Rush Limbaugh.
You don't like those naughty words, do you. On that subject, what would you think of someone who said that people will vote for Obama because he is "light skinned" and only speaks in a negro dialect when he wants to. Would that offend you?
I dont find Rush's words offensive, I find them foolish in that he helped the left change the subject from the fascist power grab that is Obamacare.
As for Obama, he is no more offensive than any other liberal who wants the state to run the economy and trample our liberties.
B. Barack Obama giving churches, hospitals, orphanages, and schools the unconstitutional choice of either covering their employees' abortion and birth control pills (contrary to their religious beliefs) or shutting their doors
or C. Barack Obama forcing employers to cover abortion pills against their religious convictions while simultaneously cutting health benefits for the military
So what did you do when Harry Reid said that?
While I agree that what Rush said was foolish and he should have known the sort of firestorm it would have created,
Wait a minute, there.
Rush did know the ****storm his comments created. That's why he made them. Because that's what he does - make comments that get him noticed by the media at large to get more listeners. So don't fool yourself.
No one is refusing anyone the right to use contraceptives as they see fit.Do private companies have the right to refuse contraception to their employees? I don't get this country anymore.
No one is refusing anyone the right to use contraceptives as they see fit.
No, they are arguing they should carry said burden themselves as they see fit, Private Insurance companies shouldn't have to alter their coverage to meet the whims of the masses.Are they opting to raise the price burden of those who wish to seek them?
No, the price burden exists whether I, as your employer, provide coverage for them or not. Lets say I dont offer coverage at all. You would be paying for them out of your own pocket anyway.Are they opting to raise the price burden of those who wish to seek them?
No, they are arguing they should carry said burden themselves as they see fit, Private Insurance companies shouldn't have to alter their coverage to meet the whims of the masses.
I'm speaking of insurance companies, not churches. Private insurance companies should not be forced by the government to offer services as they see fit.Which translates that the religious interests of private organizations is interfering with the healthcare coverage of citizens who work under them?
No. Them not paying for your contraceptives is not interfering with your ability to get them. An employer is not obligated to provide health benefits in the first place, so it is pretty silly to claim that those who do are interferring.Which translates that the religious interests of private organizations is interfering with the healthcare coverage of citizens who work under them?
I think Rush is the media "at large." At least, he's media and he's large.
Here, we'll make it easier for the OP, since it's what he was hoping to get. "Rush is offensive because he's Conservative, and Obama is my Lord and Savior." There. Now have at it.
No. Them not paying for your contraceptives is not interfering with your ability to get them. An employer is not obligated to provide health benefits in the first place, so it is pretty silly to claim that those who do are interferring.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?