Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 34567891011121314 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 208
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: Rush Limbaugh: Making sense or making an ass of himself?

  1. #166
    Senior Contributor Wooglin's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Dec 05
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Not its not, why should I pay so that someone else gets to have sex?
    huh?

    An enlarged penis is not a requirement for sex, an actual erection is. That's what I know about "normal" sex.
    Yes, True!!! And you know what else isn't a requirement for sex? BC.

    Finally!

  2. #167
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Wooglin View Post
    huh?
    Go back and read twice

    Quote Originally Posted by Wooglin View Post
    Yes, True!!! And you know what else isn't a requirement for sex? BC.

    Finally!
    Who are you? Ed Henry? how does an enlarged penis stop unwanted pregnancies?
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  3. #168
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    26,159
    Quote Originally Posted by antimony View Post
    Who are you? Ed Henry? how does an enlarged penis stop unwanted pregnancies?
    It won't fit?

    Sorry, can't help it but that was a setup and a half.
    Chimo

  4. #169
    Senior Contributor antimony's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It won't fit?

    Sorry, can't help it but that was a setup and a half.
    We really need to make you a moderator again, you are having too much fun for your own good

    Trying to distract from the stupid trap I setup for myself
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

  5. #170
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,506
    This has been fun reading as I see two things that stand out like a sore thumb. One, men really don't like paying for something that doesn't benefit them directly. The second is more complicated but involves the tendency of baby boomer men to avoid talking about birth control. Went on in 1973 and still goes on today. Back then it was "You're on birth control aren't you?" Or "you do have condoms, don't you?" leading to "No, I thought you were doing something." Also remember "what birth control?" from friends of mine. Guys from my generation just didn't discuss, nor know much about, birth control and to this day still don't. Seems many thought it would somehow take care of itself, or it would just quietly fade away, or they would just get damn lucky nothing happened. I know none of my friends ever discussed birth control options with their girl friends whatsoever. Hopefully a younger generation of men can sit down and talk to their girl friends about the different options for birth control. Maybe the fact that they most likely had more info on the process of sex, while in school during the 90's, will help compared to the total lack of what I had between 1959-1971.

  6. #171
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,644
    One thing you can bet the farm on. If all those women kept their legs together like some here have said those would be the very same guys wailing the loudest if that really happened. The era of the cheap date would be over. Once women relearns the power they have between their legs, dinner a movie then shooting your DNA in a latex bag would be a thing of the past. You'd have to....MARRY her before she would consent to have sex. She'd still have the power though and even after bearing the wedding expense you'd have to do things like take out the garbage, do the dishes, rub your mother in law's bunions, etc before the wife would even begin to get into the mood. A condom never was my idea of a good time either. There is nothing that feels like the real thing.

  7. #172
    Global Moderator
    Dirty Kiwi
    Parihaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    18,075
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    One thing you can bet the farm on. If all those women kept their legs together like some here have said those would be the very same guys wailing the loudest if that really happened. The era of the cheap date would be over. Once women relearns the power they have between their legs, dinner a movie then shooting your DNA in a latex bag would be a thing of the past. You'd have to....MARRY her before she would consent to have sex. She'd still have the power though and even after bearing the wedding expense you'd have to do things like take out the garbage, do the dishes, rub your mother in law's bunions, etc before the wife would even begin to get into the mood. A condom never was my idea of a good time either. There is nothing that feels like the real thing.
    And yet strangely enough that didn't happen in the past when no effective form of contraception was available

  8. #173
    Contributor NavyDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    382
    When you realize that the college students of today are being taught and influenced by the same academics that were the "free love generation" of the 60' & 70's....and now.... they want all of us to pay for their lovin'...... so much for "free" love! But then again, we were paying for it back then too(in other ways)!

  9. #174
    Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyDoc View Post
    When you realize that the college students of today are being taught and influenced by the same academics that were the "free love generation" of the 60' & 70's....and now.... they want all of us to pay for their lovin'...... so much for "free" love! But then again, we were paying for it back then too(in other ways)!
    I was under the impression we weren't paying for it, rather it was a government requirement for private insurers to provide it...
    "Draft beer, not people."

  10. #175
    Contributor NavyDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Oct 09
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    I was under the impression we weren't paying for it, rather it was a government requirement for private insurers to provide it...
    and...who pays the private insurers??

  11. #176
    Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyDoc View Post
    and...who pays the private insurers??
    Well this comes back to the premise of this law: reducing unwanted pregnancies, which eliminates the substantial cost to the insurer and/or employers from maternity leave, hospital costs, abortions etc., finally resulting in a net savings which can be passed on to the customer, i.e. you and I.
    Last edited by Red Team; 07 Mar 12, at 03:37.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  12. #177
    Senior Contributor Wooglin's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Dec 05
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Team View Post
    Well this comes back to the premise of this law: reducing unwanted pregnancies, which eliminates the substantial cost to the insurer and/or employers from maternity leave, hospital costs, abortions etc., finally resulting in a net savings which can be passed on to the customer, i.e. you and I.
    Summary

    Is the Obama administration correct when it claims its contraception mandate will be “cost neutral” for insurance companies? Or are the critics right when they say Catholic institutions will pay a hidden cost in the form of higher premiums when their insurers are required to give “free” contraceptives to their female employees?

    We’ve found plenty of evidence. But it’s often conflicting — and ultimately inconclusive. Some leading examples:

    The administration cites Hawaii’s birth-control mandate, which a study said “did not appear” to increase health insurance premiums. Interestingly, the same study also showed an increase in the number of pregnancies after contraception coverage was required.
    The administration cites a 1995 study that found significant savings from contraception. The study also said insurance company costs are likely to increase if coverage is simply provided to people who would otherwise buy birth control.
    When Pennsylvania considered a birth-control mandate, an independent state agency concluded that “the amount of possible savings relative to the cost of the legislation is unclear.”
    Connecticut also could not conclude whether private insurance plans saved enough from reduced pregnancy costs to cover the added expenses of providing coverage under that state’s mandate.
    A Texas study estimated that covering contraception would not produce enough savings to cover the added cost. It reasoned that, in most cases, women would get contraceptives on their own even if not covered by insurance.
    Premiums did not increase when the Federal Employee Health Benefit System was required to cover contraceptives. Some of the 300 plans in the system covered contraception prior to the mandate.
    A recent survey of 15 insurance companies said six of them expected costs to rise while another three believed the mandate would be cost neutral. None predicted a net cost savings by reducing unintended pregnancies.
    FactCheck.org : Cloudy Contraception Costs

  13. #178
    Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    507
    Reading through FactCheck, it appears their info based on multiple findings point towards an 'inconclusive' result rather than an invalidation of the projected cost increases/decreases.

    In the summary's ending paragraph:
    There are other studies, some of which we describe in the Analysis section which follows. But altogether, they produce a murky picture. Until better data are [sic] available, we're unable to conclude whether the Obama birth control mandate is likely to result in a net cost increase or not.
    In other words, it's all up in the air until more statistical data is compiled.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  14. #179
    Senior Contributor bonehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 05
    Posts
    5,644
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    And yet strangely enough that didn't happen in the past when no effective form of contraception was available
    Really? I guess that you never knew that until the 1960's the rates of children born to unwed mothers was much much lower than today. Now it is something like 40% of the kids are born out of wedlock. In 1940 it was around 4%. Modern birth control was in its infancy stage and not used nearly at the rates of today. Point being, if single women screwed around in the 1940's like they do today and not have effective birth control the birthrate for out of wedlock kids would have been much higher. Kind of strange Huh?

  15. #180
    Defense ProfessionalSenior Contributor tbm3fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Nov 09
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,506
    Quote Originally Posted by bonehead View Post
    Really? I guess that you never knew that until the 1960's the rates of children born to unwed mothers was much much lower than today. Now it is something like 40% of the kids are born out of wedlock. In 1940 it was around 4%. Modern birth control was in its infancy stage and not used nearly at the rates of today. Point being, if single women screwed around in the 1940's like they do today and not have effective birth control the birthrate for out of wedlock kids would have been much higher. Kind of strange Huh?
    Maybe shotguns were used much more often back then...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Rush Limbaugh - favorable or unfavorable opinion?
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 18 Nov 09,, 02:50
  2. making a progress , or making a Devil
    By chenyu in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30 Apr 09,, 22:25
  3. Rush Job: Inside Dems' Limbaugh plan
    By Ironduke in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 10 Mar 09,, 00:35
  4. Rush Limbaugh Talks to Time
    By Walking Dead in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14 Feb 08,, 20:48
  5. Rush Limbaugh
    By BudW in forum International Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 31 Jan 08,, 03:41

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •