always have a medical reason to be prescribed, and yet they ARE covered.
i know a girl who'd been on the pill for years-and hadn't engaged in any sexual activity in several years' time-but if she did, she wouldn't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. one behavior doesn't automatically point to another.

as for religious freedoms dictating what to cover. like i've said elsewhere-where would that stop? some religions are against blood transfusions, others against organ donations, etc. do you want to have to argue about your health with your employer?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

in regards to your last paragraph, why do you keep referencing socialism and taxation? she was testifying about student insurance provided by a private company, the premiums all the students responsibility-georgetown wasn't on the hook for any of it. not sure why you keep dragging in taxpayers, this entire discussion has been about insurance companies-not subsidies from the govt.
also, obama stepped back weeks ago from demanding employers cover the costs, instead making it part of the package that insurance companies must offer. it's not about religious freedoms when the onus falls on blue cross or others like them to offer birth control.
there are myriad reasons people must take birth control other than cysts. if a doctor prescribes them, that should be all that's necessary for the insurer to cover them. again, there are other medications that also don't always have a medical reason to be prescribed, and yet they ARE covered.
i know a girl who'd been on the pill for years-and hadn't engaged in any sexual activity in several years' time-but if she did, she wouldn't have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. one behavior doesn't automatically point to another.

as for religious freedoms dictating what to cover. like i've said elsewhere-where would that stop? some religions are against blood transfusions, others against organ donations, etc. do you want to have to argue about your health with your employer?

Obama's "step back" is nothing of the sort. So now instead of it appearing as a line item that the employer must pay for, it's in the "must provide" section of coverage.

Before Obama's revision, the bill to the employer might look like this:

BASIC INSURANCE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $100
BIRTH CONTROL ADDITIONAL COVERAGE for Jane Doe: $20

Now, after Obama's 'accommodation', the revised bill is:

MINIMUM COVERAGE PREMIUM for Jane Doe: $120

It's the easiest shell game to see through. There has been no change, therefore the issue is the same, and I hope he pays a big political price for it.

If you read what I wrote, I'm actually not disagreeing with you on that many points. If the pill is required as treatment for a documented condition, it should be covered.

Pregnancy is not 'punishment' but one of the most common consequences of sexual behavior, as God intended (or Darwin would explain), or both.

The subsidizing of elective behavior is the issue. She wants to be promiscuous and wants us to pay for it.

Different example: Let's say I am a fisherman. I also suffer from extreme motion sickness, and I take an anti-motion-sickness medication. It's better than dramamine, but it requires let's say a week to get into my system and protect me from the motion sickness I might get while out on my fishing boat.

Question: If I am taking the motion sickness medication I described above today, would it be a safe assumption that I plan to go fishing within a week?

The principle is the same with the logic surrounding the assumption for the motivation for using the birth control pill.