Rush guarantees millions of more votes for Obama

Rush doesn't trash women. But his words do get twisted by caring folks like yourself.

 

"I wonder how many million women will vote for Obama because of Rush trashing women."

If they are intelligent none, if they are like many democrats probably bunches

Any woman that votes for Obama due to Rush needs to rethink her information sources.

 

If you need to spend $6,000 a year on birth control, you are exactly what Rush said you are.

 

Yes that is what it is. You have outed all conservatives. Shame on us.

 

If a woman is going bankrupt because she is having that much protected s3X.. then she has one of two options.. do as Jesus says to do.. Go and sin no more... or Start charging for it!... the woman is what Rush called her.. period.. OH, I'm sorry, the more biblical word is WHORE!... except she doesn't charge... so I guess Rush had it right......

 

Yeah, calling a woman a slut is plain bad taste. Rush does not have a good attitude, very abrasive. Might be all those pills he takes.

 

Why has no mention been made of the fact that Georgetown University Law School tuition is $46,864 per year?

Housing is between $10,280 and $14,940 per year in addition to the tuition.

Add to that the cost of books, supplies and computer.

And this woman is concerned about paying $1,000 of something that is her personal concern and option?

This unmarried woman is claiming that she can't afford law school because she wants someone else to pay the price for her to be free from the natural consequences her preferred sin?

The whole issue is political, manufactured and quite frankly idiotic.

 

I've seen nothing to suggest Miss Fluke is a slut. Mr. Limbaugh's comments are hideous. Furthermore, I think the government should give voluntary free IUDs to women who are actual sluts to prevent them from passing on their inferior genes and social pathologies to the next generation.

 

Absolutely. You're 100% correct. :applause::applause:

Just another example our social misogyny out in the open. I was appalled at this man's comments. No woman ever, ever deserves this kind of label.

One point, however, is that we need to also be willing to call all people on the carpet for this. As I recall Ed Schultz called Laura Ingram the same thing last year, and no one did a thing.

 

"Inferior genes"????

Are you suggesting that sexual behavior is determined by genetics?

 

Not entirely, but I don't believe that there is any human behavior for which there is not a substantive genetic component. I believe one's personality is 60% genetically determined and intelligence is about 80% genetic. Sluts are more likely to have a low IQ and low IQ people are less likely to consider the future consequences of their behavior. They are more likely to have low conscientiousness, which is one of the "Big 5" personality traits according to psychology, which means they are more likely to engage in immoral and/or risky sexual behavior and less likely to use forms of contraception, such as the Pill, which require a regular action on behalf of the user. That's why an IUD would be better for sluts than the Pill.

 

This is proving to be an "interesting" discussion.

Warning! Personal opinion coming up.

If I understand correctly, modern female contraceptives prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the walls of the womb. If a person believes that life begins with the union of the sperm and ova, then, pills and IUD's are forms of abortion.

On another note, we know how strongly the scriptures condem behavior that leads to the need for contraceptives (both male & female) for unmarried persons. Yet, many people argue that insurance companies and tax payers should/must provide the very components needed for sin without earthly consequences.

Using dollars and cents to justify sin is just a smoke screen, IMHO. Pay x dollars for birth control instead of paying bigger y dollars to bring an unwanted child into the world. Those taking that position usually don't include the point that approximately the same x dollars can abort the baby, instead. It weakens their dollar justification.

Again, from what I understand, the lists of childless parents wanting to adopt are long ones. Periodically, I see news stories about the lengths these parents will go to in order to adopt a child from somewhere in the world. The problems and heartache they encounter are sometimes horror stories.

All the while, we as professing Christians, argue about preventing and terminating pregnancy. The sin factor is rarely mentioned these days in these "debates". Now, it's who should pay for what method that negates the results of sin.

Now to the OP question. I don't agree with Rush's choice of words. He is often crude (which appeals to some) in his comments. It's a shame, as there's often truth in his premises. Why should I, through higher insurance premiums and taxes, endorse sinful behavior? And that's what I'm doing if I argue for birth control coverage for unmarried persons.

Maybe it does sound harsh when I say don't sin or pay the consequences for that sin. Suspect that stems from the fact that neither the pill nor legal abortion existed when I was a teenager. If memory serves when I was in high school, only one girl had to go stay with her aunt for a few months.

Times have changed, as has "acceptance" of sin by many who wouldn't have accepted it 50 years ago. What happened to the shame associated with sleeping together without the benefit of marriage?

Just some thinking on this subject this morning.

PS: Liberals are going to vote for Obama using any excuse they can to justify their vote. Yes, I'm a conservative and am not happy with the narrowing list of Obama's opponents, but that's another thread.

 

I've been listening to Rush on and off since the early 1980s when he hit the national scene. Interestingly, he has been right a lot more often than he has been wrong, but his ways of doing so often cause the media to blast him.

So far, it hasn't hurt Rush much at all, and in fact, he gets stronger with every attack.

As for all the women who will turn away because of what he said, I find that utterly disingenuous, for the only women who potentially might turn away are already turned.

About the greater issue of Obamacare MANDATING payment for a birth control pill, there are two thoughts. First, why? The entire issue belongs with the debate raging in our nation surrounding the culture of death held by liberals, who with this culture have almost single-handedly managed to alter the demographic of America and Europe so as to keep the birth replacement rate below a sustainable level between the use of the pill and abortion on demand. Why one group of people are so FOR death in any form is beyond me -- especially as their rhetoric is always that they are "FOR" people. Not all people, I guess. Elderly -- die! Pre-born -- die! Conservatives with moal values -- die! Starting to sound a bit "Red" to me. Second, is where does one draw the line as to what is needed and provided? If women "NEED" birth control pills to be supplied and paid for by the public (for that is the only source of funding) then what about men who have prostrate issues or ED? Is that not an equivalent right? The primary reason FOR the need for birth control pills is to enable women to have sexual relations whenever and with whomever they desire with no backlash from an unwanted pregnancy. Should not men have the same right to be able to have as much sex as they can, and so get the treatments required -- for free -- in order to do so? Fair, afterall...

The entire argument simply does not hold water and it is only one thing... Buying votes now and into the foresable future.