»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
RUSH to Judgement - sanitized version.
| The Alley |
|
RUSH to Judgement - sanitized version. |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
(There is nothing in this version that breaks the guidelines of the alley. For those wishing to see the unsanitized version, it is in the Grok Forum) Limbaugh has been singled out and condemned across the national media – ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. President called Ms. Fluke personally to applaud her bravery. Obama said he telephoned Sandra Fluke, who was labeled a "slut" by Limbaugh, because he doesn't want people who speak their minds about policy issues to be discouraged or attacked. Asked to comment on Limbaugh's apology, Obama says he doesn't know "what's in Rush Limbaugh's heart." Obama said the incident made him think of his two daughters and his hopes that they can engage in issues they care about in the future. He said he doesn't want his daughters "attacked or called horrible names" for speaking their minds and being good citizens. Did Obama call Ingraham, Palin, or Rick Santorum's wife for liberal attacks and name- calling against them by liberals? Of course not. Everyone remembers Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” on his radio show. MSNBC suspended him for a week, but none of Schultz’s advertisers dropped his show under media pressure. There was no pressure. Some of the same sponsors now pulling out of Rush’s show still support Schultz. What Schultz said is nothing compared to his colleagues. Fellow talk show host Mike Malloy hoped Sarah Palin “drives herself into madness” and insisted Michele Bachmann is an “evil 'broad' (sanitized) from Hell” who would have gladly supervised the Holocaust. Montel Williams rooted on Air America for Bachmann to slit her own wrist or throat. Randi Rhodes insisted that teenage boys weren’t safe from Palin’s advances if they stayed over at her house. Last July on HBO, he said Palin was “a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos.” Last September on his show, Maher said Palin would have sex with Rick Perry if he was black. He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Days after he called Palin an offensive word, he appeared with then-CNN host Eliot Spitzer, where Spitzer concluded, “Your show is brilliant. I love watching it.” Maher recently gave a one million dollar donation to Obama's super PAC. Former White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, the man who runs Obama's super PAC, did not reply when asked if he will be returning Maher's $1 million donation. On Sunday, Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz huffed on “Meet the Press” that "I don't know any woman in America that thinks that being called a slut is funny." But two months ago, she accepted an invitation to sit on the set with the man who called Palin offensive words. A couple of years ago, “comedian” Louis CK “joked” on the Opie and Anthony radio show, calling Sarah Palin a long list of extremely offensive words. Guess which event this same fellow is headlining in June? -- The Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner. “We’re very excited about having Louis C.K. at the dinner,” said Jay McMichael of CNN, who chairs the Radio and Television Correspondents Associations’s executive committee. “This is an evening you’ll want to experience. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/05/rush-to-censor-limbaugh/#ixzz1oNxuGLLi http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will-obama-super -pac-return-misogynist-bill-mahers-million-dollar-donation_633200.html http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/03/05/2054466/obama-to- hold-first-news-conference.html?storylink=fb#storylink=cpy |
||
| © Copyright 2012 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mr. Maher is a political satirist. He makes a point of being politically incorrect about political issues and politicians. He does seem to have something of a leftward slant these days, but he is willing and able to satirized anybody in the political realm. He has given significant amounts of guest time to people with Right Wing views, and even taken their side in some of the ensuing discussions. I have seen this with my own little eyes. I saw him defending Ann Coulter against attack, though certainly she can do well enough on her own; and I have seen her appear as a guest on his program on at least two occasions. He has also featured other Right Wing spokespeople. I have seen him criticize President OBama, and I have enjoyed watching P. J. O’Rourke on Mr. Maher’s program as well. Mr. Maher is an equal opportunity satirist; he lampoons fools of all political stripes with an equal and savage gusto, and he is to be admired for that. What Mr. Limbaugh says about politicians may be difficult to tolerate from time to time, but they are professional politicians, after all, and comments made about them may be in poor taste but most folks believe they are protected speech under the first amendment and that’s the way things work in our democracy. The compression of Feminist and Nazi is a work of propaganda that seems to me to be better than anything I know about Josef Goebbels. Alas, I have no real German, and can’t tell for sure. But Mr. Limbaugh does seem to be a talented propagandist of that stripe, and seems to be able to make a crowd of what would otherwise seem to be reasonable Americans sound very troubling indeed. As long as he remains focused on politicians, this seems to be business as usual. The various examples of people who seem bothersome all seem to fall. oddly enough, within that protected range as well. That is, they are comedians or satirists who are commenting about politicians that they dislike. Furthermore, if I understand the examples you offer correctly, the comments are just that — single comments or passing statements that are probably in terrible taste and which could and probably should be apologized for, but that, my friend, is pretty much it. Unless you’re concealing examples, none of these folks sat down behind a microphone and spent hour after hour and day after day as a method and as a policy pouring poison into the ears of the public about folks who were not professional politicians. Veterans who didn’t like a war policy, for example, certainly didn’t earn being called cowards by Mr. Bravery himself. And calling a law student a slut and a prostitute was seriously vexing to a fair sized portion of the American public, even without, one may assume, the knowledge that she was trying to speak up for a friend who was unable to get medical treatment for a problem that was not about birth control or abortion at all. This is a tactic of Mr. Limbaugh’s, not a one off sort of thing. So this is not really the question of fairness that the thread would have you believe it is. Mr. Maher is not a Left Wing Stooge, he’s a free-lance satirist who has friends and acquaintances and guests on all sides of the political spectrum. Mr. Limbaugh is a Right Wing apologist and stooge. He has a habit of going after people he believes to be helpless, like Ms. Fluke and like the Vets that he thought he could get away with calling cowards. When he developed an OxyContin addiction, he didn’t even get his own drugs, he used a cut-out in the form of a maid in his employ to take the risks of doing the buying for him. After all, why take a risk yourself when you can have a woman you employ to clean your house to take the risk of jail for you. Now there’s a man for a whole political party to admire Let me see, blame the law student or Blame the Bloviator? I’ll have to think very deeply about that one. No? You mean, Blame the Satirist who allows people from both sides a fair shot at the fools, no matter if the fool is President Obama or Rick Santorum. I don’t think so. Yeah, the line you quote about His wife was to my mind out of line. It was also in the context of Rick Santorum making a very large deal about the private sexual lives of other people. Santorum is a former senator with a history of making other people’s sexual mores an issue, and near as I can tell this was bad taste but protected speech. She was part of his campaign and you’re developing convenient blindness about the fact that she and all the rest of the people you feel upset about here are Politicians. While I happen to think that Mr. Maher should have apologized, his comments were still protected speech. Mr. Limbaugh’s may have been protected speech as well, for that matter; I’m not a lawyer, and I can’t tell you. But you can’t have a campaign that says it’s on the side of decency and morality have a spokesman treat other people in this fashion this consistently with this little care and with such complete absence of class and continue to get away with it. Once Mr. Limbaugh started doing whatever it was he was doing while he was paddling about talking in that huge verbal swimming pool of his, other people began to emerge in large numbers from those luxurious heated Excellence in Broadcasting waters with nauseous expressions on their faces, holding their noses and looking for showers with disinfectant soap. No wonder he feels the need to apologize on air. No wonder Ms. Fluke is in no hurry to hear anything he’s got to say. The truth is that Mr. Limbaugh is a monster who’s been getting away with living like a real live human being. He needs to go off by himself and all the flies he needs to amuse himself with and simply leave the rest of us alone. When you look up the word, you know, he’s really a very close fit. quote: |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
My commentary ran on Facebook this morning. (It's all Ron's fault--he moved the party there.) Um, the PIP party. I played fair too. I expressed my disgust at both sides. (So I got a little dyslexic when I did, but that might be permanent now.) Name calling by "journalists" should have been policed by the parties for which they presume to speak. If it won't be policed by the political parties, the people will do it. As an Independent, I would like to politely ask, in what capacity does Rush Limbaugh serve the Republicans? Is he considered a leader, a voice of unity? Until this week, he seemed to have an awful lot of clout. I could be wrong, though. Did he have less clout than I assumed he did?? Or am I underestimating his influence even after his obvious faux paus? I don't take any of them too seriously now. Well, maybe Rachel...she's so gracious, she does recant her occasional errors while inviting her audience to face-check her, as well as inviting politicians of opposing viewpoints to her show, for a debate, which, when I've seen someone take her up on them, seems to be without the seething hatred and ridicule that I feel is disparaging to the dignity of our nation, via the thoughtless jibes by BOTH parties. I'm really at a loss as to what to say about the Republican party right now Mike. I said it here before and I'll say it again--I LIKE the two party system. I agree with many of the points Republicans have made, so I'm not as glee-filled as others by any of this. I like choices. I could vote for a Republican, based on one criteria: If a candidate emerged that made the campaign promise to roll back this Super Pac conundrum, that candidate would have my attention. I'd like to see this election go down in history as the ONLY election that allowed such a blatant attempt to buy the American dream. And I do think the ordinary citizen has to their part as well, which is to prove themselves to both parties that their votes cannot be bought. That's really what's bothering me. I'm not much in the mood to defend the character of ANY politician, much less the flying monkeys of commentators. Except for Rachel.  Now. I think I'll go back to Facebook and try my hand at some poker.  It's all Ron's fault. *chuckle* See ya at the tables, darlin'. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
It doesn't really matter what other people have said in the past Mike, what really matters is who the target is and how they say it. The US has a constitutional right to free speech, that doesn't however mean that you can say anything to anybody at anytime, there are boundaries. For instance while public figures are regarded as open targets when it comes to slanderous attacks, private citizens are protected by law. That protection has been eroded over the years by high court judgments that have allowed private citizens who have temporarily entered the public domain to be cast as public figures. However, all those legal gymnastics don't seem to have swayed the general public's view of who is and who isn't a legitimate target. What makes the Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke incident different from all the other examples you gave is that, to many people, she clearly wasn't fair game. He could have called Nancy Pelosi a slut and a prostitute to his heart's content and there'd have been a couple of raised eyebrows and a few chuckles but Limbaugh picked the wrong target - he basically shot Bambi both out of season and without a permit. I'll be surprised if he survives the backlash. If the Dems have any political sense whatsoever they'll milk this for all it's worth and if the Republican's have any sense they'll avoid this particular battle, it's one they're unlikely to win. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, Serenity gal, for your sincere comment. As far as the other two comments are concerned, thank you both for pointing out how far people will go to justify the unjustifiable, depending on which side you choose to take. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Calling comments unjustifiable categorizes legalistically as being just or not justice. This suggests some sort of court of arbitration in which one functions as judge. The jurisdiction of this court, the range over which the word diction) of the court (the "juris" part of the the jurisdiction) appears to extend seems to be the boundaries of Mike. This was something that was clear before I, at least, sat down to respond to the teaser at the beginning of the thread. Seeing it come after I had bothered to respond seemed to be redundant. What came between was a response to the initial thinking about the thread, first on my part, the on Serenity's, then by Grinch. I really liked what both of them had to say. I hadn't thought about Rachael Maddow's response to all of this, but she really is quite a substantial woman. She does go out of her way to allow voices from the Right a space to define themselves in the debate on her program. I envy how easily she tolerates her own mistakes and how straightforwardly she acknowledges them, and I'm grateful to Serenity for bringing some of that awareness into the conversation. I'm also grateful to Grinch for a concise and non-rancorous statement of exactly How Mr. Limbaugh inserted foot into mouth. I enjoy how well Grinch likes to stick to the point of things and not get side-tracked. That is, Mike, a very large part of the problem here. There is nobody on the left who is even close to Mr. Limbaugh in his function for Party loyalists, nor in his attack dog status, nor in size of audience nor in sadistic willingness to pursue and savage for hours and days at a time. The examples you offered were, I'm sure, well meaning. The only one with an audience that might offer a chance at comparison is Mr. Maher, and Mr. Maher is a satirist who will satirize anybody left or right whom he considers a fool. He doesn't confine himself to fools of one party. Saying I am unjustified or even we are unjustified is a judgement whose basis isn't even offered for comparison to judgements of those others we might understand. Just because, in other words, you say that you agree with yourself, offers us no compelling reason to do so as well based on logic, fact, reason, song, dance or entertainment value, and only the somewhat limited endorsement value of Mr. Limbaugh, who's judgement is in serious question at the moment. In my judgement, you are a swell fellow who's wrong about this one, but I'm a democrat, and even my own party can't agree with itself half the time. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I wasn't trying to point out how far people might go to justify or defend the comments from Rush or anyone else for that matter Mike. I was simply trying to point out that arguing that other folk had made the same type of comments, which is a pretty weak sauce argument on its own, is even less convincing in this case given that the targets of the comments aren't seen by people as comparable. All the examples you gave Mike are comments towards public figures, and are clearly legitimate within US law and protected by the Constitution, despite the fact that your average Joe, Bob or even a nasty Grinch would find them inappropriate, if not downright distasteful. As I explained when answering your question, I believe Rush's distasteful comments differ in that a large number of people seem to believe that his target wasn't a public figure and therefore shouldn't have been on the receiving end of his verbal detritus. For what it's worth, I think they're right regarding Limbaugh's comments and wrong about the underlying point he was trying to make. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://radioviceonline.com/cost-for-birth-control-pills-near-georgetown-9-at-target/ "Honestly, how can you not roll your eyes at this testimony when you know the cost is $324 for three years, not more than $3,000, and Fluke includes statements like this…" I roll my eyes at the idea that a thirty year old intelligent woman did not know this . . . What can she be called then? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Fluke graduated from Cornell University in 2003 and spent five years working for Sanctuary for Families, a New York-based nonprofit aiding victims of domestic violence, where she launched the agency's pilot Program Evaluation Initiative. She co-founded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which successfully advocated for legislation granting access to civil orders of protection for unmarried victims of domestic violence, including LGBTQ victims and teens. Fluke was also a member of the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions that successfully advocated for policy improvements impacting victims of domestic violence." This biography of hers, grinch, places her above and beyond your definition of private citizen. She is an activist on a public stage, not simply a nice college girl minding her own business while attending classes, which is the image some would like to give. I admire her for it and, no, it does not justify her being called a slut, but she has a record of placing herself in the public eye, where criticisms do occur. She is certainly as much a public figure as Santorum's wife, who Bob claims deserves Maher's vibrator crack since she is part of Santorum's campaign (simply by being his wife, I must assume). I was simply trying to point out that arguing that other folk had made the same type of comments, which is a pretty weak sauce argument on its own, That's only part of it. Yes, other folks had made similar comments but the fact is that their comments were barely touched by the mainstream media while Limbaugh became the lead-in story for every mainstream station. I can't believe you fellows cannot see how this was all set up. First we have a hearing, entitled ""Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" Ms. Fluke was introduced to it after the deadline and, since there was no time to vet her, Darrell Issa refused her participation, which was the correct thing to do. Democrats complained that there were no female witnesses to speak on behalf of contraception, although two female experts, Dr. Laura Champion and Dr. Allison Garrett, did testify in a second panel. After Ms. Fluke was denied the opportunity to speak, the Democrats invited her to attend and address the House Democrats and submit her written testimony. Now, why in the world did she try to get into the original hearing by showing up too late to be vetted? That was not her first trip to the rodeo. She knows how those things work. And how is it the the Democrats scooped her up amid fanfare to give her the opportunity to have her words made public? You really don't think this was a setup? The democrats wanted for her to be refused at the hearing. They wanted her testimony to be given to them and then, when criticism came forth, they would use her as a poor victim of Republican abuse. Of course, when Rush called her a slut, their cups runneth over with joy and they had their martyr and the Democrat "War Against Women" crusade went into high gear. MSNBC dedicated and entire day to examining this war on women. I'll be surprised if he survives the backlash. ..and I'm surprised that you would even say that. To paraphrase Mark Twain, "his death has been greatly overexaggerated". Rush will survive this very easily. It's not the first time Dems felt they had him in their crosshairs and yet here he still is. Many people will see this whole thing for what it really is. As far as sponsors are concerned, Rush has mentioned before that there is a long list of companies waiting in line to be sponsors...and why shouldn't they with the exposure he gives? Those who like Rush will stand by him. Those who don;t really don't matter since they didn't like him in the first place. Rush will continue with the same popularity he has always had. If the Dems have any political sense whatsoever they'll milk this for all it's worth Of course they will. It's this week's choice of topics to use to get people's minds off the economy. They will find that they will not get a lot of mileage out of it, however. There are a whole lot of people out there who consider a college student in one the most expensive colleges in the country crying about buying her own birth control pills as being laughable, at the very least. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, when you began your comment with He (Maher) does seem to have something of a leftward slant these days, I kind of lost interest. Does seem to have....??? Maher has been a flaming liberal for years. Your proof is that he has guests with right wing views? Well, so does FOX. They routinely have democratic congressmen on as guests and liberals sitting on their panels. Does that make them impartial? Not to you, which you have made clear on numerous occasions. The truth is that Mr. Limbaugh is a monster who’s been getting away with living like a real live human being. He needs to go off by himself and all the flies he needs to amuse himself with and simply leave the rest of us alone. When you look up the word, you know, he’s really a very close fit. COmments like that do you no favors, Bob, although it is interesting to see just how far Limbaugh can get under your skin. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In case you may feel, Grinch, that I'm simply hung up on some "conspiration theory", it appears I'm not the only one. Here are comments from a fellow college student.... I’m a proud Georgetown woman upset about another Georgetown woman who may have no pride at all. How else do you explain - Ms. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, now famous for testimony she never gave – jumping up to talk about her sex life (with the House Minority Leader and with the liberal media) and ask for the cost of her sex life to be subsidized by other students at a Jesuit School? Sandra Fluke was declined the privilege (a privilege, not a right) of testifying in front of a Senate Committee on the proposed contraceptive mandate. Her name was submitted too late to be admitted to testify. She’s not a lawyer. She’s not a member of the clergy – crucial for a hearing on religious freedom, wouldn’t you say? That’s what Representative Issa said. Her one claim to fame in the reproductive health care debate is…drumroll, please…being a student club leader! You go, Sandra! Hang those posters girl. Wear out those Sharpies. Having been told by Congress to more or less shut up and go home, Sandra found a sympathetic ear in Nancy Pelosi. She is not going to find one on the Georgetown Campus. She is wildly out of step. Senate Democrats needed a show pony for this circus – and they knew they could find a liberal woman on a college campus who would willingly trot around the ring. That’s why Nancy & Pals created a photo op with all the props – the microphones, the podium, an air of pretense, and the all-important liberal media – for Sandra to tell her “story.” And it is just that – a story, told on a stage. But Nancy Pelosi and the Liberal Media should know that they can no longer rely on college campuses as an endless source of liberal support. My colleagues and I at TheCollegeConservative are creating a new wave on campuses across the country. Every day we make it a little safer to be conservative – out in public – without fear of bad grades as a result of our views. Sandra should know we have no fear in calling out a classmate for thoughtless liberal ideology. Sandra Fluke doesn’t speak for me. Or for Georgetown. http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/02/sandra-fluke-does-not-speak-for-me/ This spells out the mechanics of the plan pretty clearly.. Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa, scheduled a hearing on religious liberty in the face of the ObamaCare mandate requiring the purchase of contraceptives by all employers regardless of their own religious beliefs. It is customary for the minority party (Democrats at this time) to choose one witness. The Democrats chose Barry Lynn and Sandra Fluke. Byron York of the Examiner provides some detail. “The Democrats played games with us the day before [the hearing],” says a Republican committee source. “After days of asking for a witness, they waited until the last-minute, the afternoon before the hearing. They asked us to invite Rev. Barry Lynn [head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State] and Ms. Fluke. We said we’ll invite one, per standard procedure. We formally invited Rev. Lynn, and the Democrats, at 4:30 pm, changed their mind and said they wanted Fluke. We said too late. They told Rev. Lynn not to show up the next day.” Issa explained that Democrats had requested Barry Lynn, that Lynn was invited, and that Democrats then retracted the Lynn request. As for Fluke, Issa said Republicans had never heard of the Democrats’ last-minute choice. “I asked our staff what is her background, what has she done,” Issa said at the hearing. “They did the usual that we do when we’re not provided the three days and the forms to go with it. They did a Google search. They looked and found that she was, in fact, and is a college student who appears to have become energized over this issue and participated in approximately a 45-minute press conference…I cannot and will not arbitrarily take a majority or minority witness if they do not have the appropriate credentials, both for a hearing at the full committee of the U.S. House of Representatives and if we cannot vet them in a timely fashion.” The Steering and Policy Committee is the committee that actually had Sandra Fluke address them on February 23. The purpose of the Steering and Policy Committee is to assign fellow party members to other House committees, and it also advises party leaders on policy. It is chaired by Nancy Pelosi. What does anything that Sandra Fluke has to say have to do with assigning party members to other committees or advising party leaders on policy. Nancy Pelosi policy on ObamaCare was clear, “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in the bill.” She didn’t do any fact-finding then, and she isn’t interested in facts now. It was all a show, and it was all for what is popularly called the “optics”. The lie has been crafted. It’s about policing a woman’s body. It is being packaged. It is being taken on the road at The View, she has been on NBC news three times, and she received a phone call from President Obama. http://libertyslifeline.com/2012/03/07/sandra-fluke-putting-the-lie-in-play/ Gentlemen, it's a dog and pony show and that's all. Too bad you can't see it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nancy Pelosi held a congressional hearing earlier this week with just a single witness, Georgetown student Sandra Fluke, to testify about the need for the Obama administration’s mandate that religious institutions provide free contraception and abortifacients under their health insurance plans, according to The Weekly Standard. Fluke came to the attention of the media when a number of Democrats stormed out of a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on religious liberty to protest Fluke’s non-inclusion. Committee Chairman Darrell Issa refused to allow the Georgetown University Law Center student to testify because she was going to talk about the importance of contraception and not about religious liberty, which was the subject of the hearing. So Nancy Pelosi allowed her to testify at essentially a one woman hearing. “Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke testified regarding the Catholic university’s policy of not covering birth control. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” So the Weekly Standard did some legwork and showed that the birth control pill could be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown’s campus without insurance. Nine dollars is less than the price of two beers at a Georgetown bar. But this is the justification the mandate’s supporters give for forcing religious institutions to purchase insurance that violates their religious and moral convictions. http://blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2012/02/29/nancy-pelosis-one-woman-hearing-misleads/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Really, Mike? And at what point is social work and social activism the same thing as having one’s name on a ballot or having one’s spouse’s name on a ballot and making political speeches for yourself or your spouse’s personal quest for holding office? Having done social work for a while, I can assure you that neither I nor my lovely wife have acquired a political pension, nor have we sought one. Nor does it appear from the bio that you’ve supplied for Ms. Fluke, does it appear, that she has one. Nor does it appear that she has sought one, as yet. At best, it is preparation for political office; but in this country, even a college professor can run for office. I would think that having social concern would not necessarily be a qualification. The biography in no way defines her as a politician, only as somebody with some concern for her fellows. The reasoning simply doesn’t even begin to connect. It would supply amply justification for attacking saints on the grounds that they have concerns about others and are willing to be socially active in expressing their concerns. The same logic you’re putting forward would justify an attack on Mother Teresa. Think about what you’re saying. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I could start an entire thread about the ridiculous things Ms. Fluke said but this one is enough, I think... “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage," Fluke testified. "One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception. “Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice." Spare me, please....... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sandra Fluke....Mother Theresa....hey, why not, Bob? Let's toss in Joan of Arc, for good measure. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You made a mistake in your call on Ms. Fluke. Trying to find a way out for Mr. Limbaugh by suggesting that being a social activist makes you a politician is the same sort of loophole that Mr. Limbaugh tried to get away with. Mr. Limbaugh is on the hook for real for being a Monster and for acting like one. It's simply not a good thing in this country. As far as Republicans go, I must say, it doesn't seem to be entirely bad, though. In some Republican circles, it even appears to be a great thing; and it certainly seems to pay well. Mr. Limbaugh, perhaps with these facts in mind, now appears to be moving on to attack another women, an author of a book on how the poor are unable to afford decent food, and the affect that it has on their health. He called this author one of those "Over-educated women." This attack seems to fit my allegation of Mr. Limbaugh's a monster quite well. Maybe, on the other hand, she cut him off in traffic. It looks at first blush, though, that she wrote a thoughtful and socially conscious book. Apparently she has a history of that sort of thing. He mentioned that with a certain upset in his tone, about her winning an aware for socially conscious writing in 2006. Clearly being "over-educated" is simply a breeding ground for socially conscious writing. We can't have women doing that, can we? Tell me, how is somebody "over-educated?" unless it's in comparison to somebody else? And who, pray tell, might that other person or those other persons actually be? As I said, Mr. Limbaugh is a Monster. You know, while I'm thinking about it, Ayn Rand was a socially Socially woman, too; and so is Anne Coulter, who is also a lawyer and by definition, educated. Mr. Limbaugh is a monster. In case you are curious what I mean by that, the dictionary definition was appended the first time I used the term in reference to Mr. Limbaugh a few postings back. If you have an actual quarrel with my use of the term in relationship to the man, then perhaps you might make reference to the definition and mention which of the dictionary attributes you believe he doesn't fit. Near as I understand the rules, he only really has to fit one. I may — and I say here may — be willing to grant that he's not entirely a plant It would be a lively discussion, though. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have no quarrel, Bob. You can refer to him any way you like.. "The Monster Vs. Mother Theresa" now playing at your local Democrat theater!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Frequently birth control is a real bargain. It should be a part of the Student health care package, especially for graduate students. Not everybody can use the low cost brand. Every woman's body is not the same. It would be better if everybody might qualify for $9.00 prescriptions or even free prescriptions. Those who wish to be spared, of course, should not make assertions designed to draw responses; or should not cite those very quotes whose distressing contents they thus proceed rhetorically to inflict so theatrically upon themselves. I do understand that the suffering must be terrible, but someone must bear it. You have my sympathies. I can only add that I'm glad that it's not me. I would have to take up drinking. One wonders what the prescription contraceptive was that the women was trying to get filled. I would suspect that it was not, in fact, for the two beer a month contraceptive tablets the helpful Target pharmacist was speaking about. That's what I suspect. Thank you very much. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That's what you suspect....based on what, Bob? All these poor women so stricken with poverty that they can't afford contraceptives COULD drive the 1.7 miles from campus to the Planned Parenthood Center to get them for free...but maybe they can't affort the gas, either? I'm beginning to feel sorry for all of these Georgetown poverty-stricken students. None of this, of course, deters from the fact that this whole thing was a carefully orchestrated Democratic stage play. If they could run the country as efficiently as they can conduct smear campaigns, we would all be in clover. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You have agreed to do the research on what's available for free in Washington for birth control, Mike. What's this about planned parenthood clinics. What are the facts that you're supposed to have supplied? You haven't forgotten, have you? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, I had. Ok, Bob, I'll have time tomorrow afternoon. What are you looking for? Whether or not there are contraceptives at no cost? Btw, just saw some hilarious videos of Dem congress people scattering like scared rabbits when asked if, since they condemned Limbaugh for slandering a woman, if they believe Obama should give back the million dollar donation from Maher, since he also did the same thing. No one would comment on that one. Wonder why??? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Maybe because it's a complete change of subject from the one we seem to be dealing with here, which APPEARS to be the way Mr. Limbaugh picks individual women and attacks them as a way of keeping his show lively. And how his extended sexual diatribes get him into trouble, such as his suggestion that he was paying for Ms. Fluke's birth control and thus was entitled to to films of her sexual activities for his personal sexual delectation. If I were to make references of this sort about another member of this forum, my freedom of speech would be swiftly and I think probably rightly limited for getting unjustly personal. We try to draw something approaching the lines of civility that I suggest that the public is fairly naturally demanding of Mr. Limbaugh, and I believe that they have over time been more than generous with him in tolerating his personal attacks on people who have done essentially nothing to deserve them. Mr. Limbaugh, as I have pointed out, is at it again with another women, this time a woman who has written a book on healthy food. Mr. Limbaugh doesn't limit himself to a single word or to a few well chosen phrases, either. Why would President Obama give back Mr. Maher's money? President Obama doesn't particularly like this sort of PAC money in the first place, but allowing Republicans to take the money and not doing so himself suggests that he is principled to the point of stupidity, something that it appears Republicans enjoy in their Democrats, and may even count on. I would say that it's an excellent try, except it really isn't, on the part of a Republican, to get a Democrat to do something that stupid. The best I would say is that it doesn't hurt to try, and that maybe you'll get lucky next time and run across somebody like me, with more principles about these things than real-life smarts about the way things should work. You might actually talk a fool like me into it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why would President Obama give back Mr. Maher's money? Well, after Obama's phone call to Ms. Fluke, after talking about how he wants his children to be able to grow up, unafraid to speak their minds without the threat of being called a slut, after Debbie Wassermann Schultz declaring how NO WOMAN in America would appreciate being called a slut or worse, one could think that someone with character to back up their words would not take money from someone who has constantly used that word and others on women. Yes, Palin in a political figure and Santorum's wife is married to a politician but last time I looked they are both women and fall into the category of Schults's comments and also Obama's. If the congressmen asked believed that there was nothing wrong with taking it, why not just say so instead of ducking into cars or shielding their faces or turning or walking away quickly without speaking like thieves in the night? You know why...so do I. I would say that it's an excellent try, except it really isn't, on the part of a Republican, to get a Democrat to do something that stupid. Republicans don't need to do anything to get Democrats to do something stupid. Democrats are very good at doing that all by themselves. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. To my mind a woman who obviously lied or treated her audience as gullibly stupid invalidates her lady’s pass. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Which would certainly be the correct response, Mike. A discussion about what a person says or does is always preferable to one about who or what they are. Maybe you can advise Limbaugh of that next time you see him? quote: A statement, Bob, that is no less distasteful than the one Limbaugh made about Fluke. You seem to be doing precisely that which you are condemning. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Did you miss the definition, Ron; or decide that the definition deserves a pass? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. What I resent is the omission of relevant facts that any reasonable man would think were within this ostensibly intelligent woman’s knowledge at the time she was giving testimony. Now I imagine this to be common practice among actual, (and probably aspiring), lawyers to accomplish their goal, but that doesn’t make it right. And if you get caught out you suffer consequences; you don’t get to claim protected minority status much less sugar and spice and everything nice regardless. . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Your definition, Bob, is irrelevant. Which I suspect is exactly what you would have told Limbaugh if he had tried to defend himself by contending Fluke really did have frequent sex outside of marriage. The question has never been one of perceived truth but rather one of taste. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I almost, but not quite, agree, Ron. For very good reasons. "My definition" is indeed irrelevant. It's irrelevant because it's personal, and so what. You either aren't aware or are purposefully blurring the boundaries between "my definition" as something that that fool Bob Kaven drummed up and "the definition," which is what I made a point of using. "The definition" is different because it is an attempt to reach "consensual reality." That thing out there that we all live in which enables us to have rules and to live in together. You are enough of a thinking man to know very well what I'm talking about here, I do believe; and I'm a little taken aback that you'd think I wouldn't be able to see the slight of hand that was involved in your response. Indeed, It’s because Mr. Limbaugh so flagrently junked the consensual notion of acceptable behavior that he ended up in dutch. He knew it, which is why he tried to backpedal, and you know that he’s keenly aware of these things, because taste is a matter of consensus as well. He is a monster who tries to pretend he is not. There are a lot of them around. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Whether my statement is more or less distasteful is in this case your opinion, Ron. The distinction is that Mr. Limbaugh is a paid player in the political fields who abuses people for large amounts of money, and his sexual fantasies about what he would like to do with Ms. Fluke and the people who disagree with him are sponsored by people who should know better. Mr. Limbaugh is using the polite fiction that his sharing of these sexual fantasies with the nation is political free speech and not a form of sexual assault. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh has chosen somebody who is not a sponsored and seasoned political player to use as an outlet for this particular form of address that has become a trademark of his does not define him as a regular guy, Ron. It doesn’t even define him as somebody who’s engaged in the rough and tumble of political discussion. In the rough and tumble of political discussion, one might toss an occasional name or make a charge thgat would be true or not true. Claiming ownership of somebody else’s sexual life is different than that. It is a particular form of sexual play that pretends a sort of sexual intimacy that is not there. It is one sided sexual play on the airwaves, I think it may be legal,l but it does not fall under the banner of behavior between consenting adults, Ron. One of them is not consulting, and the other is intruding with their explicit sexual fantasies anyway. Did you actually listen to what Mr. Limbaugh said? Not only about Ms. Fluke but about any women that Mr. Limbaugh in his own somewhat illogical fashion considers to be using birth control that “He” is paying for? I’d be interested in knowing whether you actually heard what Mr. Limbaugh actually said. I would be surprised, if you had, to find you in disagreement with me. My opinion about Mr. Limbaugh is an opinion about a man who is a political operative, who makes his living by offering opinions about political events, yes. None of those things would have been enough to have me catagorize him as a monster. There are other Republicans, such as Mr. Rove, that I simply do not like and whose tactics I find difficult to swallow, and I would expect that there would be Democrats that many Republicans would find similarly difficult. That seems to be the nature of political operatives in general. So what? For the most part, I can get along very well with the species so long as they confine themselves to preying on each other. Mr. Limbaugh cannot seem to confine himself. I checked the dictionary, finding it difficult to believe that the answer was so basic and straighforward. It was. The definition suggests, Ron, that Mr. Limbaugh is in fact a monster. The dictionary is not a slithery tricky liberal plot. It’s actually pretty basic and strtaightforward and descriptive. The part that’s difficult is that it’s accurate. Blaming me for noticing that it’s accurate seems to be a case of blaming the messanger. I think more people should have noticed. It’s not as though he’s actually been hiding someplace, he’s been doing what he’s been doing right out in the open for years and years and people have been cheering him on for it. I’m just pointing out what nobody wants to admit. And, respectfully, the heck I’m doing what I’m condemning Mr. Limbaugh for doing. Mr. Limbaugh is a very rich man with access to 15 million listeners who periodically choses underdogs to abuse, frequently on charges that are spurious. He then uses his power to do his best to humiliate them in from of his public for money and public approbation. Perhaps you would like to tell me exactly what piece of that I have duplicated? I am calling Mr. Limbaugh a monster because he fits the definition. I even made a point of showing the definition so people didn’t have to take my word for it. I hear you saying my comment is distasteful. What I don’t hear is you saying which part of the definition is wrong. I find what is monsterous to be distasteful fairly frequently as well. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a virtual poster boy for the definition is even more distasteful. Do you imagine that I somehow arranged this with the folks at the dictionary publisher? I assure you, this is a matter of Mr. Limbaugh’s free choice. Nobody consulted me in the process; Mr. Limbaugh choses to do the things he does, near as I can tell, on his own. He is responsible for what he is. I do take responsibility for noticing. Many of the rest of you were cheering and throwing money and, for all I know, may still be. For me to say that seems to be simply telling the truth. Ms. Fluke did not and does not fit the definition of slut or prostitute as far as I am aware. Nor do the combat veterans of the middle eastern conflicts of recent years who believed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan a bad idea fit the dictionary definition of coward so far as I understand it. I feel that it’s probably a waste of both our time and attention for me to check, but, of course, should you wish me to, I’ll do so. Actually, I think I’m doing a pretty good job of offering a cold look at Mr. Limbaugh and at offering a dispassionate estimation of what he’s doing and who he is. Frankenstein’s monster, you know, seemed like a pretty decent guy, if you read the book with any attention. There’s nothing about being a monster in itself that has to be terrible. I think it’s folks like Mr. Limbaugh that give monsters a bad name. The closest thing I would give to a concession is to say that I feel like growling now, which sounds from me more silly that monsterous. I say, Grr. I don’t demand videos of pooir women’s sexual experiences. Bob: Rush:: Grrr: Videos of poor women’s sexual experiences. The difference in a nutshell. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I know the definition of monster, Bob. I also know the definition of slut. Both of them are subjective, both of them are derogatory, and neither of them grant you or Limbaugh license to wield them as weapons. You can go on and on (which you did) about your belief that one definition fits and the other doesn't ("as far as I am aware"), but again, the issue isn't about perceived truth, but rather about taste. More pointedly, perhaps, it's about practicing what one preaches. Rush Limbaugh is NOT a politician, Bob. He has neither sought nor seeks public office of any kind, making you free to listen to him or not as you choose. Rush Limbaugh, Bob, is Sandra Fluke with more money and a wider audience. He's what Sandra Fluke may well become some day if her political activism is successful. She shouldn't get a free pass on personal insults just because she's young and relatively unknown, and he shouldn't have a target painted on his forehead just because he's old and prosperous. They are the same. Personally, I think both can be criticized for things they've said and done, but neither of them should be characterized by silly name-calling. quote: There is wisdom in recognizing our mistakes, Bob. And courage in admitting them. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Disagree pretty much right down the line, Ron. Rush is as much a politician as James Carville. A social activist is not the same as a politician. Rush gets paid for his political activities. Ms. Fluke does not get paid for being a social activist. If you're going into the business of predicting what people are going to do in ten years, it's not very far from getting search warrants for searching their houses to look for the first signs of criminal activity as well. Maybe you can prevent the next speeder from cutting you off on your commute and jail him or her before the thought forms as well. There was a time that we considered that sort of thing the kind of activity that they did in Russia or Germany. I guess, now it's simply nipping those pesky critics in the bud. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Despite the far-left media’s attempts to portray law student Sandra Fluke as a brave voice against a supposed “war on women”, the alternative media has been hard at work informing the American public of the truth behind Fluke’s sudden rise as media darling of the far left. With more and more learning that Fluke is in fact a 30-something self-avowed women’s rights/contraception activist who CHOSE to attend one of the most elite universities in the United States has greatly lessened her appeal to mainstream Americans. When it was further learned (LINK) that birth control was not only easily available to Georgetown law students – but in fact FREE for lower income students, the premise of Fluke’s rehearsed portrayal began to truly crumble. Now add the even more recently revealed fact that Sandra Fluke’s agenda is being directly controlled by none other than Anita Dunn – former Obama White House communications director! This relationship gives a strong suggestion that the entire Sandra Fluke “controversy” was planned and initiated by Barack Obama operatives from the outset – with ample assistance then given by their supporters within the liberal media. So with Sandra Fluke’s credibility in a spiral, and yet more egg on the biased face of the liberal media, those advertisers who had fled Rush Limbaugh for fear of a public backlash are now scrambling to once again enjoy the profitable benefits of having their products being given an audience of millions each day of the work week: Sandra Fluke and her alleged “contraception crisis” is proving little more than a calculated fabrication created by supporters and recent operatives of the Obama White House. http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/03/09/advertiser-begs-limbaugh-to-take-them-back-limbaugh-says-nope/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"It was learned?" "It was learned that there's going to be a great upset at the race track in the third at Suffolk Downs on Good Friday. Inside sources — important sources close to the favorite herself — have revealed that the favorite has been going out on frequent late night drinking binges and that she has been breaking training and has been seen in the company of Clydesdale Studs. Important money knows that betting money on her is a waste of time, and that the really smart money should be going onto the the less well known thoroughbred Upper Class Twit which has been running further back in the pack in a series of races earlier in the year." Also, "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain." Drop all actual well researched sources of information and follow our advice. Have we ever steered you wrong before? Trust us. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: There's that word again Mike - FREE. Sandra Fluke was arguing that contraceptives should be included in the health care plan that she pays for as part of her tuition fees. You seem to be arguing that someone else should pay for them., namely tax payers. Is that what you're saying? If so I think you're wrong and I'm pretty sure Limbaugh would too. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, Grinch. Student health plans are normally part of the "Fees" section of the cost of a college education, as in "Tuition and Fees." Students normally have to pay this themselves. If they are fortunate enough to have parents who can afford to pay this money, their parents, do. I believe that such family planning services should be available free, and that there are any number of excellent reasons for supplying these services as a part of a student's undergraduate and graduate experience. Among them is that the the education is something that should be protected as much as possible,. Having to worry about pregnancy and std's should be kept in the background as much as possible to permit this to happen. The law of the land has mandated that women be given an equal shot at education, and science has given them for pretty much the first time in history a reasonable chance at achieving that shot. Law mandates that women have a pretty much equal chance at admission to the schools that supply this education. Women who wish to take advantage of the possibilities of birth control can now have a chance at adding choices to the destiny that biology has provided for them. This is an example of a religion trying to undo that gender's attempt to find an alternative path for those of its members who wish to follow it. If it were doing so in a straightforward way, I would still disagree with what that religion is doing here, but I would say it was an exercise of Freedom of Religion and call it a clash of principles. The Catholic Church and the repressive view of women it's representing in this case — The Catholic Church does not have an entirely repressive view of women, which is why I qualify my statement by saying "in this case" — and the freedom of women to choose their own path, which can be as traditional as they wish or as non-traditional as they wish. Ms. Fluke doesn't seem to be insisting that every woman in the county go on the pill. It wouldn't be necessary or appropriate — duh! — but in some cases, by golly, even in that little Georgetown community, it probably is. It simply thinks it can get away with providing a standard of care that is less than what its students need. Not because they shouldn't have it, but because it will discourage women from being students there. What's the phrase I hear from the Right in cases like this" Oh yes, "If they don't like the rules, they shouldn't be here." Exactly! And this, I argue, is in fact discrimination against women, and is against the laws of the United States of America, and may well be grounds for a massive gender bias suit against the Catholic Church. In the United States, you may be entitled to believe what you want, but when it comes to Equal Treatment Under the Law in an institution that accepts any form of federal funding, an entirely different set of standards comes into play. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not because they shouldn't have it, but because it will discourage women from being students there. Really, Bob? According to who? You? Do you really feel women will be discouraged to attend that university because they might have to pay for their own birth control pills? That's your argument?? Good luck with that one |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sandra Fluke was arguing that contraceptives should be included in the health care plan that she pays for as part of her tuition fees. So since contraceptives are not part of the health care plan she now receives, she is saying that the university should include it and cover the fees, which she claims are 3,000 a year. So multiply the three grand times the amount of female students and that's what she feels the school should cough up just because gals don't want to assume the responsibility of taking care of their own birth control responsibilities. Nice.. Isn't it a little interesting that we haven't heard from other Georgetown female students backing her? WHere is the army backing this crusader for female rights and demands? What I have seen, and posted here, is fellow female students basically claiming she is a wacko who doesn't speak for them. This was all a democratic bear trap that they got their own foot caught in....as usual. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Certainly the University should cover contraception as part of their student health plan. This would require an increase in the student fees to cover the difference or a redistribution in the current student fees already collected. Women would be covering a substantial part of those fees themselves, perhaps all of them, depending on how the fees were assessed. I imagine everybody has to pay fees to allow sports to go on, if Georgetown is like many other schools; so possibly everybody might be charged a larger student fee rate. I simply don’t know. I don’t have any kids, and I have to pay taxes for schools., Some things just work that way. Ask me about oil depletion allowances. Some people will cost $3,000.00 a year. Some people won’t make any use of contraception services at all. Rather than assuming that everybody will cost $3,000.00 a year, I imagine it’d probably be a better idea to take bids on what it would cost to cover the services that the student body would require. Insurance companies do that from hospitals in the name of capitated care. The level of care is generally okay and the insurance companies seem to make money on it. Considering the Catholic Church is in the Hospital Business, it should be able to cut itself a pretty fair deal and even, if it works the deal well, end up making a profit on the deal. As you said above, “Nice.” As for the business of not hearing from other Georgetown students backing her, I couldn’t say. I could ask you a question, though, and I think I will. I haven’t actually looked to see if I could find other female Georgetown Students backing her. While just browsing, I did run across this quote: because I was checking to see some stuff about the cost of the birth control Ms. Fluke was talking about. Did you actually check to see if there were women at Georgetown who agreed with what Ms. Fluke said, or did you get so carried away with what the Right Wing press was reporting that you failed to check? I’m reasonably sure that there are women who agree with Ms Fluke there, and that you’ve been busy looking at people who agree with you, and that there are articles there about people who agree with Ms. Fluke. What do you think? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The woman misrepresented reality pure and simple. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No Mike. She's saying that she'd like contraceptives included in the health insurance plan that she pays for as part of her tuition fees. Personally I don't think that's what health insurance was designed for but at the end of the day, if that's what she wants and the insurance company are willing to supply the service, it's really none of my business. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No Mike. She's saying that she'd like contraceptives included in the health insurance plan that she pays for as part of her tuition fees. Actually. she is not saying what she would like. SHe is saying what she demands. There's a difference. We would not have the dog and pony show if it were simply a "like". if that's what she wants and the insurance company are willing to supply the service, it's really none of my business. Nor mine but this Democrat-led performance was designed to have it be everyone's business. Certainly the University should cover contraception as part of their student health plan. This would require an increase in the student fees to cover the difference or a redistribution in the current student fees already collected. Women would be covering a substantial part of those fees themselves, perhaps all of them, depending on how the fees were assessed. Then it would defeat her purpose, Bob. Her claim is that she can't afford the small amount contraceptives cost now. Do you think she would be appeased the increase in her student fees to cover them? WHy not just cut out the middleman and get them yourself? She has made no claim that SHE needs special contraceptive needs that require high-priced items but she does state that SHE can't afford what she does need, which is pennies, as has been shown. You are pretending this is a valid demand instead of the Democrat carnival it really is...not many people are being fooled by it. Even the Dems have seemed to back off from it lately. I imagine everybody has to pay fees to allow sports to go on, if Georgetown is like many other schools; so possibly everybody might be charged a larger student fee rate. I simply don’t know. If you were to check, you would not have to say "possibly" or claim you don't know after making a statement. Sports are pretty well self-supporting, Bob, especially in the larger universities. They receive millions in ticket sales, merchandise sales, and the mecca or all college sports - television rights. Perhaps if female students were to get together to create a "Contraceptive Calendar", selecting a scantily-clad Georgetown lassie holding up a box of contraceptives to highlight each month, they too could be self-sufficient enough to have them paid for, without having their student fees raised. Hey, we could have something there!! Did you actually check to see if there were women at Georgetown who agreed with what Ms. Fluke said, or did you get so carried away with what the Right Wing press was reporting that you failed to check? SInce you ask so nicely, I'll respond, Bob. Not only did I check, I also noticed that there has been nothing reported. If the fellow students were behind this movement she is pushing, don't you think it would make the news? Colleges are pretty good at protesting, demonstrating and demanding when what they feel are worthwhile causes are being challenged. WHere are they? The mainstream media would fall all over themselves showing the fellow student support if there were any. I posted one link showing that there are at least some who distance themselves from her, saying she does not speak for them. WHere are the ones that say she does? MIA. That should tell you something. She is simply a democrat stooge at this point, someone chosen to fill a role the dems could use to get their "Republican war on women" going to detract from the fact that Obama stuck his hand in the fire with this one. The link you provided discusses Limbaugh's language, not her crusade. We all agree on that, even Limbaugh, so there is no point to be made from it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Fine Mike but whether it's what she'd 'like' or what she's 'demanding' it doesn't make any real difference - it's still got nothing to do with you, me or Limbaugh. In fact to apply Limbaugh's analogy correctly the insurance company would be the prostitute, Sandra would be the John and the University is the pimp. Limbaugh, rather ironically, simply ends up being a voyeuristic pervert. quote: You could go a tad further Mike and insist that they video their sexual exploits and put them on the internet or you could try to convince the insurance company that it would make long term financial sense to absorb the costs. It shouldn't be that hard a sell given that they seem to have already worked that one out for themselves - the majority of health insurance plans already include contraceptive cover. By the way, do you also have an issue with all the women who already have contraceptive cover or is it just students? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The issue isn't with women having contraceptive coverage, Grinch, students or not. The issue is that Obama is forcing Catholic institutions and organizations to provide contraception and abortion pill coverage when it is against their longstanding, well-known, stated religious beliefs. No one is preventing these women in Catholic institutions and organizations from practicing birth control or getting abortions but the Catholic institutions and organizations are morally opposed to providing it or paying for it, directly or indirectly through a mandate on their insurance provider, which Obama promised them would never happen when he was lobbying their support for Obamacare. The Fluke fiasco is just Obama's lame attempt to reframe the discussion. It's not working. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thank you, denise. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I thought the issue was whether Limbaugh was correct when he claimed that students want him to pay for their contraceptives Denise and whether the criticism levelled towards him is justified - hence the thread title. quote: Then there shouldn't be a problem in this case Denise because the students are paying for it through their tuition fees and Obama's compromise solution would allow the insurers to deal directly with the students for contraceptive cover. The only bugbear would be if the university self-insured, in which case they always have the option of getting out of the non-profit insurance business and concentrating on their core function - supplying education. . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The only bugbear would be if the university self-insured, in which case they always have the option of getting out of the non-profit insurance business and concentrating on their core function - supplying education." Does that mean students would then go out and get their own insurance? After all at the core students are customers, not employees. . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why not? The tuition fees could be reduced by the amount designated for health insurance and the students could make their own arrangements. I'm sure an enterprising insurer would be happy to compete for their business. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edited - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (03-11-2012 09:37 PM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edited - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (03-11-2012 09:37 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're welcome Michael. Grinch, I didn't mean the issue of this thread title. I meant the issue of Obama forcing this mandate, which he assured them he wouldn't do when he needed their support to get Obamacare passed and his attempt now to frame the issue as the 'GOP hate women'. The compromise he proposed is not acceptable to the Catholic organizations. They will not contract with insurers that offer that coverage...period. It is a moral issue for them, and Obamacare will not just allow them not to offer coverage without a massive financial penalty per employee/student. Because of that really bad law that nobody read, employees and students can't simply have their portion of premiums or fees reduced and go buy their own coverage without a penalty to the institution or organization. One article that I read stated that after the 'grace period' they were given, it could be as much as $100. per day/per student/employee until they come into compliance with the new mandate. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. quote: That's their choice Denise, presumably they're willing to accept the consequences. Personally, I think they'd be stupid to refuse to arrange health care coverage that doesn't include contraceptive cover simply because the insurer offers other customers contraceptive cover. I guess we'll have to wait and see how much they're willing to sacrifice to maintain their moral convictions. quote: Isn't that pretty standard Denise, if you blatantly disregard the law you have to face the consequences? Students however aren't included in the health care law, it covers employees only, so the universities are free to withdraw the health care costs and allow the students to arrange their own cover. quote: I read the bill Denise and sorry, but I'm not buying for one minute that the Catholic organisations didn't read it. Any organisation that could be adversely affected by the law would have been all over it with a fine tooth comb - if they didn't read it then, frankly, they're just plain dimwits. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The legislators who voted it into law didn't read it, Grinch. It doesn't matter if the Catholic organizations read it thoroughly or not. This is a NEW mandate handed down by Sebelius (powers given to her under the law), a mandate that Obama explicitly told the Catholic organizations would NOT be placed upon them when he was seeking their support, a mandate that wasn't in the original law. He lied. (Joe Wilson was right afterall). And they can just keep 'growing' this law with more mandates as time goes on given the way the law is written. I doubt they will comply. They've already said they will have to close their schools, hospitals and other social service organizations rather than be forced to comply with what they consider an immoral law. The fines and penalties for non-complinace would bankrupt them anyway if they didn't voluntarily close. It will be society's loss when they do. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
OMG! As bad as I knew it was, it's even worse. The Department of Health and Human Services has released finalized rules regarding the individual mandate. Everyone with a government approved health plan that includes elective abortion coverage (which everyone will have to have or face steep IRS penalities) will also have to pay an additional $1 per month surcharge to exclusively fund elective abortions....no opt-out clause, no conscience clause. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/12/obama-admin-finalizes-rules-1-abortions-in-obamacare/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifenews%2Fnewsfeed+%28LifeNews. com%29 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: The only problem I can see with this Denise is that it isn’t true. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No? How is that, Grinch? Are you going to tell me it only refers to the Exchanges and won't also apply to EVERY healtcare plan (which will have to meet government standards) with another stroke of the pen of the DHHS, just like they did with the mandate on the Catholic organizations? That mandate is obviously not limited to the Exchanges but is a mandate on the carrier contracted directly by the organizations. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Believe me, I hope this article IS wrong, Grinch, I really do. I don't want the government taking everything I own eventually due to non-compliance or throw me in jail for continued non-compliance. I won't pay one red cent to pay for somebody to have an 'elective' abortion. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Did you read the document Denise? http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-06125_PI.pdf Anyone who reads it will recognise that what you posted is spectacularly incorrect. quote: That’s technically incorrect. The document contains some parts that are finalised and some interim decisions. quote: That’s incorrect too. The new law states that where an individual is receiving a health care subsidy from the federal government and has a policy that covers elective abortion no part of the federally supplied subsidy can be used to pay for that portion of the policy. It goes even further and states that all policies that have elective abortion cover must segregate the payments for every member whether they receive a government subsidy or not to ensure that if their circumstances change no federal money is used for elective abortion. The document also states that elective abortion coverage isn’t mandatory so the segregation of charges is only applicable where elective abortion cover is included. There is no mention of a $1 surcharge, which isn’t surprising, even if you could calculate the specific cost of elective abortion coverage today you couldn’t guarantee that cost will be the same tomorrow. Writing laws that specific would be dumb – which is why legislators don’t do it. quote: Wrong again, there will be policies available without elective abortion cover Denise which sounds like a fairly substantial opportunity to ‘opt-out’ to me. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I hope your right, Grinch. Why can't the Catholic organizations have policies that honor their consciences then? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And since the policy through work that I have has coverage for abortion does that mean I will have to pay the surcharge, whatever it turns out to be? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: They can. They just choose a policy that doesn’t include elective abortions. quote: It isn’t a surcharge. The new legislation simply says that the portion of your existing policy that goes towards elective abortion must be apportioned and accounted for separately. You won’t be paying any more for elective abortions than you’re already paying. quote: Actually you will. In fact you probably already have – if you’ve got health insurance you can’t really avoid it. Even if you have a policy that doesn’t include elective abortion the reality is that the health insurance company is taking your money with one hand and paying for abortions on policies that contain abortion coverage with the other. It’s a shame though that, under the current system, you don’t even get the choice to have a policy that doesn’t contain elective abortion. At least then your conscience could be slightly clearer. Instead you’re forced to accept the policy chosen by your employer instead of choosing for yourself what is and isn’t included in your health care policy. Someone should complain about that, maybe testify in front of a committee or two, I’m sure everyone would support that idea. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm checking into the feasibiity of emigrating to Ireland. I hear they actually have freedom of religion over there. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Denise, you may want to read Trinity by Leon Uris before making that decision. Ireland and religious freedoms don't exactly go hand in hand  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It sounds like a very good book. It includes the time frame that my great-grandparents left Ireland in the mid to late 1880's, my dad's family from the north from County Tyrone and my mom's family from the south from County Claire. It would be fascinating to read about the kind of world they lived in back then. The religious persecution and class rivalry is pretty much a non-issue nowadays, isn't it? And it is a Constitutional Republic now, so that's a plus. It's a shame it isn't available for Kindle or Nook. How is the print size? Do you have the hardcover or paperback version? With 894 pages it sounds like it would be pretty tiny in the paperback version. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't want to purchase the paperback version of the book if the print will be too small for me to read. Did you read the paperback version or the hardcover version, Michael? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I have the paperback version. Read it many years ago. I'll have to check the type size. I had no problem reading it but my eyes were a lot sharper back then! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I know what you mean, Michael. I keep asking my husband why all the printing on everything is continually getting smaller? lol! I have a great magnifying glass to read the small print on over-the-counter cold remedies, cooking directions on packages and such (today I even needed it to verify the amount due on a bill even with my maximum strength reading glasses on!) but that doesn't work too well when trying to read something like a book! (I know, I've tried). |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
