Tea Party Misogynist Limbaugh Demands Free Government Porn

[pimpdave]

Rush Limbaugh, oxycontin addict and spokesperson for both the Tea Party and Republicans declared earlier this week that the Tea Party platform now includes free porn to be provided by the government to him.

Rush added that all women who use contraception are prostitutes. This is probably why he thinks they'll all be willing to do porn now.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201203010012

What do you guys think? Why does the Tea Party hate women and want to see them degraded and abused?

[oVo]

I think this is high on the list of the dumbest comments
Rush has ever made, but then again controversial BS is
why he makes the big bucks.

The 20 million dumbfucks who accept his word as gospel
are hopeful of new videos "coming" out in the future.

Guess conservatives are all drinking the GOP koolaid now.
Declaring religion is under siege by the government while
attacking women's health issues that were settled more
than a generation ago is getting ridiculous.

[Night Strike]

Pimpdave, you should go write for Media Matters: you take things even further out of context than they do. Even in their story, I don't see any mention of Rush wanting the government to provide porn (I didn't watch the clips). However, I can guarantee it was to make a point, not that he wants the government to do so. There is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with that women and pointing out the absurdity of her positions (even if he goes outlandish in how he points it out).

[Symmetry]

Pimpdave, you should go write for Media Matters: you take things even further out of context than they do. Even in their story, I don't see any mention of Rush wanting the government to provide porn (I didn't watch the clips). However, I can guarantee it was to make a point, not that he wants the government to do so. There is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with that women and pointing out the absurdity of her positions (even if he goes outlandish in how he points it out).

But there is something wrong with saying that when health insurance pays for a woman's contraceptive care that makes her a slut and and a prostitute. That she's being paid to have sex. PD is pretty tame in comparison.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

[oVo]

I didn't watch the clips.

I just saw Rush on tonight's news. What an idiot, but since most of his listening audience is probably men who rarely interact with women, it will won't faze his demographics at all and the fresh buzz while the Republican presidential candidates are all losing their marbles is a welcome change of pace.

There is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with that woman.

Sure there is, in the way he did it. If he wants to prop up the conservative GOP and one of the most ignorant positions they've ever taken issue with in an election year? Fine. I don't expect anything classy from Rush, but even this was absurd theatre for him, because WOMEN's HEALTH RIGHTS and who provides it is not an absurd issue no matter what Rick Santorum claims.

[pimpdave]

So listen to the clips then.

From now on, anyone who uses contraception has to star in porn films for Rush to watch, according to him.

[Night Strike]

Pimpdave, you should go write for Media Matters: you take things even further out of context than they do. Even in their story, I don't see any mention of Rush wanting the government to provide porn (I didn't watch the clips). However, I can guarantee it was to make a point, not that he wants the government to do so. There is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with that women and pointing out the absurdity of her positions (even if he goes outlandish in how he points it out).

But there is something wrong with saying that when health insurance pays for a woman's contraceptive care that makes her a slut and and a prostitute. That she's being paid to have sex. PD is pretty tame in comparison.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Ah, ok, there's the quote. And it's a valid point: why is the government paying for people to have protected sex? Why is the government forcing private companies to pay for protected sex? Isn't that the individuals responsibility? Or do individual responsibilities not matter in order to get a bigger government? And I think he was calling her a slut based on the number of condoms she claimed to have used during her time at Georgetown (which came to 3 per day on average). And mandating contraceptive coverage free of any charge IS paying for people to have sex.

[Symmetry]

Pimpdave, you should go write for Media Matters: you take things even further out of context than they do. Even in their story, I don't see any mention of Rush wanting the government to provide porn (I didn't watch the clips). However, I can guarantee it was to make a point, not that he wants the government to do so. There is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with that women and pointing out the absurdity of her positions (even if he goes outlandish in how he points it out).

But there is something wrong with saying that when health insurance pays for a woman's contraceptive care that makes her a slut and and a prostitute. That she's being paid to have sex. PD is pretty tame in comparison.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Ah, ok, there's the quote. And it's a valid point: why is the government paying for people to have protected sex? Why is the government forcing private companies to pay for protected sex? Isn't that the individuals responsibility? Or do individual responsibilities not matter in order to get a bigger government? And I think he was calling her a slut based on the number of condoms she claimed to have used during her time at Georgetown (which came to 3 per day on average). And mandating contraceptive coverage free of any charge IS paying for people to have sex.

You think it's a valid point that providing contraceptives is the same as paying people to have sex? Have you ever paid someone to have sex before? Because I'm kind of missing the link here, I always assumed that if I ever paid someone to have sex it would be a little different than arguing that they receive contraceptive care from a health insurance company.

Is having vasectomy now the moral equivalent of becoming a rent boy if an insurance company covers it?

[Phatscotty]

Pimpdave, you should go write for Media Matters: you take things even further out of context than they do. Even in their story, I don't see any mention of Rush wanting the government to provide porn (I didn't watch the clips). However, I can guarantee it was to make a point, not that he wants the government to do so. There is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with that women and pointing out the absurdity of her positions (even if he goes outlandish in how he points it out).

But there is something wrong with saying that when health insurance pays for a woman's contraceptive care that makes her a slut and and a prostitute. That she's being paid to have sex. PD is pretty tame in comparison.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

What he said was there is a name for a woman who expects to be paid by other people, in order that she have sex, without the fear of becoming pregnant.

If she were not publicly demanding that she has the right to force other people to pay for her benefits concerning her sex life, he would not have said this. If she paid for it herself, he would not have said this. But I will bet you a million dollars this Pelosi pawn will go on and on about how she is an independent woman.

[Symmetry]

Pimpdave, you should go write for Media Matters: you take things even further out of context than they do. Even in their story, I don't see any mention of Rush wanting the government to provide porn (I didn't watch the clips). However, I can guarantee it was to make a point, not that he wants the government to do so. There is nothing wrong with him disagreeing with that women and pointing out the absurdity of her positions (even if he goes outlandish in how he points it out).

But there is something wrong with saying that when health insurance pays for a woman's contraceptive care that makes her a slut and and a prostitute. That she's being paid to have sex. PD is pretty tame in comparison.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

What he said was there is a name for a woman who expects to be paid by other people, in order that she have sex, without the fear of becoming pregnant.

If she were not publicly demanding that she has the right to force other people to pay for her benefits concerning her sex life, he would not have said this. If she paid for it herself, he would not have said this. But I will bet you a million dollars this dumbshit Pelosi pawn will go on and on about how she is an independent woman.

Is this something that you believe to be true and accurate Scotty? That she is a prostitute?

[Night Strike]

You think it's a valid point that providing contraceptives is the same as paying people to have sex? Have you ever paid someone to have sex before? Because I'm kind of missing the link here, I always assumed that if I ever paid someone to have sex it would be a little different than arguing that they receive contraceptive care from a health insurance company.

Is having vasectomy now the moral equivalent of becoming a rent boy if an insurance company covers it?

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

What should the government be spending money on?

[Night Strike]

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

What should the government be spending money on?

National defense. Federal court system. Coining money. Patent and trademark system. Other things specifically outlined in the Constitution. I don't see sexual activities anywhere in it.

[Symmetry]

You think it's a valid point that providing contraceptives is the same as paying people to have sex? Have you ever paid someone to have sex before? Because I'm kind of missing the link here, I always assumed that if I ever paid someone to have sex it would be a little different than arguing that they receive contraceptive care from a health insurance company.

Is having vasectomy now the moral equivalent of becoming a rent boy if an insurance company covers it?

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

Surely this was about what should be included in health insurance, so would not be free of charge anyway, it would be paid for through insurance payments, no? I may have misunderstood, but it seems like Limbaugh was saying that it was paying people for sex, and you're saying that the problem is people should pay- that it shouldn't be free of charge.

How much should people be paying for sex?

[BigBallinStalin]

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

What should the government be spending money on?

National defense. Federal court system. Coining money. Patent and trademark system. Other things specifically outlined in the Constitution. I don't see sexual activities anywhere in it.

That generally seems good to me.

How much for national defense?

[rdsrds2120]

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Just when I thought use of the Nazi card was waning. This is probably the most aggravating part of his statement for me.

Why are we discussing Limbaugh, anyway? I thought he was considered way too extreme to be taken seriously, even by some of those on the right?

-rd

[thegreekdog]

I remember when Rush Limbaugh was on the ESPN NFL pregame show. He commented one time that the NFL wanted Donovan McNabb to succeed because he was a black quarterback. No one said anything in response after that comment. He was fired later that week. On the next show, of which Limbaugh was not a part, every one of the panelists came down on him like a ton of bricks.

That whole thing was extremely amusing.

[Night Strike]

You think it's a valid point that providing contraceptives is the same as paying people to have sex? Have you ever paid someone to have sex before? Because I'm kind of missing the link here, I always assumed that if I ever paid someone to have sex it would be a little different than arguing that they receive contraceptive care from a health insurance company.

Is having vasectomy now the moral equivalent of becoming a rent boy if an insurance company covers it?

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

Surely this was about what should be included in health insurance, so would not be free of charge anyway, it would be paid for through insurance payments, no? I may have misunderstood, but it seems like Limbaugh was saying that it was paying people for sex, and you're saying that the problem is people should pay- that it shouldn't be free of charge.

How much should people be paying for sex?

All (or at least 99% of) prescriptions covered by insurance require a co-pay from the individual. The government's mandate states that the employer must provide it free of charge. This means that a co-pay would not apply and the individual is getting it for free. And people should pay whatever they need to pay for whatever level or type of safe sex they want to have. If people want unprotected sex, then they don't have to pay anything. If they don't want to virtually eliminate the possibility of having a child, they need to spend the money to provide the type of protections they want.

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

What should the government be spending money on?

National defense. Federal court system. Coining money. Patent and trademark system. Other things specifically outlined in the Constitution. I don't see sexual activities anywhere in it.

That generally seems good to me.

How much for national defense?

The amount necessary to allow us to achieve and maintain the best military in the world.

[Symmetry]

You think it's a valid point that providing contraceptives is the same as paying people to have sex? Have you ever paid someone to have sex before? Because I'm kind of missing the link here, I always assumed that if I ever paid someone to have sex it would be a little different than arguing that they receive contraceptive care from a health insurance company.

Is having vasectomy now the moral equivalent of becoming a rent boy if an insurance company covers it?

It's subsidizing sex. The government should not be spending money on contraceptives, and the government should not be mandating ANY institution to provide them free of charge.

Surely this was about what should be included in health insurance, so would not be free of charge anyway, it would be paid for through insurance payments, no? I may have misunderstood, but it seems like Limbaugh was saying that it was paying people for sex, and you're saying that the problem is people should pay- that it shouldn't be free of charge.

How much should people be paying for sex?

All (or at least 99% of) prescriptions covered by insurance require a co-pay from the individual. The government's mandate states that the employer must provide it free of charge. This means that a co-pay would not apply and the individual is getting it for free. And people should pay whatever they need to pay for whatever level or type of safe sex they want to have. If people want unprotected sex, then they don't have to pay anything. If they don't want to virtually eliminate the possibility of having a child, they need to spend the money to provide the type of protections they want.

So, if I'm reading you right, you're in favour of more unprotected sex, and agree with Limbaugh that if someone provides you with a form of contraception that you didn't pay for directly entirely out of your own pocket, that should be considered prostitution.

Tell me, if I purchase a condom, and use it with a partner, can I charge them? Should I split the bill?

[Night Strike]

So, if I'm reading you right, you're in favour of more unprotected sex, and agree with Limbaugh that if someone provides you with a form of contraception that you didn't pay for directly entirely out of your own pocket, that should be considered prostitution.

Tell me, if I purchase a condom, and use it with a partner, can I charge them? Should I split the bill?

No, I'm for more individual responsibility and accountability and against more government handouts and nanny-state mandates. Why should the government, employers, or insurance providers be involved in contraception? Isn't that a personal responsibility?

[thegreekdog]

PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CONTRACEPTIVES DOESN'T INVOLVE CONDOMS!!! GOOD CTHULLU!

[Night Strike]

PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CONTRACEPTIVES DOESN'T INVOLVE CONDOMS!!! GOOD CTHULLU!

That too. At least not yet it doesn't. It's probably the next logical progression though.

[Symmetry]

So, if I'm reading you right, you're in favour of more unprotected sex, and agree with Limbaugh that if someone provides you with a form of contraception that you didn't pay for directly entirely out of your own pocket, that should be considered prostitution.

Tell me, if I purchase a condom, and use it with a partner, can I charge them? Should I split the bill?

No, I'm for more individual responsibility and accountability and against more government handouts and nanny-state mandates. Why should the government, employers, or insurance providers be involved in contraception? Isn't that a personal responsibility?

This will always be an issue that we disagree on, but it would be a significant step in terms of reasonable debate if you could at least allow that women who receive contraceptive healthcare are not whores, sluts, or prostitutes and that they are not being paid to have sex. Limbaugh was way over the line on this. I'm not asking you to disown everything he ever said, but defending him on this one...

[thegreekdog]

PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CONTRACEPTIVES DOESN'T INVOLVE CONDOMS!!! GOOD CTHULLU!

That too. At least not yet it doesn't. It's probably the next logical progression though.

Dude, my "yell" was directed at you among others (which include Rick Santorum, various conservative voters, my parents, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and any other conservative commentators and the various people arguing in this thread).

[pimpdave]

Women use the pill for more than just contraception, which is why it's completely different from condoms and condoms haven't ever been covered under insurance. Didn't the Catholic church recently allow nuns to take it as medicine, not because they're getting busy?