Just read Limbaugh's comments in context

[NEO]

I'm interested to see what happens. Will Rush supporters pull their support/business for these sponsors? If they do, are there enough of them that loss of support will affect these sponsors? similarly, will these sponsors see a revenue pump from anti-Rush customers?

all that will happen is this will die down and new sponsors will be added.

i have already pulled my data from carbonite and yes I would switch from Allstate if I was with them but I'm with Chubb.

rush fans are pretty loyal honestly.

 

[Gramps]

Two radio stations dropped Rush's show today, KPUA in Hilo, Hawaii and WBEC in Pittsfield, MA

 

[utvolpj]

That's laughable.

what's laughable is that a woman with an obvious agenda picked a Catholic school to attend for law school and then just magically ended up in a debate over their policies. Just a guess but if she got into GTown then I would assume she would be accepted other places as well

 

[T-TownVol]

That's laughable.

Does the "professional protester" comment come into focus now? She has a real future as a Community Organizer.

 

[dreVol]

Does the "professional protester" comment come into focus now? She has a real future as President of the United States of America.

fify

 

[PKT_VOL]

There are some fairly convincing arguments out there with deal with this topic in general.

The premise is that in a advance/developed society, especially in the 21st century, one of the biggest crimes you can do both individually and from a society standpoint is to bring children in this world which you cannot adequately support.

From the premise, they say it logically follows that the government should fully subsidize all forms of birth control and all lawful abortions.

Always found the aforementioned argument to be intriguing on many levels. Thoughts?

 

[volinbham]

There are some fairly convincing arguments out there with deal with this topic in general.

The premise is that in a advance/developed society, especially in the 21st century, one of the biggest crimes you can do both individually and from a society standpoint is to bring children in this world which you cannot adequately support.

From the premise, they say it logically follows that the government should fully subsidize all forms of birth control and all lawful abortions.

Always found the aforementioned argument to be intriguing on many levels. Thoughts?

The missing link in the argument is that free provision of these services do not address the decision to bring children into the world. It may help some on the margins but people will continue to be irresponsible.

The other issue is with abortions - there is still considerable debate regarding the beginning of life and thus providing free abortions is problematic ethically unless there was more consensus on this issue.

Finally, using the same logic we could argue that people who are overweight create a burden so me must provide free gym memberships, vegetables, ab-crunchers, etc.

 

[T-TownVol]

fify

Thanks for stealing my next post.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The missing link in the argument is that free provision of these services do not address the decision to bring children into the world. It may help some on the margins but people will continue to be irresponsible.

For the sake of exploring the issue further, I'll play devil's advocate.

No doubt many people, especially young people, are going to act irresponsible. However, if we are to not only provide them with a free birth control but also make it readily available to them (free home delivery for instance), would the birth rate not drop? I mean lets be honest, a big portion of the population was a mistake. They were not what you would consider a "planned pregnancy".

The other issue is with abortions - there is still considerable debate regarding the beginning of life and thus providing free abortions is problematic ethically unless there was more consensus on this issue.

Yes, there will always be this issue. However, we have Roe vs. Wade. Abortions of certain criteria is deemed legal by the highest court in the land. There are many statistics out there that point to abortion curving the crime rate among other things. Is it a stretch to say that subsiding abortions would be a bad thing from a society standpoint?

The natural chink in the armor against this would be that those who disagree with abortion on grounds of morality would not want their tax dollars to go towards such practices. However, these are also mostly the same people who b**** about having to pay for the single mother and that child for the next 18-22 years depending on whether they go to college. Not to mention the legal/jail fees if they go that route which statistics say they are most probable to travel.

Finally, using the same logic we could argue that people who are overweight create a burden so me must provide free gym memberships, vegetables, ab-crunchers, etc.

Yes, that is an another aspect of this argument, albeit to a lesser extent. They would say preventative medicine (gym fees, fresh fruit/vegetables, etc) is small price to pay for an obese person. Most obese people have trouble getting health insurance because of their preexisting medical conditions. If they don't qualify, they will be on either Medicare or Medicaid. If they do qualify for their employer's health insurance, they inevitably raise everyone else's rates. It is no secret that obese people would have astronomical medical bills compared to fit people.

In short, although it goes against all of our preconceived notions personal freedom/responsibility and small government values, it would actually probably save everybody a good bit of money and in the end reduce government spending (and possibly, although admittedly wishful thinking, reduce the overall size of government as well).

 

[hndog609]

There are some fairly convincing arguments out there with deal with this topic in general.

The premise is that in a advance/developed society, especially in the 21st century, one of the biggest crimes you can do both individually and from a society standpoint is to bring children in this world which you cannot adequately support.

From the premise, they say it logically follows that the government should fully subsidize all forms of birth control and all lawful abortions.

Always found the aforementioned argument to be intriguing on many levels. Thoughts?

If the science existed to basically sterilize women (or men for that matter, though I think that's anatomically tougher) with an easy and reversible process until such time as they can show fiscal responsibility for a child would such a thing be considered morally viable? Legally so?

Some already do consider having a child you can't support immoral and comparative to buying a house you can't afford and expecting others to pay for it since, you know, it'd be really cruel to throw you out on the street. Some consider that basically theft.

I'm wondering since the topic came up in one of my groups little drink-and-thinks awhile back and it made for an interesting conversation. Personally I'm not sure I could make it past the government getting that much power over the issue but the questions themselves brought about much debate. It would essentially be "universal fiscal birth control". One of the funny things about the idea is it could make for some strange bedfellows. For instance, it would wildly reduce abortion numbers.

 

[VOLatile]

Add AccuQuote, Bonobos, Sears, TurboTax, Sensa, Bare Escentuals, Service Magic, Constant Contact, ADT, St. Vincent's Medical Center, and New York Lottery to the list of companies that ran ads yesterday but have stated that they will not in the future.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If the science existed to basically sterilize women (or men for that matter, though I think that's anatomically tougher) with an easy and reversible process until such time as they can show fiscal responsibility for a child would such a thing be considered morally viable? Legally so?

Excellent point. We are actually not too terribly far from that sort of technology being available on a sufficient scale if need be.

Morally: It depends on which moral philosophy a person most adheres to.

Utilitarianism: (Bentham and Mill) would be in approval. It is all about whether the ends justify the means. The essential "end" is to increase the total happiness. Such a policy would achieve such a result.

Deontological Ethics: (Kant) would be absolutely against it. It is focused on individual morality. The ends do not justify the means.

Pragmatic Ethics: (Dewey, Pierce, James) would agree. They believe ethics evolve similarly to scientific knowledge. Furthermore, ethics are determined in a society context, not on individual context.

Legally:

I don't see how it could ever be constitutional. Then again, there are laws currently on the books which I could say the same thing about. I know the commerce clause has been used in the Health Care debates as a possible constitutional avenue to force everyone to buy health insurance because it would "benefit the greater good". That is of similar logic to what we are discussing so maybe it could be used to enact such legislation.

Some already do consider having a child you can't support immoral and comparative to buying a house you can't afford and expecting others to pay for it since, you know, it'd be really cruel to throw you out on the street. Some consider that basically theft.

I agree. Bringing a child into this world which you cannot adequately support in our society is a moral travesty.

I'm wondering since the topic came up in one of my groups little drink-and-thinks awhile back and it made for an interesting conversation. Personally I'm not sure I could make it past the government getting that much power over the issue but the questions themselves brought about much debate. It would essentially be "universal fiscal birth control". One of the funny things about the idea is it could make for some strange bedfellows. For instance, it would wildly reduce abortion numbers.

It is something that I find intriguing. From an economic standpoint, it makes perfect sense. From a moral and legal standpoint, it is an interesting minefield.

 

[n_huffhines]

Not that I condone anything Rush said:

 

[volinbham]

For the sake of exploring the issue further, I'll play devil's advocate.

No doubt many people, especially young people, are going to act irresponsible. However, if we are to not only provide them with a free birth control but also make it readily available to them (free home delivery for instance), would the birth rate not drop? I mean lets be honest, a big portion of the population was a mistake. They were not what you would consider a "planned pregnancy".

BC is basically free now for many yet they still don't use it. I have my doubts that delivering it to the house would suddenly result in people taking a pill every day.



Yes, there will always be this issue. However, we have Roe vs. Wade. Abortions of certain criteria is deemed legal by the highest court in the land. There are many statistics out there that point to abortion curving the crime rate among other things. Is it a stretch to say that subsiding abortions would be a bad thing from a society standpoint?

The natural chink in the armor against this would be that those who disagree with abortion on grounds of morality would not want their tax dollars to go towards such practices. However, these are also mostly the same people who b**** about having to pay for the single mother and that child for the next 18-22 years depending on whether they go to college. Not to mention the legal/jail fees if they go that route which statistics say they are most probable to travel.

RvW made abortion legal at the federal level based on the notion of privacy. Stretching that to say they should be tax payer funded doesn't fall within the RvW finding.



Yes, that is an another aspect of this argument, albeit to a lesser extent. They would say preventative medicine (gym fees, fresh fruit/vegetables, etc) is small price to pay for an obese person. Most obese people have trouble getting health insurance because of their preexisting medical conditions. If they don't qualify, they will be on either Medicare or Medicaid. If they do qualify for their employer's health insurance, they inevitably raise everyone else's rates. It is no secret that obese people would have astronomical medical bills compared to fit people.

In short, although it goes against all of our preconceived notions personal freedom/responsibility and small government values, it would actually probably save everybody a good bit of money and in the end reduce government spending (and possibly, although admittedly wishful thinking, reduce the overall size of government as well).

The slope is indeed slippery. Can we prevent certain behaviors under this logic? Certain foods, certain activities (extreme sports)? Afterall, if it's for the common good and a strictly total societal cost/societal benefit calculus then what's the limit? Single child policy? Sterilization of low IQ people or those with hereditary diseases?

 

[dreVol]

have you seen the petition circulating on fbook asking Clearchannel to drop Rush? I wonder whether the doors signing that petition are going to sign the petition to remove Bill Maher with similar gusto.

here's the rush petition: SignOn.org Beta - Clear Channel: Discontinue Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show.

here's the bill maher petition: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio...gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

 

[volfanjustin]

have you seen the petition circulating on fbook asking Clearchannel to drop Rush? I wonder whether the doors signing that petition are going to sign the petition to remove Bill Maher with similar gusto.

here's the rush petition: SignOn.org Beta - Clear Channel: Discontinue Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show.

here's the bill maher petition: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitio...gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Doubt it. It's ok for liberal to say whatever they want, no matter how disgusting.

 

[joevol320]

Not that I condone anything Rush said:

that is great. where did you get this?

 

[lawgator1]

Not that I condone anything Rush said:

I don't suppose it makes any difference to you that the second premise is of course completely inaccurate.

 

[PKT_VOL]

BC is basically free now for many yet they still don't use it. I have my doubts that delivering it to the house would suddenly result in people taking a pill every day.

For some it might be. Most I believe still pay for it (albeit it covered by their insurance). I know most people still have to go to the doctor to get a prescription for it. Under such a hypothetical policy, it would be as easy as buying candy in a grocery store. Except free. Same thing for other forms of birth control such as condoms. And yes, I do believe that it would curve the birth rate, especially among the poor, the young (high school and college aged), and some that are really just too lazy to put forth the effort to get it (sadly, there are people that are that lazy). I think the demographic it would profoundly affect would be that of the young. Most young people that get pregnant are ones who have parents that are unwilling to get them to the proper channels for BC, for whatever reason.

RvW made abortion legal at the federal level based on the notion of privacy. Stretching that to say they should be tax payer funded doesn't fall within the RvW finding.

Agreed. It was just to point out that abortion is legal. Abortion would be viewed as a health service as natural as any other already paid by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance.

The slope is indeed slippery. Can we prevent certain behaviors under this logic? Certain foods, certain activities (extreme sports)? Afterall, if it's for the common good and a strictly total societal cost/societal benefit calculus then what's the limit? Single child policy? Sterilization of low IQ people or those with hereditary diseases?

I agree, there is a certain slippery slope with it. The counter (as the devil's advocate) would be that there is honestly a slippery slope to most things whether we realize it or not if viewing such problem from a strictly logical or philosophical perspective. Hell TRUT, does this all the time on the board and many posters have a stroke. All he does is follow their logic beyond where they would instinctively "turn it off". A second defense would be that of the social contract. This is a social issue. If the people of the society want to accept certain social benefit/social costs and reject others, then that is their prerogative via the social contract. It is fluid.

To your final point, I am personally a (moderate) fan of eugenics. I know it is a position currently shunned upon in the United States due to past abuses of eugenic policies. I don't believe it is a black and white issue which most Americans seemingly try to make it. I think there is a lot of interesting grey area that should be explored with an open mind. However, I am sure opponents will retort that such a position is very Nazi like.

 

[volinbham]

To your final point, I am personally a (moderate) fan of eugenics. I know it is a position currently shunned upon in the United States due to past abuses of eugenic policies. I don't believe it is a black and white issue which most Americans seemingly try to make it. I think there is a lot of interesting grey area that should be explored with an open mind. However, I am sure opponents will retort that such a position is very Nazi like.

I can think of no greater assault on individual freedom than eugenics.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I can think of no greater assault on individual freedom than eugenics.

You made my point for me. I will say this though; coming from a background of genetics, I can't think of a greater crime than willfully breeding with full knowledge of genetic defects of one or both parties depending on what the gene is, where it is located, and it's resulting phenotype.

 

[bamawriter]

I don't suppose it makes any difference to you that the second premise is of course completely inaccurate.

I think I know what you're getting at, but please elaborate. I don't want to rebut based on a false assumption.

 

[n_huffhines]

I don't suppose it makes any difference to you that the second premise is of course completely inaccurate.

The point, which you of course missed, isn't about who pays for the birth control*, it's about government force. That's where the hypocrisy lies.

*Assuming that is your objection

 

[lawgator1]

I think I know what you're getting at, but please elaborate. I don't want to rebut based on a false assumption.

The point, which you of course missed, isn't about who pays for the birth control*, it's about government force. That's where the hypocrisy lies.

*Assuming that is your objection

You are correct. My objection is that the hypocrisy alleged is demanding the government stay out of the bedroom but then demanding it pay for birth control. The latter statement is incorrect as it is a mandated coverage for private insurance at issue.

Elsewhere the question of mandated benefits has been discussed. No need to rehash that here.

My specific point is that the specific claim of hypocrisy in that picture is based on a demonstrably false assumption of fact.

 

[n_huffhines]

You are correct. My objection is that the hypocrisy alleged is demanding the government stay out of the bedroom but then demanding it pay for birth control. The latter statement is incorrect as it is a mandated coverage for private insurance at issue.

Elsewhere the question of mandated benefits has been discussed. No need to rehash that here.

My specific point is that the specific claim of hypocrisy in that picture is based on a demonstrably false assumption of fact.

So is it hypocritical from a government force perspective?