Comments on: Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh attacks Sandra Fluke.

By: Liz

Liz — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:39:11 +0000

Ron Paul disagreed with Fluke’s point of view rather than calling her names. He was participating in the debate in reasonable way. I disagree with Paul, but he illustrated how it should be done. Rush did the opposite, he resorted to ad hominem attacks- his specialty. This is the real problem with Rush. He can not create a truly reasonable argument for his point of view without the ad hominems. I’ve been listening to his show since the LA Riots. He justifies this by claiming he uses humor and illustrates absurdity by drawing things out to extreme conclusions. But frankly, one could do this with any point of view. If a political radio host wants to make legitimate points they need to base their arguments on reality, not straw men found in absurd illustrations.

Case in point: ignore the sexist slurs if you can. Focus on the base of his contention. He is saying tax payers would have to pay for contraception. Wrong. Fluke is only saying the insurance purchaser should have the benefit of coverage they already pay for. No one is getting a hand out in this case. Rush assumes this means people would get paid to have sex. Well, actually people who’s birth control is covered by their insurance are paying, via premiums, to avoid pregnancy.

I disagree with those who think that those who already pay into health insurance should have to receive birth control from low income organizations, which exist to help those who can not afford insurance coverage in the first place. They are paying in. It is their employers who are stepping in and mandating that the money these people pay will not be used as these people see fit. Wait– why is it bad for the govt to tell one set of people (employers offering insurance) to allow their employees to get what they paid for, but it’s okay for these same employees to take (usually) government funded assistance from low income clinics??

By the way, that low income clinic, more often than not, is Planned Parenthood.

By: Really

Really — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:13:53 +0000

Sooo Ron Paul attacks Fluke? WHERE?

By: The General Welfare

The General Welfare — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 03:21:35 +0000

If the government’s job is to provide for the general welfare of the people through products, laws, rules, mandates and services. Then the government should make illegal sex outside of marriage or with multiple partners. It’s a danger to society and greatly increases the risk of STD transmission and you also get children without a stable home. People should have to petition government for the right to have a kid unless they can provide for them. We should also imprison people who eat unhealthy or do not exercise regularly because this also contributes greatly to high medical costs. They also go through a ton of food they don’t need. Government should also put together a department that finds and punishes American people who waste anything, be it energy or food because it’s their job to provide for “the general welfare”. Gay people who engage in sex are particularly dangerous to society because of their high rate of transfer with STDS, in particular HIV. Government should imprison gay people who engage in risky sex practices to protect the “general welfare of society”.

EVERYTHING I WROTE ABOVE IS ME BEING FACETIOUS.

The irony here is the same people who support the general welfare bastardization are the very same people who would hate Rick Santorum. Yet, one could very easily use their general welfare perversion to SUPPORT liberty destroying attacks on various groups and minorities.

Any and all liberty violations can be justified under either the “general welfare perversion” or the “war on terror” perversion. You can violate any law, liberty or protection we have so in a sense you have tyranny through anarchy. In that virtually anything can be argued for or against based on the makeup of the different branches of government of any one particular kind.

By: Beth Brownstone

Beth Brownstone — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 01:38:19 +0000

I am a democrat and do not think that Religious Institutions should not have any Federal Mandates or Federal Funding.

Enough is enough on handouts and unessecary Federal Regulations. If a Religous School (funded by the Catholics) does not want to support funding the Pill for Birth Control then so be it. However, if it is DOCUMENTED and a script is written for a patient to recieve the pill due to prevent cysts or endometerial issues then that script should be honored.

On another note, the pharma companies should make their drugs more affordable instead of raping the Insurance companies and individuals who pay out of pocket.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 01:12:43 +0000

First of all, the government has a mandate from the constitution to regulate commerce and insure the general welfare of the people. It is fair to require insurance to pay for controception because, just as it is fair for me to help pay for some old fart’s viagra! Or someone’s nose job or my waitresses’ sick kid! The whole point is that we are our brother’s or sister’s keeper.
In some cases birth control is not just to prevent babies, it also helps in other women’s health problems.
But if all you men out there don’t want you women to have access to birth control, I have an alternative. WHY DON’T BOOZOS STOP GETIING THEM PREGNET AND BE THE ONES WHO STOP HAVING SEX!!!!
Ladies, just cut the men off now! That’s right, they want to control your bodies, so do the only thing you can to fight back; no more sex!!!

By: Concerned

Concerned — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 01:12:42 +0000

Putting Ron Paul in Rush Limbaugh’s corner lacks any basis in fact. Rush’s attack was hurtful and unwarranted. It was condemned by Ron Paul as crude. Ron Paul does not believe in group rights (ie men vs women, black vs white) but is a champion of individual rights (ie every man, woman, black or white deserves equality). You cannot take from one group and give to another to create equality. Thus, the federal government cannot force a company ( ie mandate) them to provide a service at the expense of others. It would be like telling an insurance company that they must have a fixed rate for insurance. Thus, the obese, hypertensive diabetic pays the same rate as the twenty something triathalete. Ron Paul is arguing against the government mandate and would never attack an individual to make his point. He would merely point to the constitution. Nice try David Heath, you are just like Rush, bombastic in trying to get attention.

By: David Heath

David Heath — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:47:09 +0000

Wake up! There is no “principle” to the birth control issue. Birth control is NOT a human right like air, food and water and you are essentially putting it at that level. Birth control is strictly an individual choice and is completely irrelevant to governance at the federal level. Thus, there is really no debate needed since no policy is required. This is all Ron Paul was saying. You sir, like the bought and paid for main stream media, is trying to create a social issue where none exists. Btw, people of low income can already acquire birth control for free at their local health department which is paid for by state tax, so why are we talking about this? The only real issue is Limbaugh’s unwarranted ad hominem assault on Fluke which Ron Paul publicly stated as being inappropriate. Also, the article subtly makes Paul and Limbaugh look like they are cut from the same cloth which is a significant distortion of the truth. It is my hope of hopes that America will wake up and realize government can not protect people from themselves. Trying to have the government do this only undermines our freedom. Enough is enough!

By: ...

... — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 23:41:13 +0000

So where does Paul attack Fluke? He doesn’t. The headline is clearly untrue and misleading.

Ron Paul has been preaching the same message for years. He simply believes that the federal government has no place in this issue.